Bonaventure — Opera Omnia

Dist. 13, Dubia

Book IV: On the Sacraments · Distinction 13

Textus Latinus

p. 311

DUBIA CIRCA LITTERAM MAGISTRI.

Dub. I

In parte ista sunt dubitationes circa litteram, et primo de hoc quod dicit Augustinus: Nihil a bono maius, nihil a malo minus perficitur sacerdote. Videtur enim ex hoc, quod malus sacerdos aequaliter perficiat ea quae spectant ad Missam, ut bonus; et ita videtur, quod sicut bonus sacerdos non peccat, ita nec malus.

Quaeritur ergo de sacerdote, qui scienter malus est et tenetur conficere, propter hoc quod habet parochiam: quid debet facere? Si dimittit, peccat;

p. 312

Missa, vel mortale peccatum, de quo non fuit contritus; in tali statu potest occurrere, quod si habet sacerdotis copiam, debet confiteri, si habet aptitudinem horae, utpote ante canonis inchoationem. Si non habet, dixerunt aliqui, quod si adest populus, sufficit contritio cum proposito confitendi, quia scandalizaret populum, si dimitteret; si autem non timeret scandalum, consulunt dimittere, maxime cum nihil cogat. — Verumtamen credendum est, quod sine peccato potest quod inchoatum est perficere; si propositum confitendi habet cum contritione¹, totum suppletur; nec video ibi contemptum.

Si autem tenetur cantare et non habet copiam sacerdotis; dico, quod tenetur se praeparare per contritionem et propositum confitendi; et ita sufficit ad hoc, quod non peccet, si accedat cum verecundia et reverentia. — Si autem non se praeparet, et cantat; dico, quod peccat peccato omissionis cum omittit conteri; alio etiam peccato, si est occultus simoniacus²; si manifestus, dico, quod scandalizat; si autem prohibitus ab Ecclesia, peccat omnibus his modis et peccato transgressionis. — Sed intelligendum est semper, quod unum est peccatum, et reliqua omnia sunt sicut annexa sive circumstantiae aggravantes, sicut si aliquis occidat homines propter lucrum.

Sed quid dicemus de eo cui accidit remorsus de irregularitate? Tunc ibi non est remedium contritionis nec etiam confessionis.

Ad hoc respondent aliqui, quod cum irregulari sit prohibitum conficere hoc Sacramentum, et eum irregularitas non deleatur per contritionem, sed solum per dispensationem, quod quantumcumque adsit populus, et scandalum timeatur — cum « non sit faciendum contra veritatem vitae propter scandalum³ » et contra praeceptum — quod tenetur aut deponere conscientiam irregularitatis, aut dimittere Missam; et hoc, dico, ante consecrationem, et maxime ante inchoationem canonis. — Aliqui dicunt, quod prohibitio propter irregularitatem ad ipsum non se extendit, maxime cum accessit sine conscientia irregularitatis. Unde propter reverentiam Sacramenti et scandalum populi dicunt, quodsi dolet et libenter faceret quod in se esset⁴, dicunt, a Domino esse dispensatum ut tunc.

Si vero quaeritur de illo qui inciperet⁵ habere conscientiam, quod non esset sacerdos; hic dicendum dupliciter: quod aut debet dimittere Missam ante consecrationem, aut conscientiam; et debet fingere infirmitatem. — Ideo sanum consilium est, quod homo se ante diligenter praeparet et in Missa non cogitet de se, sed magis de Sacramento.

Dub. II

Item super hoc quod dicit: Nec bonorum dispensatorum meritis ampliatur, quaeritur: quis magis peccat, utrum scilicet sacerdos malus, qui conficit et non sumit, an ille qui utrumque facit? Et videtur, quod ille magis, qui utrumque facit, quia plus praesumit, et maior est irreverentia. — Item, quaeritur, quis plus peccet, utrum ille qui propter timorem et reverentiam nihil audet facere, an ille qui conficit. Et videtur, quod magis ille qui conficit, quia facit maiorem contumeliam Sacramento, alter reverentiam. — Similiter quaeritur de illo qui tantum sumit corpus et non sanguinem.

Respondeo: Dicendum, quod gravius peccat ille qui simulat se facere, quam ille qui conficit et non sumit; et gravius ille qui conficit et non sumit, quam ille qui conficit et sumit; et gravius ille qui conficit et sumit partem, quam ille qui conficit et sumit totum⁶.

Et ratio huius est, quia irreverentia potest fieri Sacramento uno modo, quia ille qui ministrat, est indignus, nihilominus tamen facit, sicut Ecclesia instituit; alio modo, quia non solum est indignus, sed etiam in ipsa celebratione non servat ritum, quem debet; et tunc non solum exhibet irreverentiam, sed etiam facit contumeliam, quia Sacramentum non perficit, sed dimittit incompletum. Et ideo ordinatum est, ut nullus se simulet celebrare, in decretali de Missarum celebratione, libro tertio⁷ De homine, et infra: « Licet is qui pro sui criminis conscientia reputat se indignum, peccet graviter, si se ingerat irreverenter ad illud; gravius tamen videtur offendere qui fraudulenter illud praesumserit simulare, cum ille in solius Dei misericordis manum incidat, iste vero non solum Deo, cui non veretur illudere, sed populo, quem decipit, se astringat ». Ordinatum etiam est, ut qui conficit communicet, de Consecratione, distinctione secunda⁸, ex Concilio Toletano: « Certum est, quod hi qui sacrificantes non edunt, rei sunt dominici

p. 313

Sacramenti et ab ipsa qua se indecenter privaverunt gratia communionis uno anno se repulsos noverint ». Ordinatum est etiam, ut sanguinem sumant; unde de Consecratione, distinctione secunda⁸, Gelasius Papa: « Aut integra Sacramenta percipiant, aut ab integris arceantur, quia divisio unius et eiusdem mysterii sine grandi non potest sacrilegio provenire ».

Dub. III

Item quaeritur de hoc quod dicit Augustinus: Recolite nomen et veritatem advertite. Missa enim dicitur etc.: quare scilicet Missa sic nominatur; et si in omni sacrificio mittitur hostia? — Item quaeritur: quare non dicitur: Ite, Missa est, in qualibet Missa? — Item, quaeritur de hoc quod dicit, quod caelestis missus adveniat ad consecrandum corpus. Ex hoc enim Augustini verbo videtur, quod Angelus consecret corpus Domini et conficiat. — Contra hoc est, quod actio ista est omnino supra naturam angelicam.

Respondeo: Dicendum, quod, sicut tangitur in littera⁹, Missa dicitur, quia mittitur caelestis missus. Caelestis iste missus, sicut exponit Innocentius, est magni consilii Angelus. Iste, inquam, mittitur ad consecrandum, quia iste est sacerdos invisibilis, qui consecrat et conficit hoc Sacramentum, ubicumque conficiatur¹⁰. — Unde non valet illa ratio in contrarium, qua obiicit de angelico ministerio; non tantum enim est haec missio, sed etiam est missio sacrificii ad Deum per summum Angelum, scilicet Christum, assistentibus magnis Angelis. Propter quod in fine dicitur: Ite, Missa est; et propter hoc Missa recte appellatur. Unde Hugo¹¹: « Ipsa hostia sacra Missa vocari potest, quia transmissa est primum, scilicet a Patre, ut esset nobiscum; postea a nobis Patri, ut apud Patrem pro nobis intercederet: primum a Patre nobis per incarnationem; secundum a nobis Patri per passionem. Similiter in Sacramento primum a Patre nobis per sanctificationem, qua nobiscum esse incipit; postea a nobis Patri per oblationem, qua pro nobis intercedit ».

Sed tunc est quaestio: quare non dicitur in fine cuiuslibet Missae: Ite, Missa est? Respondeo: Dicendum, quod etsi quaelibet Missa totum corpus Christi mysticum respiciat, sicut patet per triplicem hostiae partitionem¹²; tamen secundum istam differentiam triplicem contingit Missas tripliciter appropriari. Quaedam enim celebrantur specialiter ad honorem Sanctorum; et quia ipsi sunt in tuto iam et sunt coram Deo, ideo in talibus licentiatur populus et dicitur: Ite, Missa est, quasi: festinate ingredi in illam requiem¹³. — Quaedam specialiter ad salutem vivorum; et quia non sumus certi de salute nostra, ideo debemus continue solliciti esse, ne per nostram ignaviam in nobis Missae efficacia evanescat. Ideo dicitur in Missa in fine omni tempore: Benedicamus Domino, secundum illud Prophetae¹⁴: Benedicam Dominum in omni tempore. — Quaedam specialiter ad requiem defunctorum, et in illis dicitur: Requiescant in pace.

