![]() ![]() Nor was he hostile to philosophy rightly used. Bonaventure certainly did not claim, either at this time or later, that one could give demonstrative arguments for all the articles of faith. His attacks, for all their emotionalism, are much less extreme in the positions they take than was William of Baglione. But it is clear that the battle had begun before this and that Bonaventure was only speaking for a faction already much in evidence at Paris. ![]() This series of sermons is traditionally seen as the beginning of the battle against the philosophers and their doctrines at Paris, resulting first in the condemnation of 1270 and finally triumphing in the much more extensive condemnation of 1277. During this time he preached two series of sermons, the Collationes de decem praeceptis and Collationes de donis spiritus sancti, in addition to several separate sermons, in which he denounced vehemently the independent use of philosophy without the light of faith and a number of specific errors of the various philosophers and he even seems obliquely to have criticized Aquinas for his general stance vis a vis the philosophers. In September of 1267, Bonaventure, now for ten years Minister General of the Franciscans, arrived in Paris, where he would remain until the end of May, 1268. ![]() 370-71.īut he would return within two years to take up the argument in his own behalf. 9, ita absque dubio non latent ad probandum non esse vel non posse esse mundum aetemum.' Ed. Unde, sicut ad probandum altissimum mysterium Trinitatis non desunt rationes efficacissimae, etsi nos lateant, sicut Richardus dicit in primo libro De trinitate, cap. 21 "Non solum autem demonstrabile est mundum non esse aetemum, sed etiam hoc, quoad aetemum esse non potuit. decet theologum mendicare fugam ex caecitate quorundam philosophorum, sive Commentatoris, qui absurde posuit intellectum esse unum in omnibus, sive Algazelis, qui non habuit pro inconvenienti quod animae separarae essent infinitae actu.' Ed. Ignatius Brady, "The Questions of Master William of Baglione," part 2, pp.ĥ89-81. or not, this is the earliest question on the eternity of the world in the Parisian milieu which is openly adversarial, motivated by personal animosity as well as doctrinal differences, and in which abusive language is used. Brady understands this question as the first shot in the battle which was to enliven the intellectual life of Paris for the next decade and indeed would not completely play itself out for over half a century. Therefore, just as totally efficacious arguments are not lacking for the highest mystery of the Trinity, as Richard says in book one of De trinitate, chapter 3, thus without doubt they are not lacking for proving that the world is not and cannot be eternal.'' 21 Fr. William has Aquinas even more obviously in mind than in the longer question, as well as the artists who had adopted the unity of the intellect, and he repeats and expands his earlier ,remarks, saying that "it is not seemly that a theologian take refuge in the blindness of certain philosophers or the Commentator, who absurdly posits that the intellect is one in all men, or Algazel, who does not reckon it illogical that separated souls are actually infinite.' 120 He concludes that "not only is it demonstrable that the world is not eternal, but also that it coulc!.not be eternal. It hardly touches on whether the world is eternal but discusses primarily whether it is demonstrable that the world is not eternal. Brady's analysis is correct, 19 does not aim for completeness, but rather for clarity. The shorter question, subsequent in order of composition if Fr. Arlotta of Prato would later expand this rebuttal. But the contrary is true in the production of the world. tional and in its way coequal to its origin.The second claims that the analogy is inexact because there is a subject matter, namely the dust, in which the footprint was made, and that the footprint is propor Quite a bit he says that the example only proves that if God had wished to create the world from eternity, the world would have existed from eternity, but he did not so will and should not have. ![]() Si etiam esset actu infmitum, adaequaretur divinae immensitati." Ed. Ideo nulla est instantia quae datur de infinitate numerorum parium et imparium et de excessu denarii et centenarii, quia vere una infinitas includit et infert aliam.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |