J.

Isaac Goff
This magnificent study of Dr. Goff will immensely help those persons
who seek to appreciate the Disputed Questions on the Mystery of the Trinity’s
historical setting and what the Seraphic Doctor achieved in his cultivation of
a faith seeking understanding: fides quaerens intellectum, of the mystery at the
heart of the Godhead.
Peter Damian M. Fehlner, F.I
Professor Emeritus of Dogmatic Theology, Pontifical University of St. Bonaventure (Seraphicum)

J. Isaac Goff’s seminal study of Bonaventure’s On the Mystery of the Trinity

is the first study of the entire text for its own sake. As he wrestles with the
subtlety and rigor of Bonaventure’s Trinitarian theological metaphysics, Goff
reveals the deep connection between faith in the Trinity and the ultimate

C  P
resolution of philosophy’s deepest questions, showing how Bonaventure
interweaves the spiritual insight of Francis of Assisi with Western and Eastern
Fathers in the context of a newly prevalent Aristotelianism.
J.A. Wayne Hellmann, OFM Conv.
Professor of Historical and Systematic Theology, Saint Louis University

Bonaventure’s De mysterio Trinitatis is one of the most neglected texts in his

corpus and one of the neglected gems of medieval theology. J. Isaac Goff’s
new study begins to remedy this unfortunate gap, especially for an English
readership. Goff’s work not only provides a multi-faceted interpretation
of Bonaventure’s complex disputation on the Trinity, he also provides an
introduction to Bonaventurian studies and Bonaventure himself, taking into
account the latest research on his life and writings. Goff’s work shows that
further historical precision can lead to further theological insight regarding
the Church’s great Doctors. He also challenges us to hear Bonaventure as a
Doctor who speaks to the Church today. This is the first book of a young
historical-theologian, from whom the academy and Church should expect to
hear much more in the future.
Joshua C. Benson
Associate Professor of Historical and Systematic Theology, Catholic University of America

On the cover: The Holy Trinity, miniature from the Grandes Heures of Anne of Brittany, Queen consort of France (1477-1514). f. 155v.
 Caritas in Primo is a book prepared for publicaation by
the Franciscan Friars of the Immaculate [www.MaryMediatrix.
com], POB 303, New Bedford, MA 02741.
© 2015 Academy of the Immaculate
New Bedford, MA
All Rights Reserved
Cum Permissu Superiorum
ISBN 978-1-60114-0

Pr inte d and b ou nd i n t he Un ite d St ate s of Ame r i c a .

S A M PL E
 Foreword
Rev. Dr. Christiaan W. Kappes

By God’s providence, Bonaventure of Bagnoregio or the

“Seraphic Doctor” went the way of all flesh shortly after his
collaboration in the work of union between the Latin and the
Greek Churches at the Second Ecumenical Council of Lyons in
1274.1 So far as anyone knows, by the end of the same century,
two of his most masterful works of theology had already fallen
into total obscurity, never known to be cited verbatim again
from among the pages of Schoolmen until their rediscovery in
the late nineteenth century.2
Following upon the heels of his inceptive work Quaestiones
disputatae de scientia Christi (scripsit 1254–1257), Bonaventure
subsequently inaugurated yet another seemingly innovative
treatise entitled Quaestiones disputatae de mysterio Trinitatis
(scripsit 1254/5), which serves as the object of Dr. J. Isaac Goff’s
present study. Granted Bonaventure’s ostensibly philosophico-
theological innovativeness and his impressive synthesis of both
pagan and Christian authorities into his aforementioned opera,
it is incomprehensible to the modern mind how “the second
leader of Scholasticism” could have suffered fortune to stow
away this double triumph of genius on dusty medieval book-
shelves of Franciscan studia until their rediscovery. Yet, that is
exactly where fate left the literary duo until recent times, save
one anomaly a century and a half after the Seraphic Doctor’s
transitus ad patriam.

1 For what little is known of Bonaventure’s contribution to the Council, see Deno
Geanakoplos, “The Two Mendicant Orders, and the Greeks at the Council of Lyons
(1274),” in Constantinople and the West: Essays on the Late Byzantine (Palaeologan)
and Italian Renaissances and the Byzantine and Roman Churches (London: Univer-
sity of Wisconsin Press, 1989), 194–223.
2 For the history and fate of the De scientia Christi, see infra pp. 15–23.

xvii
SA MPL E
xviii Caritas In Primo

As fate would have it, a second (albeit the last) ecumeni-

cal council of reunion between the Latin and Greek Churches
provided the uniquely auspicious occasion for the resurfacing of
Bonaventure’s De mysterio Trinitatis. Markedly, in preparation
for the Ecumenical Council of Ferrara-Florence (8 November
1437),3 Pope Eugene IV (then residing in Florence) entrusted
Franciscan periti with research into the question of the distinc-
tion between the divine attributes and divine essence of the
Godhead due to Dominican cries for the posthumous condem-
nation of a Byzantine theologian,4 St. Gregory Palamas (d.
1359).5 Henceforward, some adherents to the official Byzantine
school accustomed themselves to argue for the equivalent of the
formal distinction (distinctio formalis a parte rei) among God’s
essential attributes,6 whether these are distinguished among
themselves or in comparison to the divine essence.7 According
to Dominican Schoolmen, such metaphysical ad intra distinc-
tions betokened inquisitorial investigation prior to the arrival

3 See Pope Eugene IV, Epistle 96, in Epistolae Pontificiae ad Concilium Florentinum
Spectantes. Conclium Florentinum Documenta et Scriptores Series A (Rome: Ponti-
ficium Institutum Orientalium Studiorum, 1940), 1.1:104. Pope Eugene invited 12
Franciscans to be periti on 23 September 1437.
4 See Luke Wadding, Annales Minorum seu trium ordinum a S. Francisco Institu-
torum, 2nd ed., ed. J. Fonseca (Rome: Rochi Bernabó, 1734), 11:2. For additional
information, see Celestino Piana, La facoltà teologica dell’universtità di Firenze
nel quattro e cinquecento. Spicilegium Bonaventurianum 15 (Rome: Collegii S.
Bonaventurae, 1977), 224.
5 NB, Palamas’ cultus is sanctioned by the Holy See in: Congregation for Oriental
Churches, Κυριακὴ Δευτέρα τῶν νηστείων τοῦ ἁγίου Γρηγορίου τοῦ Παλαμᾶ, in
Ἀνθολόγιον τοῦ ὅλου ἐνιαυτοῦ (Rome: s.n., 1974), 2:1607–1619.
6 This has been demonstrated in respect of at least two Palamite authors; namely,
Mark of Ephesus and Gennadius Scholarius. See Christiaan Kappes, “A Latin
Defense of Mark of Ephesus at the Council of Ferrara–Florence,” St. Vladimir’s
Theological Quarterly (forthcoming); Kappes, “The Latin Sources of the Palamite
Theology of George–Gennadius Scholarius,” Rivista Nicolaus 40 (2013): 71–114.
7 The Palamite school derives its canonical tenets (including the attribute–
essence distinction) from a series of professions of faith and Constantinopolitan
synods. E.g., see The Endêmousa Synod of Constantinople, Neilus Cabasilas, and
Philotheus Kokkinos, Τόμος κατὰ τοῦ μοναχοῦ Προχόρου τοῦ Κυδώνη, in Gregorio
Palamas e oltre: studi e documenti sulle controversie teologiche del xiv secolo
bizantino. Orientalia Venetiana 16, ed. A. Rigo (Florence: Leo S. Olschki, 2004),
1–134.

S A M PL E
 Foreword xix

of Greek Orthodox churchmen from Constantinople in 1438.8

For his part, Pope Eugene had just recently made a dramatic
intervention into Dominican-Franciscan theological disputes,
whereby he delivered the Florentine conciliar peritus, St. Bernar-
dine of Siena, OFM, from the pyre of the Inquisition, despite
Dominican efforts to secure the saint’s condemnation.9 Though
Pope Eugene showed himself benevolent toward both Domini-
cans and Franciscans, the Domini canes were presently becoming
notorious among fellow Schoolmen for fostering an exaggerat-
edly sectarian spirit beyond the common ruckus typical of the

8 A Dominican–trained Byzantine finished translating the Summa contra Gentiles

into Greek in 1354, whereupon a school of Byzantine Thomism arose and
consistently opposed Palamism, save a few idiosyncratic Thomists who opted for
compromises ad mentem Thomae. For the Dominican introduction and teaching of
Thomism in Byzantium during the Palamite controversies, see Christiaan Kappes,
“The Dominican Presentation and the Byzantine Reception of Thomas Aquinas
in Byzantium,” Academia.edu (academic website), February 18, 2014, https://
www.academia.edu/5503943/The_Dominican_Presentation_and_Byzantine_
Reception_of_Thomas_Aquinas_in_Byzantium. For various accommodations of
Palamism to Thomism, see John A. Demetracopoulos, “Palamas Transformed:
Palamite Interpretations of the Distinction between God’s ‘Essence’ and ‘Energies’
in Late Byzantium,” in Greeks, Latins, and Intellectual History 1204–1500, ed. M.
Hinterberger and C. Schabel (Paris: Peeters Leuven, 2011), 282–395 and Antoine
Lévy, “Lost in Translatio? Diakrisis kat’epinoian as a Main Issue in the Discussions
between Fourteenth-Century Palamites and Thomists,” The Thomist 76 (2012):
431–471. The Orthodox conciliar Father, Bessarion of Nicaea (1403–1472), made
Dominicans aware of this impending issue for debate at Ferrara-Florence in a letter
to Andrew of Rhodes, OP, perhaps written as early as 1436/7. See André De Halleux,
“Bessarion et le palamisme au concile de Florence,” Irénikon 62 (1989): 307–332.
9 Pope Eugene felt beholden to the Dominicans in Florence, for they alone gave
him refuge at Santa Maria Novella (1432), when forced to flee Rome and opposed
by most Christian princes and perhaps a majority of the Roman populace. See
Morimichi Watanabe, “Pope Eugene IV, the Conciliar Movement and the Primacy of
Rome,” in The Church, the Councils, and Reform: the Legacy of the Fifteenth Century,
ed. G. Christianson, T. Izbicki, and C. Bellitto (Washington, D.C.: Catholic University
of America Press, 2008), 180–181. In spite of this debt, Eugene grew tired of witch-
hunts against the likes of St. Bernardine. See ibid., 181. Subsequently, John Torque-
mada, OP, sought the condemnation of Franciscans as heretics at the Council of
Basel because of the Immaculate Conception. See E. Pusey, Preface to Tractatus de
veritate Conceptionis B. V. Mariae pro facienda coram Patribus Concilii Basileae anno
Domini 1437 mense julio, by J. Torquemada (London: Jacob Parker, 1869), xvii–xviii.
Torquemada’s intolerance was typical of orthodox Thomists, whose persecutions
were reduplicated against St. James of Marches, OFM, another Florentine peritus,
who suffered a Dominican Inquisitor to try him on a theologoumenon opposed to
that of Aquinas. See Dionysius Lasič, Introduction to De sanguine Christi, by James
of Marches (Falconara: Bibloteca Francescana Falconara, 1976), 25–27.

