Mercurial > hg > Aquinas
diff john/english/SSJohn.html @ 31:25a799388159
originals from http://www.josephkenny.joyeurs.com/CDtexts/SSJohn.htm
| author | ht |
|---|---|
| date | Tue, 24 Nov 2009 20:16:17 +0000 |
| parents | |
| children | 178aed5d2c3c |
line wrap: on
line diff
--- /dev/null Thu Jan 01 00:00:00 1970 +0000 +++ b/john/english/SSJohn.html Tue Nov 24 20:16:17 2009 +0000 @@ -0,0 +1,1030 @@ +<html> +<head> +<title>Thomas Aquinas: Commentary on the Gospel of John</title> +<script type="text/javascript" language="javascript"> +var gAgent = navigator.userAgent.toLowerCase() +var gWindows = ( (gAgent.indexOf( "win" ) != -1 ) || ( gAgent.indexOf( "16bit" ) != -1 ) ) +var gIE = ( gAgent.indexOf( "msie" ) != -1 ) +var bInlineFloats = ( gWindows && gIE && ( parseInt( navigator.appVersion ) >= 4 ) ) +var floatwnd = 0 + +var WPFootnote1 = '<span class="WPNormal"><p> For a fuller documentation of these facts, see James A. Weisheipl, <i>Friar Thomas d’Aquino: His Life, Thought and\ +Works </i>(Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday, 1974), pp. 246-47, 372, and so forth. See also J. A. Weisheipl. “The\ +Johannine Commentary of Friar Thomas,” <i>Church History, </i>45 (1976), 185-195.</p>\ +</span>' + +var WPFootnote2 = '<span class="WPNormal"><p><i>Ibid., </i>pp. 145-46.</p>\ +</span>' + +var WPFootnote3 = '<span class="WPNormal"><p>The full text of this allocution is given in <i>AAS</i> 50 (1958), 150-53.</p>\ +</span>' + +var WPFootnote4 = '<span class="WPNormal"><p>St. Thomas, <i>Summa theologiae</i>, I, q.1, a.8, ad 2.</p>\ +</span>' + +var WPFootnote5 = '<span class="WPNormal"><p><i>AAS</i> 35 (1943), 297-325; trans. in <i>The Catholic Mind </i>42<i> </i>(1944), 257-83.</p>\ +</span>' + +var WPFootnote6 = '<span class="WPNormal"><p>St. Thomas, <i>Super epistolam ad Hebraeos lectura</i>, cap.1, lect. 4, n. 64. <i>Super Epistolas S. Pauli Lectura</i>, ed. R.\ +Cai (Turin: Marietti, 1953), I, 350a.</p>\ +</span>' + +var WPFootnote7 = '<span class="WPNormal"><p><i>Divino afflante Spiritu, </i>n.63; trans. loc. <i>cit., </i>p. 280.</p>\ +</span>' + +var WPFootnote8 = '<span class="WPNormal"><p>St. Thomas, <i>Sum. theol., </i>I, q. 1, a. 10.</p>\ +</span>' + +var WPFootnote9 = '<span class="WPNormal"><p><i>Ibid.</i></p>\ +</span>' + +var WPFootnote10 = '<span class="WPNormal"><p>See J. A. Weisheipl, “The Meaning of <i>Sacra Doctrina </i>in <i>Summa theologiae </i>I, q. 1,” <i>The Thomist, </i>38 (1974), 49-80.</p>\ +</span>' + +var WPFootnote11 = '<span class="WPNormal"><p>Aristotle, <i>Metaphysics </i>I, 2, 982a, l8-19.</p>\ +</span>' + +var WPFootnote12 = '<span class="WPNormal"><p>See <i>Friar Thomas dAquino</i>, pp, 392-93.</p>\ +</span>' + +var WPFootnote13 = '<span class="WPNormal"><p>Only the second part of this work has been translated into English—J. B. Collins, <i>Catechetical Instructions of St.\ +Thomas </i>(New York: Wagner 1939; repr. 1953).</p>\ +</span>' + +var WPFootnote14 = '<span class="WPNormal"><p>St. Thomas, <i>Catena Aurea,</i>Epistola dedicatoria (Turin:<i> </i>Marietti, 1925) I, 468.</p>\ +</span>' + +var WPFootnote15 = '<span class="WPNormal"><p>St. Thomas, <i>Sum. theol., </i>I, q.1, a.3; see note 10 above.</p>\ +</span>' + +var WPFootnote16 = '<span class="WPNormal"><p>See Leo XIII, <i>Providentissimu</i> <i>s Deus </i>(18 Nov 1893) in <i>Acta Leonis XIII</i>, vol. 13, p. 345-46.</p>\ +</span>' + +var WPFootnote17 = '<span class="WPNormal"><p>See <i>Friar Thomas d’Aquino</i>, pp. 164-68.