The Finitude of Trinitarian Persons

Now that I have finished two of my three major papers for the semester I have gone back to studying for exams. In the middle of a detailed series of questions on the nature of the status of the accidents in the Eucharist following the conversion (in which Scotus argues that inherence is not part of the essence of an accident, and that therefore accidents inhere only by a further addition of inherence, which leads to a twofold distinction of accidents into accidens intrinsecus adveniens and accidens extrinsecus adveniens), I came across the following quote in which the subtle doctor argues for that the Trinitarian persons are finite. This view of course as far as I can tell is the standard view; having come from an almost non-creedal (at least in the traditional sense of creed...they were quite fond of the 'no creed but the bible' line although they held numerous extra-biblical doctrines) branch of Christianity I found this fact quite surprising, but it does make sense once one thinks about it. The persons are finite in the sense that one is not the other; they themselves are the boundaries of the others.

Incidentally, In all this reading on the Eucharist I have gotten quite the dialectical experience. I started with Thomas. But in the Leonine edition the text of Thomas is accompanied by that of Cajetan's commentary, most of which is simply an attack on Scotus and Durandus. Moving to Scotus, however, one finds that his text is printed next to 16th or 17th century commentaries, who spend a lot of time attacking Cajetan and the Thomists. So it makes for exciting reading.

In any case, here is what Scotus says about the Trinity.

Ordinatio IV d. 12 q. 2 (Wadding XVII 574-5):

"...nulla enim perfectione formaliter infinita caret aliqua persona divina, quia tunc non esset simpliciter perfecta; sed quaelibet caret aliqua relatione originis; ergo nulla relatio est formaliter infinita, et hoc patet ex ratione perfectionis simpliciter, quia secundum Anselmum Monol. 15 'Est illud quod in quolibet melius est ipsum quam non ipsum' non autem potest relatio esse simpliciter nobilior suo opposito, quia relativa sunt simul natura."

translation: For a person does not lack some formally infinite perfection, because then he would not then be absolutely perfect; but whichever person does lack a relation of origin. Therefore no relation of origin is formally infinite, and this is clear from the definition of perfection unqualifiedly, because according to Anselm in chapter 15 of the Monologium "[perfection] is that which it is better to have than not to have"; relation, however, cannot be unqualifiedly more nobler than its opposite, because relatives are simultaneous in nature

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.”

At last

I finally figured out something yesterday that has been bugging me for several months, to wit, why Scotus says there is a real distinction between trinitarian persons (especially given his separability criterion for real distinctions). Surprisingly, I found that it is not all that controversial, as Thomas of Sutton, Henry of Ghent, Godfrey of Fontaines, and I think Thomas as well, all say the same thing. The trick is how to explain it with respect to the intellect and will, which are the principles of processions. For some scholastics (definitely Ockham, but I think he's close to Godfrey and Thomas of Sutton) the divine attributes (here we're interested in the will and intellect) are only distinct by a distinction of reason. Or, there's only one divine attribute that itself is indistinct. But they all want to say that the persons are really distinct, because they all think that real relations are present in the Trinity, and these real relations are opposed (this serves to differentiate the persons from each other). But they also all want to explain the real distinction between relations by means of their initial indistinct or distinct by reason divine attributes of will and intellect. And here they fall under Scotus's criticism, that all this amounts to explaining some more distinct by something less distinct, which he thinks is fallacious (I'm still trying to figure out why).

There are naturally other factors playing in as well, for they all tend to place priority in either the principles of procession or the persons as terms, but neither both together, and so, according to Scotus, they run into problems such as being required to admit an infinity of divine persons. More later. I still haven't gotten to Scotus's own solution.

Signum originis

I came across a rather uncharacteristically clear statement from Scotus detailing the signum originis, apparently not to be confused with the signum naturae (which, although it also plays a role in Trinitarian discussions, is also key to his formulation of synchronic contingency). This is taken from Ordinatio I d. 12 q. 2 nn. 60-62 [Vat. ed. V p. 59-60]. The question is whether the Father and Son spirate in a uniform manner. Not exactly relevant to discussions on other blogs, but interesting nonetheless.

