Who are the Traditional Thomists?

Who are the Traditional Thomists?

From Garrigou-Lagrange, OP - Reality (available from ITOPL).

Chapter 3: The Thomistic Commentators

We deal here with those commentators only who belong to the Thomistic school properly so called. We do not include eclectic commentators, who indeed borrow largely from Thomas, but seek to unite him with Duns Scotus, refuting at times one by the other, at the risk of nearly always oscillating between the two, without ever taking a definite stand.

In the history of commentators we may distinguish three periods. During the first period we find defensiones against the various adversaries of Thomistic doctrine. In the second period commentaries appear properly so called. They comment the Summa theologiae. They comment, article by article, in the methods we may call classical, followed generally before the Council of Trent. In the third period, after the Council, in order to meet a new fashion of opposition, the commentators generally no longer follow the letter of the Summa article by article, but write disputationes on the problems debated in their own times. Each of the three methods has its own raison d'etre. The Thomistic synthesis has thus been studied from varied viewpoints, by contrast with other theological systems. Let us see this process at work in each of these periods.

The first Thomists appear at the end of the thirteenth century and the beginning of the fourteenth. They defend St. Thomas against certain Augustinians of the ancient school, against the Nominalists and the Scotists. We must note in particular the works of Herve de Nedellec against Henry of Ghent; of Thomas Sutton against Scotus, of Durandus of Aurillac against Durandus of Saint-Pourcain and against the first Nominalists.

Next, in the same period, come works on a larger scale. Here we find John Capreolus, [89] whose Defensiones [90] earned him the title princeps thomistarum. Capreolus follows the order of the Lombard Sentences, but continually compares the commentaries of Thomas on that work with texts of the Summa theologiae and of the Disputed Questions. He writes against the Nominalists and the Scotists. Similar works were written in Hungary by Peter Niger, [91] in Spain by Diego of Deza, [92] the protector of Christopher Columbus. With the introduction of the Summa as textbook, explicit commentaries on the Summa theologiae began to appear. First in the field was Cajetan (Thomas de Vio). His commentary [93] is looked upon as the classic interpretation of St. Thomas. Then followed Conrad Kollin, [94] Sylvester de Ferraris, [95] and Francis of Vittoria. [96] Vittoria's work remained long in manuscript and was lately published. [97] A second work of Vittoria, Relectiones theologicae, was likewise recently published. [98].

Numerous Thomists took part in the preparatory work for the Council of Trent. Noted among these are Bartholomew of Carranza, Dominic Soto, Melchior Cano, Peter de Soto. The Council [99] itself, in its decrees on the mode of preparation for justification, reproduces the substance of an article by St. Thomas. [100] Further, in the following chapter on the causes of justification, the Council again reproduces the teaching of the saint. [101] When on April 11 1567, four years after the end of the Council, Thomas of Aquin was declared doctor of the Church, Pius V, [102] in commending the saint's doctrine as destruction of all heresies since the thirteenth century, concluded with these words: "As clearly appeared recently in the sacred decrees of the Council of Trent." [103].

After the Council of Trent, the commentators, as a rule, write Disputationes. Dominic Banez, an exception, explains still article by article. The chief names in this period are Bartholomew of Medina, [104] and Dominic Banez. [105] We must also mention Thomas of Lemos 1629): Diego Alvarez (1635): John of St. Thomas (1644): Peter of Godoy (1677). All these were Spaniards. In Italy we find Vincent Gotti (1742): Daniel Concina (1756): Vincent Patuzzi (1762): Salvatore Roselli (1785). In France, Jean Nicolai (1663): Vincent Contenson (1674): Vincent Baron (1674): John Baptist Gonet (1681): A. Goudin (1695): Antonin Massoulie (1706): Hyacinth Serry (1738). In Belgium, Charles Rene Billuart (1751). Among the Carmelites we mention: the Complutenses, Cursus philosophicus, [106] and the Salmanticenses, Cursus theologicus. [107].

Let us here note the method and importance of the greatest among these commentators. Capreolus [108] correlates, as we saw above, the Summa and the Disputed Questions with the Sententiae of the Lombard. Answering the Nominalists and the Scotists, he sets in relief the continuity of the saint's thought.

