Second opinion: Tapper, each precept one by one but not all together
Some in the Roman School, in the past and still today, admit that man in his present state cannot keep all the precepts and overcome every temptation taken all together, or, as they say, collectively. Yet they hold that, one by one and without any help of grace through Christ, he can keep any natural precept, however hard, and overcome any temptation, however strong.
In chapter 2 of the disputation just cited, Vázquez ascribes this view to Ruard Tapper, the Louvain theologian, on the seventh article of the Academy of Louvain, at the paragraph 'Haec confirmantur'. And there that doctor does say of works that by their kind do not exceed the strength of our nature, as is true of everything the natural law commands, that each of them is in our power, weak and without grace though we are.
'There is no one,' he says, 'who cannot refuse, and even avoid, murder or any other sin, even venial. No passion and no fear of death can make it necessary to follow it in such a way that willing and refusing do not stay in our power, so long as reason is not overwhelmed and its judgement stays free.' He adds at once: 'So the necessity of sinning that comes from our weakness is set against inevitability as to all sins together, not as to each; nor is it a necessity of committing any particular sin.'
Vázquez reports, in the disputation cited above, chapter 2, that some more recent writers of his time held the same view, and adds that twenty years earlier it was quite common in Spain.
Latin
XV. Verum in Schola Romana, non tantum olim reperti sunt, sed etiam hodie quoque reperiuntur, qui fatentur quidem non posse servari omnia praecepta, & vinci omnem tentationem universim, & ut dici solet, collective ab homine in statu, quem modo habet: sed tamen posse sigillatim, sine ullo auxilio gratiae per Christum, servari quodlibet praeceptum naturale, quantumvis difficile, & vinci quamlibet tentationem quantumvis vehementem. Hanc sententiam Vasquez Disputationis modo citatae capite secundo tribuit Ruardo Tappero Theologo Lovaniensi ad articulum septimum Academiae Lovaniensis, Paragr. Haec confirmantur. Et certe ibi doctor ille loquens de operibus quae ex suo genere naturae nostrae vires non excedunt, qualia sunt omnia quae naturali lege praecipiuntur, dicit haec singula, quamvis simus infirmi, & gratia destituti, in nostra esse potestate. Nemo enim est, inquit, qui non potest nolle, & etiam vitare homicidium, & quodlibet aliud peccatum etiam veniale. Nam nulla passio, nulla mortis formido inducere potest necessitatem ipsam sequendi, ut non maneat in nostra potestate ipsum velle & nolle, quamdiu non absorbetur, sed liberum manet judicium rationis. Quibus statim subjungit, Necessitas igitur peccandi quae ex nostra est infirmitate, opponitur inevitabilitati quoad universa, non quoad singula, nec est ad aliquod peccatum in specie committendum. Eandem vero sententiam a quibusdam recentioribus suo tempore retentam fuisse testatur Vasques jam supra citata disputatione capite secundo. Additque viginti ante annis illam non parum fuisse in Hispania communem.