S. Bonaventurae Bagnoregis
S. R. E. Episc. Card. Albae
atque Doctor Ecclesiae Universalis

St. Bonaventure of Bagnoregio
Cardinal Bishop of Alba
& Doctor of the Church

Commentaria in Quatuor Libros Sententiarum

Commentaries on the Four Books of Sentences

Magistri Petri Lombardi, Episc. Parisiensis

of Master Peter Lombard, Archbishop of Paris

SECUNDI LIBRI

BOOK TWO

COMMENTARIUS IN DISTINCTIONEM IV.

COMMENTARY ON DISTINCTION IV

DUBIA CIRCA LITTERAM MAGISTRI.

DOUBTS ON THE TEXT OF MASTER PETER

 

Opera Omnia S. Bonaventurae,
Ad Claras Aquas, 1885, Vol. 2, pag. 142-143.
Cum Notitiis Originalibus

 

 

Latin text taken from Opera Omnia S. Bonaventurae,
Ad Claras Aquas, 1885, Vol. 2, pp. 142-143.
Notes by the Quaracchi Editors.

 

DUB. I.

DOUBT I

In parte ista sunt dubitationes circa litteram, et quaeritur primo de hoc quod dicit:  Beati nunquam fuerunt qui ceciderunt, quia sui eventus ignari fuerunt.  Contra:  ad hoc quod aliquis sit beatus, non oportet scire omnia, sed sufficit Deum cognoscere.  —  Item, beatitudo non est aliud quam clara visio Dei; sed ad hoc non requiritur cognitio eventus:  ergo etc.

In this part are the doubts about (Master Peter’s) text, and first there is asked concerning this which he says:  Those who fell down, were . . . never blessed, because they were ignorant of their own outcome.  On the contrary:  for this, that someone be blessed, it is not necessary [non oportet] that he know all (things), but it is sufficient that God cognize (them).  —  Likewise, beatitude is not other than the clear vision of God; but for this there is not required the cognition of (one’s) outcome:  ergo etc..

RESPONDEO:  Dicendum, quod ad beatitudinem non solum dos visionis requiritur, sed perfectae tentionis.  Perfecta autem tentio non est, nisi quando est cum securitate; securitas autem non est, nisi cum6 est securitas de permansione; et quia hoc Angeli habere non potuerunt, saltem qui lapsuri erant, quia falsum erat, ipsos permansuros:  ideo beati non fuerunt.

I RESPOND:  It must be said, that for beatitude there is not only required the dowry of vision, but (the dowry) of perfect holding.  Moreover a holding is not perfect, except when it is with security; but there is no security, except when6 the security from a permanence [permansione]; and because the Angels could not have this, at least those who were going to fall, because it was false, that (they were) going to remain throughout [permansuros]:  for that reason they were not blessed.

Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod sufficit Deum cognoscere; dicendum, quod falsum est, immo opportet etiam perfecte tenere.  Et quod subiungit, quod aperta et clara visio Dei est tota merces; dicendum est, hoc esse verum per concomitantiam; vix enim aut nunquam est ita aperta Dei visio, quin sit futurae permansionis certitudo; aut si non est, non est in illa perfecta beatitudo.  Hanc autem visionem apertam, quae est facie ad faciem,7 non habuerunt Angeli ante confirmationem, immo simul Dei visionem habuerunt et tentionem, licet ante aliquatenus cognoscerent et amarent, sive ad haec duo habiles essent.

To that which is objected, that (for someone to be blessed) it is sufficient that God cognize (all things); it must be said, that it is false, nay it is also necessary [oportet] that (the one to be blessed) also perfectly have (knowledge of them).  And what it subjoins, that the open and clear vision of God is the entire reward [merces]; it must be said, that this is true through concomitance; for hardly or never is the vision of God so open, that there is no certitude of (its) future permanence; of if there is not, there is not in that (vision) perfect beatitude.  Moreover the open vision, which is face to face,7 the Angels did not have before (their) confirmation, nay they had at once the vision and holding of God, though somewhat before they cognized and loved, or they were able regarding these two.

DUB. II.

DOUBT II

Item quaeritur de hoc quod dicit:  Beati esse non poterant, si damnationis incerti erant.  Contra:  certitudo damnationis potius est contraria beatitudini quam consona:  ergo si certitudo nihil confert ad gloriam, ergo incertitudo nullo modo impedit gloriam sive beatitudinem perfectam.

Likewise is asked concerning this which (Master Peter) says:  They could not be blessed . . . if they were uncertain of (their) damnation.  On the contrary:  the certitude of damnation is more contrary to beatitude than consonant (with it):  therefore if certitude confers nothing upon glory, therefore incertitude in no manner impedes glory or perfect beatitude.

