Cristo, il Principio del creato – III parte

P. Maximilian M. Dean, FI

Cristo come il principio:
una premessa dottrinale

Prima di esporre che Cristo è il Principio, conviene stabilire alcune cose per non errare dalla vera dottrina.

Soprattutto, anche se si potrebbe non essere d’accordo sulla prima interpretazione sopra riportata riguardante il Padre come il Principio, si accetta tutta la dottrina presentata dai nostri Dottori Cirillo, Agostino e Bonaventura nei loro commenti al Giovanni, cioè che il Verbo in Sé è eterno, increato e divino, che è nel Padre per virtù della stessa natura divina ed è altrettanto distinto dal Padre nella Sua Persona.

Inoltre, nel dire che Cristo è il Principio non si intende in assoluto che il Verbo in Sé fu creato. Neanche vuol dire che il Verbo abbia avuto la natura umana prima dell’Incarnazione o addirittura prima della creazione del mondo. No, si intende che Dio – Padre, Figlio e Spirito Santo – ha voluto l’Incarnazione del Figlio per primo, ossia ha predestinato l’umanità sacra di Cristo all’unione ipostatica “prima della creazione del mondo” (Ef 1,4) e come “generato prima di ogni creatura” e “prima di tutte le cose” (Col 1,15.17) nella Sua intenzione di creare. Il Cristo fu inteso nel disegno divino come il “Principio della creazione di Dio” (Apoc 3,14) e poi Dio ha voluto e creato tutto il resto in Cristo, per mezzo di Cristo e in vista di Cristo. Dopo il Principio, cioè dopo aver voluto l’Incarnazione del Verbo nel grembo della Vergine Maria, si inizia l’esecuzione del disegno di Dio nel creare il mondo e, alla fin fine, la piena realizzazione del Suo disegno creatore, ossia il ricapitolare tutto in Cristo.

Per meglio capire la distinzione fra l’intenzione e l’esecuzione del progetto creatore di Dio[1], un insegnamento caro al Sottile[2], esaminiamo l’insegnamento illuminante di Agostino che distingue la realizzazione di un progetto (esecuzione) dall’idea da realizzare (intenzione): “Se, ad esempio, devi costruire un edificio, devi realizzare qualcosa di grande, prima ne concepisci l’idea nella tua mente. L’idea è già nata quando avrai costruito e ultimato l’edificio, se non quando avrai realizzato e portato a compimento la tua opera. Essi ammirano il tuo progetto e aspettano la costruzione mirabile; restano ammirati di fronte a ciò che vedono e amano ciò che ancora non vedono: chi può, infatti, vedere l’idea? Se dunque di fronte ad una grandiosa realizzazione viene fatto di lodare l’idea di un uomo, vuoi misurare la grandezza dell’idea di Dio che è il Signore Gesù Cristo, cioè il Verbo di Dio?”[3] Anche se Agostino non arriva a dire che l’idea del Verbo Incarnato era in principio presso Dio, il suo pensiero ci dà la possibilità di distinguere l’idea di Dio nel creare il mondo dalla sua realizzazione. È un principio di filosofia che risale a Aristotele: “Che è prima nell’intenzione e poi nell’esecuzione”[4]. Ma il progetto è lo stesso sia nell’intenzione che nell’esecuzione.

Vuol dire che Cristo, quale capolavoro di Dio Creatore[5], esisteva prima nella mente di Dio come idea, come intenzione, e poi nel tempo si è realizzato quando il Verbo si fece carne; prima ci fu la predestinazione di Cristo alla gloria, poi la creazione di tutto in vista di Lui e per mezzo di Lui[6].

Potrebbe essere un’occasione di confusione pensare che Cristo, “il principio”, viene non soltanto dopo il principio temporale della creazione, ma verso la fine. Ma è proprio così. Spiega San Pietro: “Egli fu predestinato già prima della fondazione del mondo, ma si è manifestato negli ultimi tempi per voi” (1 Pt 1,20). Prima della Sua manifestazione fu sempre presente nella mente di Dio come idea, sapienza creata, intenzione, primo predestinato, primogenito, primo voluto. P. Ruggero Rosini scrive a proposito: “Per noi è difficile capire come un’azione futura possa influire su un’azione presente. Per Dio simile difficoltà non esiste: a Lui tutto è presente. Non Gli fu, infatti, difficile preservare Maria dal peccato originale in previsione dei futuri meriti della morte di Cristo. Dobbiamo, allora, credere che altrettanto non Gli fu difficile creare ‘tutto per mezzo di Cristo’ sin dall’inizio dei tempi. [7]”

Continua…

Cristo, il Principio del creato – II parte

P. Maximilian M. Dean, FI

In principio Dio creò

Non è per caso che Giovanni vuole iniziare il suo Vangelo con le stesse parole che danno inizio a tutta la Sacra Scrittura. Infatti “sul rotolo del Libro” (Salmo 39,8) è scritto: “In principio Dio creò il cielo e la terra” (Gn 1,1), e così “l’alfa” di tutta la rivelazione divina è proprio questo in principio. Ma Giovanni, essendo l’ultimo scrittore della Bibbia, dà “l’omega” alla rivelazione, cioè “in principio era il Verbo…” (Gv 1,1). “L’alfa e l’omega”, dunque, di tutta la rivelazione di Dio non è altro che in principio Dio creò e in principio era il Verbo. Mentre tutti riconoscono subito il riferimento espresso di Giovanni alla Genesi, non tutti poi interpretano in principio dei due brani nello stesso modo.

Abbiamo visto come Cirillo, Agostino e Bonaventura nei loro commenti al Prologo interpretarono l’in principio di Giovanni come nel Padre, per dire che il Verbo era eternamente ed essenzialmente nel Padre che è il principio per antonomasia. Però, quando leggiamo la prima riga della Genesi risulta evidente che in principio non può riferire al Padre. Difatti, il dire “nel Padre Dio creò il cielo e la terra” non ha nessun senso. Perciò deve essere altrettanto per il Prologo di Giovanni, altrimenti si rompe il vincolo stretto e esplicito inteso dall’Evangelista fra il suo Vangelo e la creazione dell’universo.

Il legame è espresso in tutti i modi perché non soltanto inizia con le stesse parole, e non soltanto parla di “luce” e “tenebre”, ma anche elenca sette giorni. Il primo giorno c’è il Verbo che si fece carne (1,1-14) e la testimonianza di Giovanni Battista (1,6-8.15.19ff). Poi, sottilmente, l’Evangelista dice “il giorno dopo” (1,29), “il giorno dopo” (1,35), “il giorno dopo” (1,43), e poi “tre giorni dopo” (2,1) per arrivare al settimo giorno con le nozze di Cana.

Parliamo, quindi, di una nuova creazione, d’acqua cambiata in vino per così dire, dove quello che conta è “l’essere nuova creatura” (Ga 6,15) e Gesù proclama: “Ecco, Io faccio nuove tutte le cose” (Apoc 21,5). Per noi la Sua venuta è una nuova creazione; invece per Dio è la piena realizzazione del Suo disegno originale da Creatore che volle, e vuole ancora, che tutto si ricapitoli in Cristo (cf. Col 1,18.20). Per noi, per così dire, è l’acqua cambiata in vino; mentre per Dio è il compimento del Suo piano già previsto prima dei secoli: aveva sempre voluto “il vino buono”, ma l’aveva conservato “fino ad ora”.

Dobbiamo stabilire che dalla prima riga della Genesi in poi l’espressione “in principio” nella Sacra Scrittura si riferisce alla creazione. Ne segue che “in principio era il Verbo” non intende il fatto che il Verbo eterno era nel Padre, ma ben altro, cioè che il Verbo Incarnato era il principio in cui tutte le cose furono create.

E comunque, non potrebbe essere altrimenti, perché la parola principio, legata al contesto e al significato della Genesi – “In principio Dio creò” – parla non soltanto di una sorgente d’origine, ma anche d’un inizio temporale. Né il Padre eterno, né il Verbo eterno, né lo Spirito eterno, ossia l’eterno Dio Trino ed Uno, nessuno di Loro può avere un inizio, un principio come il creato. Ogni Persona divina, come Dio, è senza inizio, senza principio per definizione e, come vedremo, la Chiesa non si stanca mai di confessare e insegnare che Dio per natura – sia il Padre, sia il Figlio, sia il Santo Spirito – è prima di ogni secolo, prima e fuori del tempo, ossia eterno. La creazione, invece, ha un inizio ben preciso: “In principio Dio creò”.

