www.newadvent.org Open in urlscan Pro
2400:52e0:1e00::1081:1  Public Scan

Form analysis
1 forms found in the DOM

../utility/search.htm

<form id="searchbox_000299817191393086628:ifmbhlr-8x0" action="../utility/search.htm">
  <!-- Hidden Inputs -->
  <input type="hidden" name="safe" value="active">
  <input type="hidden" name="cx" value="000299817191393086628:ifmbhlr-8x0">
  <input type="hidden" name="cof" value="FORID:9">
  <!-- Search Box -->
  <label for="searchQuery" id="searchQueryLabel">Search:</label>
  <input id="searchQuery" name="q" type="text" size="25" aria-labelledby="searchQueryLabel">
  <!-- Submit Button -->
  <label for="submitButton" id="submitButtonLabel" class="visually-hidden">Submit Search</label>
  <input id="submitButton" type="submit" name="sa" value="Search" aria-labelledby="submitButtonLabel">
</form>

Text Content

 

Search: Submit Search



 Home   Encyclopedia   Summa   Fathers   Bible   Library 

 A  B  C  D  E  F  G  H  I  J  K  L  M  N  O  P  Q  R  S  T  U  V  W  X  Y  Z 


Home > Catholic Encyclopedia > T > Thomism


THOMISM

Please help support the mission of New Advent and get the full contents of this
website as an instant download. Includes the Catholic Encyclopedia, Church
Fathers, Summa, Bible and more — all for only $19.99...

In a broad sense, Thomism is the name given to the system which follows the
teaching of St. Thomas Aquinas in philosophical and theological questions. In a
restricted sense the term is applied to a group of opinions held by a school
called Thomistic, composed principally, but not exclusively, of members of the
Order of St. Dominic, these same opinions being attacked by other philosophers
or theologians, many of whom profess to be followers of St. Thomas.

 * To Thomism in the first sense are opposed, e.g., the Scotists, who deny that
   satisfaction is a part of the proximate matter (materia proxima) of the
   Sacrament of Penance. Anti-Thomists, in this sense of the word, reject
   opinions admittedly taught by St. Thomas.
 * To Thomism in the second sense are opposed, e.g. the Molinists, as well as
   all who defend the moral instrumental causality of the sacraments in
   producing grace against the system of physical instrumental causality, the
   latter being a doctrine of the Thomistic School.

Anti-Thomism in such cases does not necessarily imply opposition to St. Thomas:
It means opposition to tenets of the Thomistic School. Cardinal Billot, for
instance, would not admit that he opposed St. Thomas by rejecting the Thomistic
theory on the causality of the sacraments. In the Thomistic School, also, we do
not always find absolute unanimity. Bañez and Billuart do not always agree with
Cajetan, though all belong to the Thomistic School. It does not come within the
scope of this article to determine who have the best right to be considered the
true exponents of St. Thomas.



The subject may be treated under the following headings:

> I. Thomism in general, from the thirteenth century down to the nineteenth;
> II. The Thomistic School;
> III. Neo-Thomism and the revival of Scholasticism.
> IV. Eminent Thomists


