← Back to Distinction 30

Dist. 30, Dubia

Book IV: On the Sacraments · Distinction 30

Textus Latinus
p. 711

DUBIA CIRCA LITTERAM MAGISTRI.

Dub. I

In parte ista sunt dubitationes circa litteram, et primo de hoc quod dicit: Si enim diabolus, transfigurans se in angelum lucis, credatur bonus, non est error perniciosus1. Videtur enim falsum dicere, quia hic est error, qui ducit ad idololatriam, ut si ostendat, se esse Christum, et credatur et adoretur.

Respondeo: Dicendum, quod Magister loquitur de errore illo ita, quod non procedatur ultra, quia iste non est error iuris, sed facti2. — Vel si ultra procedat, intelligitur ita, quod non simpliciter, sed sub conditione, utpote si adoret eum, si est Christus; tunc nulla est idololatria nec deceptio periculosa. Si autem ultra procedat, tunc incipit esse periculum3.

Dub. II

Item quaeritur de hoc quod dicit: Si quis haereticus nomine Augustini vel Ambrosii etc. Videtur, quod talis error sit periculosissimus: quia si talem haereticum nomine Augustini recipit, tunc credet omnia quae sibi dicet, et ita contra fidem, et efficietur qui sic credit haereticus, et nullus a tali errore excusatur: ergo etc.

Respondeo: Dicendum, quod si haereticus ille, qui sic se offerret sub nomine Augustini, procederet in praedicando errorem: si ei tunc crederet, periculum esset, quia non tantum in persona esset error, verum etiam in fide. Nec excusatur talis, qui tali assentit, quoniam habet consiliarium interiorem, ad quem debet retroire4 et quem debet consulere. Sed si ille non procedat ultra, sed solum in generali dicat, quod sequatur sectam suam; tunc nullum est periculum: verum in persona et si praedicat ei Augustini, potest ibi esse meritum in assentiendo.

Unde nota, quod in eadem veritate assentiens aliquis alicui secundum quod catholico doctori meretur; assentiens ut haeretico demeretur; assentiens ut philosopho nec meretur nec demeretur. Unde esto, quod sicut Moyses5 dixit: In principio creavit Deus caelum et terram, ita etiam diceret Aristoteles, ita etiam Arius; qui crederet quod Moyses dicit, mereretur, quia crederet, quod Spiritu sancto fuerit afflatus, et ita crederet primae Veritati. Qui crederet quod Aristoteles dicit, nec mereretur nec demereretur, quia adhaereret sapientiae mundanae. Qui crederet quod Arius dicit, putans, Arium, qui fuit haereticus, esse doctorem verum, demereretur, quia assensus est fundatus6 super haeresim. p. 712

Dub. III

Item quaeritur de hoc quod dicit: Error fortunae consensum non excludit. Videtur enim male dicere: quia possibile est, quod aliquis consentiat in aliquam pro sola pecunia; ratio consentiendi fuit pecunia; sed non existente causa principali, non existit effectus7: ergo si non est dives illa, in quam consentitur propter divitias, non est consensus: ergo nec matrimonium. — Item, esto quod consensus exprimeretur sub conditione pecuniae; deinde si non daretur, non esset matrimonium in conspectu Ecclesiae8: ergo pari ratione, si non est ita in corde, non est matrimonium in conspectu Dei.

Respondeo: Dicendum, quod error fortunae non excludit consensum, immo consensum inducit. Inducitur autem consensus falsa aestimatione ad eliciendum consensum verum; et cum non sit in aliam personam quam in hanc, verus est consensus, et verum est matrimonium.

Quod ergo obiicitur, quod pecunia est causa; dicendum, quod falsum est, immo aestimatio, vel spes habendae pecuniae.

Ad illud quod obiicitur, si consentiret spe pecuniae; dicendum, quod aliud est spe pecuniae consentire, aliud sub conditione consentire. Qui enim consentit spe pecuniae supponit divitias in aestimatione et absolute elicit consensum ex voluntate, et ideo matrimonium contrahit; sed qui sub conditione, reservat sibi adhuc consensum, et ideo non est matrimonium; nec est similitudo inter hunc consensum et illum9.

Dub. IV

Item quaeritur de hoc quod dicit: Postea vero expresserunt et in virginitate permanserunt. Contra: Matthaei primo10: Accepit Mariam coniugem suam et non cognoscebat eam, donec peperit Filium suum primogenitum. Ex hac littera dupliciter arguitur: primo de ly donec: ergo post cognovit; similiter de ly primogenitum, quia primum dicitur respectu secundi. — Item, Ioannis secundo11: Descendit Capharnaum ipse et Mater eius et fratres eius: ergo fratres habuit; et constat, quod non de patre: ergo de Matre.

