Dist. 44, Art. 3, Q. 2
Book II: On the Creation of Things · Distinction 44
Quaestio II. Utrum religiosi teneantur praelatis suis obedire in omnibus, quae non sunt contra Deum.
Secundo quaeritur, utrum religiosi teneantur praelatis suis obedire in omnibus, quae non sunt contra Deum. Et quod sic, videtur:
Ad oppositum. 1. Primo auctoritate Domini, Matthaei vigesimo tertio1: Super cathedram Moysi sederunt Scribae et Pharisaei; quae dicunt vobis facite: ergo si Dominus sine distinctione mandat, quod facienda sunt quae dicunt, etiam de malis praelatis; videtur, quod in omnibus obediendum est eis. Si tu dicas, quod non intelligitur nisi de illis quae dicunt, et ad quae homo tenetur per mandatum legis; contra hoc est, quia alibi2 dicit Dominus: Qui vos audit me audit, et qui vos spernit me spernit: ergo si Deus in omnibus est audiendus et in nullo spernendus, videtur, quod praelatis a Deo institutis3 a suis subditis debeat in omnibus obediri.
2. Item, ad Colossenses tertio4: Filii, obedite parentibus vestris per omnia; ergo si filii carnales parentibus carnalibus debent per omnia obedire, et non debent minus esse obedientes filii spirituales patribus spiritualibus, quam carnales carnalibus: ergo religiosi debent suis praelatis in omnibus obedire.
3. Item, beatus Benedictus in regula sua5: « Si p. 1013 praecipit praelatus impossibile, tentandum est facere »: ergo si in impossibilibus obediendum est ei, multo fortius in possibilibus: ergo in omnibus.
4. Item, Hieronymus ad Rusticum6: « Praepositum monasterii timeas ut dominum, diligas ut patrem, credas quidquid dixerit salutare, nec maiorum iudices sententiam, cuius est officium obedire et iussa implere, dicente Moyse: Audi, Israel, et tace ».
5. Item, Hugo de sancto Victore: « Obedientia est virtus, quae omnia amplectitur iniuncta necessario implenda, nisi obstiterit imperantis auctoritas7 »: ergo videtur, quod si non obedit in omnibus, non habet veram obedientiam: ergo si tenetur habere veram obedientiam, tenetur in omnibus obedire.
6. Item, videtur ratione. Sicut homo vovet paupertatem et continentiam, sic vovet obedientiam; sed qui vovet continentiam tenetur abstinere ab omni coitu, et qui vovet paupertatem tenetur renuntiare omnibus temporalibus: ergo qui vovet obedientiam tenetur obedire in omnibus, quae sibi iniunguntur. Ergo sicut aliquis iudicatur proprietarius, si unam solam pictam8 habeat; sic debet iudicari inobediens, si unum solum praelati verbum pertranseat: ergo tenetur ei obedire in omnibus.
Fundamenta. Sed contra: 1. Actuum quinto9: Obedire oportet Deo magis quam hominibus: ergo in aliquibus tenemur obedire Deo, in quibus non tenemur obedire hominibus: ergo videtur, quod non teneamur obedire praelato in omnibus.
2. Item, Bernardus in libro de Dispensatione et praecepto10: « Subditus nec citra promissum est inhibendus nec ultra cogendus per legem obedientiae »: ergo si aliquis praelatus praecipiat ei ultra illud quod promisit, non videtur, quod teneatur ei obedire.
3. Item, perfectio religionis maxime consistit in perfectione obedientiae: ergo si omnes religiosi tenerentur in omnibus obedire, omnes religiones essent aequalis perfectionis. Quodsi hoc est plane falsum: ergo etc.
4. Item, religiosus non tenetur obedire praelato suo nisi per legem voti; sed per legem voti non tenetur homo solvere nisi illud quod vovit spontanee: ergo videtur, quod praelatus non possit ab eo exigere nisi illud quod promisit observare.
Conclusio
Secundum necessariam obligationem obedientia religiosorum habet terminum et mensuram iuxta magnitudinem voti emissi, licet sanum sit consilium, quod in omnibus obediant, quae non sunt contra Deum.
