What Is Later Franciscan Theology? Ockham and the Early Franciscans 283

Total Page:16

File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb

What Is Later Franciscan Theology? Ockham and the Early Franciscans 283 Volker Leppin What is Later FranciscanTheology? Ockham and the Early Franciscans Abstract: Although the traditions of particularreligious orders had an impact on shapingindividual theologies,contemporary debates were influential as well. This can be seen in the case of the Franciscan William of Ockham (d. 1347). While reading the Sentences in Oxford, he developed an understanding of theologythat fit quite well with current debates between the university mastersand the mendicantorders. Though thereare not manyexplicit references to the earlier Franciscans in his work, the few quotations from the Summa Halensis in his Commentaryonthe Sentences can be divided according to those thatattribute the Summa to an anonymous group of scholars who represent abroader consensus opinion, on the one hand, and at least one quote, on the other hand, where Ockham seems to contradict Alexander of Hales’ views on theology. In this case, however,itbecomes clear that Ockham might have known the position of the Summa onlybythe means of other Francis- cans, in particular, William of Alnwick. Thus, speakingabout aFranciscan tradition in the Venerable Inceptor’swork involves speakingabout abroken tradition. The studyofmedievaltheologygenerallyassumes the importance of the religious or- ders of the period and the different intellectual traditions associated with them. For example, the Franciscan tradition of thought would begin with Alexander of Hales or the Summa Halensis and lead subsequentlytoBonaventure, Duns Scotus,and Wil- liam of Ockham. Obviously,thereisabasis in the social reality of medieval academic education for reconstructing the history of theologythis way: orders provided study housesfor their members, wherethey receivedtheir initial training in the subject matter.This was true not least of the Franciscans, and it standstoreason that in the Franciscan houses of studies, Franciscans wereread more than scholars working in other traditions. Foratleast two reasons, however,one might query whether this wayoftelling the history of theology, namely,interms of order traditions, is the right one or indeed the onlyright one. The first reason concerns the historiographyofresearch concern- ing medieval members of the orders.For along time, research in the field of scho- lastic theologywas dominated by scholars who themselves weremembers of apar- ticular order.Thus, the great editions of Dominican authorswereprepared by Dominicans; the editions of key Franciscan works wereprovided by Franciscans. The same is true as regardsresearch about them. In that light,one might ask if the idea of specific order traditions simplyreflects the conditions under which mod- ern research on these traditions was undertaken, thatis, within the religious orders OpenAccess. ©2021Volker Leppin, published by De Gruyter. This work is licensed under the Creative CommonsAttribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 License. https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110684827-019 282 Volker Leppin themselves, which wereconcerned with writing their own history and advancingthe ideas that they themselvesregarded as important. The second reason is that research in recent decades, whether by JacquesLeGoff, Alain de Liberaorothers, has laid astronger emphasis on the social realm of univer- sities as the context for the development of both concepts and methods of thinking in this period.¹ When we approach William of Ockham in this light,wemight ask if the Franciscan school reallyformed the horizon of his thinking,consideringthat we do not find Alexander of Hales and Bonaventure mentioned in the index provided by Franciscan editors to his Quodlibeta,the least restricted theological work thathepro- duced. In terms of Franciscan influences, Ockham’scontemporaries, aboveall, Wal- ter of Chatton (d. 1343), who taught duringOckham’stime in Oxford, seem to be much more at the background of his arguments than such earlier members of the order.Furthermore,one might ask if the problems Ockham discussed werereally raised by his order tradition or if they wereaproduct of the current intellectual sit- uation, e.g. the condemnation of radical Aristotelianism in Paris and England in the 1370s. In light of these considerations, the following