Dist. 28, Dubia
Book IV: On the Sacraments · Distinction 28
DUBIA CIRCA LITTERAM MAGISTRI.
Dub. I
In parte ista sunt dubitationes circa litteram, et primo de hoc quod dicit: Si quis promittat alicui et iuret etc.; quaeritur, utrum iuramentum addat ad promissionem. Si enim nihil addit, ergo frustra apponitur; si addit, ergo firmior est promissio et maius vinculum. Sed contra: maius vinculum superveniens solvit minus, ut votum privatum solvitur per matrimonium consummatum1: ergo si aliquis spondeat alicui cum simplici fide, et post alii cum iuramento; videtur, quod teneatur ad secundam.
Respondeo: Dicendum, quod in his quae sunt eiusdem fori generis2, quamvis unum sit maius alio, tamen non solvit. Unde matrimonium consummatum non solvit ratum, eo quod utrumque est matrimonium et ligat in facie Ecclesiae; similiter nec sponsalia solvunt sponsalia, sed matrimonium sponsalia solvit; et ideo standum est primae fidei et obligationi. Nam secundum iuramentum nullum est, eo quod contra id est, quod fideliter adimplere tenetur; unde faciendum est secundum illud Isidori3: «In malis promissis rescinde fidem»: ideo iurando peccavit, sed non peccavit adhaerendo primae.
Dub. II
Item quaeritur de hoc quod dicit: Non autem sic est, quando iuramentum coniugii praesentis consensus attestatione firmatur. Videtur enim male dicere, quia matrimonium ante copulam solvitur per votum solemne: ergo cum matrimonium consummatum tantae sit obligationis, ut votum; videtur, quod similiter solvere debeat.
Respondeo: Dicendum, quod non est simile, quia hic sunt obligationes eiusdem generis4; praeterea, uterque vivit mundo; et iterum, in sequenti matrimonio fides promittitur et datur mulieri. In voto autem solemni est obligatio alterius generis; praeterea, moritur homo mundo, quod solvit tale vinculum5; et iterum, fides et obsequium promittitur Deo, cui plus tenemur quam alii: et ideo non est simile. Status perfectionis assumitur; et ideo tale votum licitum est ac per hoc obligatorium; secundum autem matrimonium non est licitum, et ideo nec robur habet nec obligationem. Et sic patet, quod non est simile.
Dub. III
Item quaeritur de hoc quod dicit, quod sine benedictione non fit coniugium quantum ad honestatem Sacramenti. Videtur enim falsum, quia in secundis nuptiis est Sacramentum honestum, et tamen non est benedictio.
Respondeo: Dicendum, quod in secundis nuptiis, maxime quando mulier est vidua, non fit benedictio propter defectum Sacramenti, sicut infra6 patebit. Fit autem benedictio et celebratur Missa de Trinitate propter triplex bonum matrimonii, quod tribus personis appropriatur: bonum prolis Patri, bonum fidei Filio, bonum Sacramenti sive vinculi indivisibilis Spiritui sancto appropriatur.
---
DOUBTS CONCERNING THE TEXT OF THE MASTER.
Doubt I
In this part there are doubts concerning the text, and first concerning what it says: If someone promises something to another and swears, etc.; it is asked whether the oath adds anything to the promise. For if it adds nothing, then it is applied in vain; if it does add something, then the promise and the bond are firmer. But on the contrary: a greater bond arising afterward dissolves a lesser one, as a private vow is dissolved by a consummated marriage1: therefore if someone should pledge himself to one person with simple faith, and afterward to another with an oath, it seems that he would be bound to the second.
I respond: It must be said that among things that are of the same kind of forum2, although one is greater than another, nevertheless it does not dissolve [the other]. Hence a consummated marriage does not dissolve a ratified one, because each is a marriage and binds in the face of the Church; likewise, betrothal-vows do not dissolve betrothal-vows, but marriage dissolves betrothal; and therefore one must stand by the first faith and obligation. For the second oath is null, because it is contrary to what one is bound faithfully to fulfill; hence it must be done according to that saying of Isidore3: "In evil promises, rescind your faith": therefore he sinned in swearing, but did not sin in adhering to the first.
