Bonaventure — Opera Omnia

Dist. 39, Dubia

Book IV: On the Sacraments · Distinction 39

Textus Latinus

p. 842

## DUBIA CIRCA LITTERAM MAGISTRI.

Dub. I.

In parte ista sunt dubitationes circa litteram et primo quaeritur de hoc quod dicit, quod evidenter apparet, non posse contrahi matrimonium ab his qui sunt diversae fidei. Videtur enim ex hoc, quod si aliquis vult baptizari et est fidelis, quod etiam ante baptismum contrahi possit cum illo.

Respondeo: Dicendum, quod fides non tantum accipitur pro habitu credendi, quantum accipitur pro Sacramento fidei; et hoc probatur per illud quod dicitur Causa vigesima octava, quaestione prima⁹, Cave, Christiane, et infra: « Si Christiana sit, non est satis, nisi ambo initiati sitis Sacramento baptismi ». Unde Hugo fuit istius opinionis, quod hoc intelligitur quantum ad Sacramentum baptismi, scilicet disparitas cultus. Quamvis ergo talis fidem habeat, quia tamen non habet fidei Sacramentum; ideo non est persona ad contrahendum legitima¹⁰.

Dub. II.

Item quaeritur de hoc quod dicit: Apostolus, ne fiat, consilio caritatis suadet. Videtur enim male dicere, quia ex hoc videtur, quod fidelis licite possit infideli cohabitare. Sed contra: Causa vigesima octava, quaestione prima¹¹, Iudaei etc.: « Non potest infidelis in eius permanere coniunctione, quae iam in christianam translata est fidem »; et in duobus capitulis subsequentibus idem dicitur.

Respondeo: Dicendum, quod ad hoc voluerunt aliqui distinguere, quod illud Apostoli intelligitur de paganis, qui ad fidem facilius convertuntur. Sed ille canon intelligitur de Iudaeis, qui obstinati sunt adeo, quod potius perverterent conversos, quam per ipsos proficerent¹². — Sed cum omnes sint in malitia nunc obstinati, ista distinctio non habet locum nunc, sed in principio, cum tam Iudaei quam gentiles passim converterentur ad fidem et cum modico adiutorio, propter salutem coniugum concessit et consuluit Apostolus tunc cohabitare. — Sed postmodum Iudaei adeo sunt obstinati in malitia, quod potius volebant pervertere quam converti, adhuc gentilibus ad fidem intrantibus; et tunc concedebatur cohabitare gentilibus, non Iudaeis. — Nunc autem, quia utrique sunt in malitia obstinati, propter periculum corruptionis evitandum neutris conceditur cohabitare, quia semper praesumitur, nisi velint converti, quod nolint cohabitare sine contumelia Creatoris¹³.

p. 843

Dub. III.

Item quaeritur de hoc quod dicit: Quod propter quaslibet illicitas concupiscentias potest vir dimittere uxorem; et hoc idem supra probavit. Sed in contrarium obiicitur Hieronymus¹: « Si uxor peccat in animam suam, non est polluta viro suo »: ergo vir non potest eam dimittere. — Et hoc etiam videtur ratione: quia vir non habet potestatem animae uxoris, sed tantum corporis; sed omne peccatum, quodcumque fecerit homo, excepta fornicatione, est extra corpus²; alia enim peccata animam offendunt: ergo etc. — Item, per deductionem ad inconveniens improbatur hoc ipsum: quia, cum vix reperiantur de saecularibus personis aliqui, qui non peccent aliquando, tunc fere omnia matrimonia possent licite separari.

Respondeo: Dicendum, quod non est concessum propter fornicationem fieri matrimonii divisionem, nisi eatenus, qua per illam fornicationem alter laeditur vel offenditur, qui est matrimonialiter copulatus.

Secundum hoc nota, quod fornicatio tripliciter dicitur: proprie, communiter, communissime. Proprie dicitur fornicatio esse peccatum circa actum carnis, utpote quia coit cum non sua, vel non suo. Communiter dicitur fornicatio in Scriptura idololatria, per quem modum Prophetae ipsos idololatras meretricibus fornicariis frequenter comparant, sicut patet Ieremiae secundo³. Communissime dicitur fornicatio omnis concupiscentia inordinata, qua offenditur Deus et relinquitur. — Prima fornicatio non potest fieri ab uxore scienter, quin fiat iniuria viro; et ideo per illam potest fieri divortium, etiam pro unico solo actu, si possit probari, etiam quantumcumque fornicans poeniteat⁴. — Secunda vero tunc est in iniuriam coniugis, quando coniux in illa perseverat, quia tunc est via ducendi ad corruptionem; et ideo per illam potest fieri separatio, si coniux nolit poenitere; si autem vult poenitere et redire, non potest repudiare eam. — Tertia fornicatio tunc est in damnum coniugis, quando dat ei occasionem scandali, ut quando non vult cum eo quiete vivere, nisi consentiat male facere; et tunc potest eam dimittere vel quantum ad torum, vel quantum ad cohabitationem, non simpliciter, si ambo sunt fideles⁵.

Et per istum modum sunt intelligendae auctoritates ad hoc inductae. Nam propter alia genera peccatorum non potest dimittere, nec quantum ad torum nec quantum ad cohabitationem, nisi praestent magnam occasionem ruinae, et vehementer timeatur de lapsu. Tunc enim licet dimittere, sicut dicitur hic, et dicitur Causa vigesima octava, quaestione prima⁶, et Matthaei decimo octavo: Si oculus tuus scandalizat te; Glossa: « In manu et in oculo dextro possunt accipi frater, uxor et propinqui ». Alias non debet dimitti, sed debet corrigi, ut Extra, de Divortiis⁷, Quaesivit, et infra: « Mulier pro furto vel alio crimine viri sui, nisi religionem suae fidei corrumpere velit, ab eo separari non debet ». Et sic patent obiecta.

Dub. IV.

Item quaeritur de hoc quod dicit: Filii vestri, qui de hac copula nascuntur, immundi erunt etc. Est hic quaestio, utrum natus ex patre fideli et matre infideli debeat sequi patrem, aut matrem. Et quod matrem, videtur, quia, sicut in praecedentibus⁸ habitum est, « partus sequitur ventrem ». — Item, proles in principio « magis indiget materno solatio quam paterno⁹ »: ergo magis debet relinqui matri; sed mater est Iudaea vel infidelis. — Sed contra: Causa vigesima octava, quaestione prima¹⁰, Iudaei, et infra: « Illi qui procreati sunt de infidelibus mulieribus et fidelibus viris, christianam sequantur religionem, non Iudaicam superstitionem ».

Respondeo: Dicendum, quod proles aut pervenit ad adultam aetatem, aut non. Si pervenit; cum salus sua pendeat ex libera eius voluntate, eius est requirendus consensus; et si non vult consentire; cum iustitiam Deus nulli invito tribuat, potest cum infideli matre vel patre remanere. — Si autem minor est, cum salus sua sit a parentibus procuranda, qui etiam ad cultum Dei debuerunt procreare, et genuerunt filium irae; recte secundum ius vetus et etiam novum, sicut patet de Conversione infidelium¹¹, Ex litteris, debet sequi fidelem

p. 844

in favorem fidei et salutis illius et parvuli et boni matrimonii; nec potest mater recipere propter parvitatem, qua indigeat eius solatio, nec allegare laborem, propter periculum damnationis, quod imminet, ne ipsum detineat in infidelitatis errore. Et hoc totum probatur per illud quod habetur in praedicta decretali de Conversione infidelium, Ex litteris.

Dub. V.

Item quaeritur de hoc quod dicit: Si ambo crediderint, per agnitionem Dei confirmatur coniugium. Ponatur, quod primo credat unus, et alter discedat et nolit cohabitare vel fornicetur, et postea convertatur; utrum reddendus sit ei vir suus, an ille possit excipere de iniuria¹ dimissionis vel fornicationis. Et quod debeat reddi, videtur per litteram istam. — Item quod non possit excipere, videtur, quia in baptismo omnia sunt dimissa quoad culpam et poenam. — Sed in contrarium videtur littera praecedens²: quia « contumelia Creatoris solvit »: ergo si solutum est, videtur, quod altero nolente, non sit redintegrandum. — Item, iste fidelis statim, ut dimissus fuit, potuit contrahere: ergo statim fuit absolutus a ligamine: ergo non videtur, quod uxor possit eum repetere.

