Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-4hhp2 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-06-02T15:32:56.749Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Theological Exegesis and Aquinas's Treatise ‘against the Greeks’

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 July 2009

Mark D. Jordan
Mark D. Jordan
Affiliation:
Mr. Jordan is associate professor of liberal studies in Norte Dame University, Notre Dame, Indiana.
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

According to Pope Leo XIII, it could almost be said that Thomas Aquinas “presided” over the deliberations at Lyons (1274) and Florence (1438) when these councils confronted the Greek church.1 This judgment, which would be true at best and in part only for the later council, both enshrines and encourages a misreading of Thomas's short treatise Contra errores Graecorum. In fact, the Contra errores is neither as well informed nor as technically argued as other Latin polemics of the twelfth and thirteenth centuries. It is a treatise limited in form and argument, motivated by another, poorer treatise.

Type
Research Article
Information
Church History , Volume 56 , Issue 4 , December 1987 , pp. 445 - 456
Copyright
Copyright © American Society of Church History 1987

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1. Aeternia Patris (4 August 1879), in Acta Sanctae Sedis, 41 vols. (Rome, 1865–1908), 12 (1894): 110.Google Scholar

2. There are summary accounts in Dondaine, Antoine, “Nicolas de Cotrone et les sources du Contra errores Graecorum de Saint Thomas,” Divus Thomas 28 (1950): 313–340, esp. 339–340;Google Scholar in Palémon Glorieux's edition of the Contra errores Graecorum (hereafter CEG) (Tournai, 1957), pp. 5–7;Google Scholar and in Dondaine's, Antoine edition of the CEG for the Leonine edition of Opera omnia (Rome, 1969), 40: A18–A19.Google Scholar

3. Geanakoplos, Deno John, Emperor Michael Palaeologus and the West (Cambridge, Mass., 1959), pp. 139–143, 146–147, 175–180.Google Scholar

4. See, for example, Norden, Walter, Das Papsttum and Byzanz (Berlin, 1903; reprint ed., New York, 1958), pp. 399–433, esp. p. 420, n. 4;Google ScholarNicol, Donald M., “The Greeks and the Union of the Churches: The Preliminaries to the Second Council of Lyon, 1261–1274,” in Medieval Studies presented to Aubrey Gwynn, S.J., ed. Watt, J. A., Morrall, J. B., and Martin, F. X (Dublin, 1961), pp. 454–480, esp. 454–457;Google ScholarWolter, Hans and Holstein, Henri, Lyon I et Lyon II (Paris, 1966), pp. 140–142;Google ScholarRoberg, Burkhard, Die Union zwischen der griechischen und der lateinischen Kirche aufdem II. Konzil von Lyon (1274) (Bonn, 1964), pp. 91,250;Google ScholarStiernon, Daniel, “Le probléme de l'union gréco-latine vu de Byzance,” in 1274: Année charnière, Colloques internationaux du CNRS (Paris, 1977), pp. 152–156;Google ScholarGill, Joseph, Byzantium and the Papacy, 1198–1440 (New Brunswick, N.J., 1979), pp. 106–112.Google Scholar Studies on the council proliferate, particularly because of the recent availability of Greek sources; see the selection in Capizzi, Carmelo, “II II° Concilio di Lione e l'Unione del 1274: Saggio bibliografico,” Orientalia Christiana Periodica 51 (1985): 87–122.Google Scholar

5. For a biography of Nicholas, see Dondaine, A., “Nicholas de Cotrone,” pp. 324–331;Google Scholar and Sambin, Paolo, II vescovo Cotronese Niccolo da Durazzo e un inventario di suoi codici latini egreci (1276) (Rome, 1954).Google Scholar It is Dondaine who established Nicholas as the author of the Libellus; see his summary arguments, “Nicholas de Cotrone,” pp. 331–337.

6. Ibid., pp. 325–326, and Dondaine ed., CEG, A18.

7. On the marks of its original composition in Greek, see Dondaine, , “Nicholas de Cotrone,” pp. 317–320.Google Scholar

8. Dondaine, ed., CEG, A8–A9.Google Scholar

9. Ibid., A9.

10. Ibid., A13; Glorieux, Palémon, “Autour du ‘Contra errores graecorum.’ Suggestions chronologiques,” in Autour d'Aristote (Louvain, 1955), pp. 501–502, 508–509.Google Scholar

11. Compare Summa contra Gentiles bk. 4, chap. 64, in Marc, Petrus, Liber de Vertate Catholicae Fidei contra errores Infidelium qui dicitur Summa contra Gentiles, 3 vols.(Turin, 1961–1967), 2: 371–373,Google Scholar par.4040–44, and CEG, pars altera chap. 39, Dondaine ed., A103–104.

