A Calling Card from Thomas Zigliara, OP

A Calling Card from Thomas Zigliara, OP

Link to Thomistica.net post.

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.

117th Anniversary of the Death of Cardinal Zigliara

117th Anniversary of the Death of Cardinal Zigliara

From Tommaso Zigliara, OP - Summa Philosophica, Vol. 1, pp. 1-2 (available through ITOPL):

Related Amazon.com links:

There Was Thomism Before Aeterni Patris

There Was Thomism Before Aeterni Patris

Thomas Cardinal Zigliara, OP (1833-1893) - Biography

From Cardinals of the Holy Roman Church

ZIGLIARA, O.P., Tommaso (1833-1893)

Birth. October 29, 1833, Bonifacio, diocese of Ajaccio, Corsica, France.

Education. Classical studies, Bonifacio; joined the Order of Preachers, 1851; religious profession, 1852; Dominican house of studies, Rome (philosophy); Dominican house of studies, Perugia (theology).

Priesthood. Ordained, May 17, 1856, Perugia, by Gioacchino Pecci, archbishop-bishop of Perugia, future Pope Leo XIII. Professor of philosophy in Rome and in Corbara, Corsica. Concurrently, faculty member, Seminary of Viterbo, and master of novices, Dominican convent of Gradi. Master of novices, Rome, and later, 1870-1879, faculty member of Dominican Collegio S. Tommaso della Minerva; rector, 1873-1879. Consultor of the SS. CC. of the Index and of Extraordinary Ecclesiastical Affairs.

Cardinalate. Created cardinal deacon in the consistory of May 12, 1879; received the red hat and the deaconry of Ss. Cosma e Damiano, May 15, 1879. In 1879 contributed to the writing of the encyclical Aeterni patris, restoring Thomism as the basis of Christian philosophy. Director of the Leonine Commission for the the edition of the works of St. Thomas Aquinas, 1880. Protector of the Bibliographic Society, Rome, July 4, 1885. Prefect of the S.C. of Indulgences and Relics, December 16, 1886. Prefect of the S.C. of Studies, October 28, 1887. In 1890 contributed to the writing of the encyclical Rerum novarum. Opted for the order of cardinal priests and the title of S. Prassede, June 1, 1891. Protector of the Theological Academy, Rome, April 12, 1892. He enjoyed world wide fame as a leading scholar in Thomistic philosophy and theology.

Episcopate. Elected bishop of the suburbicarian see of Frascati, January 16, 1893; died before receiving the episcopal consecration.

Death. May 10, 1893, Rome. Exposed in the Church of S. Maria sopra Minerva and buried in the chapel of the Dominican Friars, Campo Verano Cemetery, Rome.

Catholic Encyclopedia Article

Tommaso Maria Zigliara (Baptismal name, FRANCESCO).

Cardinal, theologian, and philosopher, b. at Bonifacio, a seaport town of Corsica, toward the end of October, 1833; d. in Rome, 11 May, 1893. His early Classical studies were made in his native town under the Jesuit teacher, Father Aloysius Piras. At the age of eighteen he was received into the Dominican Order at Rome, and in 1852 he made his religious profession. From the beginning Zigliara was a student of uncommon brilliancy. He studied philosophy in Rome and theology at Perugia, where, 17 May, 1856, he was ordained by Cardinal Joachim Pecci, then Archbishop of Perugia. Soon afterwards the young priest was appointed to teach philosophy, first in Rome, then at Corbara in his native Corsica, and later in the diocesan seminary, at Viterbo, being at the same time master of novices in the neighbouring convent at Gradi.

When his work at Viterbo was finished, he was called to Rome, again made master of novices, and shortly appointed regent, or head professor, of the Minerva college. Before assuming this latter duty, he was raised to the dignity of master in sacred theology. When his community was forced by the Italian Government in 1873 to give up the convent of the Minerva, Zigliara with other professors and students took refuge with the Fathers of the Holy Ghost, who had charge of the French College in Rome. Here the lectures were continued until a house near the Minerva was secured. Zigliara's fame was now widespread in Rome and elsewhere. French, Italian, German, English, and American bishops were eager to put some of their most promising students and young professors under his tuition. Between Cardinal Pecci, Archbishop of Perugia, and Zigliara there had existed for many years the closest friendship, and when the former became pope as Leo XIII, in his first consistory (1879) he created Zigliara a cardinal. Zigliara was first numbered among the cardinal-deacons, then he became a cardinal-priest, and in 1893 he was appointed Bishop of Frascati, one of the seven suburban sees; but, owing to the sickness which ended in his death, he never received episcopal consecration.

He was a member of seven Roman congregations, besides being prefect of the Congregation of Studies and co-president of the Academy of St. Thomas Aquinas. He was a man of deep piety and devotion, and a tireless student to the end of his life. In addition to his many duties as cardinal, he was entrusted with the superintendence of the Leonine edition of the works of St. Thomas, the first volume of which contains his own commentary. He also found time to publish his Propaedeutica ad Sacram Theologiam and to write an extensive work on the sacraments, of which only the tracts on baptism and penance received final revision before his death. The most important, however, of Zigliara's works is his Summa Philosophica, which enjoys a world-wide circulation. For many years this has been the textbook in a great number of the seminaries and colleges of Europe, Canada, and America; and not very long ago it was adopted as the textbook for the philosophical examination in the National University of Ireland. His other works are: Osservazioni su alcune interpretazioni di G.C. Ubaghs sull' ideologia di San Tommaso d'Aquino (Viterbo, 1870); Della luce intellettuale e dell' ontologismo secondo la dottrina di S. Bonaventura e Tommaso d'Aquino (2 vols., Rome, 1874); De mente Concilii Vienensis in definiendo dogmate unionis animae humanae cum corpore (1878); Commentaria S. Thomae in Aristotelis libros Peri Hermeneias et Posteriorum analyticorum, in fol. vol. I new edit. Opp. S. Thomae: (Rome, 1882); Saggio sui principi del tradizionalismo; Dimittatur e la spiegazione datane dalla S. Congregazione dell' Indice.

