Custodi ab scandalo
Protect from scandal
8:9 Videte autem ne forte haec licentia vestra offendiculum fiat infirmis. [n. 433]
8:9 But take heed lest perhaps this your liberty become a stumbling block to the weak. [n. 433]
8:10 Si enim quis viderit eum, qui habet scientiam, in idolio recumbentem: nonne conscientia ejus, cum sit infirma, aedificabitur ad manducandum idolothyta? [n. 435]
8:10 For if a man sees him that has knowledge sit at meat in the idol’s temple, shall not his conscience, being weak, be emboldened to eat those things that are sacrificed to idols? [n. 435]
8:11 Et peribit infirmus in tua scientia, frater, propter quem Christus mortuus est? [n. 436]
8:11 And through your knowledge shall the weak brother perish, for whom Christ has died? [n. 436]
8:12 Sic autem peccantes in fratres, et percutientes conscientiam eorum infirmam, in Christum peccatis. [n. 438]
8:12 Now when you sin thus against the brethren and wound their weak conscience, you sin against Christ. [n. 438]
8:13 Quapropter si esca scandalizat fratrem meum, non manducabo carnem in aeternum, ne fratrem meum scandalizem. [n. 439]
8:13 Wherefore, if meat scandalizes my brother, I will never eat flesh, lest I should scandalize my brother. [n. 439]
433. Haec est secunda pars huius capituli; superius enim ostendit quod in se licita est comestio idolothitorum, hic monet abstinere ab ea propter scandalum infirmorum. Ubi
433. This is the second part of this chapter; for above he shows that, in itself, eating food sacrificed to idols is permitted; here he warns to abstain from it because of scandalizing the weak.
primo monet ne offendant fratres sua comestione;
First he warns the brothers lest they offend by their eating;
secundo quod potest offendere, ibi si enim quis viderit, etc.;
second why it can offend, at for if a man sees;
tertio ostendit malum quod inde potest accidere, ibi et peribit infirmus, etc.;
third, he shows the evil that can occur from this, at and through your knowledge;
quarto praebet se in exemplum abstinentium, ibi quapropter si esca scandalizat, et cetera.
fourth, he presents himself as an example of those abstaining, at wherefore if meat scandalizes.
434. Dicit ergo: videte, quia quantum ad nos nihil prodest vel obest esca ipsa, sed tamen videte ne forte haec licentia vestra, qua scitis licere vobis comedere de idolothitis, offendiculum fiat infirmis in fide, qui nondum sciunt idolum nihil esse. Lev. XIX, 14: coram caeco non pones offendiculum.
434. He says, therefore: see that as concerns us, this meat neither helps nor harms, but nevertheless take heed lest perhaps this your liberty, which we know permits you to eat of the food of idols, become a stumbling block to the weak in faith, who do not yet know that idols are nothing: you shall not place a stumbling block before the blind (Lev 19:14).
435. Deinde cum dicit si quis viderit, etc., hic ostendit quomodo possunt offendere, quia comedendo idolothitum coram infirmis: ubi implicantur quatuor concurrentia ad scandalum. Primo maiorum scientia; secundo comestio idolothiti publica, ibi in idolio recumbentem, tertio occasio scandali accepti, ibi nonne conscientia eius?
435. Next, when he says if a man should see, here he shows how it can offend by eating the food of idols in the presence of the weak: and four concurrent things are involved in scandal. The first is the knowledge of the greater ones; the second is the public eating of the food sacrificed to idols, at sit at meat in the idol’s temple; the third is the occasion of scandal taken up, at shall not his conscience?
Dicit ergo si enim quis, etc.; quasi dicat: et vere potest esse offendiculum, si enim quis infirmus viderit eum qui habet scientiam, recumbentem in idolio, id est, in praesentia idoli, nonne conscientia eius cum sit infirma, per te, aedificabitur, id est, per factum tuum, ad manducandum idolothita, id est, sacrificata in reverentiam idoli? Quasi dicat: sic videns enim quis fratrem peritum in idolio sacrificata comedere, incipit ipse edere non illa conscientia qua ille, scilicet peritiae causa, sed id putat esse numen in cuius reverentia hoc fiat.
Therefore he says, for if man, as if to say: and indeed it can be a stumbling block, for if a man, being weak, sees him that has knowledge sit at meat in the temple of an idol, that is, in the presence of an idol, shall not his conscience, being weak, be emboldened by you, that is, by your deed, to eat those things that are sacrificed to idols, that is, sacrificed to honor idols? As if to say, for thus seeing his more experienced brother eating food sacrificed to idols, he too will begin to eat, not with that consciousness that the experienced man has, namely by reason of his expertise, but he thinks it happens in honor of a deity.
436. Deinde cum dicit et peribit infirmus, hic ostendit malum quod inde potest accidere, et hoc duplex:
436. Next, when he says, and through your knowledge, he shows the evil that can arise from this, and here two things must be distinguished:
primo scandalum proximi;
first, the scandal of the neighbor;
secundo offensam proximi, ibi sic autem peccantes, et cetera.
second, the offense of the neighbor, at now when you sin thus.
437. In prima implicantur tria, peccantis conditio, quia infirmus; peccandi occasio, quia in tua conscientia; peccati exaggeratio, quia propter quem Christus mortuus est.
437. In the first, three things are implied: the condition of the one sinning, because it is weak; the occasion of sin, because it is in your conscience; and the exacerbation of the sin, since Christ died on account of him.