Sylvester de Ferraris shows that the content of the Contra Gentes is in harmony with the higher simplicity of the Summa theologiae. He is especially valuable on certain great questions: the natural desire to see God [109]: the infallibility of the decrees of providence; [110] the immutability in good and in evil of the soul after death, from the first moment of its separation from the body. [111] Sylvester's commentary is reprinted in the Leonine edition of the Summa contra Gentes.

Cajetan comments on the Summa theologiae article by article, shows their interconnection, sets in relief the force of each proof, disengages the probative medium. Then he examines at length the objections of his adversaries, particularly those of Durandus and Scotus. His virtuosity as a logician is in the service of intuition. Cajetan's sense of mystery is great. Instances will occur later on when he speaks of the pre-eminence of the Deity. Cajetan is likewise the great defender of the distinction between essence and existence. [112] His commentary on the Summa theologiae was reprinted in the Leonine edition. [113].

Dominic Banez is a careful commentator, profound, sober, with great powers, logical and metaphysical. Attempts have been made to turn him into the founder of a new theological school. But, in reality, his doctrine does not differ from that of St. Thomas. What he adds are but more precise terms, to exclude false interpretations. His formulas do not exaggerate the saint's doctrine. Even such terms as "predefinition" and "predetermination" had been employed by Aquinas in explaining the divine decrees. [114] A Thomist may prefer the more simple and sober terms which St. Thomas ordinarily employs, but on condition that he understands them well and excludes those false interpretations which Banez had to exclude. [115].

John of St. Thomas wrote a very valuable Cursus philosophicus thomisticus. [116] Subsequent authors of philosophic manuals, E. Hugon, O. P.: J. Gredt, O. S. B.: X. Maquart, rest largely on him. J. Maritain likewise finds in them much inspiration. In John's theological work, Cursus theologicus, [117] we find disputationes on the great questions debated at his time. He compares the teaching of St. Thomas with that of others, especially with that of Suarez, of Vasquez, of Molina. John is an intuitionist, even a contemplative, rather than a dialectician. At the risk of diffusiveness, he returns often to the same idea, to sound its depths and irradiations. He may sound repetitious, but this continual recourse to the same principles, to these high leitmotifs, serves well to lift the penetrating spirit to the heights of doctrine. John insists repeatedly on the following doctrines: analogy of being, real distinction between essence and existence, obediential potency, divine liberty, intrinsic efficaciousness of divine decrees and of grace, specification of habits and acts by their formal object, the essential supernaturalness of infused virtue, the gifts of the Holy Spirit and infused contemplation. John should be studied also on the following questions: the personality of Christ, Christ's grace of union, Christ's habitual grace, the causality of the sacraments, the transubstantiation, and the sacrifice of the Mass.

In their methods the Carmelites of Salamanca, the Salmanticenses, resemble John of St. Thomas. They first give, in summary, the letter of the article, then add disputationes and dubia on controverted questions, discussing opposed views in detail. Some of these dubia on secondary questions may seem superfluous. But he who consults the Salmanticenses on fundamental questions must recognize in them great theologians, in general very loyal to the teaching of St. Thomas. You may test this statement in the following list of subjects: the divine attributes, the natural desire to see God, the obediential potency, the absolute supernaturalness of the beatific vision, the intrinsic efficaciousness of divine decrees and of grace, the essential supernaturalness of infused virtues, particularly of the theological virtues, the personality of Christ, His liberty, the value, intrinsically infinite, of His merits and satisfaction, the causality of the sacraments, the essence of the sacrifice of the Mass.

Gonet, who recapitulates the best of his predecessors, but also, on many questions, does original work, is marked by great clarity. So likewise is Cardinal Gotti, who gives a wider attention to positive theology. Billuart, more briefly than Gonet, gives a substantial summary of the great commentators. He is generally quite faithful to Thomas, often quoting in full the saint's own words.

While we do not cite in detail the works of contemporary Thomists, we must mention N. del Prado's two works: De veritate fundamentali philosophiae christianae, [118] and De Gratia et libero arbitrio. [119] He closely follows Banez. Further, A. Gardeil's three works: La credibilite et l'apologetique, [120] Le donne revele et la theologie, [121] and La structure de l'ame et l'experience mystique. [122] Inspired chiefly by John of St. Thomas, his work is still personal and original.

