Part II Chapter II: Sacramental Effects of Penance

Chapter II: Sacramental Effects

CHAPTER II SACRAMENTAL EFFECTS The chief effect produced by the Sacrament of Penance is thus summarized in the Decretum pro Armenis: “The effect of this Sacrament is absolution from sins.” 1 The Tridentine Council expresses substantially the same idea when it says : “The effect of this Sacrament … is reconciliation with God.” This reconciliation, the Council adds, is “sometimes, in persons who are pious and who receive this Sacrament with devotion, wont to be followed by peace and serenity of conscience with exceeding consolation of spirit.” 2 The theologians go a step farther and examine the effect of the Sacrament on previously acquired merits and previously committed sins. i. Reconciliation of the Sinner with God the First and Principal Effect of the Sacrament.— That reconciliation with God is the first and principal effect of the Sacrament of Penance follows from what we have said before, and l* Effectus huius sacramenti est 2 Sess. XIV, cap. 3 : * reconciliatio absolutio a peccatis.* (Denzinger- cum Deo * ; ” conscientiae pax ac Bannwart, n. 699). serenitas.” (V. infra, n. 12). IOI PENANCE AS A SACRAMENT hence we can limit ourselves to a brief explanation. a) According to the conciliary decrees of Florence and Trent, the reconciliation of the sinner with God and absolution from sins are objectively identical. Since forgiveness of sins can be effected only by means of interior sanctification, it follows that the first and principal effect of Penance is justification. Justification in this sense (iustificatio prima) entails sanctifying grace with all its formal effects and supernatural concomitants.8 It belongs to the very essence of justification that the sanctifying grace which it infuses into the soul blots out all mortal sins.4 This settles the Scholastic question whether the Sacrament of Penance may remit some mortal sins in the penitent and leave others unforgiven. Whatever may be said on this subject on purely abstract principles, it is certain that in the present economy mortal sins are either all forgiven or all retained. The case is different with the punishments due to sin. Though absolution remits the eternal punishment, it does not of itself remit all temporal punishments.5 Some of these usually remain to be wiped out by works of satisfaction, by indulgences, or, in default of these, by suffering in purgatory. In this respect Penance differs from Baptism, which remits all punishments together with the sins by which they were incurred.6 a For a more detailed explanation 5 V. infra, Part III, Ch. Ill, Sect of this point see our treatise on i. Grace. e Cf r. Pohle-Preuss, Jhe Sacra4 Cfr. St. Thomas, Summa Thiol., ments, Vol. I, pp. 231 sqq. 3a, qu. 86, art. 3.

If a penitent has none but venial sins to confess (and he is entirely free to approach the tribunal of Penance with only such),7 the Sacrament merely effects an increase of sanctifying grace (iustificatio secunda), since venial sin cannot destroy the state of grace. Here another difficulty arises. How can the Sacrament of Penance effect the forgiveness of venial sins ex opere operato, since a man can be validly absolved only from those sins for which he is truly sorry, and contrition blpts out the guilt of venial sin ex opere operantis, without the Sacrament? The answer is that God may forgive a sin more than once,8 and therefore the same sin can be made the subject of repeated absolutions, even though already blotted out by perfect contrition. (This also holds good with regard to obligatory confession of mortal sins already extinguished by perfect charity.) Other effects which the confession of venial sins produces in the soul, are: increase of grace, remission of temporal punishments, strength against temptations, etc. It is to be noted, however, that venial sins are not forgiven through the Sacrament of Penance unless the penitent has at least imperfect contrition (attrition), because, according to the Thomists as well as the Scotists, the validity of the Sacrament requires both contrition and confession (confessio dolorosa). On account of the danger of frustration, therefore, it would be wrong to confess only venial sins for which one is not truly sorry ; but it is sufficient to have true sorrow for at least one.9 b) Wherein does the sacramental grace of T Cfr. Cone. Trid., Sess. XIV, 9 On the remission of venial sins can. 7: “St quis dixerit, … non in general see Scheeben-Atzberger, licere confiteri peccata venialia, Dogtnatik, Vol. IV, 3, 722 sqq., anathema sit/’ Freiburg 1903. 8 V, supra, pp. 90 tq.

Penance consist? The Decretum pro Armenis suggests the answer to this question when it says that the object of confession is to heal the soul which has become infirm through sin.10 This effect is peculiar to Penance and produced by no other Sacrament, except possibly Extreme Unction, which may be regarded as the completion of Penance. We have explained above that the first and principal effect of Penance is justification. Justification, in its capacity of gratia sanans, may be regarded as the specific sacramental grace of Penance. Nor does it make any difference whether we conceive it as a certain modality of sanctifying grace or simply as a moral claim to all those actual graces which, with the cooperation of the penitent, safeguard the fruits of the Sacrament, especially zeal in making satisfaction and avoiding future sins.11 2. Peace of Conscience the Second Effect of the Sacrament. — The second effect of Penance is peace of conscience. It is purely accidental. This truth is defined by the Council of Trent as follows: “The effect of this Sacrament, … reconciliation with God, … sometimes in persons who are pious and who receive this Sacrament with devotion, is wont to be followed by peace and serenity of conscience with 10” Quodsi per peccatum oegritu- n Cfr. Pohle-Preuss, The Sacradinem incurrimus animae, per poeni- ments, Vol. I, pp. 70 iqq. tentiam spiritualiter sanamur.” (Denzinger-Bannwart, n. 695). SACRAMENTAL EFFECTS 105 exceeding consolation of spirit.” 12 Experience teaches that this effect is most commonly felt by habitual sinners after making a good confession with the intention of “turning over a new leaf.” The cautious language in which the Tridentine decree is clothed suggests the question whether the effect with which we are dealing is sacramental or merely psychological. The peace of conscience and consolation of spirit that sometimes follow a good confession may be owing to relief at having got rid of one’s sins, and the certainty of divine forgiveness. If the priestly absolution were merely an empty declaration, or a sermon, it could scarcely produce such effects. Nevertheless, there is nothing to prevent us from assuming that the peace of conscience which sometimes follows confession is a specific, even though only hypothetical, effect of the Sacrament as such. Being conditioned upon piety and devotion, it does not always follow the reception of the Sacrament.13 3. The Reviviscence of Previously Acquired Merits the Third Effect of the Sacrament. — Every baptized Christian possesses a certain number of supernatural merits. He loses these when he falls into mortal sin. Are they lost for ever or can they be recovered through the Sacrament of Penance? 12 Sess. XIV, cap. 3 : … quant spiritus consolation cons e qui solet.* Ireconctiiationem] interdum in viris (Denzinger-Bannwart, n. 896). pits et cum devotione hoc sacra- i8 0n this effect as res et sacramentum percipientibus conscientiae mentum see Pohle-Preuss, The Sapax ac serenitas cum vehementi craments, Vol. I, pp. 84 sqq.

The actions of a Catholic, good or bad, may be divided into four categories : (a) Living works {opera viva), i. e. good works performed in the state of sanctifying grace and therefore supernaturally meritorious. (b) Dead works {opera mortua), i. e. works in themselves good but not supernaturally meritorious because performed in the state of mortal sin. (c) Death-dealing works {opera mortifera), i. e. mortal sins, which destroy the state of sanctifying grace and all the supernatural merits previously acquired. (d) Opera tnortificata, i. e. such good works as were once alive and meritorious but have been destroyed by mortal sin. The question regarding the revival of supernatural merits can apply only to the fourth and last of these categories. Living works need not be revived ; dead works cannot be revived because they are still-born ; death-dealing works are absolutely incapable of life because they are in themselves dead. Hence the opera tnortificata alone are capable of reviviscence. Though there exists no official decision on the matter, theologians generally hold that lost merits are recovered, together with sanctifying grace, through the Sacrament of Penance or by an act of perfect contrition. a) This truth has a solid foundation in Scripture. Cfr. Ezech. XXXIII, 12: . . the wickedness of the wicked shall not hurt him, in what day soever he shall turn from his wickedness/’ 14 But the wickedness of the sinner would hurt him greatly if the supernatural merits 14 Cfr, Ez*ck XVIII, ax §qq.

