The Ordinatio of John Duns Scotus :: Ordinatio. Book 4. Distinctions 1 - 7 ::

collapse section

Export a Citation collapse section

collapse section

just this volume

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

Ordinatio. Book 4. Distinctions 1 - 7

collapse section

Collapse All | Expand All

collapse section

translator's preface

73

collapse section

book four. distinctions 1 - 7

first distinction. overview of the parts of the distinction

10

collapse section

first distinction. first part. on the action of the creature in respect of the term of creation

10

collapse section

single question. whether a creature can have any action with respect to the term of creation

3

collapse section

I. opinion of the theologians, who hold to the negative side of the question

1

collapse section

a. the four reasons they bring forward

1. first reason, which is from thomas aquinas

1

2. second reason

3. third reason

4. fourth reason

2

collapse section

b. the inefficacy of the aforesaid reasons

2

1. about the first reason

2. about the second reason

3. about the third reason

4. about the fourth reason

2

collapse section

II. opinion of avicenna for the opposite side of the question

1

a. exposition of the opinion

1

collapse section

b. refutation of the opinion

1. the reason proposed by thomas aquinas.

1

collapse section

2. scotus’ own argument, drawn from three propositions

a. the first proposition

1

b. the second proposition

c. the third proposition

C. to the arguments for the opinion

2

collapse section

III. response to the question

a. on the sense of the expressions ‘to act initially’ and ‘to act instrumentally’

2

collapse section

b. what one must think when ‘to act initially’ is taken

1. nothing other than god can, independently of a superior cause, act or create initially

2

collapse section

2. whether any creature can act or create when depending on a superior cause

a. the first way of speaking

b. the second way of speaking

2

c. the third way of speaking

d. final opinion

e. an objection and its solution

f. a doubt and its solution

C. what one must think about ‘to act instrumentally’

D. about the opinion of peter lombard

IV. to the initial arguments

2

collapse section

first distinction. second part. on the proper idea of a sacrament and on its institution

1

collapse section

question one. whether the idea definitive of a sacrament is what the master posits: ‘a sacrament is the visible form of an invisible grace’

1

collapse section

I. to the question

a. what there can and cannot be a definition of

collapse section

b. whether there can be a definition of a sacrament

1. about a definition’s first condition

2. about a definition’s second condition

3. about a definition’s third condition

4. about a definition’s fourth and fifth condition

1

C. what the fitting definition of a sacrament is

D. solution of the question

II. to the initial arguments

1

collapse section

question two. whether for the period of any law given by god some sacrament needed to have been instituted

collapse section

I. to the question

a. some sacrament did need to be instituted

b. by whom a sacrament needs to be instituted

C. when or for what period there was need for a sacrament to be instituted

collapse section

D. whether different sacraments needed to be instituted

1. how sacraments can be distinguished

2. response to the issue at hand

II. to the initial arguments

8

collapse section

first distinction. third part. on the causality of a sacrament as regard conferring grace

1

question one. whether it is possible for a sacrament, perfect to any extent whatever, to have an active causality with respect to conferring grace

7

collapse section

question two. whether it is possible for some supernatural virtue to exist in a sacrament

3

collapse section

I. opinion of thomas aquinas about each question

collapse section

a. exposition of the opinion

1. as to the first question

2. as to the second question

3

collapse section

b. rejection of the opinion

2

collapse section

1. as to the first question

2

a. first argument

b. second argument

c. third argument

d. fourth argument

1

2. as to the second question

collapse section

II. opinion of henry of ghent about the first question

a. statement of the opinion

b. rejection of the opinion

1

III. scotus’ own opinion as to the first question

IV. scotus’ opinion as to the second question

V. to the initial arguments of the first question

VI. the argument of the opinion of thomas

VII. to the initial arguments of the second question

9

collapse section

first distinction. incidental fourth part: on circumcision

9

collapse section

question one. whether grace was conferred in circumcision by force of the circumcision

7

collapse section

I. to the question

a. circumcision removed original sin

7

collapse section

b. whether grace was conferred in circumcision

7

collapse section

1. whether god can by his absolute power delete original guilt without infusion of grace

