Thanks for the comments. Yes, there is much room for debate in the history of knowledge. There are those who say that Wm of Ockham was probably John Duns Scotus’ student at both Oxford and probably again at Paris (William Turner, 1912 CE) and those who deny it (G. Gal, 1967 NCE). As to the points you take issue with, I suppose on some I could have been more precise but I that is an aside to the main point.

With respect of JPTG, to understand his thought, you have to go back to his early philosophical writings and especially his magnum opus, Person and Act. Love and Responsibility is aimed at a popular audience and his writings as pope are much more catechetical and pastoral in scope. JPTG is anything but vague once you understand his philosophical and theological presuppositions. Like Thomas, he expects that his readers fill following implications that the average reader will not.

Thanks again for the comments and precisions. I would recommend reading Scola’s book for a more systematic treatment of the nuptial mystery. It is a little more Balthasarian than JPII but in general, it is a pretty good summary.

Regarding Duns Scotus: W. of Ockham was not his student, though he often takes Scotus’s positions as the starting point in elaborating his own views. Nor was his point of departure St. Thomas, but Henry of Ghent and his franciscan contemporaries. thomas really doesn’t come up that much when one reads his Ordinatio.

Voluntarism: The metaphysical priority of the will is not actually related to the realist/nominalist debate. Voluntarism is not an insidious distortion (I hope you don’t take the silly “radical orthodoxy” crowd seriously) of western thought but arguably the best attempt at an account of free will and choice. Indeed, according to Scotus the will is the only rational power, and volitional acts are caused by the co-causality of the intellect and will, putting to rest any nonsense about “capriciousness” or “arbitrariness”.

Keep up the good work. Scotus is extremely hard to understand, and most of the common wisdom out there about him derives from 19th century thomists and histories of philosophy written long before there was an attempt at a critical edition of his works. I would think he would have much to offer a “nuptial” theology, as his “voluntarism” prizes love over understanding. That being said, I have yet to be impressed by modern theology, and the subsection of it that is nuptial theology. To me it seems (from having read jpII) very vague and nice, but of little philosophical rigour. At key points he refrains from making an argument but quite explicitly “insists” that x doctrine is the case (i’m thinking of love and responsibility). so for the moment I stick to the medievals. I don’t deny that theology can develop, that the scholastics may one day be surpassed, but I am an example of someone who adheres strongly to the fathers and doctors and is yet critical of nuptial theology.

Excellent post. For my full reaction, go here.

Best,
Mike

I suppose Kerr’s treatment was fair enough, as far as it goes, but there’s no doubt that he’s snarky toward the theme of nuptial mysticism. De Lubac inaugurated — it seems, in Kerr’s opinion — the theme of nuptial mysticism in the 20th century by his revival (on the heels of Danielou’s famous study in 1948) of Origen. For Kerr, this is “shockingly” controversial, and he takes a rather sneering tone (in my opinion) throughout the book when he talks about the nuptial mystery. So, he was correct to be hurt and saddened by the negative reviews he received in “Horizons” — becaus, after all, he’s quite sympathetic the the “Horizons” standpoint. Certainly, Kerr is at best ambivalent, at the end of the book, toward the contraceptive mentality in the Church (which is a practice at fundamental odds with the nuptial mystery).

Kerr never mentions (so far as I can tell) Augustine as a source for the theme of “Nuptial Mysticism.” Yet, the theme is present throughout Augustine’s “Commentary on the Psalms.” Moreover, Augustine’s teaching that God positively willed sexual differentiation and procreation seems to set the Western tradition apart from the Eastern tradition on this issue — though I could be mistaken about that. Augustine may have seen original sin too much in terms of concupiscence (as his twentieth century detractors claimed). But at least he saw the fundamental blessing of sexed, bodily complementarity — the anthropological foundation for nuptial mysticism.

When Kerr subtly chides the ressourcement people for claiming to be men of the Church, on the one hand, and covert forces for the destruction of neo-scholasticism on the other, he may have a point. Though I suspect this opinion of Kerr’s stems from his inherent dislike of the nuptial theme, which the strictest neo-scholastics could not possibly have developed…

That is a most excellent question. In many ways the Nuptial Mystery draws very deeply on Eastern theology and mystical insights. It merges the western metaphysical tradition (which they see as dry and invasive) with the eastern mystical (the encounter with the person). The East, though, has never brought its insights together is terms of nuptial communion. One thing that has protected Orthodox theology from the negative developments the west saw (especially after Ockham) is that they have been especially reticent to accept anything that is not explicitly found in the Eastern Fathers. Two notable exceptions would be 14th century Palamism and early 20th century Sophiology, though the latter has had much narrower influence in the East.

There are also many other factors at play, such as an eastern culture that is very much formed in the polemics that originally divided East and West (much the same as some Protestants are still much formed by the polemics of the Reformation). Those Orthodox that are most open to reunion I think will appreciate the Eastern insights such as the recovery of the terminology and mystery of divinization which they found picked apart in the metaphysical discussion of created grace in the scholastic West, or the integral discussion of grace as interpenetrating the entire body-soul unity (though they do not follow the hylomorphic theory). Others in the East who create their identities in terms of what is wrong with the West will continue to find problems with this theology and in fact, will probably lament what they will argue is a distorted appropriation of Eastern thought.

In the end, I would say that the polemics of the past must be healed and the issues of ecclesiology and papal authority at root have to be overcome before most Eastern theologians will look at this seriously. However, for those who are open, I think that it will allow them to see that the Nuptial Mystery is in fact the mystery par excellence that demonstrates the necessity for the complementary theological approaches of East and West…it may even be the theological model that shows us how we may once again breath as one Church–fully with both lungs.

I think with your question, you have opened up an idea for another associated article that I will now have to fret about not having enough time write. By the way…welcome home!

David, do you think development of this thread in Catholic theology might exacerbate the gulf between Rome and the East, given Orthodoxy’s general aversion to Thomistic methodology?

Genevieve - I am happy that at least some of the post was useful. What you experience at your talks is a problem. However, I think that those who respect and embrace the Catholic tradition are much more open to this new synthesis than are those who do not. The Nuptial Mystery I am arguing is completely faithful to Thomism both in content and method. Ironically, those who want to limit themselves to Thomas’ insights are not being faithful to his method.