Bonaventure

I. Haec quaestio magis prope attingit statum quaestionis, ut ipsa nunc intelligitur: attamen ab omnibus aliis antiquis magistris (quod sane mirum est) omittitur. Nam hi, exceptis Alexandro et B. Alberto alia quaedam tractantibus, duplicem tantum quaestionem instituunt, scilicet, utrum B. Virgo sanctificata fuerit ante animationem — vel post animationem, et quidem ita, ut ante et post intelligant de ordine temporis. Unde negligendo quaestionem hanc, quae est « de primo instanti suae conceptionis » (Decret. Pii IX.), viam sibi quasi praecludebant problema hoc recte solvendi. — In hac igitur quaestione S. Bonav. agit de altera explicatione huius mysterii, quam illa aetate quidam defensores piae sententiae in medium proferebant, et quae hic in corp. accurate explicatur et simul illustratur exemplo arcae cum urna manna impleta. Docebant igitur isti, quod « prius, saltem per naturam, sanctificata fuit anima B. Virginis quam carni unita ». Quodsi hoc prius intelligatur de ordine temporis, propositio est manifeste falsa et contra decretum Pianum. Nec etiam, si prius accipitur secundum ordinem naturae, conveniens est, ut bene observavit cl. Scheeben (Handb. der Kathol. Dogmatik, t. III. n. 1706), et quidem iam ob hanc rationem, quia liberatio B. Virginis a peccato originali, explicata similiter, ac, si quis sustentatur, ne ruat in peccatum actuale, non satis exprimit debitum saltem remotum incurrendi peccatum originale, quo debito B. Virgo obstricta erat. — Scotus autem (hic q. I. n. 15-18.) primus in hac re bene distinguit ordinem naturae et temporis; porro docet, quod anima B. Virginis in eodem quidem instanti temporis creata et corpori infusa et sanctificata fuit, tamen secundum ordinem naturae ipsa creatio animae praecedit infusionem eius in corpus, et haec gratiam vel culpam; unde ipsa B. Virgo prius natura fuit filia Adae quam iustificata. Ita Scot., cui consentit Suarez (in III. p. Summae t. II. disp. 3. sect. 4.). Quoad aliqua principia cfr. Bonav., II. Sent. d. 31. a. 2. q. I. in corp. ad opin. 2.

II. Patet igitur, S. Bonaventuram affirmativam sententiam sic explicatam recte potuisse improbare, quin protinus debuisset adhaerere secundae sententiae, quae statuit, quod B. Virgo post infusionem animae (scilicet secundum ordinem temporis), cito tamen, sanctificata fuerit. Nihilominus ipse sententiam tunc communem in hac et seq. quaestione (cfr. etiam infra d. 15. a. I. q. 3. ad I.) manifeste praefert; nec in Breviloquio (p. III. c. 7.) diversimode loquitur, nec hucusque constat, quod hanc opinionem postea revera retractaverit, quidquid in contrarium a nonnullis scriptum sit. Verum quidem est, quod respectu festi conceptionis B. M. Virginis postea, melius informatus, dubitationem suam anteriorem (cfr. supra q. I. ad I.) deposuit, cum in Capitulo generali Pisis 1263 congregato illud in toto Ordine celebrandum esse statuerit. Sed illo aetate obiectum huius festi (omissa etiam voce immaculata) a doctoribus et ab ipso S. Bonav. potius trahebatur ad sanctificationem posteriorem quam ad conceptionem (vide supra q. I. ad I, et Henricum Gand., Quodl. 15. q. 13, diffuse de hoc disputantem). Hinc etiam S. Thom. (S. III. q. 27. a. 2. ad 3.) dicit: « Nec tamen per hoc quod festum conceptionis celebratur, datur intelligi, quod in sua conceptione fuerit sancta » etc. — Verum est etiam, S. Bonaventuram (IV. Sent. d. 30. q. 2. ad I.) dicere, quod « Virgo sanctissima non erat sub Lege; nam quomodo sub Lege erat, quae Legis auctorem genuit »? Sed remanet valde dubium, utrum auctor principium hoc praeclarum, quod ad Legem Mosaicam applicat, etiam ad propositum casum, valde differentem applicaverit. — Alii loci in favorem piae sententiae ipsi attributi sumti sunt ex libris vel spuriis, v. g. ex Speculo B. M. Virginis, vel saltem dubiis. Nec ipse Sermo 2. de B. M. Virgine, cuius insigne testimonium vulgo citatur, est certo genuinus, immo iam curatores Vaticanae editionis ad marginem inter alia scripserunt: « Sermonem hunc B. Bonaventurae non esse, omnino fatendum est ». Sed de his scriptis suo loco, Deo dante, disquisitio instituetur.

