FOUR QUESTIONS ABOUT OUR LADY - Franciscan Friars



FOUR QUESTIONS ABOUT OUR LADY

by

PETER JOHN OLIVI O.F.M.

Edited by

Dionysius Pacetti O.F.M.

Translated by

Campion Murray O.F.M.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Preface vii

Introduction viii

I. The life and writings of Friar Peter John Olivi ix

Works of philosophy, theology and apologetics xiii

Commentaries on sacred Scripture xiii

Works on gospel and Franciscan perfection xiv

Ascetical and mystical works xv

II. The works of Olivi as a principal source for the sermons of

St Bernardine of Siena xv

III. The Four Questions on our Lady xx

THE FOUR QUESTIONS

Question 1: The Virgin’s consent to the annunciation 1

1. The first principle of the consent 1

a. The will of God choosing her 1

b. The virtue and grace of the Virgin 1

c. The influence of the angels 2

d. The merits of the saints 3

2.A. The merit of the Virgin’s consent 3

a. The object to which she consented 3

i. The remaking of the universe 3

ii. The overshadowing of the angel 4

b. To whom she consented 4

c. The reason why she consented 5

2.B. Her virtues 5

a. Martyrdom 5

b. Piety and mercy 6

c. Chastity and mental integrity 7

i. She fled from human intercourse 7

ii. The promise of the angel 7

iii. Her purity and chastity of heart 7

d. Faith 7

e. Humility 8

i. Her inner turmoil 8

ii. Her apprehension 8

iii. Her dedication 8

f. Act of love 9

g. Active and contemplative life 9

4. The final goal of her consent 9

a. An argument from observation 9

b. An argument of faith 10

c. An argument by spiritual discernment 10

Question 2: Of the twelve victories of the blessed Virgin

over her twelve struggles against temptation 12

1. Did the Mother of Christ experience strong temptations? 12

a. An argument against this 12

b. An argument in favour of this 12

c. Olivi’s opinion 12

2. Her twelve victories against temptation 13

a. She crushed the head of Satan 13

b. Her spiritual freedom 13

c. Her penance and mortification 13

d. Her devotions 13

e. Her conquering of every temptation 13

f. Her perfect harmony with God 14

g. Her struggles for Christ 14

3. The first six victories (a-f) each oppose a vice 14

a. Pride 14

b. Concupiscence of the flesh 14

c. Avarice 15

d. Over eager restlessness 15

e. Imperfect sorrow 15

f. Discord and envy 15

4. The seventh (i) is opposed to a lack of confidence 15

5. The seventh, eighth and ninth victories concern

the difficulty in taking over the role of the fallen angels 15

6. Examples of victorious women in Scripture as proofs of

the seventh victory (i) 15

7. Examples from Scripture as proof of the eighth victory

and the meaning of these signs 15

a. i. Judith 16

ii. Esther 16

iii. Woman clothed with the sun 16

b. The full meaning of a sign 17

c. The strength of a tree comes from the root 17

d. Ascent and descent in signs 17

e. The examples from the Bible have their fullest

meaning in Mary, for example, King Ahaz 17

8. Mary was victorious from the beginning of her struggle 18

9. She is the rod of Aaron 19

10. An argument against this, namely, in no other way

could she have had such dignity 19

a. She would have desired to share in the glory of her Son 19

b. She was fully aware of what the world offered 19

c. She had the inclination to sin 19

d. She was strongly tested 20

e. She resisted temptation 20

11. She suffered from being joined to Christ the Redeemer 20

Question 3: On the excellence and perfection of the glorious

Virgin 22

1. Mary is Queen of heaven and earth 22

a. Mother of God is the highest title 22

b. Reason supports this 22

c. Motherly love exceeds all others 22

d. Regard of Christ for his Mother 23

2. Six kinds of union with God 23

a. To share in being 23

b. To understand 23

c. Gift of grace 23

d. Vision of glory 23

e. Our conception 23

f. Personal union 24

3. Mary reaches the depths of the Trinity 24

4. God gave the highest perfection to Mary 25

5. The regard of all people for Mary 26

6. The role of the angels 26

7. Recourse to Mary 26

a. Christ wants Mary to be loved and honoured 27

b. Catholic faith teaches this 27

c. Devotion to Mary is devotion to Christ 27

d. Experience of Mary’s virtues 27

8. Devotion to Mary is better than devotion to the saints 27

Question 4: On the sorrow of the blessed Virgin in

the passion of Christ 29

1. Mary had more joy than sorrow in the passion 29

a. She chose what was pleasant 29

b. Her reasons for joy exceeded the reasons for sorrow 29

2. Contrary argument 29

a. Physical experience is stronger 29

b. Her joy did not lessen her sorrow 29

3. Arguments against the preceding arguments 30

a. Against 2.a 30

b. Against 2.b 30

4. Further arguments against No. 2 30

a. The action of the Spirit is sweet 31

b. Mary accepted that Christ had to die 31

c. Mary joined herself to what Christ wanted 31

5. Argument from the disposition of the Virgin 31

a. Mary was attracted to the divine which is pleasant 31

b. Why Mary was pleased with the passion 32

c. The passion was to be brief 32

d. The example of the martyrs 32

6. Mary was deeply grieved at the passion 32

a. From the nature of love 33

b. From the act of compassion 33

c. From a participation in the passion 33

d. From Mary’s union with Christ 34

e. From the fruit of the passion 34

f. From her being a pilgrim 34

g. From the horror of the passion 34

7. The Spirit moved Mary 35

a. The Spirit moved Mary to sorrow 35

b. Mary willingly accepted the passion 35

c. Mary was overwhelmed by the passion 35

d. The stronger the union the greater the sorrow 36

e. The crown of martyrdom 36

f. The lesson of the lament for Christ 36

g. Extreme sorrow and joy cannot be together 37

8. Comments on the preceding seven points (7.a-g) 37

a. Divine and joyful objects can be seen in two ways 37

b. Not every action of the Spirit causes joy 39

c. God’s actions are not always experienced as joyful 39

d. Mary experienced all the sufferings of Christ 40

e. A point of view does not change sorrow into joy 40

f. A triple sorrowful aspect of the passion 42

i. Christ was eternal 42

ii. Christ was aware of all evil 42

iii. Christ’s death was eternal 42

g. Christ’s passion is unlike the passion of the saints 42

i. Christ suffered for us 42

ii. Reparation 43

iii. Type of suffering 43

Preface

The work entitled FOUR QUESTIONS ABOUT OUR LADY [Quaestiones quatuor de Domina] was published by Fr Dionysius Pacetti O.F.M., of the College of St Bonaventure, Quarcchi, Italy in 1954. It was published as the eighth volume of the series entitled Bibliotheca franciscana ascetica medii aevi.

The Introduction which follows is a translation of the Editor’s Introduction but from it some technical detail has been omitted. The information in the Editor’s Introduction on the writings of Peter John Olivi has not been brought up to date.