will not onlydeal with the ques- tion of Ockham’srelationship to the older Franciscan school, but also with the ques- tion concerning which motivesingeneral made him think and argueinparticular ways. The Franciscan Context of Ockham’sTeaching The life and thinking of William of Ockham shows that there was no real dichotomy between academic training undertaken in the context of an order or in the university context,for asimple reason. As aFranciscan teachingatthe university,Ockham nonetheless livedinthe house of his order and possiblyevenoffered his lectures there. Le Goff has made us aware of the fact that the overall medieval idea of mendi- cants living in their houses and giving lectures for university studentswas not with- out problems.² Acertain rivalry arose from the simple fact thatmendicants could give lectures for free while secular masters wereaccustomed to being paidbytheir stu- dents. This economic reality might not have been the onlyreason for the problems between mendicants and secular clerics at medieval universities, but it was one of them. Another possiblereason concerns the fact thatmembers of an order represent- ed acoherent group at the universitywith acertain influenceinits council while sec- ular clerics tendedtobethere as mere individuals. Jacques Le Goff, Intellectuals in the Middle Ages,trans. Teresa L. Fagan (Cambridge,MA; Oxford: Blackwell, 1993). Alain de Libera, La philosophie médiévale (Paris:Presses Universitaires de France, 2017). Le Goff, Intellectuals in the Middle Ages. What is Later Franciscan Theology? Ockham and the Early Franciscans 283 There is evidence of conflicts between the two groups not onlyinParis, which has been the focus of Le Goff’sanalysis,but also in Oxford. In fact,the main agents there werenot the Franciscans but the Dominicans, though there is some reason to assume that the two mendicant orders shared some common interests.³ These derivedinpart from the exemption they enjoyedwhen it came to taking the equivalent to an undergraduatedegree in the faculty of arts in Oxford. By papal decree, the university had to accept thosebrothers who had attended an arts course in their order’sstudyhouse,asfor example Ockham might have done.⁴ This was particularlyimportant for the Dominicans who werenot allowed to studythe arts at the university.⁵ Now,asweknow from an appellation of the Dom- inicans written in 1311, the university council in the beginning of the 14th century gave new power to astatute of 1252 thatdid not allow anyone to attend ahigher fac- ulty at Oxford who had not graduated from the facultyofarts.⁶ Onlyamajorityofall regent masters of the university was able to free an indi- vidual of this requirement. Furthermore, decisions on this scorehad to be taken on acase-by-case basis, which meant thatseveral times, the mastersactuallydenied access to Oxford Universitytobrothers from the Dominican order who had studied at one of the order’sstudyhouses. The question became even more complicated as it was the preliminary for ahigher course of studyintheology. Against protesting Dom- inicans, the majority of masters claimed that no one should be allowed to hold lec- tures on the Bible before having lectured on the Sentences,which the Dominicans regarded as aperversion of doctrine.⁷ In this requirement,one might discern apref- erencefor philosophicallyskilled teachers at the university over what the secular masters might have seen as simple-minded mendicant brethren. Institutionally, all these measurescan be seen as an attempt to strengthen the unity of the university against the centrifugalpowers of the orders, particularlythe Dominicans. Such measures wereunderpinnedbypolemics against the services of the Dominicans as well as against their lectures.⁸ Here, as well as in the instruction to hold academic celebrations in the central church of the university instead in the mendicant convents, the Franciscans came into the picture.⁹ Forthey supported the Dominicans in opening up their own church so that the friars preachers could protest this decision.¹⁰ Forthe following, see Volker Leppin, Wilhelm von Ockham: Gelehrter,Streiter, Bettelmönch,2nd ed. (Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft,2012), pp. 42– 47. Leppin, Wilhelm von Ockham,p.20. H. Rashdall, ‘The Friars Preachers vs. the University,’ in Collectanea,ed. M. Burrows,4vols (Ox- ford: Clarendon Press, 1890), vol. 2, pp. 193–273, on p. 217. Rashdall, ‘The Friars Preachers,’ p. 217. Rashdall, ‘The Friars Preachers,’ p. 218. Rashdall, ‘The Friars Preachers,’ p. 220. Rashdall, ‘The Friars Preachers,’ pp. 223–25. Rashdall, ‘The Friars Preachers,’ p. 242. 