I don't think anyone's disputing that point. The problem here is that, according to the article, your Bl. John Duns Scotus claims (or the author, claiming on his behalf), that the Trinity itself - the divisions of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit - was the first thing that God created.
Hopefully this is just a case of unintentional wording, but given the double use of the word "will" in the same sentence, I don't think it's unintentional. I think it smacks of an Arian-like heresy on someone's part.
I say that the Incarnation of Christ was not foreseen as something occasioned [by sin], but that it was foreseen by God from all eternity and as a good more immediately proximate to the end... Hence this is the order followed in Gods prevision. First, God understood Himself as the highest good. In the second instant He understood all creatures. In the third He predestined some to glory and grace, and concerning some He had a negative act by not predestining. In the fourth, He foresaw that all these would fall in Adam. In the fifth He preordained and foresaw the remedyhow they would be redeemed through the Passion of His Son, so that, like all the elect, Christ in the flesh was foreseen and predestined to grace and glory before Christs Passion was foreseen as a medicine against the fall, just as a physician wills the health of a man before he wills the medicine to cure him.
Bl. Scotus doesn't say that God "wills the Trinity", but that first He understands Himself (knows and loves Himself).
Danny's wording is not the best here, but even he does not say that God creates the Trinity. That said, my interest is in a discussion of the insight Bl. Scotus on the Incarnation--so if you can overlook that unintentional "Arian-style" wording about the Trinity and see the argument of Scotus on the Incarnation even if Adam had not sinned, then I'd like to hear more.
Perhaps this article is worded better:
What Fr. Maximilian Mary said that I meant is exactly what I meant to say. I don’t for one minute think that the Trinity is created, nor for that matter does Scotus.
The outline was pulled together from my notes for my Mariology II class last semester. The phrasing for “After willing the Trinity” is not something I came up with, but was what my professor(who also does not believe that the Trinity is created) mentioned was in Scotus’ account. I believe he was thinking of this section from Scotus:
“I say, nevertheless, that the Fall is not the cause of Christ’s predestination. Indeed, even if one angel had not fallen, or one man, Christ would still have been predestined thuseven if others had not been created, but only Christ. This I demonstrate thus: anyone who wills methodically first wills an end, and then more immediately, those things which are more immediate to the end. But God wills most methodically; therefore, He wills thus: first He wills Himself, and everything intrinsic to Himself; more directly, so far as concerns things extrinsic, is the soul of Christ. Therefore, in relation to whatever merit and before whatever dement was foreseen, He foresees that Christ must be united to Him in a substantial union...”
The “willing of himself” is meant I suppose in the way Fr. Maximilian Mary explained. Love is of the will and God loves Himself.
I also agree that this discussion should focus on the Incarnation of Christ and His Absolute Primacy and the implications thereof.
That is terrible theology, and violates the nature and attributes of God as immutable and eternal