Respondeo: Dicendum, quod aliter loquendum est de obedientia exhibenda praelato a subdito religioso secundum obedientiae perfectionem, aliter secundum necessitatis obligationem. Si loquamur de ipsa secundum perfectionem, sic dicendum est, quod sicut dicit Bernardus11, « perfecta obedientia finem nescit », et perfectus obediens non solum in his quae mandat, sed etiam supra ea quae mandat, promptum habet affectum ad subiacendum praecepto praelati, desiderans illum imitari, qui humilians se ipsum, factus est obediens Patri usque ad mortem12. — Si autem loquamur de obedientia secundum necessariam obligationem, sic habet terminum et mensuram iuxta magnitudinem voti emissi. Non enim amplius tenentur obedire suis praelatis, nisi in his « quae promiserunt Domino observare et quae non sunt contraria animae et regulae suae13 ». Unde si praelatus aliquid praecipiat quod sit supra votum, subditus non tenetur ad illud implendum. — Et ideo concedendum est, quod religiosi non tenentur praelatis suis obedire in omnibus, licet sanum sit consilium, quod in omnibus obediant, quae non sunt contra Deum. Unde rationes, quae ad secundam partem inducuntur, concedendae sunt, quia verum concludunt.
Solutio oppositorum. Ad 1. Ad illud ergo quod primo obiicitur in contrarium, quod obediendum est in omnibus his qui sedent in cathedra; verum est de his quae ad cathedram spectant, et de praeceptis legis; de aliis autem non mandat. — Et quod obiicit, quod ipse Dominus dicit: Qui vos audit etc.; dicendum, quod verum est, quod loquitur de his quae Apostoli et eorum successores mandant ex persona Christi et etiam ex auctoritate sibi data; in nullo tamen, quod p. 1014 dicunt, eorum auctoritas est spernenda. Notandum. Unde quamvis non teneamur praelatis in omnibus obedire, tenemur tamen nullum mandatum eorum spernere. Unde dicitur in Iure14, quod « sententia pastoris, sive iusta sive iniusta, timenda est ».
Ad 2. Ad illud quod obiicitur de verbo Apostoli: Filii, obedite per omnia parentibus; dicendum, quod si intelligatur de his quae spectant ad mandatum divinum, praeceptum est; de aliis autem monitio est, non praeceptum.
Ad 3, 4, 5. Ad illud verbum beati Benedicti et Hieronymi et Hugonis dicendum est, quod non loquuntur de obedientia secundum obligationem necessitatis, sed secundum perfectionem caritatis15.
Ad 6. Differt votum obedientiae ab aliis. Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod sicut vovet homo paupertatem et continentiam, ita vovet obedientiam; dicendum, quod sic, et non sic. Sic quidem in hoc, quod aufert sibi propriae voluntatis dominium. Non sic autem, quia non arctat se ad faciendum omnia, quae sibi fuerint imperata16, sed ad faciendum ea quae in regula expressa sunt. Et quoniam in omni religione perfectionis simpliciter continetur renuntiatio quantum ad opus carnis, et quantum ad opus proprietatis vel in speciali, vel in communi, non sic autem praecipiuntur omnia, quae possunt praecipi; ideo non sic arctatur ad obediendum in omnibus, sicut ad renuntiandum omnibus. — Ratio notabilis. Ratio autem huius est, quia possibile est alicui renuntiare proprietati et etiam satis facile, maxime ubi est possessio habita in communi; sed obtemperare omnibus quae dicuntur, hoc non tantum est non facile, immo etiam impossibile. Et ideo fines ponuntur promissioni obedientiae; non sic ponuntur promissioni paupertatis, vel etiam castitatis. Regula S. Francisci. Unde in regula17 beati Francisci simpliciter praecipitur, quod illius regulae professores nihil omnino habeant proprium super terram; simpliciter etiam praecipitur perpetuo continere non solum ab actu, sed etiam abstinere a suspecto consortio et consilio mulierum18; sed non simpliciter praecipitur fratribus suis praelatis in omnibus obedire, sed « in omnibus quae promiserunt Domino observare, et non sunt contraria animae et regulae suae19 ». Nescio, si ad aliquod istorum votorum quisquam sciat plus addere. In hoc igitur perfectionis culmine congruum est praedictae quaestionis terminare sermonem20.