Respondeo. Actus potest considerari tripliciter: vel in se, vel in quantum est termini, vel in quantum comparatur ad supposita agentia. Primis duobus modis est omnimoda uniformitas, vel potius unitas, quia verissime unus actus et unus terminus productus. Tertio modo loquendo, sicut ipsa vis spirativa communicatur Filio a Patre, ita etiam, quod Filius spiret, hoc habet a Patre, - et ita Pater spirat a se, Filius non a se.

Contra: ergo Pater prius spirat Spiritum Sanctum quam Filius spiret Spiritum jSanctum, quia in primo signo originis in quo Pater habet esse a se, habet spirare a se, - et tunc Filius non spiraret, quia si Spiritus Sanctus praeintelligatur habere prius esse a Patre quam a Filio, tunc Filius non producet Spiritum Sanctum iam existentem.

Respondeo. De istis ordinibus sive originibus, sive de multis ordinibus prioritatis et posterioritatis, alias dicetur. Sed quantum ad propositum est, non est intelligendum quod Pater spiret antequam Filius spiret, sicut prius origine Pater generat quam spirat, quia tunc Filius non spiraret (ut argumentum deducit), quemadmodum nec Spiritus Sanctus potest generare Filium iam praeintellectum generari. Sed iste est ordo, quod in Patre est: primo, fecunditas utraque a se; secundo, in Patre est actus primae fecunditatis, et tunc in Filio est secunda fecunditas; tertio, actus secundae fecunditatis, simul a Patre et Filio habentibus tunc illam fecunditatem, - adhuc tamen cum aliquo ordine, quia ille actus est Patris a se, Filii autem non a se sed a Patre, sicut nec in secundo signo est illa fecunditas Filii a se, sed Patris a se. Non est igitur ordo originis inter spirationem Patris et Filii quasi spiraret Pater in aliquo signo originis in quo non spirat Filius, sed in eodem signo originis simul spirant; est tamen ibi ordo spirantium in spirando, quia Pater in illo signo originis spirat a se, Filius autem non a se.

The Filioque

Much electronic ink has been spilled of late on various blogs on this issue, so I thought I might give Scotus's opinion of the matter. Which actually turns out to be rather unsurprising. What I found to be more interesting is the views on authority and scripture that he discusses in the replies to the objections at the end. Here is a very rough translation of the relevant question from the Ordinatio [Vat. ed. 5 pp. 1-8].

Concerning the eleventh distinction I ask whether the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son.
That he does not:
Damascene ch. 7: “we say that the Holy Spirit is proceeding from the father and resting in the Son.”
Again, ch. 8: “we say that the Holy Spirit is from the Father, we do not say from the Son.”
Again, in the letter De Trisagio to archimandrite Iordanus, in the end, “The Father and the Word and the Holy Spirit;” and he adds, “from the Father indeed, but of the Son, and not from the Son, but the Spirit of the mouth of God.”
Again, through the argument of the Greeks: nothing should be held as an atricle of faith unless what is contained in the Gospel (which contains things of faith in a confused manner), or at least in the writings of the New Testament; but it is not seen expressed in the New Testament that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Son, therefore etc.
Again, love in us does not proceed from the word, because knowledge does not have causality with respect to volition; therefore likewise neither in the prototype.
[Addition in the hand of Duns Scotus]: Again, the will is posited as the third part of the image, at the end of book XV of De Trinitate; therefore it is not a principle of producing, but is a product. Response: love is called ‘will’; but will called ‘power’ pertains to the parent, although it does not constitute a parent, but advenes just as a second fecundity in the Father.
Again, passive spiration is proper to one person in the godhead, therefore also active. Proof of the consequence: for both seem equally perfect and equally incommunicable.
Contra:
In the Nicene Creed: “He proceeds from the Father and the Son;” and Athanasius, in the Creed: “the Holy Spirit from the Father and Son.”

