The Ordinatio of John Duns Scotus :: Ordinatio. Book 3. Distinctions 1 - 17. ::

collapse section

Export a Citation collapse section

collapse section

just this volume

136 occurrences of therefore etc in this volume.
[Clear Hits]

Ordinatio. Book 3. Distinctions 1 - 17.

collapse section

Collapse All | Expand All

collapse section

translator's preface

134

collapse section

book 3. distinctions 1 - 17

11

collapse section

first distinction. first part. on the possibility of the incarnation

8

collapse section

question one whether it was possible for human nature to be united to the word in unity of supposit

2

collapse section

I. to the question

a. what is to be understood by ‘personal union’

1

b. how personal union is possible on the part of the person assuming

1

collapse section

C. how personal union is possible on the part of the assumed nature

1. the opinion of others

2. rejection of the opinion

1

collapse section

3. scotus’ own opinion

a. two possible ways of solution

b. arguments against the first way

c. arguments against the second way

d. what one should think about the two ways

1

e. to the arguments against the second way

collapse section

II. to the principal arguments

a. to the common arguments

collapse section

b. to the special arguments

1. to the argument on the part of the nature that is united

2. to the arguments on the part of that which assumes

3. to the argument on the part of the union

1

collapse section

question two. whether the three persons can assume numerically the same nature

1

collapse section

I. to the question

collapse section

a. opinion of others

1. exposition of the opinion

2. weighing of the opinion

1

collapse section

b. scotus’ own opinion

1

1. whether the first term of the union is the three persons

2. whether the first term of the union is the per se existing essence

II. to the principal arguments on both sides

III. to the arguments for the opinion of others

IV. objection to scotus’ opinion and its solution

1

collapse section

question three. whether one person can assume several natures

I. to the question

II. to the principal arguments

1

collapse section

question four. whether a created supposit can hypostatically instantiate a different created nature than the one that it has

1

collapse section

I. to the question

a. on the first way of instantiating, that is by efficient causality

1

b. on the second way of instantiating, namely terminatively

II. to the principal arguments when holding to the negative side of the question

III. to the argument for the opposite when holding to the affirmative side of the question

3

collapse section

second part. on the fact of the incarnation

3

collapse section

single question. whether the formal reason of being the term for the union of the human nature with the word is the word’s relative property

2

collapse section

I. to the question

collapse section

a. what the property is that constitutes a person

1. reasons and responses of those who think that the persons are constituted by relations

collapse section

2. rejection of the aforesaid reasons and responses

a. about the special reasons and responses

b. about the conclusion in itself

2

b. whether a personal property is the formal reason of terminating the union of the human nature with the word

C. solution of the question

II. to the principal arguments

III. to the reasons adduced for the opinion that holds the persons to be constituted by absolutes

9

collapse section

second distinction

6

collapse section

question one whether a nature immediately united hypostatically to the word and not having joy involves a contradiction

4

collapse section

I. to the question

4

collapse section

a. opinion of henry of ghent

3

collapse section

1. an assumed nature naturally fit to have joy cannot not have joy

1

a. exposition of the opinion

2

b. rejection of the opinion

1

collapse section

2. a nature not naturally fit for enjoyment cannot be assumed

1

a. exposition of the opinion

b. rejection of the opinion

b. scotus’ own opinion

II. to the principal arguments

collapse section

III. to the arguments of henry of ghent

a. as to the first article

b. as to the second article

3

collapse section

question two. whether the word assumed the whole of human nature first and immediately

2

collapse section

I. to the question

2

collapse section

a. about the intrinsic medium

1. the opinion of others

1

2. scotus’ own opinion

1

collapse section

3. three doubts against scotus’ opinion

a. statement of the doubts

1

b. solution of the doubts

c. to the authority of the commentator adduced in the first doubt

b. about the extrinsic medium

II. to the principal arguments

collapse section

question three. whether the organization and animation of the body preceded the incarnation

collapse section

I. to the question

collapse section

a. of priority in time

1. of the order of animation in relation to incarnation

2. of the order of organization in relation to animation

b. of priority in nature

II. to the principal arguments

8

collapse section

third distinction

8

collapse section

question one. whether the blessed virgin was conceived in original sin

3

collapse section

I. to the question

3

collapse section

a. the common opinion

1. exposition of the opinion

3

collapse section

2. rejection of the opinion

2

a. against the first reason

1

b. against the second reason

b. scotus’ own response

C. objections and their solution

collapse section

II. response to the arguments while holding that the blessed virgin was not conceived in original sin

a. to the principal arguments

b. to the arguments given for the common opinion

C. specifically to the arguments of bernard

collapse section

question two. wherefore and how christ’s body did not contract original sin as other bodies did

I. on a first way of speaking

collapse section

II. on a second way of speaking

b. alternative way

4

collapse section

fourth distinction

4

collapse section

single question whether the blessed virgin was truly mother of god and man

I. to the question

1

collapse section

collapse section

a. first opinion

1. exposition of the opinion

2. rejection of the opinion

collapse section

b. second opinion

1. exposition of the opinion

2. rejection of the opinion

collapse section

C. third opinion

1. statement of the opinion

2. rejection of the opinion

1

collapse section

D. scotus’ own opinion

1. on the action of the mother in the formation of our bodies

1

2. on the action of the blessed virgin in the formation of christ’s body

3. a doubt about the mother’s action through seed-reason

III. other doubts on the question

IV. to the principal arguments

V. to the arguments for the first opinion

1

collapse section

fifth distinction

question one. whether the divine nature assumed the human nature or was able to assume it

1

collapse section

question two. whether a created person was assumed or was able to be assumed

collapse section

I. to the first question

b. to the principal arguments

collapse section

II. to the second question

b. to the principal arguments

12

collapse section

sixth distinction

11

collapse section

question one. whether in christ there is some existing other than uncreated existing

7

collapse section

I. to the question

7

collapse section

a. opinion of others

1. exposition of the opinion

7

2. rejection of the opinion

b. scotus’ own opinion

II. to the principal arguments

III. to the arguments for the opinion of others

IV. to the first and second reasonings in the solution of the question

1

collapse section

question two. whether christ is a two

I. to the question

1

II. to the principal arguments

question three. which of the three opinions that the master reports should be held

1

collapse section

seventh distinction

1

collapse section

question one. whether this proposition is true, ‘god is man’

1

collapse section

I. to the question

1

II. to the principal arguments

collapse section

question two. whether god was made man

I. to the question

II. to the principal arguments

collapse section

question three. whether christ was predestined to be son of god

I. to the question

collapse section

II. doubts and their solution

b. second doubt

III. to the principal argument

7

collapse section

eighth distinction

7

collapse section

single question. whether there are two real filiations in christ

6

collapse section

I. to the question

4

collapse section

a. opinion of others

1

1. first reason and rejection of it

3

2. second reason and rejection of it

b. scotus’ own opinion

2

II. to the principal arguments

5

collapse section

ninth distinction

5

collapse section

single question. whether divine worship or the honor of divine worship is due to christ only as to his divine nature

2

collapse section

I. to the question

a. how divine worship is taken

b. when and how divine worship is due

2

collapse section

C. whether divine worship is due to christ only as to his divine nature

2

2. an objection, and rejection of it

collapse section

II. a doubt about the adoration owed to christ as he is a man

a. the opinion of others

b. scotus’ own response

III. to the principal arguments

1

collapse section

tenth distinction

1

collapse section

single question. whether christ is son of god by adoption

I. to the question

II. to the principal arguments

9

collapse section

eleventh distinction.