THE DOCTRINE IN GENERAL


EARLY OPPOSITION OVERCOME

Although St. Thomas (d. 1274) was highly esteemed by all classes, his opinions
did not at once gain the ascendancy and influence which they acquired during the
first half of the fourteenth century and which they have since maintained.
Strange as it may appear, the first serious opposition came from Paris, of which
he was such an ornament, and from some of his own monastic brethren. In the year
1277 Stephen Tempier, Bishop of Paris, censured certain philosophical
propositions, embodying doctrines taught by St. Thomas, relating especially to
the principle of individuation and to the possibility of creating several angels
of the same species. In the same year Robert Kilwardby, a Dominican, Archbishop
of Canterbury, in conjunction with some doctors of Oxford, condemned those same
propositions and moreover attacked St. Thomas's doctrine of the unity of the
substantial form in man. Kilwardby and his associates pretended to see in the
condemned propositions something of Averroistic Aristoteleanism, whilst the
secular doctors of Paris had not fully forgiven one who had triumphed over them
in the controversy as to the rights of the mendicant friars. The storm excited
by these condemnations was of short duration. Blessed Albertus Magnus, in his
old age, hastened to Paris to defend his beloved disciple. The Dominican Order,
assembled in general chapter at Milan in 1278 and at Paris in 1279, adopted
severe measures against the members who had spoken injuriously of the venerable
Brother Thomas. When William de la Mare, O.S.F., wrote a "Correptorium fratris
Thomæ", an English Dominican, Richard Clapwell (or Clapole), replied in a
treatise "Contra corruptorium fratris Thomae". About the same time there
appeared a work, which was afterwards printed at Venice (1516) under the title,
"Correctorium corruptorii S. Thomae", attributed by some to Ægidius Romanus, by
others to Clapwell, by others to Father John of Paris. St. Thomas was solemnly
vindicated when the Council of Vienna (1311-12) defined, against Peter John
Olivi, that the rational soul is the substantial form of the human body (on this
definition see Zigliara, "De mente Conc. Vicnn.", Rome, 1878). The canonization
of St. Thomas by John XXII, in 1323, was a death-blow to his detractors. In 1324
Stephen de Bourret, Bishop of Paris, revoked the censure pronounced by his
predecessor, declaring that "that blessed confessor and excellent doctor, Thomas
Aquinas, had never believed, taught, or written anything contrary to the Faith
or good morals". It is doubtful whether Tempier and his associates acted in the
name of the University of Paris, which had always been loyal to St. Thomas. When
this university, in 1378, wrote a letter condemning the errors of John de
Montesono, it was explicitly declared that the condemnation was not aimed at St.
Thomas: "We have said a thousand times, and yet, it would seem, not often
enough, that we by no means include the doctrine of St. Thomas in our
condemnation." An account of these attacks and defences will be found in the
following works: Echard, "Script. ord. prad.", I, 279 (Paris, 1719); De Rubeis,
"Diss. crit.", Diss. xxv, xxvi, I, p. cclxviii; Leonine edit. Works of St.
Thomas; Denifle, "Chart. univ. Paris" (Paris, 1890-91), I, 543, 558, 566; II, 6,
280; Duplessis d'Argentré, "Collectio judiciorum de novis erroribus" (3 vols.,
Paris, 1733-36), 1, 175 sqq.; Du Boulay, "Hist. univ. Par.", IV, 205, 436, 618,
622, 627; Jourdain, "La phil. de S. Thomas d'Aquin" (Paris, 1858), II, i;
Douais, "Essai sur l'organization des études dans l'ordre des ff. prêcheurs"
(Paris and Toulouse, 1884), 87 sqq.; Mortier, "Hist. des maîtres gén. de l'ordre
des ff. prêch.", II, 115142, 571; "Acta cap. gen. ord. praed.", ed. Reichert (9
vols., Rome, 1893-1904, II; Turner, "Hist. of Phil." (Boston, 1903), xxxix.




PROGRESS OF THOMISM

The general chapter of the Dominican Order, held at Carcassonne in 1342,
declared that the doctrine of St. Thomas had been received as sound and solid
throughout the world (Douais, op. cit., 106). His works were consulted from the
time they became known, and by the middle of the fourteenth century his "Summa
Theologica" had supplanted the "Libri quatuor sententiarum", of Peter Lombard as
the text-book of theology in the Dominican schools. With the growth of the order
and the widening of its influence Thomism spread throughout the world; St.
Thomas became the great master in the universities and in the studia of the
religious orders (see Encyc. "Aeterni Patris" of Leo XIII). The fifteenth and
sixteenth centuries saw Thomism in a triumphal march which led to the crowning
of St. Thomas as the Prince of Theologians, when his "Summa was laid beside the
Sacred Scriptures at the Council of Trent, and St. Pius V, in 1567, proclaimed
him a Doctor of the Universal Church. The publication of the "Piana" edition of
his works, in 1570, and the multiplication of editions of the "Opera omnia" and
of the "Summa" during the seventeenth century and part of the eighteenth show
that Thomism flourished during that period. In fact it was during that period
that some of the great commentators (for example, Francisco Suárez, Sylvius, and
Billuart) adapted his works to the needs of the times.


DECLINE OF SCHOLASTICISM AND OF THOMISM

Gradually, however, during the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, there came
a decline in the study of the works of the great Scholastics. Scholars believed
that there was need of a new system of studies, and, instead of building upon
and around Scholasticism, they drifted away from it. The chief causes which
brought about the change were Protestantism, Humanism, the study of nature, and
the French Revolution. Positive theology was considered more necessary in
discussions with the Protestants than Scholastic definitions and divisions.
Elegance of diction was sought by the Humanists in the Greek and Latin classics,
rather than in the works of the Scholastics, many of whom were far from being
masters of style. The discoveries of Copernicus (d. 1543), Kepler (d. 1631),
Galileo (d. 1642), and Newton (d. 1727) were not favourably received by the
Scholastics. The experimental sciences were in honour; the Scholastics including
St. Thomas, were neglected (cf. Turner, op cit., 433). Finally, the French
Revolution disorganized all ecclesiastical studies, dealing to Thomisn a blow
from which it did not fully recover until the last quarter of the nineteenth
century. At the time when Billuart (d. 1757) published his "Summa Sancti Thoma
hodiernis academiarum moribus accomodata" Thomism still held an important place
in all theological discussion. The tremendous upheaval which disturbed Europe
from 1798 to 1815 affected the Church as well as the State. The University of
Louvain, which had been largely Thomistic, was compelled to close its doors, and
other important institutions of learning were either closed or seriously
hampered in their work. The Dominican Order, which naturally had supplied the
most ardent Thomists, was crushed in France, Germany, Switzerland, and Belgium.
The province of Holland was almost destroyed, whilst the provinces of Austria
and Italy were left to struggle for their very existence. The University of
Manila (1645) continued to teach the doctrines of St. Thomas and in due time
gave to the world Cardinal Zephyrinus González, O.P., who contributed in no
small degree to the revival of Thomism under Leo XIII.


