J. Isaac Go!s seminal study of Bonaventures De mysterio Trinitatis is the

"rst study of the entire text for its own sake. As he wrestles with the subtlety

and rigor of Bonaventures Trinitarian theological metaphysics, he reveals the

deep connection between faith in the Trinity and the ultimate reasonableness

of this central Christian revelation. He takes the Wisdom of insight even

deeper as he connects it with the Aristotelian concepts, distinctions, and

arguments. As Go! does this, he traces the theological and philosophical

currents of Bonaventures thought. He shows how Bonaventure begins with

the spiritual insight of Francis of Assisi, demonstrating his use of Aristotle

and the Western and Eastern Fathers as well.

J.A. Wayne Hellmann, OFM Conv.Professor of Historical and Systematic Theology, Saint Louis University

Bonaventures De mysterio Trinitatis is one of the most neglected texts in his

corpus and one of the neglected gems of medieval theology. J. Isaac Go!s

new study begins to remedy this unfortunate gap, especially for an English

readership. Go!s work not only provides a multi-faceted interpretation

of Bonaventures complex disputation on the Trinity, he also provides an

introduction to Bonaventurian studies and Bonaventure himself, taking into

account the latest research on his life and writings. Go!s work shows that

further historical precision can lead to further theological insight regarding

the Churchs great Doctors. He also challenges us to hear Bonaventure as a

Doctor who speaks to the Church today. #is is the "rst book of a young

historical-theologian, from whom the academy and Church should expect to

hear much more in the future.

Joshua C. BensonAssociate Professor of Historical and Systematic Theology, Catholic University of America

C

P

J. Isaac Goff, Ph.D.

SAMPLE

Caritas in Primo is a book prepared for publicaation by the Franciscan Friars of the Immaculate [www.MaryMediatrix.com], POB 303, New Bedford, MA 02741.

2015 Academy of the ImmaculateNew Bedford, MAAll Rights ReservedCum Permissu SuperiorumISBN 978-1-60114-0

Printed and bound in the United States of America .

SAMPLExvii

Foreword

Rev. Dr. Christiaan W. Kappes

By Gods providence, Bonaventure of Bagnoregio or the Seraphic Doctor went the way of all !esh shortly after his collaboration in the work of union between the Latin and the Greek Churches at the Second Ecumenical Council of Lyons in 1274.1 So far as anyone knows, by the end of the same century, two of his most masterful works of theology had already fallen into total obscurity, never known to be cited verbatim again from among the pages of Schoolmen until their rediscovery in the late nineteenth century.2

Following upon the heels of his inceptive work Quaestiones disputatae de scientia Christi (scripsit 12541257), Bonaventure subsequently inaugurated yet another seemingly innovative treatise entitled Quaestiones disputatae de mysterio Trinitatis (scripsit 1254/5), which serves as the object of Dr. J. Isaac Go"s present study. Granted Bonaventures ostensibly philosophico-theological innovativeness and his impressive synthesis of both pagan and Christian authorities into his aforementioned opera, it is incomprehensible to the modern mind how the second leader of Scholasticism could have su"ered fortune to stow away this double triumph of genius on dusty medieval book-shelves of Franciscan studia until their rediscovery. Yet, that is exactly where fate left the literary duo until recent times, save one anomaly a century and a half after the Seraphic Doctors transitus ad patriam.

1 For what little is known of Bonaventures contribution to the Council, see Deno Geanakoplos, The Two Mendicant Orders, and the Greeks at the Council of Lyons (1274), in Constantinople and the West: Essays on the Late Byzantine (Palaeologan) and Italian Renaissances and the Byzantine and Roman Churches (London: Univer-sity of Wisconsin Press, 1989), 194223.

2 For the history and fate of the De scientia Christi, see infra pp. 1523.

SAMPLE

Caritas In Primoxviii

As fate would have it, a second (albeit the last) ecumeni-cal council of reunion between the Latin and Greek Churches provided the uniquely auspicious occasion for the resurfacing of Bonaventures De mysterio Trinitatis. Markedly, in preparation for the Ecumenical Council of Ferrara-Florence (8 November 1437),3 Pope Eugene IV (then residing in Florence) entrusted Franciscan periti with research into the question of the distinc-tion between the divine attributes and divine essence of the Godhead due to Dominican cries for the posthumous condem-nation of a Byzantine theologian,4 St. Gregory Palamas (d. 1359).5 Henceforward, some adherents to the o#cial Byzantine school accustomed themselves to argue for the equivalent of the formal distinction (distinctio formalis a parte rei) among Gods essential attributes,6 whether these are distinguished among themselves or in comparison to the divine essence.7 According to Dominican Schoolmen, such metaphysical ad intra distinc-tions betokened inquisitorial investigation prior to the arrival

3 See Pope Eugene IV, Epistle 96, in Epistolae Pontificiae ad Concilium Florentinum Spectantes. Conclium Florentinum Documenta et Scriptores Series A (Rome: Ponti-ficium Institutum Orientalium Studiorum, 1940), 1.1:104. Pope Eugene invited 12 Franciscans to be periti on 23 September 1437.

4 See Luke Wadding, Annales Minorum seu trium ordinum a S. Francisco Institu-torum, 2nd ed., ed. J. Fonseca (Rome: Rochi Bernab, 1734), 11:2. For additional information, see Celestino Piana, La facolt teologica delluniverstit di Firenze nel quattro e cinquecento. Spicilegium Bonaventurianum 15 (Rome: Collegii S. Bonaventurae, 1977), 224.

5 NB, Palamas cultus is sanctioned by the Holy See in: Congregation for Oriental Churches, , in (Rome: s.n., 1974), 2:16071619.

6 This has been demonstrated in respect of at least two Palamite authors; namely, Mark of Ephesus and Gennadius Scholarius. See Christiaan Kappes, A Latin Defense of Mark of Ephesus at the Council of FerraraFlorence, St. Vladimirs Theological Quarterly (forthcoming); Kappes, The Latin Sources of the Palamite Theology of GeorgeGennadius Scholarius, Rivista Nicolaus 40 (2013): 71114.

7 The Palamite school derives its canonical tenets (including the attributeessence distinction) from a series of professions of faith and Constantinopolitan synods. E.g., see The Endmousa Synod of Constantinople, Neilus Cabasilas, and Philotheus Kokkinos, , in Gregorio Palamas e oltre: studi e documenti sulle controversie teologiche del xiv secolo bizantino. Orientalia Venetiana 16, ed. A. Rigo (Florence: Leo S. Olschki, 2004), 1134.

SAMPLE

Foreword

xix

of Greek Orthodox churchmen from Constantinople in 1438.8 For his part, Pope Eugene had just recently made a dramatic intervention into Dominican-Franciscan theological disputes, whereby he delivered the Florentine conciliar peritus, St. Bernar-dine of Siena, OFM, from the pyre of the Inquisition, despite Dominican e"orts to secure the saints condemnation.9 $ough Pope Eugene showed himself benevolent toward both Domini-cans and Franciscans, the Domini canes were presently becoming notorious among fellow Schoolmen for fostering an exaggerat-edly sectarian spirit beyond the common ruckus typical of the

8 A Dominicantrained Byzantine finished translating the Summa contra Gentiles into Greek in 1354, whereupon a school of Byzantine Thomism arose and consistently opposed Palamism, save a few idiosyncratic Thomists who opted for compromises ad mentem Thomae. For the Dominican introduction and teaching of Thomism in Byzantium during the Palamite controversies, see Christiaan Kappes, The Dominican Presentation and the Byzantine Reception of Thomas Aquinas in Byzantium, Academia.edu (academic website), February 18, 2014, https://www.academia.edu/5503943/The_Dominican_Presentation_and_Byzantine_Reception_of_Thomas_Aquinas_in_Byzantium. For various accommodations of Palamism to Thomism, see John A. Demetracopoulos, Palamas Transformed: Palamite Interpretations of the Distinction between Gods Essence and Energies in Late Byzantium, in Greeks, Latins, and Intellectual History 12041500, ed. M. Hinterberger and C. Schabel (Paris: Peeters Leuven, 2011), 282395 and Antoine Lvy, Lost in Translatio? Diakrisis katepinoian as a Main Issue in the Discussions between Fourteenth-Century Palamites and Thomists, The Thomist 76 (2012): 431471. The Orthodox conciliar Father, Bessarion of Nicaea (14031472), made Dominicans aware of this impending issue for debate at Ferrara-Florence in a letter to Andrew of Rhodes, OP, perhaps written as early as 1436/7. See Andr De Halleux, Bessarion et le palamisme au concile de Florence, Irnikon 62 (1989): 307332.

9 Pope Eugene felt beholden to the Dominicans in Florence, for they alone gave him refuge at Santa Maria Novella (1432), when forced to flee Rome and opposed by most Christian princes and perhaps a majority of the Roman populace. See Morimichi Watanabe, Pope Eugene IV, the Conciliar Movement and the Primacy of Rome, in The Church, the Councils, and Reform: the Legacy of the Fi!eenth Century, ed. G. Christianson, T. Izbicki, and C. Bellitto (Washington, D.C.: Catholic University of America Press, 2008), 180181. In spite of this debt, Eugene grew tired of witch-hunts against the likes of St. Bernardine. See ibid., 181. Subsequently, John Torque-mada, OP, sought the condemnation of Franciscans as heretics at the Council of Basel because of the Immaculate Conception. See E. Pusey, Preface to Tractatus de veritate Conceptionis B. V. Mariae pro facienda coram Patribus Concilii Basileae anno Domini 1437 mense julio, by J. Torquemada (London: Jacob Parker, 1869), xviixviii. Torquemadas intolerance was typical of orthodox Thomists, whose persecutions were reduplicated against St. James of Marches, OFM, another Florentine peritus, who suFered a Dominican Inquisitor to try him on a theologoumenon opposed to that of Aquinas. See Dionysius Lasi, Introduction to De sanguine Christi, by James of Marches (Falconara: Bibloteca Francescana Falconara, 1976), 2527.