Dicit ergo: et ita peribit infirmus, in fide idest, in tua scientia, frater, id est, occasione accepta a tua scientia, quia te sapientem videt comedere, putans quod sub idoli veneratione comedas, propter quem salvandum Christus mortuus est, et ita graviter peccas. Rom. XIV, 15: noli cibo perdere illum pro quo mortuus est Christus.
Therefore he says, and thus shall the weak perish, in faith, that is, through your knowledge, brother, that is, having taken the occasion from your knowledge, for he sees you, the wise man, eat, and he thinks that you eat out of veneration of an idol—him for whom, that is, for whose salvation, Christ has died, and so you sin gravely: do not destroy with your meat him for whom Christ died (Rom 14:15).
438. Sic autem peccantes in fratres, peccato scandali, et percutientes conscientiam eorum infirmam, gladio mali exempli, Amos IX, 1: percute cardinem, id est conscientiam, et commovebuntur superliminaria, id est, intellectus et affectus; in Christo peccatis, cuius membra sunt.
438. Now when you sin thus against the brethren, in the sin of scandal, and wound their weak conscience, with the sword of bad example: strike the hinges, that is, the conscience, and let the lintels be shook (Amos 9:1), that is, the intellect and the affections; you sin against Christ, whose members they are.
Non ait in Christum, secundum Glossam, quia in Christum peccare, est Christum negare, id est, peccare in fide. In Christo peccare est in his quae Christi sunt peccare, scilicet in moribus; sicut ille qui in lege est, dicitur in lege peccare: qui autem in lege non est, dicitur peccare in legem.
According to a Gloss, he does not say unto Christ, because to sin unto Christ is to deny Christ, that is, to sin against faith. To sin against Christ is to sin against those who are of Christ, namely in morals; just as the man who is under the law is said to sin against the law; but who is not under the law is said to sin unto the law.
439. Deinde cum dicit quapropter si esca, etc., hic ultimo proponit se in exemplum abstinentiae, ubi primo implicat scandalum; secundo ex hoc explicat abstinentiae propositum, ibi non manducabo, etc.; tertio praevenit dubium, ibi ne fratrem meum, et cetera.
439. Then when he says wherefore if meat, here he finally sets himself forth as an example of abstinence, where he first gives the implications of scandal; second, he explains from that the reason for abstinence, at I will never eat; and third, he anticipates questions, at lest I should scandalize.
Dicit ergo: quapropter, ne scilicet peccem in Christum, si esca scandalizat fratrem meum, non manducabo carnem aliquam, non solum idolothita, in aeternum: si ergo propter scandalum fratrum abstinendum est quasi a necessariis vitae, multo magis a superfluis. Et hoc, non ideo quod esca in se mala sit, sed ne scandalizem fratrem meum. Nam qui scandalizaverit unum de pusillis istis, expedit ei ut suspendatur in collo eius mola asinaria, etc., Matth. XVIII, 6. Rom. XIV, v. 20: omnia munda mundis, sed malum est homini qui per offendiculum manducat.
Therefore he says, wherefore, lest namely I should sin against Christ, if meat scandalizes my brother, I will never eat any flesh, not only food sacrificed to idols: if therefore something like a necessity of life is to be abstained from on account of scandal of the brethren, how much more from unnecessary things. And this, not because meat is bad in itself, but lest I should scandalize my brother. For whoever scandalizes one of these little ones, it would be better for him if a millstone were hung around his neck (Matt 18:6). All things are clean to the clean, but it is evil for that man who eats to offend (Rom 14:20).
440. Hic quaeritur super illud scientia inflat, Glossa: scientia per se inutilis est.
440. Here it is asked concerning the fact that knowledge puffs up (1 Cor 8:1), where the Gloss has: knowledge is useless by itself.
Contra, scientia per se bona est, ergo et utilis.
Against this: knowledge is good in itself; therefore it is also useful.
Responsio. Inutilis est ad salutem, utilis tamen ad multa alia.
Response: it is useless for salvation, but useful for many other things.
441. Item caritas aedificat. Contra: sicut scientia inflat, non per causam, sed per occasionem, sic et caritas.
441. Likewise, charity edifies (1 Cor 8:1). Against this: just as knowledge puffs up, not as a cause, but as an occasion, so also does charity.
Responsio. Non est simile, quia scientia habenti se manifestat, sed non sic caritas, quia nemo certus est de caritate.
Response: it is not similar, for knowledge manifests itself to the someone who has it, but not so charity, for no one is certain of charity.
442. Item super illud idolum nihil est, Glossa: naturam Deus formavit, sed stultitia hominum formam dedit.
442. Likewise, concerning an idol is nothing (1 Cor 8:4), the Gloss says: God formed nature, but the stupidity of man gave it form.
Contra: omne esse est a Deo, ergo omnis forma.
Against this: every being is from God, and therefore, every form.
Responsio. Glossa loquitur de forma putativa in natura, non de vera.
Response: the Gloss speaks of the putative form in nature, not of the true one.
443. Item ibidem Glossa: forma hominis in idolo non est facta per Verbum.
443. Likewise, the Gloss says in the same place: the form of man in an idol was not made by the Word.
Contra Io. I, 3: omnia per ipsum facta sunt.
Against this: all things were made by him (John 1:3).
Responsio: quamvis forma hominis in illo sit facta per Verbum, non tamen in idolo, id est, ad colendum.
Answer: although man’s form was made in him by the Word, it was not made in an idol, that is, for worshiping.
444. Item ibidem Glossa: idolum nihil est, quia nullius rei quae sit in mundo similitudinem habet.
444. Likewise, the Gloss says in the same place: an idol is nothing, for it has the likeness of no thing that is in the world.