SA MPL E
xx Caritas In Primo

Schoolmen of the age.10 This rigid system of orthodox Thomism

did not augur a dispassionate probe into the Byzantine distinc-
tion between the essence and attributes (alias “energies”) as
exemplified by Palamas and his intellectual successors, who were
to form the “Palamite school.”11
10 See Paul Kristeller, “Le Thomisme et la pensé italienne de la Renaissance,” in
Conférence Albert-Le-Grand 1965 (Montréal: J. Vrin, 1967), 84–90. Italian Domini-
cans often offended other religious and humanists through their insistence on
the absolute necessity of defending Aquinas’ positions without distinction.
For example, orthodox Thomists exasperated a Carmelite beatus, such that he
undertook the composition of a screed against the fanaticism of the Thomistic
culture of the day. See Bl. Baptist of Mantua, Opus auream in thomistas, in
Conférence Albert-Le-Grand 1965, ed. P. Kristeller (Montréal: J. Vrin, 1967), 137–184,
especially:
Yet these [Thomists] are unmindful of both Apostle and reason and want
to compel all [sacred doctors] ad sensum Thomae and in such manner that
they prefer their own [Thomas] for nearly all groups of religious orders, even
those by far more ancient, just as for our [Carmelites] and the Hermits of St.
Augustine. In such a way they strive to prefer Thomas over howsoever many
are the body of doctors who flourished from the beginning of the Church, the
fact of which manifests a lack of probity and prudence. First they bring Thomas
forward as they please, but only allowing that [other doctors] speak according
to their own mind. They don’t permit a peep from other doctors, for they
impose silence, they make judgments disdainfully [on other doctors] from
their judicial benches and will only hear the testimony of Thomas and they
regard all other witnesses to be insignificant perjurers. They regard Thomas
to have arrived at the absolute culmination of all doctrines in every genus of
dogma. They place him in the supreme rank of nature, and call him the very
means of knowledge among men. Why do they spit with cocked eyebrow
upon the other doctors as if they were bereft of both nature and grace? (Opus
aureum, 139.4–18)
11 Pope Eugene wisely foresaw the impossibility of Dominicans and Thomists giving
Palamites a fair hearing. See the 1437 Thomist condemnation of Andrew Escobar,
OSB, De graecis errantibus. Concilium Florentinum Doctores et Scriptores Series B,
ed. M. Candal (Rome : Pontificium Institutum Orientalium Studiorum, 1952), 4.1:83:
O most blessed Father Eugene […] false, therefore, is the conclusion of some
Greeks, and [their] errors, which claim that the attributes (attributa) differ
essentially (essentialiter) from the divine essence (ab essentia divina) among
[ad intra] divine items (in divinis). (De graecis errantibus 94, lines 3–4)
His condemnation was seconded in 1438 by John Lei, Tractatus Ioannis Lei O.P.
De visione beata Nunc primum in lucem editus: Introductione, notis, indicibus auctus.
Studi e Testi 228, ed. M. Candal (Vatican City: BAV, 1963), 83–84, 193; in 1439 by
John Montenero, Quae Supersunt Actorum Graecorum Concilii Florentini. Concilium
Florentinum Documenta et Scriptores Series B, ed. J. Gill (Rome: Pontificium
Institutum Orientalium Studiorum, 1953), 5.2:267 and Andreas of Santa Croce:
Acta Latina Concilii Florentini. Concilium Florentinum Documenta et Scriptores
Series B, ed. G. Hoffman (Rome: Pontificium Institutum Orientalium Studiorum,

S A M PL E
 Foreword xxi

We can imagine that, in these circumstances, some Minorites

happened upon the only presently known complete text of
Bonaventure’s De mysterio Trinitatis, which had been absconded
within the convent walls of the Franciscan studium of Florence.12
Even if Pope Eugene had commissioned the Franciscans to
prepare an official treatise (aka De attributis divinis) to aid him
in the ensuing altercations about Palamism at the Council of
Ferrara-Florence (1438–1439), this work is now lost.13 Alas, we
must glean its possible content from the extant works of the
Franciscan periti entrusted with its composition. Propitiously,
upon surveying the theological authors dear to these Franciscan
periti, both Bonaventure and John Duns Scotus come to the
fore.14 Discouragingly, among the critically edited works of

1955), 6:177; in 1441 by John Torquemada, Apparatus super decretum Florentinum

unionis Graecorum. Concilium Florentinum Documenta et Scriptores Series B, ed.
G. Hoffman (Rome: Pontificium Istitutum Orientalium Studiorum, 1942), 2.1:86:
Concerning “God three and one”: this is written against those saying that
beatitude (beatitudo), glory (gloria), or final happiness (felicitas ultima) of men
does not consist in the vision of God Himself. Rather [they say it consists] of
some other entity (entitas), which is thought to be really distinct from the very
divine essence (essentia), or as the Greeks call it, “energy (energia),” or “act
(actus),” or “illumination (fulgor).” (Apparatus, 102, lines 30–34)
12 Perhaps these works became lost since only one extant manuscript contains
any attribution to Bonaventure by an original amanuensis. The Florence studium
uniquely contains all the qq. of the De mysterio Trinitatis, the principal manuscript
of which dates to the 14th century. See Prolegomenon to Quaestiones disputatas
in universo, et speciatim quaestiones de scientia Christi et de mysterio Trinitatis, by
Bonaventure of Bagnoregio, in Doctoris Seraphici S. Bonaventurae S.R.E. Episcopi
Cardinalis opera Omnia (Quaracchi: Collegium S. Bonaventurae, 1891), 5:v–vi.
13 See Joseph Gill, The Council of Florence (New York: Cambridge University Press,
1959), 141.
14 Franciscan Fathers and periti naturally cite Bonaventure. More importantly, some
explicitly recognize Scotus as a weighty authority in theology. Among conciliar
Fathers, see Elias de Bourdeilles, OFM, Contra pragmaticam Gallorum sanctio-
nem (Rome: incunabulum, 1486), 30, 40. Aloysius Foroliviensis, OFM, invoked
Bonaventure (though not Scotus) in the debate on the filioque at least three times
in: Andreas of Santa, Acta Latina. Concilium Florentinum Doctores et Scriptores
Series B, ed. G. Hofmann (Rome: PIOS, 1955), 6:58, 60. Among the periti, see
Augustine of Ferrara, OFM, Quaestio de potestate papae, ed. P. Celestino, Archivum
Francescanum Historicum 41 (1948): 240–281 and Quaestiones super Librum Prae-
dicamentorum Aristotelis. Acta Universitatis Schokholmiensis 45, ed. R. Andrews
(Stockolm: Almquist & Wiksell, 2000). See also St. James of Marches, OFM, Dialogus
contra fraticellos, ed. D. Lasič (Ancona: Falconara, 1975); James, De sanguine;
James, Sermones dominicales, 4 vols., ed. R. Lioi (Ancona: Falconara, 1978–1982);

SA MPL E
xxii Caritas In Primo

these very same Franciscan theologians, any citation from the De

mysterio Trinitatis is perplexingly wanting.15
Be that as it may, these were the circumstances in which the
De mysterio Trinitatis enjoyed its opportunity to make a lasting
impression on the greatest philosophical mind of the so-called
Byzantine Renaissance;16 namely, George-Gennadius Schol-
arius (d. c. 1472).17 Even if the precocious Scholarius normally
showed himself an enthusiast for Latin learning from the sort
of St. Thomas Aquinas and eclectic modistae of the fourteenth
century (like unto Radulphus Brito),18 our Byzantine savant

James, Sermo de excellentia Ordinis sancti Francisci, ed. Nicolaus dal Gál, Archivum
Franciscanum Historicum 4 (1911): 303–313. James’ personal library contained
Bonaventure’s Breviloquium, Scotus’ entire commentary on the Sentences and
extracts from bk. four of the same, Francis Meyronnes’ sermons, and sermons of
his spiritual Father, Bernardine of Siena. See Biblioteca Francescana Falconara. “La
biblioteca di San Giacomo” February 18, 2014. http://www.sangiacomodellamarca.
net/biblioteca_san_giacomo.htm. See too Francis Ariminensis, OFM, Tractatus de
immaculata conceptione b. Mariae Virginis, in Tractuatus quatuor de immaculata
conceptione b. Mariae Virginis, nempe Thomae de Rossy, Andreae de Novo Castro,
Petri de Candia, Francisci de Arimino: Bibliotheca Franciscana Scholastica Medii
Aevi 16, ed. C. Piana, T. Szabò, and A. Emmen (Firenze: Collegium S. Bonaventurae,
1954). Perhaps the greatest example of synthesis between Bonaventure and Scotus
is accomplished in: St. Benardine of Siena, OFM, S. Bernardini Senensis Ordinis
Fratrum Minorum opera omnia, 8 vols. (Florence: Ad Claras Aquas, 1950–1965).
Still, I have looked in vain for intra-Trinitarian metaphysics or references to the De
mysterio Trinitatis.
15 Among the Franciscan conciliar periti, whose works not yet available in a critical
edition, nothing appears promising. E.g., St. John Capistran, OFM, took Aquinas
as his principal doctor. See John Hofer, St. John Capistran Reformer, trans. P.
Cummins (London: B. Herder, 1943), 39–40. Among his opera omnia, the influence
of Scotus is limited to select matters, such as logic and his (lost) treatise on the
Immaculate Conception. See Aniceto Chiappini, Reliquie lettararie caestranesi,
storia, codici, carte, documenti (Aquila: Officina grafiche Vecchioni, 1927), 51, 143.
His works are very favorable to Franciscans such as Alexander of Hales alongside
of his beloved Aquinas. For brevity, it suffices to note that other Franciscan periti
are eclectic, seemingly neglecting Scotus. E.g., see Albert Sarthiano, B. Alberti a
Sarthiano Ordinis Minorum Regularis Obseruantiae vita et opera, ed. P. Duffy and F.
Harold (Rome: Joannes Baptista Bussottum, 1688).
16 For this narrative of late Byzantium, see Steven Runciman, The Last Byzantine
Renaissance (New York: Cambridge University Press, 1970).
17 For his life and times, see Marie-Hélène Blanchet, Georges Gennadios Scholarios
(vers 1400–vers 1472): un intellectuel orthodoxe face à la disparition de l’Empire
byzantine (Paris: Le Boccard, 2008).
18 Sten Ebbesen and Jan Pinborg, “Gennadius and Western Scholasticism:
Radulphus Brito’s Ars Vetus in Greek Translation,” Classica et Medievalia 33

