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
Quaestio VI: Whether, for one to be deemed a Heretic, it is necessary that he have been baptized and a believer
Whether, that one may be esteemed a Heretic, it is necessary that he have been baptized and a believer.
I SUPPOSE with D. Bonavent. prima parte Centil. sect. 26. that one can be a heretic even if he is not an apostate from the faith altogether, or from the Church; which he proves from D. Hieronymus in cap. 5. epist. ad Galat. saying that a heretic is one who understands Scripture against the sense of the Church, even though he does not depart from it. He will therefore be a heretic if he perverts one passage of Scripture.
That baptism is not required for the note of heresy, that one must first have been baptized, Castro asserts Lib. 1. de iusta haeret. punit. cap. 8. so also Tanner. disp. 1. quaest. 8. dub. 3. citing D. Thomam, whom Bannes also reports thus 2. 2. quaest. 10. art. 5. but wrongly, as Caietanus, Aragon, and others note. Fuliensis subscribes lib. 3. cap. 6.
ALL the others reject this opinion, whom Suarez cites and follows disp. 19. sect. 5. Sanchez Lib. 2. in decal. cap. 7. num. 34. Hurtadus disp. 82. sect. 2. §. 11. Castro Palao tom. 1. tract. 4. disp. 3. p. 1. num. 20. Card. Lugo disp. 20. sect. 4.
The REASON is intimated by D. Bonavent. in 4. dist. 39. art. 2. quaest. 2. in corpore taken from the Apostle prima Cor. 5. which the Council of Trent uses, sess. 14. cap. 2. Since the Church exercises judgment on no one who has not first entered her by the gate of baptism. For what have I, says the Apostle, to do with judging those who are without. Whence it comes about that neither can a Catechumen be esteemed a heretic, if he falls away from the belief of some article.
The Most Eminent Lugo notes that one baptized with an invalid baptism, namely on account of a substantial defect, is not a heretic, if afterwards he denies some article. So also Sanchez cap. 7. num. 34. Castro Palao in the place cited, Suarez sect. 5. num. 8. Hurtado disp. 82. §. 17. for there the reason of the Council of Trent still holds.
YOU WILL SAY in the year 1619. Maurus, who offended against our religion, was punished, even though he was not found to be baptized, and he himself alleged this.
Card. Lugo RESPONDS that he was punished on account of excess against our Religion: for the Church may punish Pagans and Jews subject to Christian Princes, either when they deny articles which they hold in common with us, as to believe in one God the Creator; or when they sacrifice to demons, or when they try to seduce Christians, as is evident from the Bull of Gregory XI. beginning: Admodum dolemur audivimus, and the Bull of Gregory XIII. which begins: Antiqua Iudaeorum improbitas, which Peña reports, among the Apostolic letters at the end of the directorium, about which Diana treats 4. p. Tract. 7. de poenis debit. etc. resol. 2. and Castro Palao §. 6. There those are decreed to be punished also for other causes, for instance if they vomit heretical blasphemies against Christ, saying that he was a sinner; that the Mother of God was not a Virgin (for that reason lately a Jew, whom I know of, was beaten with scourges at Cremona) If they aid heretics: if they carry about, retain, or divulge prohibited books: if they hold Christians up to derision, spitting upon the sacred Host, the Cross, Christ the Lord: if they have Christian nurses, or force them, when they communicate, to pour milk into privies in contempt of the sacred communion.
IT IS USUALLY DOUBTED also about one doubtfully baptized; see Diana Tract. 8. resol. 113. where he reports the opinion of Didaci Canterae in qq. crim. cap. 1. de haeret. num. 5. who says, if he was born and educated among Christians, he is presumed baptized.
The SECOND part of the quaestio requires, whether he who is to be punished as a heretic must previously have been a believer, or have believed.
The SENSE of the Church is, that he is esteemed a heretic even if he has not believed before. See Suarez disput. 16. sect. 4. and disp. 19. sect. 5. and others, cited by the Cardinal Lugus disp. 18. sectione tertia.