The translation of the Bible used in this translation is the New Revised Standard Bible [NRSV]. At times, however, this translation is markedly different from the Latin bible used by the author. When this occurs the Douay Rheims [DRB] translation has been used as this translation follows the Latin text closely. There is a note in the translation on each occasion when the Douay Rheims Bible has been used. In the translation the abbreviations for the names of the books of the Bible are the abbreviations used in the NRSV.

As it is easy to get lost when reading the text, I have added a detailed analysis of the text. The numbers used in this analysis are included in the text and are within curved brackets, for example {1}; all other brackets used in the translation are as found in the Latin edition of the text.

I record my gratitude to Fr Christopher Goulding O.F.M. and Sr Joanne Fitzsimons O.S.C. for their careful work in proof-reading these pages and for their many suggestions which have improved the translation. The mistakes which remain are my own responsibility.

Campion Murray OFM

St Paschal’s College

BOX HILL

Feast of the Assumption 2000

INTRODUCTION

After the basic study done by Cardinal Francis Ehrle, S.J., entitled: Petrus Iohannis Olivi, sein Leben und seine Schriften[1] and with the publication of contemporary documents, many shadows which had gathered during six centuries over the austere Head of the Spirituals have been scattered and his numerous writings have been brought to light and located. The eminent figure of Olivi, justly named by his contemporaries as The Speculative Doctor,[2] has been studied by scholars over the past fifty years, a work certainly not yet complete; the scholars with love and diligence have set themselves to seek out and publish his writings and study the deep thoughts found therein.[3]

A fruit of this research has been the discovery of his Four Questions on our Lady, preserved in two manuscripts which were once used by St Bernardine of Siena, and which I am happy to publish on the occasion of the first Centenary of the proclamation of the Dogma of the Immaculate Conception.

To highlight this work I believe it is worth prefacing the text with some comments on the life and work of the celebrated Author and to put into proper perspective the singular esteem in which he was regarded by St Bernardine of Siena who in fact handed on to us the Four Questions on our Lady.

I. The life and writings of Friar Peter John Olivi

Born in 1248 in Sérignan, Linguedoc, he entered the Order of Friars Minor at the age of twelve and quickly distinguished himself by his goodness and keen understanding; as a result his superiors were not slow to send him to the University of Paris. On gaining the academic grade of Bachelor of Arts, he returned to his home Franciscan Province of Provence where he dedicated his whole life to teaching and to the writing of numerous works. These writings soon made his name well known for they showed his exceptional doctrine which many regarded as being infused and outstanding.[4] However, his doctrine soon earned him most severe criticism and persecution from the section of the Order of Minors which interpreted the Franciscan Rule more broadly than himself and his followers who were known as Spirituals or Zealots.

He was accused of wanting to threaten the peace and unity of the Order with his rigorous opinions, and at the same time to undermine some Catholic truths with his Joachite ideas and teaching not considered to be completely orthodox. The Minister General Friar Bonagrazia in 1283 commissioned seven Franciscan theologians to examine some of his opinions regarded as new, dangerous and indeed close to heresy; as a result Olivi was ordered to sign twenty two propositions directly contrary to his teaching. He signed with some reservations and with the intention to clarify the condemned propositions more fully at a later date. He did this with his clear Response[5] signed at Nîmes in 1285, which earned for him a kind welcome in Paris from the new General, Friar Arlotto da Prato.[6] A sign of Friar Peter’s complete welcome was his promotion by the Minister General, Friar Matthew of Acquasparta, and Friar Raymond Gaufredi to the position of Lector of Theology, first (1287) in the general School of S. Croce in Florence and then (1289) in that of Montpellier.

At the time of his retirement to the Friary in Narbonne, he was highly regarded by the clergy and people, and there died at a mature age on 14 March 1298 after having made a public and solemn profession of faith.[7]

However, the persecution against his writings (and indeed against his mortal remains which were profaned and scattered in 1318 so as to remove them from the devotion of the people, the clergy and the Spirituals) broke out again spurred on by the factions opposed to the Spirituals. The main reason for such hatred seems to be explained correctly by Ubertino when he writes[8]:

The main reason for the anger against the books of Friar Peter comes from his showing by most effective arguments that the present relaxation of the Rule is clearly contrary to the holy Gospel and to the vow of our way of life and involves many transgressions … Because Friar Peter, as one of the zealots for evangelical poverty and our Rule, argued against this harmful teaching almost everywhere in his books, this is the principal and main reason why he and his teaching are so wickedly persecuted.

The Minister General, Friar John of Murro (1295-1303), decreed that the writings of Olivi:

be collected everywhere throughout the Order and burnt, he excommunicated all Friars who used the books or writings of Friar Peter John and all who had them and deliberately kept them.[9]

Against this most serious measure, which, rather than extinguishing, in fact rekindled all the more the struggle and division between the two parties, the ex-Minister General, Friar Raymond Gaufedi, and Friar Ubertino da Casale[10] in the name of the Spirituals, appealed to Pope Clement V during the Council of Vienna (1310-1312). However, the prohibition against having or reading the writings of Olivi - especially the writing On the Book of Revelation renewed as previously by John XXII[11] - was confirmed in various Chapters of the Order, as in the Chapters of Marseilles (1319), Assisi (1354), until Sixtus IV (1471-1484), on the evidence of Wadding,[12] did not think it wise to continue the prohibition.[13] Long before this concession of Sixtus IV when passions had calmed and the reasons for such a prohibition had lost their force, the superiors of the Order must have allowed a freedom to read and copy the works of Olivi. Otherwise, one could not explain how several holy Franciscan authors, especially St Bernardine of Siena as will be seen later, could have used them nor explain the various copies of his works which date from the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries.[14]

Whoever considers the short and troubled life of Olivi must marvel at his abundant literary output. According to Ehrle,[15] he is one of the most prolific writers of the thirteenth century. Ubertino stated in a submission to Clement V:

The Apostolic See should know that the quantity of the books of Friar Peter, against whom there are only eight articles which are questioned, exceeds seventeen times the quantity of the text of the Libri Sententiarum.[16]

It is also surprising that, in spite of the repeated banning mentioned above and especially the order issued by the General Da Murro to destroy all his writings, a large part of them have been saved even if in most rare copies.[17] This is due also to the connivance of the copyists who often omitted to indicate the author of the works they were copying, or attributed them to other authors.

Having promised to treat more fully of both the life and the writings of our Author, for the moment I limit myself to a simple listing of his works which have come down in a complete or partial form.[18] His works can be divided into four groups: Works of philosophy, theology and apologetics; Commentaries on the books of sacred Scripture; Works on Gospel and Franciscan perfection; Ascetical and mystical works. The works of each group are presented in chronological order according as this is known today.

