The Summa Halensis最新文献

Providence and Causality in the Summa Halensis 《总论》中的天意与因果关系

The Summa Halensis Pub Date : 2020-06-22 DOI: 10.1515/9783110685008-008

C. Barnes

{"title":"Providence and Causality in the Summa Halensis","authors":"C. Barnes","doi":"10.1515/9783110685008-008","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110685008-008","url":null,"abstract":": William of Auvergne ’ s treatment of providence in his De universo (1230s) selectively employed Avicenna, Aristotle, and the category of efficient causality to mark a distinction between divine foreknowledge and providence. William ’ s focus on efficiency and affirmation that natural agents work in the mode of servants follows Neoplatonic impulses to instrumentalize nature and thereby risks eviscerating any meaningful secondary causality. Considerations of providence at Paris in the 1230s and 1240s engage with or react to William, with the Summa Halensis providing an interesting example. The Summa Halensis counters this risk by framing providence within the larger scope of divine knowledge and will, using reinterpreted ver-sions of Aristotelian formal and final causality. The Summists avoid the danger of reducing providence to predictive knowledge or to atemporal awareness of temporal events by stressing the causality of the divine intellect and will. Further, the Summists counter the danger of magnifying the causal efficacy of providence until God remains the sole agent of every effect by framing the causality of the divine intellect and will in terms of formal and final causality. By this approach, the Summa Halensis harmonizes providential causality with the integrity of secondary causality. The Summa Halensis begins its consideration of providence with a clear recognition that the observable world is full of confusion and disorder and with a clear affirmation that everything not well ordered in itself ‘ is nevertheless well-ordered with respect to divine providence, which always orders for the good ’ .¹ That this is so appears beyond doubt for the Summists; how it is so requires careful consideration. How does providence order for the good what is disordered in itself? How does divine providence order the disorder of secondary and contingent causes? To answer these and related questions, the Summa Halensis invokes Aristotle ’ s explanatory categories of efficient, formal, and final causality. Without neglecting efficient causality, the Summists place special emphasis on formal and, to a lesser extent, final causality.²","PeriodicalId":153743,"journal":{"name":"The Summa Halensis","volume":"23 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2020-06-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"125957090","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0

The Proof for a Necessary Existent in the Summa Halensis 《总论》中必然存在的证明

The Summa Halensis Pub Date : 2020-06-22 DOI: 10.1515/9783110685008-006

L. Schumacher

{"title":"The Proof for a Necessary Existent in the Summa Halensis","authors":"L. Schumacher","doi":"10.1515/9783110685008-006","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110685008-006","url":null,"abstract":": Since the late medieval period, Anselm of Canterbury has been heralded in the West as the first proponent of the so-called ontological argument for God ’ s existence. This kind of argument purports to provide proof for the reality of God, which is derived from the very definition of God as the supreme being. Although Anselm ’ s work has garnered considerable attention in the late medieval and modern periods, it was largely neglected in the century between his death and the first years of the University of Paris in the early 13th century. A few other precedents notwithstanding, Alexander of Hales and the authors of the Summa Halensis were the first extensively to appropriate and popularise the work of Anselm, not least, the famous argument which can be found in chapters 2 – 3 of his Proslogion. As I will demonstrate in this chapter, however, the Summa ’ s version of Anselm ’ s argument represents a significant development beyond Anselm ’ s own iteration. Through an assessment of Anselm ’ s argument on its own terms and a study of the Summa ’ s presentation of the argument in relation to its sources — above all, Richard of St Victor and Avicenna — I will argue that early Franciscans rather than Anselm are responsible for developing the version of the ontological argument that has been associated in some form with Anselm ’ s legacy to this day. Since the late medieval period, Anselm of Canterbury has been heralded in the West as the first proponent of the so-called ontological argument for God ’ s existence. This kind of argument purports to provide proof for the reality of God, which is derived from the very definition of God as the supreme being. As such a being, ontological arguments presume, God must possess all perfections — including the perfection of existence. Thus, one need only think about what he is to know that he exists. In that sense, ontological arguments are purely rational: they have no other source than human reason. Over the centuries, philosophers have formulated many different versions of this basic argument; however, most of them are framed with reference to a broader tradition of thought that began with Anselm.¹","PeriodicalId":153743,"journal":{"name":"The Summa Halensis","volume":"15 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2020-06-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"114196566","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0

The Sanctification of Mary 圣母玛利亚成圣

The Summa Halensis Pub Date : 2020-06-22 DOI: 10.1515/9783110685008-020

引用次数: 0

Passions and Sins 激情与罪恶

The Summa Halensis Pub Date : 2020-06-22 DOI: 10.1515/9783110685008-014

引用次数: 0

Index 指数

The Summa Halensis Pub Date : 2020-06-22 DOI: 10.1515/9783110685008-022

引用次数: 0

The Summa Halensis: Doctrines and Debates 《教义与辩论》

The Summa Halensis Pub Date : 2020-06-22 DOI: 10.1515/9783110685008-003

L. Schumacher

引用次数: 1

Frontmatter

The Summa Halensis Pub Date : 2020-06-22 DOI: 10.1515/9783110685008-fm

引用次数: 0

From ‘Lex aeterna’ to the ‘leges addictae’ 从Lex aeterna到leges addictae

The Summa Halensis Pub Date : 2020-06-22 DOI: 10.1515/9783110685008-015

引用次数: 1

The Ontology of Grace of Alexander of Hales and John of La Rochelle 海尔斯的亚历山大和拉罗谢尔的约翰的恩典本体论