DISTINCTIVE DOCTRINES OF THOMISM IN GENERAL

(1) In Philosophy

 * The angels and human souls are without matter, but every material composite
   being (compositum) has two parts, prime matter and substantial form. In a
   composite being which has substantial unity and is not merely an aggregate of
   distinct units, there can be but one substantial form. The substantial form
   of man is his soul (anima rationalis) to the exclusion of any other soul and
   of any other substantial form. The principle of individuation, for material
   composites, is matter with its dimensions: without this there can be no
   merely numerical multiplication: distinction in the form makes specific
   distinction: hence there cannot be two angels of the same species.
 * The essences of things do not depend on the free will of God, but on His
   intellect, and ultimately on His essence, which is immutable. The natural
   law, being derived from the eternal law, depends on the mind of God,
   ultimately on the essence of God; hence it is intrinsically immutable. Some
   actions are forbidden by God because they are bad: they are not bad simply
   because He forbids them [see Zigliara, "Sum. phil." (3 vols., Paris, 1889),
   ccx, xi, II, M. 23, 24, 25].
 * The will moves the intellect quoad exercitium, i.e. in its actual operation:
   the intellect moves the will quoad specificationem, i.e. by presenting
   objects to it: nil volitum nisi praecognitum. The beginning of all our acts
   is the apprehension and desire of good in general (bonum in communi). We
   desire happiness (bonum in communi) naturally and necessarily, not by a free
   deliberate act. Particular goods (bona particularia) we choose freely; and
   the will is a blind faculty, always following the last practical judgment of
   the intellect (Zigliara, 51).
 * The senses and the intellect are passive, i.e. recipient, faculties; they do
   not create, but receive (i.e. perceive) their objects (St. Thomas, I, Q.
   lxxviii, a. 3; Q. lxxix, a. 2; Zigliara, 26, 27). If this principle is borne
   in mind there is no reason for Kant's "Critique of Pure Reason". On the other
   hand those faculties are not like wax, or the sensitive plate used by
   photographers, in the sense that they are inert and receive impressions
   unconsciously. The will controls the exercise of the faculties, and the
   process of acquiring knowledge is a vital process: the moving cause is always
   within the living agent.
 * The Peripatetic axiom: "Nihil est in intellectu quod non prius in sensu"
   (Nothing is in the intellect that was not first in the senses), is admitted;
   but St. Thomas modifies it by saying: first, that, once the sense objects
   have been perceived, the intellect ascends to the knowledge of higher things,
   even of God; and, secondly, that the soul knows its own existence by itself
   (i.e. by its own act), although it knows its own nature only by reflection on
   its acts. Knowledge begins by sense perception, but the range of the
   intellect is far beyond that of the senses. In the soul as soon as it begins
   to act are found the first principles (prima principia) of all knowledge, not
   in the form of an objective illumination, but in the form of a subjective
   inclination to admit them on account of their evidence. As soon as they are
   proposed we see that they are true; there is no more reason for doubting them
   than there is for denying the existence of the sun when we see it shining
   (see Zigliara, op. cit., pp. 32-42).
 * The direct and primary object of the intellect is the universal, which is
   prepared and presented to the passive intellect (intellectus possibilis) by
   the active intellect (intellectus agens) which illuminates the phantasmata,
   or mental images, received through the senses, and divests them of all
   individuating conditions. This is called abstracting the universal idea from
   the phantasmata, but the term must not be taken in a materialistic sense.
   Abstraction is not a transferring of something from one place to another; the
   illumination causes all material and individuating conditions to disappear,
   then the universal alone shines out and is perceived by the vital action of
   the intellect (Q. lxxxiv, a. 4; Q. lxxxv, a. 1, ad lum, 3um, 4um). The
   process throughout is so vital, and so far elevated above material conditions
   and modes of action, that the nature of the acts and of the objects
   apprehended proves the soul to be immaterial and spiritual.
 * The soul, by its very nature, is immortal. Not only is it true that God will
   not annihilate the soul, but from its very nature it will always continue to
   exist, there being in it no principle of disintegration (Zigliara, p. 9).
   Hence human reason can prove the incorruptibility (i.e. immortality) of the
   soul.
 * The existence of God is not known by an innate idea, it cannot be proved by
   arguments a priori or a simultaneo; but it can be demonstrated by a
   posteriori arguments. Ontologism was never taught by St. Thomas or by
   Thomists (see Lepidi, "Exam. phil. theol. de ontologismo", Louvain, 1874, c.
   19; Zigliara, Theses I, VIII).
 * There are no human (i.e. deliberate) acts indifferent in individuo.