Works of philosophy, theology and apologetics

1. Commentary on four Books of Sentences

2. Select Questions or Summa on the Sentences

3. Four Questiones on our Lady. These are the questions published in this volume.

4. On reading the works of the Philosophers

5. Exposition on Ps.-Dionysius on the hierarchy of angels

6. Against some statements of a doctor

7. Treatise on quantity

8. Against five articles of a certain doctor

9. Response of P. John to the letter of the Masters presented to him in Avignon

10. Response of P. John to some statements taken from his writings by some Masters of Paris

11. Fuller statement on the fifth article about the divine essence

12. Letter to Friar Raymund Gaufredi

13. Five studies (Quodlibeta)

14. Textual questions

15. Treatise on buying and selling, on contracts which are usurious and on restitution

Commentaries on sacred Scripture

16. On the dignity and excellence of sacred Scripture

17. On the mystery of sacred Scripture

18. On the subject matter of sacred Scripture

19. On the study of the divine Scriptures or On the contemplation and knowledge of God

20. On the excellence of the sacred Scriptures

21. On evangelical doctrine

22. Exposition or lesson on Job

23. On Isaiah

24. On Matthew

25. On Genesis

26. On the Acts of the Apostles

27. On John

28. On Ecclesiastes

29. On the Song of Songs

30. On Ezekiel

31. On the books of Kings

32. On the construction of the Temple of Solomon

33. On the Lamentations of Jeremiah

34. On the Lord’s prayer

35. On Mark and Luke

36. On the minor prophets

37. On the epistle to the Romans

38. On the canonical epistles

39. On the Apocalypse

40. On the Psalter

41. On Proverbs

42. On the first epistle to the Corinthians

Works on Gospel and Franciscan perfection

43. Questions on evangelical perfection. The list of questions discussed in this work is as follows:

Q.1. Whether an action by which one unites the mind immediately to God is better than any other action?

Q.2. Whether contemplation is principally in the mind rather than in the will?

Q.3. Whether the study of sacred Scripture is a work perfect in itself and suitable, useful and lawful for the perfect?

Q.4. Whether it is better to neglect works of the active life than to neglect study?

Q.5. Whether it is better to do something under vow or without a vow?

Q.6. Whether virginity or chastity abstaining from intercourse is in every way better than marriage?

Q.7. Whether the vow to avoid suspicious intimacy or conversation is implied in an evangelical counsel?

Q.8. Whether the state of highest poverty is in every way better than any state of wealth?

Q.9. Whether a poor use is included in the counsel or vow of evangelical poverty?

Q.10. Whether it is more perfect and fitting for the Gospel poor to earn their food by begging as mendicants or by manual work or labour?

Q.11. Whether to vow obedience in all things to another person is part of evangelical perfection?

Q.12. Whether one vowing the Gospel or some rule is bound to observe all the things contained in them?

Q.13. Whether the Pope can dispense from every vow?

Q.14. Whether it is an infallible rule that the Roman Pontiff is to be obeyed in faith and morals?

Q.15. Whether the profession of evangelical perfection can lawfully be reduced to the formula that those who profess Gospel perfection are not to own, nor have the right to use goods, nor actually use possessions?

Q.16. On renunciation to the Pope.

44. That the Rule of the Friars Minor excludes all ownership

45. Various sermons

46. On the truth of the indulgence of the Porziuncola

47. Treatise on the poor use

48. The reply of Peter John in the General Chapter of 1287 when he had to state his opinion on the poor use

49. Exposition of the Rule of the Friars Minor

50. Letter to the sons of Charles II King of Sicily

51. Letter to Friar Conrad of Offida

52. Solemn declaration made before his death.

Ascetical and mystical works

53. Statement by Peter John

54. On the 14 steps of love

55. On the conditions and qualities of the love of God

56. On striving in prayer

57. On vocal prayer

58. Brief admonition to gain divine love

59. A soldier armed

60. On the seven sentiments of Christ Jesus

61. On seven temptations

62. Remedies against spiritual temptations

63. On humility

64. A report of a mystical vision

II. The works of Olivi as a principal source for the sermons of St Bernardine of Siena

Without hesitation I would list St Bernardine as one who held Friar Peter John in the greatest admiration and esteem. I do not know of any other author - with the exception of Friar Ubertino who in the name of the Spirituals in the years 1309-1312 valiantly defended in the papal Curia the holiness and orthodoxy of Olivi, at the same time acknowledging that he did not agree with some opinions expressed in Olivi’s writings[19] - who showed such veneration for the doctor of Provence as the Saint of Siena; Bernardine referred to Olivi as an angelic person,[20] and had a deep knowledge of his works.

Bernardine shows he was familiar with most of the writings of Peter John Olivi, especially his various commentaries on Scripture quoting the ones mentioned above in numbers 24, 26, 27, 35 and 39; some questions of the Summa and many other Questions (nos 2, 13, 14); the On contracts which are usurious and on restitution (no. 15); the works of ascetical and mystical theology (nos. 53-63); the On evangelical perfection (no. 43). Some of these, or long passages of the same, were transcribed by Bernardine into his own manuscripts, namely U. V. 4[21], U. V. 5[22], and U. V. 6, and then corrected and annotated by him;[23] other anonymous notes can be seen in the manuscript of Siena U. V. 7 which was used by Bernardine.[24]

I have indicated in Gli scritti di S. Bernardino,[25] the extensive use made by Bernardine of the writings of Olivi for the composition of his Sermons.… I have written elsewhere[26] of the work done by Bernardine on behalf of the Observance, of which he was a strong supporter, a work linked to the movement of the Spirituals, suggesting when and where he could have come in contact for the first time with the writings of Peter Olivi;[27] this would have been from his novitiate made at Colombaio, a place dear to the followers of Blessed Friar Paoluccio Trini da Foligno, and where he continued to absorb the spirit of the austere doctor of Provence.

Also in Gli scritti di S. Bernardino[28] I have indicated the main reasons which persuaded Bernardine not to quote the name of Olivi in his Sermons; this would not have been acceptable to those Friars of his community who disagreed with the spiritual direction of the Observants; his prudence is all the more praiseworthy when one remembers that the legislation of the Order prohibiting the possession and reading of the writings of Olivi had not yet been abrogated. Perhaps the superiors tacitly or expressly granted such permissions with ease, since with the passage of time the reasons for the prohibition lessened. Such a permission may have been given to such persons as St Bernardine who by their prudence, discretion and doctrine inspired confidence in being able to understand them and benefit from them for good in their teachings given either in the school or the pulpit. Those who used such permission naturally had to see that they used it with care and prudent reserve so as not to give any reason for admiration or scandal.

In fact, one has to acknowledge that Bernardine with understanding and discretion used this treasure of doctrine which, unfortunately, historical circumstances had kept hidden for more than a century. While Bernardine did this in an intelligent, balanced and impartial way, he did not neglect to correct some errors and exaggerations[29] which he was careful not to follow or repeat, not only in his Sermons and in the pulpit but also in those fragments copied from the texts of Olivi for his own personal use. For example, St Bernardine copied into his own manuscript U. V. 4 the second long comment on the Gospel for the Second Sunday within the Octave of the Epiphany, taken literally form Olivi, Super Lucam, but omitting purposely the following Joachite note:

According to some the twelve of Christ represent twelve centuries of years, calculated partly from the incarnation of Christ, partly from his resurrection or preaching, and that this is to be completed in the thirteenth century.

How many other examples one could show of such omissions!