SAMPLE

Caritas In Primoxx

Schoolmen of the age.10 $is rigid system of orthodox $omism did not augur a dispassionate probe into the Byzantine distinc-tion between the essence and attributes (alias energies) as exempli%ed by Palamas and his intellectual successors, who were to form the Palamite school.11

10 See Paul Kristeller, Le Thomisme et la pens italienne de la Renaissance, in Confrence Albert-Le-Grand 1965 (Montral: J. Vrin, 1967), 8490. Italian Domini-cans oHen oFended other religious and humanists through their insistence on the absolute necessity of defending Aquinas positions without distinction. For example, orthodox Thomists exasperated a Carmelite beatus, such that he undertook the composition of a screed against the fanaticism of the Thomistic culture of the day. See Bl. Baptist of Mantua, Opus auream in thomistas, in Confrence Albert-Le-Grand 1965, ed. P. Kristeller (Montral: J. Vrin, 1967), 137184, especially:

Yet these [Thomists] are unmindful of both Apostle and reason and want to compel all [sacred doctors] ad sensum Thomae and in such manner that they prefer their own [Thomas] for nearly all groups of religious orders, even those by far more ancient, just as for our [Carmelites] and the Hermits of St. Augustine. In such a way they strive to prefer Thomas over howsoever many are the body of doctors who flourished from the beginning of the Church, the fact of which manifests a lack of probity and prudence. First they bring Thomas forward as they please, but only allowing that [other doctors] speak according to their own mind. They dont permit a peep from other doctors, for they impose silence, they make judgments disdainfully [on other doctors] from their judicial benches and will only hear the testimony of Thomas and they regard all other witnesses to be insignificant perjurers. They regard Thomas to have arrived at the absolute culmination of all doctrines in every genus of dogma. They place him in the supreme rank of nature, and call him the very means of knowledge among men. Why do they spit with cocked eyebrow upon the other doctors as if they were bereH of both nature and grace? (Opus aureum, 139.418)

11 Pope Eugene wisely foresaw the impossibility of Dominicans and Thomists giving Palamites a fair hearing. See the 1437 Thomist condemnation of Andrew Escobar, OSB, De graecis errantibus. Concilium Florentinum Doctores et Scriptores Series B, ed. M. Candal (Rome: Pontificium Institutum Orientalium Studiorum, 1952), 4.1:83:

O most blessed Father Eugene [] false, therefore, is the conclusion of some Greeks, and [their] errors, which claim that the attributes (attributa) diFer essentially (essentialiter) from the divine essence (ab essentia divina) among [ad intra] divine items (in divinis). (De graecis errantibus 94, lines 34)

His condemnation was seconded in 1438 by John Lei, Tractatus Ioannis Lei O.P. De visione beata Nunc primum in lucem editus: Introductione, notis, indicibus auctus. Studi e Testi 228, ed. M. Candal (Vatican City: BAV, 1963), 8384, 193; in 1439 by John Montenero, Quae Supersunt Actorum Graecorum Concilii Florentini. Concilium Florentinum Documenta et Scriptores Series B, ed. J. Gill (Rome: Pontificium Institutum Orientalium Studiorum, 1953), 5.2:267 and Andreas of Santa Croce: Acta Latina Concilii Florentini. Concilium Florentinum Documenta et Scriptores Series B, ed. G. HoFman (Rome: Pontificium Institutum Orientalium Studiorum,

SAMPLE

Foreword

xxi

We can imagine that, in these circumstances, some Minorites happened upon the only presently known complete text of Bonaventures De mysterio Trinitatis, which had been absconded within the convent walls of the Franciscan studium of Florence.12 Even if Pope Eugene had commissioned the Franciscans to prepare an o#cial treatise (aka De attributis divinis) to aid him in the ensuing altercations about Palamism at the Council of Ferrara-Florence (14381439), this work is now lost.13 Alas, we must glean its possible content from the extant works of the Franciscan periti entrusted with its composition. Propitiously, upon surveying the theological authors dear to these Franciscan periti, both Bonaventure and John Duns Scotus come to the fore.14 Discouragingly, among the critically edited works of

1955), 6:177; in 1441 by John Torquemada, Apparatus super decretum Florentinum unionis Graecorum. Concilium Florentinum Documenta et Scriptores Series B, ed. G. HoFman (Rome: Pontificium Istitutum Orientalium Studiorum, 1942), 2.1:86:

Concerning God three and one: this is written against those saying that beatitude (beatitudo), glory (gloria), or final happiness (felicitas ultima) of men does not consist in the vision of God Himself. Rather [they say it consists] of some other entity (entitas), which is thought to be really distinct from the very divine essence (essentia), or as the Greeks call it, energy (energia), or act (actus), or illumination (fulgor). (Apparatus, 102, lines 3034)

12 Perhaps these works became lost since only one extant manuscript contains any attribution to Bonaventure by an original amanuensis. The Florence studium uniquely contains all the qq. of the De mysterio Trinitatis, the principal manuscript of which dates to the 14th century. See Prolegomenon to Quaestiones disputatas in universo, et speciatim quaestiones de scientia Christi et de mysterio Trinitatis, by Bonaventure of Bagnoregio, in Doctoris Seraphici S. Bonaventurae S.R.E. Episcopi Cardinalis opera Omnia (Quaracchi: Collegium S. Bonaventurae, 1891), 5:vvi.

13 See Joseph Gill, The Council of Florence (New York: Cambridge University Press, 1959), 141.

14 Franciscan Fathers and periti naturally cite Bonaventure. More importantly, some explicitly recognize Scotus as a weighty authority in theology. Among conciliar Fathers, see Elias de Bourdeilles, OFM, Contra pragmaticam Gallorum sanctio-nem (Rome: incunabulum, 1486), 30, 40. Aloysius Foroliviensis, OFM, invoked Bonaventure (though not Scotus) in the debate on the filioque at least three times in: Andreas of Santa, Acta Latina. Concilium Florentinum Doctores et Scriptores Series B, ed. G. Hofmann (Rome: PIOS, 1955), 6:58, 60. Among the periti, see Augustine of Ferrara, OFM, Quaestio de potestate papae, ed. P. Celestino, Archivum Francescanum Historicum 41 (1948): 240281 and Quaestiones super Librum Prae-dicamentorum Aristotelis. Acta Universitatis Schokholmiensis 45, ed. R. Andrews (Stockolm: Almquist & Wiksell, 2000). See also St. James of Marches, OFM, Dialogus contra fraticellos, ed. D. Lasi (Ancona: Falconara, 1975); James, De sanguine; James, Sermones dominicales, 4 vols., ed. R. Lioi (Ancona: Falconara, 19781982);

SAMPLE

Caritas In Primoxxii

these very same Franciscan theologians, any citation from the De mysterio Trinitatis is perplexingly wanting.15

Be that as it may, these were the circumstances in which the De mysterio Trinitatis enjoyed its opportunity to make a lasting impression on the greatest philosophical mind of the so-called Byzantine Renaissance;16 namely, George-Gennadius Schol-arius (d. c. 1472).17 Even if the precocious Scholarius normally showed himself an enthusiast for Latin learning from the sort of St. $omas Aquinas and eclectic modistae of the fourteenth century (like unto Radulphus Brito),18 our Byzantine savant

James, Sermo de excellentia Ordinis sancti Francisci, ed. Nicolaus dal Gl, Archivum Franciscanum Historicum 4 (1911): 303313. James personal library contained Bonaventures Breviloquium, Scotus entire commentary on the Sentences and extracts from bk. four of the same, Francis Meyronnes sermons, and sermons of his spiritual Father, Bernardine of Siena. See Biblioteca Francescana Falconara. La biblioteca di San Giacomo February 18, 2014. http://www.sangiacomodellamarca.net/biblioteca_san_giacomo.htm. See too Francis Ariminensis, OFM, Tractatus de immaculata conceptione b. Mariae Virginis, in Tractuatus quatuor de immaculata conceptione b. Mariae Virginis, nempe Thomae de Rossy, Andreae de Novo Castro, Petri de Candia, Francisci de Arimino: Bibliotheca Franciscana Scholastica Medii Aevi 16, ed. C. Piana, T. Szab, and A. Emmen (Firenze: Collegium S. Bonaventurae, 1954). Perhaps the greatest example of synthesis between Bonaventure and Scotus is accomplished in: St. Benardine of Siena, OFM, S. Bernardini Senensis Ordinis Fratrum Minorum opera omnia, 8 vols. (Florence: Ad Claras Aquas, 19501965). Still, I have looked in vain for intra-Trinitarian metaphysics or references to the De mysterio Trinitatis.

15 Among the Franciscan conciliar periti, whose works not yet available in a critical edition, nothing appears promising. E.g., St. John Capistran, OFM, took Aquinas as his principal doctor. See John Hofer, St. John Capistran Reformer, trans. P. Cummins (London: B. Herder, 1943), 3940. Among his opera omnia, the influence of Scotus is limited to select matters, such as logic and his (lost) treatise on the Immaculate Conception. See Aniceto Chiappini, Reliquie lettararie caestranesi, storia, codici, carte, documenti (Aquila: OFicina grafiche Vecchioni, 1927), 51, 143. His works are very favorable to Franciscans such as Alexander of Hales alongside of his beloved Aquinas. For brevity, it suFices to note that other Franciscan periti are eclectic, seemingly neglecting Scotus. E.g., see Albert Sarthiano, B. Alberti a Sarthiano Ordinis Minorum Regularis Obseruantiae vita et opera, ed. P. DuFy and F. Harold (Rome: Joannes Baptista Bussottum, 1688).

16 For this narrative of late Byzantium, see Steven Runciman, The Last Byzantine Renaissance (New York: Cambridge University Press, 1970).

17 For his life and times, see Marie-Hlne Blanchet, Georges Gennadios Scholarios (vers 1400vers 1472): un intellectuel orthodoxe face la disparition de lEmpire byzantine (Paris: Le Boccard, 2008).

