CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: THOMISM

Thomism

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. Baflez 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

I. THE DOCTRINE IN GENERAL

 A. 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 Thomae", 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 AEgidius  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'Argentre, "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 etudes dans  l'ordre des ff. precheurs" (Paris and Toulouse,
1884), 87 sqq.;  Mortier, "Hist. des maitres gen. de l'ordre des ff.  prech.", II, 115142, 571;
"Acta cap. gen. ord. praed.", ed.  Reichert (9 vols., Rome, 1893-1904, II; Turner, "Hist. of
Phil."  (Boston, 1903), xxxix.

 B. 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, Suarez, Sylvius, and Billuart)  adapted his works to the needs of the times.

 C. 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  dietion 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 th last quarter of the nineteenth century. At the  tim 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 Gonzalez, O.P., who  contributed in no small degree to
the revival of Thomism under Leo  XIII.

 D. Distinctive Doctrines of Thomism in General

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 photog raphers, 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
refiection 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 matrialistic 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 per fection
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 venia] sin  (I-II, Q. lxxxix, a. 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;  11-Il, 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
("Dc cccl. sacr.", Rome, 1900,  Th. XI, "Dc 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:

A. In Philosophy

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).

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.

 B. In Theology

In the beatific vision God's essence takes the place not only of  the <species impressa>,
but also of the <species expressa>.

All moral virtues, the acquired as well as the infused, in their  perfect state, are
interconneted.

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.

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  cornpensatione>. Medina and St. Antoninus
are claimed by the  Probabilists.

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 to-day are of a different mind,
owing to the practice  of the Church.

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).

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.

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'Immaculee 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.

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:<ul>

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, Suarez, 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" (Wis., viii, 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> (q.v.) did not
forever put an end to the  controversies, and the question is not yet settled.

III. 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 encyclicai "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, Alcala  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 superieur 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).

IV. 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 Cantimpre (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); AEgidius 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); Melehior 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); Salmeron* (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 Baflez (1604);  Vasquez* (1604); Bart.
Ledesma (1604); Sanchez* (1610);  Baronius * (1607); Capponi a Porrecta (1614); Aur.
Menochio * (1615);  Petr. Ledesma (1616); Suarez* (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 Gonzalez* (1705);  Massoulie (1706); Du hamel* (1706);
Wigandt (1708); Piny (1709);  Lacroix* (1714); Carrieres* (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'Argentre* (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. Aiphonsus 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  NeoScholastic period.

D.J. KENNEDY

Transcribed by Kevin Cawley

Taken from the New Advent Web Page (www.knight.org/advent).

This article is part of the Catholic Encyclopedia Project, an effort aimed at placing the
entire Catholic Encyclopedia on the World Wide Web. The coordinator is Kevin Knight,
editor of the New Advent Catholic Website. If you would like to contribute to this
worthwhile project, you can contact him by e-mail at ([email protected]). For
more information please download the file cathen.txt/.zip.

-------------------------------------------------------------------

  Provided courtesy of:

       Eternal Word Television Network
       PO Box 3610
       Manassas, VA 22110
       Voice: 703-791-2576
       Fax: 703-791-4250
       Data: 703-791-4336
       Web: http://www.ewtn.com
       Ftp: ftp.ewtn.com
       Telnet: ewtn.com
       Email address: [email protected]

  EWTN provides a Catholic online
  information and service system.