JOHN OF MIRECOURT (de Mirecuria). - Cistercian scholastic (hence the appellation of monacus albus) of the first half of the fourteenth century. He lectured on the Sentences in 1344-45 (or 1345-46) at the College of St. Bernard in Paris.
Already in 1346 Clement VI, the Avignon pope, had called the attention of the University of Paris to the reprehensible method, there in vogue, of indiscriminately mixing philosophy with theology. In 1347, 63 propositions taken from the Commentary on the Sentences (still unpublished) of G. di M. were denounced as suspect by the University. In the same year the latter prepared an Apology of the 63 propositions, addressing it to the pontifical legate in France. Notwithstanding this, the University condemned (still in 1347) 41 of the theses already previously indicated as suspect. G. di M. then prepared a second Apology, tending to demonstrate that in the condemned theses one could discern, besides an erroneous sense, a legitimate sense. He further requested that he be able to accompany the manuscripts of the Commentary on the Sentences with the 41 propositions together with his own Apology: this, it seems, was granted to him. Both Apologies are known today in their entirety, edited by F. Stegmüller in Recherches de théol. anc. et méd., 7 (1935), fasc. 1 and 11. Nevertheless a true study from the theological and philosophical point of view on G. di M. does not yet exist.
In effect G. di M. falls into manifest and grave errors; if these do not all appear in the second Apology, this seems due to the fact that the judges did not wish to involve themselves too much in philosophical questions, from which Clement VI was inviting the University of Paris to keep away. In particular, as regards the relations of God with the human creature, G. di M. goes so far, in affirming the omnipotence of God, as to falsify the concept, involving God Himself in the sinful action of man. Naturally from this theory there derive baneful consequences for the doctrine of Grace and of Predestination. Also with regard to Christ G. di M. passed to expressions which in the second Apology could be summarized and condemned under the formula « Quod possibile est Christum secundum voluntatem creatam errasse et forte secundum hominem mendacium protulisse » (n. 12, cf. Rech. de théol. anc. et méd., 5 [1933], p. 196).
To these and other errors were joined philosophical doctrines already previously surfacing in the Parisian milieu, and which he now introduced into the theological field. The second Apology (n. 27) reports the condemned proposition: « Quod est probabile in lumine naturali non esse accidentia, sed omnem rem esse substantiam, et quod nisi esset fides, hoc esset ponendum vel probabiliter posset poni » (ibid., p. 201).
The same thought is reported in the first Apology under n. 43 (ibid., p. 66); under n. 44, there is then reported another proposition deserving of much attention for the developments which the errors contained in it later obtained: « Non est probatum demonstrative ex propositionibus per se notis et evidentibus, evidentia nobis reducta ad certitudinem primi principii, quod Deus sit, nec quod perfectissimum sit in entibus, sicut nec aliquid esse causam alterius, nec quin quaclibet res creata habeat causam, et causa illius causam et sic in infinitum, nec quin aliquid possit totaliter producere nobilius se, nec quin quocumque quod est possit produci nobilius ».
From these grave affirmations it results that G. di M. called into doubt: 1) a demonstration of the existence of God and more precisely 2) the principle of causality; 3) its efficacy for the ascent to God.
Bibliography6 works
Amato Masnovo