18 Sten Ebbesen and Jan Pinborg, Gennadius and Western Scholasticism: Radulphus Britos Ars Vetus in Greek Translation, Classica et Medievalia 33

SAMPLE

Foreword

xxiii

gradually warmed to the classic Franciscan school.19 Under the aegis of his tutor and spiritual father, the Pillar of Orthodoxy Mark of Ephesus (13921444),20 Scholarius distanced himself from $omism on not a few points, decidedly dissatis%ed with Aquinas capacity either to justify or to harmonize with Byzantine theological commitments.21 Instead, Scholarius turned his attention to the Subtle Doctor in preparation for the Council

(19811982): 263319.19 Scholarius, in his De processione de Sancto Spiritu prima, in OCGS, 2:223, warns

Orthodox to ignore later Schoolmen (viz., sycophants of Richard of Middleton and Scotus). He remarks that these self-glorifying Schoolmen changed terminology and traditional theological method and our savant concludes that Scotus and Mayron are the last theologians to maintain the mens patrum ( ). NB, all references to OCGS = George-Gennadius Scholarius, Oeuvres Compltes de Georges Scholarios, 8 vols., ed. L. Petit, X. Sidrids, and M. Jugie (Paris: Maison de la Bonne Presse, 19291935).

20 For the most recent biography and bibliography on Mark, see Nicholas Constas, Mark Eugenikos, in La thologie byzantine et sa tradition (XIIIeXIXe s.), ed. C. & V. Conticello (Turnhout: Brill, 2002), 2:412441.

21 Scholarius cafeteria Thomism, typical of the 13th14th century (before the onset of orthodox Thomism), has been demonstrated in Kappes, The Latin Sources, 74114. Recently, valuable selections of Scholarius laudatory comments for Aquinas have been collected in John A. Demetracopoulos, Georgios Schol-arios - Gennadios II, in Grundriss der Geschichte der Philosophie. Begrndet von F. berweg. Die Philosophie des Mittelalters. 1.1: Die byzantinische Philosophie, ed. G. Kapriev (Basel: forthcoming). Still, Scholarius reverence and constant reference to Aquinas must be balanced against his significant doctrinal and philosophical criti-cisms of Aquinas. See Scholarius, Prologue to the Summa Theologiae, by Thomas Aquinas, in OCGS, 5:12, where Scholarius overcomes his begrudging criticism of Aquinas typically Latin tenets by praising Aquinas scripture commentaries and purely philosophical works, especially metaphysics, though he admits that Aquinas filioque and essence-energies doctrine (viz., Akindynism) constitutes an insurmountable obstacle between the Latin and Greek Churches. See Scholarius, De anima, in OCGS, 6:327 (bk. 1, ch. 1, n. 2), where Scholarius accuses Aquinas of plagiarizing John Philoponos. See Radulphus Brito, On Porphyrys Isagogue, trans. G. Scholarius, in OCGS 7:78, where he approvingly translates Radulphus Britos metaphysically critical position of Aquinas on materia signata, while in other places Scholarius supplies glosses to mitigate some criticisms against Aquinas (e.g., ibid., 6:283). See Scholarius, De processione prima, in OCGS, 2:18, wherein he accuses Aquinas of falsely distorting Damascene into a Nestorian in order to extort acquiescence of the Greeks to the filioque. See Scholarius, De processione secunda, in OCGS, 2:377, wherein he bids Orthodox to flee from Aquinas doctrine of the Holy Spirit. Of course, citations against Aquinas pneumatology could be multiplied. Finally, Scholarius is likely responsible for a condemnatory gloss of Aquinas ad intra metaphysics of the divine attributes, employing the heretical epithets of Barlaamite and Akindynist to Aquinas. See Sverin Salaville, Un thomiste Byzance au XVe s.: Gennade Scholarios, Echos dOrient 23 (1924): 129136.

SAMPLE

Caritas In Primoxxiv

of Florence in 1437.22 Upon his encounter with the Subtle and, thus, Marian Doctor, Scholarius recognized the potential for a meeting of minds from both East and West vis--vis Orthodox dogma.23 Scotus appeared to have a Greek pedigree in respect of the Trinitarian primitas of the Father, the !lioque,24 the formal distinction, and the Immaculate Conception.25 Naturally, upon arrival at both Ferrara and Florence in 1438 and 1439, respec-tively, Scholarius enthusiastically frequented the Franciscan studium in each respective city.26 $ere, in the studium library of Florence, Franciscans likely acquainted Scholarius with the

22 See John Monfasani, The Pro-Latin Apologetics of the Greek migrs to Quat-trocento Italy, in Byzantine Theology and its Philosophical Background, ed. A. Rigo (Turnhout: Brepols, 2011), 165168.

23 Scholarius, Introduction to De ente et essentia, by Thomas Aquinas, in OCGS, 6:179180, issued Duns an imprimatur in Orthodox theology, writing:

Some in Italy, especially those of the habit of Francis, whose school, so to speak, I have oHen frequented, associate themselves more with later teachers, whom they allege in their opinion to surpass [Thomas.] Nor are we ashamed of Francis [Mayron] or his teacher [John Duns Scotus], as long as we give first place to the one who is first [Thomas Aquinas], all the while admiring the subtlety of their intelligence, and even siding with them on many points of inquiry [] But according to the designation of most of us, the more recent [Schoolmen] are fairly orthodox in comparison to Thomas; being that they are closer to us and to the truth; namely, those surrounding the Master John Scotus.

24 For the of the Fathers primitas and filioque ad mentem Graecorum, see Richard Cross, Duns Scotus on God (Vermont, VT: Ashgate, 2007), 203222, and Scholarius, De processione prima and secunda (cf. supra p. xxiii n. 19), in OCGS 2:227; 2:349.

25 Definitive proof demonstrates that Scholarius did not merely adopt the Latin doctrine of the Immaculate Conception. Instead, he was acutely aware of the patristic doctrine of St. Gregory Nazianzen for the Immaculate Conception via the concept of prepurification. Adopting this universal theological value of the Palamite school, Scholarius argued Marys immaculateness from her first moment of existence based upon her prepurification. He only ulteriorly justified these arguments with recourse to Latin theology from the Franciscan school. See Christiaan Kappes, The Immaculate Conception: Why Thomas Aquinas Denied, While John Duns Scotus, Gregory Palamas, and Mark Eugenicus Professed the Absolute Immaculate Existence of Mary (New Bedford: Academy of the Immaculate, 2014).

26 Scholarius almost certainly attended lectures of Scotistic magister, Augustine of Ferrara, OFM, at the impressive Franciscan studium at Ferrara (1438). Augustine gained fame for lecturing publicly on the plenitude of power of the Pope within Ferrara. See Celestino Piana, Lo studio di S. Francesco a Ferrara nel Quattrocento: Documenti inediti, Archivum Franciscanum Historicum 61 (1968): 153154, 160162. The studium taught Greek literature at the time of the Council (ibid., 115). Scholarius frequented many lectures. See Scholarius, Introduction to De ente et essentia, in OCGS, 6:180 (cf. supra p. xxiv n. 23).

SAMPLE

Foreword

xxv

very inspiration for Duns formal distinction; namely, the De mysterio Trinitatis.27 Whether Scholarius wholly or partly trans-lated Bonaventure, or more implausibly cited him indirectly via another Scholastic author, is currently unknown. At any rate Scholarius bequeathed Byzantium a breviloquent sampling of the Seraphic Doctor through a translation of a critical section of the De mysterio Trinitatis in his 1445 translation-commentary on the De ente et essentia,28 wherein Scholarius approvingly cited Bonaventures divisions of being contra the putative nominal-ism behind the analogical concept of being.29 $e Common Doctor had gained notoriety in Byzantium for his doctrine of analogy, such that Scholarius presented Byzantine theologians with a study aid via a $omistic commentary of Armandus of Bellovisu (d. 1334).30

27 GoF, Caritas in Primo has underlined the solid proof for this conclusion (cf. infra pp. 2425 n. 28). See Titus Szab, De distinctionis formalis origine bonaventuriana disquisitio historico-critica, in Scholastica ratione historico-critica instauranda, ed. Charles Bali (Rome: Antonianum, 1951), 379445.

28 See Bonaventure of Bagnoregio, De mysterio Trinitatis, in Doctoris Seraphici S.R.E. Episcopi Cardinalis Bonaventurae opera omnia (Quarrachi: Collegium S. Bonaven-turae, 1891), 5:4647:

Likewise, if there is being-from-another (ens ab alio), then there is being-not-from-another (ens non ab alio) [] Likewise, if there is being-in-relation (ens respectivum), then there is unconditional being (est ens absolutum) [] Likewise, if there is diminished being (ens diminutum) or being-aHer-some-thing-else (secundum quid) [], then there is being simpliciter [] Likewise, if there is being because of another (ens propter aliud), then there is being because of its very self (ens propter se ipsum) [] Likewise, if there is being via participation (ens per participationem), then there is being via essence (ens per essentiam) [] (De mysterio Trinitatis q. 1, a. 1).