Fissiamo lo sguardo sull’insegnamento solenne della Chiesa su questo punto per comprendere meglio che in principio non può riferirsi alla Divinità in Sé – né a Dio Padre né al Verbo in Sé. Dato che prima della creazione non ci fu tempo, ma solo l’eterno Dio, è chiaro che Lui è “prima di ogni creatura”[1]. Perciò i Simboli, Concili e Papi della Chiesa, quando parlano di Dio Trino ed Uno – sia della Divinità in Sé che delle Tre Persone divine (e del Figlio in modo particolare) – mai parlano di un principio[2]. Anzi ripetono quasi ad infinitum che Dio è senza principio e prima di ogni secolo. Ecco alcuni esempi fra tanti che parlano in particolare della Divinità del Figlio, ma si riferiscono pure al Padre e allo Spirito:

– Il Papa S. Leone Magno nel 449 spiega che la natura divina di Cristo viene “dal Padre prima di ogni principio”[3], per dire che quando parliamo del Verbo in Sé, come Dio, non è in principio, ma prima di qualsiasi principio.

– Il Papa Anastasio II nel 497 afferma che l’unigenito Figlio, “nato dal Padre secondo la Divinità”, è “prima di ogni secolo, senza principio”[4]. Non in principio, dunque, ma senza principio.

– Il Papa S. Ormisda nel 521: “Il Figlio era prima del tempo”[5]. Così il Verbo in Sé, come Dio, è prima del tempo, prima del principio, prima di ogni secolo; mentre il Verbo fatto carne è nel tempo, in principio, in questi giorni pur rimanendo Dio eterno. Vuol dire che se Giovanni avesse voluto parlare del Verbo in Sé nel Prologo e non del Verbo umanato, avrebbe dovuto scrivere: Prima dei secoli era il Verbo. Invece scrisse: “In principio era il Verbo”. Approfondiremo questo nelle prossime pagine.

– Il Concilio di Costantinopoli nel 553 dichiara nel suo Canone 2: “Se qualcuno non confessa che il Dio-Verbo aveva due nascite, l’una cioè incorporale, fuori del tempo, prima dei secoli dal Padre, l’altra veramente negli ultimi giorni di Colui che discese dal cielo e fu incarnato dalla santa, gloriosa e sempre Vergine Maria, Madre di Dio, nato da essa, questi sia anatema”[6]. La Chiesa non parla mai della Divinità di Cristo in termini di tempo, mentre la Sua umanità sacra viene sempre descritta nel tempo.

– Il Concilio di Toledo VI nel 638 esprime che il Figlio viene dal Padre “al di fuori del tempo, prima di ogni creatura, senza inizio, nato e non creato”[7]. È chiaro, quindi, che nel parlare della Divinità e delle Persone divine, la Chiesa non parla di tempo o d’un inizio perché Dio è eterno.

San Cirillo dice schiettamente: “Parlando dell’Unigenito non è possibile, d’altronde, pensare a un principio nel tempo. Giacché è prima di ogni tempo, ed esiste prima dei secoli… Ma poiché il Figlio è più antico dei secoli, non potrà essere stato generato nel tempo, ma Egli era sempre nel Padre come da una sorgente…”[8]. Difatti nella Genesi, così pure nel Vangelo di Giovanni, in principio indica l’inizio del tempo, l’inizio della creazione, e Dio – Padre, Figlio e Spirito Santo – è ben fuori del tempo, increato, senza inizio e senza fine, eterno.

In principio, dunque, non può essere applicato al Figlio in Se stesso come Dio, come pure al Padre e allo Spirito Santo, se non solo per via d’accomodazione, ossia usando il termine principio come un modo di dire (i.e. il Padre è il “principio” della Trinità, ossia la sorgente eterna da cui il Figlio procede eternamente, ma si deve sempre aggiungere che è il principio senza principio[9] e alla fin fine abbiamo un’accomodazione molto limitata e che non si sincronizza, come vedremo, con il resto della Sacra Scrittura).

Però, in Cristo, il Verbo fatto carne, c’è una natura creata unita a quella divina nella Persona del Verbo e il Cristo ha il Suo inizio nella “pienezza del tempo” (Ga 4,4). Ed ecco la chiave per capire che cosa vuol dire “in principio Dio creò” e “in principio era il Verbo”. In tutti e due i brani, come vedremo con tanta chiarezza, stiamo parlando del Verbo Incarnato, principio della creazione[10].

Sì, si può applicare l’espressione in principio a Dio senza accomodazione solamente in quanto “Figlio dell’uomo”, in quanto incarnato, e ciò vale soltanto per Cristo perché né il Padre né lo Spirito assunsero la carne dalla Vergine, ma unicamente il Figlio. Perciò, quando l’Evangelista dice: “In principio era il Verbo”, bisogna capire che sta parlando del Verbo umanato: Cristo era il Principio.

Inoltre, non si può applicare l’espressione in principio al Verbo eterno senza riferimento all’Incarnazione perché, come dice san Cirillo del Verbo eterno: “Il Figlio, infatti, è prima dei secoli, ed Egli stesso è Creatore dei secoli; né può, in alcun modo, essere limitato dal tempo Colui che ha la generazione più antica del tempo”[11].

Inoltre, occorre esaminare la funzione del verbo essere nella frase “in principio era il Verbo”. La funzione potrebbe essere compresa in due modi. Primo, come predicato aggettivo, dove in principio viene applicato al Verbo in senso dell’inizio della creazione. Vale a dire che quando Dio creò l’universo aveva davanti il decreto dell’Incarnazione, vedeva Gesù, e allora il principio del creato e dunque del tempo era il Verbo Incarnato: senza di Lui infatti niente fu creato e il tempo non aveva suo inizio. Secondo, come predicato nominativo dove essere vuol dire essere uguale a. In questo caso il Verbo Incarnato era il principio creante in cui tutto fu fatto, non soltanto in senso temporale, ma come sorgente d’origine, come causa. Insomma, prendendo cenno da tutte e due le funzioni, si può ben dire che Cristo fu sia l’inizio temporale, sia la sorgente d’origine della creazione.

Di più, con questa interpretazione il Prologo diventa più consistente: Dio si riferisce alla Divinità (non qualche volta alla Divinità, qualche volta al Padre); il Verbo si riferisce sempre a Gesù Cristo quale Figlio di Dio e Figlio di Maria (non qualche volta al Verbo increato nel Padre senza riferimento all’Incarnazione, qualche volta al Verbo fatto carne).

Continua…

Benvenuto! Pace e bene nel Cuore Immacolato di Maria!

Oggi, festa del nostro Beato Giovanni Duns Scoto, vorrei iniziare di pubblicare posti dove dimostro che il Prologo di S. Giovanni conferma la dottrina del primato assoluto di Cristo. Il testo viene da uno studio mio che è stato pubblicato in Quaderni di Studi Scotisti. Il testo originale è in italiano e per chi vuole il brano tutto intero basterebbe ordinare il Quadernodi 2010 da Casa Mariana Editrice.

Cristo, il Principio del creato

P. Maximilian M. Dean, FI

Lo scopo di questo piccolo studio è di dimostrare che il vero senso del Prologo di San Giovanni, secondo la Sacra Scrittura e la Tradizione, è questo: Cristo, il Verbo fatto carne, il Dio-Uomo, è il Principio in cui Dio creò tutto.

Dallo stabilire che Gesù Cristo fu “il Principio della creazione di Dio” (Apoc 3,14), che tutte le cose furono create per mezzo Suo (cfr. Gv 1,3; Eb 1,2-3; Col 1,16), segue che l’insegnamento del Beato Giovanni Duns Scoto sul primato assoluto di Cristo non è soltanto “probabile”, secondo l’espressione di San Tommaso d’Aquino , ma è dottrina rivelata. Il Principio della creazione divina non può mai essere “occasionato ” da qualsiasi creatura o esigenza di essa, poiché se si ammettesse che Cristo, il summum opus Dei , fu “occasionato”, Egli cesserebbe di essere il Principio della creazione di Dio e si ridurrebbe piuttosto al rimedio della creazione di Dio; cesserebbe di essere il Primogenito di tutte le creature e diventerebbe piuttosto il “dopogenito”, ossia il ripensamento divino dopo la considerazione del peccato di Adamo. E questo, come ci insegna il Sottile, è “assurdo ”.

Approfondiamo, allora, questa affermazione: Cristo è il Principio.

“In principio era il Verbo,
e il Verbo era presso Dio
e il Verbo era Dio.
Egli era in principio presso Dio”
(Gv 1,1-2)

Così inizia il Vangelo di Giovanni. E così viene fuori subito una discussione molto interessante: in questi primi due versetti Giovanni sta scrivendo sulla Divinità in Sé, ossia l’Essenza divina e le Persone divine, senza riferimento all’Incarnazione? Oppure ci parla del Verbo Incarnato con le Sue due nature divina e umana e questi presso la Divinità?

