Thomism

I. The Doctrine in General.

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.

A. Thomism 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 Thom~", 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,