Respondeo: Dicendum, quod si coniuges successive ad fidem veniant, si neuter alterum dimisit nec fornicationem commisit; compellendi sunt insimul cohabitare et affectione maritali se invicem tractare. — Si autem alter ab altero discesserit, refert quis: utrum fidelis ab infideli, an e converso. Si fidelis ab infideli, hoc libere potuit et sine culpa; unde in nullo sibi praeiudicatur. Si infidelis a fideli, potest fidelis, etiam postquam venit ad fidem, excipere, et si vult, potest eam recipere; tamen compelli non debet, quia statim est ab ea absolutus³. — Sed de fornicatione distinguendum, quia primo conversus aut dedit occasionem fornicandi, utpote quia repudiavit, aut non. Si dedit, non potest propter fornicationem excipere; si vero non dedit, tunc potest excipere⁴.

Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod omnia crimina dimittuntur in baptismo; dicendum, quod verum est quantum ad Deum; sed non oportet, quod dimittantur, ita quod libertas proximi iniuriatur. Et sic patet illud, sicut supra⁵ dictum est de poenitentia.

---

English Translation

## DOUBTS CONCERNING THE TEXT OF THE MASTER.

Dub. I.

In this part there are doubts concerning the text, and first it is asked about that which he says, that it evidently appears that marriage cannot be contracted by those who are of a different faith. For from this it seems that, if someone wishes to be baptized and is a believer, then even before baptism a marriage could be contracted with him.

I respond: It must be said that "faith" is taken not so much for the habit of believing as it is taken for the Sacrament of faith; and this is proved by that which is said in Cause 28, question 1⁹, Beware, Christian, and below: « If she is a Christian, it is not enough, unless you are both initiated by the Sacrament of baptism ». Hence Hugh was of this opinion, that this is understood with respect to the Sacrament of baptism, namely disparity of worship. Although, therefore, such a person may have faith, yet because he does not have the Sacrament of faith, he is for that reason not a legitimate person for contracting [marriage]¹⁰.

Dub. II.

Likewise it is asked about that which he says: The Apostle, that it may not happen, urges [it] by the counsel of charity. For it seems to be said badly, since from this it seems that a believer could lawfully cohabit with an unbeliever. But on the contrary: Cause 28, question 1¹¹, The Jews etc.: « An unbeliever cannot remain in union with her whose faith has already been translated into the Christian [faith] »; and in the two following chapters the same is said.

I respond: It must be said that on this point some have wished to distinguish, [saying] that that [saying] of the Apostle is understood of the pagans, who are more easily converted to the faith. But that canon is understood of the Jews, who are so obstinate that they would rather pervert the converts than make progress through them¹². — But since now all are obstinate in malice, that distinction has no place now, but [it had place] in the beginning, when both Jews and Gentiles were everywhere being converted to the faith and, with a little help, the Apostle then granted and counseled cohabitation for the salvation of the spouses. — But afterward the Jews are so obstinate in malice that they would rather pervert than be converted, while the Gentiles were still entering the faith; and then cohabitation was granted to the Gentiles, not to the Jews. — But now, because both are obstinate in malice, cohabitation is granted to neither, in order to avoid the danger of corruption, since it is always presumed, unless they wish to be converted, that they are unwilling to cohabit without reproach to the Creator¹³.

Dub. III.

Likewise it is asked about that which he says: That on account of any illicit lusts whatever a husband can dismiss his wife; and he proved this same thing above. But on the contrary Jerome is objected¹: « If a wife sins against her own soul, she is not defiled to her husband »: therefore a husband cannot dismiss her. — And this also seems [true] by reason: because a husband does not have power over the soul of his wife, but only over her body; but every sin, whatever a man may commit, except fornication, is outside the body²; for the other sins offend the soul: therefore etc. — Likewise, this very thing is disproved by reduction to an unfitting [conclusion]: because, since hardly any among secular persons are found who do not sin at some time, then nearly all marriages could be lawfully separated.

