Dist. 18, Part 2, Art. 1, Q. 1
Book IV: On the Sacraments · Distinction 18
Articulus Unicus. De excommunicatione.
Quaestio I. Utrum aliquis possit vel debeat excommunicari.
Circa primum ostenditur, quod aliquis possit excommunicari:
1. Primo auctoritate Domini, Matthaei decimo octavo1: Si peccaverit in te frater tuus etc. usque ibi: Quodsi Ecclesiam non audierit, sit tibi sicut ethnicus et publicanus; et post: Amen dico vobis, quodcumque ligaveritis super terram etc.; sed ethnici et publicani extra communicationem reputantur: ergo et talis frater, et hoc secundum iudicium Ecclesiae, ut dicit: ergo etc.
2. Item, hoc probatur exemplo Apostoli, qui, primae ad Corinthios quinto2 fornicatorem manifestum tradidit satanae; et primae ad Timotheum: Ex quibus est Hymenaeus et Alexander, quos tradidi satanae; et ad Galatas primo: Si quis vobis evangelizaverit praeter id quod accepistis, anathema sit; et primae ad Corinthios ultimo: Si quis non amat Dominum Iesum Christum, anathema sit. Si ergo Paulus, Ecclesiae ministrator, subiectos excommunicavit, videtur illud esse conveniens et licitum.
3. Item, hoc ipsum rationabiliter probatur per exemplum in moralibus. Pater enim familias secundum rectum ordinem filium inobedientem extra domum ad tempus eiicit, ut saltem sic corrigatur: ergo pari ratione ille qui praeest in domo Dei, potest et debet consimilem eiicere extra domum; sed eiicere extra domum est eiicere extra communicationem3, et hoc non est aliud quam excommunicare: ergo etc.
4. Item, videmus in arte medendi, quod secundum rectum iudicium artis membrum putridum, ordinatum ad aliorum membrorum infectionem, a corpore est resecandum; sed in spiritualibus contingit membra esse putrida per peccatum et alia membra corrumpentia: ergo videtur, quod talia recte4 sint amputanda secundum rectum regiminis ordinem. Sed hoc fit per excommunicationem: ergo etc.
Contra:
1. « Excommunicatio est separatio a communione5 »; sed communio est per caritatem; sed extra caritatem nemo potest nec debet aliquem eiicere: ergo nec excommunicare. Quod nemo possit auferre caritatem, videtur, quia nemo amittit caritatem invitus. — Item, nemo est, qui non sit ex caritate diligendus, quamdiu est in via: ergo etc.
2. Item, excommunicatio est separatio a communione Sacramentorum; sed a Sacramentis nullus est separandus nec prohibendus: ergo nullus est excommunicandus. Maior patet, minor probatur sic: omnis fidelis aut est iustus et sanus, aut peccator et infirmus6. Si iustus, non est arcendus a Sacramentis; si peccator et infirmus et indigens medicinis spiritualibus, magis est attrahendus quam arcendus: ergo etc.
3. Item, excommunicatio aut est morbus, aut medicina. Si morbus: ergo nulli est infligenda, quia omnium salus est desideranda. Si medicina7; ergo cum medicina sit omnibus aptanda et non prosit, nisi ei qui vult in eam per liberum arbitrium consentire: ergo nullus est excommunicandus nisi volens, et quilibet debet velle, se excommunicari; quorum utrumque falsum est.
4. Item, in excommunicatione traditur satanae ipse excommunicatus, sicut patet in excommunicatione ipsius Apostoli8; aut ergo quantum ad animam, aut quantum ad corpus. Si quantum ad corpus, non potest — illud videmus ad litteram — quantum ad animam, nec potest nec debet: ergo nullo modo videtur aliquis esse excommunicandus.
Conclusio
Contemptores et rebelles excommunicare licet et debitum est.