The Joachimism of Olivi, while surprising in a person of such sharp intellect, is explained sufficiently by the circumstances in which he passed his first years of religious life in Provence, in that Franciscan Province where, until 1255, Friar Hugo de Digne lived. According to Salimbene[30]:

Brother Hugh owned all of Joachim’s books; he was a great Joachite and one of the greatest scholars in the world, incomparable for his learning and sanctity.

Equally imbued with Joachite or at least rigorous ideas, was Friar Raymond Barravi from whom Olivi as a novice in the Friary of Béziers received spiritual instruction.[31] It should be noted that the Joachimism of Olivi was quite different from that of Friar Gerard of S. Donnino. Olivi rejected the idea of a reign of the Holy Spirit following the reign of Christ; he rejected the error of an Eternal Gospel which was to replace the Gospel of Christ. Nevertheless he accepted the division of history as imagined by Joachim. The third age of the world corresponds to the sixth and seventh ages of the Church. The sixth is distinguished not by the publication of a new gospel but by the renewal of the Gospel of Christ on the basis of the highest poverty contained in the Rule of St Francis which is identified with the Gospel of Christ. Clareno and Ubertino follow this line of thought.[32]

While St Bernardine retained the division of the seven states of the Church and the beginning of the sixth state with the rise of the Dominican and Franciscan Orders, and that St Francis ‘was the herald to reveal the Gospel of Christ’, he (as did St Bonaventure, Olivi and Ubertino) represented St Francis as the angel of the sixth seal of the book of Revelation,[33] something quite distinct from identifying the Rule with the Gospel, and other exaggerated opinions of the two leaders of the Spirituals.

Bernardine had the same attitude towards Ubertino. In copying and altering, for his own use in manuscript U. V. 5, a large section of chapter 3: Jesus moving Francis of book 5 of the Tree of Life, Bernardine omitted the exaggerated accusations against prelates and offenders of the Franciscan Rule which can be read here and there in Olivi’s writings; he omitted also the following Joachite phrase:

[This was observed] in the third general state of the whole world in which in a singular way the person of the Holy Spirit is represented.

Bernardine displayed the same discretion and prudent judgment in the use of another two of his favourite authors, namely, B. Simon of Cascia O.E.S.A.[34] and Matthew of Sweden.[35]

To show in an adequate way Bernardine’s work, likened as he is to a busy bee, one would need many pages and this is not the place for that. On the other hand, whoever desires to come to an adequate idea of this has only to browse through the first two volumes of the Works of Bernardine and the other volumes to follow in the critical edition of Quaracchi; in this edition is stated and will be noted to what an extent and in what ways Bernardine departed from the texts of the various works of Olivi, as also of other authors, not all of whom are free of exaggerations; on meeting such exaggerations the Saint was careful to omit or correct them.

Encountering opinions in Olivi which are less probable or certain did not lessen St Bernardine’s esteem for the Angelic Doctor of Provence, so convinced was he that only in God and in the works of God is there absolute perfection. Certainly, Bernardine’s admiration of Olivi was what spurred him on to copy, wholly or in part, many of Olivi’s works; and it is thanks to Bernardine that today one is able to know or to publish the Four Questions on our Lady, the Treatise on buying and selling, on contracts which are usurious and on restitution,[36] as well as some of his ascetical and mystical works, works which were unknown or thought to have been lost.[37]

III. The Four Questions on our Lady

The first three questions, namely On the consent of the Virgin, On the twelve victories of the B. Virgin, and On the excellence and perfection of the glorious Virgin, were copied by St Bernardine. Bernardine omitted at the beginning and end the arguments pro and contra and the answers ad obiecta. Such omissions as well as some slight amendments to the text are quite probably to be attributed to the Saint himself who was content simply to copy into his own personal manuscript only the body of the question leaving out the rest which was better suited for exercises in the school rather than in the pulpit.

That the three questions mentioned above would have had originally the arguments pro and contra and the corresponding replies, is clear also from the fact that the second question, On the twelve victories of the B. Virgin, is found in a complete form in another manuscript together with the question, On the sorrow of the B. Virgin at the passion of Christ. This manuscript, not copied by Bernardine but used and annotated by him, contains the writings of several authors[38] which he put together in the one volume marked R. This must have come into his possession (at least the part containing the Questions of Olivi for which the Saint added an index) after his own copying of the second question; otherwise he would not have taken the trouble to copy it into this last manuscript.

Almost all of the teaching of the first question was used by Bernardine, more or less literally, in sermons 5 and 6 of his Treatise De beata Virgine.[39]

From the second question, On the twelve victories, Bernardine used only three sections which he inserted into two of his sermons.[40] Bernardine clearly referred to this question when he said while preaching in Siena in the Piazza del Campo on 14 September 1427:

Tell me: do you not believe that Mary had temptations and struggles like yourself? Of course, but she did not have such struggles as I would have if I wanted to preach to you about her.[41]

The bulk of the third question, On the excellence and perfection of the B. Virgin, Bernardine used in chapters 4-7 of article 2 of sermon 61: On the most admirable grace and glory of the Mother of God,[42] as also in chapter 1 of article 2 of sermon 3: On the glorious name of Mary.[43]

On the other hand Bernardine did not use anything from the fourth question of Olivi, Whether the Virgin suffered in the passion of Christ; nevertheless he had seriously studied this question as is clear from the many corrections, headings in the margins and many other signs left by his hand on the text.

Concerning the authenticity of the four questions, I do not think any doubt can be cast on the authorship of Friar Peter. The style is clearly that of Olivi and the first three questions are expressly attributed to him by Bernardine who was familiar with his writings. But there is more: commenting on the Gospel of Luke, Olivi himself refers to our questions, once in a general way: ‘touched on in the questions on the Virgin’, and then in particular to the first question:

Whether the Virgin from the beginning knew with certainty that the angel was a good angel or not is not clear in this text; such a greeting could have been considered as suspect, instructive or seductive and leading to good or evil … then one has to say that the angel appeared to her under some bodily or imaginative form, at least before the conception of Christ. Whether by the strong power of God she was taken up into the third heaven and into paradise, incomparably higher than the mind of Paul in his vision, I have said something on this in a certain question on the merit of the actual consent of the Virgin to the conception of Christ; there I also discussed why the Virgin had to remain in full possession of her free will to consent or not consent.

I think Olivi is here referring us to the first question, On the consent of the Virgin; the reference would be even clearer if by chance the full text of the question has been preserved, that is, with the replies ad obiecta. However, it is not impossible that he is referring us more exactly to another of his questions on the same argument, where he had treated more explicitly on the merit of Mary and of her rapture into the third heaven, a topic not treated in the text which we have.

