← Back to Distinction 25

Dist. 25, Dubia

Book IV: On the Sacraments · Distinction 25

Textus Latinus
p. 656

Dub. I.

In parte ista sunt dubitationes circa litteram, et primo quaeritur de hoc quod dicit: Nec ex his aliquem in clericatu honorem vel exiguum subrogare. Videtur enim male dicere, quia aut iste habet ordinem, aut nihil habet. Si nihil habet: ergo poterit ab episcopo catholico promoveri cum dispensatione, sicut patet in haereticis. Si habet ordines: ergo iam promotus est.

Respondeo, quod hoc non dicit, quia non sit ordinatus, sed quia male sit ordinatus. Male autem est ordinatus dupliciter: aut quia est ordinatus a quo non debet, aut quia sicut non debet. Primo modo tripliciter: aut quia ordinatur ab haeretico, vel simoniaco, sicut hic in proposito; tunc enim, si scienter facit et communicat haeresi, vel simoniae, non potest exsequi nec dispensatur de facili, et hoc vult dicere in littera1. — Aut ordinatur a catholico non suo sine licentia episcopi proprii et auctoritate; talis debet deponi, Causa septima, quaestione prima2, dispensari tamen potest, si talis ordinans aliquam ponit spem in ratihabitione episcopi proprii. — Aut ordinatur ab episcopo, qui renuntiavit loco et ofp. 657ficio, quia talis non debet conferre ordines; si vero renuntiavit loco tantum, potest dare minores ordines et de licentia episcopi potest dare omnes; et qui sine licentia episcopi proprii recipit ordines posset deponi de rigore iuris, potest tamen cum eo dispensari3.

Secundo modo dicitur male ordinatus, quia non recipit eo modo, quo debet; et tunc aut furtive, aut per saltum. Si furtive, hoc est dupliciter: aut quia duos recipit et eodem die, ita quod alterum furatur, loquendo de sacris; et poena omnium talium est depositio, sicut dicitur distinctione septuagesima septima4, Subdiaconus, Extra, de Eo qui furtive, Innotuit etc. Si autem furtive recipit unum tantum; tunc aut fuit prohibitum sub interminatione anathematis; et tunc solus Papa dispensat, Extra, de Eo qui furtive. Si autem non fuit prohibitum; tunc potest permitti in minoribus, et si intrat claustrum, praelatus potest dispensare cum eo. — Si vero est ordinatus per saltum, hoc est dupliciter: aut ex malitia, aut ex negligentia. Si ex malitia; licet characterem recipiat, tamen debet deponi. Si ignoranter; sic, poena sibi imposita ab episcopo, poterit ad inferiorem ordinem promoveri, suspenso eo interim ab exsecutione superioris, distinctione quinquagesima secunda5, Extra, de Clerico ordinato per saltum.

Nota etiam hic, quod licet possit saltari ab uno ordine, omisso alio, praetermisso tamen sacerdotio, non potest esse episcopus, Extra, de Excessibus praelatorum, Ex litteris, in fine6. Si vero omisit diaconatum, episcopus est, sed illum ordinem, quem omisit, dare non potest, Causa prima, quaestione prima7. Ita tamen non est in baptismo, quia est Sacramentum primum.

Dub. II.

Item quaeritur de hoc quod dicit, quod omnes dicuntur simoniaci, et dantes et accipientes. Videtur enim male dicere, quia Simon solum voluit emere: ergo soli emptores simoniaci debent dici, et venditores Giezitae8. — Item, plus fecit Giezi quam Simon, quia Simon solum voluit emere, sed Giezi vendidit: ergo magis ab ipso debent denominari.

Respondeo: Dicendum, quod Simon ideo voluit emere, ut post venderet; ideo utrumque malum et peccatum sibi imputatur, et ideo utrique ab ipso denominantur.

