No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
Ockham, Scotus, and the Censure at Avignon
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 28 July 2009
Extract
The third decade of the fourteenth century might well be considered a pivotal period for William of Ockham. In the first place, it witnessed his metamorphosis from theologian into political theorist. More ominously, it was during these years that he changed from a faithful son of the church into a rebel against papal authority. Both of these transformations came about largely because of his trip to Avignon to defend himself against the charges first leveled by Johannes Lutterell and then investigated by a papal commission. Having been summoned to defend his theological orthodoxy, Ockham found himself drawn into the quarrel between John XXII and Michael of Cesena. Ockham sided with Michael and eventually escaped with him in 1328, fleeing into the arms of Ludwig the Bavarian. Thus, from the papal viewpoint, the Ockham who departed in 1328 was a man with appreciably more sins to his credit than the one who had arrived approximately four years earlier.
- Type
- Research Article
- Information
- Copyright
- Copyright © American Society of Church History 1968
References
1. For biographical data see Baudry, Léon, Guillaume d'Occam (Paris: J. Vrin, 1949).Google Scholar
2. Our knowledge of the process against Ockham is derived largely from manuscripts discovered and published in recent years by Pelzer, Koch, and Hoffmann. See Pelzer, Auguste, “Les 51 articles de Guillaume Occam censurés, en Avignon, en 1326,” Revue d'histoire ecclésiastique, XVIII (1922), 240–70Google Scholar: Koch, J., “Neue Aktenstücke zu dem gegen Wilhelm Ockham in Avignon geführten Process,” Recherches de théologie anoienne et médiévale, VII (1935), 353–80Google Scholar; VIII (1936), 79–93, 168–97; Hoffmann, Fritz, ed., Die Schriften des Oxforder Kanzlers Iohannes Lutterell (Leipzig: St. Benno-Verlag, 1959).Google Scholar
3. The commission submitted two opinions, one censuring 51 articles and another censuring 49. The latter opinion passes a somewhat harsher judgment than the former. Koch, who believes that the former opinion is the earlier of the two, presents the texts of both (hereafter designated as Opinion I and Opinion II). Lutterell's Libellus contra doctrinam Guilelmi Occam (hereafter referred to as Libellus) is given in full by Hoffman, op cit.
4. See especially the excellent article by Brampton, C. K., “Personalities at the Process against Ockham at Avignon, 1324–1326,” Franciscan Studies, XXVI (1966), 4–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
5. All references to Scotus will be to the Opus Oxoniense as published in Opera olnnia (Paris: L. Vives, 1891–95)Google Scholar. The story of Scotus as sententiarius is of course, an exceedingly complicated one. See Balié, Charles, Les Commentaires de Jean Duns Scot sur 1es quatre livres des sentences (Louvain: Bureaux de la Revue, 1927)Google Scholar. In choosing to extract the Scotist view from the Opus Oxoniense, the author must at least pause to acknowledge that the eucharistic theology found there is in some ways strikingly different from that found in the Reportata Parisiensia and the Quaestiones quodlibetales. Reliance upon the Opus Oxoniense seems justified, however, not only by the fact that the views found there seem most significant for the present study, but also by the strong probability that these views represent Scotus' mature thought. See the conclusion offered by Bali´, , “The Life and Works of Duns Scotus,” Duns Scotus, 1365–1965 (Washington, D. C.: The Catholic University of America Press, 1965), p. 21Google Scholar: “…whenever disagreement exists between the teaching of the Ordinatio and the teaching of the Reportationes, the text of the Ordinatio is to be followed as that which reflects Scotus' final and definitive doctrine.”
6. Opinion I, art. 46; Opinion II, art. 22. “Item (II dicit) quod corpus Christi existens sub sacramento (I possit; II potest) videri oculo (I corporeo; II corporali) et terniinare visionem corporalem, quia non magis repugnat alicui existenti realiter terminare visionem corporalem quam non existenti. Sed non existens potest terminare visionem corporalem et intellectualem intuitivam.”
7. Opinion I, art 46. “Dicimus quod corpus Christi, ut existens in sacramento, possit videri oculo corporeo, aut id quod omnino nichil est possit videri intuitive ab oculo corporali est simpliciter falsum et erroneum.”
8. Opinion II, art. 22. “Dieimus quod corpus Christi, ut est existens in sacramento altaris, possit videri oculo corporali, est falsum et erroneum, quia sequitur quod in sacramento esset corpus Christi extensive et localiter, quod est erroneum.”