La Divinità in Sé: il Padre come principio, il Verbo nel Padre

L’interpretazione preferita è, senza dubbio, che Giovanni ci parla della Divinità in Sé dando particolare rilievo al Verbo eterno in Sé, senza riferimento all’Incarnazione. San Bonaventura conferma che “questo libro tratta del Verbo Incarnato, di cui considera la duplice natura, umana e divina. Si divide in due parti: nella prima si parla del Verbo in Se stesso; nella seconda in quanto unito alla carne” . Per Bonaventura, come pure per San Cirillo da Alessandria e Sant’Agostino, questi primi versetti non hanno nessun riferimento all’Incarnazione di per sé. Parlano esclusivamente dell’Essenza divina e delle Persone divine, specialmente della seconda Persona quale Figlio eterno presso il Padre.

In mezzo a tante eresie riguardanti la Trinità e il Cristo, Cirillo e Agostino si riferivano a queste parole del Prologo per affrontare le dottrine erronee degli eretici sulla Divinità del Verbo. Per tutti e tre, quindi, in principio è un riferimento al Padre e all’eterna processione del Verbo-Figlio da Esso.

Bonaventura afferma: “Qui il principio per antonomasia è il Padre, per cui il senso è: In principio, cioè nel Padre, è il Figlio, non separato per essenza dal Padre” . E Agostino: “C’è il principio che non ha principio, ed è il Padre; c’è il principio che deriva dal principio, ed è il Figlio” . E pure Cirillo: “Dio Padre è il principio, e il Verbo era in Esso naturalmente” . Perciò il dire che “in principio era il Verbo” vuol dire che il Verbo eterno sta essenzialmente in quel “Principio eterno senza principio” , ossia nel Padre.

Tutta la spiegazione di questi Dottori è splendida, senza dubbio, e la dottrina che segue nei loro commenti al Vangelo con parole chiare è irrefutabile perché è la Fede cattolica, apostolica e romana. I santi martiri di ogni epoca e luogo hanno dato la vita per questa Fede e anche noi la vogliamo professare fino alla tomba. Ma, senza negare neanche uno iota o un segno della loro dottrina purissima, c’è una difficoltà con l’interpretazione imposta su questi versetti dell’Evangelista, che risulta evidente infatti dall’insegnamento degli stessi Dottori. Perciò ci soffermiamo adesso sui primi versetti del Vangelo, in particolare sulle parole In principio.

Continua…

Someone recently asked me about the origins of the expression “absolute primacy of Christ” which is not found in the writings of Bl. John Duns Scotus himself. The terms were developed by his disciples, by what is called the “Franciscan school”. I asked Fr. Peter M. Fehlner, F.I. – my professor in dogmatic theology – about the origins of the term and here is his response:

Ave Maria

Dear Fr. Maximilian,

The use of the phrase “absolute primacy” to describe the distinctive features of the Scotistic thesis on the primary motive of the Incarnation is a very ancient one in the Franciscan school. I know of no study, however, devoted to the history of the term in general or within the Franciscan school of theology, or whether it is even possible to determine who used the term first, although use in English of absolute seems to have begun toward the end of the middle ages, viz., precisely when scotism was one of the predominant schools of Catholic theology.

What I suggest by way of reply is a brief discussion of the meaning of absolute and primacy and then “absolute primacy of Christ”. You can find this in any good unabridged dictionary of English (e.g., Oxford Dictinary). Absolute as used in many areas of learning, including theological study of the Godhead and of the divine perfections, means totally independent, unrestricted, unconditional, free of dependence on or relation to (literally: released from in Latin). Conjoined with the word primacy (firstness in Latin, as Bonaventure speaks of the absolute personal firstness of the Father in regarding the other divine Persons and of the essential firstness of all three persons, viz., not related to creation, although creation is related to, dependent on the Creator, even rational creatures) in the case of the motive of the Incarnation means not ordered to some other created reality as to an end, but an end in itself and the end of all other creatures, creation itself and redemption. Thus absolute primacy of Christ sums up the thesis of Scotus neatly: unrestricted, unconditional primacy in creation to which all else in creation is ordered as to their end, not a relative primacy in a particular order, viz., as King of all the redeemed, but not of the Angels who had no need of redemption. The thomistic thesis involves a relative primacy: in the order of redemption, but not per se in the order of creation where the primacy of Christ is only per accidens in virtue of the fact that He comes primarily as redeemer, and not as Savior of all, even if not in need of redemption. From this (thomistic position) it follows the grace of angels and of Adam and Eve before the fall was only a grace of God, not of Christ.

I hope this helps.

In the Immaculate,
Fr. Peter

[This is an Overview: To see the full article visit Appendix: Christ the Beginning]

Today, on the feast of our Blessed, John Duns Scotus, I would like to begin a series of posts showing how the Prologue of St. John the Evangelist confirms, or better, reveals the doctrine of the absolute primacy of Christ. The posts will appear in both English and Italian and the study, which will look at the Scripture, the Church Fathers and Councils, and other Saints and theologians, will be engaging, to say the least. But our study will be for the sole purpose of knowing and loving more perfectly Christ our King and Lord. Let us start with an engaging overture to whet our appetite and then, in the future posts, we will explore the theme more deeply.

Jesus Christ: In the Beginning

After pardoning the woman caught in adultery, Jesus gives testimony to Himself that He is “the light of the world” (Jn 8:12).  He says “I am” (v.18, 28) and even goes on to say, “Before Abraham was, I am” (v.58).

In the middle of this discourse the Pharisees retort, “Who are you?” (v.25).  Our Lord’s response is profound and mysterious.  He replies, “The beginning, who also speak to you” (v.25—Duaey translation; in Latin: In principio: id quod et loquor vobis!).  To the modern ear it is certainly a strange response.  But to the Jewish ear it is a self-revelation that has no equal.  Just as “I am” to the Jews was a claim to be divine (cf. v.59; Mk 14:62-63; etc.) which, if any mere man were to say this, would be blasphemy; so too this marvellous self-revelation, [I am] “in the beginning”—Ego sum “in principio”.

Why?  Look at the first words of the Hebrew Scriptures.  In principio—“In the beginning God created heaven and earth” (Gen. 1:1).  Before we try to penetrate this astonishing self-revelation, it is worth noting that in Psalm 39:7-9, the Messias in speaking to the Father of His sacrifice and that He has come into the world to do God’s will, makes reference to the “head of the book”—“In the head of the book it is written of Me”.  (That this is Christ speaking there can be no doubt since the Holy Spirit confirms and clarifies this in Hebrews 10:5-10).  “The book” for the Jews is the Torah, and the head of that book or scroll begins with Genesis 1:1, “In the beginning…”  Moreover, according to St. Paul the Father says to the Son (Heb 1:8, 10): “Thou in the beginning, O Lord, didst found the earth, and the heavens are the work of Thy hands” (Ps 102:26).

St. Zeno writes, “What is meant by the Beginning, my beloved brothers, is undoubtedly Christ our Lord.”[1]

And St. Augustine, “The Beginning in which God made heaven and earth undoubtedly refers to the Son Himself”.[2]

Jesus Christ, the Word made flesh, is “in the beginning”.  It was of Jesus that Moses wrote—“For if you believed Moses you would believe Me also, for he wrote of Me” (Jn 5:46; cf. Lk 24:27).

Many, when confronted with statements by or about the Incarnate Word which indicate His existence prior to the Annunciation as God-Man immediately conclude that the Sacred Words refer to Christ’s divinity alone—viz. to His Divine Person as the eternal, uncreated Son of the Father.  But this is not always the case (Col 1:15-20 is an example of this).  With the simple distinction of Aristotle which Bl. John Duns Scotus underscores: what is first in intention is last in execution, we are able to understand that many of these passages found in Sacred Writ refer, in their proper perspective, not to the eternal Son per se, but to the eternal Son as Incarnate (before the Incarnation, references are to the Word Incarnate as foreseen and predestined; after the Incarnation in reference to the historical fact of the Son come in the flesh).

The problem, for many, seems to lie in that fact that they approach the Scriptures forgetful of the predestination of Christ’s Sacred Humanity to glory which precedes all creation or with the preconceived notion that the Incarnation is the consequence of man’s sin and his need for Redemption.  What we will see over and over again in the posts that follow is that Sacred Scripture reveals that Christ, the God-Man, existed in the divine decree before the creation of the universe.  He existed in the divine intention as the creative Masterpiece of the Most Holy Trinity—Summum opus Dei.[3]  God first willed that the Second Divine Person assume a created nature in order to communicate His divine glory most perfectly ad extra to a creature and in order to be perfectly glorified ad extra by the creature.

God first wills Christ, then He wills all things in and for Christ (1 Cor 3:23; Col 1:16-17).  This means that God’s first thought (first in terms of priority—primacy) and His first love directed outside Himself is fixed upon the Sacred Heart of Jesus who will know and love Him, the Triune God, perfectly ad extra.

Thus God exists—not “in the beginning”—but in Himself, outside of time.  “I am who am.” He is Three Divine Persons in One Divine Essence; God the Most Holy Trinity simply is and He always knows and loves Himself: He knows Himself perfectly in the eternal procession or generation of the Word; He loves Himself perfectly in the eternal spiration or conception of the Spirit.  And so when the Sacred Scripture speaks of “the beginning” it is not in reference to the timeless, eternal Godhead, but rather in reference to creation.  In God there is no beginning; rather, the beginning is precisely when God wills to create according to His design.  This is what St. Paul calls “the purpose of His will” and the “mystery” (Eph 1:8-10; 3:7-11; Col 1:26; etc.).  Once God decrees to create we have “the beginning”.

Christ claims to be that Beginning.  How can this be?  Simple.  Before God executes His plan, He wills His Masterpiece, Jesus Christ.  He sees Christ whom He predestines to glory before any other, and in Christ He predestines the Blessed Virgin Mary, His Mother, and in Jesus and Mary He predestines the whole heavenly court—all of the elect, both angels and men.  Then He begins the execution of His plan.

This perspective alone enables us to understand passages such as Proverbs 8:22-9:6 which the Fathers, the Liturgy and the Magisterium consistently see in reference to Christ, the Incarnate Word, and secondarily to His Mother who also is willed in the divine intention prior to the execution of His plan.  They exist first in mente Dei, then in the “fullness of time” (Gal 4:4) God’s purpose is realized.

It is worth noting that the Angels and Saints were also willed or predestined in that same decree prior to its execution as is clear from St. Paul (Eph 1:4-5, 11-12; Rm 8:29; 2 Tim 1:9-10).  Christ is “foreknown, indeed, before the foundation of the world, [and] He has been manifested in the last of times for your sakes” (1 Pt 1:19), and the elect are foreknown in Christ and will be created through Him, in Him and for Him.

Christ Jesus, then, is the Beginning.  God sees and loves Christ and creates the universe for Him.  In fact, all existence, all creatures are but a reflection of the beauty and perfection of Christ—rational creatures as images, the rest of creation as footprints or vestiges, as the Seraphic Doctor so clearly understood and taught.  And this is what is meant by exemplary causality—Christ is the Exemplar, the Supreme Model of all created being.  All that is true and good in the universe is first seen in Christ, “in the Beginning”, and then, like so many rays of the sun scattered throughout time and space, the rest of creation shines forth; the sun alone is the refulgent source and does not diminish its light or heat in giving off its brilliance and warmth to all.  Christ, the “true light” (Jn 1:9; cf. 8:12; 1:4-5) is Divine Truth and Beauty Incarnate; He is “full of grace and truth… and of His fullness we have all received, grace for grace” (Jn 1:14, 16).  Mary received the totality of His grace as His Immaculate Mother, and through Jesus and Mary we all receive “grace for grace”, especially the grace of adoption (cf. Gal 4:5; Rm 8:14-17; Eph 1:5-6).

Jesus Christ, the Incarnate Word, then, is the Beginning of all creation: “Thus says the Amen, the faithful and true Witness, who is the Beginning of the creation of God” (Apoc 3:14).

With that in mind, let us look at some of the key verses in Proverbs 8:22-9:6.  “I was set up from eternity… when He prepared the heavens, I was present… when He balanced the foundations of the earth, I was with Him forming all things, and was delighted every day, playing before Him at all times; playing in the world.  And My delights were to be with the children of men…”

Jesus, true God and true Man, was “set up from eternity” when God the Creator chose, in His love, to communicate Himself ad extra, viz. when in His love, He who is Love, chose to create the universe.

Jesus, the Incarnate Word, “was present” at the center of the divine decree when the Almighty God “prepared the heavens”.

The Word was made flesh—that Temple wherein perfect glory is offered to the Triune Godhead in creation, in which the angels and men are called to be “living stones” built upon Christ the Living Stone par excellence (cf. Eph 2:21-22; 4:11-16), that cornerstone “chosen and honored by God” (1 Pt 2:4-5)—“was with Him” in laying the “foundations of the earth” and, as exemplary, efficient and final cause (cf. Col 1:16-17) Christ “was with Him forming all things” since all was created in, through, and unto Christ.  Hence Jesus, although in terms of the execution of God’s purpose came “in the last of times” (Heb 1:2; 1 Pt 1:20), was there in the divine intentions as the Design and Model of all creation.

And so it is that God had Jesus—in the Beginning—playing before His divine gaze when He set His plan in motion and spoke those creative words, Fiat lux.  And Christ, as it were, “was delighted every day”, each of the six days of creation—all the universe was created for Him through no merit of His own, but out of the generosity pure and simple of the Creator who freely chose and predestined the Sacred Humanity of Christ to the maximum glory by way of the hypostatic union.  Thus Jesus “plays” in the world with joy and gratitude and finds His delights “to be with the children of men”, to be “Emmanuel”, to be the Son of Mary, to be the “Firstborn of many brethren” (Rm 8:29), to glorify God on earth (cf. Jn 17:4).
(Here is a roadmap which may be helpful as we go along…)

The Fire of the Word by the Anglican Priest, Rev. Chris Webb

I recently read The Fire of the Word: Meeting God on Holy Ground, by the Anglican priest, Rev. Chris Webb (published in 2011 by InterVarsity Press, Illinois). What a fantastic book! In speaking about it he says, “I wrote The Fire of the Word to help you fall in love with the Bible again, to give you a fresh perspective on this beautiful book.” And he was successful. His book will be of great assistance for those who regularly read the Scripture and will be a great remedy for those who have left the leatherbound love letters of God in some corner to gather dust.

In one section of his book Rev. Webb offers some surprising insights about Bl. John Duns Scotus and the absolute primacy of Christ as key to encountering Christ in the whole of Scriptures – from Genesis to the Apocalypse. However, before I launch into this, let me take a moment to underscore a fundamental point which Rev. Webb makes about reading the Bible. He makes a distinction, one which I had always insisted upon in my 7 years as the Director of Postulants and continue to insist upon as a superior, spiritual director and preacher: namely, that “Bible study” and praying the Bible are not the same thing. We can study Sacred Scripture and all of theology for information (as “theorists,” as Webb puts it), but we should primarily approach the Sacred Page for transformation (as “lovers”). Why? Because these are God’s love letters to us… personally. Our informational reading can and should lead us to a personal, transformational encounter with the living God Himself. Our head knowledge must be geared towards the union of the heart with Him, what St. John of the Cross would call the “transforming union” of our souls with Jesus the Beloved. After all, doesn’t St. Paul himself write in this fashion? “For I betrothed you to one Spouse, that I might present you a chaste virgin to Christ” (2 Cor 11:2); and again, “He who cleaves to the Lord is one spirit with Him” (1 Cor 6:17).

This insight should also apply to our study and reflection upon the absolute primacy of Jesus; namely, grasping the primary position of Christ in God’s creative design as the “chief cornerstone” (Eph 2:20) should lead us to encountering Him as the “Alpha and Omega” (Apoc 21:6) of our own personal lives. We should study and contemplate the mystery of Christ in order to “walk in a manner worthy of the calling with which you were called” (Eph 4:1); in a word, theology for the sake of sanctification.

The vantage point for reading Sacred Scripture

Rev. Webb points out that in our human experience we are often blind to what is really going on because we lack the right perspective for understanding it. That perspective is what makes it possible to put all of the pieces of the puzzle together in a coherent fashion. Consider his example:

This also happens every time we read a detective story or a mystery novel. At first we are confronted with a seemingly unfathomable sequence of events: some violent crime, perhaps, or a spectacular theft. A diverse collection of characters are caught up in the orbit of these events, each with their own pecularities and problems. We know, as we read, that at least one of these people is involved in this crime–perhaps some shocking murder–but which one? And how? As their tangled tales begin to unravel we find ourselves suspecting first one person, then another; in a well-written novel (rather unlike real life) we may eventually find that almost everyone has had the motive and opportunity to commit the murder, and the complexity is overwhelming. But the great detective, of course, is not as nonplussed as we are. Just when everything seems insoluble a revelation strikes as some vital clue is uncovered. The final scene is set and in a dramatic denouement the detective unmasks the villain, showing how the trail of evidence leads uniquely to him or her, while explaining all the red herrings and blind alleys. And we, hopefully, close the book with a feeling of rich satisfaction, nodding sagely as we way to ourselves, “Of course–it all makes sense!”

Now imagine going back to the book for a second time. Returning to the first page, we already know how the entire story will unfold. When we first meet the murderer, we know he is the murderer. At the first mention of a vital clue, we already know its significance. Hints are dropped about dark secrets–but we already know what those secrets are. For us, the whole book has changed. The story still unwinds along the same course; the detective still reaches the same conclusions. But our reading is so different. Events and remarks we hadn’t noticed the first time take on a fresh significance. Characters emerge in a new light. We have been given an oracular knowledge: we still may not understand everything, but we have seen enough of the way this story unfolds to grasp it more fully than those who participate in it. We see what the detective and the other characters cannot see, what even a first reader of the text cannot see. We have the key.