Dub. IV

Item super hoc quod dicit Magister: Ne autem ignores, quid faciat haereticum, quaeritur, unde dicatur et pro quanto dicatur haereticus. Si enim dicas, quod haereticus dicitur, quia errat; hoc est contra Augustinum, qui dicit primo de Trinitate¹⁵: Errare potero, sed haereticus esse non potero. Si tu dicas, quod haereticus dicitur, quia divisus a communione fidelium; ergo excommunicatus et schismaticus dici debet haereticus. — Quaeritur ergo, pro quanto quis dicatur haereticus; et in quo differant haeresis, secta et superstitio.

Respondeo: Sicut dicit Isidorus in libro Etymologiarum¹⁶: « Haereticus dicitur ab haeresis Graece, quod est electio Latine »; et quamvis electio sit bonis malisque communis, tamen haereticus ipse non ex dono Dei, sed ex propria auctoritate et ex proprio sensu accipit aliquam sententiam falsam. Nam « omne verum a Spiritu sancto est, a quocumque dicatur¹⁷ ». Hanc autem non dicitur eligere, quandocumque opinatur aliquod falsum, sed quando falsum praeoptat et pertinaciter credit et paratus est defendere, sive ipse finxerit, sive alius. Unde talis definitio potest dari: haereticus est qui divinae legis ignorantia vel contemptu, pertinax inventor proprii erroris, aut alieni sectator, catholicae

p. 314

veritati mavult adversari quam subiici. Et haec ratio concordat rationi et dicto Augustini. Unde Augustinus, Causa vigesima quarta, quaestione tertia¹⁸: « Qui sententiam suam, quamvis perversam, nulla pertinaci animositate defendunt, corrigi parati, nequaquam sunt inter haereticos computandi ».

Et differt haeresis a schismate, quia haec est contra fidem, schisma contra mores vel vinculum caritatis¹⁹. — Sententia autem contra fidem ratione adinventionis dici potest superstitio, id est superflua institutio; ratione adhaesionis haeresis; ratione defensionis secta, loquendo per appropriata. — Vel haeresis, quia contra veritatem; secta, quia contra communitatem; superstitio, quia contra utilitatem, quasi superflua institutio. — Vel haeresis ab eligendo, secta a sequendo, superstitio a superstando²⁰. Unde haeresis dicit praesumtuosam et deliberatam falsi adinventionem, secta superaddit imitationem, superstitio diuturnitatis inveterationem. Sicut senes superstites delirant, sic et haeretici; ideo dicitur superstitio, quia vetustati et superstiti concordat. Prius autem superstitio dicitur quasi a superstando; nam sicut in fide intellectus captivatur, ita in errore inflatur et elevatur.

English Translation

DOUBTS CONCERNING THE TEXT OF THE MASTER.

Doubt I

In this section there are doubts concerning the text, and first about this, that Augustine says: Nothing greater is accomplished by a good priest, nothing less by a bad one. For it seems from this that a bad priest accomplishes equally the things that pertain to the Mass, as a good one; and so it seems that, just as a good priest does not sin, so neither does a bad one.

It is asked therefore about a priest who is knowingly bad and is bound to consecrate, because he has a parish: what ought he to do? If he leaves off, he sins;

[and there has occurred to him a mortal sin, of which he was not contrite;] in such a state it can happen that, if he has the supply of [another] priest, he ought to confess, if he has the suitableness of the hour, namely before the beginning of the canon. If he does not have it, some have said that, if the people are present, contrition with the resolve of confessing suffices, because he would scandalize the people if he left off; but if he did not fear scandal, they counsel leaving off, especially when nothing compels. — Yet it must be believed that without sin he can complete what has been begun; if he has the resolve of confessing with contrition¹, all is supplied; nor do I see contempt there.

