FOUR QUESTIONS ON MARY - Franciscan Institute Publications

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Introduction fore, is: Does the moment of sanctification coincide with that of animation? 30 If the two moments do not coincide, then there are two possibilities, namely, either (1) once the soul is infused in the body and is infected with sin, it is immediately sanctified so that for no continuous period of time does it remain in a state of sin, or else (2) there is a period of time in which Mary’s soul remained in a state of original sin, whether it be long or short, Henry does not care. Here then we have the second and third possibilities Scotus refers to and considers as the only logical alternatives to his own preferred third view that Mary never contracted sin to begin with. It is only these three possibilities he considers in our question, since it is from his final version or Ordinatio. The second possibility is the only one to which some objection is raised that he takes time to answer. When he first proposed this alternative at Oxford, he may not have been as fully familiar with Henry’s position as he became later in Paris, for he seemed to think Henry might be interpreted this way. 31 Henry, however, wanted to go still further. He thought he could show that the instant of conception and sanctification coincide for all practical purposes. 32 For one can distinguish within a single instant of time two distinct aspects of nature one of which is prior, the other posterior. According to this priority of nature Mary’s soul can be first in a state of sin and afterwards in a state of grace. In an extremely lengthy and involved argument, based in part upon Aristotle’s physics of 30 Henry, op. cit., [V]: Si ergo loquamur de ista...[nativitate] in utero, ulterius distinguo, quia virgo aut in illo eodem instanti, quo sic concepta est mundo et originali peccato infecta simul fuit concepta Deo etiam per gratiam sanctificationis, aut non. 31 Scotus, Lectura (Balić, op. cit., p. 92): "But the second is also possible, namely, that it is only for an instant that she was in original sin and for any time period she was in grace. And if one understands the Ghentian in this way, his opinion is good, so that for an instant of conception she was in sin and a daughter of ire, and in the whole time-span was subject to grace.” In Paris, according to the Valencia Codex, he admits this is a benign interpretation of what Henry actually said. See note 44 infra. 32 Henry, op. cit., fol. 585v [X]: Quod tamen originalis culpa et sanctificationis gratia simul sint, seu esse habeat quodammodo in eodem instanti, etsi non in eodem subiecto pro illo eodem instanti, hoc non est omnino impossibile. 11
John Duns Scotus: Four Questions on Mary motion and change, and part upon a curious example of how a falling millstone will reverse the direction of a bean thrown against its underside, he attempted to prove this philosophically. 33 From an Aristotelian standpoint, sin and grace represent contrary forms that cannot coexist in the human soul as their subject. 34 On the other hand, according to the Philosopher, contrary forms causally affect one another. 35 Grace expels the state of sin, and vice versa, since the two cannot coexist as simultaneous forms of the soul as subject. But if the presence of grace is what causes the sin to leave, grace must somehow 33 In his Paris lecture, Scotus goes into Henry’s position in more detail than in either the Lectura or Ordinatio. He sums up this position of Henry briefly as follows: Dicit unus doctor quod in eodem instanti fuit in peccato et in gratia, sed in priori signo naturae fuit in peccato et in posteriori in gratia. Exemplum ad hoc: si faba proiciatur contra molarem, adest et abest puncto, et tamen non est ibi quies media, sed oportet ponere in priori signo adesse et in posteriori abesse. (Reportatio Parisiensis III, dist. 3, q. 1 in Ioannes D. Scotus Doctor Immaculatae Conceptionis, 26.) 34 Henry, op. cit., fol. 585v [X]: Quod autem virgo simul in eodem instanti quod concepta est mundo, et originali peccato infecta, hoc omnino est impossibile, quia contraria sunt originali culpa et sanctificationis gratia et simul fuissent in eodem subiecto. Contraria autem in eodem instanti simplici secundum rem non possunt inesse eidem subiecto. 35 Henry, ibid., [X]: De esse enim formatum contrariarum distinguitur secundum duplicem considerationem quam habet quaelibet talium formarum. Uno enim modo consideratur in ordine sive in comparatione ad agentem ..., a quo producit in esse et a quo habet suum esse. Considerando autem primo modo formam et esse eius secundum primam comparationem, scilicet in origine ad agentem producentem illam, semper in formis contrariis sibi succedentibus forma posterior habet esse prius natura, quam corrumpatur prior, quia prior non corrumpitur, nec a subiecto suo expellitur, nisi per actionem formae alterius introductae posterius in idem subiectum, et hoc ratione contrarietatis, quam habet ad illam, qua se non compatiuntur in eodem subiecto, et etiam ratione maioris virtutis et efficaciae, quam illa forma habet in agendo super minorem virtutem et efficaciam, quam forma alia habet in patiendo et resistendo, dicente Philosopho in libro De motibus animalium. Est aliqua multitudo vigoris et virtutem secundum quam manet quod manet; quemadmodum et secundum quam movet movens: et est quaedam proportio ex necessitate quemadmodum et contrariorum motuum, sic et quietum, et aequales quidem impassibiles ad invicem obtinetur autem secundum excessum, sicut enim pellens pellitur sic pulsum pellitur similiter secundum virtutem. 12
Page 1 and 2: — JOHN DUNS SCOTUS— FOUR QUESTI
Page 3 and 4: Copyright © 2000, 2012 Franciscan
Page 6 and 7: PreFace I have long been interested
Page 8: et nasum, id est, in diversum potes
Page 11 and 12: John Duns Scotus: Four Questions on
Page 19: John Duns Scotus: Four Questions on
Page 31: John Duns Scotus: Four Questions on

FOUR QUESTIONS ON MARY - Franciscan Institute Publications

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?