Respondeo: Ad horum intelligentiam est notandum, quod sicut in disciplinis duplex est modus instruendi et duplex modus arguendi, scilicet ostensivus et per impossibile9; et in medicinalibus duplex est modus curandi, scilicet per medicamenta lenientia et per medicamenta asperantia — curatur enim aliquis per emplastri appositionem, aliquis per sectionem — sic in moralibus duplex est modus corrigendi, unus per dulces monitiones, alter per asperas increpationes; et hoc secundum duo genera hominum, quia quidam sunt tractabiles et plicabiles, quidam duri et rebelles. Sic in divinis et ecclesiasticis iudiciis, in quibus est instructio, curatio et correctio, duplex reperitur modus instruendi et corrigendi et etiam curandi. Quemadmodum igitur nolentibus acceptare rationem ostensivam fit argumentatio ducens ad impossibile; et morbis, qui non curantur per emplastrum, apponitur vulnus et cauterium; et invitis et incorrigibilibus fit curatio per flagellum: sic esse oportuit in Ecclesiae correctionibus. Et ideo Ecclesiae non tantum dedit Dominus institutor et fundator medicamenta Sacramentorum ad curandum accedentes, sed etiam gladium spiritus, quod est verbum Dei10, et potestatem amputandi et resecandi contemptores et rebelles; et tales licet et debitum est excommunicari, sicut ostensum est auctoritate Dei et exemplo Apostoli et ratione in consimili.
1. Ad illud ergo quod obiicitur, quod excommunicare est extra communionem11 eiicere, quae est per caritatem; dicendum quod communio triplex est: quaedam spiritualis omnino, et haec est quantum ad dilectionem interiorem; quaedam corporalis, et haec est quantum ad exteriorem conversationem; quaedam medio modo, et haec est quantum ad Sacramentorum susceptionem, et praecipue quantum ad Sacramentum altaris. Dico ergo, quod a prima nullus potest nec debet excludi quamdiu est viator, nec excommunicatio dicit privationem illius communionis. Quantum ad sacramentalem excluditur quilibet, qui dicitur excommunicatus sive maiori, sive minori. Quantum ad conversationem exteriorem attenditur excommunicatio maior, in qua communicatio negatur secundum actus legitimos, qui attenduntur in quatuor, scilicet in osculo, in colloquio, in convivio, in oratorio. Unde versus:
Os, orare, vale, communio, mensa negatur.
Sic igitur patet, quod cum triplex sit communio: una spiritualis, et alia sacramentalis, et alia corporalis, quod secundum primam nullus excommunicatur; secundum sacramentalem excommunicatur omnis qui dicitur excommunicatus; secundum tertiam excommunicatur ille qui maiori excommunicatione excommunicatus dicitur, quia maior est hic privatio communicationis. Et sic patet illud primum.
2. Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod nullus separandus est a Sacramentis; dicendum, quod immo, quoniam, etsi Sacramenta sint medicinae, tamen non prosunt nisi dispositis. Unde sicut bonus medicus secundum artem prohibet infirmum a medicinis, non tantum a cibis, propter indispositionem; sic in proposito est intelligendum. Utilius enim est, alicui medicinam subtrahi quam dari12 contra dispositionem, immo tali differre medicinam est medicinale.
3. Ad illud quod obiicitur de excommunicatione, utrum sit morbus vel medicina; dicendum, quod sicut sectio de prima sua ratione plaga est et dolorem facit, tamen in comparatione ad vulnus apostematis est medicina; sic ipsa separatio a communione fidelium dicit malum et damnum et poenam, in comparatione tamen ad rebellem medicina est, ut eius rebellio et contumacia frangatur. Unde sicut ille qui syllogizat per impossibile, ad impossibile deducit, non ut ibi sistat, sed ut redeat ad veritatem; sic Ecclesia separat et excommunicat, ut redeuntem cum humilitate et confusum de contumacia arctius stringat et interius claudat. Et sic patet, quod quamvis sit medicina, quia curat morbum rebellionis, quod nullus hanc medicinam debet appetere, nec debet dari quaerenti veram medicinam, sed contemnenti.
4. Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod excommunicare est tradere satanae; dicendum quod satanas est tortor, non tantum animarum, verum etiam corporum. Tradere autem tortori est dupliciter: aut cessando a protectione torquendi13 sive exponendo, aut iubendo tortori, ut affligat. Excommunicare ergo secundum praesentis Ecclesiae statum est tradere satanae protectionem subtrahendo et ei exponendo; subtrahit enim suffragia et Sacramenta, per quae munimur contra hostis insidias. In tempore autem Ecclesiae primitivae, quia daemones ipsis Apostolis subiiciebantur, et manifestanda erat fides per miracula, non tantum exponebantur, immo corporaliter ad mandatum Apostolicum vexabantur; sicut dicitur primae ad Corinthios quinto et in textu et in Glossa; et illud decuit in principio Ecclesiae fieri ad terrorem, vel propter excellentiam Apostolorum. Nunc autem, quamvis non ita vexentur, tamen corpore et spiritu vexandi exponuntur; et pro tanto dicuntur tradi satanae et vere excommunicari. Et sic patent obiecta.