What if we could read Scripture in this way? This was the beguiling idea which enchanted the minds of some of the greatest thinkers, writers and biblical scholars in the history of the church. And no one articulated the ideas that lay at the heart of their thinking more compellingly than a young Scottish priest named John Duns Scotus. (pp.127-129)

You have to admit, Rev. Webb sure has a gripping way of driving the point home! And the point is this: If we have the key to the entire history of the universe, if we know the “mystery which has been hidden for eternity in God” (Eph 3:9; cfr. Col 1:26; Rm 16:25; 1 Cor 2:7; Eph 1:9; etc.), then we can see all of creation and all of its history from a new, more accurate perspective. And this is precisely what the doctrine of the absolute primacy of Christ does for us. It gives us the key to open up and penetrate the whole of the Bible, the whole of salvation history, the whole of creation, the whole of our life. For those who are not familiar with this doctrine, it might well be “a Copernican revolution,” to use the phrase of Dr. Mark Miravalle, which radically changes our perspective. It may become the secret to unraveling the ultimate “detective story” of divine revelation and give us an entirely new angle on salvation history, from Adam to the Parousia, from creation to its consummation. The absolute primacy of Jesus is the vantage point for reading Sacred Scripture.

The Subtle Doctor

After describing the unique historical context of Bl. John Duns Scotus’ arrival at Oxford University, Rev. Webb writes:

Even in this rarified atmosphere, John quickly established himself as one of the most brilliant minds of his generation. Probably only in his early thirties when he began giving lectures–maybe even his late twenties–he showed a precocious genius for philosophical analysis. His ability to work with the most obscure and abstract concepts, to draw keen distinctions and to develop a wide-ranging web of ideas into a complex but coherent philosophy later earned him the nickname Doctor Subtilis, the “subtle doctor”–a name not always applied in a complimentary fashion. John could be so hard to follow, some of his later critics convinced themselves that his apparently impenetrable writing was simply a smokescreen covering the mundane thinking of a mediocre mind. But history judged them to be wrong. John Duns Scotus is now celebrated as one of the most fascinating, if difficult, of all medieval thinkers. (pp.129-130)

It is important to consider Bl. John in this light, and not be misdirected by the derogatory use of his name in punishing misbehaving or less intelligent students as the “dunce,” or the unfounded accusation that he is the “father of Voluntarism,” an error which the Blessed would abhor outright. Pope Benedict XVI has held up the life and teaching of Bl. John Duns Scotus as vital and important for the entire Church (see his Wednesday Audience text of July 7, 2010 and even the video in English).

What was the primary motive of the Incarnation?

Rev. Webb goes on to examine Scotus’ treatment of why “the Word became flesh and dwelt among us” (Jn 1:14). He writes:

Among the contemporary theological questions that fascinated John was this: Why did Christ become a human being? (That’s a question which may not seem to have much to do with reading and interpreting the Bible–but, as we shall see, the implications of John’s response cut right to the heart of the way we approach Scripture.) Thirteen hundred years before John began teaching, a Jewish child had been born in the most humble of circumstances in the back streets of Bethlehem, itself an insignificant town in a minor Roman province. For centuries the Christian Church had taught that this child was God incarnate, the immeasurable deity responsible for all creation somehow compressed into a tiny human form. What could possible have motivated God to take such an extraordinary step: to allow himself to become so vulnerable, so limited, so small? Of all the ways God could have chosen to interact with humanity, why this one? (p.130)

The author briefly describes the “textbook answer” of St. Anselm: man offended the infinite majesty of God; therefore, to redeem man’s infinite affront it was necessary that there be a God-Man. “In short, Anselm said, Jesus came on a rescue mission to save the lost” (p.131).

He then continues:

But John profoundly disagreed. Not with every part of Anselm’s thinking: he didn’t take issue with the idea that Jesus’ sacrificial death on Calvary brough salvation for humanity. But he did question Anselm’s ideas about what motivated God to become human in the first place. How is it possible, John asked, that the most wonderful event in human history–when God stepped into the material cosmos in physical form, sharing our life with us, revealing himself to us as never before, coming into close communion with ordinary people in a way they could never have imagined–how could this magnificent intervention into history have been prompted solely by the most appalling and degrading human truth: our utter sinfulness? How could the greatest good be caused by the greatest evil? To believe that Jesus came and saved sinners is a central Christian doctrine, John said. But to believe that he came only because we had sinned is monstrous. It suggests that we somehow forced God’s hand, cornering him by our depravity into his single most beautiful expression of love…

John looked at the entire universe and the great sweep of history across the millennia, and began with a simple assumption: this is all about Christ.

All creation was made for Christ, John taught, echoing an idea we already find in Paul’s earliest letters: “in [Christ] all things in heaven and earth were created… all things have been created through him and for him” (Col 1:16) (p.131-132)

“There was always going to be an Incarnation”

After citing the poetic, biblical expression of this truth in Proverbs 8:27-31, Rev. Webb wraps up his synopsis, saying:

And from the beginning, John asserted, it was God’s intention that Christ should take human form, living among those in whom he so delighted and participating directly in the created order…

But there is an important implication in all of this: there was always going to be an incarnation. Human sin changed the nature of that divine participation: certainly without the Fall there would have been no need for the brutal events of Good Friday. But our brokenness did not provoke Bethlehem. Sin is not the fundamental fact of the universe, the primal reality of our existence. Christ is the foundation, the Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end. The cosmos is shaped around Jesus. We are made in his image. He is the determining force behind all reality, all history, our entire human experience. And he is the goal, the destination, the endpoint toward which all history tends. In short, said John, Jesus is everything. (pp.132-133)

Indeed “our brokenness did not provoke Bethlehem,” but it did cause Calvary. In other words, the Incarnation was willed by God quite apart from any consideration from sin; whereas the Redemption was willed as the foreseen remedy to sin. After reading Rev. Webb’s clear and inspired explanation, I would invite you to read Scotus’ own words in his Opus Parisiense (or Reportatio Parisiensis). “Be not afraid!” His writings on the absolute primacy of Christ are not as difficult as, for example, his concepts of haecceitas or the formal distinction.

Let me conclude with a quote from Fr. Frederick Faber from his classic book Bethlehem:

What then was the first aspect of creation in the divine mind, if we may use the word “first”, of that which was eternal? There may at least be a priority of order, even though there be no priority of time. There is precedence in decrees, even where there is not succession. The first aspect of creation, as it lay in the mind of God, was a created nature assumed to his own uncreated nature in a Divine Person. In other words, the first sight in creation was the Babe of Bethlehem. The first step outside of God, the first standing-point in creation, is the created nature assumed to a Divine Person. Through this, as it were, lay the passage from the Creator to creatures. This was the point of union, the junction between the finite and the Infinite, the creature blending unconfusedly with the Creator. This first-born creature, this Sacred Humanity, was not only the primal creature, but it was also the cause of all other creatures whatsoever. … Its predestination is the fountain of all other predestinations. The whole meaning of creation, equally with the destinies of each individual creature, is bound up with this created Nature assumed to a Divine Person. (Philadelphia: The Peter Reilly Co., 1957; pp.26-27)

Blessings to you and your loved ones!

fr maximilian mary dean, F.I.

Is Discussion of the Absolute Primacy of Christ Passé?

Shortly after the Academy of the Immaculate published my primer on the Primacy and AirMaria.com produced my series The Cornerstone there was a bit of a resurgence in the blogosphere and in written publications about the rarely discussed discussion of Bl. John Duns Scotus’ doctrine and the Franciscan thesis regarding the absolute primacy of Christ and the opposing position of St. Thomas Aquinas. This, from my perspective, confirms that the discussion is anything but outdated; rather it is fresh and invigorating – and this because it is the doctrine which puts Christ at the center of the universe and of our own personal lives regardless of sin. Jesus redeems us from sin; but He is not just a remedy for our sinfulness. Rather He is the Alpha and Omega for whom, from whom and in whom all things exist.

What about the discussions (sometimes very heated!)… Here are some samples from the Orthodox/Catholic blogosphere:

• Ad Orientem (an Eastern Orthodox website): The Motive of the Incarnation
• Disputations: We could do it the easy way or the hard way (scroll down to March 24th)
• Disputations: It’s not the truth/Ain’t actual/Everything is counterfactual (scroll down to April 12-13)

• Irish, Catholic & Dangerous: Franciscan (Scotistic) Thesis: Absolute Primacy Of Christ

• Musings of a Pertinacious Papist: Cur Deus Homo?
• Faith Magazine: The Primacy of Christ in John Duns Scotus
• Canturbury Tales: Would Christ Have Become Man If Man Had Not Sinned?
• Catholic Answers: To All Christians – What if Adam had not eaten the fruit? Would Jesus exist?

