Bonaventure

I. In solvenda ipsa principali quaestione non est difficultas; sed ea quae dicta sunt in solut. ad 1. de determinatione formae, sive, ut ait, de institutione huius Sacramenti, et in seq. quaestione de determinatione materiae, continent obsoletam sententiam Hugonis, Magistri (infra d. 23. c. 3.) et Alex. Halensis, eaeque non tantum explicatione, sed etiam correctione egent, ut iam diximus tom. I. Prolegom. LXIII. § 3. Profecto non amplius sustinendus est modus loquendi, quod duo Sacramenta confirmationis et extremae unctionis non instituta sint ab ipso Christo, quamvis satis appareat, illos hoc intellexisse tantum quoad institutionem immediatam. Nam Alex. Hal. (S. p. IV. q. 9. m. 2. a. 2. § 1. ad 1.) inter alia docet, illud Sacramentum esse institutum « non immediate a legislatore, sed mediante Spiritu S. cooperante ». Nec hanc opinionem idem profert nisi per modum probabilitatis; insuper ipsa quaestio, si sensum attendamus, proprie tantum respicit distinctam determinationem materiae et formae huius Sacramenti, prout in Ecclesia Latina adhibetur. De hac igitur re dicit (loc. cit. m. 1.): « Sine praeiudicio dicendum » quoad formam verborum et materiam elementarem, cui etiam Spiritus S. contulit virtutem sanctificandi, hoc Sacramentum institutum fuisse « Spiritus S. instinctu in Concilio Meldensi » (!); Apostolos autem, sicut « confirmati sunt a Spiritu S. immediate, sine ministerio et Sacramento », sic etiam alios confirmasse tantum « manuum impositione, non ministrando Sacramentum confirmationis » (in corp. et ad 3.). — Quoad hanc rem S. Thom. (hic q. 1. a. 1. quaestiunc. 1. ad 1.) refert, circa institutionem confirmationis tres esse opiniones, quarum prima ponat, hoc Sacramentum nec a Christo nec ab Apostolis, sed processu temporis in quodam Concilio institutum esse; quam sententiam reprobat tanquam absurdam; secundam, ait, ponere, illud fuisse institutum non quidem a Christo, sed ab Apostolis; quam iterum non approbat, et prosequitur: « Et ideo probabilior videtur aliorum opinio » etc., scilicet opinio nunc communis.

II. Ut vera a falsis et certa ab incertis secernantur, haec notamus.

1. Fide constat ex Concilio Trident. (Sess. VII. de Sacram. in genere, can. 1.), omnia Sacramenta a Iesu Christo instituta fuisse; nec sine temeritatis nota negari posset, intelligendum esse hoc de institutione immediata. Cum autem ipsum Concilium a vocabulo immediata consulto abstinuerit, sententia aliquorum theologorum, quod heretica sit opinio illa antiquorum Scholasticorum, communius non probatur. — Idem Concil. Trident. (Sess. XIV. c. 1. et cfr. can. 1.) de extrema unctione dicit, quod « instituta est tanquam vere et proprie Sacramentum novi testamenti a Christo Domino nostro, apud Marcum quidem insinuatum, per Iacobum autem Apostolum ac Domini fratrem fidelibus commendatum ac promulgatum ». — Apta haec distinctio inter institutionem, insinuationem et promulgationem a pluribus antiquis neglecta esse videtur.

2. Licet post Concil. Trident. theologi concorditer doceant, Christum immediate septem Sacramenta instituisse, remanet tamen dissensus opinionum circa quasdam annexas quaestiones, e. g. quid proprie requiratur ad institutionem alicuius Sacramenti; item, utrum Christus omnium Sacramentorum materiam et formam determinate in sua specie, an aliquorum (ut confirmationis et ordinis) tantum in genere constituerit, ita ut Ecclesiae specialiora reliquerit determinanda. Primae opinioni cum Ss. Thoma et Alphonso multi adhaerent; sed etiam secunda ut probabilis sustinetur a magnis theologis recentioribus (cfr. Natalis Alexandri Theolog. dogmat. tom. I. libr. II. De Sacram. in genere, c. 5. prop. 2.); pro qua sententia praeter Hugonem, Magistrum, Alexandrum Hal., Bonaventuram allegant etiam Innocentium IV. (in C. Presbyter (1.) X. de tit. 16. Sacram. non iterandis); et praecipue urgent hanc rationem, quia alias vix possibile esset differentiam explicare, quae inter Latinam et Orientalem Ecclesiam est in administrandis ordinibus nonnullis et confirmatione. Hi igitur theologi distinguunt institutionem immediatam, Christo tribuendam, a determinatione specifica materiae et formae, quae Ecclesiae deputata fuerit. — Item, de tempore et de modo, quo Christus confirmationem et extremam unctionem instituit, disputant theologi, utrum scilicet benedictio parvulorum cum impositione manuum (Marc. 10, 16.) et unctio infirmorum (Marc. 6, 13.) fuerint proprie Sacramenta (quod non tantum S. Bonaventura cum praedictis antiquis, sed etiam multi recentiores negant « non sine gravi fundamento », ut dicit Benedictus XIV. (VIII. de Synodo dioecesan. c. 1.). — Quoad haec aliasque de materia et forma huius Sacramenti opiniones et controversias consulantur auctores recentiores.