Respondeo: Dicendum, quod ex duplici verbo praedicto ortum habuit vilissima haeresis Claudianorum12, qui fatentur, beatam Virginem post generationem Christi fuisse cognitam a Ioseph; sed ista haeresis est omnino irrationabilis, quod beatissima Mater Dei, ex quo fuit templum Dei et Spiritus sancti, operi carnis vacaret. Hoc non potest cadere nisi in animam impiam et stultam, credere scilicet tantam in Matre Dei indignitatem; ideo erroneum est et perniciosum. Et Dominus in morte istum errorem evacuavit, quando eam beato Ioanni recommendavit et dedit eum sibi in solatium loco Filii: utquid illum dedisset, si filios habuisset13? p. 713

Quod ergo obiicitur de ly donec, dicendum, quod dicit terminum incertum, sicut ibi14: Dixit Dominus Domino meo: sede a dextris meis, donec ponam inimicos etc.; constat, quod post sedebit a dextris. — Similiter hoc nomen primogenitum privat ordinem ad anterius, non ponit ordinem ad posterius; et ideo primogenitus appellatur, quia Dominus erat secundum Legem offerendus. — Et si tu obiicias, quod habuit aliquos fratres; dicendum, quod fratres vocantur ibi propinqui in secundo gradu, vel in tertio15.

Dub. V

Item quaeritur de hoc quod dicit: Committens se divinae dispositioni consensit in carnalem copulam: ergo videtur, quod saltem fuerit mente corrupta; quod dicere est blasphemia. — Item, videtur sibi contradicere, quia paulo ante16 dicit: «Consensit Maria in maritalem societatem, sed non in carnalem copulam»: ergo falsum dicit nunc.

Respondeo: Dicendum, quod illud verbum Augustini intelligitur, non quia Virgo consenserit, ut ipsam cognosceret, quia nunquam credo hoc ipsam voluisse, nec Deum hoc sibi inspirasse; sed consensit in coniugalem societatem sive in mutuam corporum potestatem, quae ordinata erat ad copulam carnalem, non tamen ordinatione necessaria17.

Dub. VI

Item quaeritur de hoc quod dicit, quod Iacob Rachel decoram facie et venusto aspectu18 amavit; utrum peccaverit. Et quod sic, videtur, quia Magister dicit in littera19, quod «pulcritudo est causa minus honesta, propter quam contrahitur matrimonium». — Item, fallax gratia et vana est pulcritudo, sicut dicitur Proverbiorum ultimo20: ergo qui propter pulcritudinem contrahit matrimonium movetur ex vanitate: si ergo in Sacramentis divinis talis causa est reprehensibilis, patet etc.

Respondeo: Dicendum, quod pulcritudo in muliere vel in viro potest dupliciter movere ad matrimonium contrahendum: aut sicut causa principalis, aut sicut causa inducens et attrahens quodam modo. Si sicut causa principalis; tunc est causa minus honesta, quia non debet hoc intendi in matrimonio, sed filiorum procreatio, vel aliquod simile, et hoc iterum ordinatum est ad divinum obsequium. Si autem sicut inducens; potest esse sine peccato, ad minus gravi, pro eo quod pulcritudo naturaliter attrahit animum ad amorem; et si amor talis sit complacentiae non multum intensus, non est culpabilis. — Si quis autem dicat, quod Iacob ibi venialiter peccaverit, non est multum improbabile. — Et nota, quod multae possunt esse causae inducentes, quae sine peccato inducunt, dum tamen non sistatur in eis, scilicet gratia, pulcritudo, divitiae, merces21, sapientia, virtus, sed virtus et mores super omnia sunt attendenda.

English Translation
p. 711

DOUBTS CONCERNING THE TEXT OF THE MASTER.

Doubt I

In this part there are doubts concerning the text, and first concerning what he says: For if the devil, transfiguring himself into an angel of light, is believed to be good, this is not a pernicious error1. For it seems false to say this, since here there is an error which leads to idolatry, as if he should show himself to be Christ, and be believed and adored.

I respond: It must be said that the Master speaks of that error in such a way that it is not carried further, because this is not an error of law, but of fact2. — Or if it is carried further, it is understood in such a way that it is not simply so, but under a condition, namely if one should adore him, if he is Christ; then there is no idolatry nor dangerous deception. But if it is carried further still, then it begins to be a danger3.