III. Nihilominus S. Bonav. in hac et seq. quaestione ita de praerogativis et puritate B. Virginis loquitur, ut omnia principia, quibus hoc mysterium innititur, mire exaltet; immo dicendum, quod Scoto quasi viam aperuit luculenta sua expositione argumentorum, quae sunt in favorem verae sententiae. Haec argumenta Scotus recepit et in aliquibus corroboravit, adhibita etiam necessaria distinctione inter ordinem temporis et naturae, quem usum notae distinctionis procul dubio etiam S. Bonaventura approbasset, si in hac materia tunc adhibito fuisset. — In hoc etiam accedit proxime ad Scotum, quod veram sententiam, licet male explicatam, non dixerit esse improbabilem, sed potius contrarium insinuat. Ipse autem Scot., saltem in suis Commentariis ad Magistrum, veram sententiam tantum conditionate proclamat esse probabilem, cum (loc. cit. n. 10.) sic concludat: « Quid autem horum trium, quae ostensa sunt esse possibilia, factum sit, Deus novit. Si auctoritati Ecclesiae, vel auctoritati Scripturae non repugnet, videtur probabile quod excellentius est attribuere Mariae ». Ex hoc loco licet arguere, quod tempore, quo Scotus haec scripsit, vera sententia etiam in Ordine Minorum nondum publice praedicabatur. Sed postea Aureolum aliosque plurimos auctores Ordinis Minorum fortiter defendisse privilegium B. Mariae Virginis, est notissimum. — Quoad praecedentes vero auctores dicendum, quod sublato inani timore, in quo versabantur, scilicet « ne auctoritas Ecclesiae, vel auctoritas Scripturae repugnaret », atque explicato vero sensu huius mysterii, piam sententiam egregii hi doctores libentissime accepissent. Nam ipsa principia, quae quoad plenitudinem gratiae atque singularissimam puritatem B. Virginis profitebantur, intellectum quasi sponte ad piam sententiam attrahebant; insuper ferventissima eorum devotio erga Dei Genitricem quasi vim patiebatur, dum maculam quaedam actualiter eidem

imponebatur, atque horrebat fateri, diaboli servam aliquo momento fuisse Domini Matrem.

IV. Inter auctores, quos citare solemus, soli Dionys. Carth. et Biel (uterque est auctor saec. 15.) firmiter tenent veram sententiam. Dionys. autem monet (hic q. I. in fine): « Quidquid in hac re sentiendum, non disputationibus contentiosis, sed determinatione Ecclesiae catholicae, cui obedire tenemur, est inquirendum. Quae in novissimo Concilio universali [scilicet Basileensi, a. 1439, cuius tamen decreto deest auctoritas Concilii generalis] finem, ut dixi, his dissensionibus imposuit, et dignissimam Dei Matrem in sua conceptione ab omni originali labe per praevenientem gratiam, a summo capite Christo ortum habentem, praeservatam, atque ideo festum de ea sub nomine conceptionis, et non sanctificationis esse celebrandum determinavit, sicut et hodie celebrat. Ita etiam Ordo noster Carthusianus observare videtur » etc. Mirabili igitur et adoranda Dei omnia suaviter disponentis providentia factum est, ut almum hoc mysterium quasi quadam germinis evolutione sensim gradatimque in Ecclesia effloresceret; ut prius per saecula quasi per ignem gravissimarum oppositionum probaretur et illustraretur; ut denique non tam disputationibus scholarum quam pio devotorum fidelium cultu usuque nec non magisterii ecclesiastici favore, semper evidentius manifestato, perfecta filiorum Ecclesiae concordia in celebranda hac B. Virginis praerogativa tempore praeordinato suaviter perficeretur. Quo divino consilio supposito, non est mirandum, quod anteactis saeculis, nondum discussa quadam caligine, etiam illuminatissimi et devotissimi cultores B. Virginis Mariae de hoc mysterio insufficienter locuti sint.