12. First argued in Dondaine, Hyacinthe, “Le Contra errores Graecorum de S. Thomas et le IVe livre du Contra Gentiles,” Revue des sciences philosophiques et thèologiques 1 (1941): 156–162.Google Scholar

13. Glorieux, , “Autour du ‘Contra errores graecorum,’” pp. 504–508.Google Scholar

14. Dondaine concedes that the opening of the CEG gives no evidence of Thomas's having seen the work before (Dondaine, A8), but he suggests that this silence is because Thomas had not seen the final, complete redaction (A18 A19).

15. Weisheipl, James A., Friar Thomas d'Aquino, rev. ed. (Washington, DC., 1983), pp. 146–147.Google Scholar

16. Ibid., pp. 161–162.

17. On Nicholas's later career, see Dondaine, , “Nicolas de Cotrone,” pp. 330–331.Google Scholar

18. Wolter, and Holstein, , Lyon J et Lyon II, pp. 169–171.Google Scholar

19. Compare Franchi, Antonio, II Concilio II di Lione (1274) secondo la Ordinatio Concilii Generalis Lugdunensis (Rome, 1965), pp. 11, 122,Google Scholar and passim; also pp. 150–151.

20. Vat, Odulphus van der, Die Anfänge der Franziskaner-missionen und ihr Weiterentwicklung (Werl in Westfalen, 1934), esp. pp. 137–176;Google Scholar and, more exhaustively, Roncaglia, Martiniano, Les frèer mineurs et l'église grecque orthodoxe au XIIIe siècle (Cairo, 1954).Google Scholar

21. Loenertz, R. J., “Les ètablissements dominicains de Pèra-Constantinople,” Echos d'Orient 34 (1933): 333–334.Google Scholar

22. Gulabovitch, Girolamo, ed., “Disputatio Latinorum et Graecorum,”in Archivum Franciscanum Historicum 12 (1919): 428–465.Google Scholar

23. See Dondaine, , “Contra Graecos,” pp. 336–350;Google Scholar compare Loenertz, Raymond J., “Autour du traitè de fr. Barthèlemy de Constantinople,” Archivum Fratrum praedicatorum 6 (1936): 361–371, esp. 364.Google Scholar Loenertz had thought that the treatise was written by Bartholemew; Dondaine shows that Bartholemew was responsible only for a redaction of the treatise in 1305 (pp. 327–328).

24. Dondaine, , “Contra Graecos,” pp. 387–391.Google Scholar

25. Cited in Dondaine, ed. CEG, A7, n. 6. Compare Madoz, J., “Una nueva redacción de los textos seudo-patristicos sobre el Primado, en Jacobo de Viterbo?” Gregorianum 17 (1936): 562–583, esp. 562, n. 1.Google Scholar

26. Oudin, Casimar, Commentarius de scriptoribus ecclesiae antiquis, 3 vols. (Leipzig, 1722), 3: 334–335.Google Scholar

27. Uccelli's discovery of the Libellus was announced in “De' testi esaminati da S. Tommaso d'Aquino nell'oposcolo contro gli errori de' Greci relativamenta all' infallibilità pontificia, ” Scienza e fede, ser. 3, 10 (1870): 291–321.Google Scholar For the biographical circumstances, see Merkle, Sebastian, “Antonio Uccelli und Thomas Contra errores Graecorum,” Römische Quartalschrift 35 (1927): 209–239, esp. 220–239.Google Scholar A thorough early examination of the authenticity of the citations was done by Reusch, F. H., Die Fälschungen in dem Tractat des Thomas von Aquin gegen die Griechen, Abhandlungen der Königlich Bayerischen Akademie der Wissenschafter, class 3, vol. 18, fasc.3 (Munich, 1889), pp. 675–742.Google Scholar A sample of criticism directed against Thomas can be found in Lenain, Denys, “Notes d'histoire de la théologie,” Revue d'histoire et de littérature religieuses 5 (1900): 552–553.Google Scholar

28. See the summary by Dondaine in his CEG, A9-A11.

29. Madoz, ,“Nueva redacciòn,” pp. 564–565,Google Scholar passim; and see note 11 for the dating of Viterb's work.

30. Ibid., p. 582.

31. Dondaine ed., CEG, A14-A17.

32. Sambin, , II vescovo Cotronese, p. 17,Google Scholar items no. 8 and 18, with comments on pp. 18–22.

33. See M. A., and Rouse, R. H., “Florilegia of Patristic Texts,” in Les genres littéraires dans les sources théologiques et philosophiques médiévales (Louvain-la-Neuve, 1982), pp. 170–176.Google Scholar For the earlier history in outline, Ghellinck, Joseph de, Patristique et Moyen Age, 2 vols. (Brussels, 1947), 2: 289–294.Google Scholar

