Summa summae S. Thomae, Tomus II

Charles René Billuart

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 ?

Articulus III: Utrum veniale disponat ad mortale, possitque fieri mortale, et e contra mortale fieri veniale ?

Articulus IV: Quis sit finis ultimus tam peccantis mortaliter quam venialiter?

Articulus V: Utrum peccatum mortale in ratione offensae sit gravitatis simpliciter infinitae?

Articulus VI: Utrum homo in primo instanti morali usus rationis teneatur se convertere ad Deum, possitque esse peccatum veniale cum solo originali?

Tractatus IV: De legibus

Dissertatio I: De lege in communi

Articulus I: Quid sit lex?

Articulus II: Utrum promulgatio sit essentia legis?

Articulus III: Quinam possunt ferre leges?

I say 1°: Legislative power belongs to the community, or to him who bears the care of the community .

It is proved. To found law belongs to him whose it is to provide for the common good; because, as was said, laws are enacted on account of the common good. Yet to provide for the common good belongs to the community, or to him who has the care of the community; for as particular good is an end proportioned to a particular agent, so the common good is an end proportioned to the community, or to him exercising its functions. Ergo.

But true, because this governing and legislative power cannot easily be exercised by the whole multitude — for it would be difficult for all and singular to assemble at once as often as provision must be made for things necessary to the common good and for enacting laws — therefore the multitude is wont to transfer its right, or governing power, either into certain men from every condition of the people, and it is called democracy; or into few optimates, and it is called aristocracy; or into one only, whether for himself alone or for successors by hereditary right, and it is called monarchy.

This legislative power over Christians, especially the just, the Lutherans and Calvinists deny to the Church, herein following the Waldenses, Wiclif and John Hus condemned in the council of Constance. Against whom

I say 2º: There exists in the Church of Christ legislative power.

It is proved 1° by tradition. The Apostles themselves, Act., XV, 28 et 29,

enacted the law of abstaining from things strangled and from things sacrificed to idols. And ibid., 41, it is said of Paul: He went about..., commanding them to keep the precepts of the Apostles. From which it is understood that this law of the Apostles was not directive only, as heretics feign, but also preceptive. From the Apostles until now, the Church through holy Pontiffs and councils has founded laws which all the faithful have venerated.

2° By reason. The Church of Christ is a republic well ordered; for Christ did not fail her in anything. Yet in every well-ordered republic there ought to be, for emerging circumstances and necessities, legislative power: otherwise it will collapse. Ergo.

Now this power resides in the supreme Pontiff and general councils legitimately assembled, for the whole Church; in legates, for the provinces of their legation; in bishops, with counsel of chapter, for their diocese; in national and provincial councils, for the nation or province; in general assemblies of religious orders, for the whole order.

[Obj. 1°: Either Christ sufficiently provided for his Church, or not. Second alternative is wickedness of the day. If the first, ergo human laws are superfluous.

I answer. That Christ sufficiently provided for his Church by founding essential laws and leaving to the Church itself the power of founding those which ought to arise from the former, according as he should judge expedient for the common good by exigency of circumstances, persons and places. For it appears that this power is necessary to the Church, that she may be able to rule the Christian people fittingly.

Obj. 2º from heretics and especially Protestants: The Church is a certain college existing within an empire and under territorial power or superiority. Yet any college whatsoever has not the right of founding laws, but is subject to the laws of the empire; for it is repugnant that in the same republic there be two supreme legislators. Ergo.

I answer. I deny the major. 1º The Church is a society, city and kingdom perfect, as it is described in sacred letters and by the Fathers. This society is not confined within the limits of one civil empire, but embraces the whole world, because Christ came into the world that he might save all men, I Tim., II, 4. Whence he willed his Church diffused everywhere to be one, and this association to be bound and joined together with the same bonds in those things which pertain either to faith or to morals. He willed moreover that it be perpetual, and promised that it would endure unto the consummation of the world, Matth., XXVIII, 20. All which do not suffer the straits and instability of temporal empires. 2º Colleges cannot be instituted without permission of the prince, who can suppress them if their affairs and ends pertain to the genus of things committed to him. Yet the Church was instituted, not only without permission of princes, but while they contradicted and strove to destroy her, and the affairs which she has charge of do not pertain to the genus of things committed to the prince. Ergo she is not constituted under the authority of the prince. 3° Indeed two supreme legislators cannot coexist in the same republic, supposed that both powers be exercised in the same genus and have the administration of the same thing. But the genus of both civil and ecclesiastical power differs entirely, because the things committed to each differ entirely. This indeed has charge of sacred and divine things, and watches over spiritual and eternal goods of the faithful; that, governing civil society, studies earthly and temporal goods of citizens. Each therefore is supreme in its own things, each having its parts. Whence it is falsely asserted that a state within a state is constituted, if the Church vindicates to herself legislative power in her own order. Hence Jerome used to say, Ep. 77, ad Ocean., n. 2: « Other are the laws of the Caesars, other those of Christ; another thing Papinian commands, another our Paul. » And Pope Gelasius, in can. Duo sunt, dist. 96: « Two there are by which this world is principally ruled, the sacred authority of priests and the royal power. »]

I say 3°: Legislative power does not depend upon probity of life. Whence every prince holds it, as well secular as ecclesiastical, whether good or evil.