V. Sequens (3.) quaestio secundum praedicta intelligenda est. De ea tractant praeter laudatos in scholio ad I. q.: Alex. Hal., S. III. q. 9. m. 2. a. 4. — S. Thom., hic q. I. a. I. quaestiunc. 3.; S. III. q. 27. a. I. — B. Albert., hic a. 5. — Petr. a Tar., hic q. I. a. I. quaestiunc. 2. — Richard. a Med., hic a. 1. q. 2. — Ægid. R., hic q. I. a. 2.

---

I. This question more closely touches the state of the question, as it is now understood: yet by all the other ancient masters (which is indeed surprising) it is omitted. For these, except for Alexander and Blessed Albert who treat certain other matters, institute only a twofold question, namely, whether the Blessed Virgin was sanctified before animation — or after animation, and indeed in such a way that they understand before and after of the order of time. Hence by neglecting this question, which is « about the first instant of her conception » (Decree of Pius IX), they as it were precluded for themselves the way of rightly solving this problem. — In this question, therefore, St. Bonaventure treats of the other explanation of this mystery, which at that age certain defenders of the pious opinion were putting forward, and which here in the body is accurately explained and at the same time illustrated by the example of the ark with the urn filled with manna. These taught, therefore, that « first, at least by nature, the soul of the Blessed Virgin was sanctified before being united to the flesh ». But if this first be understood of the order of time, the proposition is manifestly false and against the Pian decree. Nor even, if first be taken according to the order of nature, is it suitable, as the distinguished Scheeben well observed (Handb. der Kathol. Dogmatik, vol. III, n. 1706), and indeed for this very reason, because the liberation of the Blessed Virgin from original sin, explained in the same way as if someone is sustained lest he fall into actual sin, does not sufficiently express the at least remote debt of incurring original sin, by which debt the Blessed Virgin was bound. — But Scotus (here q. I, n. 15-18) was the first in this matter to distinguish well the order of nature and of time; furthermore he teaches that the soul of the Blessed Virgin was indeed in the same instant of time created and infused into the body and sanctified, yet according to the order of nature the very creation of the soul precedes its infusion into the body, and this [precedes] grace or fault; whence the Blessed Virgin herself was by nature prior the daughter of Adam than justified. So Scotus, with whom Suarez agrees (in III. p. of the Summa, vol. II, disp. 3, sect. 4). As to certain principles cf. Bonaventure, II Sent., d. 31, a. 2, q. I, in the body, ad opinion 2.

II. It is clear therefore that St. Bonaventure could rightly reject the affirmative opinion thus explained, without forthwith having to adhere to the second opinion, which holds that the Blessed Virgin was sanctified after the infusion of the soul (namely according to the order of time), yet quickly. Nonetheless he manifestly prefers the then-common opinion in this and the following question (cf. also below d. 15, a. I, q. 3, ad I); nor does he speak differently in the Breviloquium (p. III, c. 7), nor has it hitherto been established that he afterward really retracted this opinion, whatever has been written to the contrary by some. It is indeed true that, with respect to the feast of the conception of the Blessed Virgin Mary, afterward, better informed, he set aside his earlier hesitation (cf. above q. I, ad I), when in the general Chapter assembled at Pisa in 1263 he decreed that it should be celebrated in the whole Order. But at that age the object of this feast (even with the word immaculate omitted) was by the doctors and by St. Bonaventure himself drawn rather to posterior sanctification than to conception (see above q. I, ad I, and Henry of Ghent, Quodl. 15, q. 13, disputing on this at length). Hence also St. Thomas (S. III, q. 27, a. 2, ad 3) says: « Yet it is not given to be understood, by the fact that the feast of the conception is celebrated, that in her conception she was holy » etc. — It is also true that St. Bonaventure (IV Sent., d. 30, q. 2, ad I) says that « the most holy Virgin was not under the Law; for how was she under the Law, who bore the author of the Law »? But it remains very doubtful whether the author applied this excellent principle, which he applies to the Mosaic Law, also to the case at hand, which is very different. — Other passages attributed to him in favor of the pious opinion have been taken from books either spurious, e.g. from the Mirror of the Blessed Virgin Mary, or at least doubtful. Nor is the Sermon 2 on the Blessed Virgin Mary itself, whose notable testimony is commonly cited, certainly genuine; indeed the curators of the Vatican edition have already written in the margin among other things: « That this Sermon is not Blessed Bonaventure's, it must be wholly admitted ». But concerning these writings, in its proper place, God granting, an inquiry will be instituted.

