Strict-observance Thomism
| Also called | Strict observance; observant or commentatorial Thomism |
|---|---|
| Characteristic authorities | Cajetan; John of St. Thomas; the twenty-four theses of 1914 |
| Typical theses | Real distinction; analogy of proportionality; often physical premotion in the theology of grace |
| Doctrinal standing | A school method; not a defined system |
Strict-observance Thomism is the current that receives Saint Thomas through the classical Dominican commentators and the Leonine pedagogical theses, treating fidelity to that commentatorial synthesis as the ordinary meaning of teaching ad mentem Sancti Thomae.[1][2]
Observance as a school word
Strict observance, in this use, does not mean a religious congregation's discipline of poverty or enclosure. It means a theological method that observes the classical commentators as the ordinary interpreters of Thomas. Cajetan on the Summa, Ferrariensis on the contra Gentiles, Báñez and John of St. Thomas on philosophy and theology, became the measure of what a Thomist was expected to say. The twenty-four theses of 1914 then offered a compact philosophical syllabus of that observance.
The name is often used by later writers to distinguish this current from existential, transcendental, historical, or analytical retrievals. It can be used fairly or as a taunt. Fair use names a real family: manuals, defended theses, suspicion of Kantian starting points, and a preference for the commentatorial account of analogy, esse, and grace. Unfair use treats every close reader of Cajetan as a man who has never opened Thomas.
What is characteristically observed
Typical positions include the real distinction of essence and existence in creatures, the analogy of proper proportionality, a strong reading of act and potency, and, in the theology of grace, a Bañezian account of physical premotion. None of those positions is a dogma simply as a school thesis. Some of them serve dogmas closely: the real distinction serves creation and simplicity; premotion is one attempt to serve the necessity of grace and the reality of freedom.
Doctoris Angelici required teaching according to the principles of Aquinas. Strict-observance Thomists took that motu proprio as a warrant for the commentatorial package. Other Thomists took it as a warrant to return to the Leonine text even when a commentator had to be corrected. Both readings are Catholic arguments about how to obey a papal pedagogical law. Neither reading is itself that law.[1]
Contrast with later retrievals
Existential Thomists argued that some commentators had underplayed esse as intensive act. Transcendental Thomists began from the dynamism of the intellect. Historical Thomists insisted on Thomas's own order and sources. River Forest and Laval currents restored the philosophy of nature. Strict observance often judged those moves as departures. The judged often answered that observance had frozen a sixteenth- or seventeenth-century Thomas.[2]
The argument is not settled by calling one side 'traditional' and the other 'modernist.' Pascendi condemned Modernism; it did not canonize every later manual. Fides et Ratio commends Thomas and allows philosophical plurality under the faith. A strict-observance thesis can be true. A retrieval can be faithful. Each must be shown from the texts and from the Magisterium, not from the temperature of the adjective 'strict.'[3]
Measure under the Magisterium
Where the Church has defined, the definition governs. Where she has commended Thomas, the commendation is real. Where she has left a question open—as in the de Auxiliis controversy—observance may hold its school opinion without making the contrary opinion a heresy. Donum Veritatis is the Catholic reminder that a school is not a second Holy Office.[4][5]
Strict-observance Thomism has formed saints, pastors, and teachers. It has also, at times, spoken as if commentary were revelation. The first is its honor. The second is its temptation. The Common Doctor remains the measure, the Leonine text remains the text, and the Creed remains the Creed. Observance is a way of reading. It is not a fourth vow of the Church.[2]
References
- Back to citation occurrence 1.0 Back to citation occurrence 1.1 Pius X, Doctoris Angelici — Motu proprio requiring that philosophy in ecclesiastical schools be taught according to the principles of Aquinas.
- Back to citation occurrence 2.0 Back to citation occurrence 2.1 Back to citation occurrence 2.2 Catholic Encyclopedia (1913), Thomism — Public-domain historical account of Thomist principles, commentators, schools, and the Leonine restoration.
- Back to citation John Paul II, Fides et Ratio — Encyclical on the harmony of faith and reason, the enduring value of Aquinas, and legitimate philosophical plurality under the Magisterium.
- Back to citation Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Donum Veritatis — Instruction on the ecclesial vocation of the theologian, distinguishing research, schools of thought, and the Magisterium.
- Back to citation Leo XIII, Aeterni Patris — Encyclical restoring Christian philosophy in the school of Thomas Aquinas while distinguishing that commendation from a definition of every Thomistic thesis.