which he acquired in the state of grace were lost forever. Hence they are not lost forever but can be recovered. a) To deprive a converted sinner of his previous merits would be to inflict some sort of eternal punishment for sins already forgiven. Against this interpretation some writers urge Ezech. XVIII, 24: u If the just man turn himself away from his justice, and do iniquity, … all his justice which he hath done, shall not be remembered.,, But this text does not prove what it is intended to prove. God here speaks of an obdurate sinner who will never be converted : * In his sins which he hath committed, in them he shall die.*15 fi) Some theologians cite Heb. VI, 10 sq. : ” For God is not unjust, that he should forget your work, and the love which you have shewn in his name, you who have ministered, and do minister to the saints.” 19 Were these words addressed to converted apostates, as Epiphanius, Primasius, Alcuin, St. Thomas, Suarez, and Estius assume, it would be legitimate to conclude from them that if God were to punish forgiven sins by depriving the converted sinner of the supernatural merits of all his previous good works, He would indeed forget the sinner’s good works, which would be contrary to divine justice. But the context shows that St. Paul is not addressing apostates, but honest Christians in danger of perversion. His object is to admonish and strengthen them by reminding them of the merits they have stored is Ezech. XVIII, 24. — Cfr. Kna- ive8el£aoplav rijt ipyov vfxur Kal rift dydmis iXtrldos &XP1 tAovs.

io8 PENANCE AS A SACRAMENT up and the reward awaiting them in Heaven. The text can, however, be indirectly utilized for the truth we are defending, as it makes the merit of good works dependent on three conditions, vis.: the state of sanctifying grace, the supernatural character of the works themselves, and a happy death. These three conditions are verified not only in the living works of the faithful but likewise in the good works that have been killed by mortal sin, and consequently it is legitimate to conclude that these can be and are revived through Penance.17 y) Another contested text is Gal. Ill, I sqq.: “O senseless Galatians, who hath bewitched you that you should not obey the truth … ? Are you so foolish that, whereas you began in the Spirit, you would now be made perfect by the flesh? Have you suffered so great things in vain? If it be yet in vain.” St. Chrysostom, Theodoret, St. Jerome, and other Patristic writers paraphrase this text as follows: I hope you will come back from Judaism to the Catholic faith, lest what you have suffered for Christ be in vain. Your sufferings will be useless unless you regain your previous merits through Penance.18 But this interpretation is not convincing. There is nothing in the Apostle’s words which would justify the assumption that the Galatians had relapsed into Judaism. They were headed towards apostasy, but had not yet fallen away, says St. Augustine.19 The Apostle, seeing them waver, hastens to support them by advice and warning. Hence the text proves nothing for our present pur1T Cfr. Cone. Trid., Sess. VI, cap. 1 6. 18 Cfr. Ripalda, De Bnte Supernaturali, disp. 91, sect x. 10 ” Quamvis itti nondum cecidittent, ted iam inclinabantur, ut caderent.” (Migne, P. L., XXXV, au8). 20 For other more acceptable explanations of Gal. Ill, 1 sqq., see Palmicri, Comment, in Epist. ad Gal., pp. in sq., Gulpen 1886. b) The fact, however, that the Patristic writers whom we have mentioned, interpret Heb. VI, 10 and Gal. Ill, 4, as they do, is a clear proof of their belief in the revival of merits. St. Chrysostom says : ” If you wish to reawake and recall yourselves, I trust you may not have suffered in vain. Where now are they who abolish penance? Behold, these [the Galatians] had received the Spirit, they had wrought signs, had confessed the faith, … and yet, after so mahy just works, they had fallen from grace. Nevertheless, he [St. Paul] said: If you will, you can recall yourselves.” 21 St. Jerome inculcates the same truth in similar language.22 c) A convincing argument can be construed from the following canon of the Tridentine Council: “If anyone saith that … the justified, by the good works which he performs through the grace of God and of Jesus Christ, whose living member he is, does not truly merit … eternal life, and the attainment of that eternal life, if so it be, however, that he depart in grace, … let him be anathema.” 23 The Council plainly demands three conditions for the supernatural mer21 In Ep. ad Gal., c. 3, n. 2 (Migne, P. G., LXI, 650). 22 In Ep. ad Gal., 1. I, c. 3: ” Quicunque ob Christi Udern laboraverit et postea lapsus fuerit in peccatum, sicut priora sine causa dicitur passus fuisse, dum peccat, sic rursum non perdet ea, si ad antiquum studium revertatur.” — Cfr. St Epiphanius, Haeres., 59, n. 9.— Other Patristic texts quoted by De Augustinis, De Re Sacrament., Vol. II, and ed., pp. 108 sqq. 23 Cone. Trid., Sess. VI, can. 32: “Si quis dixerit, … ipsum iustificatum bonis operibus quae ab eo per Dei gratiam et Iesu Christi, cuius vivum membrum est, Hunt, non vere mereri … vitam ae tern am et ipsius vitae aetemae, si tarn en in gratia no PENANCE AS A SACRAMENT itoriousness of good works, viz.: (i) that they be performed with the help of actual grace, (2) that they be performed in the state of sanctifying grace, and (3) that he who has performed them depart this life in the favor of God. All other requisites (excepting, of course, those founded on the natural law24) are excluded by the remark of the Council that ” nothing further is wanting.” 25 If the opera mortificata were not rewarded in heaven, the Council should have added as a fourth condition that ” the state of grace must never have been interrupted by mortal sin.” It made no such addition, and consequently we may conclude that, as the Scholastics put it, ” opera mortificata reviviscunt” This, in spite of some minor differences, was practically the common teaching of the Schoolmen, and since the Tridentine Council it no longer has any opponents within the Catholic pale.26 d) To the Scriptural and theological arguments already adduced may be added three others based on reason. a) If a person who has the misfortune to commit a mortal sin were thereby deprived of all his previously acquired merits, this would mean eternal punishment, at least in part. For as the damned are entirely deprived of the beatific vision of God in consequence of their unforgiven mortal sins, so the elect, in that hypothesis, would decesserit, consecutionem, … ana- deesse credendum est/’ (Denzingerthema sit.” (Denzinger-Bannwart, Bannwart, n. 809). n. 842). 26 Cfr. Suarez, De Reviviscentia 24 Cfr. Pohle-Preuss, Grace, Ac- Meritorum, sect 2; De Lugo, De tual and Habitual, pp. 410 sqq. Poenitentia, disp. iot sect 1. 25 L. c, cap. 16: ” nihil amplius