III. His praesuppositis, quoad S. Bonaventuram observandum est, eum in Breviloquio (p. VI. c. 4.) disertis verbis docere, Christum septem Sacramenta legis gratiae instituisse in verbis et elementis... tamen « diversimode », ut ibi diffusius explicatur. De duobus autem Sacramentis, scilicet confirmatione et extrema unctione, ait: « Christus solum initiavit et insinuavit confirmationem, manum parvulis imponendo et praedicendo, discipulos baptizandos Spiritu S. »; unctionem vero extremam, « discipulos ad curandum mittendo, qui infirmos ungebant oleo, sicut dicitur in Marco (6, 13.). Haec bene conveniunt cum doctrina Concilii Tridentini ». Quando S. Bonav. distinguit inter modum instituendi « complete et clare » sive « distincte et integre », qui competit baptismo, eucharistiae et ordini, et modum per insinuationem et initiationem, hoc intelligendum est, ut explicat illa secunda opinio. — Similia docet Petr. a Tar. (hic q. 1. a. 1.): « Christus instituit confirmationem praefiguratione, inspiratione et auctoritate; Apostoli traditione, et Ecclesia determinatione et approbatione. Est enim institutio duplex: tacita et expressa, et haec duplex: expressione facti, vel praecepti. Christus ergo instituit innuendo, imprimendo et praefigurando; Apostoli faciendo; Ecclesia praecipiendo ». — Non defuerunt qui cum Barth. de Barberiis (Cursus theolog. p. IV. de Sacram. disp. 1. q. 5. n. 23.) etiam verba in hac et seq. quaestione a S. Bonav. prolata ita interpretati sint, ut, ab aliis male intellecta, reapse eundem sensum habeant, qui in Breviloquio manifestatur. Praedictus auctor enim putat, institutionem Sacramentorum S. Bonaventurae idem esse ac eorundem promulgationem, sicut leges dicuntur institui, quando promulgantur (cfr. S. Thom., S. I. II. q. 90. a. 4.). Sed huic interpretationi praeter alia obstat, tum quod, hoc sensu supposito, omnia Sacramenta dici possint post missionem Spiritus S. esse instituta, unde inanis esset distinctio eorum quoad institutionis tempus; tum quod S. Bonav. (infra d. 23, a. 1. q. 2.) eandem praeciso aliorum interpretationem refert eamque ut minus probabilem non acceptat. — Concedendum tamen est, citato loco auctorem nostrum mitius loqui magisque accedere ad sententiam in Breviloquio expositam. Dicit enim: « Haec duo Sacramenta esse a Christo insinuata, sed post a Spiritu S. instituta... Nec sunt duo legislatores Christus et Spiritus S... Unde Sacramentorum institutionem non attribuimus nisi Deo vel per Filium, vel per Spiritum S... Sic institutio Sacramentorum respicit Deum ut auctorem, et Apostolos respicit ut ministros in promulgando ». — Praecipue tamen observandum esse nobis videtur, quod in his duabus de confirmatione quaestionibus proprie sermo est de determinatione specifica formae et materiae, quae, licet ab auctore nostro et ab Alexandro confundatur cum institutione, tamen, salva fide, ab eadem cum non paucis theologis distingui et separari potest. Reiecto igitur nomine institutionis, verbisque ad praedictam determinationem restrictis, illa antiqua assertio vix differret a supra relata sententia recentiorum auctorum, quod scilicet Christus materiam et formam aliquorum Sacramentorum tantum in genere determinaverit. — Nihilominus opinamur, S. Bonav. ea quae hic in iuventute, auctoritate fretus magni sui magistri aliorumque, minus correcte scripserit, in Breviloquio suo correxisse et aliquatenus retractasse, sicut etiam S. Augustinus in multis assertionibus et S. Thomas in nonnullis fecerunt. — Quoad seq. quaestionem notandum, in ed. Vat. textum in corp. aliquatenus mutatum esse. Lectio codicum a nobis recepta eundem praebet sensum, quem expressit Alex. Hal., loc. cit. m. 2. a. 1. § 1. ad 1.

