According to the definitions in W. Norris Clarke S.J. in the “One and the Many” book on Metaphysics:
Potency is that principle within a being which limits (emphasis mine) some act or actual perfection possessed by the being and is the root of its capacity for change.
FM:
You are conflating the two distinct meanings of “potency.” On the on hand it means, to have within a thing the power, i.e., capability, to do something - which it has not yet done (or achieved). But, the important meaning is the one on the other hand which means the
privation of some thing. For example, my left hand on my left side is said to be
in privation of my left hand on my right side. That by the process of moving it comes to be on my right side may be called a perfection, in a very wide sense, but not in the precise sense we often mean “perfection.” However, these are the principles, i.e., contraries, of
motion.
Passive Potency is the capacity to receive some actual perfection (which means it doesn’t yet have something hence being limited).
Again, here the good Father is referring to something quite different from what you may be thinking. In the sense of
possessing a perfection, what you say is true. But, as I have shown above, my left hand on my right side is not a per se perfection. It is merely the contraries of motion.
Active potency is the power to act, to do something, given the proper conditions. The former (passive potency) implies some incompleteness on its own, hence cannot be found in God. The second (Active Potency) implies no incompleteness or imperfection, hence can be found in God: God has the power (active potency) to create the world or not.
If, in fact, you have stated the good Father’s words exactly, then there must be something that we are not being told. In Aquinas’ analysis of
motion, there is no such thing as “active potency.” In what you are talking about, there is a matter and form composite that contains within it the desire, or rather, the impetus, to change. That is quite different from “privation.” Privation is simply the
absence of something - that it may or may not seek. An acorn is a matter-form composite that is fully in act. It may seek its further perfection as an oak tree, but, that in no way denies its perfection, as a
being in act, as an acorn. Is this making some sense, I hope?
My argument is exactly this. That God, if ever infinite, must have been pure and complete active potency (being!).
No! Such an “active potency” would be a severe and continuous limitation of God - not a momentary limitation of Him. Active potency does not equal “being.” There has been talk of God being pure existence. That He is not. Rather, He is Absolute “Being.” "Being does not equal “existence,” however everything that we are familiar with seems to support that conclusion. But, we are unfamiliar with the Reality of the Spiritual. We define the Spiritual only as a negation, i.e., not material, and, perhaps even, not physical. What else do we really know about the spiritual. It is inferred from our sense of perfection(s); and from our sense that the Transcendentals have grounding in Reality.
He pervaded all that is, was all that is, and there were no limits. This Active Potency was in fact the ability to be less, which is the one power the almighty has in potency when He is at the full of exercise of infinite being in complete perfection. Otherwise God would simply be actuality undefined by limits with no potential for change. This would fall in perfect accord would Thomas Aquinas’ understanding that “Act is not limited save by reception into some distinct limiting potency.” (Again from Clarke, Ch. 10 p. 157)
Sorry, but you are again conflating the two distinct uses of the word “potential.” I do not have Clarke’s book so I can only conjecture that he is talking about something completely different from what you are. What is the title of the chapter you are quoting from? That might help.
God bless,
jd