Perhaps the most surprising discussions, however, were those in the Protestant blogosphere. In 2008 Philip Yancey presented, in a popular style, a piece called “Would Christmas have come even if we had not sinned?” While it is clear that Yancey had not read Scotus himself (i.e. Scotus alludes to Scripture, but never cites any passage in presenting this doctrine; moreover, it is the Franciscan school – not Scotus – that will dub it the “doctrine of the absolute primacy of Christ the King,” whereas Scotus just presents the principle arguments: Christ’s predestination and God’s orderly willing), nonetheless, Yancey did grasp, present and encourage discussion on the subject. Here is a sampling of what ensued (please keep in mind that I may not be fully in accord with the presentations/discussions listed, but simply want to show that the discussion is alive and well):

• Christianity Today’s original article
• This side of Sunday: Is there Christmas without a fall?
• Random Musings from a Doctor’s Chair
• Stand Firm: Faith among the Ruins
• Charlie Taylor Ministries: The Original Dunce
• The Surprising God: Was the Incarnation an afterthought?
• Theological theology: Why God became Man
• Free Republic: Primacy of Jesus Christ, Alpha & Omega

Besides all of the blogosphere discussion, a number of books and articles have been popping up on the subject. Here are three examples from Protestant circles:

• Incarnation Anyway: Arguments from Supralapsarian Christology – by Edwin Christian Van Driel
• On Getting First Things First: Assessing Claims for the Primacy of Christ – by Myk Habets
  
• The Fire of the Word – by Chris Webb

Obviously this is just a smattering of examples; but they should suffice to show how important the subject continues to be in theology and even at a popular level. After all, Christ is the King of kings and we can never reflect enough about His primacy in our own lives and in the entire universe which God created for Him, in Him and through Him, as the Bible so clearly tells us.

Let us continue to reflect on the importance of this truth in our own lives and in the world around us. Where Christ reigns as King, there is peace!

In Corde Matris,

fr maximilian mary dean, F.I.

“I see Scotus as the Doctor of the Immaculate Conception, of Christ as King of the universe, of the Church as the bride of Christ, as a defender of Christ’s Vicar on earth, as a theologian of the mystery of the Eucharist.”

— Bl. Gabriel M. Allegra, OFM

Ave Maria!
Behold, the Third Part! Here the grand Scotist in Bl. Gabriel Allegra shines forth. In explaining Bl. John Duns Scotus’ doctrine of the absolute primacy of Christ the King in creation he makes every effort not to isolate it from the whole of Scotus’ Christology which, obviously, includes Christ’s redeeming work on the Cross. What he shows is that according to the Franciscan thesis we are even more indebted to Jesus the Redeemer because His work of Redemption was a supreme, free act of pure and ardent love.

To accomplish his task, Bl. Gabriel Allegra isolates five Latin quotes of Bl. John Duns Scotus and comments on each of them. So this section will be broken down into 5 chapters.

Enjoy!

In Corde Matris,
Fr. Maximilian M. Dean

Il primato di Cristo in San Paolo e Duns Scoto

(Edizioni Porziuncola, 2011)
by Blessed Gabriel M. Allegra, OFM

Translation of pertinent passages:

Section III

The key phrases [of Scotus] on the doctrine of the absolute Primacy of Christ and of the Redemption as a work of pure, ardent love are:

• Summum Dei opus non potest esse occasionatum.

• Deus voluit se diligi ab alio, qui potest Eum summe diligere, loquendo de amore alicuius extrinseci;

• Omnes auctoritates possunt exponi sic, scilicet quod Christus non venisset ut Redemptor, nisi homo cecidesset…

• Tunc dico quod omnia huiusmodi quae facta sunt a Christo circa Redemptionem nostram, non fuerunt necessaria, nisi praesupposita ordinatione divina, quae sic ordinavit fieri, et tunc tantum necessitate consequentiae necessarium fuit Christum pati… et ideo multum tenemur Ei. Ex quo enim aliter potuisset homo redimi et tamen ex sua libera voluntate sic redemit, multum Ei tenemur, et amplius quam si sic necessario et non aliter potuissemus fuisse redempti; ideo ad alliciendum nos ad amorem suum, ut credo, hoc praecipue fecit, et quia voluit hominem amplius teneri Deo.

• Ergo Trinitas nullum adiutorium pertinens ad salutem contulit homini viatori, nisi in virtute huius oblationis Christi in cruce factae et a persona dilectissima et ex maxima charitate.

 p.63

[1. The greatest work of God cannot be occasioned/conditoned]

I. Regarding the first assertion, which to me is as clear as the sun… please allow me to read the judgment of the Anglican convert, Fr. Faber: “If Christ was decreed after us, three monstrous consequences would follow: first , that Christ would have a debt of gratitude to us; second, that in certain aspects we would be greater than Him; third, that sin was necessary for His existence.”

I would add that if sin and its consequent redemption is the occasion, or as they say, the motive of the Incarnation, it would follow that the entire activity of God ad extra converges on man. Thus the end of God’s activity ad extra would not be the manifestation and communication of His goodness, but the salvation of the human race, as if God could not accomplish His external glorification except through the praise and love of the human creature. But what is the love of all of the Angels and Saints in comparison to Christ’s love for the Father? to the glory which the Heart of Christ renders to the Father? to His adoration?

Ven. John Scotus says: The glory of all the others put together does not equal that of the glory of Christ, that is, the glory which Christ gives to God the Father. To say that God would have neglected to bring about such a great work in the hypothesis that Adam had not sinned seems extremely irrational (videtur valde irrationabile). And if St. Paul, by way of hypothesis, were to descend from Heaven and we were to ask him: For what reason did the Incarnation take place? Would he who preached that in all things Christ has the Primacy ever respond that the Word was incarnate only to redeem humanity and that without sin we would not have the Christ of whom he says, like God the Father, He must be all in all things, whose “fullness” is the very fullness of God?

p.66

[2. God willed to be loved by another who in himself was capable of loving in the highest degree, in the sense of the love of someone extrinsic to Himself]

II.  …In a word, anyone who loves understands: “Da mihi amantem et novit quid dico” (St. Augustine); and it is not a coincidence that the mystics and Saints are moved in a particular way by this principle in order to accept and live the doctrine of the primacy of Christ. This principle, for me, is the most logical outcome of the other: God is Infinite Love; Christ was willed by God the Father because, being Infinite Love, He desires infinite love. If all of creation is soaked in love, if the creation of intelligent creatures is, besides being an act of love, a desire to receive love, as St. Bonaventure says, if the highest love towards God-Charity could only be rendered by the Word Incarnate as the only one capable of loving and glorifying God in the highest degree, that is, in a measure which is adequate, infinite, worthy of the Father who is totius bonitatis, then it is necessary that Christ be the primum volitum inter omnia creata volita, that He be the foundation and raison d’étre of the counsel of the Eternal which unfurls and actualizes the universe…

p.67

[3. All of the authorities/authors – auctoritates – can be explained in this way: Christ would not have come as Redeemer if man had not fallen…]

III.  On to the third assertion of Scotus: “The entire witness of the Scriptures and the Fathers which seem to confirm the contrary, namely that Christ would not have been incarnate if Adam had not sinned, can be understood in the sense that Christ would not have come as Redeemer if man had not fallen; perhaps in such a case He would not have come in passible flesh, it not being necessary for Christ’s soul – glorious from the beginning and preordained by God to such a great glory – to have been united to a passible body.” In this assertion, I say, we have the synthesis of the two revealed data: the absolute Primacy of Christ (the primary end of the Incarnation) and the Redemption of the human race (a secondary end). But this synthesis had already been made by St. Paul in his prophetic-oracular style;  during that time he was the preacher of Christ, Rex totius universitatis, and the preacher of Jesus, and Him crucified.

p.67-68

If it were necessary to comment on Scotus, a comment which, nonetheless, as Grabmann notes, is valid for the whole scholastic world, it is the fact that he has recourse to theological reason rather than insisting upon and proving his assumption starting with the Scripture and Tradition; however, it would be incorrect to forget that this ratio teologica is the essence of his diuturnal and sublime meditations on the Bible and the Fathers. Only in the 16^th century do his disciples begin to use a positive method of biblical-patristic research, a method which up to now has not been completely utilized, although here and there one can observe with satisfaction that it is bearing fruits. There comes to mind two writings, that of Lattanzi: Il Primato di Cristo nelle Sacre Scritture, and another by Hausherr, Un Precurseur de Scot: Isac Ninivite.

p.68

[4. Thus I maintain that all of the things which Christ accomplished for our Redemption were not necessary except for what concerns the preexistent, divine decree – nisi praesupposita ordinatione divina – which decreed/ordered that it be done in this way, and therefore Christ’s suffering was only necessary by way of a necessity of consequence… and therefore we are greatly indebted to Him – multum tenemur Ei. In fact, since man could have been redeemed in another manner and nonetheless God, in His free will, redeemed us in this way, we are much more indebted to Him for this than if we necessarily had to be redeemed in this fashion with no other alternative; He did this above all, as I believe, in order to attract us to His love and because He willed that man be even more bound to God.]