9. IV Sent., q. 5. Ockham's sentence commentary awaits a modern editor. Although parts of it have been accorded critical editions, the main body is available only in manuscript form or in early editions. Unless otherwise noted, references in this essay will be to the text found in the Lyons, 1494–1496 edition of the Opera plurima (London: Gregg Press, 1962).Google Scholar
10. IV Sent., q. 4.
11. Aquinas, Thomas, Summa theologiae (Taurini-Romae: Marietti, 1948), III, q. 76, a. 7Google Scholar; Duns Scotus, IV Sent., d. 10, q. 9.
12. IV Sent., q. 5C-D.
13. Ibid., q. 5D. See Ockham's image of the white wall in Quotlibeta septem (Louvain: Edition de Ia Bibliothèque S. J., 1962), IV, q. 20.Google Scholar
14. It must be noted in passing that Ockham's divergence from Scotus on this score is closely tied to his rejection of Scotus' “realistic” view of a respectus. Both men think of a substance as having parts, but, in the area of eucharistic theology, these parts play a much different role for Ockham than they do for Scotus, since the latter can posit a presence involving a respectus of the whole substance to the whole locus or to each part of the locus. For Ockham, such a notion is philosophical nonsense. Any idea of presence must ultimately wrestle with the problem of how individual parts of the substance are matched with individual parts of the locus. The difference between the two views is rather strikingly demonstrated by citing the two men's views regarding figura. The more “realistic” Scotus can envisage the existence of a body of Christ with figura prior to and independent of any respectus of presence. Thus, even if the body is only present in such a way that the whole is commensurated with the whole locus, it will still have figura. See Scotus, IV Sent., d. 10, q. 2. Ockham, on the contrary, cannot distinguish so neatly between figura and relation to the locus. The figura of any given substance is determined by the relation of its parts to the parts of the locus. See Ockham. IV Sent., q. 4K.
15. IV Sent., q. 5D. “… deus suspendit actionem istarum qualitatum non coagendo cum illis ut agant…”
16. Ibid., q. 5D. “…agente approximato et passio disposito, sequitur actio…”
17. IV Sent., q. 5H.
18. Ockham's comments on causality are scattered throughout his works. For one interesting and highly relevant section, see II Sent., qq. 4 and 5.
19. See, for example, Gilson, Etienne, The Unity of Philosophical Experience (New York: Charles Scribner's Sons, 1937), pp. 86ffGoogle Scholar. For a recent criticism of Ockham's notion of causality, see Klocker, H. R., “Empiricism and Reality: Ockham and Hume,” Heythrop Journal, IV (1963), 42–53.Google Scholar
20. IV Sent., d. 10, qq. 1 and 2. See footnote 14.
21. Libelius, art. 12, 22, 40, 50 and 51.
22. Ibid., art. 12 and 22.
23. Ibid., art. 12.
24. Ibid., art 12. “… quod id quod videtur post transsubstantiationem est corpus Christi.”
25. See Maier, Annaliese, Metaphysische Hintergründe der spätscholastischen Naturphilosophie (Roma: Edizioni di Storia e Letteratura 1955), pp. 145ff.Google Scholar
26. Ibid., p. 164.
27. Opinion I, art. 9
28. Opinion II, art. 21. “Dicimus quod ponere quantitatem non ease rem distinctam a substantia est contra communem sententiam sanctorum, doctorum et phiosophorum, quam reputamus veram. Quo supposito dicimus esse erroneum et periculosum et contra determinationem Ecclesie, que ponit in sacramento altaris solam substantiam converti quantitate et ceteris accidentibus remanentibus.”
29. IV Sent., d. 12, q. 2. “Sed de absolutis diversimode opinantes de quantitate respondent diversimode.”
30. Martin, Gottfried, Wilhelm von Ockham. Untersuchungen zur Ontologie der Ordnungen (Berlin: W. de Bruyter, 1949), P. 76.Google Scholar
31. Libellus, art. 34; Opinion I, art. 48; Opinion II, art. 20. The commission does not pass judgment on the seriousness of the offense. Lutterell is surprisingly mild, simply describing Ockham's view as male dictum.
32. IV Sent., q. 6K.
33. Ibid., q. 6D.
34. Ibid., q. 70.
35. See also Ibid., q. 6K.
36. Quodl. IV, q. 35. “Prima, quia substantia panis praefuit et postea est corpus christi. Secunda est, quia substantia panis et vini ibi deficit esse, et manent accidentia tantum, sub ihis incipit esse corpus christi. Tertia quod remanet ibi substantia panis et vini, et in eodem loco cum illa manet corpus christi.”
37. The De Sacramento Altaris of William of Ockham, edited by T. Bruce Birch (Burlington, Iowa: The Lutheran Literary Board, 1930), cap. 5, p. 182.Google Scholar
38. Ockham's later discussions of eucharistic conversion are more cautious than the sentence commentary in a number of ways. See the following comments on his view of transsubstantiation.