5

collapse section

question one. whether christ is a creature

3

collapse section

I. to the question

2

collapse section

a. the solution of others

2

1. first solution

2. second solution

2. third solution

1

collapse section

b. scotus’ own solution

1. first reason

1

2. second reason

II. to the arguments

1

collapse section

question two. whether christ as he is man is a creature

I. to the question

II. to the principal arguments

3

collapse section

question three. whether christ began to be

I. to the question

II. to the arguments

2

collapse section

twelfth distinction

2

collapse section

single question. whether the human nature in christ was able to sin

1

I. to the question

II. to the arguments

6

collapse section

thirteenth distinction

1

question one. whether on christ’s soul could have been conferred the highest degree of grace that could have been conferred on a creature

2

question two. whether on christ’s soul was in fact conferred the highest degree of grace that could have been conferred on a creature

question three. whether it was possible for christ’s will to have the highest enjoyment possible for a created nature

3

collapse section

question four. whether christ’s soul was able to enjoy god supremely without the highest grace

collapse section

I. to the first question

collapse section

a. the highest grace could have been created

1. scotus’ own reason

2. others’ reasons

b. the highest grace can be conferred on the soul of christ

1

II. to the second question

collapse section

III. to the principal arguments of these two questions

a. to the arguments of the first question

b. to the arguments of the second question

IV. to the third question

V. to the fourth question

collapse section

VI. to the principal arguments of the third and fourth question

a. to the arguments of both parts of the third question

b. to the arguments of the fourth question

6

collapse section

fourteenth distinction

1

question one. whether it was possible for the intellect of christ’s soul to be first and immediately perfected by the most perfect vision of the word possible for a creature

4

collapse section

question two. whether it was possible for the intellect of christ’s soul to see in the word everything that the word sees

2

collapse section

I. to the first question

a. it is possible that christ’s soul is able to be perfected with the most perfect vision of the word

1

b. the intellect of christ’s soul can be perfected first and immediately with the most perfect vision of the word

1

C. to the principal arguments

2

collapse section

II. to the second question

collapse section

a. first opinion

1. exposition of the opinion

2. rejection of the opinion

2

collapse section

b. second opinion

2

1. exposition of the opinion

2. rejection of the opinion

collapse section

C. scotus’ own opinion

1. the soul of christ sees everything in the word actually

2. a doubt about scotus’ opinion

D. how the second opinion could be sustained

e. to the principal arguments

f. to the arguments for the second opinion

1

collapse section

question three. whether christ’s soul knows everything in its own proper genus

collapse section

I. to the question

collapse section

a. first opinion

1. exposition of the opinion

2. rejection of the opinion

b. second opinion

collapse section

C. scotus’ own opinion

1. on abstractive knowledge

2. on intuitive knowledge

II. to the principal arguments

III. an objection against abstractive knowledge of singulars

question four. whether christ knows everything in its own proper genus perfectly

9

collapse section

fifteenth distinction

9

collapse section

single question. whether there was true sorrow in christ’s soul as to its higher part

I. brief reply of others to the question and rejection of it

5

collapse section

II. fuller examination of the question and solution to it

collapse section

a. what pain and sadness are

collapse section

a. opinion of henry of ghent

b. rejection of the opinion

c. scotus’ own response

collapse section

a. on the first mode or way of being sad, that is, on sadness as it arises from an object that is not wanted

b. on the second mode or way of being said, that is, on sadness as it arises from an object naturally disagreeable or from an object disagreeable to sense appetite

c. on the third mode or way of being sad, that is, because of a conditioned not-wanting

b. in christ there was true sorrow

5

collapse section

C. whether christ was saddened in the higher and lower part of the intellect

2

1. of the objects and ways as to which each part is saddened

2. of the passion as it is the object of sadness in the higher part

3

collapse section

3. about the passion as it is an object of sadness in the lower part

3

a. first possible solution and the weighing of it

b. second possible solution and the weighing of it

c. scotus’ own conclusion

d. to the arguments for the first solution

6

collapse section

sixteenth distinction

1

question one. whether christ was under any necessity to die

5

collapse section

question two. whether it was in the power of christ’s soul not to die from the violence of the passion