(2) In Theology

 * Faith and science, i.e. knowledge by demonstration, cannot co-exist in the
   same subject with regard to the same object (Zigliara, O, 32, VII); and the
   same is true of knowledge and opinion.
 * The metaphysical essence of God consists, according to some Thomists, in the
   intelligere actualissimum, i.e. fulness of pure intellection, according to
   others in the perfection of aseitas, i.e. in dependent existence (Zigliara,
   Th. VIII, IX).
 * The happiness of heaven, formally and in the ultimate analysis, consists in
   the vision, not in the fruition, of God.
 * The Divine attributes are distinguished from the Divine nature and from each
   other by a virtual distinction, i.e. by a distinctio rationis cum fundamento
   a parte rei. The distinctio actualis formalis of Scotus is rejected.
 * In attempting to explain the mystery of the Trinity — in as far as man can
   conceive it — the relations must be considered perfectiones simpliciter
   simplices, i.e. excluding all imperfection. The Holy Ghost would not be
   distinct from the Son if He did not proceed from the Son as well as from the
   Father.
 * The angels, being pure spirits, are not, properly speaking, in any place;
   they are said to be in the place, or in the places, where they exercise their
   activity (Summa, I, Q. lii, a. 1). Strictly speaking, there is no such thing
   as an angel passing from place to place; but if an angel wishes to exercise
   its activity first in Japan and afterwards in America, it can do so in two
   instants (of angelic time), and need not pass through the intervening space
   (Q. liii). St. Thomas does not discuss the question "How many angels can
   dance on the point of a needle?" He reminds us that we must not think of
   angels as if they were corporeal, and that, for an angel, it makes no
   difference whether the sphere of his activity be the point of a needle or a
   continent (Q. lii, a. 2). Many angels cannot be said to be in the same place
   at the same time, for this would mean that whilst one angel is producing an
   effect others could be producing the same effect at the same time. There can
   be but one angel in the same place at the same time (Q. lii, a. 3). The
   knowledge of the angels comes through ideas (species) infused by God (QQ. lv,
   a.2, lvii, a.2, lviii, a.7). They do not naturally know future contingents,
   the secrets of souls, or the mysteries of grace (Q. lvii, aa. 3, 45). The
   angels choose either good or evil instantly, and with full knowledge; hence
   their judgment is naturally final and irrevocable (Q. lxiv, a. 2).
 * Man was created in the state of sanctifying grace. Grace was not due to his
   nature, but God granted it to him from the beginning (I, Q. xcv, a. 1). So
   great was the perfection of man in the state of original justice, and so
   perfect the subjection of his lower faculties to the higher, that his first
   sin could not have been a venial sin (I-II:89:3).
 * It is more probable that the Incarnation would not have taken place had man
   not sinned (III, Q. i, a. 3). In Christ there were three kinds of knowledge:
   the scientia beata, i.e. the knowledge of things in the Divine Essence; the
   scientia infusa, i.e. the knowledge of things through infused ideas
   (species), and the scientia acquisita, i.e. acquired or experimental
   knowledge, which was nothing more than the actual experience of things which
   he already knew. On this last point St. Thomas, in the "Summa" (Q. ix, a. 4),
   explicitly retracts an opinion which he had once held (III Sent., d. 14, Q.
   iii, a. 3).
 * All sacraments of the New Law, including confirmation and extreme unction,
   were instituted immediately by Christ. Circumcision was a sacrament of the
   Old Law and conferred grace which removed the stain of original sin. The
   children of Jews or of other unbelievers may not be baptized without the
   consent of their parents (III, Q. lxviii, a. 10; II-II, Q. x, a. 12;
   Denzinger-Bannwart, n. 1481). Contrition, confession, and satisfaction are
   the proximate matter (materia proxima) of the Sacrament of Penance. Thomists
   hold, against the Scotists, that when Transubstantiation takes place in the
   Mass the Body of Christ is not made present per modum adduclionis, i.e. is
   not brought to the altar, but they do not agree in selecting the term which
   should be used to express this action (cf. Billuart, "De Euchar.", Diss. i,
   a. 7). Cardinal Billot holds ("De eccl. sacr.", Rome, 1900, Th. XI, "De
   euchar.", p. 379) that the best, and the only possible, explanation is the
   one given by St. Thomas himself: Christ becomes present by
   transubstantiation, i.e. by the conversion of the substance of bread into the
   substance of His body (III, Q. lxxv, a. 4; Sent., d. XI, Q. i, a. 1, q. 1).
   After the consecration the accidents (accidentia) of the bread and wine are
   preserved by Almighty God without a subject (Q. lxxxvii, a. 1). It was on
   this question that the doctors of Paris sought enlightenment from St. Thomas
   (see Vaughan, "Life and Labours of St. Thomas", London, 1872, II, p. 544).
   The earlier Thomists, following St. Thomas (Suppl., Q. xxxvii, a. 2), taught
   that the sub-diaconate and the four minor orders were partial sacraments.
   Some recent Thomists — e.g., Billot (op. cit., p. 282) and Tanquerey (De
   ordine, n. 16) — defend this opinion as more probable and more in conformity
   with the definitions of the councils. The giving of the chalice with wine and
   of the paten with bread Thomists generally held to be an essential part of
   ordination to the priesthood. Some, however, taught that the imposition of
   hands was at least necessary. On the question of divorce under the Mosaic Law
   the disciples of St. Thomas, like the saint himself (Suppl., Q. lxvii, a. 3),
   wavered, some holding that a dispensation was granted, others teaching that
   divorce was merely tolerated in order to avoid greater evils.