39. IV Sent., q. 7C. “Quantum ad primum potest dici quod transsubstantiatio in proposito est successio substantiae ad substantiam desinentem esse simpliciter in se sub aliquibus accidentibus propriis substantie precedentis.” See also Ibid., q. 6H and L.
40. Ibid., q. 6F. “… sic est dare duos terminos positivos et duos negativos respectu quorum potest esse hec mutatio scilicet esse panis et non esse panis, esse corpus christi hic et non esse corpus christi hie.”
41. IV Sent., d. 11, q. 1. “Quicquid potest esse totaliter novum non repugnat sibi succedere all, quod potest totaliter desinere esse … et per consequens hoc potest converti totaliter in illam, et ita transsubstantiari.”
42. Ibid., d. 11, q. 3.
43. Ibid., d. 11, q. 4. “… et per consequens si ista desitio secundum se considerata sit annihilatio, tamen nullo modo ista conversio est annihilatio.”
44. See, for example, Iserloh, Erwin, Gnade und Eucharistie in der philosophischen Theologie des Wilhelm von Ockham (Wiesbaden: F. Steiner, 1956), p. 162.Google Scholar
45. Ockham is not entirely alone in his stand, however. Courtenay, William, “Cranmer as a Nominalist: Sed Contra,” Harvard Theological Review, LVII (1964), 371Google Scholar comes close to agreeing with him.
46. See Lombardus, Petrus, Libri IV sententiarum (Quaracchi: Collegii S. Bonaventurae, 1916), IV, d. 11, p. 1, cap. 2Google Scholar; Innocentius III, Mysteriorum evangelicae legis et sacramenu eucharistiae libri sex, lib. 4, cap. 20, in Patrologiae cursus compietus, series latina (Paris: Migne, 1890), t. CCXVII, col 870–71.Google Scholar
47. Libellus, art. 21. “Ponit enim ecclesiam meretricem et quod recessit a vero sponso, a veritate scilicet, que est Christus, asserendo falsum et inconveniens.”
48. Opinion I, art. 18; Opinion II, art. 19. “Dicimus quod assertio eat temeraria et periculosa et contra reverentiam et doctrinam Ecelesie, quia licet ad viam, quam approbat Ecclesia, sequuntur multa difficilia, non aunt tamen inconvenientia, quia minimum inconveniens est Deo impossible secundum Anselmum.”
49. IV Sent., q. 6D.
50. IV Sent., d. 11, q. 3.
51. Ibid., d. 11, q. 3.
52. Lehrbuch der Dogmensgeschichte (Graz: Akademische Druck- u. Verlagsanstalt, 1953)Google Scholar, Bd. III, p. 791.Google Scholar
53. IV Sent., q. 6D.
54. Ibid., q. 6D.
55. Quodl. IV, q. 35. “… esset multum rationabilis nisi esset determinatio ecclesie in contranum… ”
56. De sacramento altaris, cap. 5, p. 186. “Et ista opinio secunda videtur mihi probabilior et magis consona theologiae, quia magis exaltat Dei omnipotentiam nihil ab ea negando nec evidenter et expresse implicat contradictionem.”
57. Opinion I, art. 44 and 45; Opinion II, art. 47 and 48. “… dicimus quod unum et idem corpus posse esse simul localiter hi diversis locis, reputamus falsum et impossibile, et est mere philosophicum, non tangens fidem neque bonos mores.”
58. See, for example, IV Sent., q. 4H, I and M.
59. IV Sent., d. 10, q. 2.
60. IV Sent., q. 41. “… non videtur maior difficultas quod idem corpus numero coexistat pluribus locis secundum se totum quam quod anima eadem intellectiva secundum se totam sit in toto corpore et in qualibet parte corporis, vel idem angelus existens in aliquo toto loco secundum se totum existat in qualibet parte illius loci.” See also Ibid., q. 4H and M.
61. Quodl. I, q. 4.
62. Libellus, art. 33.
63. Opinion I, art. 47; Opinion II, art. 23. “Dicimus istum articulum esse falsum et erroneum et implicantem multas contradictiones (II intelligendo mutationem localem proprie,) quia si per motum localem inciperet corpus Christi esse in sacramento, sequeretur quod desineret esse in celo et quod motus oppositi inessent sibi simul, cum contingat illud sacramentum (I simul celebrari; II celebrari simul) in diversis locis, ad que necessario essent motus oppositi.”
64. IV Sent., q. 6F. “… quia accipit esse ubi prius non habuit esse.”
65. IV Sent., d. 10, p. 1 is the key passage for Scotus. There are some significant differences, but they do not hold any great importance for the subject at hand.