It is proved. Christ himself, Matth., XXII, 21, commanded tribute be paid to Caesar, an ethnic prince. Ibid., XXIII, 2 et 3, he commands obedience to Scribes and Pharisees commanding according to the law, though wicked and impious. The Apostle, ad Rom., XIII, 4 et 5, teaches that princes, even infidels, are ministers of God, and that they must be obeyed, not only because of wrath, but also for conscience' sake. The same, ad Tit., III, 1, and 1 Petr., II, 13-15. Whence the following propositions were justly condemned in the council of Constance, first session, 8: « No one is civil lord, no one prelate, no one bishop, while he is in mortal sin. » It is 13 of Wiclif. The other, session XV: « No one exercises the office of Christ or Peter unless he follow him in morals. » It is 12 of John Hus.

You will ask of how many kinds laws are.

I answer. that they are of fourfold kind . One is eternal; another natural; another divine positive, and this twofold, old and new; another human, and this again twofold, ecclesiastical and civil.

Dissertatio II: De lege aeterna et naturali

Articulus I: De lege aeterna

Articulus II: De lege naturali

Articulus III: Utrum lex naturalis pati possit dispensationem ?

Dissertatio III: De lege humana

Articulus I: De quidditate, necessitate, qualitatibus et divisionibus legis humanae

Articulus II: Qualis legis humanae promulgatio requiratur ut obliget?

Articulus III: Utrum lex pendeat ab acceptatione populi?

Dissertatio IV: De potestate legis humanae

Articulus I: Utrum lex humana possit praecipere aut prohibere actus internos?

Articulus II: Quomodo debeat poni opus praeceptum, ut legi satisfat?

Articulus III: Utrum leges humanae obligent in conscientia?

Articulus IV: De lege poenali

Articulus V: Quandonam leges humanae obligant sub peccato mortali?

Articulus VI: Quaedam aliae quaestiunculae circa obligationem legum humanarum breviter resolvuntur

Articulus VII: Quinam subjiciantur legibus humanis?

Dissertatio V: De mutatione legum

Articulus I: De mutatione legum per abrogationem et cessationem finis

Articulus II: De consuetudine

Articulus III: De dispensatione

Articulus IV: De interpretatione legum

Articulus V: (APPENDIX) — De privilegiis

Tractatus V: De gratia

Dissertatio I: Praeambula de variis erroribus circa gratiam

Dissertatio II: Praeambula de variis naturae humanae statibus

Articulus I: Explicantur quinque status naturae humanae

§ I: Status naturae purae

§ II: Status naturae integrae

§ III: Status justitiae originalis, naturae lapsae, et naturae reparatae

Articulus II: Utrum status naturae purae fuerit possibilis ?

Articulus III: Utrum homo in statu naturae lapsae nondum reparatae minores vires habeat ad bonum morale, quam habuisset in statu naturae purae?

Articulus IV: Utrum tam Adamo quam angelis fuerit necessaria gratia per se efficax ad perseverandum?

Dissertatio III: De necessitate gratiae

Articulus I: Quid intelligatur nomine gratiae?

Articulus II: Utrum homo sine gratia possit aliquod verum cognoscere?

Articulus III: Utrum homo lapsus possit facere vel velle aliquod bonum absque gratia?

Articulus IV: De necessitate gratiae ad amorem Dei naturalem super omnia tam affectivum quam effectivum, et ad vitanda peccata

Articulus V: Utrum homo possit se praeparare ad gratiam sine gratia?

Articulus VI: Utrum homini justificato necessaria sit gratia actualis ad singulos pietatis actus?

Articulus VII: Utrum homo in gratia constitutus indigeat speciali auxilio gratiae ad finaliter perseverandum?

Dissertatio IV: De essentia et divisione gratiae

Articulus I: De essentia gratiae

Articulus II: Variae divisiones gratiae

Articulus III: De gratia gratis data speciatim

Articulus IV: Utrum detur in hoc statu naturae lapsae gratia sufficiens?

Articulus V: Quo sensu admittenda sit gratia sufficiens ?

Articulus VI: Quid et quotuplex sit auxilium gratiae sufficientis ?

Articulus VII: DE GRATIA EFFICACI

Articulus VIII: Expenduntur varii modi explicandi efficaciam et causalitatem gratiae per se efficacis

Articulus IX: De causa gratiae

Dissertatio V: De justificatione peccatoris

Articulus I: Utrum in justificatione impii peccata vere deleantur et auferantur, et non solum tegantur ?

Articulus II: Utrum ad remissionem peccati, qua est justificatio impii, requiratur gratiae infusio ?

Articulus III: De actibus ad justificationem peccatoris adulti requisitis

Articulus IV

Articulus V: Quaedam questiunculae ad complementum questionis D. Thomae breviter resolvuntur

Dissertatio VI: De merito justi

Articulus I: Quid et quotuplex sit meritum ? quas conditiones requirat ?

Articulus II: Utrum homo possit aliquid mereri a Deo ?

Articulus III: Utrum opera justorum quae fiunt ex gratia, sint meritoria de condigno vitae aeternae ?

Articulus IV: De his quae cadunt sub merito

↑ Top of work