Palladium theologicum, Tomus quintus: De virtutibus
Gaudenzio da Brescia (1612–1672)
Reuerendi patris Gaudentij Bontempi, ... Palladium theologicum, seu Tota theologia scholastica in septem tomos distributa. Ad intimam mentem d. Bonauenturae seraphici doctoris ... Tomus quintus, De virtutibus
First published 1676
Bontempi's Palladium theologicum (Lyon 1676) is a complete scholastic theology composed ad mentem D. Bonaventurae, arranged in seven tractatus on the order of the Secunda secundae. This fifth volume, De virtutibus, treats the theological virtues (faith, hope, charity, with their gifts, beatitudes and fruits), the cardinal virtues and their opposite vices, and the states and offices of men (religious and prelates, bishops, princes), including the extensive disputations on contracts, religion, vows, fortitude, temperance and the judicial process. It is a significant example of the Bonaventurian scholastic school and a counterpart to the Thomist manuals of the period.
Tractatus I: PRIMUS DE VIRTUTIBUS THEOLOGICIS
Proemium I: Prooemium
Disputatio I: ON FAITH
Quaestio I: What FAITH signifies, and what it is
Quaestio II: What the object of FAITH is
Quaestio III: Whether the object of FAITH is something complex
Quaestio IV: Whether the object of FAITH can be false
Quaestio V: Whether the object of FAITH can be evident scientifically
Quaestio VI: Whether FAITH is concerned with those things which are seen by vision on the way
Quaestio VII: Whether the articles of FAITH are evidently credible
Quaestio VIII: Whether the things to be believed are rightly arranged according to the articles
Quaestio IX: Whether the articles of FAITH have grown over the course of time
Quaestio X: Whether FAITH has grown as regards light
Quaestio XI: Whether Faith has grown in certitude
Quaestio XII: Whether the articles of Faith are to be expounded by some authority which is an infallible teacher, and what it is
Quaestio XIII: What are the marks of the true Church, in which the authority of expounding FAITH resides
Quaestio XIV: What must be believed by the necessity of means
Quaestio XV: What things are to be believed by the necessity of precept
Quaestio XVI: Whether we are bound to confess FAITH, and when
Quaestio XVII: Whether it is lawful to dispute about FAITH, and when
Quaestio XVIII: Whether Faith resides in the Intellect
Quaestio XIX: Whether Faith is perfected by Charity, as by its form
Quaestio XX: Whether it is certain that FAITH remains without CHARITY
Quaestio XXI: Whether, and how, FAITH is a VIRTUE
Quaestio XXII: Whether FAITH is ONE VIRTUE
Quaestio XXIII: Whether FAITH is the first of the Virtues
Quaestio XXIV: Whether FAITH is more certain than any science, or than any intellectual habit
Quaestio XXV: Whether one can know with certainty that he has FAITH
Quaestio XXVI: In whom FAITH is found
Quaestio XXVII: Whether FAITH is a substantial Gift of GOD
Quaestio XXVIII: Whether the difference between FAITH and other acts, natural as opposed to supernatural moral acts, always arises from the object
Quaestio XXIX: On the effects of FAITH
Quaestio XXX: On the GIFT OF UNDERSTANDING
Dubitatio I: Whether UNDERSTANDING is a gift of the Holy Ghost
Dubitatio II: Whether the GIFT OF UNDERSTANDING can coexist with FAITH
Dubitatio III: Whether the GIFT OF UNDERSTANDING consists in the contemplation of the Creator and of Creation
Dubitatio IV: Whether the GIFT OF UNDERSTANDING is found in all who have grace, and whether in these alone
Dubitatio V: What is the necessity and utility of the GIFT OF UNDERSTANDING
Dubitatio VI: Whether* **the GIFT OF UNDERSTANDING** *corresponds to the sixth beatitude, namely, Blessed are the clean of heart, etc.
Dubitatio VII: Whether* **to the GIFT OF UNDERSTANDING** *there corresponds, among the fruits of the Holy Ghost, Faith
Quaestio XXXI: On the Gift of Knowledge
Dubitatio I: Whether* **KNOWLEDGE** *is a gift of the Holy Ghost
Dubitatio II: Whether knowledge is concerned with Divine things
Dubitatio III: Whether the gift of knowledge is speculative
Dubitatio IV: Whether the third Beatitude corresponds to the Gift of Knowledge: Blessed are they that mourn, etc.