But if he is bound to chant and does not have the supply of [another] priest; I say that he is bound to prepare himself through contrition and the resolve of confessing; and so it suffices for this, that he not sin, if he approach with shame and reverence. — But if he does not prepare himself, and chants; I say that he sins by the sin of omission when he omits to be contrite; also by another sin, if he is a hidden simoniac²; if a manifest one, I say that he scandalizes; but if one forbidden by the Church, he sins in all these ways and by the sin of transgression. — But it must always be understood that there is one sin, and all the rest are as it were attached, or aggravating circumstances, as if someone were to kill men for gain.

But what shall we say of him to whom there occurs a remorse concerning irregularity? Then there is there no remedy of contrition nor even of confession.

To this some respond that, since it is forbidden to an irregular man to consecrate this Sacrament, and the irregularity is not blotted out by contrition, but only by dispensation, then however much the people be present and scandal be feared — since « one must not act against the truth of life on account of scandal³ » and against the precept — he is bound either to lay aside the consciousness of irregularity, or to leave off the Mass; and this, I say, before the consecration, and especially before the beginning of the canon. — Some say that the prohibition on account of irregularity does not extend to him, especially since he approached without consciousness of irregularity. Hence on account of the reverence of the Sacrament and the scandal of the people they say that, if he grieves and would gladly do what was in him⁴, they say that it has been dispensed by the Lord for then.

But if it be asked about him who should begin⁵ to have a consciousness that he is not a priest; here it must be said in two ways: that he ought either to leave off the Mass before the consecration, or [to lay aside] the consciousness; and he ought to feign infirmity. — Therefore the sound counsel is that a man prepare himself diligently beforehand and in the Mass not think about himself, but rather about the Sacrament.

Doubt II

Likewise, about this, that he says: Nor is it enlarged by the merits of good dispensers, it is asked: who sins more, namely whether the bad priest who consecrates and does not receive, or he who does both? And it seems that he sins more who does both, because he presumes more, and the irreverence is greater. — Likewise, it is asked, who sins more, whether he who out of fear and reverence dares to do nothing, or he who consecrates. And it seems that he sins more who consecrates, because he does a greater contumely to the Sacrament, the other [shows] reverence. — Likewise it is asked about him who receives only the body and not the blood.

I respond: It must be said that he sins more gravely who pretends to act, than he who consecrates and does not receive; and he more gravely who consecrates and does not receive, than he who consecrates and receives; and he more gravely who consecrates and receives a part, than he who consecrates and receives the whole⁶.

And the reason for this is that irreverence can be done to the Sacrament in one way, because he who ministers is unworthy, yet nonetheless does as the Church instituted; in another way, because he is not only unworthy, but also in the very celebration does not keep the rite which he ought; and then he not only exhibits irreverence, but also does contumely, because he does not complete the Sacrament, but leaves it incomplete. And therefore it has been ordained that no one pretend to celebrate, in the decretal On the Celebration of Masses, book the third⁷ De homine, and below: « Although he who, out of consciousness of his own crime, reckons himself unworthy, sins gravely if he thrust himself irreverently to it; yet he seems to offend more gravely who has fraudulently presumed to pretend it, since the former falls into the hand of God alone the merciful, but the latter binds himself not only to God, whom he does not fear to mock, but to the people, whom he deceives ». It has also been ordained that he who consecrates should communicate, On the Consecration, distinction the second⁸, from the Council of Toledo: « It is certain that those who, sacrificing, do not eat, are guilty of the Lord's

p. 313

Sacrament, and let them know that for one year they have been driven back from that communion of which they have indecently deprived themselves ». It has also been ordained that they should receive the blood; whence On the Consecration, distinction the second⁸, Pope Gelasius: « Either let them receive the whole Sacraments, or let them be barred from the whole, because the division of one and the same mystery cannot come about without great sacrilege ».

Doubt III

Likewise it is asked about this, that Augustine says: Recall the name and attend to the truth. For it is called Mass etc.: namely why the Mass is so named; and whether in every sacrifice a victim is sent? — Likewise it is asked: why is it not said, Ite, Missa est [Go, it is the dismissal], in every Mass? — Likewise, it is asked about this, that he says that a heavenly messenger comes to consecrate the body. For from this word of Augustine it seems that an Angel consecrates the body of the Lord and confects it. — Against this is that this action is altogether above the angelic nature.

