Thomas and scotus

[zaida]

Hi everyone - Ive read bits and pieces regarding the difference between Thomist theology/philosophy and Scotus. Keep in mind, I only know the basics of philosophy in general, and truly have only read a few things on line. But I thought someone might be able to clarify - My questions:

1. Ive read both their proofs of God’s existence and they strike me as very similar - arguing from a “first cause” - so, how are they different?
2. Ive read that the Scotus school believes in the “Primacy of Christ” - Christ would have come to earth and been with us, with or without sin, and redeeming us was only part of his role - whereas the Thomists believe he was sent purely to redeem of from sin -
   3)Ive read that the Scotus school believes that people and God all have the same properties, God just has them in in infinite amount - so, when we say God is good, we mean what we mean when we say “people are good” but the quantity is different - the Thomists believe in “analogy” and we dont “really” have a concept of “good” for God, we can only make an analogy to what we mean when we say “people are good”
3. Ive read mixed reviews of whether Scotus completely separated faith from reason
   5)Ive read that Scotus is blamed for modernity - but cant understand the arguments why

After doing some of this reading I was also left with a thought, maybe unfair - but to most people, their faith has nothing to do with these complex arguments! I feel like both Thomas and Scotus assumed the faith - they were both pious Catholics - and then sought to defend it by reason - fair enough - but its all so complex it doesn’t seem like faith can be based on these arguments, for most of us…when I have doubts I feel more likely to turn to the “witness of the saints” than philosophical arguments…(although I am aware people have become Catholic after reading Thomas, and also, he wrote with a clarity Scotus didnt)

Any thoughts?

 

[Iron_Donkey]

I can’t speak much to their differences (I’m not familiar with Scotus at all), but as to the last bit:

zaida:

but its all so complex it doesn’t seem like faith can be based on these arguments, for most of us…when I have doubts I feel more likely to turn to the “witness of the saints” than philosophical arguments…(although I am aware people have become Catholic after reading Thomas, and also, he wrote with a clarity Scotus didnt)

I think this just varies from person to person. I’ve heard many people say what you just said, but for me and some others at least, it’s more or less the other way around. That is, I recognize that the witness and actions of the saints is crucial, but it is the logical integrity of Catholicism that I turn to in moments of doubt. (I am a cradle Catholic, but there was a “turning point” when I moved from going to Church because my parents took me and not really thinking about it much, to actually believing the faith on a deeper level, and that was based on the reasoned arguments.)

 

[TimothyH]

Both Scotus and Aquinas would have based their work, in part, on The Sentences by Peter Lombard.

Aquinas, Bonaventure and Scotus all wrote commentaries on The Sentences. In its time, The Sentences was to the Church what the Summa is now, widely studied by almost everyone in formation. This probably explains the commonalities between the two theologians.

After doing some of this reading I was also left with a thought, maybe unfair - but to most people, their faith has nothing to do with these complex arguments! I feel like both Thomas and Scotus assumed the faith - they were both pious Catholics - and then sought to defend it by reason - fair enough - but its all so complex it doesn’t seem like faith can be based on these arguments, for most of us…when I have doubts I feel more likely to turn to the “witness of the saints” than philosophical arguments…(although I am aware people have become Catholic after reading Thomas, and also, he wrote with a clarity Scotus didnt)

Any thoughts?

I agree with what you wrote above.

For my part, I have never read these works and my faith has nothing to do with anything these theologians wrote. Faith is trust - that God will keep his promise that if I persevere to the end I will rise from the dead. Theology is not faith. My eyes glass over when I read anything like The Sentences or the Summa. I would much rather read what the mystics wrote - the 86 homilies of St. Bernard of Clairvaux on the Song of Songs or the modern work of Bernardo Olivera OCSO or Erasmo Leiva-Merikakis.

My theology is monastic, not scholastic. The aim of scholastic theology is truth while the aim of monastic theology is purity of heart. www.msaviour.org/2010/mon_sch.htm explains the difference and is worth the brief read.

-Tim-

 

[zaida]

Hi guys - thank you so much for your responses. I suppose the great thing about our faith is that it is “reasonable” (Thomas, etc) but also beautiful, and full of heart for the poor, and also “purity of heart” (as mentioned - monastic spirituality - thanks for that link!), and different people will be moved by different means, to the faith.

I just found out about a book called “Scotus for Dunces”, lol, and I might buy it next month (after pay day!) I think his original work is meant to be quite difficult.