S A M PL E
 Foreword xxiii

gradually warmed to the classic Franciscan school.19 Under the

aegis of his tutor and spiritual father, the “Pillar of Orthodoxy”
Mark of Ephesus (1392–1444),20 Scholarius distanced himself
from Thomism on not a few points, decidedly dissatisfied with
Aquinas’ capacity either to justify or to harmonize with Byzantine
theological commitments.21 Instead, Scholarius turned his
attention to the Subtle Doctor in preparation for the Council
(1981–1982): 263–319.
19 Scholarius, in his De processione de Sancto Spiritu prima, in OCGS, 2:223, warns
Orthodox to ignore later Schoolmen (viz., sycophants of Richard of Middleton and
Scotus). He remarks that these self-glorifying Schoolmen changed terminology and
traditional theological method and our savant concludes that Scotus and Mayron
are the last theologians to maintain the mens patrum (πατερικὸν φρόνημα). NB, all
references to OCGS = George-Gennadius Scholarius, Oeuvres Complètes de Georges
Scholarios, 8 vols., ed. L. Petit, X. Sidéridès, and M. Jugie (Paris: Maison de la Bonne
Presse, 1929–1935).
20 For the most recent biography and bibliography on Mark, see Nicholas Constas,
“Mark Eugenikos,” in La théologie byzantine et sa tradition (XIIIe–XIXe s.), ed. C. & V.
Conticello (Turnhout: Brill, 2002), 2:412–441.
21 Scholarius’ cafeteria Thomism, typical of the 13th–14th century (before the
onset of orthodox Thomism), has been demonstrated in Kappes, “The Latin
Sources,” 74–114. Recently, valuable selections of Scholarius’ laudatory comments
for Aquinas have been collected in John A. Demetracopoulos, “Georgios Schol-
arios - Gennadios II,” in Grundriss der Geschichte der Philosophie. Begründet von F.
Überweg. Die Philosophie des Mittelalters. 1.1: Die byzantinische Philosophie, ed. G.
Kapriev (Basel: forthcoming). Still, Scholarius’ reverence and constant reference to
Aquinas must be balanced against his significant doctrinal and philosophical criti-
cisms of Aquinas. See Scholarius, Prologue to the Summa Theologiae, by Thomas
Aquinas, in OCGS, 5:1–2, where Scholarius overcomes his begrudging criticism
of Aquinas’ typically Latin tenets by praising Aquinas’ scripture commentaries
and purely philosophical works, especially metaphysics, though he admits that
Aquinas’ filioque and essence-energies doctrine (viz., Akindynism) constitutes an
insurmountable obstacle between the Latin and Greek Churches. See Scholarius,
De anima, in OCGS, 6:327 (bk. 1, ch. 1, n. 2), where Scholarius accuses Aquinas of
plagiarizing John Philoponos. See Radulphus Brito, On Porphyry’s Isagogue, trans.
G. Scholarius, in OCGS 7:78, where he approvingly translates Radulphus Brito’s
metaphysically critical position of Aquinas on materia signata, while in other
places Scholarius supplies glosses to mitigate some criticisms against Aquinas
(e.g., ibid., 6:283). See Scholarius, De processione prima, in OCGS, 2:18, wherein he
accuses Aquinas of falsely distorting Damascene into a Nestorian in order to extort
acquiescence of the Greeks to the filioque. See Scholarius, De processione secunda,
in OCGS, 2:377, wherein he bids Orthodox to flee from Aquinas’ doctrine of the Holy
Spirit. Of course, citations against Aquinas’ pneumatology could be multiplied.
Finally, Scholarius is likely responsible for a condemnatory gloss of Aquinas’ ad
intra metaphysics of the divine attributes, employing the heretical epithets of
“Barlaamite” and “Akindynist” to Aquinas. See Séverin Salaville, “Un thomiste à
Byzance au XVe s.: Gennade Scholarios,” Echos d’Orient 23 (1924) : 129–136.

SA MPL E
xxiv Caritas In Primo

of Florence in 1437.22 Upon his encounter with the Subtle and,

thus, Marian Doctor, Scholarius recognized the potential for a
meeting of minds from both East and West vis-à-vis Orthodox
dogma.23 Scotus appeared to have a Greek pedigree in respect of
the Trinitarian primitas of the Father, the filioque,24 the formal
distinction, and the Immaculate Conception.25 Naturally, upon
arrival at both Ferrara and Florence in 1438 and 1439, respec-
tively, Scholarius enthusiastically frequented the Franciscan
studium in each respective city.26 There, in the studium library
of Florence, Franciscans likely acquainted Scholarius with the

22 See John Monfasani, “The Pro-Latin Apologetics of the Greek Émigrés to Quat-
trocento Italy,” in Byzantine Theology and its Philosophical Background, ed. A. Rigo
(Turnhout: Brepols, 2011), 165–168.
23 Scholarius, Introduction to De ente et essentia, by Thomas Aquinas, in OCGS,
6:179–180, issued Duns an “imprimatur” in Orthodox theology, writing:
Some in Italy, especially those of the habit of Francis, whose school, so to
speak, I have often frequented, associate themselves more with later teachers,
whom they allege in their opinion to surpass [Thomas.] Nor are we ashamed
of Francis [Mayron] or his teacher [John Duns Scotus], as long as we give first
place to the one who is first [Thomas Aquinas], all the while admiring the
subtlety of their intelligence, and even siding with them on many points of
inquiry […] But according to the designation of most of us, the more recent
[Schoolmen] are fairly orthodox in comparison to Thomas; being that they are
closer to us and to the truth; namely, those surrounding the Master John Scotus.
24 For the of the Father’s primitas and filioque ad mentem Graecorum, see Richard
Cross, Duns Scotus on God (Vermont, VT: Ashgate, 2007), 203–222, and Scholarius,
De processione prima and secunda (cf. supra p. xxiii n. 19), in OCGS 2:227; 2:349.
25 Definitive proof demonstrates that Scholarius did not merely adopt the Latin
doctrine of the Immaculate Conception. Instead, he was acutely aware of the
patristic doctrine of St. Gregory Nazianzen for the Immaculate Conception via
the concept of “prepurification.” Adopting this universal theological value of
the Palamite school, Scholarius argued Mary’s immaculateness from her first
moment of existence based upon her “prepurification.” He only ulteriorly justified
these arguments with recourse to Latin theology from the Franciscan school. See
Christiaan Kappes, The Immaculate Conception: Why Thomas Aquinas Denied, While
John Duns Scotus, Gregory Palamas, and Mark Eugenicus Professed the Absolute
Immaculate Existence of Mary (New Bedford: Academy of the Immaculate, 2014).
26 Scholarius almost certainly attended lectures of Scotistic magister, Augustine
of Ferrara, OFM, at the impressive Franciscan studium at Ferrara (1438). Augustine
gained fame for lecturing publicly on the plenitude of power of the Pope within
Ferrara. See Celestino Piana, “Lo studio di S. Francesco a Ferrara nel Quattrocento:
Documenti inediti,” Archivum Franciscanum Historicum 61 (1968): 153–154,
160–162. The studium taught Greek literature at the time of the Council (ibid., 115).
Scholarius frequented many lectures. See Scholarius, Introduction to De ente et
essentia, in OCGS, 6:180 (cf. supra p. xxiv n. 23).

S A M PL E
 Foreword xxv

very inspiration for Duns’ formal distinction; namely, the De

mysterio Trinitatis.27 Whether Scholarius wholly or partly trans-
lated Bonaventure, or more implausibly cited him indirectly via
another Scholastic author, is currently unknown. At any rate
Scholarius bequeathed Byzantium a “breviloquent” sampling of
the Seraphic Doctor through a translation of a critical section of
the De mysterio Trinitatis in his 1445 translation-commentary
on the De ente et essentia,28 wherein Scholarius approvingly cited
Bonaventure’s divisions of being contra the putative nominal-
ism behind the “analogical concept of being.”29 The Common
Doctor had gained notoriety in Byzantium for his doctrine of
analogy, such that Scholarius presented Byzantine theologians
with a study aid via a Thomistic commentary of Armandus of
Bellovisu (d. 1334).30

27 Goff, Caritas in Primo has underlined the solid proof for this conclusion (cf.
infra pp. 24–25 n. 28). See Titus Szabó, “De distinctionis formalis origine
bonaventuriana disquisitio historico-critica,” in Scholastica ratione historico-critica
instauranda, ed. Charles Balić (Rome: Antonianum, 1951), 379–445.
28 See Bonaventure of Bagnoregio, De mysterio Trinitatis, in Doctoris Seraphici S.R.E.
Episcopi Cardinalis Bonaventurae opera omnia (Quarrachi : Collegium S. Bonaven-
turae, 1891), 5:46–47:
Likewise, if there is being-from-another (ens ab alio), then there is being-
not-from-another (ens non ab alio) […] Likewise, if there is being-in-relation
(ens respectivum), then there is unconditional being (est ens absolutum) […]
Likewise, if there is diminished being (ens diminutum) or being-after-some-
thing-else (secundum quid) […], then there is being simpliciter […] Likewise,
if there is being because of another (ens propter aliud), then there is being
because of its very self (ens propter se ipsum) […] Likewise, if there is being via
participation (ens per participationem), then there is being via essence (ens per
essentiam) […] (De mysterio Trinitatis q. 1, a. 1).
29 See Goff, Caritas in Primo (see infra pp. 209–210 n. 19). Scholarius writes
(Scholarius, De ente et essentia, in OCGS, 6:282):
[The divine operations are not merely distinctions of terms within the soul]
just as when these very attributes are distinguished through being absolute
and non-absolute (τῷ ἀπολελυμένῳ καὶ μὴ ἀπολελυμένῳ), or by relation, i.e.,
by being indistinct and distinct (τῷ ἀδιακρίτῳ καὶ διακεκριμένῳ), by being
in-relation-to-itself and in-relation-to-another (τῷ πρὸς ἑαυτὸ καὶ πρὸς ἄλλο),
by being from-something-else and not-from-something-else (τῷ ἔκ τινος καὶ
τῷ οὐκ ἔκ τινος), by being participated and non-participated (τῷ μεθεκτῷ
καὶ οὐ μεθεκτῷ), and such distinctions as these, which are all contradictories
(ἀντιφατικά). (ch. 94, lines 22–26)
30 See Hugh Barbour, Byzantine Thomism of Gennadios Scholarios and His Transla-
tion of the Commentary of Armandus De Bellovisu on the “De Ente Et Essentia” of

SA MPL E
xxvi Caritas In Primo

Precisely because of a parallel metaphysical approach to God’s

essence and attributes, Franciscans would have been amenable
to Palamas and were in fact not inclined to condemn him at
the Council of Florence in 1437–1439.31 The Franciscan school
led Pope Eugene to drop the ensuing discussion from conciliar
debates to the chagrin of the Dominicans and Thomists.32 For
his part, Scholarius heartily affirmed Bonaventure’s fundamental
divisions of being into being-in-itself and being-in-another,
participated and unparticipated being, etc. Scholarius’ Bonaven-
tura graecus latently supplied Byzantium with a complement to
the ever-indefinite list of transcendental disjunctives in both
Bonaventure and Palamas, to the latter of whom Scholarius was
filially devoted. It may be that the future will bequeath us even
more quotations from the “latent Bonaventure,” potentially
hidden within the pages of late Byzantine theologians. Of
course, this would serve to further the ecumenical legacy of
Bonaventure’s theological program so very appreciated by Schol-
arius. Lamentably, Scholarius’ incipient synthesis of Franciscan
and Byzantium theology via the De mysterio Trinitatis came to a
tragic halt following the complete destruction of the Byzantine
Empire upon the Turkish sacking of Constantinople in 1453.
Henceforth, both Latins and Greeks, along with philosophy
and theology itself, groaned for over four hundred years in
unconscious anticipation of a lingua franca whereby they could
directly speak to one another, that is, until Bonaventure’s treatise
happily reemerged from the cupboards of Franciscan archives
as a result of the efforts of Fidelis a Fanna (published 1891).33
Dr. Goff’s erudite study at last provides the contemporary
philosopher and theologian with a “Rosetta Stone,” by means of

Thomas Aquinas (Vatican City: Libreria Editrice Vaticano, 1996).

31 Quae supersunt actorum graecorum, 5.2: 442.
32 Andrew of Rhodes explicitly cited Palamas to provoke debate at Florence. See
Quae supersunt actorum graecorum, 5.1:102. He did this in spite of the fact that
Pope Eugene and Emperor John VIII preliminarily agreed to table the discussion
after their independent investigations into Scotism in 1437–1438. See Eugene’s
intervention against John Montenero, OP, during his anti-Palamite attack in: Acta
Latina, 6:179.
33 Goff, Caritas in Primo (see infra, pp. 15–23).