I respond: It must be said that, as is touched on in the text⁹, it is called Missa because a heavenly messenger is sent (mittitur). This heavenly messenger, as Innocent expounds, is the Angel of great counsel. He, I say, is sent to consecrate, because he is the invisible priest who consecrates and confects this Sacrament, wherever it be confected¹⁰. — Hence that reasoning to the contrary is invalid, by which he objects from the angelic ministry; for this sending is not only this, but is also a sending of the sacrifice to God through the highest Angel, namely Christ, the great Angels assisting. On account of which at the end it is said: Ite, Missa est; and on account of this it is rightly called Missa. Hence Hugh¹¹: « The sacred victim itself can be called Missa [the sent], because it was first sent, namely from the Father, that it might be with us; afterwards by us to the Father, that it might intercede for us with the Father: first from the Father to us through the incarnation; second by us to the Father through the passion. Likewise in the Sacrament: first from the Father to us through sanctification, by which it begins to be with us; afterwards by us to the Father through oblation, by which it intercedes for us ».

But then there is the question: why is it not said at the end of every Mass: Ite, Missa est? I respond: It must be said that, although every Mass regards the whole mystical body of Christ, as is clear through the threefold partition of the host¹²; yet according to that threefold difference it happens that Masses are appropriated in three ways. For some are celebrated specially for the honor of the Saints; and because they are already in safety and are before God, therefore in such [Masses] the people are dismissed and it is said: Ite, Missa est, as if: hasten to enter into that rest¹³. — Some specially for the salvation of the living; and because we are not certain of our salvation, therefore we ought continually to be solicitous, lest through our sloth the efficacy of the Mass vanish in us. Therefore it is said in the Mass at the end at all times: Benedicamus Domino [Let us bless the Lord], according to that of the Prophet¹⁴: I will bless the Lord at all times. — Some specially for the rest of the dead, and in those it is said: Requiescant in pace [May they rest in peace].

Doubt IV

Likewise, about this, that the Master says: But that you may not be ignorant of what makes a heretic, it is asked whence one is called and for what reason one is called heretic. For if you say that one is called heretic because he errs; this is against Augustine, who says in the first book On the Trinity¹⁵: I shall be able to err, but I shall not be able to be a heretic. If you say that one is called heretic because he is divided from the communion of the faithful; then the excommunicate and the schismatic ought to be called heretic. — It is asked therefore for what reason one is called heretic; and in what heresy, sect, and superstition differ.

I respond: As Isidore says in the book of Etymologies¹⁶: « Heretic is so called from the Greek haeresis, which is election in Latin »; and although election is common to the good and the bad, yet the heretic himself receives some false opinion not from the gift of God, but from his own authority and from his own sense. For « every truth is from the Holy Spirit, by whomever it be said¹⁷ ». But he is not said to choose this whenever he opines something false, but when he prefers the false and pertinaciously believes it and is ready to defend it, whether he himself devised it or another. Hence such a definition can be given: a heretic is one who, by ignorance or contempt of the divine law, a pertinacious inventor of his own error, or a follower of another's, prefers to oppose the catholic

p. 314

truth rather than to be subject to it. And this account agrees with the reasoning and saying of Augustine. Hence Augustine, Cause the twenty-fourth, question the third¹⁸: « Those who defend their opinion, however perverse, with no pertinacious animosity, being ready to be corrected, are by no means to be counted among heretics ».

And heresy differs from schism, because the former is against the faith, schism against morals or the bond of charity¹⁹. — Now an opinion against the faith can, by reason of its devising, be called superstition, that is, superfluous institution; by reason of adherence heresy; by reason of defense sect, speaking by appropriation. — Or heresy, because against the truth; sect, because against the community; superstition, because against utility, as a superfluous institution. — Or heresy from choosing, sect from following, superstition from standing-over²⁰. Hence heresy denotes the presumptuous and deliberate devising of the false, sect superadds imitation, superstition the inveteracy of long duration. Just as old men outliving [their time] grow delirious, so also heretics; therefore it is called superstition, because it agrees with the aged and the survivor. But superstition is first so called as it were from standing-over; for just as in faith the intellect is taken captive, so in error it is puffed up and exalted.