[I. to the Question]

In this question the Greeks are said to disagree with the Latins, as is seen in the authorities of the Damascene. But about that discord Robert Grosseteste says (in a certan little note on the end of the letter De Trisagio) that “the opinion of the Greeks is that the Holy Spirit is the Spirit of the Son, but not proceeding from the Son but only from the Father, nevertheless through the Son. And this opinion seems contrary to ours, in which we say that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son. But perhaps, if two wise ones – one Greek and the other Latin – each a true lover of truth and not of his own manner of speaking [propriae dictionis], insofar as it is his own, should investigate about this seeming contradiction, it would appear to each at last that that contradiction is not truely real, just as it is in speech; otherwise either those Greeks or we Latins truly are heretics. But will anyone dare to claim that these authors, namely, blessed Basil, Gregory the Theologian and Gregory of Nyssa, Cyril, and all other Greek fathers are heretics? Likewise, who indeed would dare to call Jerome, Augustine, Hilary, and the other Latin doctors heretics? In a similar manner the opinion of contrary saints its not subject to words with contrary meanings [non subest dictis verbis contrariis contrariorum sanctorum sententia]: for it is said in many ways (just as this “of this one”, so also this “from this” or “by this”, or “from this” [sicut hic ‘huius’, ita hic ‘ex hoc’ vel ‘illo’, vel ‘ab illo’], by which multiplicity perhaps more subtilely understood and distinct, the opinion of contrary meanings would not appear to disagree.”
Whatever may be about those those things, from which the Catholic Church declared this to be held just as being of the substance of the faith (as appears Extra ‘De summa Trinitate et fide catholica’: “Firmiter credimus”), it must be firmly held that the Holy Spirit proceeds “from both.”
For this the argument is such: something having a perfect productive principle prior than it is understood to have a product, is able to produce by that principle, namely when the principle is so perfect that it does not depend on anything passive, nor is able to be impeded by something; the Son has will, which is a productive principle of adequate love, and he has it as it is understood prior [praeintelligitur] to a ‘product of an act of will;’ therefore he is able to produce by it, therefore also he does produce by it.
I prove the minor: generation and spiration have some order, so that in some way generation is prior to spiration; in that prior all divine perfection is communicated to the generated which is not repugnant to him, and so will; therefore then he has will as prior to a ‘product of an act of will’, because still some production is not understood to be made through the mode or by an act of will.
The assumption also about the order of those productions although it seems to be clear from the order of powers, nevertheless is proved by this; that when the act of the first [powers, principles?] have order in something-if each is perfectly active-they will have also a similar order in elicited their own acts. I added, however, “perfectly active” in order to exclude substantial form and quality, in corruptibles, where although substantial form may be active, and quality likewise, and substantial form may be prior to quality, nvertheless quality has its own act first: but this is from the imperfection of the activity of substantial form. In the Father, however, intellect and will are perfectly active principles, and they have a certain order, because fecundity of intellect constitutes the Father, but not fecundity of will. Therefore that fecundity of intellect in some way first will have its own act than fecundity of will its act.
Others prove that order of production to production through this that just as understanding is to willing, so speaking to spirating.
But that proof seems to fail: for willing presupposes understanding, because by that ‘to understand’ an object around which there ought to be love, is sufficiently present, and without that intellection it would not be sufficiently present to the will in order that it might will; but through an act of speaking the object is not present to the will precisely, of which love is being spirated, because even if the Father spirates by means of the will as in it, not nevertheless does it have the object present formally through generated knowledge (because generated knowledge knows nothing , as Augustine says VII De Trinitate), but he has an object present to himself by ungenerated intellection, and that is knowledge which is presupposed to the act of spirating; therefore it is not a similar necessity that generation is presupposed to spiration just as that intellection is presupposed to volition.
I grant that that counterargument proves well that the necessity is not entirely similar, but between intellection and volition there is an order on account of two things: one is on account of the aforesaid presence, the other is on account of the order of those powers in operating, because those powers are such that one is naturally ordered to be posterior to the operation of the other [una est naturaliter ordinate posterius operari quam alia]. The first argument is not the argument/meaning [ratio] of priority of generation to spiration, but the second: for just as insofar as they are operative powers there is some order between their operations, so insofar as they are productive powers there is some order of their productions, although there is not an order of necessity on account of having such presence of the object..
An example of this is: if in fire heat and dryness are active causes, naturally ordered to elicit their acts so that dryness is not able to dry unless first heat heats, that necessity of order is not because through heating a dryable object is made present to the dry, that it might be dried, but on account of the nature of those active powers; et if in that prior in which heat will heat by means of heat, it might communicate to the heated or produce in the heated not only heat but also dryness which it had, it will dry the heated by the same dryness with the heating, because in that instant of nature in which there is dessication, there is one dryness in the heating agent and in the heated.
So it should be understood here, that in that moment [signo] of origin in which the Father produces by an act of will, the productive principle is the same in the Father and the Son, and therefore the Son produces the Holy Spirit by the same production with the Father.