THE THOMISTIC SCHOOL

The chief doctrines distinctive of this school, composed principally of
Dominican writers, are the following:


IN PHILOSOPHY

 1. The unity of substantial form in composite beings, applied to man, requires
    that the soul be the substantial form of the man, so as to exclude even the
    forma corporeitatis, admitted by Henry of Ghent, Scotus, and others (cf.
    Zigliara, P. 13; Denzinger-Bannwart, in note to n. 1655).
 2. In created beings there is a real distinction between the essentia (essence)
    and the existentia (existence); between the essentia and the subsistentia;
    between the real relation and its foundation; between the soul and its
    faculties; between the several faculties. There can be no medium between a
    distinctio realis and a distinctio rationis, or conceptual distinction;
    hence the distinctio formalis a parte rei of Scotus cannot be admitted. For
    Thomistic doctrines on free will, God's knowledge, etc., see below.


IN THEOLOGY

 1. In the beatific vision God's essence takes the place not only of the species
    impressa, but also of the species expressa.
 2. All moral virtues, the acquired as well as the infused, in their perfect
    state, are interconnected.
 3. According to Billuart (De pecc., diss. vii, a. 6), it has been a matter of
    controversy between Thomists whether the malice of a mortal sin is
    absolutely infinite.
 4. In choosing a medium between Rigorism and Laxism, the Thomistic school has
    been Antiprobabilistic and generally has adopted Probabiliorism. Some
    defended Equiprobabilism, or Probabilism cum compensatione. Medina and St.
    Antoninus are claimed by the Probabilists.
 5. Thomistic theologians generally, whilst they defended the infallibility of
    the Roman pontiff, denied that the pope had the power to dissolve a
    matrimonium ratum or to dispense from a solemn vow made to God. When it was
    urged that some popes had granted such favours, they cited other pontiffs
    who declared that they could not grant them (cf. Billuart, "De matrim.",
    Diss. v, a. 2), and said, with Dominic Soto, "Factum pontificium non facit
    articulum fidei" (The action of a pope does not constitute an article of
    faith, in 4 dist., 27, Q. i, a. 4). Thomists of today are of a different
    mind, owing to the practice of the Church.
 6. The hypostatic union, without any additional grace, rendered Christ
    impeccable. The Word was hypostatically united to the blood of Christ and
    remained united to it, even during the interval between His death and
    resurrection (Denzinger-Bannwart, n. 718). During that same interval the
    Body of Christ had a transitory form, called forma cadaverica (Zigliara, P.
    16, 17, IV).
 7. The sacraments of the New Law cause grace not only as instrumental moral
    causes, but by a mode of causality which should be called instrumental and
    physical. In the attrition required in the Sacrament of Penance there should
    be at least a beginning of the love of God; sorrow for sin springing solely
    from the fear of hell will not suffice.
 8. Many theologians of the Thomistic School, especially before the Council of
    Trent, opposed the doctrine of Mary's Immaculate Conception, claiming that
    in this they were following St. Thomas. This, however, has not been the
    opinion either of the entire school or of the Dominican Order as a body.
    Father Rouard de Card, in his book "L'ordre des freres precheurs et
    l'Immaculée Conception "(Brussels, 1864), called attention to the fact that
    ten thousand professors of the order defended Mary's great privilege. At the
    Council of Trent twenty-five Dominican bishops signed a petition for the
    definition of the dogma. Thousands of Dominicans, in taking degrees at the
    University of Paris, solemnly pledged themselves to defend the Immaculate
    Conception.
 9. The Thomistic School is distinguished from other schools of theology chiefly
    by its doctrines on the difficult questions relating to God's action on the
    free will of man, God's foreknowledge, grace, and predestination. In the
    articles on these subjects will be found an exposition of the different
    theories advanced by the different schools in their effort to explain these
    mysteries, for such they are in reality. As to the value of these theories