34. Valentini, Roberto, “Vicenzo di Beauvais e la conoscenza della letteratura cristiana in Francia nella prima meta del secolo XIII,” Didaskaleion 4 (1915): 109–167, esp. 128, 133, 138, 144, 145, 155.Google Scholar Valentini's criteria for asserting direct knowledge are also rather loose; see his remarks at pp. 116–117.

35. See Dondaine, , “Contra Graecos,” pp. 350–384,Google Scholar for the textual problems in the “appendices”to the anonymous CEG; Lechat, R., “La patristique grecque chez un théologue latin du XIIe siècle: Hughes Etherien,” in Mélanges d'histoire offerts à Charles Moeller (Louvain, 1914), 1: 498–500,Google Scholar for difficulties in the documentation of Hugh Etherianus; and Loenertz, Raymond J., “L'épître de Théorien le Philosophe aux prêtres d'Oreine,” in Mémorial Louis Petit: Mélanges d'histoire et d'archéologie byzantines (Bucharest, 1948), pp. 321–322,Google Scholar for the use of fiorilegia in the anonymous Dominican CEG.

36. See the opening remarks in Pelikan, Jaroslav, “The Doctrine of Filoque in Thomas Aquinas and its Patristic Antecedents,”in St. Thomas Aquinas, 1274–1974: Commemorative Studies (Toronto, 1974), 1:315–316.Google Scholar

37. Pars Prior prologue, lines 3–4: “ad nostrae fidei assertionem.”Citations to the CEG henceforth will be given parenthetically by section and line numbers as in the Leonine edition. “PP”will mean the Pars Prior, “PA”the Pars Altera. A lower-case “prol”in place of the section numbers indicates the prologue; “epil”indicates the epilogue.

38. These passages are 7.27–32, 10.150–155, 64.16–17 (and 70.4–5), and 90.6.

39. Gardeil, A., “La réforme de la théologie Catholique: La documentation de saint Thomas,” Revue Thomiste 11 (1903): 211.Google Scholar This essay is part of a larger project completed in “La réforme de la théologie catholique: Les procédés exégètiques de saint Thomas,” Revue Thomiste 11(1903): 428–456Google Scholar (for the CEG, see esp. 433, 444). There followed a series of replies to objections under the general title of “La documentation de saint Thomas,” in Ibid., 12 (1904): 207–211, 486–493, 583–592; and 13 (1905): 194–197. Gardeil's views were endorsed, for example, by Renaudin, Paul, “Le théologie de saint Cyrille d'Alexandrie d'après S. Thomas,” Revue Thomiste 18 (1910): 176–178.Google Scholar

40. Dondaine, ed. CEG, A19.

41. The passages are surveyed in Jordan, Mark D., Ordering Wisdom; The Hierarchy of Philosophical Discourse in Aquinas (Notre Dame, 1986), pp. 22–39.Google Scholar

42. Quodlibetales, q.6 a.3.

43. For the comparison with Cano, see Corbin, Michel, Le chemin de la théologie chez Thomas d'Aquin (Paris, 1974), pp. 99, 842–854,Google Scholar with qualifications at pp. 850–851; for the comparison with Trent on tradition, see Geenen, G., “The Place of Tradition in the Theology of St. Thomas,” Thomist 15 (1952): 110–135.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

44. He does so, for example, with the claim that the Cistercian Liber de spiritu et anima was a work by Augustine; see Thomas's remarks on the text's authorship at Sent. 4 dist.44 q.3 a.3 sol.2. Parallel passages and similar cases are surveyed by Geenen, G., “S.Thomas d'Aquin et les sources pseudépigraphiques,” Ephemerides theologicae Lovanienses 20 (1943): 73–77.Google Scholar

45. Resp. ad lectorem Bisuntinum, qq.1–3 and 5.

46. Summa theol. 2–2 q. 5 art. 1 ad im.

47. Quodlib. 2 q.4 a.2 corp.; Summa theol. 2–2 q.10 a.12 corp. The passages form a doublet.

48. Principium biblicum 2 (Verardo ed., no. 1204).

49. This principle applies particularly to scripture; see, for example, Super evangel. Matt., chap.4 lect.1.