S A M PL E
 Foreword xxvii

which the methodological and semantic code of Bonaventure’s

magnum opus may be decrypted. My claim is bold, indeed, but
not without warrant. Fortunately, Dr. Goff verifies my assertion
when introducing his reader to the De mysterio Trinitatis by
tackling the status quaestionis of this work within the history of
modern and contemporary scholarship. What emerges from Dr.
Goff’s succinct description of previous scholarly work in chapter
two is a tale of scholars far too bereft of the requisite dynamism
necessary to warm the frosty glass through which the interior
light of Bonaventure’s intellect might manifest itself in all its
resplendence.
Each preceding scholar wholly or partially confronted the
challenge of the De mysterio Trinitatis, all the while accompany-
ing himself or herself with his or her peculiar merits over and
above those common to scholars at large. Nonetheless, each
academic evidenced weaknesses common to his or her context
and time. Dr. Goff notes that initial demythologization of the
mystery of the De mysterio Trinitatis was hampered by several
factors; namely, (1) reading the De mysterio Trinitatis as a coeta-
neous composition instead of a seminal and foundational work,
(2) reading presently in vogue neo-Thomism over and against
Bonaventure, and (3) reading Bonaventure against the back-
ground of a highly prejudicial neo-thomistic historical narrative.
Nineteenth and early twentieth-century investigations into
the De mysterio Trinitatis happened to conclude correctly that
Bonaventure’s work rejoiced in a Greek pedigree. However,
upon closer investigation, the very same authors failed to base
their conclusions on a complete survey of Bonaventure’s Greek
sources or on an analysis of how these same Greek sources were
given priority over and above Latin authorities on fundamental
metaphysical points de départ. Contrariwise, modern commenta-
tors tended to adopt narrative categories, whereby a medieval
theologian’s prioritization of “person” or “essence” necessarily
encapsulated him into the genus of “Greek” or “Latin” theology.
Defunct Schoolmen were conveniently defenseless to resist their
intellectual exhumation to be relocated into the newfangled and
flimsy theological boxes of either a Latin catafalque or a Greek

SA MPL E
xxviii Caritas In Primo

sarcophagus; both of which were mere mental constructs suitable

only for centaur and goat-stag theologians.
Surprisingly, despite the advancements in method and
approaches to exegesis, contemporary authors have persisted in
placing historical considerations and context of the De mysterio
Trinitatis at the margins of their investigations. Grosso modo, this
has led to only a haphazard collocation of this seminal work
within the puzzle of Bonaventure’s Trinitarian and metaphysical
program. Dr. Goff presents the reader with a concise description
of contemporary contributions and shortcomings within his
introduction. Given Dr. Goff’s eye to detail, there is little doubt
that his overall conclusion is correct; namely, the De mysterio
Trinitatis has not yet been read as a foundational document to
be understood within its own remote and proximate historical
context.
For this reason Dr. Goff in chapter three takes pains to alert
the reader to logical, philosophical, and theological currents
in the Roman Church and the environs of Paris leading up to
Bonaventure’s literary production. What is more, Dr. Goff fills
a significant number of pages with a detailed description of the
universitarian environment of thirteenth-century Paris. To my
mind, he would have been welcome to exhaust the depths of
current research on the Franciscan studium in Paris and other
minutiae. Prudently, so that his book serves as a true prolegom-
enon to the De mysterio Trinitatis, Dr. Goff opts to provide the
non-specialist with sufficient background to divorce his or her
mind from any comparison and contrast to Thomas Aquinas
and other figures posterior to the De mysterio Trinitatis. Such
personages are historically irrelevant to Bonaventure’s original
synthesis. Only after providing the reader with a solid historical
setting and detailed indications about Bonaventure’s literary
sources does Dr. Goff dare to broach the topic of Bonaventure’s
organization, method, and intellectual commitments (let alone
theological conclusions) of this underappreciated masterpiece of
Trinitarian theology.
After detailing historical considerations for several chapters,
Dr. Goff introduces the reader to an important first consider-

S A M PL E
 Foreword xxix

ation; namely, the role of St. Francis in the theology of Bonaven-

ture. In chapter four, Dr. Goff sufficiently secures the reader’s
mind that it is legitimate to view Bonaventure through the optic
of “Franciscanism.” While avoiding exaggerations that would
attribute excessive dependence on either Francis’ writings or on
his mens, Dr. Goff delineates Bonaventure’s literary dependence
on St. Francis during diverse phases of Bonaventure’s literary
production. The net weight of his arguments gravitate the reader
toward the conclusion that both the memory of St. Francis,
as well as certain selections from among his writings, were
important considerations in Bonaventure’s approach to sacred
study and to his mentality of avoiding anything that smacked
of secularization and, thus, useless curiosity in matters of either
science or faith.
It is of great import that Dr. Goff painstakingly arranges
Bonaventure’s early works according to their chronology, so as
to expose the underlying thematic continuity between them. In
so doing, Dr. Goff reaps the reward of clarity with respect to
the De reductione artium ad theologiam and De scientia Christi.
When these three early Scholastic treatises are viewed in relation
to one another and their historical context, they manifest
Bonaventure’s theologic and worldview. Instead of blindly
treating each separate work of Bonaventure as a coetaneous
and systematic composition, Dr. Goff reveals Bonaventure’s
progress of investigation and thought, which culminates in the
Trinitarian mystery. Anachronistic reads destroy the unity of this
sacred trio of texts and darken the intellect of the scholar who
consciously or unconsciously approaches the ancient text from
motives subservient to modern needs. First, Bonaventure must
be appreciated within his own context and in view of his own
concerns, thereafter the scholar may discern what and how much
of Bonaventure’s theologic and Weltanshauung is salvageable for
the hic et nunc.
Moreover, on the question of the structure of the De mysterio
Trinitatis, Dr. Goff enlightens his reader as to the purpose of
the first quaestio in relation to those that follow. When viewing
the first disputed question as a propaedeutic or preamble to the

SA MPL E
xxx Caritas In Primo

sevenfold division of the remaining questions in chapter seven,

the entire organization of the work comes to life. Furthermore,
Dr. Goff suggests potential paradigms for Bonaventure’s highly
unusual structure. The privileged station of Greek sources and
themes tempts one to speculate about the influence of the
famous Neo-Platonic Liber de causis. Still, Dr. Goff’s detailed
presentation of the evidence allows for the equally likely hypoth-
esis that Bonaventure adapted the order of his discussion along
the lines of some other Greek source. Whether this thematic
arrangement hails from a Father as antique as Nazianzen or as
relatively contempo as Damascene remains to be seen. Still,
the probable conclusion endures; namely, Bonaventure abhors
innovation (kainotomia) and prefers rather to synthesize Latin
and Greek traditions by recourse to a binary lectio reverentialis.
Despite my own fascination with Bonaventure’s Byzantine
pedigree, it is nonetheless the case that Dr. Goff shows equal
interest in potential Latin inspiration for much of what Bonaven-
ture has to say. The reality is that Bonaventure accomplished a
synthesis of East and West. As such, one would be unwise to
expect a unilateral approach to any one of Bonaventure’s highly
metaphysical questions on the Trinity. Keeping this caveat in
mind, Dr. Goff notably highlights areas of concentric thought
between Bonaventure’s theological predecessors and especially
the successor par excellence of his school, Blessed Duns Scotus.
In this vein Dr. Goff gives his reader seminal indications for
further and specialized investigation into Bonaventure’s authori-
ties. What begins to take shape in Dr. Goff’s historical and
detailed narrative is the influence of the school of Augustine,
an unusually generous sampling of Greek patristic authorities,
Greek philosophers, the school of St. Victor, Alexander of Hales,
and others. Perhaps the most surprising facet of Bonaventure’s
project lies in the fact that Aristotle is a central figure of discus-
sion within Bonaventure’s pivotal Trinitarian thesis. Dr. Goff
argues convincingly for Bonaventure’s courageous incorpora-
tion and handling of Aristotle’s corpus, which he masterfully
confronts but only to lose subsequent interest, as betrayed by an
ever-decreasing number of citations in his sequential corpus. In

S A M PL E
 Foreword xxxi

fact, we can suspect that Bonaventure’s proto-scotistic doctrines

are responsible for his lack of enthusiasm for much of the Aris-
totelian craze that continued to affect the Latin West, as best
historically exemplified by none other than Thomas Aquinas.
Dr. Goff’s underlining of key Bonaventuran metaphysical
points clearly foreshadows Scotus’ own insights into the formal
distinction, the disjunctive transcendentals, the adoption of
Anselm’s simpliciter perfections, non-formal identity distin-
guishing the divine attributes, and especially the positive infinity
characterizing the divine essence.
What is more, in chapter eight, Dr. Goff correctly centers
the thrust of his metaphysical analysis into Bonaventure’s unique
doctrine of divine infinity. In opposition to Greco-pagan sources
and coeval Aristotelico-theologians, Bonaventure exploits
Gregory of Nazianzen’s and John Damascene’s designation of
the divine essence as “a sea of infinite being.” Not only this,
but Bonaventure privileges the Damascene in his metaphysics,
whose doctrine of divine infinity can be reduced to the Cappa-
docian notion of a singular, immense, immanent universal with
three divine exemplifications.34 Dr. Goff adequately and in detail
discusses the purely Greco-Christian notion behind Bonaven-
ture’s metaphysical foundation stone, which will subsequently
serve the Franciscan school in so many ways. Ominously, Dr.
Goff’s description and handling of the sources lead the reader
to suspect that even Maximus the Confessor and John Scottus
Eriugena are ultimately required to give a satisfactory account of
Bonaventure’s theological repertoire. In effect, Dr. Goff forces
Bonaventuran scholarship to expand its horizons and dig more
deeply into the rivulets feeding the fontal source of the Francis-
can tradition of metaphysics.
In conclusion, Dr. Goff provides the enthusiast and special-
ist with a real prolegomenon to Franciscan metaphysics. In fact, I
would go so far as to say that Dr. Goff’s work is best utilized as
a heuristic device to flush out valid strategies and observations,
which have been previously employed by Dr. Goff’s academic
34 See Richard Cross, “Gregory Nyssa on Universals,” Vigiliae Christianae 56 (2002):
372–410.

SA MPL E
xxxii Caritas In Primo

predecessors in their own efforts to expound the De mysterio

Trinitatis. Dr. Goff’s historico-textual presentation is best likened
to a scale whereupon the weight of exaggerated foci, myopic or
ahistorical reads, and anachronistic speculation may be measured
and classified as either too heavy or too light to qualify as a gloss
in the margins of the folios of this Bonaventuran masterstroke.
We can only hope that the most recent scotistic commenda-
tions from the Ordinary Magisterium, to which Dr. Goff himself
explicitly makes reference, may garner wider appreciation for the
profound theology of Bonaventure and Scotus and, thus, these
doctors might find their enhanced ecclesiastical stature useful
in the service of ecumenical dialogue. Given the fundamental
parallelism between the perennial theology of the Franciscan
and Byzantine traditions, Franciscanism seems principally and
naturally apt to function as a lingua franca between East and
West. At least for now, Dr. Goff has succeeded in deciphering
the fundamental hieroglyphs of the lingua Francescana within a
founding document of Franciscan metaphysics.

