The video below makes the case for Franciscan Christology.  Was the Incarnation willed by God primarily as a remedy for sin as the Thomists contend? Or was He willed independently to manifest God's goodness and render Him extrinsic glory to an infinite degree, with all else (including the permission of sin) having been willed for His sake as the Scotists contend?  Is Christ essentially a means to the end of man's redemption, or is Christ the end towards which all creation is ordered?  Does the predestination of Jesus Christ necessarily depend on the fall of man? The video takes some time to digest but presents the case thoroughly. What do you all think about the subject?

https://youtu.be/YKUFAq6eHrc?si=XgTmQY30IUoBcmLQ

This is the dispute between the "infralapsarianism" and "supralapsarianism," i.e. the question of whether Our Lord would have become Incarnate even had the Fall not taken place, i.e. whether it was only done for the sake of Our Redemption.

I tend to favor the opinion that Our Lord would have become Incarnate regardless of the Fall, to join the natural and the supernatural.  Unfortunately, however, individuals like Wojtyla have twisted this to mean that all men were redeemed by the Incarnation itself (without mention of the Passion of Our Lord nor the application of the redemption), thereby implying that all men are saved.

I'm a big fan of Duns Scotus personally.  Among other things, we have him to thank for solving the one theological problem that prevented people from fully embracing the Dogma of the Immaculate Conception.

But, as much as this debate is reflected in Thomist vs. Franciscan, it's also reflected in West vs. East.

Agreed.  Wojtyla seems to have mixed in Teilhard's pseudo-scotistic "cosmic Christ" theory and thus muddied the waters concerning this question.  Several Franciscan theologians prior to the council expressed that the Primacy of Christ (in its true sense) was then embraced by the majority of theologians and approaching (however remotely) an eventual definition.  

Blessed Duns Scotus is unjustly maligned by certain Thomists who appear to have only read other Thomists concerning his works.  They attempt to draw a straight line connecting Ockham and Scotus simply because Ockham was his student, ignoring the fact that Ockham was also his greatest critic.  

I personally believe that, had St Thomas lived long enough to hear Scotus' strong proofs, he would have embraced both the Immaculate Conception and the Absolute Primacy of Christ (perhaps also the univocity of being.)  The arguments he addresses in his treatment of the question are far weaker than those made by Scotus.  Unfortunately later Thomists raised St Thomas' opinion on this matter to the status of theological certitude despite their master's insistence that the other opinion was probable.  St Bonaventure even said that the Absolute Primacy was more logically consistent but strangely held that the other opinion was more conducive to piety.