I. Quod religiosus praelato praecipienti contra ius divinum vel naturale, aut contra certum mandatum superioris praelati, vel etiam regulae (scil. in iis, in quibus inferior praelatus non potest dispensare), non teneatur obedire, hoc per se manifestum est. Item patet, quod perfectio obedientiae, quam cum S. Benedicto omnes Ordinum fundatores maxime commendant, non sibi ponit alios limites, nisi excludendo ea « quae sunt contra Deum, aut contra professionem regulae » (S. Thom., S. II–II, q. 104, a. 5, ad 3). Triplicem namque S. Thom. (ibid. et hic q. 2, a. 2) distinguit obedientiam: indiscretam (quae nec obedientia dici debeat, cum obediat etiam contra Deum), imperfectam, sed sufficientem (quam vocat S. Bonav. secundum necessitatis obligationem) et perfectam. Loquendo igitur de obedientia obligatoria, communiter tenetur et hic ad 6 probatur, quosdam terminos poni obedientiae ab ipsa regula. Attamen S. Thom. (hic q. 2, a. 3) duas refert opiniones, quarum una docet, quod subditi professi « ex necessitate tenentur obedire praelatis suis non solum in his quae ad regulam pertinent, sed in omnibus, quae regulae non contrariantur, sive sint indifferentia, sive de numero bonorum, dummodo non sint altiora quam professio proprii Ordinis requirit; sed ad aequalia, vel faciliora cogere potest, etiamsi secundum praecepta regulae non sunt ». Ipse autem S. Doctor dicit, longe meliorem esse alteram opinionem, quae vult, quod solum in his quae ad regulam pertinent, vel directe vel indirecte, debitum obedientiae imponatur. Pro quo hanc affert rationem, quod « ad illa tantummodo ex obedientiae voto subditus obligatur, ad quae praelatio est ordinata. Ad hoc autem praelationes in Religionibus ordinantur, ut status Religionis secundum instituta regulae conservetur ». Si autem obligatio obedientiae circumscribitur professione alicuius regulae; cum regulae et constitutiones in diversis Religionibus sint variae, recte infertur, quod potestas praecipiendi et obligatio obediendi ad plura vel pauciora extenditur, prout regula disponit. Hoc explicite affirmat S. Bonav. (Exposit. in regulam Fr. Min. c. 7): « Unde patet, quod errant qui dicunt, quod in omnibus Religionibus obedientia sit aequalis »; simul hoc applicat ad demonstrandum, quam ollam Fratres Minores voveant obedientiam, « cum nihil sibi obedientialiter impositum possint repellere, quasi transcendens suam regulam, nisi vergat in suae animae detrimentum ». Hoc confirmant communiter expositores eiusdem regulae (in c. 1 vel 10), ut Quatuor Magistri, Hugo de Dina, Marchantius, Politius, Hilarius Parisiensis aliique multi; pro quo etiam afferri potest, quod S. Thom. (Sum. loc. cit.) iisdem fere ac praedicta regula verbis utitur, ut perfectam notet obedientiam, quatenus distinguatur ab imperfecta.
II. S. Thom., locc. citt. — B. Albert., hic a. 6, et S. p. II, tr. 24, q. 141, m. 3, q. incid. 1. — Petr. a Tar., hic q. 3, a. 2. — Richard. a Med., hic a. 3, q. 2. — Aegid. R., hic q. 2, a. 3. — Henr. Gand., Quodl. 4, q. 35. — Durand., hic q. 4, et etiam (ubi plura singularia et improbabilia) q. 3. — Dionys. Carth., hic q. 5.
---
Question II. Whether religious are bound to obey their prelates in all things which are not against God.
Secondly it is asked, whether religious are bound to obey their prelates in all things which are not against God. And that they are, it seems:
To the contrary. 1. First, by the authority of the Lord, Matthew, chapter twenty-three1: Upon the chair of Moses have sat the Scribes and Pharisees; what they say to you, do: therefore if the Lord commands without distinction that the things which they say are to be done, even of evil prelates, it seems that they are to be obeyed in all things. If you should say that it is understood only of those things which they say, and to which a man is bound by the precept of the law; against this is the fact that elsewhere2 the Lord says: He who hears you hears me, and he who spurns you spurns me: therefore if God is in all things to be heard and in nothing to be spurned, it seems that prelates appointed by God3 ought to be obeyed by their subjects in all things.