</p>\ +</span>' + +var WPFootnote18 = '<span class="WPNormal"><p>St. Thomas, <i>Super Evangelium S. Joannis Lectura</i>,<i> </i>cap.21, lect.6, n.2656, ed. R. Cai (Turin: Marietti 1952), p. 488.</p>\ +</span>' + +var WPFootnote19 = '<span class="WPNormal"><p>Trent. sess. 4, in Denziger-Schbnmetzer, <i>Enchiridion</i> <i>Symbolorum </i>(1967), n.1501. See the important study of this\ +question in J. R. Geiselmann, <i>Die Heilige Schrift und die Tradition </i>(Freiburg i. Br.: Herder 1962), pp. 108-160.</p>\ +</span>' + +var WPFootnote20 = '<span class="WPNormal"><p>Sess. VIII, <i>Constitutio Dogmatica de divina Revelatione, Dei verbum </i>(18 Nov . 1965), in <i>Constitutiones, Decreta,\ +Declarationes </i>(Vatican 1966), p. 429; see whole of cap. 2.</p>\ +</span>' + +var WPFootnote21 = '<span class="WPNormal"><p>This was the invocation, for example, in the old Dominican rite of the Mass.</p>\ +</span>' + +function WPShow( WPid, WPtext ) +{ + if( bInlineFloats ) + eval( "document.all." + WPid + ".style.visibility = 'visible'" ); + else + { + if( floatwnd == 0 || floatwnd.closed ) + floatwnd = window.open( "", "comment", "toolbars=0,width=600,height=200,resizable=1,scrollbars=1,dependent=1" ); + floatwnd.document.open( "text/html", "replace" ); + floatwnd.document.write( "<html><head>\r\n" ); + floatwnd.document.write( "<style> p { margin-top:0px; margin-bottom:1px; } </style>\r\n" ); + floatwnd.document.write( "</head><body>\r\n" ); + floatwnd.document.write( WPtext ); + floatwnd.document.write( '<br><a href="javascript: self.close()">Close</a>'); + floatwnd.document.write( "</body></html>" ); + floatwnd.document.close(); + floatwnd.focus(); + } +} + +function WPHide( WPid ) +{ + if( bInlineFloats ) + eval( "document.all." + WPid + ".style.visibility = 'hidden'" ); +} +</script> + +<style> +p +{ + margin-bottom: 1px +} + +span.WPFloatStyle +{ + visibility: hidden; + position: absolute; + left: 10px; + right: 10px; + background-color: rgb(255, 255, 225); + border-width: 1px; + border-style: solid; + border-color: black; + margin-top: 25px; + padding: 6px; + line-height: normal +} +</style> +</head> +<body><blockquote> +<CENTER><h2>COMMENTARY ON<BR>THE GOSPEL OF ST. JOHN</span></h2> +<p>St. Thomas Aquinas</p> +<p><span style="font-weight: bold">Part I: Chapters 1-7</span> +<br>translated by<BR>James A. Weisheipl, O.P. +<br>Magi Books, Inc., Albany, N.Y. +<table cellpadding=10 border=4><tr><td><A HREF="#01">INTRODUCTION</A> +<td align=center><A HREF="#02"><b>PROLOGUE</A><td><a href="JohnApp.htm">APPENDICES</A></table>Chapters: +<table cellpadding=10 border=4><tr><td><A HREF="John1.htm">*1*</A><td><A HREF="John2.htm">*2*</A><td><A HREF="John3.htm">*3*</A><td><A HREF="John4.htm">*4*</A><td><A HREF="John5.htm">*5*</A><td><A HREF="John6.htm">*6*</A><td><A HREF="John7.htm">*7*</A> +</table> +<p><b>Part II: Chapters 8-21</b> +<br>translated by<BR>Fabian R. Larcher, O.P. +<br>Magi Books, Inc., Albany, N.Y., 1998 +<br>(notes to these chapters provisional) +<table cellpadding=10 border=4><tr><td><A HREF="John8.htm">*8*</A><td><A HREF="John9.htm">*9*</A><td><A HREF="John10.htm">*10*</A><td><A HREF="John11.htm">*11*</A><td><A HREF="John12.htm">*12*</A><td><A HREF="John13.htm">*13*</A><td><A HREF="John14.htm">*14*</A> +<tr><td><A HREF="John15.htm">*15*</A><td><A HREF="John16.htm">*16*</A><td><A HREF="John17.htm">*17*</A><td><A HREF="John18.htm">*18*</A><td><A HREF="John19.htm">*19*</A><td><A HREF="John20.htm">*20*</A><td><A HREF="John21.htm">*21*</A> +</table> +<BR> +<hr width=50%> +<A