Quod obiicitur de voluntate, dicendum quod quia iste iam tempore gratiae revelatae et maiorem potestatem et spiritualiorem voluit emere; et iterum pactum voluit facere: ideo gravius satis et enormius peccavit, quam ille qui petiit ex quadam liberalitate, et credebat ille, quod esset modicum; sed poena leprae sempiternae9 ostendit, quam magnum esset illud scelus.

Dub. III.

Item quaeritur de hoc quod dicit, quod utrique eadem sententia percelluntur. Videtur enim male dicere, quia gravius peccant vendentes, ut videtur, quia minus appretiant quam ementes: ergo gravius debent puniri. — Contrarium videtur, quia emens praestat illi occasionem et accipit10 ultra sortem: ergo si gravius peccat usuras accipiens quam dans, patet etc.

Respondeo: Dicendum, quod quantum ad genus peccati est uniformitas, quia uterque gratiae Spiritus sancti facit iniuriam; sed gravius pensatur peccatum secundum maiorem appetitum et intensionem libidinis et secundum gradum11 personae vendentis et ementis. Gravius enim peccat episcopus vendens quam subditus emens; quia tamen genus peccati est idem, utrique eadem sententia percelluntur.

Dub. IV.

Item quaeritur de hoc quod dicit: Qui vero ordinantur a simoniacis, quos, cum ordinantur, nesciunt etc. Videtur enim male dicere, quia tales p. 658simoniaci ordinantes sunt irregulares et non habent exsecutionem; et «nullus dat quod non habet12»: ergo non dant exsecutionem. — Item, ponatur, quod aliquis simoniacus, qui est mihi notus, sustineatur ab Ecclesia, et ipse est episcopus meus, et ego compellor ad sacros ordines: quaeritur, quid tunc facere debeam. Si enim scienter ordinor a simoniaco; sum irregularis et punior tanquam simoniacus. Si non obedio; pecco mortaliter et scandalizo: ergo videtur, quod in tali casu homo sit perplexus.

Respondeo: Dicendum, quod in primo casu exsecutionem habet a iure, quod propter ignorantiam talem reputat excusatum, ordinem vero habet a simoniaco13. In secundo debet, quantum potest, subterfugere; quod si non potest, magis patitur, quam agat, et habetur tunc pro excusato. Unde vel debet ordines differre, vel ad alium episcopum ire; sed si non potest aliud, debet sustinere, et cum Ecclesia sustineat, debet et ipse sustinere et excusatur, sicut ille qui ignorat14.

Dub. V.

Item quaeritur de hoc quod dicit: Quisquis horum alterum vendit, sine quo alterum non habetur. Videtur enim male dicere, quia ius patronatus annexum est fundo inseparabiliter: ergo cum ius patronatus sit spirituale et non possit vendi sine simonia15; impossibile est, quod talis fundus sine simonia vendatur.

Respondeo: Dicendum, quod Magister non loquitur de temporalibus, quibus annexa sunt spiritualia; sed contra16 de spiritualibus, quibus annexa sunt temporalia, sicut est praebenda; et in talibus habet locum verbum Magistri, non in primis. Fundus enim non est annexus iuri patronatus, sed magis e converso. — Vel dicendum, quod intelligit de eo quod ita iunctum est spirituali, quod tenet locum spiritualis. Sed fundus sive villa, cui ius patronatus annexum est, tenet vere rationem rei temporalis17.

Dub. VI.

Item super hoc quod dicit: Simoniaca haeresis tripartita est, quaeritur: quibus modis contrahitur simonia? Et consuevit dici, quod quinque modis, qui his versibus continentur:

Nummus18, lingua, timor, caro cum fama populari Non faciunt gratis spirituale dari.

Ergo secundum hoc videtur, quod Magister insufficienter tres modos assignet.

Iuxta hoc quaeritur de sufficientia horum modorum. Cum enim fama sit bonus odor19, sicut bonum exemplum, non videtur, quod sit quid temporale. — Item, in veteri lege habebatur sacerdotium iure propinquitatis20: ergo cum illud non esset peccatum, non videtur etc.

Respondeo: Dicendum, quod proprie loquendo, simonia est in pretio, quod quidem intendit avaritia21, maxime cum intervenit pactio, et ista simonia determinatur hic a Magistro. Et potest fieri tripliciter: quia pretium potest dari ita, quod simoniacus non recipit, utpote quia datur collateralibus; vel potest dari a collateralibus ordinati; vel potest ipse ordinatus dare ordinatori, et tunc est simonia in ordinis susceptione, et proprie loquendo, in his tribus modis. — Vel aliter, quia aut ordinatus dat, et ille recipit, et tunc simoniace ordinatur a simoniaco; aut iste dat, sed ille non recipit, et tunc simoniace a non simoniaco22; aut quia nec iste dat, nec ille recipit, sed ille alias fuit simoniacus, et tunc ordinatur non simoniace a simoniaco. — Penes hoc sumitur distinctio Magistri satis sufficiens, sed in communi distinctione modorum accipitur simonia generalius, a qua pauci sunt hodie immunes in clero respectu multitudinis, utpote quando ille qui ordines tribuit23, ex causa indirecta tribuit, vel alius ex causa inordinata acquirit sive ordinem, sive beneficium; et isti sunt quinque modi, quorum sufficientia patet sic. Si aliquis inordinate movetur, aut ex timore male humiliante, et sic est unus modus; aut ex amore male inflammante, et tunc — cum triplex sit amor, scilicet superbia vitae, quae amat honores, et concupiscentia carnis, et concupiscentia oculorum24 — penes concupiscentiam oculorum accipitur illa, quae est in nummo, quae comprehendit omne terrenum et obsequium vile. Penes amorem carnalem accipitur aliud membrum, scilicet caro, quod comprehendit inordinatum amorem sive respectu propinquorum, sive respectu aliorum, ut si quis amore fornicariae promoveret filium fornicariae. Si autem quantum ad superbiam, dupliciter: aut prout appetit favorem, ut hypocrita, et sic est favor sive fama popularis; aut prout appetit laudari, et sic lingua. Et sic patet sufficientia. — Vel ut distinguatur munus a manu, a lingua et a corde25, et duplex motivum timor et amor, et sic erunt quinque modi. Et per hoc patet numerus et sufficientia.

Ad illud quod obiicitur de fama, dicendum, quod fama magnum bonum est non appetenti, sicut viro iusto, sed appetenti et laboranti ad hoc non est magnum bonum, sicut hypocritae; unde Proverbiorum decimo26: Memoria iusti cum laudibus, et nomen impiorum putrescet.

Quod obiicitur de consanguinitate, non est simile: quia sacerdotium veteris legis erat carnale, sed illud novae est spirituale27. — Et sic patent ea quae sunt circa istam partem.

---

English Translation
p. 656

Doubt I.

In this part there are doubts concerning the text, and first the question is asked about what he says: Nor from these to substitute anyone in a clerical honor, even a slight one. For it seems to be badly said, because either this man has an order, or he has nothing. If he has nothing: then he will be able to be promoted by a catholic bishop with a dispensation, as is clear in the case of heretics. If he has orders: then he is already promoted.

I respond that he does not say this because a man is not ordained, but because he is badly ordained. Now one is badly ordained in two ways: either because he is ordained by one from whom he ought not, or because he is ordained in a way in which he ought not. In the first way, in three ways: either because he is ordained by a heretic, or by a simoniac, as here in the case proposed; for then, if he does so knowingly and shares in heresy or in simony, he cannot exercise the office nor is he easily dispensed, and this is what he means to say in the text1. — Or he is ordained by a catholic not his own without the license of his proper bishop and without authority; such a one must be deposed, Cause 7, question 12, yet he can be dispensed, if such an ordainer places some hope in the ratification of the proper bishop. — Or he is ordained by a bishop who has renounced his place and ofp. 657fice, because such a one ought not to confer orders; but if he renounced his place only, he can give the minor orders and, by the bishop's license, can give all of them; and one who receives orders without the license of his proper bishop could be deposed by the rigor of law, yet he can be dispensed3.