Most clear and certain is the reference to the second question, On the twelve victories, which is found in his Exposition of the Apocalypse, ch. 2, 1-2:

A woman clothed with the sun …and on her head a crown of twelve stars. The pain of birth … refers to the early Church and above all to the Virgin Mother, who was crowned with twelve triumphal rewards and victories. Using the typical sense of the twelve women historically or figuratively found in sacred Scripture, I have explained this more fully in a certain question entitled: Whether she experienced most severe struggles with temptation and triumphed completely.[44]

Finally, it is known that as a young graduate from Paris, during the generalate of Friar Jerome d’Ascoli (1274-1279), Friar Peter had written some questions on the Madonna which, denounced to the General as works containing opinions which were daring, temerarious and doctrinal novelties, were ordered to be burnt by the same General. This fact is recorded for us by Angelo Clareno[45] with other interesting details and an explanation naturally completely in favour of Olivi:

Friar Bonaventure .. made a cardinal against his will, succeeded Friar Jerome who was appointed Pope and took the name Nicholas. Jerome was a meek person, quite modest and slow to anger or inflict hurt, even though he was remiss and lukewarm in promoting good. Some persons, consumed with envy at the good of others, accused the holy man of God, Friar Peter John Olivi, from the province of Provence, the custody of Narbonne and de Castro, and called a native of Serihanum, to Jerome, while he was General, that he, Olivi, had boldly and with dangerous presumption written some questions which smacked not a little of novelty. When Friar Jerome heard this he had Olivi summoned and said to him that the questions which he had written on our Lady, the Virgin Mary, should be brought to him. Olivi quickly gave them to him. As Jerome read he ordered that they be burnt in a fire. When this happened, Friar Peter without any change of expression went away calmly, rejoicing as though he had received an honour, and after washing his hands he celebrated mass. Some of those present who loved him for his virtue, at an opportune moment, asked him: ‘Friar Peter, how were you able to celebrate mass without going to confession first after such a reprimand and injury done to you by the Minister?’ He said to them: ‘I took that injury and reprimand as an honour and a benefit, and so I am not sorrowful or bitter but glad. If you feel sad over the burning and loss of the questions, it is nothing because it is easy for me to restore and develop these questions and other questions not less valuable on the same material.’

Still envious, the very reason for the harm done to him by the General, some approached the General after he had become Pope, and tried with many words to influence him to persecute Friar Peter even further. The Pope said to them: ‘May the Lord turn my heart and mind from inflicting any injury or harm on such a person who exceeds almost all others known to me in devotion, reverence and love for the honour of Christ and his Mother; such a stupid action would provoke the anger of Christ and his Mother against me. What I did before was not intended as an injury but a warning and help to him, wanting from such a process to influence the excellence of his soul and the keenness of his intellect to dignity and humility; nor should it be thought that my words implied that there is anything harmful or wrong in those questions which are faithful, subtle, devout and worthy of much praise.’

In whatever way one evaluates the testimony of the Spiritual Angelo Clareno, which naturally was intended to interpret in a favourable way the humiliation inflicted by the General on the head of the Spirituals by burning his books, the substance of the statement is indisputable: Olivi, between 1274-1279 had written some questions on Our Lady which were judged by his enemies to be bold, temerarious, ‘smacking not a little of novelty’, and that the General, Friar Jerome, had them burnt.

How many questions were there? Were all of them judged to be bold, temerarious etc. and worthy of fire? Were the four questions here published part of those questions, were they the only ones preserved because they were already copied in other works, or were they subsequently rewritten and modified by the author?

Unfortunately, on the basis of the research done up to till now it is impossible to give an adequate and sure answer to such questions. Above all, both Clareno and Olivi himself, in the first text quoted above, speak in general of ‘certain questions on Our Lady’ without further detail; in the other two references in On Luke and On the Apocalypse the author refers only to the first and third questions of the four which have come down to us. Therefore, it is impossible to determine the number of questions which were burnt.

Even less is one in a position to say that the Marian questions presented by Friar Peter to the General, Friar Jerome, were all regarded as being equally deserving of censure and fire; this would be difficult to believe if one gives credence to the version left us by Clareno, in which Friar Jerome had the works burnt to test the virtue of Olivi, to deepen him in humility and to discipline the outstanding sharpness of the young academic.

It is also difficult to decide with certainty, given the lack of texts to form a basis for comparison, if the text of the four questions here published (allowing that they were part of the questions which were burnt) comes from a copy of the original work lost in the fire or whether it was subsequently rewritten and more or less modified by the author, who had in mind the criticisms of his enemies.

The reference, by no means explicit, to the commentary on the Gospel of St Matthew, which can be seen in the fourth question,[46] would lead one to think that this question was written by the author at least after 1279 because I am of the opinion that one cannot assign the On Matthew[47] to a date prior to this year. In the other three questions there is no reference to other works of Olivi; the two references to On Luke and On the Apocalypse, both late works, shed no light on the problem.

It is not known from which manuscript St Bernardine studied and copied the first three questions; quite probably it was from a manuscript preserved in some library in Tuscany. It is known that Bernardine spent the first fifteen years of his religious life in this region, in Siena and Florence; during this period of religious and apostolic formation he must have copied the material (including the three questions on Mary) contained in his manuscript, known today as Siena U. V. 5, and that much of this material is found in his preaching from the years 1423-1427; it is scarcely possible that he could have copied this manuscript after 1417, the date from which until the end of 1423 he was occupied without interruption in daily apostolic duties from one end to the other of upper Italy. It is already known for certain[48] that Bernardine in U. V. 5, f. 59c-110d,[49] copied numerous extracts from On Job of Olivi from a Florentine codex still extant in the Franciscan library of S. Croce (today Laurenz. Conv. Sopp. 240). Also the fourteen extracts from On Matthew in U. V. 5. 16c-18b. 48a-56a. 60bd,[50] seem to have been copied from another codex in S. Croce, no longer available and almost certainly destroyed by the fire which broke out in the library in 1422.[51]

Did the text from which Bernardine copied the three questions of Olivi contain other questions on Mary? It is not likely; had there been other questions he would have been interested in them and would have copied them at least in part in U. V. 5.

On the other hand, I do not think that Bernardine, despite the high esteem which he had for the doctor of Provence, would have wanted to copy, if he knew of it, the question of Olivi in III Sententiarum: Whether the Virgin by reason of her first purification was free from every stain of original sin,[52] where Olivi denies the Immaculate Conception of Mary, as did great Scholastics such as Alexander of Hales, St Albert the Great, St Bonaventure, St Thomas and in general their contemporary Masters of the University of Paris; Olivi repeated this opinion in Quaestiones in II Sententiarum[53] and in the work here published.[54] However, in the question of III Sententiarum Olivi denies the Marian privilege with such bold language as to justify, in my opinion,[55] the intervention of the General, Friar Jerome of Ascoli, who, as has been seen, felt obliged to deliver a hard lesson of moderation and humility to the young scholar from Provence. Had such a question come to the attention of the keen eye of Bernardine he would certainly have set it aside, convinced as he was of the great Marian privilege.