29 See GoF, Caritas in Primo (see infra pp. 209210 n. 19). Scholarius writes (Scholarius, De ente et essentia, in OCGS, 6:282):

[The divine operations are not merely distinctions of terms within the soul] just as when these very attributes are distinguished through being absolute and non-absolute ( ), or by relation, i.e., by being indistinct and distinct ( ), by being in-relation-to-itself and in-relation-to-another ( ), by being from-something-else and not-from-something-else ( ), by being participated and non-participated ( ), and such distinctions as these, which are all contradictories (). (ch. 94, lines 2226)

30 See Hugh Barbour, Byzantine Thomism of Gennadios Scholarios and His Transla-tion of the Commentary of Armandus De Bellovisu on the De Ente Et Essentia of

SAMPLE

Caritas In Primoxxvi

Precisely because of a parallel metaphysical approach to Gods essence and attributes, Franciscans would have been amenable to Palamas and were in fact not inclined to condemn him at the Council of Florence in 14371439.31 $e Franciscan school led Pope Eugene to drop the ensuing discussion from conciliar debates to the chagrin of the Dominicans and $omists.32 For his part, Scholarius heartily a#rmed Bonaventures fundamental divisions of being into being-in-itself and being-in-another, participated and unparticipated being, etc. Scholarius Bonaven-tura graecus latently supplied Byzantium with a complement to the ever-inde%nite list of transcendental disjunctives in both Bonaventure and Palamas, to the latter of whom Scholarius was %lially devoted. It may be that the future will bequeath us even more quotations from the latent Bonaventure, potentially hidden within the pages of late Byzantine theologians. Of course, this would serve to further the ecumenical legacy of Bonaventures theological program so very appreciated by Schol-arius. Lamentably, Scholarius incipient synthesis of Franciscan and Byzantium theology via the De mysterio Trinitatis came to a tragic halt following the complete destruction of the Byzantine Empire upon the Turkish sacking of Constantinople in 1453.

Henceforth, both Latins and Greeks, along with philosophy and theology itself, groaned for over four hundred years in unconscious anticipation of a lingua franca whereby they could directly speak to one another, that is, until Bonaventures treatise happily reemerged from the cupboards of Franciscan archives as a result of the e"orts of Fidelis a Fanna (published 1891).33 Dr. Go"s erudite study at last provides the contemporary philosopher and theologian with a Rosetta Stone, by means of

Thomas Aquinas (Vatican City: Libreria Editrice Vaticano, 1996).31 Quae supersunt actorum graecorum, 5.2: 442.32 Andrew of Rhodes explicitly cited Palamas to provoke debate at Florence. See

Quae supersunt actorum graecorum, 5.1:102. He did this in spite of the fact that Pope Eugene and Emperor John VIII preliminarily agreed to table the discussion aHer their independent investigations into Scotism in 14371438. See Eugenes intervention against John Montenero, OP, during his anti-Palamite attack in: Acta Latina, 6:179.

33 GoF, Caritas in Primo (see infra, pp. 1523).

SAMPLE

Foreword

xxvii

which the methodological and semantic code of Bonaventures magnum opus may be decrypted. My claim is bold, indeed, but not without warrant. Fortunately, Dr. Go" veri%es my assertion when introducing his reader to the De mysterio Trinitatis by tackling the status quaestionis of this work within the history of modern and contemporary scholarship. What emerges from Dr. Go"s succinct description of previous scholarly work in chapter two is a tale of scholars far too bereft of the requisite dynamism necessary to warm the frosty glass through which the interior light of Bonaventures intellect might manifest itself in all its resplendence.

Each preceding scholar wholly or partially confronted the challenge of the De mysterio Trinitatis, all the while accompany-ing himself or herself with his or her peculiar merits over and above those common to scholars at large. Nonetheless, each academic evidenced weaknesses common to his or her context and time. Dr. Go" notes that initial demythologization of the mystery of the De mysterio Trinitatis was hampered by several factors; namely, (1) reading the De mysterio Trinitatis as a coeta-neous composition instead of a seminal and foundational work, (2) reading presently in vogue neo-$omism over and against Bonaventure, and (3) reading Bonaventure against the back-ground of a highly prejudicial neo-thomistic historical narrative.

Nineteenth and early twentieth-century investigations into the De mysterio Trinitatis happened to conclude correctly that Bonaventures work rejoiced in a Greek pedigree. However, upon closer investigation, the very same authors failed to base their conclusions on a complete survey of Bonaventures Greek sources or on an analysis of how these same Greek sources were given priority over and above Latin authorities on fundamental metaphysical points de dpart. Contrariwise, modern commenta-tors tended to adopt narrative categories, whereby a medieval theologians prioritization of person or essence necessarily encapsulated him into the genus of Greek or Latin theology. Defunct Schoolmen were conveniently defenseless to resist their intellectual exhumation to be relocated into the newfangled and !imsy theological boxes of either a Latin catafalque or a Greek

SAMPLE

Caritas In Primoxxviii

sarcophagus; both of which were mere mental constructs suitable only for centaur and goat-stag theologians.

Surprisingly, despite the advancements in method and approaches to exegesis, contemporary authors have persisted in placing historical considerations and context of the De mysterio Trinitatis at the margins of their investigations. Grosso modo, this has led to only a haphazard collocation of this seminal work within the puzzle of Bonaventures Trinitarian and metaphysical program. Dr. Go" presents the reader with a concise description of contemporary contributions and shortcomings within his introduction. Given Dr. Go"s eye to detail, there is little doubt that his overall conclusion is correct; namely, the De mysterio Trinitatis has not yet been read as a foundational document to be understood within its own remote and proximate historical context.

For this reason Dr. Go" in chapter three takes pains to alert the reader to logical, philosophical, and theological currents in the Roman Church and the environs of Paris leading up to Bonaventures literary production. What is more, Dr. Go" %lls a signi%cant number of pages with a detailed description of the universitarian environment of thirteenth-century Paris. To my mind, he would have been welcome to exhaust the depths of current research on the Franciscan studium in Paris and other minutiae. Prudently, so that his book serves as a true prolegom-enon to the De mysterio Trinitatis, Dr. Go" opts to provide the non-specialist with su#cient background to divorce his or her mind from any comparison and contrast to $omas Aquinas and other %gures posterior to the De mysterio Trinitatis. Such personages are historically irrelevant to Bonaventures original synthesis. Only after providing the reader with a solid historical setting and detailed indications about Bonaventures literary sources does Dr. Go" dare to broach the topic of Bonaventures organization, method, and intellectual commitments (let alone theological conclusions) of this underappreciated masterpiece of Trinitarian theology.

After detailing historical considerations for several chapters, Dr. Go" introduces the reader to an important %rst consider-

SAMPLE

Foreword

xxix

ation; namely, the role of St. Francis in the theology of Bonaven-ture. In chapter four, Dr. Go" su#ciently secures the readers mind that it is legitimate to view Bonaventure through the optic of Franciscanism. While avoiding exaggerations that would attribute excessive dependence on either Francis writings or on his mens, Dr. Go" delineates Bonaventures literary dependence on St. Francis during diverse phases of Bonaventures literary production. $e net weight of his arguments gravitate the reader toward the conclusion that both the memory of St. Francis, as well as certain selections from among his writings, were important considerations in Bonaventures approach to sacred study and to his mentality of avoiding anything that smacked of secularization and, thus, useless curiosity in matters of either science or faith.

It is of great import that Dr. Go" painstakingly arranges Bonaventures early works according to their chronology, so as to expose the underlying thematic continuity between them. In so doing, Dr. Go" reaps the reward of clarity with respect to the De reductione artium ad theologiam and De scientia Christi. When these three early Scholastic treatises are viewed in relation to one another and their historical context, they manifest Bonaventures theologic and worldview. Instead of blindly treating each separate work of Bonaventure as a coetaneous and systematic composition, Dr. Go" reveals Bonaventures progress of investigation and thought, which culminates in the Trinitarian mystery. Anachronistic reads destroy the unity of this sacred trio of texts and darken the intellect of the scholar who consciously or unconsciously approaches the ancient text from motives subservient to modern needs. First, Bonaventure must be appreciated within his own context and in view of his own concerns, thereafter the scholar may discern what and how much of Bonaventures theologic and Weltanshauung is salvageable for the hic et nunc.

Moreover, on the question of the structure of the De mysterio Trinitatis, Dr. Go" enlightens his reader as to the purpose of the %rst quaestio in relation to those that follow. When viewing the %rst disputed question as a propaedeutic or preamble to the

SAMPLE

Caritas In Primoxxx

sevenfold division of the remaining questions in chapter seven, the entire organization of the work comes to life. Furthermore, Dr. Go" suggests potential paradigms for Bonaventures highly unusual structure. $e privileged station of Greek sources and themes tempts one to speculate about the in!uence of the famous Neo-Platonic Liber de causis. Still, Dr. Go"s detailed presentation of the evidence allows for the equally likely hypoth-esis that Bonaventure adapted the order of his discussion along the lines of some other Greek source. Whether this thematic arrangement hails from a Father as antique as Nazianzen or as relatively contempo as Damascene remains to be seen. Still, the probable conclusion endures; namely, Bonaventure abhors innovation (kainotomia) and prefers rather to synthesize Latin and Greek traditions by recourse to a binary lectio reverentialis.

Despite my own fascination with Bonaventures Byzantine pedigree, it is nonetheless the case that Dr. Go" shows equal interest in potential Latin inspiration for much of what Bonaven-ture has to say. $e reality is that Bonaventure accomplished a synthesis of East and West. As such, one would be unwise to expect a unilateral approach to any one of Bonaventures highly metaphysical questions on the Trinity. Keeping this caveat in mind, Dr. Go" notably highlights areas of concentric thought between Bonaventures theological predecessors and especially the successor par excellence of his school, Blessed Duns Scotus. In this vein Dr. Go" gives his reader seminal indications for further and specialized investigation into Bonaventures authori-ties. What begins to take shape in Dr. Go"s historical and detailed narrative is the in!uence of the school of Augustine, an unusually generous sampling of Greek patristic authorities, Greek philosophers, the school of St. Victor, Alexander of Hales, and others. Perhaps the most surprising facet of Bonaventures project lies in the fact that Aristotle is a central %gure of discus-sion within Bonaventures pivotal Trinitarian thesis. Dr. Go" argues convincingly for Bonaventures courageous incorpora-tion and handling of Aristotles corpus, which he masterfully confronts but only to lose subsequent interest, as betrayed by an ever-decreasing number of citations in his sequential corpus. In

SAMPLE

Foreword

xxxi

fact, we can suspect that Bonaventures proto-scotistic doctrines are responsible for his lack of enthusiasm for much of the Aris-totelian craze that continued to a"ect the Latin West, as best historically exempli%ed by none other than $omas Aquinas.