3

collapse section

I. to the first question

3

collapse section

a. opinion of others

3

1. exposition of the opinion

2. rejection of the opinion

b. scotus’ own response

C. doubts and their solution

D. to the principal arguments

e. to the form of the arguments for the opinion of others

1

collapse section

II. to the second question

C. response to the objections

1

D. to the principal arguments

2

collapse section

seventeenth distinction

2

collapse section

single question. whether there were two wills in christ

I. to the question

II. to the principal arguments

8

collapse section

appendix (from antonius andreas). eighteenth distinction

8

single question. whether christ merited in the first instant of his conception

2

collapse section

[appendix] nineteenth distinction

2

single question whether christ merited grace and glory and remission of guilt and punishment for all men

8

collapse section

[appendix] twentieth distinction

8

single question. whether it was necessary for the human race to be repaired by the passion of christ

collapse section

[appendix] twenty first distinction

single question. whether christ’s body would have putrefied if his resurrection had not been hastened

7

collapse section

[appendix] twenty second distinction

7

single question. whether christ was a man during the triduum

1

collapse section

[appendix] twenty third distinction

1

single question. whether infused faith must be posited for matters revealed to us for belief

5

collapse section

[appendix] twenty fourth distinction

5

single question. whether about revealed matters of belief someone can have science and faith at the same time, speaking of science as it is taken for all the certain knowledge received from the evidence of the thing

1

collapse section

[appendix] twenty fifth distinction

1

single question. whether before christ’s coming faith about the things we now believe was necessary

2

collapse section

2

SUBSCRIBER:

past masters commons

Annotation Guide:

All Collections > The Ordinatio of John Duns Scotus > Ordinatio. Book 3. Distinctions 1 - 17. > book 3. distinctions 1 - 17 > fourteenth distinction > question three. whether christ’s soul knows everything in its own proper genus > II. to the principal arguments

cover

The Ordinatio of John Duns Scotus

Ordinatio. Book 3. Distinctions 1 - 17.

Book 3. Distinctions 1 - 17

Fourteenth Distinction

Question Three. Whether Christ’s Soul knows Everything in its own Proper Genus

II. To the Principal Arguments

hide table of contents

II. To the Principal Arguments

119. To the arguments.

To the first [n.91] the answer is plain from this, that the text of the Gospel is not to be expounded of Christ’s advance such that he advanced only in appearance, because according to Augustine, 83 Questions q.80 n.1.3 against the Apollinarists, the evangelists give historical accounts of what was done and is true; and therefore the words of the evangelist must be true as written - but this does not hold of other figurative passages of Sacred Scripture.

120. The same point is made by Ambrose [n.92] and by the Apostle in Hebrews [n.93], that some sense in Christ did truly advance: not that he acquired some habitual abstractive knowledge (at least not any infused such knowledge), but that he acquired intuitive knowledge, both habitual and actual.

121. To the passage from the Philosopher in the Metaphyics [n.94], I say that knowledge arising from many repeated acts is in some respect necessary in us and in some way not: as regard intuitive knowledge it is simply necessary, and to this extent it belonged to Christ, since he was a wayfarer along with us; as to abstractive knowledge such a process is not necessary in Christ, and he had knowledge as to abstractive knowledge through infused species; so to this extent such a process was not necessary in him as it is in us.

122. To the next [n.95] I say that discursive reasoning does not always make one acquire knowledge of an unknown conclusion to which the reasoning proceeds, but it either does this or it makes one use a knowledge already possessed. So I say about the issue at hand that Christ could have proceeded discursively from principles to conclusions that he had habitual abstractive knowledge of beforehand - or he could have learnt a scientific conclusion even though he did not have total quidditative knowledge of the terms (which is called ‘science’ by Aristotle, Nicomachean Ethics 6.4.1139b18-34, Physics 8.1.252a32-b5, On the Soul 2.2.413a16) - but it would not be a properly scientific habit of the conclusion.

II. To the Principal Arguments