Search Results

This chapter shows three different stages of Newman's life across the 19th century. Whether as leader of the Oxford Movement, as founder of the Littlemore community and Birmingham Oratory, or eventually as Cardinal, each stage shaped his writing on the Alexandrian Fathers. The first period (broadly covering the 1830s) came to an end with Newman's alienation from the Anglican Church after Number 90 of the Tracts for the Times. The second period (the 1840s and 1850s) ended with alienation from the Catholic Church after ‘On Consulting the Faithful’, which forced Newman in the third period (the 1860s and 1870s) to turn to scholastic theology. By examining his view of doctrine in each period, a general introduction to Newman's writings on the Fathers is given.

Comparing Newman's earlier translation of Athanasius's anti-Arian works in A Library of the Fathers (1842–44) with his ‘free’ translation of Select Treatises (1881), this chapter charts the increasingly ‘Latin’ ways in which Newman came to read Alexandrian theology. It begins by showing that in Rome in 1846–47, Newman was challenged to make his reading of the Fathers accord specifically with the theology of the Roman schools. But Newman engaged with scholastic theology only from the 1860s, so that by the 1870s his theological style coincided with the interests of the new Pope, Leo XIII. In ‘Causes of Arianism’ (1872), Origen is seen through Aquinas's eyes. In his freer translation of Athanasius, moreover, it is not so much Thomas Aquinas but the neo-Thomism of the teachers of Leo XIII whom Newman read back into Athanasius.

This chapter examines the contribution of Marie‐Dominique Chenu, OP (1895‐1990), as the precursor of the ressourcement theology which led to the reforms of Vatican II. Chenu was crucial in the historical retrieval of theological sources which led to the nouvelle théologie. He promoted the ‘return to the sources’ studies of Thomas Aquinas in his intellectual and social context, rejecting the narrower post‐Tridentine tradition enshrined in ‘modern‐scholastic’ theology and provoking the radical renewal of Catholic theology. He was the teacher and colleague of Yves Congar, OP and of the Flemish Dominican Edward Schillebeeckx at Le Saulchoir. In Chenu's theological method the recent opposition posed between ressourcement and reform is overcome through his valuing of the traditional sources while advocating the historical locus of all theology.

This study looks at another aspect of the developments discussed in this book from the vantage point of the late 17th century. It notes the critical appropriation of categories from the older scholasticism and within the framework of the definitions examined, and argues against the fairly standard claim in much of the 20th-century scholarship that thinkers moved away from the perspectives of the Reformation into various forms of rationalism. In Protestant circles, particularly among the Reformed, Francis Turretin is virtually equated with “Protestant scholasticism”. His Institutio theologicae elencticae stands at the apex of the development of scholastic theology in the post-Reformation era, prior to the decline of the Protestant system.

This chapter argues that the humanist culture at the Roman Curia under Leo X offered strong support for Johannes Reuchlin's promotion of biblical scholarship and Jewish studies. On the other hand, Inquisitor General Hoogstraeten, who appealed the Speyer ruling to Rome, mustered heavy support from universities, the church hierarchy, the French crown, and even from (future) Emperor Charles V and (future) Pope Adrian VI. Initially, Hoogstraeten's partisans focused on the Jewish issues of the Reuchlin case and, only secondarily, on defending scholastic theology against humanist attacks. As the controversy persisted, several prominent Reuchlinists published defenses of his case that were notable for their hostility to Jewish interests, in essence creating a humanist anti-Semitic discourse; some even endorsed Christian study of Hebrew literature primarily to advance anti-Jewish missions. Moreover, after the 1514 Speyer decision and a highly favorable ruling from a Roman commission (1516), Reuchlinists focused their increasingly confident propaganda on humanism and opposition to scholastic theology (as in works by Desiderius Erasmus, Neuenahr, and Pirckheimer, and in the famous Letters of Obscure Men). Despite significant victories for the Reuchlinists, the anti-Reuchlinists continued to attract powerful support and generate a significant corpus of defenses of their anti-Jewish positions (including rejection of Christian Kabbalah) and scholastic theology.

This chapter focuses on issues that arose during Thomas Cranmer's stay at Cambridge University, and how these have helped establish Cranmer's beliefs regarding humanism and scholasticism. Since Cranmer was trained as a Scotist, he underwent the following teachings: first, he was taught to value human freedom as the highest faculty of the soul; second, he was taught that humans have the capacity to ‘love moral goodness for its own sake’; third, he was taught that salvation was a result of God's acceptance; and lastly, he would have been taught that salvation depended on God's plan of eternal life. Fisher, Cambridge's chancellor and leading Augustinian-influenced theologian, believed that his doctrine would help the penitent to become ‘good’. Cranmer, believing Fisher, was convinced more by Protestant interpretations.