SACRAMENTAL EFFECTS in lose part of the glory of Heaven on account, of their forgiven mortal sins. Such a partial poena damni would be a real evil, irreconcilable with the beatific vision. Hence the hypothesis must be false. fi) Merits are not physical but purely moral entities. They live and are revived in the knowledge and acceptation of God, which cannot be destroyed, though it may be temporarily interfered with by mortal sin. The Sacrament of Penance admittedly removes the interfering obstacle, and there is no reason to assume that the merits are not revived after the obstacle has been removed. Mortal sin is purely an obstacle (obex), which Penance removes, thereby reviving the merits previously acquired by the penitent. y) The contrary hypothesis involves absurd consequences. Thus a man who had served God faithfully all his life but had the misfortune to commit a mortal sin shortly before his death, for which he immediately did penance, would receive a smaller reward in Heaven than a wicked criminal who after a career replete with iniquitous deeds turned contritely to God shortly before being called hence. It would be difficult to reconcile such a treatment with the justice and mercy of God.27 e) To what extent and in what degree can merits destroyed by mortal sin be revived through the Sacrament of Penance? This moot question cannot be decided by the authority of St. Thomas because he is invoked by extremists on both sides.28 27 Cfr. Toletus, Comment, in 28 For the most probable interpreSent, III, qu. 89, art. 5 ; De Lugo, tation of his teaching see J. Gottler, De Poenitentia, disp. n, sect 1. Der hi. Thomas von Aquin und die

ii2 PENANCE AS A SACRAMENT o) Banez, who is followed by a few Thomists like Sylvius and Contenson, holds that the merits of one who has committed a mortal sin are never revived in the full measure of their former grace and glory, but that they effect a new degree of grace and glory (possibly far inferior to the old), which is granted on the strength of the twofold title of previous as well as present merits.2* In its ultimate analysis this view denies the revival of merits, since Banez’s ” twofold title ” really is a ” titulus sine re.” P) Dominicus Soto teaches that lost merits are revived in proportion to the contriteness and zeal of the penitent, and that whilst a complete reviviscence of merits is granted to those who have the keenest possible sorrow for their sins, all others recover only a portion of their previous merits. This opinion was adopted in a somewhat modified form by Alvarez, Ledesma, Gonet, and Billuart.80 It is untenable for the reason that its champions arbitrarily add to the three conditions of merit established by the Tridentine Council a fourth of their own invention, namely, a proportion between the subjective disposition of the penitent and the merits to be revived. There is no basis for this assumption either in Revelation or the dogmatic teaching of the Church. y) Scotus asserts that the merits of a sinner are completely restored by Penance, but that their restoration does not involve the simultaneous revival of the previously attained state of grace, which is not fully recovered until the hour of death, when God complements vortridentinischen Thomisten uber Theol., II, 2, qu. 24, art 6, dub. 6, die Wirkungen des Bussakramentes, concl. 3. pp. 97 sqq., Freiburg 1904. 80 Billuart, De Poenitentia, diss. 20 Banez, Comment, in Summam 3, art. 5, S 2.