S A M PL E
 Introduction 1

Chapter One

Introduction

Title and Objective of this Study

Title
The title of this study takes for its theme the presence in
Bonaventure’s Quaestiones disputatae de mysterio Ss. Trinitatis
of the radical primacy of Charity—caritas in Primo—in the
Godhead. Corollary to divine charity, ad intra, is charity’s role as
the supreme rule in God’s designs for creation, as recapitulated
and perfected in the beatitude of human persons, which bear
the image of God. This study will investigate how Bonaventure
traces Deum esse, and thus perfect being and goodness to the
Deum esse et trinum: the reductive ontological foundation of all
being in perfect love.
Charity refers both to God’s being (esse)1 and to the mode of
activity of each person of the Trinity. Thus, there are two orders

1 The term, esse, unlike in some versions of Thomism, refers not, in the first place,
to the act of existence of God. Rather than corresponding to existentia, which, for
Bonaventure, would refer to each of the divine persons, esse corresponds first
and more closely to essentia, thus denoting the one divine being whose essence
is of such perfection that existence is a necessary perfection. Thus when Zachary
Hayes consistently translates esse as exists, rather than simply, being, although the
essence of God necessarily exists, the formal note of the term esse is missed. Hayes
is—perhaps unwittingly—following a Thomistic use of esse rather than Bonaven-
ture’s own.
When Bonaventure speaks of esse divinum he is able to deduce the necessary
existence of God, through his analysis of the perfect and necessary essence of
God. Bonaventure begins his analysis of the divine being with the notion of being
and per reductionem traces being back to pure or perfect being. Impure or created
being is indifferent by essence to existence. Pure or uncreated being, however, by
essence is fully in act and thus not indifferent to existence, and, thus, by essence
necessarily exists. Bonaventure’s arguments that prove the existence of pure
being, or Deum esse, first prove the essential, necessary perfection of the divine
being, which implies his existence. In the metaphysical system of Bonaventure
God’s essence is not philosophically known or derived from his existence. On the
2 Caritas In Primo

with respect to God in which charity is operative. The first

has been termed the vertical order in which God, the primum
principium, is by essence personal being and thus is essentially
independent and free. The second concerns the order of persons
in the divine being: the horizontal order.2 This level further
illuminates the divine essence by revealing how charity, via the
origins, processions and circumincession of the three persons of
the Trinity, operates in highest perfection, fontality and fecundity,
as an order of Persons constituted in the ordered Charity of
the divine being.3 Thus, this study will seek to ascertain how
Bonaventure, within his historical context, sought to show forth,
in a coherent manner, how God, the first and highest being, is
ordered, Trinitarian love.
Related to this theme of divine charity, ad intra, is how this
charity operates in the human person’s as well as human society’s
understanding of God. In the De mysterio Trinitatis, thought and
action are closely linked. Bonaventure reasons that not only is
the primum principium to be understood scientifically as caritas,
the primum principium is also to be loved sapientially, in the
light of both philosophical and theological knowledge. For the
Seraphic Doctor it is only in both knowing lovingly and loving
knowingly the primum principium as a Trinity that the image is
made a similitude and thus disposed for perfect blessedness.

contrary, God’s existence is known with certainty through an understanding of

the divine essence. This reading of esse is confirmed by the text of the De mysterio
Trinitatis itself. Bonaventure uses the term in a single context to denote “being,”
on the one hand, and “existence,” on the other. Bonaventure writes: “… necesse
est, ipsum divinum esse esse perfectissimum… (Myst. Trin. q. 3, a. 1, conc. [V, 70b],
underlining added). For a discussion of this nuance see John Francis Quinn, The
Historical Constitution of St. Bonaventure’s Philosophy (Toronto: Pontifical Institute
of Medieval Studies, 1973), 852–53; cf. Leone Veuthey, La filosofia cristiana di San
Bonaventura, ed. Alfonso Pompei (Rome: Miscellanea Francescana, 1996), 67–78.
For Hayes’s translation see Bonaventure, Disputed Questions on the Mystery of
the Trinity, trans. Zachary Hayes (St. Bonaventure: Franciscan Institute Publica-
tions, 1979 [2000]), passim; R.E. Houser and Timothy Noone, Introduction to St.
Bonaventure, Commentary on the Sentences: Philosophy of God, trans. R.E. Houser
and Timothy B. Noone (St. Bonaventure: Franciscan Institute Publications, 2013),
xxvi–xlix.
2 On the two orders see J.A. Wayne Hellmann, Divine and Created Order in
Bonaventure’s Theology (St. Bonaventure: Franciscan Institute, 2001).
3 Cf. Bonaventure, Myst. Trin., q. 8, a. un., conc. (V, 114ab).
 Introduction 3

Preliminary Reflections Towards an Objective

According to St. Bonaventure, theology is at once the
highest and yet most basic of all rational endeavors. It is most
basic because theology has for its object the ground of all
reality, truth and love: the essence of God communicated in the
circumincessing love of the three divine Persons of the Godhead:
Father, Son and Holy Spirit. Theology is the highest academic or
rational4 endeavor for Bonaventure because its subject matter is
God in Himself and in his providential arrangement of salvation
history.5 Moreover, for Bonaventure, only from the perspective
of revelation and theological reflection can the finite mind come
to a full resolution6 of those insights gained through the lower
disciplines, especially philosophy.7
For Bonaventure, theology therefore begins where philoso-
phy, the apex of human rationality, prescinding from the light
of revelation, ends.8 Theology’s subject is “the first principle

4 Academic theology, or theology proper, is actually the second of three theologi-

cal modes in which the salvific knowledge of God and his plan for salvation can be
contemplated. The three modes are: “symbolic,” “proper” and “contemplative.” As
reason operating in the light of faith, academic theology is suspended between
simple theological faith and supernatural contemplation. Thus, the symbolic
mode of theology refers to creedal formulations of the faith which are accessible
to all believers. Theology proper is the academic or scientific use of reason in
the context of “fides quaerens intellectum.” The final, contemplative mode of
theology is that knowledge of God and salvation that is accompanied or, better,
informed and perfected by God’s own love. Each of the three modes are distinct
yet interdependent, and the first two modes are to support and be perfected in the
third: contemplation or wisdom. On the three modes of theology see Bonaventure,
Itinerarium mentis in Deum, c. 1, p. 7 (V, 298a); Bonaventure, Christus unus omnium
Magister (V, 567–574). For further explanation of Bonaventure’s position see Peter
D. Fehlner, St. Maximilian M. Kolbe, Martyr of Charity: Pneumatologist, His Theology
of the Holy Spirit (New Bedford: Academy of the Immaculate, 2004), 15–21; Fehlner,
“Scientia et Pietas,” Immaculata Mediatrix 1/3 (2001): 11–48. Theology in this study
will refer primarily to second mode, but as intrinsically ordered to and perfected in
the third.
5 Cf. Bonaventure, Brev., p. 1, c. 1 (V, 210).
6 On this concept in Bonaventure see: Bonaventure, I Sent. d. 28, dub. 1 (I, 504ab);
Itin., c. 3, n. 4 (V, 304b–305a); De reductione artium ad theologiam (V, 317–325).
7 Cf. Bonaventure, Red. art., passim, esp., nn. 4, 26 (V, 319–325).
8 Bonaventure, Brev., p. 1, c. 1 (V, 210ab): “Ipsa [theology] etiam sola est sapientia
perfecta, quae incipit a causa summa, ut est principium causatorum, ubi terminatur
cognitio philosophica…”
4 Caritas In Primo

[primum principium], namely, God three and one.”9 Formulated

differently, the doctrine of the Trinity “is the foundation of the
whole Christian faith…”10 However, theology for Bonaventure
is not related to philosophy in a merely contiguous or extra-
neous manner, for the “first principle [primum principium] is
simultaneously a trinity [order of persons] and most simple
[order of being]…”11 This formulation implies a close interre-
lationship between philosophy and theology, reason and faith,
science and wisdom.12 For Bonaventure, as grace perfects nature
in accordance with the inner dynamism of the rational soul, so
theology perfects philosophy by shedding greater light upon
being, thereby allowing the finite intellect to understand truths
that it never could have discovered by its own power.
For Bonaventure, personhood, as the final term of
predication in God, characterizes being in its fullest sense.
However, person in its full sense—rather, the order of Divine
Persons—cannot be known apart from revelation. Thus, revela-
tion informs, completes and (at times) corrects what human
reason comes to affirm apart from divine revelation. This means
that for Bonaventure trinitarian theology is the most proper and
ontologically basic metaphysic: a theologic.
Because knowledge of the revealed order of divine persons
sheds the fullest possible light on the philosophical notion of

9 Bonaventure, Brev., p. 1, c. 1 (V, 210a): “In principio intellegendum est, quod sacra
doctrina, videlicet theologia, quae principaliter agit de primo principio, scilicet de
Deo trino et uno…”
10 Bonaventure, Myst. Trin., q. 1, a. 2 conc (V, 54b): “quod cum illud verum credibile
sit fundamentum totius fidei christianae”; cf. Brev., p. 1 (V, 210ab).
11 Myst. Trin., q. 3, a. 2 conc (V, 75b): “Dicendum, quod primum principium simul est
trinum et simplicissimum…”
12 Cf. the series of articles on this topic by Peter D. M. Fehlner, “Mater et Magistra
Apostolorum,” Immaculata Mediatrix 1 (2001): 15–54; Fehlner, “De Metaphysica
Mariana Quaedam,” Immaculata Mediatrix 2 (2001): 13–42; Fehlner, “Scientia et
Pietas,” Immaculata Mediatrix 1/3 (2001): 11–48. See also, Zachary Hayes, “Intro-
duction” to Bonaventure, Disputed Questions on the Mystery of the Trinity (1979; St.
Bonaventure, Franciscan Institute, 2000), 67–68; Etienne Gilson, The Philosophy of
St. Bonaventure, trans. Illtyd Trethowan and Frank Sheed (New York: Sheed and
Ward, 1938), 29–31ff; Leone Veuthey, La filosofia cristiana di San Bonaventura,
15–29, 171–178, 203–218; Bernardo Madariaga, La filosofia al interior de la teologia
(Madrid: Editorial Cisneros, 1961), 33–40.
 Introduction 5

esse, while at the same time clarifying it; and because knowing
esse alone does not provide clear knowledge of the divine persons,
Bonaventure sees a necessary and harmonious, yet asymmetrical,
relationship between faith and reason. Truth discovered by
reason provides the necessary conceptual building blocks for
any understanding of the mystery of the Trinity. Thus, rational
tools and insights provided by reason are indispensable for any
resolutio plena or reductio of the arts into theology.13 Revelation
provides the truths and principles of theology, while presuppos-
ing and employing reason.14 Both come together in theology,
according to Bonaventure, ut boni fiamus,15 disposing men and
women to know, love and enjoy God.16

Objective
This study will consider Bonaventure’s insights into the
ordered unity of reason and faith: philosophy and theology
within the historical context of the University of Paris in the
mid-1250s. I will show how, in the wake of and in response to
the influx of the full Aristotelian corpus into the Arts curriculum
at Paris in 1255, Bonaventure, through his Quaestiones dispu-
tatae de mysterio Trinitatis, presented his most fully articulated
13 Cf. Bonaventure, I Sent., d. 28, dub. 4; II Sent., d. 1, p. II. dub. 2; I Sent., d. 3. p.
I., q. 2; Scien. Chr., q. 4. See also, Christopher Cullen, Bonaventure (Oxford: Oxford
University Press, 2006), 23–35; Cullen, “Bonaventure’s Philosophical Method,”
in Companion to Bonaventure, ed. Jay M. Hammond, J.A. Wayne Hellmann and
Jared Goff, (Leiden: Brill, 2014), 122–124; R.E. Houser and Timothy Noone, “Saint
Bonaventure,” The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Winter 2010 Edition),
Edward N. Zalta (ed.), URL = <http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/win2010/entries/
bonaventure/>.
14 Cf. amongst numerous passages: Bonaventure, Brev., p. 1, c. 1 (V, 210ab): Ipsa
[theology] etiam… ubi terminatur cognitio philosophica.”
15 Bonaventure, I Sent., prooem., q. 3 conc. (I, 13ab): “Nam si consideremus intellec-
tum in se, sic est proprie speculativus et perficitur ab habitu, qui est contemplatio-
nis gratia, qui dicitur scientia speculative. Si autem consideremus ipsum ut natum
extendi ad opus, sic perficitur ad habitu, qui est, ut boni fiamus; et his est scientia
practica sive moralis. Si autem medio modo consideretur ut natus extendi ad
affectum, sic perficitur ab habitu medio inter pure speculativum et practicum, qui
complectitur utrumque; et hic habitus dicitur sapientia, quae simul dicit cognitio-
nem et affectum: Sapientia enim doctrinae est secundum nomen eius, Ecclesiastici
sexto. Unde hic est contemplationis gratia, et ut boni fiamus, principaliter tamen,
ut boni fiamus.”
16 Cf. supra p. 3 n. 4.
6 Caritas In Primo