The Summa Halensis Pub Date : 2020-06-22 DOI: 10.1515/9783110685008-012

Vincent L. Strand

{"title":"The Ontology of Grace of Alexander of Hales and John of La Rochelle","authors":"Vincent L. Strand","doi":"10.1515/9783110685008-012","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110685008-012","url":null,"abstract":"A major advance in the theology of grace occurred in the 13th century, as theologians began to conceive of grace as created, positing gratia creata alongside gratia increata.While Philip the Chancellor has long been regarded as the primary catalyst of this development, it was Alexander of Hales who introduced these terms, and his Franciscan confrère, John of La Rochelle, who first explained their relation. The contribution of these Franciscans to the development of the theology of grace has been underappreciated, in part because Hales’s Quaestiones disputatae de gratia (the first critical edition of which has only recently appeared) and Rochelle’s Quaestiones disputatae de gratia and Tractatus de gratia have received little attention. Through an exposition and analysis of these texts, as well as the relevant portions of the Summa Halensis, this article demonstrates how the early Franciscans spearheaded the 13-century development in the ontology of grace. A turning point in the theology of grace—what Bernard Lonergan called a ‘Copernican revolution’—occurred in the 13 century at the University of Paris.1 Specifically, this revolution concerned the ontology of grace. Theologians began to conceive of grace as created, positing gratia creata alongside gratia increata. The move can be seen in comparing Peter Lombard’s conception of grace as something uncreated, namely, charity, which is equated with the indwelling of the Holy Spirit in the soul, with the view of Thomas Aquinas, who argues that grace is not only uncreated, but also, as sanctifying grace (gratia gratum faciens), is a created form in the soul.2 While this development from the Lombard to Aquinas may have been a Copernican revolution, it was not a quantum leap. Rather, it occurred incrementally through a series of figures. Key among them were the Franciscans Alexander of Hales and his student and confrère, John of La Rochelle (de Rupella). Alexander was the first theologian to use the terms gratia increata and gratia creata. Rupella was the first to explain their relation. Nevertheless, their theology of grace is relatively unknown. The De gratia treatise of the Summa Halensis, the magnum opus of the early Francis Bernard J.F. Lonergan, Grace and Freedom: Operative Grace in the Thought of St. Thomas Aquinas, ed. Frederick E. Crowe and Robert M. Doran, Collected Works of Bernard Lonergan, 1 (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 2000 [original, 1971]), 17.  Peter Lombard, Sententiae in IV libris distinctae I, d. 17, 2 vols, ed. Ignatius C. Brady, Spicilegium Bonaventurianum, 4–5 (Grottaferrata: Editiones Collegii S. Bonaventurae, 1971–81): 1:141–52; Thomas Aquinas, Scriptum super libros Sententiarum II, d. 26, q. 1, a. 1, 4 vols, ed. Marie Fabien Moos and Pierre Félix Mandonnet (Paris: Sumptibus P. Lethielleux, 1929–47): 2:667–70; Thomas Aquinas, Summa theologiae I-II, q. 109, a. 7, 4 vols, ed. Pietro Caramello (Turin: Marietti, 1948): 2:553. OpenAccess. © 2020 Lydia Schumacher, published","PeriodicalId":153743,"journal":{"name":"The Summa Halensis","volume":"10 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2020-06-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"131666981","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 1

The Summa Halensis on Whether Universal and Particular Are Said of God 《关于上帝是否具有普遍性和特殊性的总结》

The Summa Halensis Pub Date : 2020-06-22 DOI: 10.1515/9783110685008-004

A. Côté

{"title":"The Summa Halensis on Whether Universal and Particular Are Said of God","authors":"A. Côté","doi":"10.1515/9783110685008-004","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110685008-004","url":null,"abstract":": This paper examines the Summa Halensis ’ theory of universals. I first try to tease out that theory from the Summa ’ s answer to the question of whether the Persons of the Trinity are related to the divine essence as species is related to genus or particulars to species. I then briefly discuss the philosophical interest of the Summa ’ s position by drawing attention to some significant parallels between it and one version of twentieth-century trope theory. I conclude by comparing the Summa ’ s treatment of universals with that of other early Franciscans discussions. This paper has a rather narrow focus, namely the Summa Halensis ’ treatment of the question of ‘ whether the notions of universal and particular apply to divine matters ’ , which covers six columns of text in the critical edition.² It is a question we find in the commentaries on the Sentences and Quaestiones of many scholastic authors, includ-ing those of many early Franciscans, in no small part because it had been touched upon by Peter Lombard in Distinction 19 of Book 1 of the Sentences. It is a question we expect to find in a systematic treatise on theology such as the Summa , and in particular in the section of it dealing with divine names in general. At issue is whether it is correct to think of the relation of the Persons of the Trinity to the divine essence as the relation of species to genus or of particulars to species. The scholastics tend to agree that the answer is no; and the Summa is no exception. What we will want to know is 1. why the Summa endorses this position, and what this tells us about its conception of universals and particulars in general, 2. what the philosophical interest of their position is, and 3. how their position compares to that of other early Franciscans. no universals, the a distributive","PeriodicalId":153743,"journal":{"name":"The Summa Halensis","volume":"19 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2020-06-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"130869479","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0