Dr. Go"s underlining of key Bonaventuran metaphysical points clearly foreshadows Scotus own insights into the formal distinction, the disjunctive transcendentals, the adoption of Anselms simpliciter perfections, non-formal identity distin-guishing the divine attributes, and especially the positive in%nity characterizing the divine essence.

What is more, in chapter eight, Dr. Go" correctly centers the thrust of his metaphysical analysis into Bonaventures unique doctrine of divine in%nity. In opposition to Greco-pagan sources and coeval Aristotelico-theologians, Bonaventure exploits Gregory of Nazianzens and John Damascenes designation of the divine essence as a sea of in%nite being. Not only this, but Bonaventure privileges the Damascene in his metaphysics, whose doctrine of divine in%nity can be reduced to the Cappa-docian notion of a singular, immense, immanent universal with three divine exempli%cations.34 Dr. Go" adequately and in detail discusses the purely Greco-Christian notion behind Bonaven-tures metaphysical foundation stone, which will subsequently serve the Franciscan school in so many ways. Ominously, Dr. Go"s description and handling of the sources lead the reader to suspect that even Maximus the Confessor and John Scottus Eriugena are ultimately required to give a satisfactory account of Bonaventures theological repertoire. In e"ect, Dr. Go" forces Bonaventuran scholarship to expand its horizons and dig more deeply into the rivulets feeding the fontal source of the Francis-can tradition of metaphysics.

In conclusion, Dr. Go" provides the enthusiast and special-ist with a real prolegomenon to Franciscan metaphysics. In fact, I would go so far as to say that Dr. Go"s work is best utilized as a heuristic device to !ush out valid strategies and observations, which have been previously employed by Dr. Go"s academic

34 See Richard Cross, Gregory Nyssa on Universals, Vigiliae Christianae 56 (2002): 372410.

SAMPLE

Caritas In Primoxxxii

predecessors in their own e"orts to expound the De mysterio Trinitatis. Dr. Go"s historico-textual presentation is best likened to a scale whereupon the weight of exaggerated foci, myopic or ahistorical reads, and anachronistic speculation may be measured and classi%ed as either too heavy or too light to qualify as a gloss in the margins of the folios of this Bonaventuran masterstroke.

We can only hope that the most recent scotistic commenda-tions from the Ordinary Magisterium, to which Dr. Go" himself explicitly makes reference, may garner wider appreciation for the profound theology of Bonaventure and Scotus and, thus, these doctors might %nd their enhanced ecclesiastical stature useful in the service of ecumenical dialogue. Given the fundamental parallelism between the perennial theology of the Franciscan and Byzantine traditions, Franciscanism seems principally and naturally apt to function as a lingua franca between East and West. At least for now, Dr. Go" has succeeded in deciphering the fundamental hieroglyphs of the lingua Francescana within a founding document of Franciscan metaphysics.

Introduction

1

Chapter One

Introduction

Title and Objective of this Study

Title

*e title of this study takes for its theme the presence in Bonaventures Quaestiones disputatae de mysterio Ss. Trinitatis of the radical primacy of Charitycaritas in Primoin the Godhead. Corollary to divine charity, ad intra, is charitys role as the supreme rule in Gods designs for creation, as recapitulated and perfected in the beatitude of human persons, which bear the image of God. *is study will investigate how Bonaventure traces Deum esse, and thus perfect being and goodness to the Deum esse et trinum: the reductive ontological foundation of all being in perfect love.

Charity refers both to Gods being (esse)1 and to the mode of activity of each person of the Trinity. *us, there are two orders

1 The term, esse, unlike in some versions of Thomism, refers not, in the first place, to the act of existence of God. Rather than corresponding to existentia, which, for Bonaventure, would refer to each of the divine persons, esse corresponds first and more closely to essentia, thus denoting the one divine being whose essence is of such perfection that existence is a necessary perfection. Thus when Zachary Hayes consistently translates esse as exists, rather than simply, being, although the essence of God necessarily exists, the formal note of the term esse is missed. Hayes isperhaps unwittinglyfollowing a Thomistic use of esse rather than Bonaven-tures own.

When Bonaventure speaks of esse divinum he is able to deduce the necessary existence of God, through his analysis of the perfect and necessary essence of God. Bonaventure begins his analysis of the divine being with the notion of being and per reductionem traces being back to pure or perfect being. Impure or created being is indi!erent by essence to existence. Pure or uncreated being, however, by essence is fully in act and thus not indi!erent to existence, and, thus, by essence necessarily exists. Bonaventures arguments that prove the existence of pure being, or Deum esse, first prove the essential, necessary perfection of the divine being, which implies his existence. In the metaphysical system of Bonaventure Gods essence is not philosophically known or derived from his existence. On the

Caritas In Primo2

with respect to God in which charity is operative. *e +rst has been termed the vertical order in which God, the primum principium, is by essence personal being and thus is essentially independent and free. *e second concerns the order of persons in the divine being: the horizontal order.2 *is level further illuminates the divine essence by revealing how charity, via the origins, processions and circumincession of the three persons of the Trinity, operates in highest perfection, fontality and fecundity, as an order of Persons constituted in the ordered Charity of the divine being.3 *us, this study will seek to ascertain how Bonaventure, within his historical context, sought to show forth, in a coherent manner, how God, the +rst and highest being, is ordered, Trinitarian love.

Related to this theme of divine charity, ad intra, is how this charity operates in the human persons as well as human societys understanding of God. In the De mysterio Trinitatis, thought and action are closely linked. Bonaventure reasons that not only is the primum principium to be understood scienti!cally as caritas, the primum principium is also to be loved sapientially, in the light of both philosophical and theological knowledge. For the Seraphic Doctor it is only in both knowing lovingly and loving knowingly the primum principium as a Trinity that the image is made a similitude and thus disposed for perfect blessedness.

contrary, Gods existence is known with certainty through an understanding of the divine essence. This reading of esse is confirmed by the text of the De mysterio Trinitatis itself. Bonaventure uses the term in a single context to denote being, on the one hand, and existence, on the other. Bonaventure writes: necesse est, ipsum divinum esse esse perfectissimum (Myst. Trin. q. 3, a. 1, conc. [V, 70b], underlining added). For a discussion of this nuance see John Francis Quinn, The Historical Constitution of St. Bonaventures Philosophy (Toronto: Pontifical Institute of Medieval Studies, 1973), 85253; cf. Leone Veuthey, La filosofia cristiana di San Bonaventura, ed. Alfonso Pompei (Rome: Miscellanea Francescana, 1996), 6778. For Hayess translation see Bonaventure, Disputed Questions on the Mystery of the Trinity, trans. Zachary Hayes (St. Bonaventure: Franciscan Institute Publica-tions, 1979 [2000]), passim; R.E. Houser and Timothy Noone, Introduction to St. Bonaventure, Commentary on the Sentences: Philosophy of God, trans. R.E. Houser and Timothy B. Noone (St. Bonaventure: Franciscan Institute Publications, 2013), xxvixlix.

2 On the two orders see J.A. Wayne Hellmann, Divine and Created Order in Bonaventures Theology (St. Bonaventure: Franciscan Institute, 2001).

3 Cf. Bonaventure, Myst. Trin., q. 8, a. un., conc. (V, 114ab).

Introduction

3

Preliminary Re"ections Towards an Objective

According to St. Bonaventure, theology is at once the highest and yet most basic of all rational endeavors. It is most basic because theology has for its object the ground of all reality, truth and love: the essence of God communicated in the circumincessing love of the three divine Persons of the Godhead: Father, Son and Holy Spirit. *eology is the highest academic or rational4 endeavor for Bonaventure because its subject matter is God in Himself and in his providential arrangement of salvation history.5 Moreover, for Bonaventure, only from the perspective of revelation and theological re,ection can the +nite mind come to a full resolution6 of those insights gained through the lower disciplines, especially philosophy.7

For Bonaventure, theology therefore begins where philoso-phy, the apex of human rationality, prescinding from the light of revelation, ends.8 *eologys subject is the +rst principle

4 Academic theology, or theology proper, is actually the second of three theologi-cal modes in which the salvific knowledge of God and his plan for salvation can be contemplated. The three modes are: symbolic, proper and contemplative. As reason operating in the light of faith, academic theology is suspended between simple theological faith and supernatural contemplation. Thus, the symbolic mode of theology refers to creedal formulations of the faith which are accessible to all believers. Theology proper is the academic or scientific use of reason in the context of fides quaerens intellectum. The final, contemplative mode of theology is that knowledge of God and salvation that is accompanied or, better, informed and perfected by Gods own love. Each of the three modes are distinct yet interdependent, and the first two modes are to support and be perfected in the third: contemplation or wisdom. On the three modes of theology see Bonaventure, Itinerarium mentis in Deum, c. 1, p. 7 (V, 298a); Bonaventure, Christus unus omnium Magister (V, 567574). For further explanation of Bonaventures position see Peter D. Fehlner, St. Maximilian M. Kolbe, Martyr of Charity: Pneumatologist, His Theology of the Holy Spirit (New Bedford: Academy of the Immaculate, 2004), 1521; Fehlner, Scientia et Pietas, Immaculata Mediatrix 1/3 (2001): 1148. Theology in this study will refer primarily to second mode, but as intrinsically ordered to and perfected in the third.

5 Cf. Bonaventure, Brev., p. 1, c. 1 (V, 210).

6 On this concept in Bonaventure see: Bonaventure, I Sent. d. 28, dub. 1 (I, 504ab); Itin., c. 3, n. 4 (V, 304b305a); De reductione artium ad theologiam (V, 317325).