In the second way one is said to be badly ordained because he does not receive in that manner in which he ought; and then either by theft, or by a leap. If by theft, this is in two ways: either because he receives two orders and on the same day, so that he steals one of them, speaking of sacred orders; and the punishment for all such is deposition, as is said in distinction 774, Subdiaconus, Extra, de Eo qui furtive, Innotuit etc. But if he receives by theft one only; then either it was forbidden under the threat of anathema, and then the Pope alone dispenses, Extra, de Eo qui furtive. But if it was not forbidden; then he can be allowed to remain in the minor orders, and if he enters the cloister, the prelate can dispense with him. — But if he is ordained by a leap, this is in two ways: either from malice, or from negligence. If from malice; although he receives the character, nevertheless he must be deposed. If in ignorance; then, with a punishment imposed on him by the bishop, he will be able to be promoted to a lower order, while he is meanwhile suspended from the exercise of the higher, distinction 525, Extra, de Clerico ordinato per saltum.

Note also here that, although one may leap over one order, omitting another, nevertheless when the priesthood is passed over he cannot be a bishop, Extra, de Excessibus praelatorum, Ex litteris, at the end6. But if he omitted the diaconate, he is a bishop, but he cannot give that order which he omitted, Cause 1, question 17. It is not so, however, in baptism, because it is the first Sacrament.

Doubt II.

Likewise the question is asked about what he says, that all are called simoniacs, both those who give and those who receive. For it seems to be badly said, because Simon wished only to buy: therefore the buyers alone ought to be called simoniacs, and the sellers Gehazites8. — Likewise, Gehazi did more than Simon, because Simon only wished to buy, but Gehazi sold: therefore they ought rather to be named from him.

I respond: It must be said that Simon wished to buy for this reason, that he might afterward sell; therefore both evil and sin are imputed to him, and therefore both are named from him.

To the objection concerning the will, it must be said that because this man, already in the time of revealed grace, wished to buy a greater and more spiritual power, and moreover wished to make a bargain: therefore he sinned rather gravely enough and more enormously than the one who sought out of a certain liberality, and who believed that it was a small thing; but the punishment of everlasting leprosy9 showed how great that crime was.

Doubt III.

Likewise the question is asked about what he says, that both are struck by the same sentence. For it seems to be badly said, because the sellers sin more gravely, as it appears, because they value [the thing] less than the buyers do: therefore they ought to be punished more gravely. — The contrary seems true, because the buyer furnishes him the occasion and receives10 beyond the principal: therefore if the one who receives usury sins more gravely than the one who gives, it is clear, etc.

I respond: It must be said that as to the kind of sin there is uniformity, because each does injury to the grace of the Holy Spirit; but the sin is weighed as more grave according to the greater appetite and intensity of lust and according to the rank11 of the person selling and buying. For a bishop selling sins more gravely than a subject buying; yet because the kind of sin is the same, both are struck by the same sentence.

Doubt IV.

Likewise the question is asked about what he says: But those who are ordained by simoniacs, whom, when they are ordained, they do not know, etc. For it seems to be badly said, because such p. 658simoniac ordainers are irregular and have no power of exercise; and «no one gives what he does not have12»: therefore they do not give the power of exercise. — Likewise, suppose that some simoniac, who is known to me, is tolerated by the Church, and he is my bishop, and I am compelled toward sacred orders: it is asked what I ought then to do. For if I am knowingly ordained by a simoniac, I am irregular and am punished as a simoniac. If I do not obey, I sin mortally and give scandal: therefore it seems that in such a case a man is in a dilemma.

I respond: It must be said that in the first case he has the power of exercise from the law, which on account of ignorance reckons such a one excused, but he has the order from a simoniac13. In the second he ought, as far as he can, to escape it; but if he cannot, he suffers rather than acts, and is then held as excused. Hence he ought either to defer the orders, or to go to another bishop; but if he can do nothing else, he ought to bear it, and since the Church bears with it, he too ought to bear it and is excused, like one who is ignorant14.