Doubt II

Likewise it is asked concerning what he says: If someone heretical under the name of Augustine or Ambrose, etc. It seems that such an error would be most dangerous: because if he receives such a heretic under the name of Augustine, then he will believe everything the heretic says to him, and so [act] against the faith, and he who believes in this way becomes a heretic, and no one is excused from such an error: therefore, etc.

I respond: It must be said that if that heretic, who offered himself in this way under the name of Augustine, were to proceed in preaching an error: if one were then to believe him, it would be a danger, because the error would be not only in the person, but also in the faith. Nor is one excused who assents to such a person, since he has an interior counselor, to whom he ought to turn back4 and whom he ought to consult. But if that person does not proceed further, but only says in general that one should follow his own sect; then there is no danger: it is true in the person, and if he preaches the truth of Augustine to him, there can be merit in assenting there.

Hence note that, in the same truth, one who assents to another according as he is a Catholic doctor merits; assenting to him as to a heretic, one demerits; assenting to him as to a philosopher, one neither merits nor demerits. Hence suppose that, just as Moses5 said: In the beginning God created heaven and earth, so too would Aristotle say it, so too would Arius; he who believed what Moses says would merit, because he would believe that Moses was inspired by the Holy Spirit, and so would believe the First Truth. He who believed what Aristotle says would neither merit nor demerit, because he would be adhering to worldly wisdom. He who believed what Arius says, thinking Arius, who was a heretic, to be a true doctor, would demerit, because his assent is founded6 upon heresy. p. 712

Doubt III

Likewise it is asked concerning what he says: An error of fortune does not exclude consent. For it seems to speak badly: because it is possible that someone should consent to a woman for money alone; the reason for consenting was the money; but the principal cause not existing, the effect does not exist7: therefore if she in whom one consents on account of riches is not rich, there is no consent: therefore no marriage either. — Likewise, suppose that consent were expressed under the condition of money; then if it were not given, there would be no marriage in the sight of the Church8: therefore by the same reasoning, if it is not so in the heart, there is no marriage in the sight of God.

I respond: It must be said that an error of fortune does not exclude consent, but rather induces consent. For consent is induced by a false estimation so as to elicit true consent; and since it is not directed toward another person than this one, the consent is true, and the marriage is true.

As to what is objected, that money is the cause; it must be said that this is false, but rather it is the estimation, or hope of having money, [that is the cause].

To what is objected, if one should consent in hope of money; it must be said that it is one thing to consent in hope of money, another to consent under a condition. For he who consents in hope of money supposes riches in his estimation and absolutely elicits consent from the will, and therefore contracts marriage; but he who consents under a condition reserves his consent to himself still, and therefore there is no marriage; nor is there a likeness between this consent and that one9.

Doubt IV

Likewise it is asked concerning what he says: But afterward they declared it and remained in virginity. On the contrary: Matthew, chapter one10: He took Mary his wife and did not know her, until she brought forth her firstborn son. From this text a twofold argument is made: first from the word until: therefore he knew her afterward; likewise from the word firstborn, because first is said with respect to a second. — Likewise, John chapter two11: He went down to Capharnaum, he and his mother and his brothers: therefore he had brothers; and it is agreed that this is not said of the father: therefore of the Mother.

I respond: It must be said that from the aforesaid twofold expression the most base heresy of the Claudianists12 took its rise, who assert that the blessed Virgin was known by Joseph after the birth of Christ; but this heresy is altogether irrational, [holding] that the most blessed Mother of God, since she was the temple of God and of the Holy Spirit, should be given over to the work of the flesh. This cannot fall except into an impious and foolish soul, believing, that is, so great an indignity in the Mother of God; therefore it is erroneous and pernicious. And the Lord at his death did away with this error, when he commended her to blessed John and gave him to her as a comfort in place of a Son: for why would he have given him, if she had had sons13? p. 713

As to what is objected concerning the word until, it must be said that it states an uncertain term, just as there14: The Lord said to my Lord: sit at my right hand, until I make your enemies etc.; it is agreed that afterward he will sit at [his] right hand. — Likewise this name firstborn removes an order to what is prior, it does not posit an order to what is later; and therefore he is called firstborn because he was, according to the Law, to be offered. — And if you should object that he had some brothers; it must be said that brothers are there called kinsmen in the second degree, or in the third15.