RESPONDEO:  Dicendum, quod de aliquo futuro dupliciter potest haberi certitudo:  vel in partem affirmativam, vel in partem negativam; et sicut ad beatitudinem oportet habere certitudinem de eius perpetuatione futura, ita oportet habere certitudinem de miseria nunquam futura; ista enim duo sunt omnino inseparabilis.  Certitudo ergo damnationis nunquam futurae confert ad gloriam.  Et quoniam incertitudo aeque privat certitudinem respectu affirmationis, sicut et respectu negationis; ideo incertitudo negationis ita repugnat,8 sicut incertitudo permansionis.  Et sic habet intelligi illud verbum.

I RESPOND:  It must be said, that certitude can be had concerning something future in a twofold manner:  either for the affirmative side, and/or for the negative side; as just as for beatitude it is necessary [oportet] to have certitude concerning its future perpetuation, so it is necessary [oportet] to have certitude concerning a never future misery; for these two are entirely inseparable.  Therefore the certitude of (one’s) never future damnation confers upon glory.  And since an incertitude equally deprives a certitude in respect of an affirmation, just as also in respect of a negation, for that reason the incertitude of the negation is as repugnant (to beatitude),8 as the incertitude of the permanence.  And in this manner that verse (of Master Peter) has to be understood.

6  Aliqui codd. quando, Vat. ubi.

7  Epist. I. Cor. 13, 12.  —  Cfr. de hoc dubio S. Thomas et Richard. a Med., hic circa lit.

8  Supple:  beatitudini.  —  Paulo ante non pauci codd. cum primis edd. certitudo negationis; perperam.  Aliquanto superius plures codd. cum Vat. falso nunquam futura pro nunquam futurae.

6  Some codices have when [quando], the Vatican edition has where [ubi] for when [cum].

7  1 Cor. 13:12.  —  Cf. on this Doubt, St. Thomas and Richard of Middleton, here on the text.

8  Supply:  to beatitude [beatitudini].  —  A little before this not a few codices, together with the first editions, have certitude of the negation [certitudo negationis], faultily.  Somewhat above this several codices, together with the Vatican edition have falsely the misery of a never future [miseria nunquam futurae] for a never future misery [miseria nunquam futura].

 

p. 143

DUB. III.

DOUBT III

Item quaeritur de divisione perfecti.  Videtur enim insufficiens, quia non tantum est perfectio secundum naturam, sed etiam secundum gratiam et gloriam; et secundum gratiam multiplex genus perfectionis.  —  Item quaeritur, quare magis accipitur unum genus perfectionis secundum tempus, quam secundum aliud accidens?

Likewise is asked concerning the division of the “perfect”.  For it seems insufficient, because there is not only perfection according to nature, but even according to grace and glory; and according to grace (there is) a manifold genus of perfection.  —  Likewise, there is asked, “For what reason is one genus of perfection accepted more according to time, than according to another accident?”

RESPONDEO:  Dicendum, quod perfectum dicit complementum sive completionem, in qua est status.  Status autem ponitur in aliquo dupliciter:  aut simpliciter, aut in genere.1  Si simpliciter, sic est tertium membrum; si in genere creaturae, hoc potest esse dupliciter:  aut in quantum exit a Deo; et sic habet rationem vestigii, et reperitur haec perfectio in omni creatura, quando perducta est ad modum, speciem et ordinem sibi competentem.  Alio modo, in quantum creatura redit in Deum; et sic est perfectio gloriae; et hanc vocat Magister perfectionem secundum naturam.  Unde ponendum, quod est perfectio secundum essentiam, et secundum participationem; et hoc dupliciter, vel secundum egressum, vel secundum regressum.

I RESPOND:  It must be said, that the “perfect” means the complement or completion, in which there is a standing still [status].  Moreover a “standing still” is posited in a twofold manner:  either simply, or in a genus.1  If simply, thus there is a third member; if in the genus of a creature, this can be in a twofold manner:  either inasmuch as it goes forth from God; and thus it has the reckoning of a vestige, and this perfection is found in every creature, when it has been conducted [perducta est] according to a standard of measure, a beauty [species] and an order competent to itself.  In another manner, inasmuch as a creature returns unto God; and thus there is the perfection of glory; and this Master (Peter) calls the perfection according to nature.  Wherefore it must be posited, that there is a perfection according to essence, and according to participation, and this in a twofold manner, either according to an egress, and/or according to a regress.

1  Cfr. Aristot., V. Metaph. text. 21. (IV. c. 16.).

1  Cf. Aristotle, Metaphysics, Bk. V, text 21, (Bk. IV, ch. 16).

This English Translation and the digitization of the Latin and English texts, the HTML markup,  all emendations and corrections of the Latin text, and all notes by the Translator, are © 2007, 2008 by Br. Alexis Bugnolo.  The / symbol is used to indicate that the text which follows appears on the subsequent page of the Quaracchi Edition. The translation of the notes in English corresponds to the context of the English text, not that of the Latin text; likewise they are a freer translation than that which is necessitated by the body of the text. Items in square [ ] brackets contain Latin terms corresponding to the previous English word(s), or notes added by the English translator.
Items in round ( ) brackets are terms implicit in the Latin syntax or which are required for clarity in English.