7 Cf. Bonaventure, Red. art., passim, esp., nn. 4, 26 (V, 319325).

8 Bonaventure, Brev., p. 1, c. 1 (V, 210ab): Ipsa [theology] etiam sola est sapientia perfecta, quae incipit a causa summa, ut est principium causatorum, ubi terminatur cognitio philosophica

Caritas In Primo4

[primum principium], namely, God three and one.9 Formulated di-erently, the doctrine of the Trinity is the foundation of the whole Christian faith10 However, theology for Bonaventure is not related to philosophy in a merely contiguous or extra-neous manner, for the +rst principle [primum principium] is simultaneously a trinity [order of persons] and most simple [order of being]11 *is formulation implies a close interre-lationship between philosophy and theology, reason and faith, science and wisdom.12 For Bonaventure, as grace perfects nature in accordance with the inner dynamism of the rational soul, so theology perfects philosophy by shedding greater light upon being, thereby allowing the +nite intellect to understand truths that it never could have discovered by its own power.

For Bonaventure, personhood, as the +nal term of predication in God, characterizes being in its fullest sense. However, person in its full senserather, the order of Divine Personscannot be known apart from revelation. *us, revela-tion informs, completes and (at times) corrects what human reason comes to a.rm apart from divine revelation. *is means that for Bonaventure trinitarian theology is the most proper and ontologically basic metaphysic: a theologic.

Because knowledge of the revealed order of divine persons sheds the fullest possible light on the philosophical notion of

9 Bonaventure, Brev., p. 1, c. 1 (V, 210a): In principio intellegendum est, quod sacra doctrina, videlicet theologia, quae principaliter agit de primo principio, scilicet de Deo trino et uno

10 Bonaventure, Myst. Trin., q. 1, a. 2 conc (V, 54b): quod cum illud verum credibile sit fundamentum totius fidei christianae; cf. Brev., p. 1 (V, 210ab).

11 Myst. Trin., q. 3, a. 2 conc (V, 75b): Dicendum, quod primum principium simul est trinum et simplicissimum

12 Cf. the series of articles on this topic by Peter D. M. Fehlner, Mater et Magistra Apostolorum, Immaculata Mediatrix 1 (2001): 1554; Fehlner, De Metaphysica Mariana Quaedam, Immaculata Mediatrix 2 (2001): 1342; Fehlner, Scientia et Pietas, Immaculata Mediatrix 1/3 (2001): 1148. See also, Zachary Hayes, Intro-duction to Bonaventure, Disputed Questions on the Mystery of the Trinity (1979; St. Bonaventure, Franciscan Institute, 2000), 6768; Etienne Gilson, The Philosophy of St. Bonaventure, trans. Illtyd Trethowan and Frank Sheed (New York: Sheed and Ward, 1938), 2931!; Leone Veuthey, La filosofia cristiana di San Bonaventura, 1529, 171178, 203218; Bernardo Madariaga, La filosofia al interior de la teologia (Madrid: Editorial Cisneros, 1961), 3340.

Introduction

5

esse, while at the same time clarifying it; and because knowing esse alone does not provide clear knowledge of the divine persons, Bonaventure sees a necessary and harmonious, yet asymmetrical, relationship between faith and reason. Truth discovered by reason provides the necessary conceptual building blocks for any understanding of the mystery of the Trinity. *us, rational tools and insights provided by reason are indispensable for any resolutio plena or reductio of the arts into theology.13 Revelation provides the truths and principles of theology, while presuppos-ing and employing reason.14 Both come together in theology, according to Bonaventure, ut boni !amus,15 disposing men and women to know, love and enjoy God.16

Objective

*is study will consider Bonaventures insights into the ordered unity of reason and faith: philosophy and theology within the historical context of the University of Paris in the mid-1250s. I will show how, in the wake of and in response to the in,ux of the full Aristotelian corpus into the Arts curriculum at Paris in 1255, Bonaventure, through his Quaestiones dispu-tatae de mysterio Trinitatis, presented his most fully articulated

13 Cf. Bonaventure, I Sent., d. 28, dub. 4; II Sent., d. 1, p. II. dub. 2; I Sent., d. 3. p. I., q. 2; Scien. Chr., q. 4. See also, Christopher Cullen, Bonaventure (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2006), 2335; Cullen, Bonaventures Philosophical Method, in Companion to Bonaventure, ed. Jay M. Hammond, J.A. Wayne Hellmann and Jared Go!, (Leiden: Brill, 2014), 122124; R.E. Houser and Timothy Noone, Saint Bonaventure, The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Winter 2010 Edition), Edward N. Zalta(ed.), URL = .

14 Cf. amongst numerous passages: Bonaventure, Brev., p. 1, c. 1 (V, 210ab): Ipsa [theology] etiam ubi terminatur cognitio philosophica.

15 Bonaventure, I Sent., prooem., q. 3 conc. (I, 13ab): Nam si consideremus intellec-tum in se, sic est proprie speculativus et perficitur ab habitu, qui est contemplatio-nis gratia, qui dicitur scientia speculative. Si autem consideremus ipsum ut natum extendi ad opus, sic perficitur ad habitu, qui est, ut boni fiamus; et his est scientia practica sive moralis. Si autem medio modo consideretur ut natus extendi ad a!ectum, sic perficitur ab habitu medio inter pure speculativum et practicum, qui complectitur utrumque; et hic habitus dicitur sapientia, quae simul dicit cognitio-nem et a!ectum: Sapientia enim doctrinae est secundum nomen eius, Ecclesiastici sexto. Unde hic est contemplationis gratia, et ut boni fiamus, principaliter tamen, ut boni fiamus.

16 Cf. supra p. 3 n. 4.

Caritas In Primo6

scholastic determination on the nature and end of rational inquiry. Bonaventure routes his inquiry through the doctrine of the Trinity: source and ful+llment of all being and goodness. In this manner Bonaventure synthesizes an approach to metaphys-ics that extends to the outer limits of reason itself.

*us, this study will argue that the De mysterio Trinitatis, within Bonaventures corpus, is a work, though in the form of a disputation,17 that is best understood as an attempt to articulate a Christian response to the new philosophy represented by Aristotle. In the De mysterio Trinitatis, Bonaventure shows how knowledge of esse is reduced to and only fully resolved in the knowledge of God as a Trinity of Persons: one (order of essence) because three (order of persons) and three because one.18

*e De mysterio Trinitatis was written in the historical context of the complete integration of the full Aristotelian corpus into the arts curriculum at Paris. I will argue that interpreting the De mysterio Trinitatis in this context makes it clear that Bonaventure was providing a response to Aristotelian philosophy, interpreted through a Franciscan metaphysico-theological prism. Both context and content will be shown to con+rm this Aristotelian framing of the De mysterio Trinitatis.

*is study will argue that the synthesis Bonaventure formu-lates bespeaks a mutual, yet hierarchically and teleologically ordered, enrichment between philosophy and theology. Aristo-tles philosophy provides Bonaventure with key insights, which are integrated into and help develop Bonaventures understand-ing of the doctrine of the Trinity. *eology, however, deepens, completes, clari+es and implicitly corrects inadequacies in Aristotle. *is study will show how in the De mysterio Trinitatis, Bonaventure outlines how philosophy and theology should relate in a non-antagonistic manner, and how both facilitate the attainment and increase of Christian wisdom. Christian wisdom, in turn, reveals how being itself is most fully realized in personal

17 Standard medieval scholastic literary forms, e.g., disputationes, questiones, etc., are not opposed to a systematic treatment of a given topic, but, rather, can easily become the vehicle for the specific purposes of a given author. I believe this is what is happening in the De mysterio Trinitatis.

18 Question eight of the De mysterio Trinitatis explicitly draws this conclusion.

Introduction

7

action and is formally characterized by charity: for both in+nite and +nite persons. *is charity, Bonaventure argues, is the fontal source of all being as well as that to which all is ordered and in which all creation comes to rest.

Method

*us far, studies treating Bonaventures De mysterio Trinitatis have su-ered from two important methodological defects: often with both present in the same study.19 Either these studies have not adequately framed the De mysterio Trinitatis within its own historical context and purpose. Or, they have not treated the text in an integral manner. *us, even if, on the one hand, such studies of Bonaventures theology of the Trinity have adequately contextualized, analyzed and expounded Bonaventures doctrine of the Trinity proper; or, on the other, done justice to the many insights of Bonaventure from the perspectives of history, philosophy and theology, they have failed to consider the De mysterio Trinitatis on its own terms.

*is methodological bifurcation implied that the matters treated in the De mysterio Trinitatis could and should be extracted from the entirety of the text, and resituated in historical, theo-logical and/or philosophical discussions more or less foreign to the texts original provenance. As a result, Bonaventure scholar-ship has located Bonaventures philosophy of being in the +rst articles of questions two through seven, and those pertaining to his theology of the Trinity in the second article of each of the same questions, implying that Bonaventure in the De mysterio Trinitatis is providing two distinct treatisesDe Deo Uno and De Deo Trinothat could just as well be separate. Guided by such concerns scholars have approached the text according to paradigms that would have been foreign to Bonaventure.20 Although scholars have gained many valid insights into the

19 This will be treated more fully in the following chapter.

20 In his recent important study of the philosophy of John Duns Scotus, the histori-cal theologian, Antonie Vos, makes the point that post-Renaissance conceptions of philosophy and theology, which pushed the distinction between philosophy and theology to the point of separation, was completely foreign to the mindset of medieval theologians. Distinction between the two, yes; separation, no. Cf. Antonie

Caritas In Primo8

thought of Bonaventure and his contributions to theology and philosophy, their methodological failings have also served to hinder a comprehension and appreciation of the De mysterio Trinitatis in all its richness.

While acknowledging the value and importance of previous scholarship, this study will reveal how the positive results of previous studies must be deepened, clari+ed and, at times, corrected by looking at the way Bonaventure wrote his text as a response to the entrance of the full corpus of Aristotle into the arts curriculum at the University of Paris.