I. Doctrina S. Doctoris de potestate excommunicandi Ecclesiae in clavibus a Christo tradita, de qua agitur his 6 quaestionibus, praeveniendo elidit plures errores posteriores, ab Ecclesia reprobatos censuris in Wiklefium, Hussium, Lutherum et Synodum Pistoriensem latis. Reprobatur enim a Martino V. et Concilio Constantiensi art. 11. Wiklefii: « Nullus praelatus debet aliquem excommunicare, nisi prius sciat eum excommunicatum a Deo » etc.; cfr. artt. 12, 13. 30. 34, et Hussii prop. 19. Vide etiam de Papae et praelatorum potestate excommunicandi artt. 31-32. 33. inter articulos 39, de quibus interrogandi sunt suspecti errorum Wikleffi et Hussii. — Item inter errores Lutheri a Leone X. damnatur prop. 23: « Excommunicationes sunt tantum externae poenae nec privant hominem communibus spiritualibus Ecclesiae orationibus »; item Synodi Pistoriensis prop. 46. 47. 48, nec non prop. 44. ab Alexandro VIII. 18. Martii 1666 damnata: « Quoad forum conscientiae, reo correcto eiusque contumacia cessante, cessant censurae ». In doctrina totius articuli doctores antiqui communiter consentiunt. S. Thom. et praecipue Richard. a Med. etiam alias quasdam quaestiones adiiciunt. Saepius ab eisdem reprehenduntur abusus tunc grassantes in nimis frequenti fulminatione excommunicationis. — De iniusta excommunicatione cfr. hic dub. 2.
II. De 1. quaestione: Alex. Hal., S. p. IV. q. 22. m. 1. a. 1. 2. — Scot., de toto hoc art. infra d. 19. n. 13. seqq.; Report. ibid. n. 18. seqq. — S. Thom., hic q. 2. a. 1. quaestiunc. 1. 2; Suppl. q. 21. a. 1. 2. — B. Albert., hic a. 16. 17. — Petr. a Tar., hic q. 3. a. 1. quaestiunc. 1. — Richard. a Med., hic a. 3. q. 1. — Durand., de hac a. 2 seqq. qq. hic q. 3. — Dionys. Carth., de toto art. hic q. 4.
III. De 2. quaestione: Alex. Hal., loc. cit. a. 3. — S. Thom., loc. cit. quaestiunc. 2; Suppl. q. 21. a. 3. — B. Albert., hic a. 18. — Petr. a Tar., loc. cit. ad 6. 7. — Richard. a Med. rem tangit loc. cit. q. 2.
IV. De 3. quaestione: Alex. Hal., loc. cit. a. 4. § 1. 2. — S. Thom., loc. cit. a. 2; Suppl. q. 22. a. 1. 2. — B. Albert., hic a. 19. — Petr. a Tar., loc. cit. a. 2. quaestiunc. 1. 2. 3. — Richard. a Med., hic a. 4. q. 3.
V. De 4. quaestione: Alex. Hal., loc. cit. a. 5. — S. Thom., loc. cit. a. 3. quaestiunc. 3; Suppl. q. 22. a. 6. — Petr. a Tar., loc. cit. a. 3. quaestiunc. 3. — Richard. a Med., hic a. 5. q. 2.
VI. De 5. quaestione notandum est, quod antiquus rigor disciplinae remissus est, primo a Martino V. (Const. Ad evitanda scandala), ita ut cum toleratis excommunicatis communicare liceret; deinde a Pio IX. (Const. Apostolicae Sedis) sublata est excommunicatio minor, quatenus ipso facto incurritur. De eadem quaestione Alex. Hal., loc. cit. a. 6. § 1. 2. 3. — S. Thom., loc. cit. a. 4; Suppl. q. 23. a. 1-3. — B. Albert., hic a. 17. 21. — Petr. a Tar., loc. cit. quaestiunc. 4. 5. — Richard. a Med., hic a. 6. q. 1-5. — Durand., hic q. 3.