scholastic determination on the nature and end of rational

inquiry. Bonaventure routes his inquiry through the doctrine of
the Trinity: source and fulfillment of all being and goodness. In
this manner Bonaventure synthesizes an approach to metaphys-
ics that extends to the outer limits of reason itself.
Thus, this study will argue that the De mysterio Trinitatis,
within Bonaventure’s corpus, is a work, though in the form of a
disputation,17 that is best understood as an attempt to articulate
a Christian response to the “new” philosophy represented by
Aristotle. In the De mysterio Trinitatis, Bonaventure shows how
knowledge of esse is reduced to and only fully resolved in the
knowledge of God as a Trinity of Persons: one (order of essence)
because three (order of persons) and three because one.18
The De mysterio Trinitatis was written in the historical context
of the complete integration of the full Aristotelian corpus into
the arts curriculum at Paris. I will argue that interpreting the De
mysterio Trinitatis in this context makes it clear that Bonaventure
was providing a response to Aristotelian philosophy, interpreted
through a Franciscan metaphysico-theological prism. Both
context and content will be shown to confirm this Aristotelian
framing of the De mysterio Trinitatis.
This study will argue that the synthesis Bonaventure formu-
lates bespeaks a mutual, yet hierarchically and teleologically
ordered, enrichment between philosophy and theology. Aristo-
tle’s philosophy provides Bonaventure with key insights, which
are integrated into and help develop Bonaventure’s understand-
ing of the doctrine of the Trinity. Theology, however, deepens,
completes, clarifies and implicitly corrects inadequacies in
Aristotle. This study will show how in the De mysterio Trinitatis,
Bonaventure outlines how philosophy and theology should
relate in a non-antagonistic manner, and how both facilitate the
attainment and increase of Christian wisdom. Christian wisdom,
in turn, reveals how being itself is most fully realized in personal
17 Standard medieval scholastic literary forms, e.g., disputationes, questiones, etc.,
are not opposed to a systematic treatment of a given topic, but, rather, can easily
become the vehicle for the specific purposes of a given author. I believe this is what
is happening in the De mysterio Trinitatis.
18 Question eight of the De mysterio Trinitatis explicitly draws this conclusion.
 Introduction 7

action and is formally characterized by charity: for both infinite

and finite persons. This charity, Bonaventure argues, is the fontal
source of all being as well as that to which all is ordered and in
which all creation comes to rest.

Method
Thus far, studies treating Bonaventure’s De mysterio Trinitatis
have suffered from two important methodological defects: often
with both present in the same study.19 Either these studies have
not adequately framed the De mysterio Trinitatis within its own
historical context and purpose. Or, they have not treated the
text in an integral manner. Thus, even if, on the one hand, such
studies of Bonaventure’s theology of the Trinity have adequately
contextualized, analyzed and expounded Bonaventure’s doctrine
of the Trinity proper; or, on the other, done justice to the
many insights of Bonaventure from the perspectives of history,
philosophy and theology, they have failed to consider the De
mysterio Trinitatis on its own terms.
This methodological bifurcation implied that the matters
treated in the De mysterio Trinitatis could and should be extracted
from the entirety of the text, and resituated in historical, theo-
logical and/or philosophical discussions more or less foreign to
the text’s original provenance. As a result, Bonaventure scholar-
ship has located Bonaventure’s philosophy of being in the first
articles of questions two through seven, and those pertaining to
his theology of the Trinity in the second article of each of the
same questions, implying that Bonaventure in the De mysterio
Trinitatis is providing two distinct treatises—De Deo Uno and
De Deo Trino—that could just as well be separate. Guided by
such concerns scholars have approached the text according
to paradigms that would have been foreign to Bonaventure.20
Although scholars have gained many valid insights into the
19 This will be treated more fully in the following chapter.
20 In his recent important study of the philosophy of John Duns Scotus, the histori-
cal theologian, Antonie Vos, makes the point that post-Renaissance conceptions
of philosophy and theology, which pushed the distinction between philosophy
and theology to the point of separation, was completely foreign to the mindset of
medieval theologians. Distinction between the two, yes; separation, no. Cf. Antonie
8 Caritas In Primo

thought of Bonaventure and his contributions to theology and

philosophy, their methodological failings have also served to
hinder a comprehension and appreciation of the De mysterio
Trinitatis in all its richness.
While acknowledging the value and importance of previous
scholarship, this study will reveal how the positive results of
previous studies must be deepened, clarified and, at times,
corrected by looking at the way Bonaventure wrote his text as a
response to the entrance of the full corpus of Aristotle into the
arts curriculum at the University of Paris.
The aim of this study is not, it should be said, simply to
reject previous scholarship, but rather to apply a different
historical theological methodology that will confirm the sound
conclusions and deepen the implications of existing scholarship.
However, because, as will be argued, previous scholars employed
methodologies that failed to contextualize the De mysterio
Trinitatis, such scholarship is also open to challenge insofar as it
has appropriated a text and precipitately gathered data for ends
not always consistent with the text’s original purpose. Thus, this
study will be revisionist insofar as it is based upon a historical
theological methodology that may necessitate departing from
faulty, incomplete or anachronistic appropriations and interpre-
tations of the De mysterio Trinitatis. This study seeks to clarify
and deepen the discussion of Bonaventure’s thought by letting
the Aristotelian setting of 1255 Paris shed light on the purpose
and meaning of the text. Historical context will set the agenda
for analysis and interpretation of the De mysterio Trinitatis, rather
than philosophical, theological and ecclesiastical categories and
concerns stemming from the nineteenth century, which have
influenced Bonaventure scholarship on the De mysterio Trinitatis
to the present.

Procedure
This study will establish the historical context leading up to
and surrounding the composition of the De mysterio Trinitatis.

Vos, The Philosophy of John Duns Scotus, (Edinburgh: University of Edinburgh Press,
2006), 3–4, 8–9.
 Introduction 9

Next, key aspects of the text itself will be considered. In terms of

overall order, then, I shall move from historical analysis, into and
through historical theological analysis, and then on to a histori-
cally informed theological analysis of the De mysterio Trinitatis.
The order in which the following chapters will appear reflect this
progression.
Chapter two, building upon the important recent studies of
Jay M. Hammond and Joshua Benson,21 will discuss the histori-
cal (re-)discovery and reception of the De mysterio Trinitatis. I
will argue that historical circumstances surrounding the 1874
rediscovery of the text led to a hermeneutical mishandling of the
De mysterio Trinitatis, which, in turn, affected subsequent schol-
arship. Retracing the history of the reception of the De mysterio
Trinititas through the nineteenth and twentieth centuries,
chapter two will show that there does not up to this point exist
any significant study dedicated specifically to the De mysterio
Trinitatis, nor any study that does justice to the text, according
to a historical-theological methodology.22

21 On the history of the De mysterio Trinitatis, the De scientia Christi as well as the
sermon Christus unus omnium magister, see, Joshua Benson, “Reinterpretation
Through Recontextualization: A New Reading of Bonaventure’s Quaestiones Dispu-
tatae De scientia Christi,” (PhD diss., Saint Louis University, 2007), 17–28.
22 Outside of the late nineteenth and twentieth centuries, there exists no explicit
reception and interpretation history of the De mysterio Trinitatis. The text was lost
for several hundred years. However, as will be suggested in the conclusion of this
study, there is good reason to believe that, even though the text itself was misplaced
quite early, it nevertheless went on to have a great influence upon Franciscan
thought in the centuries subsequent to Bonaventure. As will be shown below,
themes and distinctions found within the text are carried forward by figures such
as Peter John Olivi and Peter Trabibus. In Scotus these intellectual instruments
become enshrined within the common Fransciscan theological and philosophical
approach. Interestingly, Christiaan W. Kappes has discovered the latent presence
of Bonaventure’s De mysterio Trinitatis in the Greek Orthodox figure, Gennadius
Scholarius. Writing in the 15th century, Scholarius lists a series of transcendental
disjunctions that very closely map onto Bonaventure’s list in the De mysterio
Trinitatis, question one, article one. This is extremely interesting for two reasons:
(1) Peter John Olivi (d.1298) is the last person to mention the De mysterio Trinitatis;
(2) the text reappears in Scholarius, a (15th century) Greek source, the handpicked
successor to Mark of Ephesus: along with Photius and Gregory Palamas, one of
the Three “Pillars of Orthodoxy.” The most likely way that Scholarius acquired the
text was through time spent in Florence. In a seeming fortuitous convergence of
circumstances the Franciscan Library at Florence possessed the only complete
copy of the De mysterio Trinitatis. It appears most likely that it was on a visit to
10 Caritas In Primo

A main historical contention of this study is that interpreters

of the De mysterio Trinitatis must take into account the increased
significance of the thought and writings of Aristotle at Paris in
the 1250s, as shaping the context surrounding and informing
the composition of the De mysterio Trinitatis. In support of this
claim, chapter three will move several steps back in time in order
to gain a broader perspective on the Aristotelian background
which immediately preceded Bonaventure’s taking up his stylus
in response to the changes of 1255 in the Parisian Arts curricu-
lum. Chapter three will retrace the gradual entry of Aristotle’s
thought and writings into the Latin speaking Christian West.
This will make clear how Aristotle “fully arrives” on the Western
academic scene in 1255, just months before Bonaventure
composed the De mysterio Trinitatis.
Chapter four discusses the personal and intellectual back-
ground of Bonaventure himself. Bonaventure’s commitment to
Francis of Assisi’s witness to Christ within the academic context
of Paris, I will argue, was, perhaps, the main inspiration behind
Bonaventure’s understanding of academic pursuits. Bonaven-
ture’s commitment to Gospel perfection, will be shown to have
its roots in the person of Francis and the communities that
developed out of the desire to follow the poor man from Assisi
who bore the Wounds of Christ. Gospel perfection, however,
for Bonaventure, the academic theologian, needed to take on
an aspect not explicitly present in Francis.23 Bonaventure’s task

this library that Scholarius discovered the text. On Scholarius see, Christiaan W.
Kappes, “The Latin Sources of the Palamite Theology of George-Gennadius Schol-
arius,” Nicolaus 40.1 (2013): 71-114, at 101–102.
23 Francis was not opposed to academic theology and study of philosophy and the
arts. Francis was opposed rather to intellectual curiosity, vanity and pride. Each
pernicious to the soul and a distraction away from God, who for St. Francis was
literally everything: “Deus meus et omnia!” On Francis’ approval of the study of
theology, provided it was ordered to piety see, Francis, “A Letter to Brother Anthony
of Padua,” in Francis of Assisi: The Saint, ed. Regis J. Armstrong, J.A. Wayne Hellmann
and William J. Short (New York: New City Press, 1999), 108: “I am pleased that you
teach sacred theology to the brothers providing that, as is contained in the Rule,
you ‘do not extinguish the Spirit of prayer and devotion’ during study of this kind.”
Cf. Francis, Regula Bullata, c. 5, in Opuscula sancti patris Francisci Assisiensis, ed.,
Caietanus Esser (Grottaferrata: Collegii S. Bonaventurae Ad Clarus Aquas, 1978),
231. This language finds parallels in Bonaventure: cf. Itin., prol., 4 (V, 296ab).
 Introduction 11

