Summa summae S. Thomae, Tomus II
Charles René Billuart (1685–1757)
Summa summae S. Thomae sive compendium theologiae. Tomus II.
First published 1884
Charles-René Billuart, O.P.'s Summa summae S. Thomae sive compendium theologiae, Tomus II, treats human acts, passions and virtues, sin, law, and grace in the Thomistic manual tradition. Schola presents the complete Latin Tome II from the Paris Vives edition of 1884.
Tractatus I: De actibus humanis
Dissertatio I: De voluntario et involuntario
Articulus I: Quid et quotuplex sit voluntarium?
Articulus II: Utrum omissio et effectus ex ea secutus sint voluntaria sine praecepto ponendi actum qui omittitur?
Articulus III: Utrum violentia causet involuntarium?
Articulus IV: Utrum metus causet involuntarium?
Articulus V: Utrum concupiscentia causet involuntarium?
Articulus VI: Utrum ignorantia causet involuntarium?
Dissertatio II: De voluntario libero, sive de libertate creata
Articulus I: Praenotanda
Articulus II: Utrum in homine lapso sit libertas arbitrii seu indifferentiae?
Articulus III: Utrum ad merendum vel demerendum, in hoc statu naturae lapsae, requiratur libertas a necessitate, seu libertas indifferentiae?
Dissertatio III: De actibus humanis speciatim sumptis
Articulus I: Utrum voluntas possit velle malum sub ratione mali?
Articulus II: De motivo voluntatis quoad specificationem
Articulus III: De motivo voluntatis quoad exercitium
Articulus IV: De modo quo movetur voluntas : an libere, an necessario?
Articulus V: De actibus elicitis a voluntate
Articulus VI: De actibus imperatis.** D. Thomas, q. 17
Dissertatio IV: De actibus humanis in esse moris
Articulus I: In quo consistat moralitas in communi actuum humanorum ?
Articulus II: De principiis moralitatis
Articulus III: De concursu multiplicis moralitatis simul in eodem actu
Articulus IV: Utrum dentur actus indifferentes?
Articulus V: Utrum et quomodo voluntas humana, ut sit bona, debeat conformari voluntati divinae?
Articulus VI: Utrum actus exterior addat bonitatem vel malitiam actui interiori?
Articulus VII: Utrum eventus sequens addat ad bonitatem vel malitiam actus exterioris?
Dissertatio V: De conscientia
Articulus I: Quid et quotuplex sit conscientia?
Articulus II: An et quomodo teneamur conformari conscientiae erranti?
Articulus III: Cujus speciei et gravitatis sit peccatum agere contra conscientiam?
Articulus IV: Quomodo se gerere debeat confessarius cum poenitente quem deprehendit laborare conscientia erronea?
Articulus V: De conscientia scrupulosa, per varias quaestiunculas
Articulus VI: Utrum liceat agere cum conscientia dubia, probabili, aut probabiliori?
Dissertatio VI: De opinionum probabilitate et delectu
Articulus I: Utrum sit licitum sequi opinionem minus probabilem et minus tutam, in concursu probabilioris et tutioris?
Articulus II: Utrum in conflictu duarum opinionum aeque probabilium, de honestate objectiva actus, liceat sequi minus tutam faventem libertati, relicta tutiori favente legi ?
Articulus III: Utrum liceat sequi opinionem probabiliorem minus tutam in concursu minus probabilis tutioris, ubi agitur de sola honestate objectiva actus?
Articulus IV: Varia quaestiunculae circa praesentem materiam breviter resolvuntur
Dissertatio VII: De probabilismo moderato
Articulus I: De natura probabilitatis
Articulus II: Quaenam systemata prodierint circa probabilitatem in practicis?
Articulus III: An liceat sequi opinionem vere et solide probabilem faventem libertati, relicta tutiore aeque probabili, vel etiam probabiliori, ubi de sola liceitate actionis agitur?
Articulus IV: De usu probabilitatis et de regulis specialibus quibus conscientia in dubiis practice formatur
Articulus V: Utrum liceat sequi opinionem probabilem, aut etiam probabiliorem, relicta tutiore, cum adest obligatio certa finem determinatum obtinendi?
Articulus VI: De probabilismo compensativo
Tractatus II: De passionibus et virtutibus
Dissertatio I: De passionibus
Articulus I: De passionibus in particulari
Dissertatio II: De virtutibus
Articulus I: Quid sit virtus, et quotuplicis generis?
Articulus II: De subjecto virtutum
Articulus III: De causa virtutum
Articulus IV: De proprietatibus virtutum
Tractatus III: De peccatis
Dissertatio I: De natura peccati
Articulus I: Quid sit peccatum?
Articulus II: Utrum formale constitutivum peccati commissionis consistat in positivo, an in privativo?
Articulus III: De peccato omissionis
Dissertatio II: De distinctione specifica et numerica peccatorum
Articulus I: Varia peccati divisiones
Articulus II: Unde petatur distinctio specifica peccatorum?
Articulus III: Utrum peccata commissionis et omissionis specie distinguantur?
Articulus IV: Unde petatur distinctio numerica peccatorum?
Dissertatio III: De comparatione peccatorum ad invicem
Articulus I: Utrum omnia peccata sint inter se connexa et paria ?
Articulus II: Unde sumatur inaequalitas peccatorum ?
Dissertatio IV: De subjecto peccati
Articulus I: Quodnam sit peccati subjectum ?