Doubt V.

Likewise the question is asked about what he says: Whoever sells one of these, without which the other is not had. For it seems to be badly said, because the right of patronage is annexed to the estate inseparably: therefore since the right of patronage is spiritual and cannot be sold without simony15, it is impossible that such an estate be sold without simony.

I respond: It must be said that the Master is not speaking of temporal things, to which spiritual things are annexed; but on the contrary16 of spiritual things, to which temporal things are annexed, as is a prebend; and in such cases the word of the Master holds, not in the former. For the estate is not annexed to the right of patronage, but rather the reverse. — Or it must be said that he understands it of that which is so joined to the spiritual that it holds the place of the spiritual. But an estate or a farm, to which the right of patronage is annexed, truly holds the character of a temporal thing17.

Doubt VI.

Likewise upon what he says: The simoniacal heresy is threefold, it is asked: in what ways is simony contracted? And it is customarily said, in five ways, which are contained in these verses:

Money18, tongue, fear, flesh together with popular fame Do not allow a spiritual thing to be given freely.

Therefore according to this it seems that the Master insufficiently assigns three ways.

In connection with this the question is asked about the sufficiency of these ways. For since fame is a good odor19, like a good example, it does not seem to be something temporal. — Likewise, in the old law the priesthood was held by right of kinship20: therefore since that was not a sin, it does not seem [simony], etc.

I respond: It must be said that, properly speaking, simony is in the price, which indeed avarice21 intends, especially when a bargain intervenes, and this simony is here determined by the Master. And it can occur in three ways: because the price can be given in such a way that the simoniac does not receive it, inasmuch as it is given to those beside him; or it can be given by those beside the ordained man; or the ordained man himself can give to the ordainer, and then there is simony in the receiving of orders, and, properly speaking, in these three ways. — Or otherwise, because either the ordained gives, and the other receives, and then he is simoniacally ordained by a simoniac; or this one gives, but the other does not receive, and then simoniacally by a non-simoniac22; or because neither this one gives, nor the other receives, but that man was otherwise a simoniac, and then he is ordained not simoniacally by a simoniac. — Within this the distinction of the Master is taken as sufficiently adequate, but in the common distinction of the ways simony is taken more generally, from which few today are immune in the clergy in respect of the multitude, as when the one who bestows orders23 bestows them from an indirect cause, or another from a disordered cause acquires either an order or a benefice; and these are the five ways, whose sufficiency is shown thus. If someone is disordinately moved, either from fear wrongly humbling, and thus there is one mode; or from love wrongly inflaming, and then — since love is threefold, namely the pride of life, which loves honors, and the concupiscence of the flesh, and the concupiscence of the eyes24 — under the concupiscence of the eyes is taken that [mode] which is in money, which comprehends everything earthly and base service. Under carnal love is taken another member, namely the flesh, which comprehends disordered love whether in respect of kinsfolk or in respect of others, as if someone, out of love for a harlot, were to promote the son of a harlot. But if [it be] as regards pride, in two ways: either as he seeks favor, like a hypocrite, and thus it is favor or popular fame; or as he seeks to be praised, and thus [it is] the tongue. And thus the sufficiency is clear. — Or so that the gift be distinguished — by the hand, by the tongue, and by the heart25 — and the motive twofold, fear and love, and thus there will be five modes. And through this the number and sufficiency are made clear.

To the objection concerning fame, it must be said that fame is a great good to one not seeking it, like a just man, but to one seeking it and laboring for it it is not a great good, like a hypocrite; whence Proverbs 1026: The memory of the just [is] with praises, and the name of the wicked shall rot.

The objection concerning consanguinity is not similar: because the priesthood of the old law was carnal, but that of the new is spiritual27. — And thus those things which concern this part are made clear.