VII. De 6. quaestione: Alex. Hal., loc. cit. a. 7. § 1. — S. Thom., loc. cit. a. 5. quaestiunc. 2; Suppl. q. 24. a. 2. — B. Albert., infra d. 19. a. 11. — Richard. a Med., hic a. 10. q. 1. — Quoad quaestiones incidentes cfr. Alex. Hal., loc. cit. § 2. 3; S. Thom., loc. cit. quaestiunc. 1. 3, et Suppl. q. 24. a. 1. 3; Richard. a Med., loc. cit. q. 2-3 et a. 9. q. 1-5.
---
Articulus Unicus. On excommunication.
Question I. Whether anyone can or ought to be excommunicated.
Concerning the first point it is shown that someone can be excommunicated:
1. First, by the authority of the Lord, in Matthew the eighteenth1: If your brother sins against you, etc., up to the place: But if he will not hear the Church, let him be to you as a heathen and a publican; and afterward: Amen I say to you, whatsoever you shall bind upon earth, etc.; but heathens and publicans are reckoned outside communication: therefore so too is such a brother, and this according to the judgment of the Church, as he says: therefore, etc.
2. Likewise, this is proved by the example of the Apostle, who, in First Corinthians five2, delivered the manifest fornicator to Satan; and in First Timothy: Of whom are Hymenaeus and Alexander, whom I have delivered to Satan; and in Galatians one: If anyone preaches to you a gospel besides that which you have received, let him be anathema; and in the last [chapter] of First Corinthians: If anyone loves not the Lord Jesus Christ, let him be anathema. If, then, Paul, a minister of the Church, excommunicated those subject to him, it appears that this is fitting and lawful.
3. Likewise, this very thing is reasonably proved by an example in moral matters. For a father of a family, according to right order, casts a disobedient son out of the house for a time, that at least he may thus be corrected: therefore by parity of reason he who presides in the house of God can and ought to cast out one like him from the house; but to cast out of the house is to cast out of communication3, and this is nothing other than to excommunicate: therefore, etc.
4. Likewise, we see in the art of healing that, according to the right judgment of the art, a putrid member, disposed toward the infection of the other members, ought to be cut off from the body; but in spiritual matters it happens that members are putrid through sin and corrupting the other members: therefore it appears that such [members] are rightly4 to be amputated according to the right order of governance. But this is done through excommunication: therefore, etc.
On the contrary:
1. « Excommunication is separation from communion5 »; but communion is through charity; but apart from charity no one can or ought to cast anyone out: therefore neither to excommunicate. That no one can take away charity appears, because no one loses charity unwillingly. — Likewise, there is no one who is not to be loved out of charity, so long as he is on the way: therefore, etc.
2. Likewise, excommunication is separation from the communion of the Sacraments; but no one is to be separated or barred from the Sacraments: therefore no one is to be excommunicated. The major is plain, the minor is proved thus: every faithful person is either just and sound, or a sinner and infirm6. If just, he is not to be kept from the Sacraments; if a sinner and infirm and in need of spiritual medicines, he is rather to be drawn [to them] than kept [from them]: therefore, etc.
3. Likewise, excommunication is either a disease or a medicine. If a disease: then it is to be inflicted on no one, because the welfare of all is to be desired. If a medicine7; then since a medicine is to be applied to all and does not benefit except him who wills to consent to it by free choice: therefore no one is to be excommunicated except willingly, and everyone ought to will to be excommunicated; both of which are false.
4. Likewise, in excommunication the excommunicated person himself is delivered to Satan, as is plain in the excommunication [enacted] by the Apostle himself8; either, then, with respect to the soul, or with respect to the body. If with respect to the body, it cannot be — that we see literally — with respect to the soul, it neither can nor ought to be: therefore in no way does it appear that anyone is to be excommunicated.
Conclusio
To excommunicate the contemptuous and the rebellious is lawful and is a duty.
I respond: For the understanding of these matters it must be noted that, just as in disciplines there is a twofold mode of instructing and a twofold mode of arguing, namely the demonstrative and the per impossibile [by way of the impossible]9; and in medicine there is a twofold mode of curing, namely by soothing medicaments and by sharpening medicaments — for one person is cured by the application of a plaster, another by cutting — so in moral matters there is a twofold mode of correcting, one by gentle admonitions, the other by harsh rebukes; and this according to the two kinds of men, because some are tractable and pliable, some hard and rebellious. So in divine and ecclesiastical judgments, in which there is instruction, healing, and correction, a twofold mode of instructing and of correcting and also of curing is found. Just as, therefore, for those unwilling to accept the demonstrative reasoning an argumentation leading to the impossible is made; and to diseases which are not cured by the plaster a wound and a cautery are applied; and for the unwilling and incorrigible a cure is made by the scourge: so it had to be in the Church's corrections. And therefore the Lord, its institutor and founder, gave to the Church not only the medicaments of the Sacraments for curing those who approach, but also the sword of the spirit, which is the word of God10, and the power of amputating and cutting off the contemptuous and the rebellious; and such persons it is lawful and a duty to excommunicate, as has been shown by the authority of God and by the example of the Apostle and by reasoning in a like case.
1. To that, then, which is objected — that to excommunicate is to cast out from the communion11 which is through charity — it must be said that communion is threefold: one wholly spiritual, and this is with respect to interior love; one corporeal, and this is with respect to exterior conversation; one in an intermediate mode, and this is with respect to the reception of the Sacraments, and especially with respect to the Sacrament of the altar. I say, then, that from the first no one can or ought to be excluded so long as he is a wayfarer, nor does excommunication signify the privation of that communion. With respect to the sacramental, anyone is excluded who is said to be excommunicated, whether by the major or the minor [excommunication]. With respect to exterior conversation, the major excommunication is regarded, in which communication is denied with respect to lawful acts, which are regarded in four, namely in the kiss, in conversation, in banquet, in oratory. Whence the verse:
Os, orare, vale, communio, mensa negatur [The mouth, to pray, the greeting, fellowship, the table are denied].
So, then, it is plain that, since communion is threefold — one spiritual, another sacramental, and another corporeal — that according to the first no one is excommunicated; according to the sacramental, everyone is excommunicated who is said to be excommunicated; according to the third, that one is excommunicated who is said to be excommunicated with the major excommunication, because the privation of communication is greater here. And so that first point is plain.
2. To that which is objected — that no one is to be separated from the Sacraments — it must be said that on the contrary [he is], since, even though the Sacraments are medicines, nevertheless they do not benefit except those who are disposed. Whence just as a good physician according to his art bars a sick man from medicines, not only from foods, on account of his indisposition; so it is to be understood in the matter at hand. For it is more useful that medicine be withheld from someone than be given12 contrary to his disposition; indeed, to defer medicine for such a one is medicinal.
3. To that which is objected concerning excommunication, whether it is a disease or a medicine; it must be said that, just as cutting by its first account is a wound and causes pain, yet in comparison to the wound of an abscess is a medicine; so the separation itself from the communion of the faithful signifies an evil and a harm and a punishment, yet in comparison to the rebellious person it is a medicine, so that his rebellion and contumacy may be broken. Whence just as he who syllogizes per impossibile leads to the impossible, not that he may rest there, but that he may return to the truth; so the Church separates and excommunicates, in order that it may more tightly bind the one returning with humility and confounded over his contumacy, and may enclose him interiorly. And so it is plain that, although it is a medicine, because it cures the disease of rebellion, yet no one ought to desire this medicine, nor ought it to be given to one seeking the true medicine, but to one who despises [it].
4. To that which is objected — that to excommunicate is to deliver to Satan — it must be said that Satan is a tormentor, not only of souls, but also of bodies. But to deliver to a tormentor is twofold: either by ceasing from the protection [that keeps one] from torment13, by exposing [him], or by commanding the tormentor to afflict [him]. To excommunicate, therefore, according to the state of the present Church, is to deliver to Satan by withdrawing protection and exposing [him] to him; for it withdraws the suffrages and the Sacraments by which we are fortified against the snares of the enemy. But in the time of the primitive Church, because the demons were subject to the Apostles themselves, and the faith had to be made manifest through miracles, [the excommunicated] were not only exposed, but indeed were bodily afflicted at the Apostolic command; as is said in First Corinthians five, both in the text and in the Gloss; and that was fitting to be done at the beginning of the Church for terror, or on account of the excellence of the Apostles. But now, although they are not so afflicted, nevertheless they are exposed to be afflicted in body and spirit; and to that extent they are said to be delivered to Satan and truly to be excommunicated. And so the objections are plain.