IV. De hac et seq. (2.) quaestione: Alex. Hal., loc. cit. m. 1. et 2. a. 1. 2. — Scot., in utroque Scripto hic q. 1. — S. Thom., hic q. 1. a. 1. 2. 3; S. III. q. 72. a. 1-4. — B. Albert., hic a. 1-3. — Petr. a Tar., hic q. 1. a. 1-3. — Richard. a Med., hic a. 2. q. 1. 2. — Durand., hic q. 1. 2. — Dionys. Carth., hic q. 1-3.

---

I. In solving the principal question itself there is no difficulty; but the things said in the solution to the first concerning the determination of the form, or, as he says, concerning the institution of this Sacrament, and in the following question concerning the determination of the matter, contain the obsolete view of Hugh, of the Master (below, d. 23, c. 3.) and of Alexander of Hales, and these need not only explanation but also correction, as we have already said in tom. I, Prolegom. LXIII. § 3. Indeed, the manner of speaking is no longer to be sustained, that the two Sacraments of confirmation and extreme unction were not instituted by Christ himself, although it sufficiently appears that they understood this only as to immediate institution. For Alexander of Hales (S. p. IV. q. 9. m. 2. a. 2. § 1. ad 1.) teaches among other things that that Sacrament was instituted « not immediately by the lawgiver, but with the cooperation of the Holy Spirit ». Nor does he himself propose this opinion except by way of probability; moreover the question itself, if we attend to the sense, properly regards only the distinct determination of the matter and form of this Sacrament, as it is used in the Latin Church. Concerning this matter, therefore, he says (loc. cit. m. 1.): « It must be said without prejudice » as to the form of words and the elemental matter, to which the Holy Spirit also conferred the power of sanctifying, that this Sacrament was instituted « by the instinct of the Holy Spirit in the Council of Meaux » (!); but that the Apostles, just as « they were confirmed by the Holy Spirit immediately, without ministry and Sacrament », so also confirmed others only « by the imposition of hands, not by administering the Sacrament of confirmation » (in the body and to the third). — As to this matter, S. Thomas (here q. 1. a. 1. subquestion 1, to the first) reports that, concerning the institution of confirmation, there are three opinions, the first of which holds that this Sacrament was instituted neither by Christ nor by the Apostles, but in the course of time in a certain Council; which view he rejects as absurd; the second, he says, holds that it was instituted not indeed by Christ, but by the Apostles; which again he does not approve, and he continues: « And therefore the opinion of the others seems more probable » etc., namely the opinion now common.

II. That the true may be discerned from the false and the certain from the uncertain, we note these things.

1. By faith it is established from the Council of Trent (Sess. VII. on the Sacraments in general, can. 1.), that all Sacraments were instituted by Jesus Christ; nor could it be denied without a note of rashness that this is to be understood of immediate institution. But since the Council itself deliberately abstained from the word immediate, the opinion of some theologians, that the view of those ancient Scholastics is heretical, is more commonly not approved. — The same Council of Trent (Sess. XIV. c. 1. and cf. can. 1.) says of extreme unction, that « it was instituted as truly and properly a Sacrament of the new testament by Christ our Lord, insinuated indeed in Mark, but commended and promulgated to the faithful through the Apostle James, the brother of the Lord ». — This apt distinction between institution, insinuation, and promulgation seems to have been neglected by many of the ancients.

2. Although after the Council of Trent the theologians concordantly teach that Christ immediately instituted the seven Sacraments, there yet remains a dissent of opinions concerning certain annexed questions, e.g. what is properly required for the institution of some Sacrament; likewise, whether Christ determined the matter and form of all the Sacraments definitely in their species, or constituted those of some (such as confirmation and order) only in genus, so that he left the more specific things to be determined by the Church. To the first opinion many adhere with Sts. Thomas and Alphonsus; but the second too is sustained as probable by great more recent theologians (cf. Natalis Alexander, Theolog. dogmat. tom. I. libr. II. De Sacram. in general, c. 5. prop. 2.); for which view, besides Hugh, the Master, Alexander of Hales, they cite Bonaventure as well, and also Innocent IV. (in C. Presbyter (1.) X. de tit. 16. Sacram. non iterandis); and they especially press this reason, that otherwise it would scarcely be possible to explain the difference which exists between the Latin and the Eastern Church in administering certain orders and confirmation. These theologians therefore distinguish the immediate institution, to be attributed to Christ, from the specific determination of the matter and form, which was delegated to the Church. — Likewise, concerning the time and the manner in which Christ instituted confirmation and extreme unction, the theologians dispute, namely whether the blessing of children with the imposition of hands (Mark 10, 16.) and the anointing of the sick (Mark 6, 13.) were properly Sacraments (which not only S. Bonaventure with the aforesaid ancients, but also many more recent writers deny « not without grave foundation », as Benedict XIV. says (VIII. de Synodo dioecesan. c. 1.). — As to these and other opinions and controversies concerning the matter and form of this Sacrament, let the more recent authors be consulted.