[II. To the Principal Arguments]

To the authorities of Damascene it can be answered by that little note of the master of Lincoln, about which it was said. Nevertheless, the first authority can be expounded, if he speaks about the will and not about the Holy Spirit: because then it could be said that the will, which is the principle of spiration, itself is ‘from the Father in the Son; because the Father communicates it to the Son; and it “rests in the Son”, this is , it is not communicated further under the aspect of fecund principal, although the same will is communicated to the Ho0ly Spirit, in itself. But the letter of Damascene again seems to speak about the person of the Holy Spirit, and not about the will by which He is spirated.
To the argument from the Gospel, I say that “Christ descended into hell” is not taught in the gospel, and nevertheless must be held as an article of faith, because it is posited in the Apostle’s Creed. So many other things about the sacraments of the Church are not expressed in the Gospels and nevetheless the Church holds them to be handed down by the apostles certainly, it would be dangerous to err around that which not only comes down from the apostles by writings but also which is to be held by the custom of the universal Church. Nor did Christ in the Gospel teach all things pertaining to the dispensation of the sacraments; for he said to his disciples (in John): “I still have many things to say to you, but you are not able now to bear them; when however the Spirit of truth will have come, he will teach you all truth.” Therefore the Holy Spirit taught them many things, which are not written in the Gospel; and they handed down those many things, some through scriptures, some through the custom of the Church.
Likewise, diverse Creeds are published at diverse times against new and diverse heresies arising, because when new heresies arise it is necessary to declare the truth against that heresy: which truth even if first it was of the faith, nevertheless it was not first only declared then, against the error of those who denied it.
To the other, about our word [verbo], I say that that is of imperfection in the created image, because to the word is not communicated the same nature with the mind, and therefore neither liberty formally and unqualifiably. The nature of the Father and the same will with the Father is communicated to the divine Word, and therefore he has it as fecund with respect to the production of the Holy Spirit, because he is understood in the order of origin to have that before the Holy Spirit is spirated.
To the last I say that it does not follow, because the divine nature cannot have many productions in one person, just as will appear in the following question, because each production would have the nature and neither would have it; nevertheless one person can communicate the nature by many productions, and many persons can produce a person by one production: and therefore if passive [sc. Production] is only in one, it does not follow that active also is only in one.

On the transmission of Nature

I came across an interesting quote over the weekend, that highlights the varied uses of the doctrine of univocity. The context is the problem of how the holy spirit can be said to proceed from the will and have the divine nature communicated to him. For since there is a univocal concept of the will between God and creatures, if God's will can transmit or generate a nature, why then cannot the human will? If the human will cannot, then, by univocity we should also say that neither can the divine. But Scotus says...

Ordinatio I d. 10 q. unica n. 30: "Aliter dico quod voluntas potest esse principium communicandi naturam, - et non voluntas ut communiter sumpta ad voluntatem creatam et increatam, sed voluntas unde infinita est; est enim infinitas proprius modus voluntatis divinae, sicut et cuiuslibet alterius essentialis perfectionis."

Nice. I don't have much to say on this, other than the general observation that Scotus' own sense of consistency causes him in several places to bring in his theory of univocity as objections to the theory he is trying to propound.