was to recapitulate and perfect intellectual excellence in line with

and for the sake of Francis’ call to wisdom and holiness. The
personal background of St. Bonaventure, thus, provides another
important element in understanding his academic work at mid-
thirteenth century Paris.
Aristotle’s entry into the academic context of Paris in 1255,
was a watershed event that radically altered philosophical and
theological investigation and inquiry. Although Aristotelian
themes and concerns are present in Bonaventure’s earlier works,24
Aristotle, as a source and authority, looms large in the De mysterio
Trinitatis in a manner not seen in any of Bonaventure’s other
works. Chapter five, through comparison of the De mysterio
Trinitatis to other texts of Bonaventure,25 will demonstrate that
Aristotle was a key focus and figure of the De mysterio Trinitatis.
The unique spike in citations of Aristotle in the De mysterio
Trinitatis are very suggestive with respect to both its context and
purpose.
The De reductione artium ad theologiam and the De scientia
Christi were both composed prior to the De mysterio Trinitatis,
yet they fall within the 1254–57 magisterial period of Bonaven-
ture’s career, prior to his election as the Minister General of the
Order of the Friars Minor. Chapter six will analyze these texts
in order to determine whether and to what extent Aristotle
had already, by the time these texts were written, become an
(at least latent) focus of Bonaventure. Two points will become
clear. First, in both texts, Aristotle provides Bonaventure with
structural, methodological and conceptual tools that allow
Bonaventure to advance his arguments. However, and secondly,
these early texts, so closely preceding the De mysterio Trinitatis,
reveal Bonaventure’s determination to preserve the primacy of
theology, wisdom and praxis over against Aristotle’s emphasis
upon science. Bonaventure was concerned to correct what he
24 For example, Commentaria in Sententia, De reductione artium ad theologiam,
Quaestiones disputatae de scientia Christi. The dating of the De reductione is
controversial. However, recent studies by Joshua Benson have convincingly
demonstrated that the overwhelmingly most likely date for the composition of the
De reductione is 1254 (cf. infra 154–156 for discussion of the question).
25 These texts will include early, contemporary and later works of Bonaventure.
12 Caritas In Primo

perceived to be an overemphasis upon rationality, as primarily

rooted in intellect, apart from faith and charity. This, Bonaven-
ture thought, would unmoor reason from faith, and make reason
the ultimate measure and authority.
Chapters seven and eight form two components of the final
synthesis and resolution of chapters two through six. Keeping
historical context in mind, in chapter seven I will consider the De
mysterio Trinitatis’s textual structure—e.g., order of themes and
arrangement of questions. I will argue that structure is a basic
hermeneutical key for interpreting the arguments found within
the questions. I will show how the order of questions reveal a
reductio to the primacy of personal being and action. Primacy
of esse, thus, for Bonaventure, per reductionem, is structurally
the originating concept, describing first act. Primacy qua being
is also, according to the structure of the De mysterio Trinitatis,
unveiled as the most perfect rational note or attribute of Infinite-
Pure Being as well as the completion and end of all action. This
primacy finds its formal mode in the free circumincession of the
Divine Persons in infinite charity.
Chapter eight will analyze how Bonaventure spells out the
arguments embodied within the structure of the De mysterio
Trinitatis. This will reveal Bonaventure’s mind, within the
context of a new Aristotelian curriculum and philosophy, as
he was formulating how scientia is ordered toward and only
fully illumined in sapientia. Throughout his exposition and
argumentation, Bonaventure develops key themes and employs
distinctions that will come to characterize the entirety of the
Franciscan School of theological metaphysics. Chapter eight will
also and most importantly show how for Bonaventure, Christian
wisdom, on the one hand, reveals a God (Primum Principium)
who in perfect necessity is perfectly free and loving, as a Trinity
of Persons. On the other, human persons, as bearing the image
of the Trinity, are created to find rest in that same circuminces-
sant Charity.
 Afterword
Peter Damian M. Fehlner, F.I.

The genial treatise of St. Bonaventure on the Blessed Trinity:

Disputed Questions on the Mystery of the Most Holy Trinity, is one
of the greatest studies about this central mystery of our faith, the
primary object of what Bl. John Duns Scotus calls “our theology,”
on the same level as St. Augustine’s De Trinitate. Despite its
importance and influence it remains little known today except
to professional historians of theology. This magnificent study of
Dr. Goff will immensely help those persons who seek to appreci-
ate its historical setting and what the Seraphic Doctor achieved
in his cultivation of a faith seeking understanding: fides quaerens
intellectum, of the mystery at the heart of the Godhead: the one
God, infinite in being, triune in Persons, the mystery on which
depends understanding in the rest of theology: the Trinitas oeco-
nomica dealing with our sharing the life of the Divine Persons.
In 1255 the University of Paris imposed the reading of
Aristotle throughout the arts curriculum as the basis of what
today we would call philosophical formation. With this risks
and dangers to the teaching of theology and a sound Christian
philosophy in the leading school of higher learning in the Latin
west and formation of reliable theologians in the service of the
Church at this University were increased considerably. On the
one hand the cultivation of a complete, autonomous philosophy
without the benefit of Revelation and Christian faith opened
doors to a number of erroneous concepts of theology more
or less all of a pantheistic character, such as in our times goes
under the name of ontologism or ontic-theology. At the other
extreme was a tendency toward philosophical agnosticism or
atheism, relegating theology to what is known today as a kind
of irrational fideism, guide to a religious experience rather than
knowledge of the truth.

311
312 Caritas In Primo

The success of Bonaventure in meeting the challenge posed

by secular philosophy and pietistic anti-intellectualism is abun-
dantly clear in this set of disputed questions. Their organization is
not that of a complete theological treatise whose subject is God,
but of a discussion of the premises which govern the starting
point, structure and goal of such a treatise, and ultimately of
what is known as the study of the Trinitas oeconomica. Not all
our contemporary theologians are disposed to be disciples of
Bonaventure; but I do not think many who will have pondered
the exposition of Dr. Goff will be inclined to deny its relevance
to a similar need precisely in regard to the point of departure,
structure and goal of this subsidiary part of theology, viz., the
study of what Scotus calls the contingent brought into existence
out of the goodness of the Creator. This aspect of Catholic trini-
tarian theology is today being challenged in a similar way. On
one side are those proposing a fideistic approach, ignoring the
importance of sanctifying the intellect; and on another are those
who under the influence of German idealism are confusing the
Trinitas oeconemica with the Trinity in itself. This very simply is
to confuse adoptive sonship of God with natural sonship of the
Father which is Christ’s alone, and so a particularly attractive
disguise for pantheism.
Nonetheless this does not mean that every explanation of how
we share the divine life of Father and Son in the Holy Spirit, viz.,
the circumcessory life of the divine Persons, is pantheistic. And
among other aspects of St. Bonaventure’s success in grounding
theology: a study centered directly on God and beginning with
faith where reason alone ends, one to be described more as
wisdom than science, yet including knowledge of the triune God
as credible, viz., intelligible precisely because based on faith first
and not reason, is the possibility of dealing today with the same
problems but in relation to the economic Trinity.
Let us begin with a brief review of how Bonaventure
understands theology, in particular our theology in so far as it
approximates and gives us some understanding of the one and
triune God: one because triune, triune because one, whose
existence cannot be called into question, yet whose reasonable-
 Afterword 313

ness can only be known to us in coming to understand why

the mystery of the Trinity is credible and why it prepares us to
know God when loving him in mystical contemplation. The
Seraphic Doctor himself summarizes the foregoing in terms of
three modes of our theology: symbolic, proper or rational, and
mystical (cf. Bonaventure, Christus unus omnium Magister; Itin-
erarium mentis in Deum, ch. 1, n. 7). The symbolic is the form
our theology takes when the direct study of God stresses the
correct understanding of the words and signs employed by Jesus
in introducing us to His Father. The proper or academic refers to
the mode of theology where stress is placed on the understand-
ing faith tends to foster. To the degree that understanding is the
distinctive character of a mode of genuine theology, it may be
described as “scientific,” but in fact as both Bonaventure and
Scotus point out, it can never be considered a science in the
strict sense, whether Aristotelian or modern. The reason is this:
theology correctly understood involves the student in a personal
relation with the subject under study. Failure to acknowledge
this always leads either to an impersonal knowledge of God, ever
indirect, not direct, or to a reduction of God to the level of some
a-personal object and so to his denial.
On the other hand failure to admit the need during a time of
pilgrimage to make use of metaphysical logic or anthropological
metaphor in the study of God inevitably leads to one or another
form of fideism. As these errors impacted on the theological
rather than philosophical knowledge of God, so they impact on
the study of the economic Trinity, viz., on the possibility and fact
of our sharing by grace in the divine mode of living, knowing
and loving.
This mode of theological study points, then, to a third
mode, the mystical contemplative understanding of God, as St.
Paul describes it (cf. Eph 3: 19): the surpassing knowledge of
charity, a form of knowing prescinding not from faith, but from
the finite mode of reasoning about God, because both intellect
and will perfectly united in practice through the gift of infused
charity operate in a way similar to the divine modes. This is
the consummation of what is meant in affirming the personal
314 Caritas In Primo

character of theology on the part of its subject matter and on the

part of the student.
Mere logic is not enough to understand God theologically
as center of that study rather than the conclusion of an imper-
sonal metaphysics. Theology exists only as a means for faith
to arrive at an ever more fully personal relation with the one
and triune Godhead. Hence it is not a form of ontic-theology,
a kind of immediate continuation of metaphysics under the
heading “natural theology.” For Bonaventure, as for Scotus, no
such discipline exists. They do not mean that philosophy does
not yield some knowledge of God: his existence and assorted
attributes. They merely mean this knowledge is not theological,
in the sense that it is an understanding directly based on God
himself and not on the natural metaphysical premises, e.g.,
analogy or univocity of being, as bases for drawing conclusions
about the supreme being.
But for them, contrary to so many versions of fideism,
these metaphysical premises can be used, as they have been used
not only by the Fathers, but in Scripture itself, as a means of
explaining mysteries whose understanding by finite intellects
and by those who seek a personal relation with God far tran-
scends the range of reason. A careful comparison of what Scotus
calls univocity of being and the disjunctive transcendentals with
the structure of the hypostatic union: distinction of natures
divine and human (disjunctives) united in the divine Person of
the Son of God, shows univocity of being as point of reference
enabling both the infinite and finite disjunctives to be shadowy
adumbrations of the Incarnation for the sake of which the finite
was created. Careful study of question four of Bonaventure’s
Quaestiones disputatae de scientia Christi suggests that the
Bonaventurian theory of divine illumination anticipates the role
of univocity in the metaphysics and theology of the contingent
based on absolute primacy, in this case that of Christ. Although
Bonaventure never drew out the logical conclusions of this
approach in terms of absolute primacy of Christ and therefore
how the Immaculate Conception takes on in theology being
basis for the Marian mode of theology, he certainly suggests
 Afterword 315

that our theology as a whole can only be developed in a Marian

mode, because the Incarnation and saving work of the Christ
only occur in a Marian mode. Thus Bonaventure writes in his
commentary on III Sent., d. 4, a. 2, q. 2:
Whether we say that the Word becomes man, or we
say that the Woman becomes the Mother of God, both
stand above what is due to the creature.1
And commenting on Isaiah 7: 14 in collation 6 of his
Collationes de septem donis Spiritus Sancti he refers this Marian
mode not only to the fact of the Incarnation, but the sign which
enables us to grasp the identity of her Child and the purpose of
the Incarnation:
It is not fitting that the Virgin should have a Son
unless He be God, nor God have a Mother unless She
be a Virgin.2
The dissertation of Dr. Goff convincingly demonstrates
the use Bonaventure makes of what Scotus calls univocity
of being and the disjunctive transcendenals together with
the formal distinction a parte rei and the perfectio simpliciter
simplex as instruments to show how 1) God is one, simple,
infinite, eternal, immutable, necessary because triune, and 2)
triune and personal precisely because one, simple, infinite,
eternal, immutable and necessary. All this converges syntheti-
cally on a single term: primacy of essence of all three divine
Persons because the Father enjoys a primacy of person as fontal
plenitude of charity, origin of the necessary divine processions
and ultimately of the contingent divine creation, above all finite
persons capable of formally sharing via grace the primacy of
charity appropriated to the Holy Spirit. Or this convergence
on primacy by way of conclusion shows how the mysteri-
ous existence of an absolute one (primacy of essence) where
philosophy ends is only rendered intelligible to the degree the