284 Volker Leppin Here, we begin to understand what all these conflicts meant for ayoung Francis- can theologian such as William of Ockham. PresumablyOckham entered Oxford Uni- versityin1308, which meant that he witnessed the conflicts mentioned aboveand had to feel himself somehow involved in them.¹¹ Afterall, he seems to have studied at the order’shouse in London and so would have benefittedfrom the exemption from studying in the faculty of arts.¹² All this has to be taken into account in order to understand his new concept of the coherence of arts and theology, as Iargued years ago.¹³ To him, logic or dialectics alone was enough to ensure the validity of ascience, especiallytheology. What Ockham impliedhere regardingthe
Recommended publications
  • Alexander of Hales'stheology in His Authentic Texts (Commentary On
    chapter 13 Alexander of Hales’s Theology in His Authentic Texts (Commentary on the Sentences of Peter Lombard, Various Disputed Questions) Hubert Philipp Weber As the first teacher at the University of Paris to become a Franciscan friar, Alexander of Hales has an honoured place in the history of the order. The greater part of his theological work was already completed while he was a secular master. It is therefore more correct to call him an important theolo- gian who influenced Franciscan theology. However, it is not easy to distinguish what makes him a ‘Franciscan theologian’. I will begin by offering some his- torical remarks on his life and his authentic writings, most of which were discovered in the twentieth century. Then I will continue by giving an impres- sion of his thought with a few examples from his writings. The final sec- tion contains a very short outline of the Summa Universae Theologiae (also known as the Summa fratris Alexandri or Summa Halensis) connected with his name. 1 Historical Remarks: Alexander’s Life and Work We do not know very much about Alexander’s early life.1 His surname indicates his origin, Hales in Shropshire, England, where he was born around 1185. He stayed in contact with England all his life. In the first years of the thirteenth century he arrived at the University of Paris, where he studied and taught artes liberales. From about 1220 he lectured at the theological faculty. During the conflict between the university and the bishop of Paris in 1229/31 he went into exile.
    [Show full text]
  • The Passions of the Will and the Passion of Christ in Franciscantheologyfromthe Summa Halensis to Duns Scotus
    Andrew V. Rosato The Passions of the Will and the Passion of Christ in FranciscanTheologyfromthe Summa Halensis to Duns Scotus Abstract: This chapter examines how the Summa Halensis’ analysis of Christ’ssorrow was adopted and modified by later Franciscan theologians.Accordingtothe teach- ing of Jerome, which Peter Lombardmade available to medieval theologians,Christ’s sorrow arose from an involuntary reaction to his physical suffering. In order to ex- pand upon Jerome’saccount,the Summa Halensis develops an elaborate map of Christ’ssoul by drawing on psychological principles found in Augustine and John Damascene. 13th century theologians debated whether Christ could experience sor- row over his ownsuffering not justasanatural and instinctual reaction, but also as the result of freelywillingthat he not suffer.Anobstacle to asserting this would be anyimplication that Christ did not will by his human willwhat God willed him to will. Richard of Middleton, Matthew of Aquasparta, and Duns Scotus do af- firm that Christ in some wayfreelynilled his own suffering, and experiencedsorrow over it because of that.Indifferent ways they employ the account of Christ’ssoul out- lined in the Summa Halensis to avoid anyimplication that Christ fell into sin by freely nilling his ownsuffering. The GospelofMatthew reports that Jesus experienced sorrow in the Garden of Geth- semane (26:37–38): ‘he began to be sorrowful [coepit contristari]and troubled. Then he said to them, “My soul is sorrowful [tristis]tothe point of death.”’ Jerome offered an influential interpretation of this passagewhen he statedthatChrist experienced the propassion of sorrow rather than afull-fledgedform of thatpassion. One differ- ence between apropassion and afull-fledgedpassion is that apropassion does not overwhelm one’sability to use reason.