The style, manner, and diversity of theological writing changed perceptibly in Europe around the middle of the 14th century, for reasons not entirely clear. Scholastic theology continued to be written, and indeed proliferated into the various competing schools of the late Middle Ages. However, alongside the traditional academic analysis of dogma there arose a significant literature of pastoral advice based on applied scholastic premises and arguments. Late scholastics did not all speak with a single voice. The different viae into which scholastic thought had fragmented by the 14th century gave different nuances and a subtly different vocabulary to writers from different schools. Additionally, the personalities, choices, and experiences of the various authors affected their style and accent quite visibly. This chapter focuses on those areas where, on the whole, there was some measure of agreement and resemblance between the various texts.

This chapter examines how Avery Dulles's life and career are, in many ways, a microcosm of the history and development of Catholic theology in the twentieth century. It has two parts: history, the events and institutions that Dulles was, in some way, part of, and theology, his own thought, as it developed in parallel with the history. The history can be divided into three eras. The first extends from the middle of the nineteenth century (even though Dulles was born in 1918) up to about 1960; Dulles was active toward the end of that era. The second is the era marked by the Second Vatican Council (1962–1965) and its aftermath. The third, the least clearly defined, began — for Dulles, at least — about twenty-five years after the Council. The era roughly from the middle of the nineteenth century to the middle of the twentieth has been called the Pian century. The characteristics of that century are easy to enumerate: neo-scholastic theology, taught in Latin in Rome and in most seminaries; resistance to, and anxiety about, modern culture, exemplified in the condemnation of rationalism and modernism; and fear of post-Kantian historicism, especially when applied to the Bible.

This chapter argues that the heritage of authoritative texts on superstitions tended to be fragmentary and unsystematic. The early medieval accounts anticipated many of the key principles and arguments of the later medieval analysis, but there was lacking a coherent and agreed ‘demonology’ that would explain how superstitious practices worked and what was wrong with them. That coherent explanation would emerge, in abundance, during the most productive period of medieval scholastic theology.

This chapter analyses the monetary theory of Gabriel Biel, professor of theology at the university of Tübingen at the end of the fifteenth century. Biel’s monetary deliberations form an integral part of his largest work by far, the Collectorium circa quattuor libros Sententiarum, a highly comprehensive compendium of scholastic theology and philosophy from a nominalist, Ockhamistic point of view. Accordingly, they are theological in nature, based on the concept of falseness and set in the specific context of sinful infliction of damage and compensation in view of penitence. The falsification of coins and other potentially falsifying actions involving money and coins are discussed. Biel’s core issue, however, is the alteration of coins and the sovereign’s right to alter coins so as to realize a profit. The chapter provides a detailed outline of the contents and investigates the sources Biel relies on and the concepts he is committed to.

This chapter offers an overview of the life and works of Robert Holcot. It first introduces the reader to Holcot’s historical biography, especially his Dominican education and training, his regency at Oxford, and his later work as a preacher. The chapter then provides a basic overview of Holcot’s corpus and the different genres of writing within that corpus. It focuses in particular on the three stages of his scholarly career and, broadly speaking, the various types of literary work he produced: scholastic literature, biblical commentaries, sermons, and preaching aids. Finally, the chapter offers the reader an overview of the basic structure and chapters of the book as a whole.

This chapter offers a comprehensive account of the relevant Patristic and Medieval background to debates surrounding the communicatio idiomatum. It focuses on the nature and grounding of the hypostatic union, and provides a taxonomy of different Christological semantics, in order to identify the precise views adopted by the protagonists in the debates. It suggests that a fundamental fault line in Reformation debates lies between those theologians who accept that the divine person is the ontological bearer of his human accidents, and those who do not. It also provides an extensive introduction to the varieties of theorizing found in relation to the communicatio idiomatum itself.

This chapter begins by observing the important precedent that patristic and medieval theology played in the development of Protestant theology, especially in Britain during the early modern period. It observes that early modern debates regarding the extent of Christ’s atoning work were, in many ways, grounded on the catholicity of one’s position. More important, this chapter surveys John Davenant’s own understanding of the history of the doctrine as it was exposited and debated in the patristic and medieval period. The final section of the chapter focuses on the so-called Lombardian formula and the scholastic consensus on the extent of Christ’s death.