Duns Scotus, Divine Delight and Franciscan Evangelical Life

337 Franciscan Studies 64 (2006) “And my delight is to be with the children of men” (Prov. 8:31) DUNS SCOTUS, DIVINE DELIGHT AND FRANCISCAN EVANGELICAL LIFE In his study of Duns Scotus’s sacramental theology, Richard Cross admits to some puzzlement when he comes to the Subtle Doctor’s teaching on the Eucharist and, specifically, on the Franciscan’s claim that the Eucharistic sacrifice is offered not by Christ but by the Church. Scotus is quite clear that the priest – or at any rate the Church – does not have any sort of instrumental role in sacrifice of Christ’s body in the mass; the church is rather the principal agent offering the Eucharistic sacrifice. And elsewhere Scotus puzzlingly argues on scriptural grounds that there is no obvious sense in which Christ sacrifices himself in the Eucharist. In fact, Scotus is clear that there is a real sacrifice in the Mass that is distinct from the sacrifice of Calvary. So his view seems dangerously close to the view of the Eucharistic sacrifice later rejected by both Protestants and Catholics alike. He argues that, in the Eucharist, the Church offers Christ’s body and blood to God.1 1 Scotus’s position is troublesome in light of the analysis that Cross has developed on this point, largely in contrast to Aquinas’s sacramental theology and using the notion of instrumental sacramental causality. In the end, the Franciscan’s position leaves Cross unable to comment. “Doubtless, Scotus would want to see that power as related in some way to the priest’s power for being an occasion of divine sacramental activity, but he does not discuss this and I do not know what further speculation to offer about it.” Duns Scotus, (Oxford: Oxford University Press 1999), 145. 338 MARY BETH INGHAM Cross leaves his sacramental analysis of Scotus on this point, and leaves the reader as well with more questions than answers, both on Scotus’s position and on his reasoning behind it. There appear to be three elements in Cross’s puzzlement. First, regarding the nature of causality (instrumental or occasionalist) at work in the conversion of bread and wine into the body and blood of Christ. Second, the distinction of the Eucharistic celebration from the sacrifice of Calvary. Third, the principal agency of the minister (representing the Church) in offering Christ’s body and blood to God. All three center on the nature of Scotus’s sacramental theology and, specifically, how human natural agency functions within it. Cross claims that Scotus embraces an occasionalist account of sacramental efficacy. Puzzling issues indeed. Elsewhere2 I have argued that Scotus’s Franciscan identity has more to do with his philosophical and theological positions than many contemporary scholars recognize. Indeed, taking into account the fact that Scotus is a friar can help us understand his thought in general as well as some of the more subtle moves he makes in fairly standard arguments . I want to argue here once again on the basis of this assumption , foundational to my interpretation of the Subtle Doctor. It is his religious identity as a Franciscan friar, rather than the thought of someone like Thomas Aquinas (or even Aristotle, for that matter), that offers us the most fruitful way to approach any aspect of his theological view that may appear troublesome. In this present article I will offer an interpretation of Scotus’s Eucharistic theology that is based upon his commitment to the primacy of Christ and the Incarnation. This requires a certain amount of background work. The purpose of the preliminary discussion is to contextualize the insights that give Cross reason to pause. In the first section, I lay out the divine ordo intentionis as foundational to Scotus’s vision and discuss its role in terms of salvation history, involving creation, the covenant with Israel, the centrality of the Incarnation, and the work of divine acceptatio in fulfilling the divine plan. It is in terms of this vision that Scotus understands the sacraments (and in particular the 2 See my “Letting Scotus Speak for Himself” in Medieval Philosophy and Theology 10. 2 (2001): 173-216, and most notably, Scotus for Dunces: An Introduction to the Subtle Doctor...