In this [assertion of Scotus] Christian anthropology and the mystery of the Cross are, in my opinion, integrally kept intact – no part of the revealed truth is lost or mitigated. Rather, the mystery of the Cross is actually immersed in the most ardent and tender flames of divine love. This is how Scotus argues, like a new John of Patmos: Given that a finite being cannot, in sinning, commit an offense which has an infinite malice; given that the abasement of the Incarnation in passible flesh was sufficient to reconcile us with God, or further still, that had God disposed it differently the satisfaction given by an Angel or man himself, strengthened anew by grace, would have been sufficient, it follows that the sorrows of the Son of God crucified were willed by God: ad alliciendum nos ad amore suum… et quia voluit hominem amplius teneri Deo, that is, these unspeakable sorrows were willed by the heavenly Father in order to attract us to His love and so that man might love God all the more. Therefore, Scotus continues, no grace which concerns salvation is given to man as wayfarer by the most Holy Trinity except through the merit of this oblation of Christ, consummated on the Cross, through a most beloved Person – the Son – and through the maximum love – the love of the Son.

p.68-69

Following this synthesis of Christology Christ is always the First, the One who is above all – proteuon en pasin. In the most tender and delightful mysteries: Bethlehem, Nazareth, Calvary, the Eucharist, and in His most glorious mysteries: the Resurrection, Ascension, Pentecost, the glory of His Immaculate Mother and that of His Church, His Sacred Humanity irresistably draws hearts to the love of the Father, of His Christ, of Mary and of His Church. And this is because: ad alliciendum nos ad amorem suum sic fecit… et quia voluit nos amplius teneri Deo… ideo multum tenemur Ei.

p.70

[5. Therefore, the Trinity did not lend any help for the salvation of the wayfarer except in virtue of Christ’s offering made on the Cross through a most loved Person and through the maximum love.]

…In the light of this doctrine, which always has for its setting the Christocentric thesis, the drama of Redemption changes from a drama of justice to a drama of most pure and ardent love. It seems to me, and I would like to have the grace to write something on this argument, that a plan of justice would thus be replaced by a perfect plan of salvation which is removed from all external influence and rooted exclusively in the Father’s love for the Son and the love of the Incarnate Son, the Christ, for the Father and for mankind.

p.70-71

And in believing in this doctrine St. Paul comes to my aid. He says that Jesus “who for the joy set before Him, endured a Cross, despising the shame” (Heb 12:2). Furthermore, it seems to me that in the light of this doctrine of Christocentrism and Redemption for pure love, Mary’s Immaculate Conception and the value of her Compassion as Coredemptrix would follow logically.  And finally, I deduce from this that for man nothing else remains but to realize that corollary – simple as it is demanding : ideo multum tenemur Ei. For this reason we are deeply indebted to Christ: we could have been redeemed in a different manner, and yet He willed to redeem us in this fashion! “In fact, since man could have been redeemed in another manner and nonetheless God, in His free will, redeemed us in this way, we are much more indebted to Him for this than if we necessarily had to be redeemed in this fashion with no other alternative; He did this above all, as I believe, in order to attract us to His love and because He willed that man be even more bound to God.”

p. 71

…Although in scholastic terminology, I have laid out how Scotus would speak of Christ as Alpha and Omega and as the Crucified Redeemer. It seems to me that he firmly maintains the two links of the chain; it seems to me that He brings about the powerful synthesis of the two truths which, in the end, form but one heavenly mystery of Christ.

“I see Scotus as the Doctor of the Immaculate Conception, of Christ as King of the universe, of the Church as the bride of Christ, as a defender of Christ’s Vicar on earth, as a theologian of the mystery of the Eucharist.”

— Bl. Gabriel M. Allegra, OFM

Ave Maria!
Here is Part II which is largely a scriptural presentation of the doctrine of the absolute primacy of Christ. The third part will be the pure ratio theologica of Bl. John Duns Scotus.

Enjoy!

In Corde Matris,
Fr. Maximilian M. Dean

Il primato di Cristo in San Paolo e Duns Scoto

(Edizioni Porziuncola, 2011)
by Blessed Gabriel M. Allegra, OFM

Translation of pertinent passages:

Section II

p.42-43

St. Paul, just as he writes that in all things God the Creator and Father is all in all (1 Cor 15:28), so he adopts the same phrase in reference to Christ when he says to the Colossians (3:11), “Christ is all things and in all.” So too St. John speaks of God the Creator and Father as the Alpha and Omega (Apoc 1:8) and at the same time affirms this of Christ. Here are the two principle texts: In the Apocalypse (1:18) Jesus speaks thus to the Apostle: “Do not be afraid, I am the First and the Last, and He who lives; I was dead, and behold, I am living forevermore”; and in chapter 22:12-13 of the same mysterious book Jesus once again speaks: “Behold, I come quickly! And my reward is with Me, to render to each one according to his works. I am the Alpha and the Omega, the first ant the last, the beginning and the end!”

Regarding St. Paul, I do not want to insist upon the text from the letter to the Colossians (3:11) where, in my opinion, the obvious sense would be as follows: as the head is everything for the body, so much so that the body without it cannot live, so it is with the members of the mystical body of Christ who, without distinction of race or social condition, each have in the body the dignity of being children of adoption; without Christ their head, from whom they receive grace upon grace, without remaining united to Him and living in Him and He in them, they are not alive, but dead, condemned to death. At any rate, if we reflect upon the psychological laws of the language and the author who makes use of it, I would have to say, with P. Bover, that it is not insignificant that Paul might be speaking of Christ in the same way as He speaks of God the Father. Stronger still, it would seem to me, is St. John’s position which gives the title of Alpha and Omega both to God the Creator and Father and to Christ.

Christ the Alpha: in the sense of the other denomination which is always read in the Apocalypse (3:14): E archè tes ktiseos tou Theou – the beginning of the creation of God; Christ the Omega: in the sense that He is the end for which everything was made and towards which the ages and all things tend…

p.44

But in order to return to St. Paul through St. John I would like to point out that the well beloved Apostle, in writing to the Churches of Asia that Christ is “the beginning of the creation of God,” is himself referring to the teaching which St. Paul had given to the Ephesians and, in a particular way, to the Colossians in the letter he wrote from his benevolent imprisonment in Rome. If you will permit me, I’d like to read the pericope of Col 1:15-20 and give a brief explanation of it which, following many exegetes, seems to me to be the most evident meaning. I cannot, however, overlook the fact that there is a strong exegetical current (dominated by the authority of St. Thomas, Prince of Theologians, and by the illustrious commentator on St. Paul’s Epistles, Estius) which would give an explanation which is different from that which I, with modesty, would like to propose, but also with a Pauline parresia [NT Greek: confidence/courage].

In this powerful and enlightening passage (Col 1:15-20) St. Paul speaks of Christ in relation to God, to creatures and to the Church. In relation to God, Christ is the living image of the invisible Father who dwells in inaccessible light: he who sees Christ, no so much with the eyes of the body, but with the eyes of the Faith, sees the Father.

In relation to creatures Christ is called by Paul: the Firstborn. The Patristic explanation of this title in comparison with the other title – the only Begotten – is, practically speaking, part of tradition. He is called only Begotten in so far as He is the Son of God; He is called Firstborn in so far as He is the Son of man: Mediator Dei et hominum homo Christus Jesus (1 Tm 2:5).

p. 45-6

He is Firstborn not so much by His unique excellence which derives from the hypostatic Union, but because He is the Beginning of the ways of God, that is, of the action of God extra sé, the First One willed among all created beings.  Actually, all beings have been willed and created for Him, in view of Him, and in Him they have their consistency: Kai ta panta en auto sunesteken.

With regards to the Church, He is the Head, the communicating Principle of the divine life because in Him dwells the fullness of the divinity and grace and because with His blood He obtained, continues to purify and sanctifies His beloved Bride.

To say, as many exegetes do – most of them, in fact – that St. Paul is speaking first of the pre-existent Word of God and then of the Word Incarnate seems to me to do violence to the Greek syntax and, above all, to the thought of the Apostle.  No, Paul speaks of the Son of God as Incarnate and Redeemer, absolutely willed by God the Father before the world was founded, as the Apostle teaches in his letter to the Ephesians; he speaks of the “Beloved” (egapemenos) in whom, before the world existed, we were blessed, chosen, predestined as adopted children, enriched which grace – even the fullness of Christ; in whom, by virtue of His Blood, we have received Redemption, the remission of our sins, the revelation of the mystery hidden in ages past, and the promised Holy Spirit: all unto the praise of the glory of Christ (Eph 1:1-14).