I respond: It must be said that a division of marriage is not granted on account of fornication, except to the extent that by that fornication the other party, who is joined in marriage, is harmed or offended.

According to this, note that fornication is spoken of in three ways: properly, commonly, most commonly. Properly, fornication is said to be a sin concerning the act of the flesh, inasmuch as one lies with one not his own, or [a woman with a man] not her own. Commonly, fornication is called in Scripture idolatry, in which manner the Prophets frequently compare the idolaters themselves to harlot fornicatresses, as is clear in Jeremiah, chapter 2³. Most commonly, fornication is called every disordered lust, by which God is offended and forsaken. — The first fornication cannot be done by a wife knowingly without an injury being done to the husband; and therefore through it a divorce can be made, even for a single act only, if it can be proved, however much the fornicator may repent⁴. — The second, however, is then to the injury of the spouse when the spouse perseveres in it, because then it is a way of leading to corruption; and therefore through it a separation can be made, if the spouse is unwilling to repent; but if he wishes to repent and return, he cannot repudiate her. — The third fornication is then to the harm of the spouse, when it gives him occasion of scandal, as when she does not wish to live peacefully with him unless he consents to do evil; and then he can dismiss her either with respect to the bed, or with respect to cohabitation, [but] not absolutely, if both are believers⁵.

And in this manner the authorities adduced for this are to be understood. For on account of other kinds of sins he cannot dismiss [her], neither with respect to the bed nor with respect to cohabitation, unless they present a great occasion of ruin and it is vehemently feared concerning a fall. For then it is permitted to dismiss, as is said here, and as is said in Cause 28, question 1⁶, and in Matthew 18: If your eye scandalizes you; the Gloss: « By the hand and by the right eye can be understood a brother, a wife, and kinfolk ». Otherwise she ought not to be dismissed, but ought to be corrected, as in the Extra, on Divorces⁷, Quaesivit, and below: « A woman ought not to be separated from her husband on account of theft or another crime of his, unless he wishes to corrupt the religion of her faith ». And thus the objections are made clear.

Dub. IV.

Likewise it is asked about that which he says: Your children, who are born from this union, will be unclean etc. Here there is a question, whether one born of a believing father and an unbelieving mother ought to follow the father or the mother. And that [he ought to follow] the mother seems [right], because, as was held in the preceding [passages]⁸, « the offspring follows the womb ». — Likewise, offspring in the beginning « needs the maternal solace more than the paternal⁹ »: therefore he ought rather to be left to the mother; but the mother is a Jew or an unbeliever. — But on the contrary: Cause 28, question 1¹⁰, The Jews, and below: « Those who are begotten of unbelieving women and believing men should follow the Christian religion, not the Jewish superstition ».

I respond: It must be said that the offspring either reaches adult age, or not. If he reaches [it]; since his salvation depends on his own free will, his consent must be sought; and if he does not wish to consent, since God grants justice to no one against his will, he can remain with the unbelieving mother or father. — But if he is a minor, since his salvation must be procured by the parents, who also were obliged to beget for the worship of God, and [instead] begot a child of wrath; rightly, according to both the old law and the new, as is clear in [the title] on the Conversion of unbelievers¹¹, Ex litteris, he ought to follow the believer

in favor of the faith and salvation of that one and of the little child and of the good of the marriage; nor can the mother take him back on account of his smallness, [claiming] that he needs her solace, nor can she allege labor, on account of the danger of damnation which threatens, lest she keep him in the error of unbelief. And all this is proved by that which is contained in the aforesaid decretal on the Conversion of unbelievers, Ex litteris.

Dub. V.