    [Show full text]
  • Divine Providence from Alexander of Hales to Thomas Aquinas
    chapter 2 Divine Providence from Alexander of Hales to Thomas Aquinas 1 Accidental Causality, Free Choice and Evil Divine causality was discussed by the medieval theologians under the rub- ric of several independent doctrines. All the authors studied in this work held that providence worked through an order of secondary natural causes. This sets the theology of providence apart from the theology of salvation, for example. The salvation or damnation of any given individual was based solely on divine causality.The realization of the providential order, on the other hand, was founded on the co-operation between divine and created causality. While this order was certainly based on divine disposition, its practical implementa- tion was carried out by the total order of causes (connexio causarum). In this sense, divine providence was conceptualized in a natural philosophical frame- work. One of the foundational themes of Aristotelian natural philosophy, the notion of causality was crucial to the medieval discussions concerning divine providence. According to Aristotle, causes come in four distinct types: mater- ial, formal, efficient and final.1 From the perspective of this study, efficient and final causality are of greater importance than material and formal caus- ality. As shown in the previous chapter, Boethius’s Consolatio philosophiae was of crucial importance for the medieval theories of divine providence. Boethius’s understanding of providence contained elements of both efficient and final causality.2 Meanwhile in Averroes’s influential interpretation of Aris- totle, divine providence was seen exclusively as a final cause, whereas the effi- cient causality of God was not considered to be of direct relevance for the topic.
    [Show full text]
  • The Friendships of St. Thomas
    THE FRIENDSHIPS OF ST. THOMAS BRO. CYRIL DORE, 0 . P. T . Thomas Aquinas is a perfect type of that harmonious un­ ion of sanctity and learning which characterizes the great Doctors of the Church. A tender affection and a sympathetic understanding, which unites hearts entirely devoted to God, can be observed in all his friendships. While bearing himself affably towards all, the Angelic Doctor had but few intimate friends and these were persons of singular learning and holiness. From a consideration of these few, we can see the great influence for good which he exerted, the wide extent of his knowledge, and the deep penetration of his in­ tellectual prowess. They not only give us an insight into the reaction of personality on personality and the interplay of mind on mind, but in a very special manner, they exhibit the practical aspect of his writ­ ings. From the investigations of his biographers, the friendships of St. Thomas can be considered under four headings; namely, within his own Order, in the religious world, in the academic world, and in the political world. Amongst the members of the Dominican Order, the first friend mentioned is John of St. Julian. He is referred to as the old adviser and dear familiar friend of St. Thomas.1 This celebrated preacher directed the footsteps of the young Aquinas during the three years previous to his entrance into the Dominican Order. As a student at the University of Naples, the mind and imagination of Aquinas were captivated by the sanctity, the learning and the marvellous activ­ ity of the Dominicans.
    [Show full text]
  • Salvation in Christ.Qxp 4/29/2005 4:09 PM Page 365
    Salvation in Christ.qxp 4/29/2005 4:09 PM Page 365 Index Aaronic Priesthood. See priesthood Amos, 240, 316 Abelard, Peter, 109, 212 Anglicanism, 53–66 Abraham, 30, 137–38, 148, 316 Anglican Understanding of the Acts of the Apostles, 38–40 Church, The, 54 Adam, 13, 110, 130, 137–39, 151, Anselm of Canterbury, 75, 107–9, 162, 215 112–20, 212, 347 Adam and Eve, 256 Aquinas, Thomas, 109, 113–15, and rebirth, 8 118, 121, 320 call upon God, 148 Aristotle, 224 cast from Garden of Eden, Arminianism, 161, 183–202 143, 145 Arminius, Jacob, 183, 189–91, descendants of, 205 193, 310 Greek understanding of, Articles and Covenants, 276 248, 259 “Articles of Religion,” 57–58 Fall of (see Fall of Adam Ashton, Marvin J., 89 and Eve) Association of Evangelicals, 189 first sin, 338 Atonement. See Jesus Christ, Adorno, Theodor, 225 Atonement of Adversus Haereses, 111 Athanasian