    the following points should be borne in mind:
     * No theory has as yet been proposed which avoids all difficulties and
       solves all doubts;
     * on the main and most difficult of these questions some who are at times
       listed as Molinists — notably Bellarmine, Francisco Suárez, Francis de
       Lugo, and, in our own days, Cardinal Billot ("De deo uno et trino", Rome,
       1902, Th. XXXII) — agree with the Thomists in defending predestination
       ante praevisa merita. Bossuet, after a long study of the question of
       physical premotion, adapted the Thomistic opinion ("Du libre arbitre", c.
       viii).
     * Thomists do not claim to be able to explain, except by a general
       reference to God's omnipotence, how man remains free under the action of
       God, which they consider necessary in order to preserve and explain the
       universality of God's causality and the independent certainty of His
       foreknowledge. No man can explain, except by a reference to God's
       infinite power, how the world was created out of nothing, yet we do not
       on this account deny creation, for we know that it must be admitted. In
       like manner the main question put to Thomists in this controversy should
       be not "How will you explain man's liberty?" but "What are your reasons
       for claiming so much for God's action?" If the reasons assigned are
       insufficient, then one great difficulty is removed, but there remains to
       be solved the problem of God's foreknowledge of man's free acts. If they
       are valid, then we must accept them with their necessary consequences and
       humbly confess our inability fully to explain how wisdom "reacheth . . .
       from end to end mightily, and ordereth all things sweetly" (Wisdom 8:1).
     * Most important of all, it must be clearly understood and remembered that
       the Thomistic system on predestination neither saves fewer nor sends to
       perdition more souls than any other system held by Catholic theologians.
       In regard to the number of the elect there is no unanimity on either
       side; this is not the question in dispute between the Molinists and the
       Thomists. The discussions, too often animated and needlessly sharp,
       turned on this point: How does it happen that, although God sincerely
       desires the salvation of all men, some are to be saved, and must thank
       God for whatever merits they may have amassed, whilst others will be
       lost, and will know that they themselves, and not God, are to be blamed?
       — The facts in the case are admitted by all Catholic theologians. The
       Thomists, appealing to the authority of St. Augustine and St. Thomas,
       defend a system which follows the admitted facts to their logical
       conclusions. The elect are saved by the grace of God, which operates on
       their wills efficaciously and infallibly without detriment to their
       liberty; and since God sincerely desires the salvation of all men, He is
       prepared to grant that same grace to others, if they do not, by a free
       act, render themselves unworthy of it. The faculty of placing obstacles
       to Divine grace is the unhappy faculty of sinning; and the existence of
       moral evil in the world is a problem to be solved by all, not by the
       Thomists alone. The fundamental difficulties in this mysterious question
       are the existence of evil and the non-salvation of some, be they few or
       be they many, under the rule of an omnipotent, all-wise, and all-merciful
       God, and they miss the point of the controversy who suppose that these
       difficulties exist only for the Thomists. The truth is known to lie
       somewhere between Calvinism and Jansenism on the one hand, and
       Semipelagianism on the other. The efforts made by theologians and the
       various explanations offered by Augustinians, Thomists, Molinists, and
       Congruists show how difficult of solution are the questions involved.
       Perhaps we shall never know, in this world, how a just and merciful God
       provides in some special manner for the elect and yet sincerely loves all
       men. The celebrated Congregatio de Auxiliis did not forever put an end to
       the controversies, and the question is not yet settled.