Apparatus Criticus

1
Plures codd. addunt et ante cum, edd. et si cod. U habet et contritionem, post suppletur addito per hoc; quae lectiones propositionem conditionalem coniungunt cum praecedente.
Several codices add et before cum, the editions et si; codex U has et contritionem, with per hoc ("by this") added after suppletur; which readings join the conditional clause with the preceding.
2
Ex codd. F G supplevimus simoniacus, cum lectio edd. manifeste sit incompleta.
From codices F, G we have supplied simoniacus ("simoniac"), since the reading of the editions is manifestly incomplete.
3
Cfr. infra d. 17. p. III. a. 2. q. 3.
Cf. below, d. 17, p. III, a. 2, q. 3.
4
Vide supra pag. 86, nota 6. in fine.
See above, p. 86, note 6, at the end.
5
Edd. solet, quae subinde post secundum aut perperam prosequuntur, debet conscientiae fingere infirmitatem. Circa finem solut. pro se ante non pauci codd. tantum, cod. X se ante Missam tantum; post praeparet cod. II ut et in Missa.
The editions read solet, which thereupon after secundum wrongly continue, debet conscientiae fingere infirmitatem ("he ought to feign infirmity to his conscience"). Near the end of the solution, for se ante not a few codices read tantum, codex X se ante Missam tantum; after praeparet codex II ut et in Missa.
6
Ultimum membrum et gravius ille usque totum desideratur in edd.
The last member, et gravius ille down to totum, is wanting in the editions.
7
Tit. 41. c. 7. Decretum est Innocentii III. Cfr. tom. III. pag. 211, nota 8.
Title 41, c. 7. The decree is of Innocent III. Cf. vol. III, p. 211, note 8.
8
Can. Relatum est nobis, quosdam (11.), qui est Concilii Toletani XII. (an. 681). Textus originalis (quem Vat. et ed. I sequuntur) post dominici Sacramenti prosequitur: Quicumque ergo sacerdotum deinceps divino altario sacrificium oblaturus accesserit et se a communione suspenderit, ab ipsa qua se indecenter privavit gratia communionis anno uno repulsum se noverit. — Et infra: Can. Comperimus autem (12.), in cuius fine plurimi codd. cum edd., textu originali contradicente, ministerii pro mysterii.
Canon Relatum est nobis, quosdam (11.), which is of the Twelfth Council of Toledo (a. 681). The original text (which the Vatican edition and ed. I follow) continues after dominici Sacramenti: Whoever therefore of the priests shall hereafter approach the divine altar to offer sacrifice and shall suspend himself from the communion, let him know himself driven back for one year from that very grace of communion of which he indecently deprived himself. — And below: Canon Comperimus autem (12.), at the end of which very many codices with the editions, against the original text, read ministerii ("of ministry") for mysterii ("of mystery").
9
Hic c. 1. — De expositione Innocentii cfr. supra pag. 253, nota 3.
Here, c. 1. — On the exposition of Innocent, cf. above, p. 253, note 3.
10
Vide supra lit. Magistri, d. X, c. 2, verba Eusebii, et Comment. p. II. a. I. q. 3. — Mox pro non valet edd. cum uno alteroque cod. valet. Post pauca pro haec missio edd. hic missio.
See above the Master's text, d. X, c. 2, the words of Eusebius, and the Commentary, p. II, a. 1, q. 3. — Soon, for non valet ("is invalid") the editions, with one or another codex, read valet ("is valid"). A little after, for haec missio ("this sending") the editions read hic missio.
11
Libr. II. de Sacram. p. VIII. c. 14. Cfr. Innocent. III, VI. de Sacro Altaris mysterio, c. 12.
[Hugh,] On the Sacraments II, p. VIII, c. 14. Cf. Innocent III, On the Sacred Mystery of the Altar VI, c. 12.
12
Cfr. supra lit. Magistri, d. XII. c. 4, et Comment. p. I. a. 2. q. 3.