Doubt II
Likewise it is asked concerning what it says: But it is not so, when the oath of a present marriage is confirmed by the attestation of consent. For it seems wrong to say this, because a marriage before consummation is dissolved by a solemn vow: therefore, since a consummated marriage is of as great an obligation as a vow, it seems that it likewise ought to dissolve [it].
I respond: It must be said that it is not alike, because here the obligations are of the same kind4; moreover, each of the two [spouses] remains alive to the world; and again, in the subsequent marriage faith is promised and given to the woman. But in a solemn vow the obligation is of another kind; moreover, a man dies to the world, which dissolves such a bond5; and again, faith and service are promised to God, to whom we are more bound than to others: and therefore it is not alike. A state of perfection is taken on; and therefore such a vow is licit and thereby binding; but the second marriage is not licit, and therefore has neither force nor obligation. And thus it is plain that it is not alike.
Doubt III
Likewise it is asked concerning what it says, that without a blessing marriage does not come about as regards the honorableness of the Sacrament. This seems false, because in second marriages the Sacrament is honorable, and yet there is no blessing.
I respond: It must be said that in second marriages, especially when the woman is a widow, the blessing is not given, on account of a defect in the Sacrament, as will appear below6. But a blessing is given and the Mass of the Trinity is celebrated, on account of the threefold good of marriage, which is appropriated to the three Persons: the good of offspring is appropriated to the Father, the good of faith to the Son, and the good of the Sacrament, or of the indivisible bond, to the Holy Spirit.
---
- 1Cfr. infra d. 38. a. 2. q. 1.Cf. below, d. 38, a. 2, q. 1.
- 2Codd. K L P Q Y (I a secunda manu) fori et generis.Codices K, L, P, Q, Y (I by a second hand) read fori et generis ("of the forum and of kind").
- 3Libr. II. Synonim. n. 58. Cfr. C. In malis (5.), C. 22. q. 4. Cod. aa secundum textum originalem addit in turpi voto muta decretum. — Vide de hoc dubio B. Albert., hic a. 1; S. Thom., hic q. 1. a. 1; Petr. a Tar., hic q. 4. a. 1. ad 4.; Richard. a Med., hic a. 1. q. 1. ad 2.Bk. II of the Synonyms, n. 58. Cf. chap. In malis (5), C. 22, q. 4. Codex aa, following the original text, adds in turpi voto muta decretum ("in a shameful vow, alter the decree"). — On this dubium see Bl. Albert, here a. 1; St. Thomas, here q. 1, a. 1; Peter of Tarentaise, here q. 4, a. 1, ad 4; Richard of Mediavilla, here a. 1, q. 1, ad 2.
- 4Cfr. dub. praeced.Cf. the preceding dubium.
- 5Ut ostensum est supra d. 27. a. 3. q. 2. in corp. — Inferius voci status edd. cum paucis codd. praemittunt quia, cod. aa addit enim.As was shown above, d. 27, a. 3, q. 2, in the body. — Further below, before the word status the editions, with a few codices, prefix quia ("because"); codex aa adds enim ("for").
- 6Dist. 42. a. 3. q. 2. ad 4. — Mox pro de Trinitate, edd. determinate (nunc pro sponsis non Trinitate, sed Missa specialis), et pro indivisibilis codd. I K R indissolubilis. — Idem dub. solvunt S. Thom., hic circa lit.Dist. 42, a. 3, q. 2, ad 4. — Shortly after, for de Trinitate ("of the Trinity") the editions read determinate ("determinate"; now, for the couple, not the Mass of the Trinity, but a special Mass), and for indivisibilis ("indivisible") codices I, K, R read indissolubilis ("indissoluble"). — St. Thomas resolves the same doubt here, near the text. ---