Likewise it is asked about that which he says: If both have believed, the marriage is confirmed through the acknowledgment of God. Let it be supposed that first one believes, and the other departs and is unwilling to cohabit or fornicates, and afterward is converted; whether the husband must be restored to her, or whether he can plead exception on account of the injury¹ of the dismissal or of the fornication. And that he ought to be restored seems [right] from this text. — Likewise, that he cannot plead exception seems [right], because in baptism all things are remitted as to guilt and penalty. — But on the contrary the preceding text seems [to speak]²: because « the reproach of the Creator dissolves [the bond] »: therefore if it has been dissolved, it seems that, the other being unwilling, it ought not to be reintegrated. — Likewise, this believer, as soon as he was dismissed, was able to contract [marriage]: therefore he was at once absolved from the bond: therefore it does not seem that the wife can reclaim him.

I respond: It must be said that if the spouses come to the faith successively, if neither dismissed the other nor committed fornication, they are to be compelled to cohabit together and to treat one another with marital affection. — But if one has departed from the other, it matters who: whether a believer [departed] from an unbeliever, or the reverse. If a believer [departed] from an unbeliever, this he was able [to do] freely and without fault; hence in no way is he prejudiced. If an unbeliever [departed] from a believer, the believer can, even after he has come to the faith, plead exception, and if he wishes, he can take her back; yet he ought not to be compelled, because he is at once absolved from her³. — But concerning the fornication a distinction must be made, because the one first converted either gave occasion for the fornicating, inasmuch as he repudiated [her], or not. If he gave [it], he cannot plead exception on account of the fornication; but if he did not give [it], then he can plead exception⁴.

To that which is objected, that all crimes are remitted in baptism, it must be said that it is true with respect to God; but it is not necessary that they be remitted in such a way that the freedom of a neighbor is injured. And thus that is made clear, as was said above⁵ concerning penance.

---

Apparatus Criticus

9
Principium huius canonis (15.) non pauci codd. exhibent sic: Cave aeque, Christiane. — De opinione Hug. cfr. eius Sum. Sent. tr. 7. c. 8. et II. de Sacram. p. XI. c. 13.
The beginning of this canon (15) not a few codices give thus: Cave aeque, Christiane (Beware likewise, Christian). — On Hugh's opinion cf. his Summa Sententiarum, tr. 7, c. 8, and De Sacramentis II, p. XI, c. 13.
10
Codd. N aa non bene addunt matrimonia. — Idem dub. solvitur a Richard. a Med., hic circa lit.
Codices N and aa wrongly add matrimonia. — The same doubt is resolved by Richard of Middleton, here on the text.
11
Can. 10.
Canon 10.
12
Cod. U converterentur. Pro perverterent cod. M averterent, edd. converterent, quae etiam inferius pro in principio substituunt in primitiva Ecclesia.
Codex U [reads] converterentur. For perverterent codex M [has] averterent, the editions converterent, which also below substitute for in principio [the reading] in primitiva Ecclesia.
13
Edd. cohabitare sine contumelia Creatoris, quia semper... quod velint cohabitare in contumeliam Creatoris.
The editions [read] cohabitare sine contumelia Creatoris, quia semper... [and] quod velint cohabitare in contumeliam Creatoris (that they are willing to cohabit to the reproach of the Creator).
1
Comment. in I. Cor. 6, 18. (inter opera Hieron.): Unde si aliquis ipsorum (coniugum) fuerit fornicatus, peccat in alium quasi in proprium corpus. Residua autem peccata specialia uniuscuiusque sunt nec alterum condemnant. Cfr. supra pag. 782, nota 2.
Commentary on I Cor. 6:18 (among the works of Jerome): Hence if either of them (the spouses) has committed fornication, he sins against the other as against his own body. But the remaining sins are proper to each one and do not condemn the other. Cf. above, p. 782, note 2.
2
Epist. I. Cor. 6, 18. — In praeced. propos. respicitur I. Cor. 7, 4. — Inferius pro aliqui, qui Vat. aliquae, quae.
Epistle, I Cor. 6:18. — In the preceding proposition reference is made to I Cor. 7:4. — Below, for aliqui, qui the Vatican [edition reads] aliquae, quae.
3
Vers. 20. seqq. Cfr. Hieron., I. in Osee 4, 10. seqq.: Fornicationem autem idololatriam nominat iuxta illud quod in Ieremia [3, 6. seqq.] legimus etc. (Vat. allegat I. Paralip. 5, 25.) — De seq. propos. cfr. hic lit. Magistri, c. 3. seq.
Verse 20 ff. Cf. Jerome, book I on Hosea 4:10 ff.: But he names idolatry "fornication" according to that which we read in Jeremiah [3:6 ff.], etc. (The Vatican [edition] cites I Chron. 5:25.) — On the following proposition cf. here the text of the Master, c. 3 f.
4
Vide supra d. 35. q. 1. seqq. — Inferius pro per illam cod. L propter illam.
See above, d. 35, q. 1 ff. — Below, for per illam codex L [reads] propter illam.
5
Cfr. supra a. 2. q. 1. et 3. — Superius vocibus fornicatio tunc ex cod. aa praemisimus Tertia.
Cf. above, a. 2, q. 1 and 3. — Above, before the words fornicatio tunc we have prefixed Tertia from codex aa.
6
Can. Idololatria (5.). — Seq. locus est Matth. 18, 9. Glossa invenitur apud Hieron. in Matth. 5, 29, ubi eadem Christi verba habentur: In dextero oculo et in dextera manu fratrum, uxorum et liberorum atque affinium et propinquorum monstratur affectus etc.
Canon Idololatria (5). — The following passage is Matt. 18:9. The Gloss is found in Jerome on Matt. 5:29, where the same words of Christ are given: In the right eye and in the right hand is shown the affection of brothers, wives, and children and kindred and relatives, etc.
7
Libr. IV. tit. 19. c. 2. — Idem dubium solvunt B. Albert., hic a. 8; S. Thom., hic a. 6; Petr. a Tar., hic a. 2-4. et circa lit.; Richard. a Med., hic circa lit.
Book IV, tit. 19, c. 2. — The same doubt is resolved by Blessed Albert, here a. 8; St. Thomas, here a. 6; Peter of Tarentaise, here a. 2–4 and on the text; Richard of Middleton, here on the text.
8
Dist. 36. a. 1. q. 3.
Distinction 36, a. 1, q. 3.
9
Ut dicitur C. Ex litteris tuis supra pag. 678, nota 3. et infra nota 11. allegato, suntque verba matris iudaeae.
As is said in the canon Ex litteris tuis, cited above p. 678, note 3, and below note 11; and they are the words of the Jewish mother.
10
Can. 10.
Canon 10.
11
Libr. III. tit. 33. c. 2. — Ex cit. canone post salutis supplevimus illius, quod male deest in edd. et codd., licet habeant et. Inferius pro ne ipsum edd. si ipsum.
Book III, tit. 33, c. 2. — From the cited canon, after salutis we have supplied illius, which is wrongly lacking in the editions and codices, although they have et. Below, for ne ipsum the editions [read] si ipsum.
1
Codd. F G L iniuriam, alii iniuria, omisso de.
Codices F, G, L [read] iniuriam, others iniuria, with de omitted.
2
Hic in lit. Magistri, c. 5. — Inferius post nolente (codd. I M O volente) edd. omittunt non.
Here in the text of the Master, c. 5. — Below, after nolente (codices I, M, O volente) the editions omit non.
3
Cfr. supra a. 2. q. 1. seqq. — Codd. R S absolvitur.
Cf. above, a. 2, q. 1 ff. — Codices R, S [read] absolvitur.
4
Vide supra d. 35. dub. 1.
See above, d. 35, dub. 1.
5
Dist. 15. p. II. a. 2. q. 4. — Pro iniuriatur cod. U impediatur, plures alii codd. minuatur. — Cfr. de hoc dubio Hugo a S. Vict., II. de Sacram. p. XI. c. 13; S. Thom., Petr. a Tar. et Richard. a Med., hic circa lit.
Distinction 15, p. II, a. 2, q. 4. — For iniuriatur codex U [reads] impediatur, several other codices minuatur. — Cf. on this doubt Hugh of St. Victor, De Sacramentis II, p. XI, c. 13; St. Thomas, Peter of Tarentaise, and Richard of Middleton, here on the text. ---