2. Likewise, to the Colossians, chapter three4: Children, obey your parents in all things; therefore if carnal children ought to obey their carnal parents in all things, and spiritual children ought not to be less obedient to their spiritual fathers than carnal children to their carnal parents: therefore religious ought to obey their prelates in all things.
3. Likewise, blessed Benedict in his rule5: « If a prelate enjoin the impossible, one must try to do it »: therefore if one must obey him in impossible things, much more in possible things: therefore in all things.
4. Likewise, Jerome to Rusticus6: « Fear the prior of the monastery as a lord, love him as a father, believe whatever he says to be salutary, and do not judge the judgment of your superiors, whose office it is to obey and to fulfill what is commanded, Moses saying: Hear, O Israel, and be silent ».
5. Likewise, Hugh of Saint Victor: « Obedience is a virtue which embraces all enjoined things as necessarily to be fulfilled, unless the authority of the one commanding stand in the way7 »: therefore it seems that if one does not obey in all things, he does not have true obedience: therefore if he is bound to have true obedience, he is bound to obey in all things.
6. Likewise, it seems by reason. As a man vows poverty and continence, so he vows obedience; but he who vows continence is bound to abstain from all intercourse, and he who vows poverty is bound to renounce all temporal things: therefore he who vows obedience is bound to obey in all things which are enjoined upon him. Therefore as someone is judged a proprietor if he have but a single picta [a small coin]8; so he ought to be judged disobedient if he pass over but a single word of the prelate: therefore he is bound to obey him in all things.
The fundamental arguments. On the contrary: 1. Acts, chapter five9: One must obey God rather than men: therefore in some things we are bound to obey God, in which we are not bound to obey men: therefore it seems that we are not bound to obey the prelate in all things.
2. Likewise, Bernard in the book On Dispensation and Precept10: « The subject is neither to be restrained short of what was promised, nor to be compelled beyond it by the law of obedience »: therefore if some prelate command him beyond that which he promised, it does not seem that he is bound to obey him.
3. Likewise, the perfection of the religious life consists chiefly in the perfection of obedience: therefore if all religious were bound to obey in all things, all religious orders would be of equal perfection. But if this is plainly false: therefore etc.
4. Likewise, a religious is not bound to obey his prelate except by the law of the vow; but by the law of the vow a man is not bound to discharge anything except what he vowed spontaneously: therefore it seems that the prelate cannot exact from him anything except what he promised to observe.
Conclusion
According to necessary obligation, the obedience of religious has its term and measure according to the magnitude of the vow made, although it is sound counsel that they obey in all things which are not against God.
I respond: It must be said that one must speak otherwise of the obedience to be shown to a prelate by a religious subject according to the perfection of obedience, and otherwise according to the obligation of necessity. If we speak of it according to perfection, then it must be said that, as Bernard says11, « perfect obedience knows no end », and the perfect obedient one has a ready disposition to submit to the precept of the prelate not only in those things which he commands, but even beyond those things which he commands, desiring to imitate him who, humbling himself, became obedient to the Father unto death12. — But if we speak of obedience according to necessary obligation, then it has its term and measure according to the magnitude of the vow made. For they are not bound to obey their prelates further than in those things « which they promised the Lord to observe and which are not contrary to the soul and to their rule13 ». Whence if the prelate command something which is beyond the vow, the subject is not bound to fulfill it. — And therefore it must be granted that religious are not bound to obey their prelates in all things, although it is sound counsel that they obey in all things which are not against God. Whence the arguments which are adduced for the second part are to be granted, because they conclude truly.
Solution of the contrary arguments. To 1. To that, then, which is first objected to the contrary, that one must obey in all things those who sit in the chair; it is true of those things which pertain to the chair, and of the precepts of the law; but of other things he does not command. — And as to what it objects, that the Lord himself says: He who hears you etc.; it must be said that it is true, that he speaks of those things which the Apostles and their successors command from the person of Christ and also from the authority given to them; yet in nothing that they say is their authority to be spurned. Note. Whence, although we are not bound to obey prelates in all things, we are nonetheless bound to spurn no command of theirs. Whence it is said in the Law14, that « the sentence of the shepherd, whether just or unjust, is to be feared ».