III. Nonetheless St. Bonaventure in this and the following question so speaks of the prerogatives and purity of the Blessed Virgin that he wondrously exalts all the principles on which this mystery rests; indeed it must be said that he as it were opened the way for Scotus by his lucid exposition of the arguments which are in favor of the true opinion. These arguments Scotus received and in some respects corroborated, employing also the necessary distinction between the order of time and of nature, which use of the noted distinction St. Bonaventure too would without doubt have approved, if it had then been employed in this matter. — In this also he comes closest to Scotus, that he did not say the true opinion, although ill explained, to be improbable, but rather insinuates the contrary. But Scotus himself, at least in his Commentaries on the Master, proclaims the true opinion to be only conditionally probable, since (loc. cit., n. 10) he thus concludes: « But which of these three things, which have been shown to be possible, was done, God knows. If it does not contradict the authority of the Church, or the authority of Scripture, it seems probable that what is more excellent is to be attributed to Mary ». From this passage one may argue that at the time when Scotus wrote these things, the true opinion was not yet publicly preached even in the Order of Minors. But that afterward Aureolus and very many other authors of the Order of Minors strongly defended the privilege of the Blessed Virgin Mary, is most well known. — As to the preceding authors it must be said that, with the empty fear removed in which they were [held], namely « lest the authority of the Church, or the authority of Scripture should contradict », and with the true sense of this mystery explained, these excellent doctors would most gladly have accepted the pious opinion. For the very principles which they professed concerning the fullness of grace and the most singular purity of the Blessed Virgin were as it were spontaneously drawing the intellect to the pious opinion; moreover their most fervent devotion toward the Mother of God was as it were suffering violence, while a certain stain was actually being

imposed upon her, and it shuddered to admit that the Mother of the Lord had at any moment been a slave of the devil.

IV. Among the authors whom we are accustomed to cite, only Dionysius the Carthusian and Biel (each is an author of the 15th century) firmly hold the true opinion. But Dionysius admonishes (here q. I, at the end): « Whatever is to be held in this matter, is to be inquired not by contentious disputations, but by the determination of the Catholic Church, which we are bound to obey. Which [Church] in the most recent universal Council [namely that of Basel, a. 1439, whose decree, however, lacks the authority of a general Council] put an end, as I said, to these dissensions, and determined that the most worthy Mother of God was, in her conception, preserved from all original stain by anticipating grace, having its origin from the highest head Christ, and therefore that the feast of her should be celebrated under the name of conception, and not of sanctification, just as it celebrates today. So too our Carthusian Order seems to observe » etc. By the wondrous and adorable providence of God, who orders all things sweetly, it has come to pass that this nourishing mystery should as it were by a certain unfolding of the seed gradually and step by step blossom forth in the Church; that first through the ages it should be tested and illustrated as it were by the fire of the gravest oppositions; that finally not so much by the disputations of the schools as by the pious worship and practice of the devoted faithful, and also by the favor of the ecclesiastical magisterium, ever more evidently manifested, the perfect concord of the children of the Church in celebrating this prerogative of the Blessed Virgin should be sweetly perfected at the preordained time. Which divine plan being supposed, it is not to be wondered at that in past ages, with a certain darkness not yet dispelled, even the most enlightened and most devout worshippers of the Blessed Virgin Mary spoke insufficiently concerning this mystery.

V. The following (3rd) question is to be understood according to the foregoing. Of it treat, besides those praised in the scholion to q. I: Alex. Hal., S. III, q. 9, m. 2, a. 4. — St. Thom., here q. I, a. I, quaestiunc. 3; S. III, q. 27, a. I. — B. Albert, here a. 5. — Petr. a Tar., here q. I, a. I, quaestiunc. 2. — Richard a Med., here a. 1, q. 2. — Ægid. R., here q. I, a. 2.

---