Doubt V

Likewise it is asked concerning what he says: Committing herself to the divine disposition, she consented to carnal intercourse: therefore it seems that she was at least corrupted in mind; which to say is blasphemy. — Likewise, he seems to contradict himself, because a little before16 he says: «Mary consented to the marital society, but not to carnal intercourse»: therefore he now says something false.

I respond: It must be said that that saying of Augustine is understood, not as though the Virgin had consented so as to know him carnally, since I never believe that she herself willed this, nor that God inspired this in her; but she consented to the conjugal society, or to the mutual power over each other's body, which was ordained to carnal intercourse, though not by a necessary ordination17.

Doubt VI

Likewise it is asked concerning what he says, that Jacob loved Rachel for her comely face and graceful appearance18; whether he sinned. And it seems that he did, because the Master says in the text19 that «beauty is a less honorable cause on account of which marriage is contracted». — Likewise, favor is deceitful and beauty is vain, as is said in the last chapter of Proverbs20: therefore whoever contracts marriage on account of beauty is moved by vanity: therefore if in the divine Sacraments such a cause is reprehensible, the point is evident, etc.

I respond: It must be said that beauty in a woman or in a man can move one to contract marriage in two ways: either as a principal cause, or as a cause inducing and attracting in a certain manner. If as a principal cause; then it is a less honorable cause, because this ought not to be the intention in marriage, but rather the procreation of children, or something similar, and this in turn is ordained to the divine service. But if as an inducing [cause]; it can be without sin, or at least without a grave one, inasmuch as beauty naturally draws the mind to love; and if such love of complacency is not very intense, it is not blameworthy. — But if someone should say that Jacob sinned venially there, this is not very improbable. — And note that there can be many inducing causes, which induce without sin, provided one does not rest in them, namely favor, beauty, riches, wages21, wisdom, virtue — but virtue and character are above all to be attended to.