Creed, 339 agency, 12, 147, 162–63, 200, 249 Athanasius the Great, 173, 175, agnosticism, 301 255, 313 Aimilianos, Father, 250–251 Augustine, 113, 173, 175, 305, 308, Albert the Great, 310 314–15 Alexander of Aphrodisias, 224 Aulén, Gustaf, 111–12, 118, 212 Alexander of Hales, 309 Avis, Paul, 54 Alliance of Confessing Evangeli- cals, 186 Baker, Simon, 278 Althaus, Paul, 117 Bangs, Carl, 190 365 Salvation in Christ.qxp 4/29/2005 4:09 PM Page 366 Salvation in Christ baptism, 13–14, 90, 131, 214 Callister, Tad R., 169 by immersion, 16 Calvin, John, 327–28 for dead (see redemption of on Arminianism, 191, 196 the dead) on Crucifixion, 74 Barclay, Robert, 318 on election, 341 Barth, Karl,
    [Show full text]
  • Augustinianism.Pdf
    Augustinianism. This term is used to characterize philosophical, theological and political political ideas which were more or less close to those of S. Augustine of Hippo. The term came into use relatively recently, and can cover a spectrum of views: Augustinianism has never been a homogeneous movement. In particular, it is necessary to distinguish between a broad and a strict sense of the word, In the broad sense, the whole of Latin theology of the medieval and early modern period was strongly influenced by Augustine, as emerges very clearly from the Summae of the twelfth century and above all from Hugh of St Victor and from the authoritative Book of Sentences of Peter Lombard. The early generations of theologians of the mendicant orders – Hugh of St Cher, Alexander of Hales, Bonaventura of Bagnoregio – developed a close bond with Augustine, but they interpreted him in the light of neoplatonic or Aristotelian theories (for example, divine illumination of the intellect, the ‘agent intellect’, matter, rationes seminales [seminal principles]. In the strict sense one must distinguish between the following. #1. Augustinianism from the end of the thirteenth and the beginning of the fourteenth century emerged - especially in the Franciscan School (William de la Mare) and among Augustinian Hermits (“the old Augustinian School according to Giles of Rome) - as a reaction to the widespread reception of Aristotle in the work of Thomas Aquinas, after the condemnations of 1277 at Paris and 1284 at Oxford. Consciously drawing on Augustinian on Augustinian ideas (illumination, the form of created things in the mind of God), Henry of Ghent [a member of the secular clergy] created a coherent new system of speculative theology which would provide a a basis for acute critical analysis and the new order introduced by John Duns Scotus, who substituted for illumination the idea of an intuitive grasp of the essence of things.
    [Show full text]
  • The Glossa in Iv Libros Sententiarum by Alexander of Hales
    THE GLOSSA IN IV LIBROS SENTENTIARUM BY ALEXANDER OF HALES Hubert Philipp Weber Alexander of Hales, an Englishman, master of theology at the Univer- sity in Paris, who at the height of his career entered the Franciscan order, is an important but little known fi gure of the thirteenth century. His commentary on the Sentences is an early example of this genre and an early expression of his theology. Its form and method are still fl uid. Aft er a short history of the scholarship and some historical remarks I will characterize Alexander’s commentary formally by describing the known manuscripts and attempting to establish its date. Th en I will discuss Alexander’s method and his approach to the Sentences, which he was the fi rst master to use for his ordinary lectures. Finally, a few texts on various theological questions will provide an insight into Alexander’s theology.1 History of Scholarship For seven centuries the search for Alexander of Hales’s commentary on the Sentences was unsuccessful. Nevertheless, there is an early tes- timony in the writings of Roger Bacon, who claimed that Alexander was the fi rst to give lectures on Peter Lombard’s textbook.2 Surely Alexander was not the fi rst to use theSentences with his students, but he gave the work a new importance in that he employed it as the one 1 In would like to thank Sandra Lang, who helped me with the English text of this chapter.—Alexander of Hales, Glossa in IV libros sententiarum Petri Lombardi, 4 vols., Bibliotheca Franciscana Scholastica Medii Aevi 12–15 (Quaracchi, 1951–1957), is cited as Glossa; idem, Summa theologica [seu ab origine dicta Summa fratris Alexandri], 4 vols.