7

a. the opinion of richard of middleton

collapse section

2. whether god could do the same by his ordained power

a. opinions of others

b. scotus’ own opinion

II. to the initial arguments

collapse section

question two. whether during the time of the law of nature there was any sacrament corresponding to circumcision

I. to the question

II. to the initial arguments

6

collapse section

second distinction

division of the text

6

collapse section

question one. whether the sacraments of the new law get their efficacy from the passion of christ

5

collapse section

I. to the question

2

a. first conclusion

3

b. second conclusion

C. solution of the question

D. first corollary

e. second corollary

f. third corollary

II. to the initial arguments

collapse section

question two. whether someone baptized with the baptism of john was necessarily required to be baptized with the baptism of christ

I. to the question

II. to the initial arguments

11

collapse section

third distinction

division of the text and overview of the questions

1

collapse section

question one. whether the proper definition is what the master posits: ‘baptism is a dipping, that is, an exterior cleansing of the body, done under a prescribed form of words’

collapse section

I. to the question

a. how baptism can have a definition

b. whether the definition of baptism is the one that the master posits

C. solution of the question

1

II. to the initial arguments

5

collapse section

question two. whether this is the precise form of baptism: ‘i baptize you in the name of the father, and of the son, and of the holy spirit’

1

collapse section

I. to the question

a. whether and how certain words could be the form of baptism

b. about the form of baptism needed on the part of the minister

1

collapse section

C. about the form necessary on the part of the sacrament

1. about the non-principal words of the form

1

collapse section

2. about the principal words of the form

1

a. about variation in substance

b. about variation in quantity

c. about variation in quantity

d. about variation in ‘where’

II. to the initial arguments

3

collapse section

question three. whether pure natural water is the only fitting matter of baptism

I. to the question

II. to the initial arguments

2

collapse section

question four. whether the institution of baptism voids circumcision

collapse section

I. preamble to the question: that baptism was instituted in the new law is true and reasonable

b. it is reasonable

collapse section

II. solution of the question

a. whether the receiving of baptism was simply necessary

collapse section

b. whether circumcision was voided by baptism

collapse section

1. opinion of others

a. exposition of the opinion

b. rejection of the opinion

collapse section

2. scotus’ own opinion

a. about the times of baptism and circumcision, and of their interconnections

b. about the ways in which peter and paul conducted themselves in the presence of convert jews and gentiles

c. about the definitive revocation of circumcision

3. to the arguments for the opinion of others

III. to the initial arguments

collapse section

fourth distinction.

division of the text and overview of the parts and questions

2

collapse section

fourth distinction. first part. about reception of the sacrament and the thing in children receiving baptism

collapse section

question one. whether children are to be baptized

I. to the question

II. to the initial arguments

2

collapse section

question two. whether baptized children receive the effect of baptism

1

I. to the question

II. to the initial arguments

collapse section

question three. whether a child present in the womb of his mother could be baptized

collapse section

I. to the question

a. opinion of others and rejection of it

b. scotus’ own opinion

II. to the initial arguments

4

collapse section

fourth distinction. second part. about reception of the sacrament and not the thing in adults receiving baptism

2

collapse section

question one. whether an adult who does not consent can receive the effect of baptism

collapse section

I. to the question

collapse section

a. about an adult with the use of reason or without it

1. about an adult who never uses reason

2. about an adult not now using reason

3. about an adult with the use of reason

b. about an adult who is not willing

II. to the initial arguments

2

collapse section

question two. whether an adult who is feigning receives the effect of baptism

1

collapse section

I. to the question

a. about him who feigns on the outside to be willing, is unwilling on the inside

1

collapse section

b. about him who feigns on the outside to be disposed, is not disposed on the inside

1

1. a person so feigning does not in baptism receive grace but through penance

2. objections to the aforesaid solution

3. response to the first objection

collapse section

4. response to the second objection

a. objection to this response

b. triple response to the objection

II. to the initial arguments

collapse section

fourth distinction. third part. about the reception of the thing and not the sacrament both in children and in adults receiving baptism

collapse section

single question. whether those already justified are bound to the receiving of baptism

I. to the question

II. to the initial arguments

2

collapse section

fourth distinction. fourth part. about equal or unequal reception of the thing and not the sacrament, and about conferring baptism in doubtful cases

