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
Quaestio VII: Whether the Church can compel heretics to receive the Catholic FAITH
Quaestio VIII: On the other means the Church uses against heretics, by forbidding their Books
Quaestio IX: Whether we are bound to avoid the conversation of heretics
Whether we are bound to avoid the conversation of heretics.
Soto ASSERTS it, 4. dist. 25. quaest. 1. art. 1. et 3. and dist. 20. quaest. 1. art. 5.
The COMMON opinion, however, denies it, as long as the heretic has not been juridically declared and denounced, because the Council of Constance indulged communication with all excommunicates, except those denounced by name and public strikers of clerics. So the authors in Sanchez Lib. 2. decal. cap. 9. So Henriquez with others, Lib. 13. cap. 5. Suarez 3. p. Tract. 5. disp. 9. sect. 2. Toletus Lib. 1. summae, cap. 9. Tannerus disp. 1. quaest. 9. dub. 5.
Whence it is to be noted that the Seraphic Doctor, in 4. dist. 18. p. 2. q. 1. asserts the opinion of Soto, but before the Council of Constance: at that time, however, it was the common opinion.
The DIFFICULTY, however, is: whether it is sufficient for someone to be declared a heretic; or whether it is also required that he be declared excommunicate.
TO ME it seems sufficient that he be declared a heretic; for excommunication is infallibly linked to heresy. So both Soto, Medina, Henriquez, and others, whom Sanchez reports, Lib. 2. cap. 9. who however holds the opposite with others; and Suarez, de censuris, disput. 9. thinks it probable with Card. Lugo disp. 22. sect. 1.
WE MAY also communicate with them in sacred things, namely by assisting at Mass together with a heretic. So all the Doctors in Sanchez, dicto cap. 9. against Basilium Poncium, in Appendice de matrimonio Catholici cum haeretico, cap. 9.
WE MAY also receive the Sacraments from a heretic, in the manner of our Church, in necessity, unless scandal arise from another source. See Sanchez num. 10.
Many other things on this matter Sanchez discusses, Lib. 2. in Decal. c. 9. Card. Lugo disp. 14. sect. 5. §. 5. and d. 22. sect. 2.
I shall touch upon SOME doubts which I find discussed in the Seraphic Doctor. The first is: Whether marriage with a heretic, or heretic woman, is valid.
On these, Thomas Sanchez Lib. VII. de matrim. disp. 72. Ferrarius, opusc. de matrim. Catholici cum haeretico. Basilius Poncius in his Appendice, post Lib. XII. de matrim. In common, however, the Doctors of Law and the Theologians assert with D. Bonaventure, 4. dist. 39. quaest. 1. whom Sanchez reports, num. 2. and Poncius, and it is gathered from cap. decernit de haereticis, in 6.
But if the heretic promise to convert, and there be moral certitude, the marriage will be not only valid but even licit, as is had in the C. Chalcedonensi cap. 14. So Hurtado disp. 76. §. 229. Sà, under the word matrim. num. 8. Card. Lugo disp. 22. sect. 1. Although Sanchez denies it, disp. 72. num. 4. Poncius in Appendice, capite 8.
The second is, whether a spouse may put away a spouse fallen into heresy; and indeed it was defined in the C. Trident. sess. 24. cap. 5. that marriage is not on that account dissolved.
That they may be separated, however, is certain; for besides fornication, the Tridentine defines other causes for which they may be separated, sess. 24. can. 8. The same is evident from cap. Quanto, de divortiis, and from cap. litteras at the end, and cap. transmissa, de restit. spoliat. and cap. 1. ut lite non contestata.
The sectarian heretics urge the place of Matth. 5. and 19. But I say to you, that whosoever shall put away his wife, excepting the cause of fornication, maketh her to commit adultery: and he that shall marry her that is put away, committeth adultery.
Cardinal Lugo RESPONDS, disp. 22. sect. 3. with Sanchez Lib. X. disp. 15. cap. 14. Bellarmine Lib. I. de matrim. cap. 14. that Christ speaks of perpetual separation, and by his own authority, without the consent of the wife put away.
This exposition, however, as to his own authority, D. Bonaventure refutes, in 4. dist. 35. quaest. 3. where he shows from usage that the judgment of the Church is necessary.
Therefore the holy Doctor RESPONDS, quaest. 1. ad 5. that fornication is there expressed as the cause of separating himself perpetually, because among the causes it is evident, since it is against the faith directly belonging to marriage; but the remaining causes he holds are to be litigated: And that he speaks of perpetual separation is proved; for there, cap. 5. he had premised the use of divorce, which was toward perpetual separation. The holy Doctor observes also that the divorce of the Church now used is different from that old repudium. See the holy Doctor, q. 1. On these things, however, I shall treat in the Tractate on marriage.