III. These things presupposed, as to S. Bonaventure it is to be observed that in the Breviloquium (p. VI. c. 4.) he teaches in plain words that Christ instituted the seven Sacraments of the law of grace in words and elements... yet « in diverse manners », as is there more diffusely explained. But concerning the two Sacraments, namely confirmation and extreme unction, he says: « Christ only initiated and insinuated confirmation, by imposing his hand on children and by foretelling that the disciples would be baptized with the Holy Spirit »; but extreme unction, « by sending the disciples to heal, who anointed the sick with oil, as is said in Mark (6, 13.). These agree well with the doctrine of the Council of Trent ». When S. Bonav. distinguishes between the manner of instituting « completely and clearly » or « distinctly and integrally », which belongs to baptism, the eucharist, and order, and the manner by insinuation and initiation, this is to be understood as that second opinion explains. — Peter of Tarentaise teaches similar things (here q. 1. a. 1.): « Christ instituted confirmation by prefiguration, inspiration, and authority; the Apostles by tradition, and the Church by determination and approbation. For institution is twofold: tacit and express, and this twofold: by the expression of a fact, or of a precept. Christ therefore instituted by intimating, impressing, and prefiguring; the Apostles by doing; the Church by commanding ». — Nor were there lacking those who, with Barth. de Barberiis (Cursus theolog. p. IV. de Sacram. disp. 1. q. 5. n. 23.), so interpreted the words uttered by S. Bonav. in this and the following question, that, being misunderstood by others, they really have the same sense which is manifested in the Breviloquium. For the aforesaid author thinks that the institution of the Sacraments according to S. Bonaventure is the same as their promulgation, just as laws are said to be instituted when they are promulgated (cf. S. Thom., S. I. II. q. 90. a. 4.). But to this interpretation, besides other things, it is opposed, both that, this sense being supposed, all the Sacraments could be said to have been instituted after the mission of the Spirit, whence the distinction of them as to the time of institution would be empty; and that S. Bonav. (below, d. 23, a. 1. q. 2.) reports the very same interpretation of others and does not accept it as less probable. — It must nevertheless be conceded that in the cited place our author speaks more mildly and accedes more to the view set forth in the Breviloquium. For he says: « These two Sacraments were insinuated by Christ, but afterward instituted by the Holy Spirit... Nor are there two lawgivers, Christ and the Holy Spirit... Hence we attribute the institution of the Sacraments to none but God, either through the Son, or through the Holy Spirit... Thus the institution of the Sacraments regards God as author, and regards the Apostles as ministers in promulgating ». — But it seems to us especially to be observed that in these two questions concerning confirmation the discourse is properly about the specific determination of the form and matter, which, although it is confused with institution by our author and by Alexander, can nevertheless, the faith being safe, be distinguished and separated from it together with not a few theologians. Therefore, the name of institution being set aside, and the words being restricted to the aforesaid determination, that ancient assertion would scarcely differ from the above-related view of the more recent authors, namely that Christ determined the matter and form of some Sacraments only in genus. — Nevertheless we are of the opinion that what S. Bonav. here in his youth, relying on the authority of his great master and of others, wrote less correctly, he corrected and to some extent retracted in his Breviloquium, just as also S. Augustine in many assertions and S. Thomas in some did. — As to the following question it is to be noted that in the Vatican edition the text in the body was somewhat altered. The reading of the codices received by us provides the same sense which Alex. Hal. expressed, loc. cit. m. 2. a. 1. § 1. ad 1.

IV. On this and the following (2nd) question: Alex. Hal., loc. cit. m. 1. and 2. a. 1. 2. — Scot., in both Writings here q. 1. — S. Thom., here q. 1. a. 1. 2. 3; S. III. q. 72. a. 1-4. — B. Albert., here a. 1-3. — Petr. a Tar., here q. 1. a. 1-3. — Richard. of Mediavilla, here a. 2. q. 1. 2. — Durand., here q. 1. 2. — Dionys. Carth., here q. 1-3.

---