*e aim of this study is not, it should be said, simply to reject previous scholarship, but rather to apply a di-erent historical theological methodology that will con+rm the sound conclusions and deepen the implications of existing scholarship. However, because, as will be argued, previous scholars employed methodologies that failed to contextualize the De mysterio Trinitatis, such scholarship is also open to challenge insofar as it has appropriated a text and precipitately gathered data for ends not always consistent with the texts original purpose. *us, this study will be revisionist insofar as it is based upon a historical theological methodology that may necessitate departing from faulty, incomplete or anachronistic appropriations and interpre-tations of the De mysterio Trinitatis. *is study seeks to clarify and deepen the discussion of Bonaventures thought by letting the Aristotelian setting of 1255 Paris shed light on the purpose and meaning of the text. Historical context will set the agenda for analysis and interpretation of the De mysterio Trinitatis, rather than philosophical, theological and ecclesiastical categories and concerns stemming from the nineteenth century, which have in,uenced Bonaventure scholarship on the De mysterio Trinitatis to the present.

Procedure

*is study will establish the historical context leading up to and surrounding the composition of the De mysterio Trinitatis.

Vos, The Philosophy of John Duns Scotus, (Edinburgh: University of Edinburgh Press, 2006), 34, 89.

Introduction

9

Next, key aspects of the text itself will be considered. In terms of overall order, then, I shall move from historical analysis, into and through historical theological analysis, and then on to a histori-cally informed theological analysis of the De mysterio Trinitatis. *e order in which the following chapters will appear re,ect this progression.

Chapter two, building upon the important recent studies of Jay M. Hammond and Joshua Benson,21 will discuss the histori-cal (re-)discovery and reception of the De mysterio Trinitatis. I will argue that historical circumstances surrounding the 1874 rediscovery of the text led to a hermeneutical mishandling of the De mysterio Trinitatis, which, in turn, a-ected subsequent schol-arship. Retracing the history of the reception of the De mysterio Trinititas through the nineteenth and twentieth centuries, chapter two will show that there does not up to this point exist any signi+cant study dedicated speci+cally to the De mysterio Trinitatis, nor any study that does justice to the text, according to a historical-theological methodology.22

21 On the history of the De mysterio Trinitatis, the De scientia Christi as well as the sermon Christus unus omnium magister, see, Joshua Benson, Reinterpretation Through Recontextualization: A New Reading of Bonaventures Quaestiones Dispu-tatae De scientia Christi, (PhD diss., Saint Louis University, 2007), 1728.

22 Outside of the late nineteenth and twentieth centuries, there exists no explicit reception and interpretation history of the De mysterio Trinitatis. The text was lost for several hundred years. However, as will be suggested in the conclusion of this study, there is good reason to believe that, even though the text itself was misplaced quite early, it nevertheless went on to have a great influence upon Franciscan thought in the centuries subsequent to Bonaventure. As will be shown below, themes and distinctions found within the text are carried forward by figures such as Peter John Olivi and Peter Trabibus. In Scotus these intellectual instruments become enshrined within the common Fransciscan theological and philosophical approach. Interestingly, Christiaan W. Kappes has discovered the latent presence of Bonaventures De mysterio Trinitatis in the Greek Orthodox figure, Gennadius Scholarius. Writing in the 15th century, Scholarius lists a series of transcendental disjunctions that very closely map onto Bonaventures list in the De mysterio Trinitatis, question one, article one. This is extremely interesting for two reasons: (1) Peter John Olivi (d.1298) is the last person to mention the De mysterio Trinitatis; (2) the text reappears in Scholarius, a (15th century) Greek source, the handpicked successor to Mark of Ephesus: along with Photius and Gregory Palamas, one of the Three Pillars of Orthodoxy. The most likely way that Scholarius acquired the text was through time spent in Florence. In a seeming fortuitous convergence of circumstances the Franciscan Library at Florence possessed the only complete copy of the De mysterio Trinitatis. It appears most likely that it was on a visit to

Caritas In Primo10

A main historical contention of this study is that interpreters of the De mysterio Trinitatis must take into account the increased signi+cance of the thought and writings of Aristotle at Paris in the 1250s, as shaping the context surrounding and informing the composition of the De mysterio Trinitatis. In support of this claim, chapter three will move several steps back in time in order to gain a broader perspective on the Aristotelian background which immediately preceded Bonaventures taking up his stylus in response to the changes of 1255 in the Parisian Arts curricu-lum. Chapter three will retrace the gradual entry of Aristotles thought and writings into the Latin speaking Christian West. *is will make clear how Aristotle fully arrives on the Western academic scene in 1255, just months before Bonaventure composed the De mysterio Trinitatis.

Chapter four discusses the personal and intellectual back-ground of Bonaventure himself. Bonaventures commitment to Francis of Assisis witness to Christ within the academic context of Paris, I will argue, was, perhaps, the main inspiration behind Bonaventures understanding of academic pursuits. Bonaven-tures commitment to Gospel perfection, will be shown to have its roots in the person of Francis and the communities that developed out of the desire to follow the poor man from Assisi who bore the Wounds of Christ. Gospel perfection, however, for Bonaventure, the academic theologian, needed to take on an aspect not explicitly present in Francis.23 Bonaventures task

this library that Scholarius discovered the text. On Scholarius see, Christiaan W. Kappes, The Latin Sources of the Palamite Theology of George-Gennadius Schol-arius, Nicolaus 40.1 (2013): 71-114, at 101102.

23 Francis was not opposed to academic theology and study of philosophy and the arts. Francis was opposed rather to intellectual curiosity, vanity and pride. Each pernicious to the soul and a distraction away from God, who for St. Francis was literally everything: Deus meus et omnia! On Francis approval of the study of theology, provided it was ordered to piety see, Francis, A Letter to Brother Anthony of Padua, in Francis of Assisi: The Saint, ed. Regis J. Armstrong, J.A. Wayne Hellmann and William J. Short (New York: New City Press, 1999), 108: I am pleased that you teach sacred theology to the brothers providing that, as is contained in the Rule, you do not extinguish the Spirit of prayer and devotion during study of this kind. Cf. Francis, Regula Bullata, c. 5, in Opuscula sancti patris Francisci Assisiensis, ed., Caietanus Esser (Grottaferrata: Collegii S. Bonaventurae Ad Clarus Aquas, 1978), 231. This language finds parallels in Bonaventure: cf. Itin., prol., 4 (V, 296ab).

Introduction

11

was to recapitulate and perfect intellectual excellence in line with and for the sake of Francis call to wisdom and holiness. *e personal background of St. Bonaventure, thus, provides another important element in understanding his academic work at mid-thirteenth century Paris.

Aristotles entry into the academic context of Paris in 1255, was a watershed event that radically altered philosophical and theological investigation and inquiry. Although Aristotelian themes and concerns are present in Bonaventures earlier works,24 Aristotle, as a source and authority, looms large in the De mysterio Trinitatis in a manner not seen in any of Bonaventures other works. Chapter +ve, through comparison of the De mysterio Trinitatis to other texts of Bonaventure,25 will demonstrate that Aristotle was a key focus and +gure of the De mysterio Trinitatis. *e unique spike in citations of Aristotle in the De mysterio Trinitatis are very suggestive with respect to both its context and purpose.

*e De reductione artium ad theologiam and the De scientia Christi were both composed prior to the De mysterio Trinitatis, yet they fall within the 125457 magisterial period of Bonaven-tures career, prior to his election as the Minister General of the Order of the Friars Minor. Chapter six will analyze these texts in order to determine whether and to what extent Aristotle had already, by the time these texts were written, become an (at least latent) focus of Bonaventure. Two points will become clear. First, in both texts, Aristotle provides Bonaventure with structural, methodological and conceptual tools that allow Bonaventure to advance his arguments. However, and secondly, these early texts, so closely preceding the De mysterio Trinitatis, reveal Bonaventures determination to preserve the primacy of theology, wisdom and praxis over against Aristotles emphasis upon science. Bonaventure was concerned to correct what he

24 For example, Commentaria in Sententia, De reductione artium ad theologiam, Quaestiones disputatae de scientia Christi. The dating of the De reductione is controversial. However, recent studies by Joshua Benson have convincingly demonstrated that the overwhelmingly most likely date for the composition of the De reductione is 1254 (cf. infra 154156 for discussion of the question).

25 These texts will include early, contemporary and later works of Bonaventure.

Caritas In Primo12

perceived to be an overemphasis upon rationality, as primarily rooted in intellect, apart from faith and charity. *is, Bonaven-ture thought, would unmoor reason from faith, and make reason the ultimate measure and authority.

Chapters seven and eight form two components of the +nal synthesis and resolution of chapters two through six. Keeping historical context in mind, in chapter seven I will consider the De mysterio Trinitatiss textual structuree.g., order of themes and arrangement of questions. I will argue that structure is a basic hermeneutical key for interpreting the arguments found within the questions. I will show how the order of questions reveal a reductio to the primacy of personal being and action. Primacy of esse, thus, for Bonaventure, per reductionem, is structurally the originating concept, describing +rst act. Primacy qua being is also, according to the structure of the De mysterio Trinitatis, unveiled as the most perfect rational note or attribute of In+nite-Pure Being as well as the completion and end of all action. *is primacy +nds its formal mode in the free circumincession of the Divine Persons in in+nite charity.

Chapter eight will analyze how Bonaventure spells out the arguments embodied within the structure of the De mysterio Trinitatis. *is will reveal Bonaventures mind, within the context of a new Aristotelian curriculum and philosophy, as he was formulating how scientia is ordered toward and only fully illumined in sapientia. *roughout his exposition and argumentation, Bonaventure develops key themes and employs distinctions that will come to characterize the entirety of the Franciscan School of theological metaphysics. Chapter eight will also and most importantly show how for Bonaventure, Christian wisdom, on the one hand, reveals a God (Primum Principium) who in perfect necessity is perfectly free and loving, as a Trinity of Persons. On the other, human persons, as bearing the image of the Trinity, are created to +nd rest in that same circuminces-sant Charity.

311

Afterword

Peter Damian M. Fehlner, F.I.