    [Show full text]
  • The Franciscan Intellectual Tradition
    1 The Franciscan Intellectual Tradition In one way the Franciscan intellectual tradition began in the late 1230s. The Franciscans first gathered in 1209, in the Umbrian commune of Assisi. They spread rapidly and were in Paris by the early 1220s, on the outskirts of the city. From there they soon moved into the city, close to where the learning was going on. A well-known and ecclesiastically busy English churchman and theologian in Paris, Alexander of Hales, started teaching in the Franciscan house in Paris and ended up becoming a friar himself. That was in 1236. Alexander, in his early 50s, was a magister regens. A professor with tenure, let us say. He held onto the position as a friar and, as the rules allowed, passed his chair to a fellow friar. So the Franciscans ended up with a chair of theology of their own. Out of the small group of scholars around Alexander came a Summa theologica, impor- tant in Franciscan study, but just what part Alexander authored, what part John of La Rochelle authored, and what came from other colleagues is a moot question. One of Alexander’s early students was Bonaventure of Bagnoregio. He had high regard for Alexander, calling him his magister et pater. He studied under him and in 1243 became a friar himself. Alexander and John both died in 1245. Bonaventure continued his studies under Odo Rigaldi and William of Meliton. He did his exposition on the Sentences of Peter Lombard beween 1250 and 1252 and served as regent master from 1254 to 1257.
    [Show full text]
  • 9783110684827.Pdf
    The Legacy of Early Franciscan Thought Veröffentlichungen des Grabmann-Institutes zur Erforschung der mittelalterlichen Theologie und Philosophie Münchener Universitätsschriften Katholisch-Theologische Fakultät Founded by Michael Schmaus †, Werner Dettloff † and Richard Heinzmann Continued in collaboration with Ulrich Horst Edited by Isabelle Mandrella and Martin Thurner Volume 67 The Legacy of Early Franciscan Thought Edited by Lydia Schumacher ISBN 978-3-11-068241-0 e-ISBN (PDF) 978-3-11-068482-7 e-ISBN (EPUB) 978-3-11-068488-9 ISSN 0580-2091 DOI https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110684827 This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License. For details go to https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/. Library of Congress Control Number: 2020944940 Bibliographic information published by the Deutsche Nationalbibliothek The Deutsche Nationalbibliothek lists this publication in the Deutsche Nationalbibliografie; detailed bibliographic data are available on the Internet at http://dnb.dnb.de. © 2021 Lydia Schumacher, published by Walter de Gruyter GmbH, Berlin/Boston Printing and binding: CPI books GmbH, Leck www.degruyter.com Contents Acknowledgements IX LydiaSchumacher and Simon Maria Kopf AGuide to Citing the Summa Halensis XI Abbreviations XIII LydiaSchumacher Introduction 1 Part I: Philosophy and Theology Cecilia Trifogli The Creation of Matterinthe Summa Halensis 15 MagdalenaBieniak The Soul-Body Union in the Summa Halensis 37 Anna-KatharinaStrohschneider The Summa Halensis
    [Show full text]
  • Early Franciscan Theology: an Introduction
    Cambridge University Press 978-1-108-49865-4 — Early Franciscan Theology Lydia Schumacher Excerpt More Information chapter 1 Early Franciscan Theology: An Introduction For generations, the work of early Franciscan intellectuals has been regarded as relatively unoriginal: a mere attempt to codify and systematize the ideas of earlier authorities, above all, Augustine.1 Thus, the tradition of thought that was founded by the first scholar-members of the Franciscan order has been almost entirely neglected in scholarly literature. By contrast, the work of later Franciscans like John Duns Scotus and William of Ockham has garnered considerable attention, on the ground that they supposedly broke from their predecessors to develop innovative ideas that laid the foundations for the rise of modern theology and philosophy.2 The present volume proposes to make a case for the innovativeness of early Franciscan theology, that is, the theology that was formulated by first- generation Franciscans. These scholars flourished in the 1230s and 40sat the University of Paris, which was the centre for theological study at the time. In investigating the scholarly tradition they established, I will call attention to various aspects of the context in which they worked: most importantly, the intellectual context afforded by the recently established university, the context of the Franciscan order itself, and the philosophical context associated with the translation movement of the twelfth and early thirteenth centuries, which witnessed the introduction of many Greco- Arabic philosophical sources in the West. 1 Artur Michael Landgraf, Introduction à l’histoire de la littérature théologique de la scolastique naissante, ed. A.M. Landry, trans.