NAME="01"><p><b>INTRODUCTION</b></CENTER> +<br> +<div style=text-align:justify> +<p>St. Thomas’ commentary on the Gospel of St. John is unique among his many writings on Sacred +Scripture. It is the work of a master theologian, delivered at the University of Paris, then the +intellectual center in Christendom, when Thomas was at the height of his fame and apostolic zeal +for souls. A fourteenth-century list of Thomas’ writings notes that this commentary is a +<i>reportatio</i> by Reginald of Piperno and adds “better than which none can be found.” +<a href="javascript:WPShow('WPFootnote1', WPFootnote1 )"><img src="footnoteicon.gif" alt="Footnote" width="16" height="14" border="0"></a> +<script type="text/javascript" language="javascript"> + if( bInlineFloats ) + { + document.write( '<span id="WPFootnote1" class="WPFloatStyle">' ); + document.write( WPFootnote1 ); + document.write( '<br><a href="javascript:WPHide(\'WPFootnote1\')">Close</a>' ); + document.write( '</span>' ); + } +</script> + A <i>reportatio</i> +is a verbal report of an actual lecture taken down by a scribe or student in the course of actual +delivery. In this case the scribe was the faithful Friar Reginald of Piperno, who had been the +“constant companion,” or socius, for the last fifteen years of Thomas’ short but busy life. The +Italian Province of Dominicans wisely provided Thomas with this kind of personal secretary and +general factotum after he returned from Paris as a Master in Sacred Theology in 1260. +<a href="javascript:WPShow('WPFootnote2', WPFootnote2 )"><img src="footnoteicon.gif" alt="Footnote" width="16" height="14" border="0"></a> +<script type="text/javascript" language="javascript"> + if( bInlineFloats ) + { + document.write( '<span id="WPFootnote2" class="WPFloatStyle">' ); + document.write( WPFootnote2 ); + document.write( '<br><a href="javascript:WPHide(\'WPFootnote2\')">Close</a>' ); + document.write( '</span>' ); + } +</script> +</p> +<p>A <i>reportatio</i> is not exactly a dictation in our sense of the term; it is more like a student’s +notebook in shorthand containing basically the gist of what is being said, but usually with varying +numbers of verbal omissions and inaccuracies. But this commentary is more than a mere scribal +report. It was in fact “corrected” by Thomas himself—if we are to believe Tolomeo of Lucca, one +of Thomas’ early biographers and confreres—before the commentary went into circulation +through copies made by hand, the customary mode of publication before the era of the printing +press. More than that: according to Bernard Gui, another confrere and early biographer, Thomas +himself wrote out in full the commentary on the first five chapters of John (and hence this section +ought to be considered an authentic <i>expositio</i>, or authoritative version), while the rest of it +survived in the hand of Reginald, corrected by Thomas.</p> +<p>This commentary was very popular in the Middle Ages, and it ranks among the best of Thomas’ +work as a master theologian and saintly man of faith. It was read not only by theologians +searching for the truth, but also by preachers and pious men and women desiring solid food for +meditation and fervent prayer. Scattered throughout the world there still exist thirty-three +complete and thirteen incomplete manuscript copies of this work, attesting to its considerable +popularity before the age of printing. Innumerable copies of this work have no doubt been lost +or destroyed in the tumult of centuries following the Middle Ages.