To 2. To that which is objected from the word of the Apostle: Children, obey your parents in all things; it must be said that if it be understood of those things which pertain to the divine command, it is a precept; but of other things it is an admonition, not a precept.
To 3, 4, 5. To that word of blessed Benedict and of Jerome and of Hugh it must be said that they do not speak of obedience according to the obligation of necessity, but according to the perfection of charity15.
To 6. The vow of obedience differs from the others. To that which is objected, that as a man vows poverty and continence, so he vows obedience; it must be said that it is so, and it is not so. So indeed in this, that he takes away from himself the dominion of his own will. But not so, because he does not bind himself to do all things which may be commanded him16, but to do those things which are expressed in the rule. And since in every religious order of perfection there is contained simply a renunciation as to the work of the flesh, and as to the work of property whether in particular or in common, but not all things which can be commanded are thus commanded; therefore he is not thus bound to obey in all things, as to renounce all things. — A notable reason. Now the reason for this is that it is possible for someone to renounce property and even quite easily, especially where there is a possession held in common; but to comply with all things which are said, this is not only not easy, but even impossible. And therefore limits are set to the promise of obedience; they are not thus set to the promise of poverty, or even of chastity. The Rule of St. Francis. Whence in the rule17 of blessed Francis it is simply commanded that the professors of that rule have nothing at all of their own upon the earth; it is also simply commanded to be continent perpetually not only from the act, but even to abstain from suspect company and counsel of women18; but it is not simply commanded to obey their prelates in all things, but « in all things which they promised the Lord to observe, and are not contrary to the soul and to their rule19 ». I know not whether anyone could know how to add anything to any of these vows. On this peak of perfection, therefore, it is fitting to end the discourse of the aforesaid question20.
I. That a religious is not bound to obey a prelate commanding against divine or natural right, or against a certain command of a higher prelate, or even of the rule (namely in those things in which the lower prelate cannot dispense), is manifest of itself. Likewise it is plain that the perfection of obedience, which, with St. Benedict, all the founders of Orders most highly commend, sets for itself no other limits except by excluding those things « which are against God, or against the profession of the rule » (St. Thomas, S. II–II, q. 104, a. 5, ad 3). For St. Thomas (ibid. and here q. 2, a. 2) distinguishes a threefold obedience: indiscreet (which ought not even to be called obedience, since it obeys even against God), imperfect, but sufficient (which St. Bonaventure calls [obedience] according to the obligation of necessity), and perfect. Speaking therefore of obligatory obedience, it is commonly held, and is here proved at [reply] 6, that certain limits are set to obedience by the rule itself. Nevertheless St. Thomas (here q. 2, a. 3) reports two opinions, of which one teaches that professed subjects « are of necessity bound to obey their prelates not only in those things which pertain to the rule, but in all things which are not contrary to the rule, whether they be indifferent or of the number of good things, provided they be not higher than the profession of one's own Order requires; but he can compel them to equal or easier things, even if they be not according to the precepts of the rule ». But the holy Doctor himself says that the other opinion is far better, which holds that the debt of obedience is imposed only in those things which pertain to the rule, whether directly or indirectly. For which he brings this reason, that « the subject is obliged by the vow of obedience only to those things to which the prelacy is ordained. Now prelacies in religious Orders are ordained to this, that the state of the Religion be preserved according to the institutes of the rule ». But if the obligation of obedience is circumscribed by the profession of some rule; since the rules and constitutions in different religious Orders are various, it is rightly inferred that the power of commanding and the obligation of obeying extends to more or fewer things, according as the rule disposes. This St. Bonaventure explicitly affirms (Exposition on the Rule of the Friars Minor, c. 7): « Whence it is plain that they err who say that in all religious Orders obedience is equal »; at the same time he applies this to demonstrate to what extent the Friars Minor vow obedience, « since they can repel nothing imposed upon them by way of obedience, as transcending their rule, unless it tend to the detriment of their own soul ». This the expositors of the same rule commonly confirm (in c. 1 or 10), as the Four Masters, Hugh of Digne, Marchantius, Politius, Hilary of Paris, and many others; for which it can also be adduced that St. Thomas (Sum., loc. cit.) uses almost the same words as the aforesaid rule, so as to mark perfect obedience, in so far as it is distinguished from imperfect.