By his teaching and through his writings, he was one of the chief instruments, under Leo XIII, of reviving and propagating Thomistic philosophy throughout the entire Church. In his own order and in some universities and seminaries, the teaching of St. Thomas had never been interrupted, but it was reserved for Zigliara to give a special impetus to the movement which has made Thomistic philosophy and theology dominant in the Catholic world.

Existentialist Thomism: What to Read?

Existentialist Thomism: What to Read?

Quaeritur:

I was wondering if you know of any works in English which deal with the problem of existentialist Thomism from a more classical Thomist perspective. I am ordering a copy of The Sacred Monster of Thomism, which seems it may get into this issue to some extent in analyzing Father Garrigou-Lagrange's conflicts with Maritain, Gilson, Chenu, etc., but any other books you are aware of may be helpful. I am particularly interested in any works which may help to emphasize the balance of essence and existence in authentic Thomism as opposed to both the overemphasis on existence in existential Thomism and the overemphasis on logic and essences in essentialist Thomism. No need to fall into the essentialist errors which some of the more existentialist Thomists like to accuse authentic Thomism of.

Respondeo: I don't know of any works that BOTH explicitly contrast "Existentialist Thomism" with the more traditional Thomism of the manuals AND present the latter in a positive light. It would make sense to me that the sole reason why modern authors (last century) bring up the distinction between "Existentialist" and"Essentialist" Thomism is to show that either traditional Scholastic Thomism (supposedly the same as"Essentialist Thomism"), or both traditional and "Existentialist Thomism," don't work.

It is false, and even presumptious, to think that for 600-or-so years Thomists always fell into the error of "essentialism" until Fabro et al came along and removed our blinders. But it is equally false and presumptious to think that the truth lies somewhere in between, as if for 700-or-so years Thomists have always fell into either extreme of essentialist or existentialist Thomism, and that no one has ever found a "balance."

Rather, the truth lies in the consensus of Scholastic Thomists--not in what Fabro taught, not in what Cajetan taught (at least not in the exact way he taught it), but in what most Thomists have always taught. You will find this consensus in the traditional scholastic manuals and other similar scholastic works. So rather than telling you to read some "centrist" neo-Thomist, I would point you towards some of the best examples of traditional Thomism.

As I have mentioned in a previous post, the best idea, in my view, is to start by reading the traditional Thomistic philosophical manuals in Latin (e.g., Hugon, Gredt, Zigliara, etc., which I have available through my Ite ad Thomam Out-of-Print Library in PDF format).

If you can't manage the Latin, then I would refer you to:

• H.D. Gardeil, Introduction to the Philosophy of St.Thomas Aquinas (vol. 4 is on Metaphysics; and unfortunately it is also out of print, but I also have it available through my Ite ad Thomam Out-of-Print Library in PDF format).
• Garrigou-Lagrange, Reality, Ch. 4-5 (available online as text, as well as through the Ite ad Thomam Out-of-Print Library in PDF format).

or, if you can read French:

• Garrigou-Lagrange, Le sens commun: La philosophie de l'etre et les formules dogmatiques (also available through my Ite ad Thomam Out-of-Print Library in PDF format).

If you can read Latin, once you've gotten a good summary from the manuals or from any/all of these works, I would recommend tackling:

• Ramirez, De analogia, 4 vols (also available through my Ite ad Thomam Out-of-Print Library in PDF format). Ramirez's work is the most thorough discussion on analogy ever written from the traditional Thomistic point of view (painfully thorough, in fact).

And notice I don't initially recommend Cajetan. While Cajetan is the most famous commentator of the Summa, by no means are his views the very definition of "Thomism of the strict observance" (or, as I prefer to call it, traditional Scholastic Thomism). He is number one in the existentialists' list of "essentialist Thomists." And the reason is that Cajetan is perhaps a bit more an "essentialist" than the average--and certainly moreso than the best--traditional Scholastic Thomists. But it is an illegitimate move to lump Cajetan and the rest of the traditional Scholastic Thomists into one group, and then thinking that by refuting Cajetan one is refuting the entire school of Scholastic Thomists. The reality is more nuanced than that. Most Thomists don't put things in Cajetan's exact terms.

In fact, Garrigou-Lagrange, whose thought I DO consider to be the most advanced and profound expression of traditional Scholastic Thomism, sides with Cajetan in a qualified way only. Garrigou praises Cajetan over and over throughout his writings for his profound sense of mystery and says of him that, "[his] glory lies in his recognition of the true grandeur of St. Thomas." However, Garrigou acknowledges that Cajetan sometimes gets a bit hung up on logical abstractions, and every now and then you'll see Garrigou saying things such as, "Cajetan conceived the matter too abstractly." So, overall, he sides with Cajetan, but although Cajetan was usually right in Garrigou's view, things could nonetheless be expressed or conceived in a better or more adequate way. A bit like Aquinas, who treats Augustine with reverence and hides the fact that he disagrees with him, so Garrigou will do with Cajetan, to a lesser degree. In fact, you won't really see Garrigou-Lagrange flat-out rejecting the views of too many Thomists (Suarez's views were a definite exception, as he didn't consider Suarez to be a Thomist at all!), and this is partly because he revered them, partly because he practiced the axiom: seldom affirm, never deny, always distinguish.

PS. Pictured above are Cajetan and Luther. Cajetan was the Apostolic Legate to Germany and was commissioned by the Pope to confront Luther.