---

Apparatus Criticus
  1. 1
    Hic c. 1.
    Here, c. 1.
  2. 2
    Can. Episcopus in dioecesim (28.), secundum quem episcopus in aliena dioecesi alienos clericos ordinans uno anno a Missarum celebratione cessare debet. Cfr. d. 71. et C. 9. q. 2. C. Nullum episcoporum (6.), in quo dicitur, quod episcopus clericos alienos in aliena dioecesi ordinans iudicandus sit «tanquam depositus a sancta synodo» etc. Vide Hieron., Epist. 51. (alias 10.), in qua S. Epiphanius excusat se Ioanni episc. Ierosolymitano, quod Paulinianum presbyterum ordinasset, ipso inconsulto. — Inferius pro aliquam, quod edd. omittunt, codd. E G I K V alium. Subinde codd. omittunt proprii.
    Canon Episcopus in dioecesim (28.), according to which a bishop ordaining clerics of another in another's diocese must cease for one year from the celebration of Masses. Cfr. dist. 71 and C. 9 q. 2, C. Nullum episcoporum (6.), in which it is said that a bishop ordaining clerics of another in another's diocese is to be judged «as deposed by a holy synod» etc. See Jerome, Letter 51 (alias 10), in which St. Epiphanius excuses himself to John, bishop of Jerusalem, for having ordained the presbyter Paulinian without consulting him. — Below, for aliquam, which the editions omit, codices E G I K V read alium. Then the codices omit proprii.
  3. 3
    Cfr. C. Requisivit a nobis (I.), X. de Ordinatis ab episcopo, qui renuntiavit episcopatui (lib. I. tit. 13.).
    Cfr. C. Requisivit a nobis (1), X. de Ordinatis ab episcopo, qui renuntiavit episcopatui (bk. I, tit. 13).
  4. 4
    Cap. 4. § I. — Seq. locus [Innotuit] est cap. 3. Extra, lib. V. tit. 30, in quo titulo ea etiam, quae S. Bonav. deinde habet, continentur. — Inferius post unum tantum codd. R S addunt sic dico, quod. Subinde post minoribus cod. F supplet ordinibus.
    Chap. 4, § 1. — The following passage [Innotuit] is chap. 3, Extra, bk. V, tit. 30, in which title are also contained those things which St. Bonaventure has next. — Below, after unum tantum codices R S add sic dico, quod. Then after minoribus codex F supplies ordinibus.
  5. 5
    Can. Sollicitudo dilectionis (I.). — Seq. locus est Extra lib. V. tit. 29. C. Tuae litterae (I.). Cfr. supra pag. 625, nota 3. et 5.
    Canon Sollicitudo dilectionis (1). — The following passage is Extra, bk. V, tit. 29, C. Tuae litterae (1). Cfr. above, p. 625, notes 3 and 5.
  6. 6
    Cap. 10. lib. V. tit. 31. Vide supra d. 24. p. II. a. 2. q. 3. fundam. 3.
    Chap. 10, bk. V, tit. 31. See above, dist. 24, part II, art. 2, q. 3, fundamentum 3.
  7. 7
    Antiqui (cfr. supra d. 24. p. II. a. 2. q. 3.) hoc concludebant ex C. Gratia (I.), in quo dicitur: Si autem non accipiunt [simoniaci gratiam in ecclesiasticis ordinibus], non habent; si autem non habent, nec gratis nec non gratis cuiquam dare possunt etc. Cfr. etiam ibid. C. Quod quidam (97.), qui est Augustini, et ex quo Magister, hic in lit. c. I plura refert. Idem docet S. Bonav. supra d. 24. p. II. a. 2. q. 3. ad 4, et cfr. ibi scholion n. 11. Ibid. a. I. q. 3. ad 1. explicatur seq. propos. — Idem dub. solvit S. Thom., hic circa lit.
