Grace

Proof of something.

Ordinatio III d. 13 qq. 1-4, n. 92:

"Et ideo tam in via quam in patria ponitur aliqua forma creata, ut voluntas possit uti illa forma in operando, et sit forma in potestate eius, et sic laudabiliter operetur."

"And therefore, some created form is posited both in the wayfaring state and in the fatherland [ie, "heaven"], so that the will might be able to use that form in operating, and the form be in its power, so that it might operate in a praise-worthy manner."

Proof, that is, against certain interpretations of Scotus that would like to maximize his similarity to later Reformation views, by stressing 'forensic justification'; for whatever reason (this isn't directed against, say, Cross, as after reading the intro to his book I think the problem is mainly that he's trying to appeal to as many groups as possible...which is why he also compares Scotus almost exculsively to Thomas, the very difficulty with Gilson's book).The 'created form' he's talking about is, of course, that of grace conceived as a quality inhering in the will, without which human actions cannot be meritorious.

Features of a Catholic Philosopher

In a slight break from my usual fare of Scotism, I'm posting on a more general topic. The following is from a book by Nicholas Rescher, an analytic philosopher who dabbles in scholasticism (judging by his use of almost entirely outdated sources when rarely he mentiones Scotus; with the exception of the cambridge Companion to Scotus, he cites CRS Harris, some 19th c. study, and a 1910 single vol. ed. of the Ordinatio). This is not to say that he is an analytic Thomist, however. He is a catholic philosopher who respects the tradition, which he seems to identify mainly with the Fathers, Thomas, and the Thomist tradition. but he is open to the wider picture. Anyway, here are some quotes from his "Scholastic Meditations", p. 158, on five features that characterize a Catholic philosopher:

"1. Awareness of and respect for the great tradition of Catholic philosophy from the Church Fathers to the present day.

2. Concern for the big issues of philosophy and mindfulness that attention to matters of detail will exist for their sake. A reluctance to be caught up in the fashions of the moment.

3. A humanistic preoccupation with matters of morality, ethics, and philosophical anthropology--that is, with the fundamentals of how life should ideally be lived.

4. Care for the classics: special attention for the philosophers, moralists, and thinkers of Greco-Roman antiquity and their subsequent Latinate continuations.

5. Breadth of sympathies: A positive inclination to look for merit in the work of other philosophers at large. And corrrespondingly, a certain skeptical self-restraint through absence of cocksure certitude in philosophical matters."

[...]

"Question 1: What does a Catholic philosopher owe to the Church and its teachings? Answer: Allegiance and acceptance.

Question 2: What does a Catholic philosopher owe to the tradition of Catholic philosophy? Answer: Not allegiance and acceptance, but something else and rather different, namely, respect."

An Interesting Claim

Michael also brought the following quote to my attention as well, from A. Vos "The Philosophy of Duns Scotus", an energetic book written in 2006.

"Apart from general human understanding and an open philosophical
mind, the only ingredients required for understanding Duns Scotus'
philosophy are knowledge of medieval Christianity, its Latin and its
Bible, and logical canons of consistency."

Vos,151

Discuss

Guest Post

Here is a quote sent in by Michael, from Monadology.

Longpré, E., "Gonsalve de Balboa et le Bx Duns Scot." Études
Franciscaines XXXVI (1924), 640-645. [Attribution of the Conclusiones
to Gonsalvus, acquaintance with Scotus, etc.] 644: "Ainsi qu'il
résulte du titre de ces Quaestiones, Gonzalve de Balboa aborde, dans
le cadre très souple d'une série de disputes sur la louange divine,
les problèmes essentiels du volontarisme augustinien et franciscain.
Tout contribue à donner à son oeuvre un intérêt puissant . . . Ces
Quaestions en effet ont été disputées à Paris, très probablement entre
1300 et 1302", given parallels with William Ware and Eckart. 645: "The ideas of the Marian Doctor [Scotus] on the will and its role in the psychological life, his arguments against Godfrey of Fontaines in
favor of the liberty and spontaneity of the will, his conception of
theology as a practical science, all this is already presented and
defended with flair [éclat] by Gonsalvus of Balboa." A bit later, "it
will be easy to follow the admirable continuity of Franciscan thought
from 1260 until Duns Scotus. What then will remain of the hateful
judgments brought against the voluntarism of the Marian Doctor, the
successive denunciations of pragmatism, modernism, exaggerated
determinism and autocracy? Nothing, absolutely nothing, save a sad
page in history which it would be an honor never to mention again."