NEO-THOMISM AND THE REVIVAL OF SCHOLASTICISM

When the world in the first part of the nineteenth century began to enjoy a
period of peace and rest after the disturbances caused by the French Revolution
and the Napoleonic Wars, closer attention was given to ecclesiastical studies
and Scholasticism was revived. This movement eventually caused a revival of
Thomism, because the great master and model proposed by Leo XIII in the
encyclical "Aeterni Patris" (4 Aug., 1879) was St. Thomas Aquinas. . . . The
Thomistic doctrine had received strong support from the older universities.
Among these the Encyclical "Aeterni Patris" mentions Paris, Salamanca, Alcalá
Douai, Toulouse, Louvain, Padua, Bologna, Naples, and Coimbra as "the homes of
human wisdom where Thomas reigned supreme, and the minds of all, teachers as
well as taught, rested in wonderful harmony under the shield and authority of
the Angelic Doctor". In the universities established by the Dominicans at Lima
(1551) and Manila (1645) St. Thomas always held sway. The same is true of the
Minerva school at Rome (1255), which ranked as a university from the year 1580,
and is now the international Collegio Angelico. Coming down to our own times and
the results of the Encyclical, which gave a new impetus to the study of St.
Thomas's works, the most important centres of activity are Rome, Louvain,
Fribourg (Switzerland), and Washington. At Louvain the chair of Thomistic
philosophy, established in 1880, became, in 1889-90, the "Institut supérieur de
philosophie" or "Ecole St. Thomas d'Aquin," where Professor Mercier, now
Cardinal Archbishop of Mechlin, ably and wisely directed the new Thomistic
movement (see De Wulf, "Scholasticism Old and New", tr. Coffey, New York, 1907,
append., p. 261; "Irish Ecel. Record", Jan. 1906). The theological department of
the University of Fribourg, Switzerland, established in 1889, has been entrusted
to the Dominicans. By the publication of the "Revue thomiste" the professors of
that university have contributed greatly to a new knowledge and appreciation of
St. Thomas. The Constitution of the Catholic University of America at Washington
enjoins special veneration for St. Thomas; the School of Sacred Sciences must
follow his leadership ("Const. Cath. Univ. Amer.", Rome, 1889, pp. 38, 43). The
University of Ottawa and Laval University are the centres of Thomism in Canada.
The appreciation of St. Thomas in our days, in Europe and in America, is well
set forth in Perrier's excellent "Revival of Scholastic Philosophy in the
Nineteenth Century" (New York, 1909).




EMINENT THOMISTS

After the middle of the fourteenth century the vast majority of philosophical
and theological writers either wrote commentaries on the works of St. Thomas or
based their teachings on his writings. It is impossible, therefore, to give here
a complete list of the Thomists: only the more important names can be given.
Unless otherwise noted, the authors belonged to the Order of St. Dominic. Those
marked (*) were devoted to Thomism in general, but were not of the Thomistic
School. A more complete list will be found in the works cited at the end of this
article.


THIRTEENTH CENTURY

Thomas de Cantimpré (1270); Hugh of St. Cher (1263); Vincent of Bauvais (1264);
St. Raymond de Pennafort (1275); Peter of Tarentaise (Pope Innocent V — 1276);
Giles de Lassines (1278); Reginald de Piperno (1279); William de Moerbeka
(1286); Raymond Marti (1286); Bernard de Trilia (1292); Bernard of Hotun, Bishop
of Dublin (1298); Theodoric of Apoldia (1299); Thomas Sutton (1300).


FOURTEENTH CENTURY

Peter of Auvergne (1301); Nicholas Boccasini, Benedict XI (1304); Godfrey of
Fontaines (1304); Walter of Winterburn (1305); Ægidius Colonna (Aigidius
Romanus), O.S.A (1243-1316); William of Paris (1314); Gerard of Bologna,
Carmelite (1317); four biographers, viz Peter Calo (1310); William de Tocco
(1324); Bartolommeo of Lucca (1327); Bernard Guidonis* (1331); Dante (1321);
Natalis Hervieus (1323); Petrus de Palude (Paludanusi — 1342); Thomas
Bradwardin, Archbishop of Canterbury (1349); Robert Holkott (1349); John Tauler
(1361); Bl. Henry Suso (1365); Thomas of Strasburg, O.S.A. (1357); Jacobus
Passavante (1357); Nicholas Roselli (1362); Durandus of Aurillac (1382),
sometimes called Durandulus, because he wrote against Durandus a S. Portiano*,
who was first a Thomist, afterwards an independent writer, attacking many of St.
Thomas's doctrines; John Bromyard (1390); Nicholas Eymeric (1399).


FIFTEENTH CENTURY

Manuel Calecas (1410); St. Vincent Ferrer (1415); Bl. John Dominici (1419); John
Gerson*, chancellor of the University of Paris (1429); Luis of Valladolid
(1436); Raymond Sabunde (1437); John Nieder (1437); Capreolus (1444), called the
"Prince of Thomists"; John de Montenegro (1445); Fra Angelico (1455); St.
Antoninus (1459); Nicholas of Cusa*, of the Brothers of the Common Life (1464);
John of Torquemada (de Turrecrematai, 1468); Bessarion, Basilian (1472); Alanus
de Rupe (1475); John Faber (1477); Petrus Niger (1471); Peter of Bergamo (1482);
Jerome Savonarola (1498).