Although Bernardine in his writings and in the pulpit was restrained when treating of the Immaculate Conception, never condemning as false the opposite opinion, it was still sufficiently clear that he was one of those who argued for the Immaculate Conception, even though he refrained from taking part in the struggle over the Marian privilege which went on for more than a century among theologians.[56]

To digress a little, Bernardine’s attitude was not due to indecision, even less to fear, but above all to reasons of prudence which led him to keep always in mind the good of the faithful; his aim was to unite them, not divide them by taking fixed positions and intransigent attitudes about questions on which the Church had not yet spoken. This prudence he imparted also to other preachers for whom he wrote his Sermons and in which he abstained from entering into Scholastic discussion on the Marian privilege: ‘setting aside the Scholastic wars’ as he put it in the sermon On the Feast of the Conception of the Virgin.[57] In this sermon he was content to indicate the two opinions and leave it to the prudence of the preacher to influence the faithful towards one or other opinion. It is precisely to avoid stirring up in his audience interminable and harmful discussions, that he took care to practise and recommend to others the motto attributed to him: ‘Where there are Dominican Friars do not preach on the conception.’[58]

But when Bernardine saw there was no risk of dividing people he did not hesitate to make clear to his audience his personal position on the Immaculate Conception of Mary, as he did, for example, in Padua in 1423, in Florence in 1425, in Siena in May of the same year and in September of 1427. He said in Padua[59]:

Among those born of women no one has arisen greater than John the Baptist [Mt 11:11]. This means that the soul of John the Baptist is greater than all the souls born from women; but Christ is careful here to exclude himself and the glorious Virgin, if you look carefully at the words, for he said: has not arisen, because only one who has fallen is said to arise or get up. But because Christ did not fall into any sin at conception or by actual sin, as also the blessed Virgin, they are not included in this rule… Whether the blessed Virgin was conceived in original sin, the Church does not define; but it is more pious to believe she was not conceived in original sin than to believe that she was.

And to the people of Florence he said[60]:

God wanted the soul of the Virgin Mary to be privileged and preserved from the original sin of Adam …Even though the question whether she had or did not have original sin is quite beautiful, I do not delay now because it would need two sermons… She was conceived without original sin and was preserved from sin. But if you hold the contrary you will not be damned as the Church has not spoken on the matter. But devotion suggests she was conceived without original sin.

Then in Siena in the same year 1425 he expressed himself in this way[61]:

Six graces were given to her in this world. Firstly, she was preserved from original sin as many scholars hold; even though the Church imposes no view, it is clear one can hold this opinion for the reasons and causes you will hear soon… that no stain of original sin was in her. Certainly, I do not hold that she had such sin otherwise she would have had no advantage over John the Baptist; and this seems a good reason to me….

St Bernardine was completely convinced that the opinion of the scholars who held the Immaculate Conception was the true opinion; and if in his Sermons and in the pulpit he did not openly defend the Marian privilege against its opponents, the only reason for this was the reasons listed above.

From this one can see how far Bernardine was from a blind following of all the opinions of ‘the angelic man Peter John’. Even if the question of Olivi in which he strongly denied the Immaculate Conception was in the manuscript from which Bernardine copied the three Marian questions, it is little likely that he would have given much attention to this opinion.

But Bernardine regarded the four questions On Our Lady worthy to be copied and meditated upon. Of these questions, especially the first and third, as has been seen, he made much use for the composing of his own Marian sermons. I repeat, without doubt we should thank Bernardine for having preserved for us, besides the various treatises of ascetical and mystical theology of Olivi, these questions on the most holy Virgin, unknown to us up till recent years, a loss rightly lamented.

It is for experts in Mariology to judge the theological importance of these questions….[62]

Fr Dionisio Pacetti O.F.M.

Quaracchi, 22 July 1954

-----------------------

[1] Archiv für Literatur und Kirchengeschichte des Mittelalters [= ALKG], III Berlin 1887, 402-552.

[2] For example Ubertino da Casale, Arbor vitae crucifixae Jesu, Prol. I, Venetiis 1485) f. 1d.

[3] One can find abundant bibliographical information on Olivi in the studies of L. Amorós, D. Laberge, V. Doucet O.F.M. which have appeared in AFH [ = Archivum Franciscanum Historicum] XXIV (1931), 495ff.; XXVII (1934), 399ff.; XXVIII (1935), 115ff. See also F. Callaey O.F.MCap. in Dictionnaire de théologie catholique, XI, Paris 1931, 982-991; idem, in Enciclopedia Cattolica, IX, Città del Vaticano 1952, 103-105. We point out also the following studies which have appeared recently: M. Maccarrone, Una questione inedita dell’Olivi sull’infallibilità del Papa, in Revista di Storia della Chiesa in Italia, III (1949), 309-343; Annaliese Maie, Per la storia del processo contro l’Olivi, ibid., VI (1951), 326-339; O. Bettini O.F.M., La temporalità delle cose e l’esigenza di un principio assoluto nella doctrina d’Olivi, in Antonianum, XXVIII (1953), 148-187; idem, Attivismo psicologico-gnoseologice nella dottrina della conoscenza di Giovanni Olivi O.F.M, in Studi Francescani, L (1953), 31-64, 201-223; F. Simonicioli, O.F.M., Il vero fondomento metafisico del dinamismo Oliviano, idid., LI (1954 ), 127-139.

[4] Olivi himself shortly before his death stated that he considered he had received his doctrine from God: ‘After receiving the last anointing he said before the Friars standing around him that he had received all his knowledge from God and was illumined by the Lord Jesus Christ in Paris at the third hour’; De obitu fratris Petri et quid receptis sacramentis dixit, quando et ubi recepit scientiam suam et quid senserit de usu paupere et multa alia, ed. A Heysse O.F.M., in AFH XI (1998), 267. See also Wadding, Annales Minorum, n. 33, Tomus V, 1276-1300, p. 425-426; Ehrle, II. 411ff. - Also Angelo Clareno writes of Olivi in his Historia septem tribulationum Ordinis Minorum: ‘Friar Peter John Olivi was meek, quiet, humble, devoted to Christ, his Mother and to St Francis, wise with a wisdom divinely infused and acquired, fluent and eloquent among all people of his time, and more than many of his contemporaries and perhaps of all; he was filled with spiritual wisdom and divine knowledge, grace and virtue, excessive in his love for his Order, compassionate, cautious and condescending, pious, discreet, prudent and solicitous beyond his strength for every good. He had the grace of foresight, foresaw many things and taught things useful.’ (ed. F. Ehrle in ALKG, II, 289).

[5] Responsio fr. Petri Ioannis Olivi ad aliqua dicta per quosdam magistros Parisienses de suis Quaestionibus excerpata, ed. D. Laberge in AFH, XXVIII (1935), 130-155, 374-407; XXIX (1936), 98-141, 366-387.

[6] See F. Ehrle, Die ‘Historia septem tribulationum Ord. Minorum’ des Fr. Angelus de Clarino, in ALKG, II, 295ff.

[7] See A. Heysse, De obitu fratris Petri etc. in AFH, XI (1918), 267-269; Wadding, Annales Minorum, n. 33-34, Tomus V 1276-1300, pp. 425-427

[8] Ehrle in ALKG, II, 384, 388. Modern scholars agree in general with Ubertino. According to I. Ieiler O.F.M. (Kirkenlexicon, IX, 829): ‘his theoretical errors, as with those of many other writers, would have raised little dust, had his zeal for reform not provoked strong opposition and bitter critics’. L. Oliger (Petri Ioh. De renuntiatione papae Caelestini V Quaestio et Epistola, in AFH, XI, 1918, 309ff.), in a reference to the passionate study of Ehrle, notes that ‘in his commentaries the distinguished author shows clearly that Olivi was not in any way the wicked and cursed heretic, as depicted by Bernard Guido and some Inquisitors, while on the other hand the supporters of Olivi, for example Ubertino da Casale, had already confessed publicly they did not wish to defend every point of his doctrine’.