A few random comments from ly Faber: In John Inglis' book on medieval philosophical historiography (in which he identifies the "seraphic" doctor as Duns Scotus) there is a discussion of the two Inglis sees as being responsible for the Thomas-centered historiography of the 19th century which infuenced much of the twentieth, Stockl and Kleutgen. They had an even worse view of Scotus. According to them, Scotus, the founder of the "formalist" movement thought that individuation was through form. Now, since scotus only paid attention to form and not matter/subject, this logically entails that forms inhere in the 'world' as a subject, that is, there is only one subject which means scotus was a pantheist. By positing individuation as being a formal element, then, Scotus really neglected the particular, which is the Scylla to Ockham's Charybdis of claiming only particulars exist and destroying science; that is, the two Hegelian horns that the Thomistic synthesis sailed between. Sadly, it took 50 years after these two were writing for someone to challenge the pantheist claim, Parthenius Minges in the 1920's. Interestingly, Garriogu-Lagrange seems to have known about this defense, as he never accuses Scotus of pantheism (which I have no doubt he would have had he been able).

More of the same

From the ewtn online ed. of Reality. My interest in this quote is the characterization of Alexander and Bonaventure as "pre-thomist." And the last bit about matter is interesting. The reference there is probably to Lecura II d. 12, though there is some stuff in Ord. IV which I have posted on previously (see the 'de materia' post). Scotus does seem to grant a reality to matter apart from form, and I remember the Lectura passage being pretty weird, but I don't quite recall if he says matter can exist without form. But Garrigou wouldn't have known about the Lectura, as it was only discovered by Balic in the '30's or so...the relevant parallel distinction in the Ordinatio was never written by Scotus but filled in with the Additiones Magnae of William of Alnwick; perhaps what Garriogu is referring to. The problem is a lot of Thomists read everything with the real distinction in mind and evaluate Scotus's views based on it so it is hard to tell what Garrigou is referring to (now, I do hold it is legitimate to criticize other philosophies, and indeed I criticize Thomism an awful lot; but I try to do it on Thomas's own terms, and not just ridicule him from within a perspective foreign to his thought). There is a sense in Scotus, referring to Aristotle's Metaphysics VII of matter existing as a substrate through a series of substantial forms and in that sense Scotus says it has its own entity. but not existence (though, perhaps this is implied, as he doesn't think essence and existence are distinct...a far more useful background to scotus than Thomas's real distinction is the esse essentiae, esse actualis existentiae of Henry).

"On the other hand, some pre-Thomistic theologians, notably Alexander of Hales and St. Bonaventure, admitted a plurality of substantial forms in man and also a spiritual matter in the human soul. These theologians were seeking, unsuccessfully, to harmonize the doctrine of St. Augustine with that of Aristotle. The multiplicity of substantial forms did indeed emphasize St. Augustine's view about the soul's independence of the body, but at the same time compromised the natural unity of the human composite.

Steering between these two currents, St. Thomas maintains that the rational soul is indeed purely spiritual, entirely without matter and hence incorruptible, but that it is nevertheless the form of the body, rather, the one and only form of the body, although in its intellectual and voluntary acts it is intrinsically independent of matter. And if in these acts it is independent, then it is independent of the body also in its being, and, once separated from the body which gave it individuation, it still remains individualized, by its inseparable relation to this body rather than to any other.

Turning now to special questions, we shall continue to underline the principles to which St. Thomas continually appeals, and which Thomists have never ceased to defend, particularly against Scotus and Suarez, who still preserve something of the theories held by the older Scholasticism. Thus Scotus admits, first a materia primo prima in every contingent substance, even in spiritual substances, and holds, secondly, that there is in man a form of corporeity distinct from the soul, and that, thirdly, there are in the soul three formally distinct principles, that of the vegetative life, that of the sense life, and that of the intellective life.

He likewise holds, against St. Thomas, that prime matter, speaking absolutely, can exist without any form. This last thesis reappears in Suarez who, since he rejects the real distinction between essence and existence, goes on to admit that prime matter has its own existence. We shall see that the principles of St. Thomas cannot be harmonized with these positions."

Garrigou, round 2

This is from his book "Reality"

"Chapter 23: Angelic Nature And Knowledge

1. Nature Of Angels

St. Thomas [596] teaches clearly that the angels are creatures purely spiritual, subsistent forms without any matter. Scotus says they are composed of form and incorporeal matter, without quantity, because, being creatures, they must have an element of potentiality. The Thomistic reply runs thus: This potential element is first the angelic essence, really distinct, as in all creatures, from existence. Secondly, the real distinction between person and existence, between quod est and existence. Thirdly, real distinction of substance from faculties, and of faculties from acts. All these distinctions are explicitly formulated by St. Thomas himself. [597].