SIXTEENTH CENTURY

Felix Faber (1502); Vincent Bandelli (1506); John Tetzel (1519); Diego de Deza
(1523); Sylvester Mazzolini (1523); Francesco Silvestro di Ferrara (1528);
Thomas de Vio Cajetan (1534) (commentaries by these two are published in the
Leonine edition of the works of St. Thomas); Conrad Koellin (1536); Chrysostom
Javelli (1538); Santes Pagnino (1541); Francisco de Vitoria (1546); Franc.
Romseus (1552); Ambrosius Catherinus* (Lancelot Politi, 1553); St. Ignatius of
Loyola (1556) enjoined devotion to St. Thomas; Matthew Ory (1557); Dominic Soto
(1560); Melchior Cano (1560); Ambrose Pelargus (1561); Peter Soto (1563); Sixtus
of Siena (1569); John Faber (1570); St. Pius V (1572); Bartholomew Medina
(1581); Vincent Justiniani (1582); Maldonatus* (Juan Maldonado, 1583); St.
Charles Borromeo* (1584); Salmerón* (1585); Ven. Louis of Granada (1588);
Bartholomew of Braga (1590); Toletus* (1596); Bl. Peter Canisius* (1597); Thomas
Stapleton*, Doctor of Louvain (1598); Fonseca (1599); Molina* (1600).


SEVENTEENTH CENTURY

Valentia* (1603); Domingo Bañez (1604); Vásquez* (1604); Bart. Ledesma (1604);
Sánchez* (1610); Baronius * (1607); Capponi a Porrecta (1614); Aur. Menochio *
(1615); Petr. Ledesma (1616); Francisco Suárez* (1617); Du Perron, a converted
Calvinist, cardinal (1618); Bellarmine* (1621); St. Francis de Sales* (1622);
Hieronymus Medices (1622); Lessius* (1623); Becanus* (1624); Malvenda (1628);
Thomas de Lemos (1629); Alvarez; Laymann* (1635); Joann. Wiggers*, doctor of
Louvain (1639); Gravina (1643); John of St. Thomas (1644); Serra (1647);
Ripalda*, S.J.* (1648); Sylvius (Du Bois), doctor of Douai (1649); Petavius*
(1652); Goar (1625); Steph. Menochio, S.J.* (1655); Franc. Pignatelli* (1656);
De Lugo* (1660); Bollandus* (1665); Jammy (1665); Vallgornera (1665); Labbe*
(1667); Pallavicini* (1667); Busenbaum* (1668); Nicolni* (1673); Contenson
(1674); Jac. Pignatelli* (1675); Passerini* (1677); Gonet (1681); Bancel (1685);
Thomassin* (1695); Goudin (1695); Sfrondati* (1696); Quetif (1698); Rocaberti
(1699); Casanate (1700). To this period belong the Carmelite Salmanticenses,
authors of the "Cursus theologicus" (1631-72).


EIGHTEENTH CENTURY

Guerinois (1703); Bossuet, Bishop of Meaux; Norisins, O.S.A. (1704); Diana
(1705); Thyrsus González* (1705); Massoulié (1706); Du hamel* (1706); Wigandt
(1708); Piny (1709); Lacroix* (1714); Carrières* (1717); Natalis Alexander
(1724); Echard (1724); Tourney*, doctor of the Sorbonne (1729); Livarius de
Meyer* (1730); Benedict XIII* (1730); Graveson (1733); Th. du Jardin (1733);
Hyacintha Serry (1738); Duplessis d'Argentré* (1740); Gotti (1742); Drouin*
(1742); Antoine* (1743); Lallemant* (1748); Milante* (1749); Preingue (1752);
Concina (1759); Billuart (1757); Benedict XIV* (1758); Cuiliati (1759); Orsi
(1761); Charlevoix* (1761); Reuter* (1762); Baumgartner* (1764); Berti* (1766);
Patuzzi (1769); De Rubeis (1775); Touron (1775); Thomas de Burgo (1776); Gener*
(1781); Roselli (1783); St. Alphonsus Liguori (1787); Mamachi (1792); Richard
(1794).


NINETEENTH CENTURY

In this century there are few names to be recorded outside of those who were
connected with the Thomistic revival either as the forerunners, the promoters,
or the writers of the Neo-Scholastic period.




ABOUT THIS PAGE

APA citation. Kennedy, D. (1912). Thomism. In The Catholic Encyclopedia. New
York: Robert Appleton Company. http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14698b.htm

MLA citation. Kennedy, Daniel. "Thomism." The Catholic Encyclopedia. Vol. 14.
New York: Robert Appleton Company, 1912.
<http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14698b.htm>.

Transcription. This article was transcribed for New Advent by Kevin Cawley.

Ecclesiastical approbation. Nihil Obstat. July 1, 1912. Remy Lafort, S.T.D.,
Censor. Imprimatur. +John Cardinal Farley, Archbishop of New York.

Contact information. The editor of New Advent is Kevin Knight. My email address
is webmaster at newadvent.org. Regrettably, I can't reply to every letter, but I
greatly appreciate your feedback — especially notifications about typographical
errors and inappropriate ads.

Copyright © 2023 by New Advent LLC. Dedicated to the Immaculate Heart of Mary.

CONTACT US | ADVERTISE WITH NEW ADVENT