    [Show full text]
  • An Introductory Dictionary of Theology and Religious Studies
    An Introductory Dictionary of Theology and Religious Studies An Introductory Dictionary of Theology and Religious Studies Edited by Orlando O. Espín and James B. Nickoloff A Michael Glazier Book LITURGICAL PRESS Collegeville, Minnesota www.litpress.org A Michael Glazier Book published by Liturgical Press. Cover design by David Manahan, o.s.b. Cover symbol by Frank Kacmarcik, obl.s.b. © 2007 by Order of Saint Benedict, Collegeville, Minnesota. All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reproduced in any form, by print, microfilm, microfiche, mechanical recording, photocopying, translation, or by any other means, known or yet unknown, for any purpose except brief quotations in reviews, without the previous written permission of Liturgical Press, Saint John’s Abbey, P.O. Box 7500, Collegeville, Minnesota 56321-7500. Printed in the United States of America. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data An introductory dictionary of theology and religious studies / edited by Orlando O. Espín and James B. Nickoloff. p. cm. “A Michael Glazier book.” ISBN-13: 978-0-8146-5856-7 (alk. paper) 1. Religion—Dictionaries. 2. Religions—Dictionaries. I. Espín, Orlando O. II. Nickoloff, James B. BL31.I68 2007 200.3—dc22 2007030890 We dedicate this dictionary to Ricardo and Robert, for their constant support over many years. Contents List of Entries ix Introduction and Acknowledgments xxxi Entries 1 Contributors 1519 vii List of Entries AARON “AD LIMINA” VISITS ALBIGENSIANS ABBA ADONAI ALBRIGHT, WILLIAM FOXWELL ABBASIDS ADOPTIONISM
    [Show full text]
  • Dossiê Religião: Artes E Vozes
    DOSSIÊ RELIGIÃO: ARTES E VOZES organizado por Jorge Luis Gutiérrez 1 PROVIDENCE IN ST. ALBERT THE GREAT David Torrijos Castrillejo Associated profesor at Universidad Eclesiástica San Dámaso. E-mail: [email protected] Providence in St. Albert the Great ABSTRACT In these pages, we expose the main traits of St. Albert the Great’s doctrine of providence and fate, considered by Palazzo the keystone of his philoso- phical system. To describe it we examine his systematic works, primarily his Summa of Theology. His discussion follows clearly the guidelines of the Summa of Alexander of Hales, in order to delve into the set of proble- ms faced over the centuries by theological tradition. Albert also restates the reflections of different authors like Boethius or Saint John of Damascus but, in his Summa he incorporates to his reflections also the noteworthy book of Nemesius of Emesa, De natura hominis, which includes some pages on providence. Albert gives his personal solution to the complex questions of providence, destiny and contingency of the world. His con- ception of providence is developed in the frame of the creative power of the almighty God. God’s knowledge is necessary and inerrant and his pro- vidential purposes are infallible, but that does not mean that every event is necessary. He does not communicate His own proprieties to the creatures. In order to understand this problem, Albert recalls the notion of hypothe- tical necessity coined by Boethius in an Aristotelian framework and the difference between necessitas consequentis and necessitas consequentiae proposed by Alexander of Hales. He also develops his account of providen- ce, closely linked to the topic of fate.
    [Show full text]