From their pure spirituality St. Thomas concludes that there cannot be two angels of the same species, because the only principle by which a substantial form can be individualized is matter, matter capable of this quantity rather than any other. Thus, to illustrate, two drops of water, perfectly similar, are by their matter and quantity two distinct individuals. But angels have no matter. [598].

Scotus, on the contrary, since he admits a certain kind of matter in the angels, maintains also that there can be many angels of one and the same species. Suarez, in his eclecticism, admits this conclusion of Scotus, although he sides with St. Thomas in maintaining that the angels are purely spiritual and immaterial beings. Thomists reply: if the angels are purely spiritual, you can find in them no principle of individuation, no principle capable of multiplying within one and the same species.

Form unreceived in matter, they say with St. Thomas, is simply unique. Whiteness, for example, if conceived as unreceived in this or that white thing, would be one and unique. If you deny this, then you simultaneously deny the principle which demonstrates the unicity of God, the principle, namely, which St. Thomas thus formulates: [599] Existence unreceived is necessarily subsistent and unique."

Faber's commentary: Now, this isn't really Garrigou's fault...Probably when he wrote this there was still a great deal of dispute as to whether or not the "De rerum principio" was a genuine work of Scotus. In this work, the author says, "I return to the position of Avicebron" and endorses spiritual matter. But in point of fact, this has been proven to be not by Scotus at all, but by Vital du four, most of which is copied out of other others, such as Godfrey of Fontaines. This leads Garrigou astray as to Scouts holding to spiritual matter. He (Scotus) respects the opinion, and as far as I know never attacks it as it is part of the Franciscan tradition, but neither does he explicitly endorse it (possible exception in the QQ de anima, though he seems there to be contrasting the relative merits of spiritual matter against certain Thomist views). However he is dead wrong on this being the reason for multiple angels per species, as this is permitted by Scotus's theory of individuation being by means of a further determination of the species form to a singularity. There are obviously a number of other issues at play as well, relating to the relation of form and matter. I will say, however, that Scotus does not hold to the real distinction between essence and existence, which has caused no end of scandal to Thomists and their Cambridge offspring, Radical Orthodoxy.

Garrigou-Lagrange

While doing research for a paper I am writing on the historiography of Duns Scotus in the 20th century, I came across the following among the writings of Garrigou-Lagrange. Though I am not seeking to revisit ill-will from the past, I think a lot of these ideas may still be in circulation and so are worth discussinig. Oddly, though Garrigou-Lagrange does not reference any texts on the formal distinction, his portrayal of that doctrine is far more accurate than that of univocity, which he gets completely wrong (and the classic texts of which he does reference in a footnote). He is a bit nasty about the whole thing as well, trying to claim Scotus's positions are a no-no for catholics due to conciliar statements. This is a very rough translation, which I did in about the space of half an hour.

R. Garrigou-Lagrange, De Deo Uno: Commentarius in primam partem S. Thomae

p. 134:

“Scotus, however, holds that the divine essence is distinguished by attributes and by persons, and the divine attributes among themselves by a formal-actual distinction ex natura rei, which is antecedant to the consideration of our mind. According to Scotus, it can only be affirmed that God punishes by justice adn not by mercy; for this is required that these two attributes are formally actually distinct in God, before the consideration of our mind, almost as in our soul the intellect and will are formally-actually distinguished.

The foundation of this theory is the immoderate realism of Scotus, according to which now in creatres formally-actually distinguished in whatever metaphysical grade, namely in Peter humanity, vitality, substantiality, entity. From this it follows that being is univocal in God and in creatures as Scotus maintains explicitly. Nor is it to be marvelled at that being is univocal, if it is formally-actually distinguished before the consideration of our mind from substantiality, from vitality, namely, from the modalities of being.

Criticisms. a. This formal-actual distinction, thought out by Scotus, if truly it is more than virtual, that is, as we have now noted: if truly it exists in re before the consideration of the mind, then (iam) it is a real distinction, howsoever small it is, and then it is opposed to the highest simplicty of God, for, as the Council of Florence (Denziger 703) says, ‘in God all are one, where opposition of relation does not prevent it.” In other words, Scotus so apporaches immoderate realism and to a certain anthropomorphism, inasmuch as he posits in God a distinction which is not except in the human mind. It is the extreme opposite of nominalism and agnosticism. So Scotus did not pull back enough from the immoderate realism of Gilbertus Porretanus, condemed by the Council of Rheims (Denz. 391) as contrary to the highest simplicity of God.