the restored measure of glory by an equal measure of sanctifying grace. This curious conjecture has found but few defenders outside the Scotist camp. It is opposed to the theological principle that grace and glory go hand in hand and an increase of the one inevitably entails an increase of the other. 8) Suarez teaches that the worthy reception of Penance is always followed by a full and immediate revival of previous merits, both as to grace and as to glory, so that the converted sinner, as far as his previous merits are concerned, is in exactly the same position in which he was before he had the misfortune of committing mortal sin. This view is in conformity with Revelation and the teaching of the Church and is now held by practically all Catholic theologians.81 The reviviscentia meritorum must not be confused with the reviviscentia sacramenti, which is quite a different thing.82 Penance as a Sacrament is incapable of revival because its validity depends on the worthiness of the recipient.88 4. The Non-Revival of Sins. — Unlike merits, sins that have been forgiven cannot revive. This truth has nothing to do with the effects of Penance, and the only reason why we deal with it here is that the non-revival of sins forms a counterpart of the revival of merits, and furnishes fresh proof that the reconciliation of the sinner 81 For a fuller discussion of this Theologie, 1891, pp. 19 sqq. problem see J. Scheller, ” Wieder- 82 On the latter see Pohle-Preuss, aufleben der durch eine schwere The Sacraments, Vol. I, pp. 193 sqq. Sunde ertdteten Verdienste,” in the 88 Cfr. Chr. Pesch, Praelect. DogInnsbruck Zeitschrift f&r kath. mat., Vol. VII, 3rd ed., pp. 92 sqq.

H4 PENANCE AS A SACRAMENT with God is the first and principal effect of the Sacrament of Penance. The question in debate, which was already treated by the early Schoolmen (Peter Lombard, St. Thomas, et al.), may be stated as follows: If a man who has been absolved in the tribunal of Penance commits a fresh mortal sin, does he fall back into the same guilt, and incur the same punishment, or does a mortal sin once forgiven remain forgiven always? Hugh of St. Victor and William of Paris held that the guilt of a former sin is revived in case of a relapse, especially when a man is guilty of hatred, apostasy, or contempt of the Sacrament of Penance, or when he regrets having had contrition for his sins. Hence the lines: ” Fratres odit, apostata fit spernitque fateri, Poenituisse piget: pristina culpa r edit. 99 But the great majority of the Schoolmen regarded it as certain that a sin once forgiven is always forgiven and never revives either in regard to guilt or punishment. a) Holy Scripture leaves no doubt that God has made the forgiveness of sins dependent on but one condition, viz.: contrite recourse to the power of the keys vested in His Church.34 What the Church looses is loosed in Heaven. Now, the Church looses unconditionally, that is to say, she forgives sins absolutely. Hence there can be no reditus peccatorutn.™ B4Matth. XVI, 19; XVIII, 18; 12; Mich. VII, 18.— Cfr. Rom. XI, John XX, 23. 29: Sine poenitentia enim sunt 85 Cfr. Is. I, 18; Ezech. XXXIII, dona et vocatio Dei.

It may be objected that absolution is sometimes given conditionally. It is, but only in the sense that the absolving priest takes into account the disposition or capacity of the penitent, as when he is in doubt as to the existence of genuine contrition, or does not know for certain whether the subject is alive or dead. In the sense in which we have just employed the phrase, absolution is never conditional. A sin once forgiven could be revived only by being reproduced. But how could a sin be reproduced? God cannot reproduce a sin because He is all-holy and detests iniquity. Nor can man reproduce his own sins. All he can do is to commit new sins specifically identical with those committed before. But could not God continue to impute previous sins? Not if He has truly forgiven them, blotted them out, destroyed them, as He has promised to do, on certain conditions, in the Sacrament of Penance. A sin that is still imputed to the sinner is not truly and unconditionally forgiven. Nor could sanctifying grace dwell in the soul of one whose sins were not really forgiven. The imputation theory can only be held by those who believe that God in the process of justification merely ” covers up ” sins instead of blotting them out. b) The Fathers unanimously deny the possibility of a revival of mortal sins, though some of them seem to assume a reditus secundum quid in their explanation of the parable of the servant (Matth. XVIII, 23 sqq.). a) St. Ambrose comments as follows on Is. XLIII, 25 : ” He says, ’ I will not remember [thy sins] , but thou

Ii6 PENANCE AS A SACRAMENT shouldst remember/ that is : I do not recall the sins from which I have absolved thee; let them be covered up as by a sort of oblivion/’ 86 St. Prosper says : ” He who withdraws from Christ and ends this life a stranger to grace, does he not fall into perdition? But he does not fall back into that which is forgiven, nor will he be damned in original sin/‘87 P) But what does Pope St. Gregory the Great mean when he says : u Si ex toto corde non dimittimus quod in nos delinquitur, et hoc rursum exigitur a nobis, quod iam nobis per poenitentiant dimissum fuisse gaudebomus”?8 The holy Pontiff evidently wishes to emphasize the gravity of the new sin that is committed by one who refuses to forgive his neighbor after he himself has obtained forgiveness from God. A more difficult passage is this from St. Augustine’s treatise ” On Baptism against the Donatists ” : ” Redire dimissa peccata, ubi fraterna caritas non est, apertissime Dominus docet de illo servo, quern quum invenisset debitorem decern millium talentorum, deprecanti omnia remisit,” etc.89 Palmieri has shown that this passage proves nothing against our thesis.40 The most satisfactory explanation of the passage is by De Lugo, who says that St. Augustine employs the word “redire” to signify a reditus secundum quid, inasmuch as the new sin involves the aggravating circumstance of gross ingratitude, which 86 De Poenitentia, II, 6, 40: quod remissum est, recidit nec in * Ego, inquit, memor non ero, tu au- originoli peccato damnabitur. tern memor esto, hoc est: Non (Migne, P. L., LI, 158). For other revoco ilia, quaecunque delicto donavi Patristic texts of like tenor see De tibi, velut quadam oblivione tecto Augustinis, De Re Sacr., Vol. II, sint.* and ed., pp. 120 sq. 87 Resp. ad Obiect. Gattor., I: tsDiaL, IV, 60. * Qui recedit a Christ o et alienus a 89 De Bapt. c. Donat., I, 12, 20. gratia Unit hanc vitam, quid nisi in 40 Palmieri, De Poenitentia, pp. perdition em caditf Sed non in id, 202 sq. God takes into account in forming His final judgment. Other theologians 41 think that St. Augustine in the passage quoted merely employed an argumentum ad hominem which did not express his real conviction. c) Theologically the revival of forgiven sins must be rejected for the reason that it would entail the necessity of confessing the same sins more than once and also of being rebaptized. If mortal sins forgiven in the tribunal of Penance were capable of being revived, it would be necessary to seek forgiveness for the same repeatedly. Now the only means whereby baptized adults can obtain forgiveness of mortal sin is confession, and hence all previous mortal sins would have to be confessed over again every time the penitent had the misfortune to fall from grace. But this conclusion has been declared false by Pope Benedict XI.42 Consequently the premise must be wrong. What is true of mortal sin, must be equally true of original sin, as Baptism remits original sin no more effectively than Penance remits mortal sin. Now original sin can be forgiven only by Baptism. Hence, in the hypothesis of our opponents, a sinner would have to be rebaptized as often as he committed a mortal sin. But to assert this would be heretical. Hence the antecedent is false.48 Readings: — M. Schu, Die Aussdhnung des Sunders tnit Gott dutch das Sakrament der Busse, Paderborn 1872.— *M. Buch41 See De Augustinis, De Re Sa- « Cfr. J. Scheller, ” Das Nichtaufcrament., Vol. II, p. 124. leben der schweren SUnde,” in the 42 Extrav. Commun., Lib. V, Tit. Zeitschrift fUr kath. Theologie, Innsvii, De Privilegiis, cap. 1: “Inter bruck, 1891, pp. 241 «qq. cunctas.’

Ii8 PENANCE AS A SACRAMENT berger, Die Wirkungen des Bussakramentes nach der Lehre des hi. Thomas, Freiburg 1902. — W. Rutten, Studien sur mittelaltcrlichen Busslehre mit besonderer Beriicksichtigung der alteren Franziskanerschule, Munster 1902. — J. Gottler, Der hi. Thomas von Aquin und die vortridentinischen Thomisten tiber die Wirkungen des Bussakramentes, Freiburg 1904.