II. St. Thomas, locc. citt. — Bl. Albert, here a. 6, and Summa p. II, tr. 24, q. 141, m. 3, q. incid. 1. — Peter of Tarentaise, here q. 3, a. 2. — Richard of Mediavilla, here a. 3, q. 2. — Aegidius R., here q. 2, a. 3. — Henry of Ghent, Quodlibet 4, q. 35. — Durandus, here q. 4, and also (where many singular and improbable things) q. 3. — Dionysius the Carthusian, here q. 5.
---
- Vers. 2. seq., qui locus in Vulgata sic sonat: Super... Pharisaei. Omnia ergo quaecumque dixerint vobis, servate et facite.Verse 2 ff., which passage in the Vulgate runs thus: Upon... the Pharisees. All things therefore whatsoever they shall say to you, observe and do. [Matthew 23:2–3; the marker stands at Matthaei vigesimo tertio.]
- Luc. 10, 16. — In fine arg. non pauci codd. cum edd. … [the variant reading is not preserved in any available source — see Notes].Luke 10, 16. — At the end of the argument not a few codices, together with the editions, … [the cited variant cannot be recovered; the note overflows the column foot and its tail is absent from both the printed plate and the IA OCR]. [The marker stands at alibi (Qui vos audit me audit).]
- 1, 2 lectionem praelatis a Deo institutis perperam commutarunt in praelatus a Deo institutus; in Vat. et edd. 3, 4 legitur praelato a Deo instituto.[Editions] 1, 2 wrongly changed the reading praelatis a Deo institutis [to prelates appointed by God] into praelatus a Deo institutus [a prelate appointed by God]; in the Vatican and editions 3, 4 is read praelato a Deo instituto [to a prelate appointed by God]. [Keyed to the lemma praelatis a Deo institutis; no inline superscript in the print.]
- Vers. 20. A Vulgata abest vestris. — Paulo inferius pro patribus spiritualibus plurimi codd. et edd. 1, 2 praelatis spiritualibus, cod. ee parentibus spiritualibus.Verse 20. From the Vulgate vestris [your] is absent. — A little below, for patribus spiritualibus [spiritual fathers] very many codices and editions 1, 2 [read] praelatis spiritualibus [spiritual prelates], codex ee parentibus spiritualibus [spiritual parents]. [Colossians 3:20.]
- Cap. 68. — Vocula ei, quae habetur paulo inferius, deest in codd. F (T a secunda manu) bb; codd. K T (a prima manu) V W Z ee et edd. 1, 2 pro ei substituunt Deo.Chapter 68. — The little word ei [to him], which is found a little below, is absent in codices F (T by a second hand) bb; codices K T (by a first hand) V W Z ee and editions 1, 2 substitute Deo [to God] for ei. [Benedict, Rule c. 68.]
- Epist. 123, n. 13: Praepositum monasterii timens ut dominum, diligas ut parentem. Credas tibi salutare quidquid ille praeceperit; nec de maiorum sententia iudices, cuius officii est obedire et implere quae iussa sunt, dicente Moyse: Audi, Israel, et tace [Deut. 27, 9, iuxta Septuaginta interpretes; in Vulgata legitur: Attende et audi, Israel]. — Pro maiorum iudices Vat. et edd. 3, 4 maioris iudicet.Letter 123, n. 13: Fearing the prior of the monastery as a lord, love him as a parent. Believe whatever he commands to be salutary for you; and do not judge concerning the judgment of your superiors, whose office it is to obey and to fulfill what is commanded, Moses saying: Hear, O Israel, and be silent [Deut. 27, 9, according to the Septuagint translators; in the Vulgate is read: Attend and hear, O Israel]. — For maiorum iudices the Vatican and editions 3, 4 [read] maioris iudicet.
- Haec definitio habetur in libro, cui titulus: Tractatus de statu virtutum (inter opera Bernardi), p. II, n. 20: Est ergo obedientia virtus, qua homo, propria voluntate postposita, animo amplectitur iniuncta opere implenda, nisi obstiterit causa invincibilis, vel praelati auctoritas idem prohibens, quod iniunxerat. — De Hugone cfr. eius Expos. in Regul. S. Augustini.This definition is found in the book entitled Treatise on the State of the Virtues (among the works of Bernard), p. II, n. 20: Obedience therefore is a virtue by which a man, his own will set aside, embraces in mind the enjoined things as to be fulfilled in deed, unless an invincible cause stand in the way, or the authority of the prelate forbidding the same thing which it had enjoined. — Concerning Hugh, cf. his Exposition on the Rule of St. Augustine.