b. The metaphysical grades are not distinguished in act in re prior to the consideration of our intellect ... because they are reduced to the same concept of humanity, of which animality is the genus, and rationality the specific difference, so they correspond to the same reality which is in them but virtually multiple.

c. Indeed if being formaliter-actualiter would be distinguished from the modalities of being, those modalities would be outside being, and therefore they would be nothing. In this there is danger of pantheism: if being would be univocal, it would be single (unicum), because the univocal is not diversified unless through differences extrinsic to itself, and outside being there is nothing. In fact being is included in its own modalities, and containes them implictly in act. Furthermore, it is not univocal (as a genus, whose differences are extrinsic) but analogous. Being expresses something [aliquid...one of Thomas’s transcendentals from De Veritate q. 1?] not in an unqualified way, but proportionally the same in Being from itself, in created substantial being, in accidental [being]. Therefore this doctrine of Scotus does not seem to be in conformity with the fourth Lateran Council (Denz. 432) where it can be read: ‘between creature and creator such a similitude cannot be observed, rather between them a greater dissimilude must be known.’ This is just as the definition of analogy, inasmuch as the ratio of analogy is not absolutely [simpliciter] the same in God and in creatures, but proportionally the same, as wisdom which in God is the cause of things and in us is measured by things.

Whence while the nominalists approach the equivocity of being, Scotus holds the univocity of being. The opinions are radically opposed to each other.”

There follows a note: “But when Scotus substitutes his own formal distinction in place of the real distinction of saint Thomas, for example bewtween the faculties of the soul, he opens the way to nominalism.”


p. 322

“Third is posited the difficult question about the identification of divine perfections in God...

The difficulty is chiefly proposed by Scotus, and he defends his distinctionem formalem-actualem ex natura rei between the divine attributes, because he thought their formal identification to be impossible. For Scotus, in order that the divine attributes are formally in God, it is necessary that in Him they should be formally distinct and more than virtually [distinct].”

[omitted: some unintelligble point by Cajetan, about the ratio of justice and the ratio of wisdom not being each other but that being ok because together they do not make up a third ratio.]

G.-L. Quoting Cajetan, “‘in the second place, it can be understood, if we maintain that the ratio of wisdom and the ratio of justice are eminently contained in one formal ratio of a superior order and to be identified formally.’”

Back to Garrigou: “This is the Thomistic sense of this expression, ‘formally, eminently’: ‘formally’ he signifies both ‘substantially’, and not causally, ‘properly’ and not metaphorically, but ‘analogically’. ‘Eminently’ excludes the formal actual distinction of the attributes of God, and expresses their identification or rather identity in the most eminent formal ratio of deity, whose proper mode, hidden in itself, is not known in via except negatively and relativly.”

Back to me. The claim of GL that the formal distinction entails univocity is a strange one. It seems kind of true, in that one cannot fall back so easily on mystery and 'eminent' ways of containment of perfection terms are univocally common, but I tend to think of these as separate issues. No serious scholarship has been done on this as far as I know.

Univocity:

Garrigou is clearly off his rocker on this one, though it is the usual criticism, voiced by Thomists probably from Thomas of Sutton down to Catherine Pickstock. There is a refusal, or inability (if one prefers to locate the source of their error in the intellect than in an intractible will) to understand Scotus's clear statements. He says being is not only analogous, but univocal. That's right, he favors the analogy of being. But he is not interested in that specifically, or at least his interest is in giving it a conceptual foundation so that it is not a nice name for pure equivocity. Instead, one must see Scotus's discussion of univocity as taking place on the conceptual level. By this he avoids the nasty charges against him, as he can fully admit the conciliar statements; they are talking about matters in re, not on a conceptual level. This is not to say that Scotus and Thomas can be harmonized as some have tried to argue at Kalamazoo; Thomas thinks analogy holds on the conceptual level, though he doesn't say much about it. But he clearly talks of differing rationes in the Summa.

The other major error he makes is another usual claim, that univocity entails that being is a genus. Scotus himself is aware of this, and in a passage referenced by Garriogu deals with the objection (Ord. I d.8 q.3). Scotus's own view of the matter is that being cannot be a genus due to the resulting incompatibility with divine simplicity. He thinks that genera are contracted by differences, two entitites which are in a potency-act relationship. His response instead is the notion of intrinsic modes, which represent different degrees of intensity of something, and are not part of the genus-species model. Of course, one can simply not accept Scotus's solution or argue against it, but Garrigou is not even aware of it and rushes to judgement.