    The ancients (cfr. above, dist. 24, part II, art. 2, q. 3) concluded this from C. Gratia (1), in which it is said: But if they do not receive [as simoniacs, grace in the ecclesiastical orders], they do not have it; but if they do not have it, they can give it to no one either freely or not freely, etc. Cfr. also there C. Quod quidam (97), which is Augustine's, and from which the Master, here in the text, chap. 1, adduces much. St. Bonaventure teaches the same above, dist. 24, part II, art. 2, q. 3, ad 4, and cfr. there scholion n. 11. Ibid., art. 1, q. 3, ad 1, the following proposition is explained. — St. Thomas resolves the same doubt, here on the text.
  8. 8
    Cfr. hic lit. Magistri, c. 2.
    Cfr. here the text of the Master, chap. 2.
  9. 9
    Libr. IV. Reg. 5, 27: Sed et lepra Naaman adhaerebit tibi et semini tuo usque in sempiternum. Et egressus est ab eo leprosus quasi nix. — De hoc dub. cfr. Alex. Hal., S. p. II. q. 169. m. 1; B. Albert., hic a. 6; S. Thom., hic q. 3. a. I. quaestiunc. I. ad 4; Petr. a Tar., hic q. 2. a. I. ad 1; Richard. a Med., hic a. 2. q. 2.
    4 Kings 5:27: But the leprosy of Naaman shall also cleave to thee and to thy seed for ever. And he went out from him a leper as white as snow. — On this doubt cfr. Alexander of Hales, Summa, part II, q. 169, membrum 1; Bl. Albert, here art. 6; St. Thomas, here q. 3, art. 1, quaestiuncula 1, ad 4; Peter of Tarentaise, here q. 2, art. 1, ad 1; Richard of Middleton, here art. 2, q. 2.
  10. 10
    Edd. cum pluribus codd. ut accipiat.
    The editions, with several codices, read ut accipiat (that he may receive).
  11. 11
    Edd. statum.
    The editions read statum (state) [for gradum, rank].
  12. 12
    Secundum Aristot., II. Elench. c. 3. (c. 22.). Vide etiam supra pag. 657, nota 5.
    According to Aristotle, Sophistical Refutations II, c. 3 (c. 22). See also above, p. 657, note 5.
  13. 13
    Cfr. C. Si qui a simoniacis (108.), C. 1. q. I. — Inferius pro excusato, quod habent codd. A B E G L (F a secunda manu), alii codd. et edd. excommunicato. Subinde pro aliud, quod habent plurimi codd., edd. ire ad alium. In fine solut. edd. omittunt et excusatur, pro quo plures codd. perperam et excommunicatur.
    Cfr. C. Si qui a simoniacis (108), C. 1, q. 1. — Below, for excusato, which codices A B E G L (F by a second hand) have, other codices and the editions read excommunicato. Then for aliud, which most codices have, the editions read ire ad alium. At the end of the solution the editions omit et excusatur, for which several codices wrongly read et excommunicatur.
  14. 14
    Cfr. de hoc dub. Richard. a Med., hic a. 2. q. 3.
    On this doubt cfr. Richard of Middleton, here art. 2, q. 3.
  15. 15
    Vide C. De iure vero patronatus (16.), X. de Iure patronatus (lib. III. tit. 38.), ubi dicitur, quod «inconveniens sit vendi ius patronatus, quod est spirituali annexum».
    See C. De iure vero patronatus (16), X. de Iure patronatus (bk. III, tit. 38), where it is said that «it is unfitting that a right of patronage be sold, which is annexed to a spiritual thing».
  16. 16
    Cod. L tantum, cod. aa et ed. I econtra.
    Codex L reads tantum, codex aa and edition 1 read econtra.
  17. 17
    Secundum C. Ex litteris (7.), X. de Iure patronatus (lib. III. tit. 38.), ius patronatus transit cum universitate vendita in universali, nisi excipiatur. — Idem dub. solvunt Alex. Hal., S. p. II. q. 169. m. 4. a. 2. in fine; B. Albert., hic a. 2; S. Thom., hic q. 3. a. 2. quaestiunc. 3; Petr. a Tar., hic q. 2. a. 2; Richard. a Med., hic a. 3. q. 3. et circa lit.