1 “Sive dicamus (Verbum) fieri hominem, sive dicamus mulierem fieri Matrem Dei,
utrumque est super statum qui debetur creaturae.”
2 “Non decebat Virginem habere filium nisi Deum, nec Deum habere matrem nisi
Virginem.”
316 Caritas In Primo

one triune God is shown credible in terms of the primacy of

person of the Father as fontal plenitude of all goodness: caritas
in primo lived as circumincession or perfect in-existence of the
three really distinct persons without loss of real distinction
within the one simple infinite essence. The absolute First is one
because triune and triune because one.
How, then, does this apply to theology when it is extended
to include the economic Trinity, viz., the order of salvation in
which the blessed life of the divine Persons is expanded (without
loss of real distinction between infinite and finite) so as to
include finite persons?
Bonaventure claims that a theology including the economic
Trinity has not God as its subject matter, but the whole Christ,
divinity and humanity, Head and Body of the Church. Scotus
critiques this definition of christo-centrism, not so much as false,
but as misleading as to 1) the real distinction between Creator
and creature in the order of grace and as to 2) the real unity
without confusion of the disjunctive transcendentals, both
infinite and finite, first in the hypostatic union and then in the
concept of adoptive son-ship.
In seeking to clarify the relation between the two great parts
of theology Scotus reformulates what Bonaventure discusses here
in relation to his theory of divine illumination, under the heading
of univocity of being. This concept incomparable to any other
while all others must in some way be enlightened by this unique
concept of univocity above and beyond all categorization, is at
root a clearer version of what divine illumination is intended to
explain: how a finite mind can exist only to the degree something
radically simple stands at the center of a complex psychology of
the intellect and will. This confers on the nature and purpose of
human knowledge what is called a pure perfection, something
hinting, even at the finite level, at the personal, divine character
of wisdom and the primacy of charity as the goal or reason for
thought, a goal however which cannot be fully achieved except
with grace: primarily the grace of having been predestined with
Christ as Scotus teaches.
 Afterword 317

With this we see how what Scotus calls pure perfections

(perfectiones simpliciter simplices) such as intellect and will, found
in both the divine nature and in created persons, are the bases
for their elevation to the divine order as well as personhood.
Bonaventure anticipates Scotus’ thought here when he distin-
guishes creatures: persons, who are prope Deum and so capable
of God, viz., a divine mode of living, and impersonal creatures,
and so prope nihil (cf. Breviloquium, p. 2, ch. 6, 3). By nature
these finite persons do not in fact, indeed cannot without grace,
enjoy the fullness of these perfections; yet with grace like Mary,
the Speculum justitiae, mirror God in possessing and exemplify-
ing distinct pure perfections which terminate in a finite image:
intrinsically finite and formally univocal, yet qua perfected by
grace operate in a supernatural, quasi-infinite mode, like that of
the divine persons in knowing and loving each other.
In this same Breviloquium, part 2, ch. 9–12, here in particu-
lar ch. 10, nn. 2–3, the Seraphic Doctor makes it especially clear
that the final crown of Creator’s work is not the angel prope
Deum because of his endowment with personal existence based
on the pure perfections of intellect and will, but Adam who is
not only prope Deum, because of his soul, but prope nihil because
of his body and so capable of giving visible form to the mysteries
of divinity precisely because in possession of a mediatory nature.
That is why the Incarnation involves assumption of a human,
not angelic nature. All this points to the famous Franciscan thesis
formulated by Scotus: creation and redemption are for the sake
of Christ and Mary, not vice versa, and its logical formulation
in the context of theological metaphysics based on univocity of
being, to be carefully distinguished from what today is called
“ontic-theology.”
With that Scotus can account for secondary, contingent
subject matter of theology in terms of its first subject: the primacy
of God himself touching creation in the absolute primacy of
Christ and Mary Immaculate’s joint predestination with Him
as His Mother. In a word creation in its entirety has but one
reason for existing: to glorify the absolute primacy of Christ
and Immaculate Conception of His Mother and the Mother
318 Caritas In Primo

of the Church who makes possible a sharing in the son-ship of

Jesus by all those finite persons, angels as well as Adam and his
descendants and so to share in the primacy or life of God: not
the primacy of Person of the Father, nor the primacy of essence
proper only to all the divine persons, but to that primacy in
caritate which is the heart of divine circumincessory life. In a
word, as Bonaventure remarks in question one of the De mysterio
Trinitatis, the coming of the Incarnate Word reveals and makes
possible our sharing in Triune God’s life, and in union with Jesus
giving praise to the Father as the most perfect fulfillment of the
first commandment of the Decalogue.
Indeed, St. Bonaventure hints at this possibility in the
seventh question of the Disputed Questions on the Mystery of
the Blessed Trinity, where he tells us that finite persons share
secundum quid in some way with the necessity or independence
of God, therefore for which reason they enjoy freedom and
personhood. This makes them capable of divine life in the
order of grace, a kind of love distinctive of the divine persons,
a primacy of charity, without ceasing to be human persons as
members of the Body of Christ. With this background it is not
too difficult to see how a discussion of the economic Trinity fits
into the theological synthesis presented in question eight.
In being the Immaculate Mother Mary, in the words of a
contemporary Scotist, St. Maximilian M. Kolbe, is the created
Immaculate Conception and the Holy Spirit the uncreated: she
is the human person who is the personification of the Spirit
via a most perfect union of love. This union enables her to be
first-born daughter of the Father and Mother of his Son. Mary,
therefore, is the contemplative theologian par excellence.
Not only is she a metaphysical person in the fullest sense of
Richard of St. Victor’s definition of person, she is in virtue
of her contemplative character from conception, after Jesus,
the most perfect teacher of metaphysical theology. What Jesus
alone is able to teach us about His Father, Mary is able to teach
us about Jesus so as to be able to return to the Father with and
through Him.
 Afterword 319

The infancy narratives of Luke and John bear witness to this

metaphysical teaching of Mary in an extraordinary fashion, since
the source of both Evangelists’ accounts: one historical and the
other metaphysical, is one person: the Immaculate Mother. The
well-known Mariologist, Rene Laurentin, has in a recent publi-
cation convincingly demonstrated how St. Luke and St. Paul at
the Council of Jerusalem in 51 A.D. came to learn from Mary
the mysterious facts surrounding the virginal conception and
birth of Jesus and private life in Nazareth.3 These same mysteri-
ous facts came to be presented by St. John in the prologue of
his Gospel, but first from a theological-metaphysical perspective
as explanation of the factual, whereas Luke proceeds from the
historical facts to an explanation of the mysterious metaphysical.
Laurentin in the just cited work, pp. 58–59, indicates with great
detail how the two accounts converge on the same revelation
even in minor details which Laurentin asserts would have been
impossible without both evangelists and Paul being indebted to
Mary for their facts and their interpretation.
Is there a Christian mode and Marian mode, then, of our
theology, in so far as we cannot do theology except to the degree
we enter the economic Trinity and recognize how the exitus of
all creatures from God, especially those endowed with intellect
and will, viz., persons human and angelic, culminates with the
Immaculate Conception and through Mary the Incarnation,
thus initiating the return of all creation to the Father? In the
light of the above, the answer is affirmative. Here is a philosophy
that is complete, a full return to the origin of all goodness in the
Father.
Guided by the genius of Bonaventure, more attention
should be given to the Marian mode of our theology and our
metaphysics. Just this is suggested by her title Mother and
profile of the Church. Curiously, around 1200, as Aristotle was
becoming the rage in Paris, the English Abbot of Battle Abbey,
Odo, preached an interesting homily on Mary Seat of Wisdom

3 Marie, source directe de l’Evangile de l’Enfance (Paris: Éditions François-Xavier de

Guibert, 2012).
320 Caritas In Primo

wherein he called Mary not only our philosopher, but our

philosophy. Among other things he said:
Philosophy is called the pursuit or love of wisdom.
Mary is, therefore, the philosophy of Christians, for
whoever desires to find true Wisdom must direct his
love and endeavors to Mary.4
What is meant by a Marian mode of theology could not be
expressed more precisely. Mary begot Christ who is the Wisdom
of God. Hence, she is the Mother who teaches us how to direct
our love and endeavors to Christ. Her teaching, then, may
rightly be called Marian metaphysics, viz., the most perfect form
of philosophical wisdom in human persons.
In conference three of his Roman Conferences St. Maximil-
ian M. Kolbe provides a very stimulating, scotistically inspired
outline of how one might go about developing theology in a
Marian mode, with particular attention to the economic Trinity
and how Mary, as Spouse of the Holy Spirit, is the key to the
Spirit’s mission as complement to the work of Jesus.5
Conference four,6 dealing with the union of our wills with
the divine will is an interesting complement touching on the
primacy of charity throughout the Franciscan school of theology
and of Mariology, a point of union of the economic Trinity with
the Trinity in itself, a union elsewhere in his writings explained
as a transubstantiation of the spiritual children of Mary through
total consecration to her and through her therefore into the
Holy Spirit, to become members of Christ and adopted children
of the Father.
With hindsight we can see that for this Kolbean outline
of a theological treatise on the economic Trinity, as in all the
major theological insights of the Franciscan school of theology, a
key source is the contemplative wisdom of St. Francis of Assisi,
founder of the Franciscan Order. In this case the source in
4 Cf. Michael O’Carroll, Theotokos: A Theological Encyclopedia of the Blessed Virgin
Mary (Eugene: Wipf & Stock Publishers, 2000), 368)
5 Cf. Roman Conferences of St. Maximilian M. Kolbe (New Bedford: Academy of the
Immaculate, 2004), 12–25.
6 Ibid., 26–34.
 Afterword 321

question is the Marian Antiphon of Francis’ Office of the Passion,

where for the first time we find delineated the relation of Mary
to the one God who is triune, and triune God who is one, and
how through her and in her as the Immaculate Mother of God
and first born daughter of the Father we have access, as St. Paul
says (cf. Gal 4: 4–7), to the adoptive son-ship of the Father and
are made coheirs of Jesus in the Holy Spirit.
Clearly the Poverello of Assisi indicates the unique relation of
Mary to each of the divine Persons because Mother of God and
Mother of God because Immaculate Spouse of the Holy Spirit.
Consequently we ask her to intercede for us with her divine Son,
among other things our Teacher. Marian intercession means also
Marian intervention in the interior life of her spiritual children
not excluding the teaching of theology because she is the perfect
contemplative. In conclusion we may ponder this Antiphon as
an inspired illustration of what Bonaventure means when he says
that knowledge of the Blessed Trinity is the most practical of
all forms of knowledge, precisely because it instructs us not on
how to do something useful, but on what is the goal or joy of
life, sharing the love of the Father and Son in the Holy Spirit:
Caritas in primo.

Sancta Maria Virgo,

non est tibi similis nata in mundo in mulieribus:
Filia et Ancilla altissimi summi Regis Patris caelestis,
Mater Sanctissimi Domini nostri Jesu Christi,
Sponsa Spiritus Sancti.
Ora pro nobis cum Sancto Michaele archangelo
et omnibus virtutibus coelorum et omnibus sanctis
apud tuum sanctissimum dilectum Filium,
Dominum et Magistrum.