Formal Distinction:

Oddly, it gets this mostly right, though he omitts key aspects. I am not sure why he calls it a disticntion "formaliter-actualiter." The actualiter is not from Scotus and I am not sure what it even means. Perhaps he is stressing the fact that the formal distinction is on the real side of things as distinctions go, but this is unnecessary as he has already put in the qualifications of it holding prior to any operation of the intellect and being "ex parte rei." So that's wrong. He also does not choose to admit that Scotus says that one ought to refer to this as formal non-identity instead of a formal distinction, lest people be confused. A small point, which does not change Scotus's actual arguments. He also does not admit the way the subtle doctor preserves simplicity, instead preferring to rush to a council and make the charge of implicit heresy. Scotus thinks, formal distinction notwithstnding, that God is one in re, for due to the fact that all the divine attributes, essence, etc., are all one by infinity (their intrinsic mode), and are one infinity not many infinities. So ultimately I don't think the Thomists and Scotists diagree on all that much here. Just look at the last paragraph or two when Garrigou invokes mystery in via, and especially that second quote from Cajetan. One just has to shake one's head. Cajetan is somewhat of an ambigous figure among Thomists, who alternatively love and hate him, but reading his criticisms of Scotus and his own solutions to the same questions, he either sounds like a moron (such aswhen he responds to Scotus's argument for univocity "from doubtful concepts", his "Achilles" argument, with "but they're one by unity of analogy" with an implied "ha ha ha"). But, he is a saint so he probably knows better now.

That's all for now, back to grad school.

varia

Ord. III d.1 pars 2 q. unica n. 210:

“...nihil, quod non est expresse articulus fidei, tenendum est tamquam simpliciter credendum, nisi sequatur ex aliquo simpliciter credendo.”

"...nothing, which is not expressly an article of faith, should be held as to be believed absolutely, unless it follows from something that must be believed absolutely."

I rather like that one. The editors refer to several other passages where he says something similar. The context is the question in book III (obviously) where he is asking what it is that terminates the relation of dependence of the assumed nature..is it the divine essence, the word, etc. It is rather an interesting question as Scotus takes it as an opportunity to revisit the question from book I about whether the persons are consituted by something absolute. He ultimately opts for the authority of tradition, even though he thinks the arguments are not very good; they do not 'conclude'. So he still thinks his theory is better, and can be held as the constitution of divine persons is not an article of faith nor follows directly from one.

It is somewhat surprising to read something like this, as we tend to think of the medievals as being rather unsophisiticated in most areas. Scotus in general, however, as I have tried to show in other posts, has a very developed sense of the uses of theology, quite apart from the whole faith-reason thing for which he is often maligned (by Thomists, and their bastard children Radical Orthodoxy). The statement seems true to me, however. It is one of those unexpressed and unknown truths in the background of my conversion to the Church, I suspect. The doctrinal chaos of much of protestantism has nothing to compare. Some things really are fundamental and settled, leaving whole new vistas of theology open for investigation and private opinion (bracketing, of course, the whole problem of making past dogma relevant in the present...to me medieval theology is probably more present and alive than is that of Rahner, von Balthasar, or the latest pomo trend). It is also a justification for my denial of most Thomist doctrines (mainly philosophical...the theological ones I object to are the explanations, not the articuli fidei themselves) as well as the arguments of those Thomists of the Strict Observance who claim on the basis of papal opinions and encyclicals dating from the days of the Neo-thomistic revival (1879-1965 are contentious dates I would assign for the institutional side of things) that the faithful are obligated to give religious assent to things like the 25 Thomistic theses. I've read some pretty crazy stuff on that topic (such as, Pelzer or Pelster's article from the early days of Franciscan Studies responding to Spanish Dominicans claiming that one is obligated to hold with religious assent everything Thomas said except in an area where the commentary tradition itself is in doubt as to the mentem Thomae. But I could go on all day about such things, and would probably get less charitable as I went due to the fact that I am in a fell mood today (sept. 14 has come and gone, and the promised tlm chapel was cold and dark).

To return to the 14th s., here is a bit on relations and will, from the same question as above.

ord. III d. 1 pars 2 q. unica n.241
“I say that every real relation is between extremes really distinct, but sometimes by a distinction preceding the relations, sometimes not, but only formally caused by those relations; and this not only among the divine persons but among creatures and also in accidental relations. For the will moves itself and is moved by itself, and not only is there a real relation of the will to volition, but also the will as active to itself as passive.... And nevertheless the will, which is the foundation of those opposed relations ‘of moving and moved’, and is denominated (denominatur) by each of them, itself is not distinguished by a distinction of those relations, but only by the distinction made by them.”