Christ’s entrance into the created universe was not occasioned [caused] by Adam’s sin, but to the contrary the universe exists for Christ and in view of Him.

It is Christ, I would say, who is the occasion [cause] of the existence of the universe which has its consistency [existence] in Him. He is the Revealer, He the Glorifier of the Father, He the Head of all creation, and in virtue of His Incarnation He was consecrated and continues to be consecrated by the Church which is a continuation of Christ, transcending time and space; or further still, drawing out the extreme consequences of Pauline thought: Creation is perennially consecrated by the Eucharist both with regards to the sacrifice which mystically perpetuates the oblation of Calvary and to the Sacrament which mystically perpetuates His presence until the Lord’s coming and which is the great sign of His presence, the indisputable pledge of His being Emmanuel: our God with us!…

p.46-47

The Incarnation is the greatest work of God, and thus irrepeatable, towards which everything converges: time and space; now the Word Incarnate holds the Primacy over all things which, each according to its own nature, owes its existence, grace and glory to Him: whether they dwell on our planet or our solar system or in some distant astral system at the farthest reaches of some distant galaxy; whether they are angels, men, irrational beings – even if they are different than us. The recapitulation – an unhappy translation of the Greek word – should not, it seems to me, be intended in the merely soteriological sense, but in the cosmic sense (Eph 1:10) and I find this same doctrine in the prologue to the Letter to the Hebrews where the Apostle teaches: “God… has spoken to us by His Son, whom He appointed heir of all things, by whom also He made the world; who, being the brightness of His glory and the image of His substance, and upholding all things by the words of his power, has effected man’s purgation from sin and taken His seat at the right hand of the Majesty on high” (Heb 1:1-3)…

p.47-48

But I hear that exegesis and biblical Theology are on the verge of directing themselves twoards the doctrine of the absolute Primacy of Christ and that they will be forced to do so by the more accurate study of Wisdom in the Old Testament, by the harmony between the two Testaments, and, in the end, even by the research regarding the Gnosticism and Stoicism of the Christian Era. And who knows, perhaps there are even certain rabbinical texts which maintain that God had created the universe for the Messiah and with Him in mind; better studies could demonstrate that Paul, the disciple of the Rabbi Gamaliel, after being struck by lightning at Damascus and taken up later to the third heaven, possessed a powerful, supernatural vision which gave him the vigor and strength to contemplate the mystery of Christ, hidden in ages past, and reveal Him to us. I would also like to add that if Theologians will follow, even from a distance, even as amateurs, the prestigious progress of the sciences, they will have to give much attention to the doctrine of Christ as the Alpha and Omega, of Christ as King of the Universe, as Christ the all in all – like the Father, as St. Paul preached: ina genetai en pasin autos proteuon – “that in all things He may have the first place” (Col 1:18).

p.48-49

In the field of theology the Pauline-Johanine Christocentrism and Christofinalism should not supplant, but rather integrate the doctrinal, soteriological system by way of a larger and more worthy vision of Christ’s mission. In this integration traditional soteriology would not only remain intact, but would present to us – and of this I am sure – Christ’s love for the Father and for his brothers, humanity, in a more dazzling and ardent manner. What is needed, therefore, is to bring together a harmonious synthesis of all of the data of Revelation: the dogma of the Trinity, the inner life of God, the absolute Primacy of Christ and the mystery of the Cross, with another light, divine as well, which emanates from science. Perhaps that which the great Scholastics attempted and, in the field of the upholders of the absolute Primacy of Christ, Scotus, St. Bernardine, St. Lawrence of Brindisi, and St. Francis de Sales attempted would, today, given the immense extension of scientific research, be frightful or at least seem impossible; and yet the construction of a complete theological system which does not concentrate solely on one aspect, but all of the aspects of Revelation, the entire “truth which elevates us so much,” is the inevitable task of Theology in the near future.

“I see Scotus as the Doctor of the Immaculate Conception, of Christ as King of the universe, of the Church as the bride of Christ, as a defender of Christ’s Vicar on earth, as a theologian of the mystery of the Eucharist.”

—  Bl. Gabriel M. Allegra, OFM

With the recent beatification of Fr. Gabriel Mary Allegra, OFM, I have taken it upon myself to translate some pertinent passages from the Italian original of his book on the absolute primacy of Christ Il primato di Cristo in San Paolo e Duns Scoto (Edizioni Porziuncola, 2011) from dialogues he had with Fr. Pierre Teilhard de Chardin, S.J., in 1942-1945; the text was first published in 1966. I have limited myself to the passages directly related to the primacy and have deliberately left out the sections on Dante Alighieri and the conversational parts with Fr. Pierre Teilhard de Chardin, S.J., both for the sake of brevity and clarity. I have included page numbers of the original Italian text in case anyone needs the references. [Regarding Fr. Pierre Teilhard de Chardin, S.J., I would highly recommend a reading of Dr. Dietrich von Hildebrand’s solid evaluation]

Enjoy Bl. Gabriel Allegra’s pedagogical presentation of the doctrine of the absolute primacy of Christ which is both profound and simple!

In Corde Matris,
Fr. Maximilian M. Dean

Il primato di Cristo in San Paolo e Duns Scoto

(Edizioni Porziuncola, 2011)
by Blessed Gabriel M. Allegra, OFM

Translation of pertinent passages:

Section I

p.31

If I am not mistaken, the Franciscans have remained almost the only ones in the defense of the absolute Primacy of Christ, or rather of the doctrine of the Incarnation not occasioned by sin. A few years ago our Father General [Fr. Ephrem Longpré, OFM] sent out an Encyclical Letter to the entire Order in which, besides exposing this heavenly doctrine, he invited the Friars Minor once again to teach, propagate and defend it. This Letter is enriched with erudite and solid footnotes which give further evidence as to how there has never been lacking at the side of the manualistic teachings, nor shall there be lacking today in the Church, thinkers, mystics and saints who accept and defend the Kingship or Absolute Primacy of Christ; I have found that even Anglican exegetes, like the renowned Wescott, based on the words of Scripture, and especially those of St. Paul, uphold this and are moved with enthusiasm…

Here is what I can say regarding the Orthodox Theologians, or better Fathers, based on the citations of the Encyclical Letter of my Father General: because of their theory of the deification of humanity through the Incarnation, they either clearly or implicitly subordinate the Redemption to the Incarnation, since the Incarnation itself gives glory to God and divinizes the cosmos…

p.32

…the doctrine of the absolute Primacy of Christ is not as rare as the Dogmatic Manuals are teaching; to the contrary, it is anchored in the great Tradition of the ancient Church. Illustrious Fathers like St. Irenaeus, St. Athanasius, St. John Chrysostom, St. Cyril of Alexandria, Anastasius of Sinai, Isaac of Nineveh… have upheld it. But as I see it many of these famous witnesses of Tradition, and I place among them the greatest of them all, St. Augustine, did not make a synthesis of the doctrine of the Incarnation independent of sin and that of the redemptive Incarnation, with the exception of the attempt of that powerful genius Rupert of Deutz.

Unfortunately, after Rupert the doctrine of the absolute Primacy of Christ was proposed, not as a revealed datum, but rather as a hypothesis: If Adam had not sinned, would the Word have become incarnate? And to this question the greatest luminaries of the Scholastic period, Ss. Thomas and Bonaventure, opposing their respective Masters St. Albert the Great and Alexander of Hales, responded no, even if both of them championed the principles which, solicited and pushed to their legitimate consequences, would postulate the doctrine of the Primacy…

p.33

If one now reflects on the influence which is exercised especially by St. Thomas in Catholic Schools, one cannot be but surprised at the levity with which the discussion is treated by the authors of the manuals. They frequently give the impression that they do not suspect that anything more is being dealt with than a mere question of devotion, as opposed to dealing with the greatest glory of Christ and most probably – for me it is certain – a revealed datum found in the Sacred Scriptures and the Holy Fathers and Doctors.

p.35

The Sacred Scripture teaches the absolute Primacy of Christ just as it teaches the existence of another end of the Incarnation, namely the Redemption of the human race. The Fathers sustained the Primacy and the Redemption without attempting a synthesis, that is, without coordinating a harmonious system of the two truths… St. Thomas and St. Bonaventure taught that the primary end of the Incarnation was that of the Redemption and their authority, especially that of St. Thomas, has indeed made such a doctrine become quasi-official. Venerable John Duns Scotus, just as he did with the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception, rose up against many Masters and attempted a synthesis. It seems to me that no one who has followed him has really added anything new to the arguments of the Marian Doctor, although admittedly the French School of Spirituality has treated of the extreme consequences of the brilliant Scotistic sentence: Deus voluit ab alio summe diligi, and St. Francis de Sales has dealt with the extreme consequences of that other Scotistic principle: Deus est formaliter charitas.