Skip to main content
Log in

Potentia absoluta et potentia ordinata Dei: on the theological origins of Carl Schmitt’s theory of constitution

  • Published:
Continental Philosophy Review Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

In line with his theory of secularization according to which all significant concepts of the modern theory of the state are secularized theological concepts, Carl Schmitt argues in Constitutional Theory that people’s (Volk) constitution-making power in modern democracy is analogical to God’s potestas constituens in medieval theology. It is also undoubtedly possible to find a resemblance between Schmitt’s constitution-making power and God’s power as it is described in medieval theology. In the same sense as the constitution-making power is absolutely free from all normative ties, God’s potestas constituens, or rather, God’s potentia absoluta is free from such ties. Yet, unlike the Schmittian constitution-making power, God’s potentia absoluta was not, in medieval theology, originally intended as a description of some form of divine action: the absolute power of God referred to the total possibilities initially open to God. However, when the canonists started to employ the term potentia absoluta in their speculations concerning the papal plenitude of power (plenitude potestatis) by the end of the thirteenth century, they used it in a different sense than the theologians previously. According to certain canonists, the pope, by his potentia absoluta, could grant de facto dispensations from divine and ecclesiastical laws. Later on, this notion became a theological notion as well, but given its origin in juridical discourse, the constitution-making power, rather than being a secularized theological notion, is a theologized juristic notion.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. Schmitt (2008, p. 125).

  2. “Monarchy is religiously grounded. In a distinctive sense, the monarch is ‘of God,’ an ‘image of God,’ and of godly essence.” Schmitt (2008, p. 308).

  3. Schmitt (2008, p. 129).

  4. Schmitt (2008, p. 129).

  5. Schmitt (2008, p. 129).

  6. Schmitt (2008, pp. 131–132).

  7. Schmitt (2008, p. 126).

  8. Besides absolute monarchy, a commonplace expression, Schmitt also speaks about absolute democracy, referring to the constituting power of the people. Schmitt (2008, p. 249): “The bourgeoisie struggles in the same way against every type of state absolutism, whether it is an absolute democracy or an absolute monarchy.”

  9. Schmitt (2008, p. 131).

  10. Schmitt (2008, p. 286).

  11. Schmitt (2008, p. 126).

  12. Schmitt (2008, p. 267).

  13. Schmitt (2008, p. 128).

  14. Schmitt (1985, p. 36–52).

  15. Schmitt (2008, p. 126).

  16. On the history of the terms, see van den Brink (1993).

  17. See van den Brink (1992, pp. 60–61).

  18. Schmitt (2008, p. 241).

  19. A brief summary of the discussion concerning God’s omnipotence in the writings of the Church Fathers can be found in Resnick (1992, pp. 23–39).

  20. “Cum omnia Deus posit, suscitare virginem non possit post ruinam.”.

  21. Godfrey of Poitiers, Summa: “Dico quod de potestate absoluta potuit ei dare. Quis enim auderet de potestate eius et immensitate diputare? Sed non potuit de potential conditionali, schilicet manentibus decretis, quae constituit.” Cited in Courtenay (1990, p. 84).

  22. “Ad primo obiectum dicimus quod Deus de potentia pure considerate potest damnare Petrum habito respectu ad potentiam Dei et potentiam Petri naturalem qua potuit peccare et non peccare.” Cited in Courtenay (1990, p. 84).

  23. Courtenay (1990, p. 72).

  24. “Distingui tamen debet, quod duplex est potentia Dei, absoluta et ordinate. De absoluta potential potuit Deus et potest adhuc dare puro homini potestatem cooperatdionis. De potestate ordinate non potest, id est non potato ordine rerum. Idem enim omnino est potetia absoluta Dei et ordinate. Sed potentia ordinata respicit ordinem rebus a Deo inditum.” Cited in Courtenay (1990, p. 84).

  25. Cited in Courtenay (1990, p. 85).

  26. Aquinas (1981), Ia, q. 25, a. 5). See also Aquinas (2011), q. 1, a. 5).

  27. “Multa potest Deus facere quae non vult facere.” Ockham (1991), VI, q. 1).

  28. Schmitt (2008, p. 154).

  29. “Deus precipiendo Abrahe ut immolaret filium suum specialem exceptionem fecit.” Ockham (1960, III, I, 2.24).

  30. Aquinas (1981, Ia, IIae, q. 100, a. 8, ad. 3).

  31. Both Courtenay and Francis Oakley, the two most prominent contemporary scholars focusing on the history of the distinction, emphasize the role of Hostiensis as the first to use the notion in this context. Courtenay (1990, p. 93); Oakley (2002, p. 7).

  32. Cited in Courtenay (1990, p. 108).

  33. Wolter (1986, pp. 254–255).

  34. “Deus ipse non potest (faltem iure ordinario) dispensare in aliquo ex praeceptis legis naturalis. Quod si interdum ali quam in his praeceptis mutationem facit, utitur absoluta potentia.” Suarez (1944, II, 14, 10).

  35. Schmitt (1917, p. 96).

  36. Schmitt (2008, p. 286).

  37. Kalyvas (2000).

  38. Schmitt (2008, p. 272).

  39. Schmitt (2008, p. 239).

  40. Schmitt (2008, p. 240).

  41. Schmitt (2008, p. 245).

  42. Schmitt (2008, p. 243).

References

  • Aquinas, T. 2011. On creation. Washington: The Catholic University of America Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Aquinas, T. 1981. Summa Theologica. Complete English edition in five volumes. Notre Dame: Ave Maria Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Courtenay, W.J. 1990. Capacity and volition: A history of the distinction of absolute and ordained power. Bergamo: Pierluigi Lubarina Editore.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kalyvas, A. 2000. Carl Schmitt and the three moments of democracy. Cardozo Law Review 21: 1597.

    Google Scholar 

  • Oakley, F. 2002. Omnipotence and promise: The legacy of the scholastic distinction of powers. Toronto: Pontifical Institute of Medieval Studies.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ockham, W. 1991. Quodlibetal questions. New Haven: Yale University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ockham, W. 1960. Dialogus in tres partes diatinctus. In Monrachia S Romani imperii, vol. 2, ed. M. Goldast. Conrad Biermann: Frankfurt.

    Google Scholar 

  • Resnick, I.M. 1992. Divine power and possibility in St Peter Damian’s De divina omnipotentia. Leiden: E. J. Brill.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schmitt, C. 2008. Constitutional theory. Durham: Duke University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schmitt, C. 1985. Political theology. Cambridge: The MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schmitt, C. 1917. Der Wert des Staates und die Bedeutung des Einzelnen. Hellerau: Hegner.

    Google Scholar 

  • Suarez, F. 1944. On laws and god the lawgiver. Oxford: The Clarendon Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • van den Brink, G. 1993. Almighty god: A study of the doctrine of divine omnipotence. Kampen: Pharos.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wolter, A.B. (ed.). 1986. Duns Scotus on the will and morality. Washington: The Catholic University of America Press.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Mika Ojakangas.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Ojakangas, M. Potentia absoluta et potentia ordinata Dei: on the theological origins of Carl Schmitt’s theory of constitution. Cont Philos Rev 45, 505–517 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11007-012-9233-x

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11007-012-9233-x

Keywords

Navigation