    According to C. Ex litteris (7), X. de Iure patronatus (bk. III, tit. 38), the right of patronage passes with the whole property when sold in its entirety, unless it be excepted. — The same doubt is resolved by Alexander of Hales, Summa, part II, q. 169, membrum 4, art. 2, at the end; Bl. Albert, here art. 2; St. Thomas, here q. 3, art. 2, quaestiuncula 3; Peter of Tarentaise, here q. 2, art. 2; Richard of Middleton, here art. 3, q. 3, and on the text.
  18. 18
    Edd. Munus, cui lectioni favent cod. A a secunda manu correctus et B. Albert., hic a. 5; sed infra explicatur nummus.
    The editions read Munus (gift), a reading favored by codex A as corrected by a second hand and by Bl. Albert, here art. 5; but below nummus (money) is explained.
  19. 19
    Cfr. supra pag. 593, nota 3.
    Cfr. above, p. 593, note 3.
  20. 20
    Scilicet Aaron cum filiis; cfr. Exod. 28, 43.
    Namely Aaron with his sons; cfr. Exod. 28:43.
  21. 21
    Cod. O avarus, cod. K (I a secunda manu) ex avaritia, edd. avaritiam.
    Codex O reads avarus, codex K (1 by a second hand) reads ex avaritia, the editions read avaritiam.
  22. 22
    In edd. desideratur hoc secundum membrum.
    In the editions this second member is lacking.
  23. 23
    Cod. T communicat. Edd. omittunt ex causa indirecta [i. e. inordinata] tribuit.
    Codex T reads communicat. The editions omit ex causa indirecta [i.e. inordinata] tribuit.
  24. 24
    Epist. 1. Ioan., 2, 16. — De amore male inflammante et timore male humiliante cfr. tom. II. pag. 146, nota 7. verba August. — Inferius pro quod comprehendit nonnulli codd. quae comprehendit.
    1 John 2:16. — On love wrongly inflaming and fear wrongly humbling, cfr. vol. II, p. 146, note 7, the words of Augustine. — Below, for quod comprehendit several codices read quae comprehendit.
  25. 25
    Gregor., IX. Moral. c. 34. n. 53: Tres vero sunt acceptiones munerum, ad quas ex fraude festinatur. Munus namque a corde est captata gratia a cogitatione; munus ab ore est gloria per favorem; munus ex manu est praemium per dationem. Cfr. ibid. XII. c. 54. n. 62, et 1. Homil. in Evang. homil. 4. n. 4, ubi distinguit munus ab obsequio, munus a manu et munus a lingua. Vide etiam C. Salvator praedicit (8.), C. 1. q. 3. § 1.
    Gregory, Moralia IX, c. 34, n. 53: There are three kinds of the acceptance of gifts, toward which one hastens out of fraud. For a gift from the heart is favor captured by thought; a gift from the mouth is glory through favor; a gift from the hand is a reward through giving. Cfr. ibid. XII, c. 54, n. 62, and Homily 1 on the Gospel, homily 4, n. 4, where he distinguishes a gift from compliance, a gift from the hand, and a gift from the tongue. See also C. Salvator praedicit (8), C. 1, q. 3, § 1.
  26. 26
    Vers. 7.
    Verse 7 (i.e. Proverbs 10:7).
  27. 27
    Cfr. supra pag. 500, nota 4. — Idem dub. solvunt Alex. Hal., S. p. II. q. 169. m. 3; B. Albert., hic a. 5; S. Thom., hic q. 3. a. 3. et circa lit.; Petr. a Tar., hic q. 2. a. 1.
    Cfr. above, p. 500, note 4. — The same doubt is resolved by Alexander of Hales, Summa, part II, q. 169, membrum 3; Bl. Albert, here art. 5; St. Thomas, here q. 3, art. 3, and on the text; Peter of Tarentaise, here q. 2, art. 1. ---
← Dist. 25, Art. 2, Q. 4