I. The teaching of the holy Doctor concerning the Church's power of excommunicating handed down in the keys by Christ, which is treated in these 6 questions, by anticipation refutes several later errors, reprobated by the Church through censures enacted against Wyclif, Huss, Luther, and the Synod of Pistoia. For there is reprobated by Martin V and the Council of Constance article 11 of Wyclif: « No prelate ought to excommunicate anyone unless he first knows him to be excommunicated by God » etc.; cf. articles 12, 13. 30. 34, and Huss's proposition 19. See also concerning the power of the Pope and prelates to excommunicate articles 31-32. 33. among the 39 articles concerning which those suspected of the errors of Wyclif and Huss are to be interrogated. — Likewise among the errors of Luther there is condemned by Leo X proposition 23: « Excommunications are only external penalties and do not deprive a man of the common spiritual prayers of the Church »; likewise [there are condemned] of the Synod of Pistoia propositions 46. 47. 48, and also proposition 44 condemned by Alexander VIII on 18 March 1666: « As to the forum of conscience, when the guilty party has been corrected and his contumacy has ceased, the censures cease ». In the teaching of the whole article the ancient doctors commonly agree. St. Thomas and especially Richard of Mediavilla also add certain other questions. Often by these same [doctors] there are rebuked the abuses then raging in the too-frequent fulmination of excommunication. — On unjust excommunication cf. here dub. 2.
II. On the 1st question: Alexander of Hales, Summa p. IV. q. 22. m. 1. a. 1. 2. — Scotus, on this whole article below d. 19. n. 13. ff.; Reportatio ibid. n. 18. ff. — St. Thomas, here q. 2. a. 1. quaestiuncula 1. 2; Supplement q. 21. a. 1. 2. — Bl. Albert, here a. 16. 17. — Peter of Tarentaise, here q. 3. a. 1. quaestiuncula 1. — Richard of Mediavilla, here a. 3. q. 1. — Durandus, on this a. 2 ff. of the questions here q. 3. — Dionysius the Carthusian, on the whole article here q. 4.
III. On the 2nd question: Alexander of Hales, loc. cit. a. 3. — St. Thomas, loc. cit. quaestiuncula 2; Supplement q. 21. a. 3. — Bl. Albert, here a. 18. — Peter of Tarentaise, loc. cit. ad 6. 7. — Richard of Mediavilla touches the matter loc. cit. q. 2.
IV. On the 3rd question: Alexander of Hales, loc. cit. a. 4. § 1. 2. — St. Thomas, loc. cit. a. 2; Supplement q. 22. a. 1. 2. — Bl. Albert, here a. 19. — Peter of Tarentaise, loc. cit. a. 2. quaestiuncula 1. 2. 3. — Richard of Mediavilla, here a. 4. q. 3.
V. On the 4th question: Alexander of Hales, loc. cit. a. 5. — St. Thomas, loc. cit. a. 3. quaestiuncula 3; Supplement q. 22. a. 6. — Peter of Tarentaise, loc. cit. a. 3. quaestiuncula 3. — Richard of Mediavilla, here a. 5. q. 2.
VI. On the 5th question it is to be noted that the ancient rigor of discipline has been relaxed, first by Martin V (Const. Ad evitanda scandala), so that it became lawful to communicate with tolerated excommunicates; then by Pius IX (Const. Apostolicae Sedis) the minor excommunication, insofar as it is incurred ipso facto, was abolished. On the same question Alexander of Hales, loc. cit. a. 6. § 1. 2. 3. — St. Thomas, loc. cit. a. 4; Supplement q. 23. a. 1-3. — Bl. Albert, here a. 17. 21. — Peter of Tarentaise, loc. cit. quaestiuncula 4. 5. — Richard of Mediavilla, here a. 6. q. 1-5. — Durandus, here q. 3.