Cf. above the Master's text, d. XII, c. 4, and the Commentary, p. I, a. 2, q. 3.
13
Hebr. 4, 11: Festinemus ergo ingredi etc.
Hebrews 4:11: Let us hasten therefore to enter etc.
14
Psalm. 33, 1. — Idem dub. solvit Alex. Hal., S. p. IV. q. 10. in fine tractatus de officio Missae; B. Albert., hic a. 34; S. Thom., Petr. a Tar. et Richard. a Med., hic circa lit.
Psalm 33:1. — The same doubt is resolved by Alexander of Hales, Summa, p. IV, q. 10, at the end of the tract on the office of the Mass; Blessed Albert, here a. 34; St. Thomas, Peter of Tarentaise, and Richard of Mediavilla, here on the text.
15
Libr. VIII. c. 3. n. 1. Cfr. Hieronym., III. Comment. in Epist. ad Gal. 5, 20: αἵρεσις autem Graeco ab electione dicitur, quod scil. eam sibi unusquisque eligat disciplinam, quam putat esse meliorem.
[Augustine, here in fact Isidore,] Book VIII, c. 3, n. 1. Cf. Jerome, Commentary on the Epistle to the Galatians III, on 5:20: αἵρεσις (haeresis) is said in Greek from election, namely because each one chooses for himself that discipline which he thinks to be the better.
16
Libr. VIII. c. 3. n. 1. Cfr. Hieronym. ut supra.
[Isidore,] Etymologies VIII, c. 3, n. 1. Cf. Jerome as above.
17
Ut habetur in Comment. super I. Cor. 12, 3, olim Ambrosio attributo. Cfr. tom. I. pag. 817, nota 10.
As is found in the Commentary on I Corinthians 12:3, formerly attributed to Ambrose. Cf. vol. I, p. 817, note 10.
18
Cap. Dixit Apostolus (29.), sumtum ex August., Epist. 43. (alias 162.) c. 1. n. 1. Textus originalis voci perversam praemittit falsam atque et post defendunt plura addit, quem sequitur cod. aa. Cfr. loc. cit. C. Haereticus est (28.) et C. Qui in Ecclesia (31.).
Chapter Dixit Apostolus (29.), taken from Augustine, Letter 43 (otherwise 162), c. 1, n. 1. The original text prefixes falsam atque ("false and") to the word perversam, and after defendunt adds more, which codex aa follows. Cf. loc. cit., C. Haereticus est (28.) and C. Qui in Ecclesia (31.).
19
Vide Hieronym., Comment. in Epist. ad Tit. 3, 10, relatum in C. Inter haeresim (26.), C. 24. q. 3. De superstitione cfr. August., II. de Doctr. christ. c. 20. n. 30.
See Jerome, Commentary on the Epistle to Titus, on 3:10, related in C. Inter haeresim (26.), C. 24, q. 3. On superstition cf. Augustine, On Christian Doctrine II, c. 20, n. 30.
20
Cfr. Isidor., VIII. Etymolog. c. 3. n. 1. seqq., ubi triplicem derivationem vocis superstitio insinuat, scil. sic dicta est eo quod superflua aut superinstituta observatio. Alii dicunt a senibus, quia multis annis superstites per aetatem delirant et errant superstitione quadam, nescientes, quae vetera colant, aut quae veterum ignari asciscant. Lucretius autem superstitionem dicit superstantium rerum, id est caelestium et divinarum, quae super nos stant; sed male dicit. — Vide etiam supra pag. 218, nota 6. — Superius pro concordat codd. G R U concordatio, alii concordant.
Cf. Isidore, Etymologies VIII, c. 3, n. 1 ff., where he intimates a threefold derivation of the word superstition, namely that it is so called because it is a superfluous or super-instituted observance. Others say [it comes] from old men (senes), because, surviving (superstites) many years, they grow delirious through age and err by a certain superstition, not knowing what ancient things they revere, or what, ignorant of the ancients, they take up. But Lucretius says superstition is of superstanding (superstantium) things, that is, of the heavenly and divine things which stand over (super... stant) us; but he speaks ill. — See also above, p. 218, note 6. — Above, for concordat ("agrees") codices G, R, U read concordatio, others concordant.