Articulus II: Utrum peccatum saltem veniale possit esse in et a solo appetitu sensitivo, absque omni actuali influxu voluntatis; omnesque motus sensualitatis sint peccata?
Dissertatio V: De causis peccatorum
Articulus I: An et quae ignorantia sit causa peccati, eaque ipsa sit peccatum?
Articulus II: Utrum possit dari ignorantia invincibilis juris divini positivi?
Articulus III: Utrum dari possit ignorantia invincibilis juris naturae?
Articulus IV: Utrum ignorantia invincibilis juris naturae excuset a peccato?
Articulus V: De inadvertentia ad peccatum
Articulus VI: Utrum ignorantia excuset a poenis per leges positivas statutis?
Articulus VII: Utrum Deus sit causa peccati?
Dissertatio VI: De peccato originali
Articulus I: Utrum sit peccatum originale ab Adamo ad posteros transmissum?
Articulus II: Variae quaestiones circa traductionem peccati originalis breviter resolvuntur
Articulus III: Utrum beatissima Virgo Maria peccatum originale in sua Conceptione contraxerit ?
Articulus IV: Utrum S. Thomas negaverit beatam Virginem Deiparam fuisse a peccato originali immunem?
Articulus V: In quo sita sit essentia peccati originalis ?
Dissertatio VII: De effectibus peccati
Articulus I: Utrum ex peccato actuali remaneat in anima macula seu peccatum habituale, et quid sit ?
Articulus II: De reatu poenae
Articulus III: Qualis poenae reatum inducit peccatum?
Articulus IV: DE POENA DEBITA PECCATO ORIGINALI
Dissertatio VIII: De peccato mortali et veniali
Articulus I: Utrum detur peccatum veniale ex natura sua distinctum a mortali ?
Articulus II: In quo et quomodo peccatum mortale et veniale inter se differunt ?
You will ask 1° by what formally and primarily mortal sin and venial sin are constituted and differ.
I answer. Mortal sin and venial sin are formally and primarily constituted and differentiated by this, that mortal sin is simply against the law, inasmuch as it is against the end of the law, which it overturns; not so venial sin. But the end of the law is the charity of God and neighbor, I Tim., I, 5; for all laws aim at this, that we love God with our whole heart, and our neighbor as ourselves. Or, which is the same thing, they formally and primarily differ in that mortal sin turns one away from God as last end, and constitutes the ultimate end in a creature; but venial sin, the order to the last end remaining, makes an inordinateness regarding means. The reason is because, a perfect transgression of the law being posited, or aversion from God as last end, all apprehend mortal sin, and thence follow the exclusion of sanctifying grace and charity, the dissolution of the friendship of God, the death of the soul irreparable of itself, guilt of eternal punishment, and all other things which are attributed to mortal sin and do not befit venial sin.
You will ask 2° whether mortal sin and venial sin differ essentially from each other.
I answer. Affirmatively. Because the malice of mortal sin, as appears from what has been said, consists in a relation of disproportion to the last end; but the malice of venial sin rests in a relation of disproportion to means not absolutely necessary for the end. But these two relations differ specifically. Therefore.
You will ask 3° whether and how mortal sins can be discerned from venial.
I answer. To wish to define certainly each and every one — this is mortal, this venial — is rash, since it surpasses human industry; and Augustine, the Eagle of Doctors, confesses, book XXI de Civit., last chapter, n. 5, notwithstanding his study1, that he could not attain to this; and in the Enchirid., c. 78, n. 21, he says it must be weighed rather by divine than by human judgment. Nevertheless concerning some things it can be defined certainly, concerning many probabilistically; wherefore three rules are commonly assigned by theologians, the first from Scripture, the second from tradition, the third from natural reason.
The first rule from Scripture. Sins which in the Scriptures are said to exclude from the kingdom of God, to be abominable, detestable, execrable, worthy of death, or have some other grave malediction attached to them, or to which is said Woe! are mortal; those, however, which are expressed in milder terms are venial. Of the former you have examples in Levit., XXIV, 15-21; Prov., VI, 16-19; Isa., I throughout; Rom., I, 18 seqq.; I Cor., VI, 9 et 10; Galat., V, 19-21; Ephes., V, 3 seqq., and elsewhere; of the latter, Prov., X, 19; Matth., XII, 36 et 37, and elsewhere.
The second rule from tradition. Those things which from the common sense of the Fathers, bishops and doctors are held in the Church as mortal must be reckoned mortal; those held as venial must be reckoned venial: because it is justly presumed that God does not desert his Church in a matter of such moment, nor permit her to be deceived by common error, to the ruin of souls.
The third rule from natural reason. Sins which, according to right reason, gravely injure the charity of God and neighbor are mortal; those which injure it lightly, venial. But to discern whether they injure the charity of God and neighbor gravely or lightly, many things must be considered: 1° the nature of the act, whether it admit or not lightness of matter, of which in the following article;
2° the gravity or lightness of the matter, both on the part of the object and on the part of the end and circumstances, in those things which admit it; 3° whether the sin be of its genus mortal or not; 4° the tenor of the words of the law, whether it commands severely and under grave penalty; 5° what was the intention of the legislator in this case; 6° whether the sin was committed with perfect or imperfect deliberation, whether from malice, or from weakness or ignorance. But when consent perfectly or imperfectly deliberated must be reckoned so, I will say in the following article.