Among those who contributed to the resurgence of Thomistic study, before and after Leo XIII, we must mention eight names: Sanseverino, Kleutgen, S. J.: Cornoldi, S. J.: Cardinal Zigliara, O. P.: Buonpensiere, O. P.: L. Billot, S. J.: G. Mattiussi, S. J.: and Cardinal Mercier.


NOTES:

89. Died 1444

90. Latest edition, Tours, 1900-1908

91. Died 1481

92. Died 1523

93. Written 1507-22

94. On the Ia IIae, Cologne, 1512

95. On the Cont. Gent.: Venice, 1534

96. On the IIa IIae. He died in 1546

97. At Salamanca, 1932-35

98. At Madrid, 1933-35

99. Sess. VI, chap. 6.

100. IIIa, q. 85, a. 5.

101. Ia IIae, q. 112, a. 4; IIa IIae, q. 24, a. 3.

102. Et liquido nuper in sacris concilii Tridentini decretis apparuit.

103. Bull. ord. praed.: V, 155.

104. On the Ia IIae, Salamanca, 1577, and on the IIIa, Salamanca, 1578.

105. On the Ia, Salamanca, 1584-88 (recently reprinted, Valencia, 1934); on the IIa IIae, Salamanca, 1584-94; and on the IIIa (still in manuscript).

106. Published 1640-42

107. Published 1631, 1637, 1641 (new ed.: Paris, 1871).

108. Defensiones (latest edition, Tours, 1900-1908).

109. Bk. III, chap. 51.

110. Ibid.: chap. 94.

111. Bk IV, chap. 95. Note here some differences between him and Cajetan.

112. De entia et essentia; De analogia nominum. Noteworthy too are his opuscula on the sacrifice of the Mass.

113. Rome, 1888-1906.

114. De divinis nominibus, chap. 5, lect. 3. Quodl. XII, a. 3, 4: Commentary on St. John's Gospel (2: 4; 7: 30; 13: 1; 17: 1)

115. Cf. Dict. theol. cath.: s. v. Banez.

116. Re-edited at Paris, 1883; and recently again, by Beatus Reiser, O. S. B.: Turin, 1930-37.

117. Re-edited at Paris, 1883-86. The Benedictines of Solesmes are now again re-editing the work.

118. Fribourg, 1911.

119. Fribourg, three volumes, 1907.

120. 1908 and 1912.

121. 1910.

122. Two volumes, 1927.

566th Anniversary of the Death of the Princeps Thomistarum

566th Anniversary of the Death of the Princeps Thomistarum

From "John Capreolus" (Catholic Encyclopedia article):

A theologian, born towards the end of the fourteenth century, (about 1380), in the diocese of Rodez, France; died in that city 6 April, 1444. He has been called the "Prince of Thomists", but only scanty details of his personal history are known. He was a Dominican affiliated to the province of Toulouse, and a general chapter of his order at Poitiers in 1407 assigned him to lecture on The Sentences in the University of Paris. He began in 1408 and achieved success. The following year he finished the first part of his celebrated defensive on commentary on the theology of St. Thomas Aquinas. He passed examinations for degrees at the Sorbonne in 1411 and in 1415. After serving for some time as regent of studies at Toulouse, he repaired to Rodez where he laboured assiduously at his commentaries completing the three remaining parts in 1426, 1428 and 1433. In the preface of a compendium of Capreolus's work by Isidore de Isolanis, it is stated that these manuscripts once narrowly escaped destruction by fire, a lay brother having saved them, to the joy of the author, who was then advanced in years. The same authority describes the erudite commentator as having cherished through life a tender devotion to the Blessed Virgin. Though following the order of The Sentences, the commentaries of Capreolus are a calm, learned, and penetrating exposition of the teaching of St. Thomas, as well as a comprehensive defence against sundry opponents and critics, including Scotus, Henry of Ghent, John of Ripa, Guido (the Carmelite), Aureolus, Durandus Gregory of Rimini, William of Ockham, and other Nominalists. Copious and apt citations show that the author mastered Aristotle and his Arabic commentator, Averroes; but a scrupulous fidelity to the Angelical Doctor, that earned for him the extraordinary appellation of "Soul of St. Thomas", is his chief characteristic.There is nothing in the wide field of the doctrinal discussions of his time that Capreolus did not study and elucidate with precision of insight and reasoning, and express in a style so terse and vigorous that his work is rightly given a place among the most enduring achievements of the golden age of Scholasticism. The commentaries, bearing slightly variant titles, were published in four folio volumes at Venice, 1483, 1514, 1519, 1589. ln 1881, Bishop Borret of Rodez, who had made the life and works of Capreolus, the object of considerable research, suggested a critically revised edition of the commentaries, which was at length undertaken by the Dominicans. Its publication was begun at Tours in 1900 and is now (1907) nearly compteted in the seventh volume, under the title: Johannis Capreoli Tholosani, Ordinis Praedicatorum, Thomistarum principis, Defensiones Theologiae Divi Thomae Aq. de novo editae cura et studio RR. PP. Ceslai Paban et Thomae Pegues. Early compendiums of the work by Paul Soncinas and by Sylvester Prierias were much used in their day.