2

collapse section

question one. whether all the baptized receive the effect of baptism equally

1

collapse section

I. to the question

a. opinion of others and its rejection

1

collapse section

b. scotus’ own opinion

1. about the effect of baptism flowing forth from the principal cause

2. about the effect of baptism flowing forth from the meritorious cause

1

3. about the effect of baptism flowing forth from the receivers

II. to the initial argument

question two. what is to be done about an exposed child

collapse section

question three. whether the children of jews and infidels are to be baptized against their parents’ wishes

I. opinion of others and rejection of it

II. scotus’ own opinion

4

collapse section

fifth distinction

division of the text and overview of the questions

3

collapse section

question one. whether the malice of the minister prevent baptism being conferred

I. to the question

II. to the initial arguments

1

collapse section

question two. whether he who receives baptism knowingly from a bad minister sins mortally

collapse section

I. to the question

collapse section

a. about reception of baptism from a minister in schism from the church

1. first way: about the obligation to receive baptism

2. second way: about refusal to receive baptism from such a minister

3. the second way is rejected

4. an intermediate opinion

b. about receiving baptism from a bad minister not in schism from the church

II. to the initial arguments

question three. whether one should administer the baptismal sacrament when there is presumption that the baptizing poses a danger to the bodily life of him who receives it

collapse section

sixth distinction

division of the text and overview of the questions

1

collapse section

sixth distinction. first part. about the rank of the minister

1

collapse section

single question. whether only a priest can baptize

I. to the question

II. to the initial arguments

1

collapse section

second distinction. second part. about the unity of baptism

1

collapse section

question one. whether the unity of baptism necessarily requires that it be conferred by one minister

collapse section

I. to the question

a. about baptism administered by two ministers who together do the whole

b. about baptism administered by two ministers who do something separately

C. about the baptizing of many carried out by one minister all at once

D. about the baptism of a receiver whose unicity is in doubt

II. to the initial arguments

collapse section

question two. whether the unity of baptism requires the washing and the speaking of the words to be simultaneous

a. the opinion of the glossator

b. rejection of the opinion

C. scotus’ own opinion

II. to the initial arguments

collapse section

question three. whether the unity of baptism requires the baptizer to be distinct in person from the baptized

I. to the question

II. to the initial argument

4

collapse section

sixth distinction. third part. about the intention of the minister

4

collapse section

question one. whether in the minister who baptizes there is required the due intention to baptize

1

collapse section

I. to the question

a. the common opinion and assessment of it

1

collapse section

b. scotus’ own opinion

1. about intention as regard the act

1

collapse section

2. about intention as regard the end

1

c. response to the first objection

d. response to the second objection

II. to the initial arguments

collapse section

question two. what sort of intention is required in the minister who baptizes

I. to the question

II. to the initial arguments

fourth part. about the repetition of baptism

1

collapse section

sixth distinction. fourth part. article one. about the illicitness of repeating baptism

1

collapse section

question one. whether baptism can be repeated

collapse section

I. to the question

a. reasons of others against the repeatability of baptism, and rejection of them

b. scotus’ own reason

II. to the initial argument

question two. what the penalty is for those who repeat baptism

5

collapse section

sixth distinction. fourth part. article two. about the character because of which baptism is posited as unrepeatable

2

collapse section

question one. whether a character is impressed in baptism

1

collapse section

I. to the question

a. about the meaning of this name ‘character’

1

collapse section

b. about the impressing on the soul of character thus understood

1

collapse section

1. first opinion: neither by natural reason nor from things believed can it be proved that a character is present in the soul