Apparatus Criticus
  1. 1
    Magister in lit. periculosus.
    The Master in the text [reads] periculosus ("dangerous") [rather than perniciosus, "pernicious"].
  2. 2
    Cfr. supra d. 27. a. 2. q. 2. in fine corp.
    Cf. above, d. 27, a. 2, q. 2, at the end of the body.
  3. 3
    Vide III. Sent. d. 9. a. 1. q. 6; B. Albert., hic a. 6; S. Thom., Petr. a Tar. et Richard. a Med., hic circa lit.
    See III Sent., d. 9, a. 1, q. 6; Bl. Albert, here a. 6; St. Thomas, Peter of Tarantasia, and Richard of Mediavilla, here around the text.
  4. 4
    Edd. recurrere.
    The editions [read] recurrere ("to have recourse") [rather than retroire].
  5. 5
    Gen. 1, 1. — Inferius pro quod Moyses dicit cod. L Moysi, quod diceret verum, plures codd. quod Moyses [aliqui codd. omittunt Moyses] diceret verum.
    Genesis 1:1. — Below, for quod Moyses dicit ("what Moses says") codex L [reads] Moysi, quod diceret verum ("of Moses, that he would speak the truth"), several codices [read] quod Moyses [some codices omit Moyses] diceret verum ("that Moses would speak the truth").
  6. 6
    Cod. K assensus eius fundatur. — Cfr. de hoc dubio B. Albert., hic a. 7; S. Thom., Petr. a Tar. et Richard. a Med., hic circa lit.
    Codex K [reads] assensus eius fundatur ("his assent is founded" [passive]). — Cf. on this doubt Bl. Albert, here a. 7; St. Thomas, Peter of Tarantasia, and Richard of Mediavilla, here around the text.
  7. 7
    Cfr. supra pag. 493, nota 6.
    Cf. above, p. 493, note 6.
  8. 8
    Vide supra pag. 669, nota 4.
    See above, p. 669, note 4.
  9. 9
    Cfr. supra d. 28. q. 3. ad 2; B. Albert., hic a. 4; S. Thom., hic q. 1. a. 2. ad 4; Petr. a Tar., hic q. 1. a. 2; Richard. a Med., hic a. 1. q. 2.
    Cf. above, d. 28, q. 3, ad 2; Bl. Albert, here a. 4; St. Thomas, here q. 1, a. 2, ad 4; Peter of Tarantasia, here q. 1, a. 2; Richard of Mediavilla, here a. 1, q. 2.
  10. 10
    Vers. 24. seq.
    Verse 24 and following.
  11. 11
    Vers. 12.
    Verse 12.
  12. 12
    Epiphan., III. adversus Haeres. haeres. 78, eos qui hanc haeresim amplectebantur, generali nomine Antidicomarianitae designat, cuius auctorem commemorat Apollinarem aut eius discipulos. August., de Haeres. n. 56. eodem nomine (Antidicomaritae) utitur et n. 84. dicit, Helvidianos hunc errorem docuisse (cfr. Hieron., de Perpetua Virginitate B. Mariae adversus Helvidium). Ambros., de Institutione virgin. c. 3. n. 35, refert, quendam episcopum [ed. Maurin. in nota adiecta hunc episcopum nominat Bonosum] in hanc haeresim prolapsum esse. Investigare nequivimus, quare haec haeresis a S. Bonav., vel potius in codd. et edd. nominetur haeresis Claudianorum. Fortasse error irrepsit in codd. male scribendo Claudianorum pro Elvidianorum (Helvidianorum). — Inferius verbis templum Dei cod. L interserit Filii.
    Epiphanius, book III against Heresies, heresy 78, designates by the general name Antidicomarianitae those who embraced this heresy, whose author he records as Apollinaris or his disciples. Augustine, On Heresies, n. 56, uses the same name (Antidicomaritae) and at n. 84 says the Helvidians taught this error (cf. Jerome, On the Perpetual Virginity of the Blessed Mary, against Helvidius). Ambrose, On the Institution of Virgins, c. 3, n. 35, reports that a certain bishop [the Maurist edition, in an added note, names this bishop Bonosus] fell into this heresy. We have not been able to discover why this heresy is named by St. Bonaventure, or rather in the codices and editions, the heresy of the Claudianists. Perhaps the error crept into the codices by writing Claudianorum mistakenly for Elvidianorum (Helvidianorum). — Below, in the words templum Dei ("temple of God"), codex L inserts Filii ("of the Son").
  13. 13
    Edd. recurrere.
    [See the note on] the editions' [reading] recurrere [is repeated at this locus in the Quaracchi apparatus].
  14. 14
    Psalm. 109, 1. — Inferius respicitur Exod. 13, 2: Sanctifica mihi omne primogenitum etc. Cfr. Num. 3, 13; 8, 16. seqq. et Luc. 2, 22. seqq.
    Psalm 109:1 [Vulgate numbering; = Ps 110:1]. — Below, reference is made to Exodus 13:2: Sanctify unto me every firstborn etc. Cf. Numbers 3:13; 8:16 and following, and Luke 2:22 and following.
  15. 15
    Idem dub. solvitur a S. Thom., hic q. 2. a. 3; Petr. a Tar., hic q. 2. a. 1.; Richard. a Med., hic a. 2. q. 1.
    The same doubt is resolved by St. Thomas, here q. 2, a. 3; Peter of Tarantasia, here q. 2, a. 1; Richard of Mediavilla, here a. 2, q. 1.
  16. 16
    Hic c. 2.
    Here, c. 2 [of the Master's text].
  17. 17
    Cfr. supra d. 28. q. 6; B. Albert., hic a. 11; S. Thom., hic circa lit.; Richard. a Med., hic a. 2. q. 2. ad 3.
    Cf. above, d. 28, q. 6; Bl. Albert, here a. 11; St. Thomas, here around the text; Richard of Mediavilla, here a. 2, q. 2, ad 3.
  18. 18
    Codd., terminis transpositis, venustam facie et decoro aspectu.
    The codices, with the terms transposed, [read] venustam facie et decoro aspectu ("comely in face and graceful in appearance").
  19. 19
    Hic c. 3. — Post pulcritudo addunt procul dubio.
    Here, c. 3 [of the Master's text]. — After pulcritudo ("beauty") they add procul dubio ("without doubt").
  20. 20
    Vers. 30.
    Verse 30.
  21. 21
    Codd. F K L (1 primitus) mores; edd. post virtus addunt et mores. Superius pro inducunt codd. R S T movent. — Cfr. supra q. 3; B. Albert., hic a. 13; S. Thom., Petr. a Tar., hic q. 3. a. 1; Richard. a Med., hic a. 3. q. 1.
    Codices F, K, L (1 originally) [read] mores ("character"); the editions add et mores ("and character") after virtus ("virtue"). Above, for inducunt ("they induce"), codices R, S, T [read] movent ("they move"). — Cf. above, q. 3; Bl. Albert, here a. 13; St. Thomas, Peter of Tarantasia, here q. 3, a. 1; Richard of Mediavilla, here a. 3, q. 1.
← Dist. 30, Art. 1, Q. 3