!e genial treatise of St. Bonaventure on the Blessed Trinity: Disputed Questions on the Mystery of the Most Holy Trinity, is one of the greatest studies about this central mystery of our faith, the primary object of what Bl. John Duns Scotus calls our theology, on the same level as St. Augustines De Trinitate. Despite its importance and in"uence it remains little known today except to professional historians of theology. !is magni#cent study of Dr. Go$ will immensely help those persons who seek to appreci-ate its historical setting and what the Seraphic Doctor achieved in his cultivation of a faith seeking understanding: !des quaerens intellectum, of the mystery at the heart of the Godhead: the one God, in#nite in being, triune in Persons, the mystery on which depends understanding in the rest of theology: the Trinitas oeco-nomica dealing with our sharing the life of the Divine Persons.

In 1255 the University of Paris imposed the reading of Aristotle throughout the arts curriculum as the basis of what today we would call philosophical formation. With this risks and dangers to the teaching of theology and a sound Christian philosophy in the leading school of higher learning in the Latin west and formation of reliable theologians in the service of the Church at this University were increased considerably. On the one hand the cultivation of a complete, autonomous philosophy without the bene#t of Revelation and Christian faith opened doors to a number of erroneous concepts of theology more or less all of a pantheistic character, such as in our times goes under the name of ontologism or ontic-theology. At the other extreme was a tendency toward philosophical agnosticism or atheism, relegating theology to what is known today as a kind of irrational #deism, guide to a religious experience rather than knowledge of the truth.

Caritas In Primo312

!e success of Bonaventure in meeting the challenge posed by secular philosophy and pietistic anti-intellectualism is abun-dantly clear in this set of disputed questions. !eir organization is not that of a complete theological treatise whose subject is God, but of a discussion of the premises which govern the starting point, structure and goal of such a treatise, and ultimately of what is known as the study of the Trinitas oeconomica. Not all our contemporary theologians are disposed to be disciples of Bonaventure; but I do not think many who will have pondered the exposition of Dr. Go$ will be inclined to deny its relevance to a similar need precisely in regard to the point of departure, structure and goal of this subsidiary part of theology, viz., the study of what Scotus calls the contingent brought into existence out of the goodness of the Creator. !is aspect of Catholic trini-tarian theology is today being challenged in a similar way. On one side are those proposing a #deistic approach, ignoring the importance of sanctifying the intellect; and on another are those who under the in"uence of German idealism are confusing the Trinitas oeconemica with the Trinity in itself. !is very simply is to confuse adoptive sonship of God with natural sonship of the Father which is Christs alone, and so a particularly attractive disguise for pantheism.

Nonetheless this does not mean that every explanation of how we share the divine life of Father and Son in the Holy Spirit, viz., the circumcessory life of the divine Persons, is pantheistic. And among other aspects of St. Bonaventures success in grounding theology: a study centered directly on God and beginning with faith where reason alone ends, one to be described more as wisdom than science, yet including knowledge of the triune God as credible, viz., intelligible precisely because based on faith #rst and not reason, is the possibility of dealing today with the same problems but in relation to the economic Trinity.

Let us begin with a brief review of how Bonaventure understands theology, in particular our theology in so far as it approximates and gives us some understanding of the one and triune God: one because triune, triune because one, whose existence cannot be called into question, yet whose reasonable-

Afterword

313

ness can only be known to us in coming to understand why the mystery of the Trinity is credible and why it prepares us to know God when loving him in mystical contemplation. !e Seraphic Doctor himself summarizes the foregoing in terms of three modes of our theology: symbolic, proper or rational, and mystical (cf. Bonaventure, Christus unus omnium Magister; Itin-erarium mentis in Deum, ch. 1, n. 7). !e symbolic is the form our theology takes when the direct study of God stresses the correct understanding of the words and signs employed by Jesus in introducing us to His Father. !e proper or academic refers to the mode of theology where stress is placed on the understand-ing faith tends to foster. To the degree that understanding is the distinctive character of a mode of genuine theology, it may be described as scienti#c, but in fact as both Bonaventure and Scotus point out, it can never be considered a science in the strict sense, whether Aristotelian or modern. !e reason is this: theology correctly understood involves the student in a personal relation with the subject under study. Failure to acknowledge this always leads either to an impersonal knowledge of God, ever indirect, not direct, or to a reduction of God to the level of some a-personal object and so to his denial.

On the other hand failure to admit the need during a time of pilgrimage to make use of metaphysical logic or anthropological metaphor in the study of God inevitably leads to one or another form of #deism. As these errors impacted on the theological rather than philosophical knowledge of God, so they impact on the study of the economic Trinity, viz., on the possibility and fact of our sharing by grace in the divine mode of living, knowing and loving.

!is mode of theological study points, then, to a third mode, the mystical contemplative understanding of God, as St. Paul describes it (cf. Eph 3: 19): the surpassing knowledge of charity, a form of knowing prescinding not from faith, but from the #nite mode of reasoning about God, because both intellect and will perfectly united in practice through the gift of infused charity operate in a way similar to the divine modes. !is is the consummation of what is meant in a%rming the personal

Caritas In Primo314

character of theology on the part of its subject matter and on the part of the student.

Mere logic is not enough to understand God theologically as center of that study rather than the conclusion of an imper-sonal metaphysics. !eology exists only as a means for faith to arrive at an ever more fully personal relation with the one and triune Godhead. Hence it is not a form of ontic-theology, a kind of immediate continuation of metaphysics under the heading natural theology. For Bonaventure, as for Scotus, no such discipline exists. !ey do not mean that philosophy does not yield some knowledge of God: his existence and assorted attributes. !ey merely mean this knowledge is not theological, in the sense that it is an understanding directly based on God himself and not on the natural metaphysical premises, e.g., analogy or univocity of being, as bases for drawing conclusions about the supreme being.

But for them, contrary to so many versions of #deism, these metaphysical premises can be used, as they have been used not only by the Fathers, but in Scripture itself, as a means of explaining mysteries whose understanding by #nite intellects and by those who seek a personal relation with God far tran-scends the range of reason. A careful comparison of what Scotus calls univocity of being and the disjunctive transcendentals with the structure of the hypostatic union: distinction of natures divine and human (disjunctives) united in the divine Person of the Son of God, shows univocity of being as point of reference enabling both the in#nite and #nite disjunctives to be shadowy adumbrations of the Incarnation for the sake of which the #nite was created. Careful study of question four of Bonaventures Quaestiones disputatae de scientia Christi suggests that the Bonaventurian theory of divine illumination anticipates the role of univocity in the metaphysics and theology of the contingent based on absolute primacy, in this case that of Christ. Although Bonaventure never drew out the logical conclusions of this approach in terms of absolute primacy of Christ and therefore how the Immaculate Conception takes on in theology being basis for the Marian mode of theology, he certainly suggests

Afterword

315

that our theology as a whole can only be developed in a Marian mode, because the Incarnation and saving work of the Christ only occur in a Marian mode. !us Bonaventure writes in his commentary on III Sent., d. 4, a. 2, q. 2:

Whether we say that the Word becomes man, or we say that the Woman becomes the Mother of God, both stand above what is due to the creature.1

And commenting on Isaiah 7: 14 in collation 6 of his Collationes de septem donis Spiritus Sancti he refers this Marian mode not only to the fact of the Incarnation, but the sign which enables us to grasp the identity of her Child and the purpose of the Incarnation:

It is not #tting that the Virgin should have a Son unless He be God, nor God have a Mother unless She be a Virgin.2

!e dissertation of Dr. Go$ convincingly demonstrates the use Bonaventure makes of what Scotus calls univocity of being and the disjunctive transcendenals together with the formal distinction a parte rei and the perfectio simpliciter simplex as instruments to show how 1) God is one, simple, in#nite, eternal, immutable, necessary because triune, and 2) triune and personal precisely because one, simple, in#nite, eternal, immutable and necessary. All this converges syntheti-cally on a single term: primacy of essence of all three divine Persons because the Father enjoys a primacy of person as fontal plenitude of charity, origin of the necessary divine processions and ultimately of the contingent divine creation, above all #nite persons capable of formally sharing via grace the primacy of charity appropriated to the Holy Spirit. Or this convergence on primacy by way of conclusion shows how the mysteri-ous existence of an absolute one (primacy of essence) where philosophy ends is only rendered intelligible to the degree the

1 Sive dicamus (Verbum) fieri hominem, sive dicamus mulierem fieri Matrem Dei, utrumque est super statum qui debetur creaturae.

2 Non decebat Virginem habere filium nisi Deum, nec Deum habere matrem nisi Virginem.

Caritas In Primo316

one triune God is shown credible in terms of the primacy of person of the Father as fontal plenitude of all goodness: caritas in primo lived as circumincession or perfect in-existence of the three really distinct persons without loss of real distinction within the one simple in#nite essence. !e absolute First is one because triune and triune because one.

How, then, does this apply to theology when it is extended to include the economic Trinity, viz., the order of salvation in which the blessed life of the divine Persons is expanded (without loss of real distinction between in#nite and #nite) so as to include #nite persons?

Bonaventure claims that a theology including the economic Trinity has not God as its subject matter, but the whole Christ, divinity and humanity, Head and Body of the Church. Scotus critiques this de#nition of christo-centrism, not so much as false, but as misleading as to 1) the real distinction between Creator and creature in the order of grace and as to 2) the real unity without confusion of the disjunctive transcendentals, both in#nite and #nite, #rst in the hypostatic union and then in the concept of adoptive son-ship.

In seeking to clarify the relation between the two great parts of theology Scotus reformulates what Bonaventure discusses here in relation to his theory of divine illumination, under the heading of univocity of being. !is concept incomparable to any other while all others must in some way be enlightened by this unique concept of univocity above and beyond all categorization, is at root a clearer version of what divine illumination is intended to explain: how a #nite mind can exist only to the degree something radically simple stands at the center of a complex psychology of the intellect and will. !is confers on the nature and purpose of human knowledge what is called a pure perfection, something hinting, even at the #nite level, at the personal, divine character of wisdom and the primacy of charity as the goal or reason for thought, a goal however which cannot be fully achieved except with grace: primarily the grace of having been predestined with Christ as Scotus teaches.

Afterword

317

With this we see how what Scotus calls pure perfections (perfectiones simpliciter simplices) such as intelle