Disputatio II: On Unbelief
Quaestio I: What UNBELIEF is, and what kind of sin it is
Quaestio II: Whether all the works of unbelievers are sins
Quaestio III: Whether unbelievers can be compelled to hear FAITH
Quaestio IV: Whether unbelievers can be compelled to embrace our FAITH, when it has been sufficiently set forth
Quaestio V: Whether unbaptized unbelievers can be compelled to abandon errors or rites contrary to natural reason
Quaestio VI: Whether the rites of unbelievers are to be permitted
Quaestio VII: Whether it is lawful to make agreements with unbelievers about the toleration of their rites
Quaestio VIII: Whether unbaptized unbelievers can retain power over the Faithful, and whether they can be deprived of it
Disputatio III: On Heresy
Quaestio I: What HERESY is
Quaestio II: Whether one who doubts about the articles of FAITH is a heretic
Quaestio III: Whether one who gives merely opinionative assent to an article of FAITH is a heretic
Quaestio IV: Whether, and what, Ignorance excuses from Heresy
Quaestio V: What pertinacity is required for HERESY
Pertinacity, from D. Bonaventura prima parte 26 Centil. sect. 18: is the Will fleeing any lessening of its excellence, irrevocably defending what it has said or done. And from the same holy Doctor in speculo animae, cap. 1. it is: Perseverance in an evil purpose against the will of superiors.
All concede it, and place pertinacity in the definition of heresy. So D. Bonavent. in the places alleged quaest. 4. See Suarez diff. 19. sect. 3. Coninch. disp. 18. dub. 7. num. 76. Farinacius de haeresi, quaest. 196. Diana 4. p. Tract. 7. resol. 36. Sanchez Tom. 1. Lib. 2. cap. 7.
Therefore the truest opinion is, that pertinacity is required. But it is doubtful: whether this pertinacity can exist before one is admonished of his error, and he himself scorns the admonition.
The first opinion is assertive, requiring a delay of time, so that incorrigibility may appear in the faith. So Alciatus Leg. 2. Cod. de summa Trinitate, Menoch. volum. 2. consil. 149. num. 49. citing Lupus, and Turrecremata. They can be founded on the words of Paul Tit. 3. Avoid a heretical man after a first and second admonition. To me, however, these Jurists seem to speak in the external forum.
Therefore the truest opinion of the Theologians is, that this admonition and delay are not required for one to be a heretic, but that it suffices that he adhere to the error with full deliberation. So D. Bonavent. in the places cited in the preceding quaestio. See Suarez diff. 19. sect. 3. num. 23. Vasquez p. 1. disp. 126. Valentia disput. 1. quaest. 11 p. 1. and innumerable others, whom Sanchez reports in the said cap. 7. num. 7. Diana in the said resol. 36. who rightly adds, with the Most Eminent Lugo num. 158. that this admonition is not required even in the external forum, and this is more true now, after the decree of Alex. VII. has been published.
The reason is, because the admonition serves only that one may take note that he holds a view against the Church; but this he can learn from another source; and he is bound to strive to learn it.
The words of the Apostle presuppose that the man, before the admonition, is already a heretic, and after it to be avoided.
I assert secondly, in the internal forum it does not suffice to be corrected by his Bishop, or by the Inquisitor, because these are not an infallible rule of faith. So Sanchez asserts num. 25. with Cano, Vasquez, and others. Valentia, Torres, Salas, and others, cited by Diana 6. The first opinion denies it. These indeed say it does not suffice even in the external forum, which however Suarez asserts num. 21. Lorca and others, cited by Diana, say it does suffice, and indeed on this account he allows it in those constituted in the holy Tribunal.
To me the opinion of the Most Eminent Lugo is proved, that there is no difference in either Forum, because if the assertion of the Bishop is not sufficient to make it credible, in no forum will it accomplish that.
I assert thirdly, for pertinacity it suffices that a man wish indirectly to resist the authority of the Church. So Suarez in the said sect. 3. num. 22. Vasquez prima secundae, disp. 126. Sanchez in the said cap. 7. num. 4. See the Cardinal Dinalus Lugo num. 163. who explains indirect pertinacity thus: if he knows that this is against the sense of the Church; and yet holds it, from any end whatsoever, whether out of grief, or honor, or some other affection. This is the exposition of D. Bonavent. p. p. Centil. sect. 26. taken from D. Augustine Lib. de utilitate credendi initio, where he says: A heretic is one who, for the sake of some temporal gain, and especially of glory and of his own supremacy, begets or follows false and new opinions about the faith.
IT IS CONFIRMED in other sins, for which it suffices that they be willed indirectly, even if the disobedience, irreligion, etc. be not willed directly.
Lugo INFERS num. 166. that he is not excused from pertinacity who is prepared to acquiesce to the Church, when nevertheless he is convinced by her with arguments, as Vasquez and Ledesma say, cited by Sanchez num. 6. Suarez num. 13. and others. For he is not prepared to obey the authority of the Church.
NEXT he notes that a protestation of faith excuses from pertinacity, as some signify, with Palao dist. 3. p. 2. num. 7. he himself adds that it is not sufficient in rigor.