[9] Ehrle in ALKG, II, 366; III, 16, 51, 88, 157, 193, 444.

[10] Ehrle in ALKG, II, 377-416; III, 88, 143ff., 190-194.

[11] Ehrle in ALKG, III, 451-458.

[12] Annales Minorum, n. 35, Tomus V 1297-1300, p. 427.

[13] See L. Oliger in AFH, XI (1918), 319ff.

[14] For example, the well known Friar Tebaldo della Casa, whom Wadding called ‘a reverent and pious man’ (Annales Minorum, n. 8, Tomus IX 1377-1417, p. 622) and Papini ‘a man of goodness’ (L’Etruria francescana, I, Siena 1797, 59), an apostolic Chaplain, Inquisitor for the province of Tuscany, Librarian in S. Croce in Florence, where it is almost certain that he died in the first quarter of the fifteenth century, transcribed in 1357 in the convent of Bosco di Mugello, the Postilla by Olivi On John (the actual codex Laurenziano Plut. X dext. 8) which in 1406 went to the Library of S. Croce together with another codex (today Laurenziano Plut. X dext. 4) containing the On Matthew and On Luke of the same Olivi, and he left them to his friend Friar Matthew Guido.

[15] In ALKG, III, 410.

[16] Ehrle in ALKG, II, 406.

[17] Many of these saved from fire and kept by the Community, were presented at the Council of Vienna with the aim of having them condemned. Pope Clement V did not give them back to the enemies of the accused but kept them in the Pontifical Library from where, after various vicissitudes, they were fortunately consigned to the Vatican Library where they are preserved. See Ehrle in ALKG, III, 460-464; A. Meier, Der letze Katalog der päpstlichen Bibliothek von Avignon. Sussidi eruditi, Roma 1952.

[18] For example, we do not have a ‘certain work of Peter John on the sayings of Seneca and a treatise On Logic’ (Ehrle, in ALKG, III, 462). Eighteen questions on Logic which are contained in codex Vat. Borgh. 54, f. 113v-127v, perhaps come from this treatise (A. Meier, Codices Burghesiani, in Studi e Testi 170, Città del Vaticano 1952, p. 70). Olivi refers to the same treatise in his Quaestiones in II Sententiarum, q. 73 (ed. B. Jansen, in Bibliotheca Franciscana Scholastica Medii Aevi, VI, Quaracchi 1926, 65) and in his treatise On Quantity: ‘As I have expressed more fully in the work on questions of Logic’ (Quodlibeta Petri Ioannis, Venice, circa 1509, f. 52d). In other places in his writings he refers to works of which we have no knowledge in the codices of Olivi known to us today.

[19] From 1305 when he wrote his Arbor vitae, in which one can detect not a small dependence on the writing of Olivi especially in chapter I of the fifth book, Ubertino stated his reservations on some opinions of the ‘speculative Doctor and main defender of the life of Christ, our brother John Olivi’, because after stating that Olivi had introduced him ‘to the perfection of the soul of Jesus and his beloved Mother, to the depths of Scripture and to the heart of the third state of the world’, confessed: ‘I do not follow this perfect doctor, whom I reasonably commend to you so highly, in some of his sayings, because sometimes the good Homer nods; nor are all things given to all.’ And in his reply to Clement V in 1310 he says: ‘I do not follow his opinion in everything, even though this does not lead me to say he has erred. For there is hardly one of the holy doctors, excluding the writers of the canonical books of the bible, who is to be followed in every one of his words; much less is one of the recent masters to be agreed with in everything.’

[20] See AFH, XXVIII (1935), 233.

[21] In his codex described in AFH, XXIX (1936), 225-228, and of which I have spoken in Gli scritti di S. Bernardino, (in San Bernardino da Siena. Saggi e ricerche pubblicati nel V centenario della morte, Milano 1946, 40-43) and in the Ratio (p. 63-65) Bernardine, in comments on the Gospels and the Epistles of the Missal, has transcribed, in short interlinear and larger marginal notes, a thousand and eleven excerpts from the exegetical works of Olivi, namely, On Matthew, Mark-Luke, John, the Acts of the Apostles, the Epistle to the Romans, the Apocalypse ( Letter on the feast of the Holy Innocents). No other expositions of Olivi are to be found except in comments on the other Pauline Epistles and the canonical Epistles which are quoted in the Missal.

[22] See AFH, XXIX (1936), 233-239.

[23] See Ibid., 524-526; Ratio, 74-79.

[24] Ratio, 79ff.

[25] San Bernardino da Siena. Saggi e richerche, Milano, 1946.

[26] S. Bernardino da Siena Vicario Generale dell’Osservanza (1438-1442), in Studi Francescani, XVII (1945), 7-69.

[27] Ibid., 19ff.

[28] Loc. cit., 95ff.

1 Besides the three articles condemned by the Council of Vienna in 1312, ‘namely, on the divine essence, the rational soul, and on the wound in the side’, which Ubertino also pointed out (in Ehrle, in ALKG, III, 191), several other statements or opinions of Olivi were condemned by the Order. See in L. Amorós, Series condemnationum et processum contra doctrinam et sequaces P. I. Olivi, in AFH, XXIV (1931), 495-512; for the articles of Vienna: J. Koch, Die Verteilung Olivis auf dem Konzil von Vienne and ihre Vorgeschichte, in Scholastik, V (1930), 489, 522; L. Amorós, Aegidii Romani impugnatio doctrinae P. I. Olivi de transfixione lateris Christ, in AFH, XXVIII (1935), 428-442.

[29] The Chronicle of Salimbene de Adam, Medieval and Renaissance Texts and Studies, vol. 40, New York: Binghamton, 1986, p. 313.

[30] This is asserted by Olivi himself in a most important passage in his commentary On Luke, c. 1: ‘In this matter from a most holy and venerable father and a senior worthy of trust, Friar Raymond Barravi, one time regular canon in the Church of Carcassone and finally a member of the Order of Minors, I heard in his double sermon to the novices at Bitteris, while I was present as a novice, that he, while studying as a canon in the theology school in Paris, heard from blessed Dominic, who previously had been at Carcassone as a fellow canon and friend, that he and his Order accepted the renunciation of all possessions from the example of blessed Francis and his companions: when Dominic went to Italy and the Roman Curia for approval of his Order, he saw Francis and many thousands of brothers in Assisi where they were assembled for a General Chapter. Admiring that they made no provision for the morrow and yet each day were adequately provided with all necessities by the devotion of the faithful, on his return to his own brothers, he said to them that is possible to live securely without possessions because he had seen this proven by blessed Francis and his Order’ (codex Laurenziano Plut. X dext. 4, f. 120b). There is a reference to Barravi in the Annales Minorum of Wadding, n. 7, Tomus V 1276-1300, p. 171, and he is listed in the Martyrologium Franciscanum for 8 September (ed. Roma, 1938, p. 349).