VII. On the 6th question: Alexander of Hales, loc. cit. a. 7. § 1. — St. Thomas, loc. cit. a. 5. quaestiuncula 2; Supplement q. 24. a. 2. — Bl. Albert, below d. 19. a. 11. — Richard of Mediavilla, here a. 10. q. 1. — As to the incidental questions cf. Alexander of Hales, loc. cit. § 2. 3; St. Thomas, loc. cit. quaestiuncula 1. 3, and Supplement q. 24. a. 1. 3; Richard of Mediavilla, loc. cit. q. 2-3 and a. 9. q. 1-5.
---
- 1Vers. 15-17. — Seq. textus est ibid. v. 18, ubi Vulgata quaecumque alligaveritis pro quodcumque ligaveritis. — Subinde pro communicationem cod. G communionem. Notamus, quod in seqq. plures codd. exhibent modo communionem modo communicationem.Verses 15-17. — The following text is ibid. v. 18, where the Vulgate has quaecumque alligaveritis for quodcumque ligaveritis. — Thereafter for communicationem codex G [reads] communionem. We note that in what follows several codices exhibit now communionem, now communicationem.
- 2Vers. 5. — Seq. locus est I. Tim. 1, 20; tertius Gal. 1, 9; quartus 1. Cor. 16, 22, in quo Vulgata post Dominum addit nostrum.Verse 5. — The following passage is 1 Tim. 1:20; the third Gal. 1:9; the fourth 1 Cor. 16:22, in which the Vulgate after Dominum adds nostrum.
- 3Cod. S communionem fidelium.Codex S [reads] communionem fidelium [the communion of the faithful].
- 4Pro recte, quod codd. IK omittunt, cod. H membra. De hoc arg. cfr. C. Resecandae (16.), C. 24. q. 3.For recte, which codices IK omit, codex H [has] membra. On this argument cf. the chapter Resecandae (16.), Causa 24. q. 3.
- 5B. Albert., hic a. 16: Excommunicatio definitur a iurisperitis sic: Excommunicatio est separatio a communione Ecclesiae siue quoad fructum et suffragia Ecclesiae communia. Cfr. Gratian. super C. Ad mensam (24.), C. 11. § 1. q. 3, et Gregor. IX, C. Si quem (59.), X. de Sententia excommun. (lib. V. tit. 39). — Pro communione plures codd. et ed. 1 communicatione.Bl. Albert, here a. 16: Excommunication is defined by the jurists thus: Excommunication is separation from the communion of the Church, whether as to the fruit and the common suffrages of the Church. Cf. Gratian on the chapter Ad mensam (24.), Causa 11. § 1. q. 3, and Gregory IX, chapter Si quem (59.), in the Decretals (X) on the Sentence of excommunication (book V tit. 39). — For communione several codices and the 1st edition [read] communicatione.
- 6Cod. U prosequitur: et indigens medicinis. Si iustus et sanus, non est etc.Codex U continues: and in need of medicines. If just and sound, he is not, etc.
- 7Ut insinuatur C. Cum medicinalis sit excommunicatio, non mortalis, disciplinans, non eradicans (1.), de Sententia excommun. (lib. V. tit. 11.) in VI. et est Innocentii IV. Cfr. C. Notandum est, quod (37.), C. 24. q. 3. — Mox pro aptanda codd. AGHK satis bene optanda.As is intimated in the chapter Cum medicinalis — that excommunication be medicinal, not mortal, disciplinary, not eradicating (1.), on the Sentence of excommunication (book V tit. 11.) in the Sext, and it is of Innocent IV. Cf. the chapter Notandum est, quod (37.), Causa 24. q. 3. — Presently for aptanda codices AGHK quite well [read] optanda.
- 8Vide supra fundam. 2. — Inferius pro Si quantum edd. cum paucis codd. Sed quantum. Post litteram cod. bb addit Si.See above, fundamentum 2. — Below, for Si quantum the editions with a few codices [read] Sed quantum. After litteram codex bb adds Si.