1

a. first reason

b. second reason

c. third reason

d. fourth reason

e. fifth reason

f. response to the initial arguments for the opposite

2. second opinion: that there is a character in the soul can be proved by the authority of the church and various elements of congruence

collapse section

3. to the arguments for the first opinion

a. to the argument about the way of positing a character

b. to the first reason

c. to the second reason

d. to the third reason

e. to the fourth reason

f. to the fifth reason

II. to the initial arguments

3

collapse section

question two. whether the character is some absolute form

1

collapse section

I. to the question

1

a. the opinion of thomas aquinas

collapse section

b. rejection of the opinion

1. against him who holds this opinion from his own statements

collapse section

2. against the reasons brought forward in the opinion

a. to the first reason

b. to the second reason

c. to the third reason

d. to the fourth reason

collapse section

C. two doubts as to the question

1. about the first doubt

2. about the second doubt

D. scotus’ own opinion

collapse section

e. doubt as to scotus’ own opinion

collapse section

1. consideration of the diverse opinions or solutions

a. about the first solution

b. about other possible solutions

c. about another peculiar possible solution

2. scotus’ own solution

II. to the initial arguments on both sides

collapse section

question three. whether character is in the essence of the soul or in some power of it

collapse section

I. to the question

collapse section

a. opinion of thomas aquinas

1. exposition of the opinion

2. rejection of the opinion

b. scotus’ own opinion

II. to the initial argument

III. to the reason for thomas aquinas’ position

collapse section

summation of the distinctions about baptism

on a twofold exhaustive definition of baptism

3

collapse section

seventh distinction

division of the text

2

collapse section

introduction. about the idea or definition of confirmation

I. statement of the definition

1

II. explanation of the definition

III. objections against the definition

1

collapse section

IV. response to the objections

a. to the first objection

b. to the second objection

1

collapse section

C. to the third objection

1. first way of speaking and its rejection

2. second way of speaking and its rejection

1

collapse section

3. third way of speaking and its proof by authorities

a. first authority and the weighing of it

1

b. second authority and the weighing of it

4. fourth way of speaking

collapse section

question one. whether the sacrament of confirmation is necessary for salvation

I. to the question

II. to the initial argument

1

collapse section

question two. whether the sacrament of confirmation is of more dignity than baptism

I. to the question

II. to the initial argument for the other side

collapse section

question three. whether the sacrament of confirmation could be repeated

I. to the question

II. to the initial argument

question four. whether there is any penalty for those who repeat the sacrament of confirmation

collapse section

SUBSCRIBER:

past masters commons

Annotation Guide:

All Collections > The Ordinatio of John Duns Scotus > Ordinatio. Book 4. Distinctions 1 - 7 > book four. distinctions 1 - 7 > first distinction. first part. on the action of the creature in respect of the term of creation > single question. whether a creature can have any action with respect to the term of creation > i. opinion of the theologians, who hold to the negative side of the question > a. the four reasons they bring forward > 1. first reason, which is from thomas aquinas

cover

The Ordinatio of John Duns Scotus

Ordinatio. Book 4. Distinctions 1 - 7

Book Four. Distinctions 1 - 7

First Distinction. First Part. On the Action of the Creature in Respect of the Term of Creation

Single Question. Whether a Creature can have any Action with respect to the Term of Creation

I. Opinion of the Theologians, who Hold to the Negative Side of the Question

A. The Four Reasons they Bring Forward

1. First Reason, which is from Thomas Aquinas

hide table of contents

1. First Reason, which is from Thomas Aquinas

17. The first reason is taken from the side of the term per se of creation, and it is as follows [ST Ia q.45 a.5]: “It is necessary to reduce effects more universal to causes more universal; but the most universal of all effects is being itself; therefore it is the proper effect of the most universal or supreme cause. Hence it is said in On Causes [prop.3 nn.27-28] that neither the intelligence nor the rational soul bestows being save as they operate with divine operation.” From this is further deduced, “Since the production of being absolutely (and not this or that being) pertains to the idea of creation, therefore is creation the proper action of God.”

18. The addition is also made that creation cannot belong instrumentally or ministerially to a creature. The reason is that “an instrumental cause does not participate in the action of the superior cause unless its working for the proper effect of the principal agent is through something proper to itself.” The proof is that “if it did nothing according to anything proper to itself it would be applied in vain to the action. Nor would there need to be determinate instruments for determinate actions, just as we see also that an axe in cutting wood gets from the property of its own form that it produce the form of the bench, which is the effect of the principal agent.” But it cannot be like this in creation, because creation does not rest on anything presupposed that could be made ready by the action of an instrumental agent. For “absolute being, which is an effect proper to God, is presupposed to everything else.”

1. First Reason, which is from Thomas Aquinas