- Picta idem est ac pictura; vide Du Cange, Glossarium etc. Pro unam solam pictam (codd. W Y Lb picturam) Vat. et edd. 3, 4 substituerunt unum solum punctum.Picta is the same as pictura [a small coin]; see Du Cange, Glossary etc. For unam solam pictam (codices W Y Lb picturam) the Vatican and editions 3, 4 substituted unum solum punctum [a single point/jot].
- Vers. 29.Verse 29. [Acts 5:29.]
- Cap. 3, n. 11.Chapter 3, n. 11.
- Libr. de Praecepto et dispens. c. 6, n. 12: Nam perfecta obedientia legem nescit, terminis non arctatur.Book On Precept and Dispensation, c. 6, n. 12: For perfect obedience knows no law, it is not confined by limits.
- Philipp. 2, 8.Philippians 2, 8.
- Ut legitur in Regula Fratrum Minorum, c. 10.As is read in the Rule of the Friars Minor, c. 10.
- Scil. canonico I, XI, q. 3. Sententia sumta est ex Gregor., II. in Evang. homil. 26, n. 6: Sed utrum iuste, an iniuste obliget pastor, pastoris tamen sententia gregi timenda est, ne is qui subest, et cum iniuste forsitan ligatur, ipsam obligationis suae sententiam ex alia culpa mereatur. — Pro timenda est edd. 1, 2 cum paucis codd. tenenda est.Namely the canon I, XI, q. 3. The sentence is taken from Gregory, II on the Gospels, homily 26, n. 6: But whether the shepherd bind justly or unjustly, nonetheless the sentence of the shepherd is to be feared by the flock, lest he who is subject, even when perhaps he is bound unjustly, deserve the very sentence of his binding from another fault. — For timenda est [is to be feared] editions 1, 2 with a few codices [read] tenenda est [is to be held].
- Bernard., de Praecepto et dispens. c. 6, n. 12: Neque contenta [obedientia perfecta] angustiis professionis, largiori voluntate fertur in latitudinem caritatis.Bernard, On Precept and Dispensation, c. 6, n. 12: Nor [is perfect obedience] content with the straits of the profession, [but] is borne by a more generous will into the breadth of charity.
- In edd. et cod. cc desunt verba omnia quae sibi fuerint imperata, sed ad faciendum, et legitur ibi: non arctat se ad faciendum nisi ea quae in regula etc. Paulo inferius pro proprietatis cod. T primitus exhibebat (cum plurimis aliis codd.) perfectionis, quam lectionem falsam postea secunda manus emendavit in possessionis; cod. D pro proprietatis substituit perfectae abrenuntiationis, cod. O professionis, cod. W paupertatis.In the editions and codex cc the words omnia quae sibi fuerint imperata, sed ad faciendum [all things which may be commanded him, but to do] are lacking, and there is read: he does not bind himself to do anything except those things which [are] in the rule etc. A little below, for proprietatis [of property] codex T originally exhibited (with very many other codices) perfectionis [of perfection], which false reading a second hand afterward emended into possessionis [of possession]; codex D substituted for proprietatis perfectae abrenuntiationis [of perfect renunciation], codex O professionis [of profession], codex W paupertatis [of poverty].
- Cap. 1: Fratres nihil sibi approprient, nec domum nec locum nec aliquam rem, sed tanquam peregrini et advenae in hoc saeculo etc.Chapter 1: Let the brothers appropriate nothing to themselves, neither house nor place nor any thing, but as pilgrims and strangers in this world etc.
- Cap. 11.Chapter 11.
- Cap. 10.Chapter 10.
- Vat. et edd. 3, 4 his verbis annectunt quae infra habentur in fine dubiorum a verbis: Si cui autem aliter videtur et fortasse melius. Post quae verba addunt in huius quaestionis determinatione, aliaque aliquatenus mutant.The Vatican and editions 3, 4 to these words annex what is found below at the end of the doubts, from the words: But if to anyone it seems otherwise and perhaps better. After which words they add in the determination of this question, and change some other things somewhat.