[31] See Gratien de Paris, Histoire de la fondation et de l’évolution de l’Ordre des Frères-Mineurs au XIIIe siècle, Paris 1928, 386ff. ; G. Bondatti, Gioachinismo e Francescanesimo nel Dugento, S. Maria degli Angeli 1924, 35, 146.

[32] De stigmatibus S. Francisci, Opera omnia, vol. 5, Quaracchi, 1956, p. 204.

[33] Affectionate disciple of the celebrated Spiritual Angelo Clareno; Bernardine held the same opinions as Angelo about evangelical poverty. His famous work, De gestis Domini was used extensively by St Bernardine.

[34] His Solemnissima expositio super Apocalypsim, written a little before 1349, is one of the main sources of the Sermons of Bernardine.

[35] See Pacetti, Un trattato sulle usure e le restituzioni di Pietro di Giovanni Olivi falsamente attrributo a Fr Gerardo da Siena, in AFH, XLVI (1953), 448-457.

[36] See Ehrle in ALKG, III, 462ff.

[37] See the description in AFH, XXIX (1936), 528ff.

[38] That is in the sermon In Annuntiatione, in mane: De consensu virginali, in chs 1-3 of article 1 and in article 2 (Opera omnia, vol. 6, Quaracchi, 1959, pp. 101-104 and 104-107; and in the following sermon: Iterum in Annuntiatione, infra diem: De consensu virginali (ibid., p. 111); this last sermon except for the prologue, the conclusion and one or other passage, depends entirely on the question of Olivi. A passage of the same question is found also in the sermon In festivitatibus B. M. Virginis (sermo 51, art. 3, c. 1, Opera Omnia, vol. 4, Quaracchi, 1956, p. 552).

[39] See De glorioso nomine Mariae, sermo 3, art. 2, c. 2, Opera omnia, vol. 6, 1959, p. 93, and In festivitatibus B. M.V., sermo 51, art 3. c. I (ibid., vol 4, p. 552).

[40] Le prediche volgari di S. Bernardino da S. dette nella Piazza del Campo l’anno 1427, ora primamente edite da L. Banchi, II, Siena 1884, 414.

[41] Opera omnia, vol. 2, Quaracchi, 1959, pp. 371-397. See also sermo 3, art. 3, c. 2 vol 2, p. 92 and the Prologue of De salutatione angelica, sermo 52, vol. 2, p. 153.

[42] Sermo 3, art. 2, c. 2, vol. 6, pp. 91-92.

[43] See Quaestio II, pp. 12-21.

[44] Historia septem tribulationum Ord. Min., ed. Ehrle in ALKG, II, 287-289. Also the Procurator General of the Order, Fr. Raymond of Fronsac, who denounced the writings of Olivi in the Council of Vienna because they contained ‘various and diverse errors’, remembered the fact that: ‘they were burnt first by the lord Jerome, a former Minister General who later became Pope Nicholas’ (Ehrle, in ALKG, II, 156).

[45] See below page 38, note 1.

[46] In chapter 26 of this work (codex Laurenziano Plut. X dext. 4, f. 96cd), Olivi refers to his work On Job which would not seem to have been written by him prior to 1297, since in it he quotes the treatises and questions On poverty and On evangelical perfection (codex Laurenziano Conv. Sopp. 240, f. 1d); at least the main parts of these works were written prior to 1297. When he wrote On Job he had not written a commentary on the Gospels since in explaining Job 36:5 he wrote: ‘How these things are true is to be treated more suitably in an exposition of the Gospels’ (codex cit., f. 62c).

[47] See Ratio, 76, n. 8.

[48] See AFH, XXIX (1936), 233, 236ff.

[49] See AFH, XXVI (1933 ), 142.

[50] St Bernardine, as is clear in a letter written by him on 27 September 1440 before the fire, had consulted the On Matthew of Olivi in a Codex of S. Croce, in which the commentary was ‘attributed to Nicholas of Lyra’: hence this codex is different from the one presently in Codex Laurenz. Plut. X dext. 4, which also came from the library of S. Croce having been placed there by Tebaldo della Casa in 1406. In September 1440 Bernardine was in Capriola di Siena, intending to write a commentary on the codex now known as Siena U. V. 4 on the Epistles and the Gospels in the Missal; in this letter addressed to Friar James Biade he asked that there be sent to him on loan the codex of the commentary by Olivi which he had consulted in S. Croce before the fire. The commentary was sent to him, but which copy? That used by the Saint or the present Plut. X dext. 4 (S. Croce 97)? My opinion is that it was this last text, an opinion based on the fact that in a margin of this commentary Bernardine has left clear traces; he divided the text of the commentary of Olivi on the beatitudes into seven parts … and it was used by Bernardine between 1441 and 1443 when he wrote his treatise On the evangelical beatitudes. See Ratio, 34-36.

[51] V. Doucet, P.I. Olivi et l’Immaculée Conception, in AFH, XXVI (1933), 560-563.

[52] Ed, B. Jansen, in Bibliotheca Franciscana Scholastica Medii Aevi, VI, 285.

[53] See pages 7, 17, 19, 31ff. Apart from his work On the seven canonical Epistles, he wrote in a comment on 1 Jn 1:8-10: ‘only the Mother of Christ is believed to have been free of every actual sin, although she was not free from original sin’ (codex Vat. Borgh., f. 84c).

[54] This is also the opinion of P. Doucet, loc. cit., 563.

[55] See G. Folgarait, La Vergine bella in S. Bernardino da Siena, Milano (1939), 14312-170.

3 Sermo 51, De admirandis gratiis B. Virginis, at. 1, c. 1, Opera Omnia, vol. 4, Quaracchi 1956, p. 539.

[56] See Ratio, 223ff.

[57] Opera, IV, Venice, 1591, 272 CD. In his sermon De correctione fraterna, given at Padua during Lent in 1443, he taught: ‘Preachers should publicly condemn sins by speaking in general. But when there is an opinion current among scholars on some doubtful issue, as the conception of the Virgin Mary concerning which some hold that she was conceived in original sin, and this is likely to scandalize people it is better to be silent than to preach on such matters… In many situations … one ought to be silent rather than preach that opinion, true as it is; this applies to the conception of the Virgin and to similar cases.’ (Bergamo Bibl. Civica codex L [Greek Letter] 23, f. 100d-104c). See Ratio, 170-174.

[58] See AFH, XXXIV (1941), 166ff.

[59] Codices Pavia Univ. 152, f. xlvi r-v ; Firenze Nazionale Magl. XXXV. 240, f. 53r-v. See AFH, XXXIV (1941), 167ff. ; Ratio, 201-206. See also sermon 19a preached in Siena in 1427, ed. by L. Bianchi, Le prediche volgari, II, 391-393.

[60] I am bound to express deep thanks to Fr V. Doucet, Director of this Bibliotheca ascetica, for asking me to publish the present Questions and for his fraternal help so kindly extended to me.

................
................

In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.

Google Online Preview   Download