- 9Cfr. Aristot., 1. Prior. c. 22. 30. (29.) 40. (38.) et 11. c. 14. seqq. — Aliquanto inferius pro sic in moralibus secunda manus in codd. EF substituit et sicut in moralibus. Subinde pro plicabiles cod. W placabiles.Cf. Aristotle, Prior [Analytics] I c. 22. 30. (29.) 40. (38.) and II c. 14. ff. — A little below, for sic in moralibus a second hand in codices EF substituted et sicut in moralibus. Thereafter for plicabiles codex W [reads] placabiles.
- 10Eph. 6, 17. Cfr. Sap. 16, 12: Etenim neque herba neque malagma [cfr. Isidor., IV. Etymolog. c. 9.] sanavit eos, sed tuus, Domine, sermo, qui sanat omnia. — Superius pro in Ecclesiae rectoribus substituimus ex cod. U in Ecclesiae correctionibus. In fine corp. pro Dei cod. H Domini.Eph. 6:17. Cf. Wis. 16:12: For neither herb nor poultice [cf. Isidore, Etymol. IV c. 9.] healed them, but your word, O Lord, which heals all things. — Above, for in Ecclesiae rectoribus [among the rulers of the Church] we have substituted from codex U in Ecclesiae correctionibus [in the corrections of the Church]. At the end of the body, for Dei codex H [reads] Domini.
- 11Codd. USU est ex communione Ecclesiae. — In codd. GI suppletur excommunicatione. — In C. Excommunicatos (17.), C. 11. q. 3. dicitur: Nec cum eis [excommunicatis] in oratione, aut cibo aut potu, aut osculo communicet, nec Ave eis dicat [II. Ioan. v. 10. seq.]. — Edd., posito quinque, inferius post in oratorio addunt in valefaciendo. Alex. Hal., S. p. IV. q. 22. m. 1. a. 2: Qui [actus legitimi] attenduntur in osculo, in salutatione, in convivio, in oratorio. Unde versus: Si pro delictis anathema quis efficiatur, Os, orare, vale, communio, mensa negatur. Per communionem B. Albert. (hic a. 16.) et S. Thom. (hic q. 2. a. 1.) intelligi volunt communicationem in Sacramentis, ideoque reduci posset ad actum, qui indicatur in oratorio; si vero cum aliis intelligeretur de rebus civilibus, v. g. de contractibus, reducenda esset sub actum colloquii. — Cod. A Unde versus: Si pro delictis anathemate quis feriatur; os etc.Codices USU [read] est ex communione Ecclesiae [is from the communion of the Church]. — In codices GI excommunicatione is supplied. — In the chapter Excommunicatos (17.), Causa 11. q. 3, it is said: Let one neither communicate with them [the excommunicated] in prayer, or in food or drink, or in a kiss, nor say Ave to them [2 John v. 10 f.]. — The editions, having put quinque [five], below after in oratorio add in valefaciendo [in bidding farewell]. Alexander of Hales, Summa p. IV. q. 22. m. 1. a. 2: Which [lawful acts] are regarded in the kiss, in the greeting, in the banquet, in the oratory. Whence the verse: If for offenses anyone be made anathema, the mouth, to pray, the greeting, fellowship, the table are denied. By communio Bl. Albert (here a. 16.) and St. Thomas (here q. 2. a. 1.) wish communication in the Sacraments to be understood, and therefore it could be reduced to the act indicated in the oratory; but if it were understood with the others concerning civil matters, e.g. contracts, it would have to be reduced under the act of conversation. — Codex A [reads] Unde versus: Si pro delictis anathemate quis feriatur; os etc.
- 12Edd. subtrahere quam dare.The editions [read] subtrahere quam dare.
- 13Est participium passivum futurum. — Multi codd. perperam torquentis. — Alex. Hal., loc. cit., legit: protectionem subtrahendo et tortori exponendo, aut iubendo. Cfr. hic respiciunt lit. Magistri, c. 6. in fine. Verba tradere tortori respiciunt Matth. 18, 34: Tradidit eum tortoribus.[torquendi] is a future passive participle. — Many codices wrongly [read] torquentis. — Alexander of Hales, loc. cit., reads: by withdrawing protection and exposing him to the tormentor, or by commanding. Cf. here they look back to the letter of the Master, c. 6. at the end. The words tradere tortori [to deliver to the tormentor] look back to Matt. 18:34: He delivered him to the tormentors. ---