Source: Volz, J. (1908). John Capreolus. In The Catholic Encyclopedia. New York: Robert Appleton Company. Retrieved April 5, 2010 from New Advent:http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03314a.htm

John Capreolus' Defensiones Theologiae, his commentary on St. Thomas' Scriptum super sententiis, is available on PDF (7 vols.) through the Ite ad Thomam Out-of-Print Library (ITOPL).

Quaeritur: What is the Best of the Manuals? (Follow-Up)

Quaeritur: What is the Best of the Manuals? (Follow-Up)

Quaeritur: Thank you very much for your reply, Fr. Romanus.  I have obtained a copy of the Sacrae Theologiae Summa by Fr. Nicolau and Salverri, the Jesuit Spanish Fathers (correct?), and I said the word "wow" about 10 times persuing through the introduction alone.  The copious footnotes and excellent bibliographies are worth so much!

So, the more authoritative, and higher level theological works are the commentaries on the Summa?  Did Fr. Garrigou-Lagrange write a complete Commentary on the Summa, or did he only comment on parts?  If Fr. Garrigou did write a complete Commentary on the Summa, which is the best edition of it?

I have not bought a copy of Billot yet, but if that is anything like Nicolau, then I am looking forward to it very much.

Respondeo: Yes the BAC Spanish Jesuit manual is very helpful for its footnotes; it is just not always following the Thomistic tradition, as the Jesuits have always tended to be more eclectic, following Suarez's approach. I most highly recommend the first volume, on Scripture, Tradition, and Ecclesiology. In this one there is not much difference between the Jesuits and the Thomists.

There is no Summa commentary as a collected whole written by Garrigou-Lagrange OP, but rather a number of works which cover most of the Summa written over many years. They have the advantage thus of being able to treat of things with a broader scope, and at greater length, although there are some, like Providence, which have a slightly more popular aim, and are a little less rigorous in style. A must read is his God, His Existence and His Nature: this would be a summary of natural theology, in which you get all that you would find in De Deo Uno, but with greater logical rigor. It also involves very important metaphysical and epistemological points, which will run like a golden thread throughout the rest of the works. There is also Reality: A Synthesis of Thomistic Thought, his short commentary on Thomism, broad strokes on all of St. Thomas' thought.

Then there are the great full commentaries of the Salamancan Fathers (Carmelites from Salamanca), John of St. Thomas OP, Cajetan OP, Capreolus OP, and Billuart OP.

I think you might find Billuart more accessible, and he was lets say the proximate channel of Thomism, that inspired Garrigou Lagrange.

I would most highly recommend Billot SJ for his Scripture Tradition, and Ecclesiology tracts only. As the Jesuits have different metaphysical principles on some important points, it changes some of the conclusions throughout the rest of the De Deo Uno, Trino, Gubernante, etc. tracts.

We have most of these works are available through the Ite ad Thomam Out-of-Print Library (ITOPL).

So in short if you spend most of your time on the Master himself, aided by Billuart and Garrigou, you will come out as a true son of St. Thomas.

-Fr. Romanus.