</p> +<p>This detailed commentary is St. Thomas’ personal response to the Word of God Incarnate as +described in the sublime words of John “the Divine.” For St. Thomas, the God of Abraham, +Isaac, and Jacob spoke to his chosen people through the mouth of prophets in the long course of +salvation history, “But when the appointed time came, God sent his Son, born of a woman, born +a subject of the Law, to redeem the subjects of the Law and to enable us to be adopted as sons” +(Gal 4:4-5). This Incarnate Son, Jesus Christ, is the total manifestation of the Father, the Eternal +Word made flesh. There is nothing left unsaid in the Word; the Father’s love is complete in the +love the Son bears for the Father and for us. Christ’s whole life, his passion, death, and +resurrection, are the praise and glory of the Father “through the working of the Holy Spirit.” +“You must believe me when I say that I am in the Father and the Father is in me” (Jn 14:11). +“Whatever you ask for in my name I will do, so that the Father may be glorified in the Son” (Jn +14:13). Christ’s “food” was to do the will of his Father in all things, thus glorifying the Father +in Jesus.</p> +<p>One of St. Thomas’ basic theological principles is that everything Jesus Christ did and said was +for our instruction and imitation. Thus the sanctity of our lives is the on-going praise and glory +of the Father, through the Son, by the working of the Holy Spirit. The very being of the Father +is the unqualified affirmation of love for the Son and <i>for </i>us, in the Son. “God is love” (1 Jn 4:8). +This love elicits from us an unreserved affirmation of love for God and neighbor, by which God +is glorified and resplendent in us. The whole of our happiness is this eternal “glory” in tasting +and seeing that the Lord is good (see Ps 34:8). This commentary is St. Thomas’ tasting and +seeing the goodness of Jesus, the Word Incarnate, embodied in the tender words of St. John, the +“beloved disciple,” who leaned on the breast of the Savior at the Last Supper.</p> +<p>Thomas brought to his writing of this commentary on John all the resources at his +disposal—which were considerable—especially the riches of the whole Patristic teaching of the +“Saints” (the <i>sancti Doctores</i>), the wealth of a living tradition in the Roman Church contained +in its teaching, laws, liturgy, and the living Spirit, as well as fidelity to the infallible norms of the +Holy See.</p> +<p>In an address to students and professors of the “Angelicum” (now the Pontifical University of +St. Thomas in Rome) given on January 14, 1958, Pope Pius XII extolled the virtues of its patron, +the Angelic Doctor, who serves as a divinely inspired guide in both philosophy and theology. +<a href="javascript:WPShow('WPFootnote3', WPFootnote3 )"><img src="footnoteicon.gif" alt="Footnote" width="16" height="14" border="0"></a> +<script type="text/javascript" language="javascript"> + if( bInlineFloats ) + { + document.write( '<span id="WPFootnote3" class="WPFloatStyle">' ); + document.write( WPFootnote3 ); + document.write( '<br><a href="javascript:WPHide(\'WPFootnote3\')">Close</a>' ); + document.write( '</span>' ); + } +</script> + +Pope Pius spoke especially of St. Thomas’ own studies as a norm for every student of the +religious disciplines. Just as St. Thomas diligently explored and studied the Bible as the font and +life-spring of all theological studies, so too should the modern student find in biblical studies the +source of his theological development. As St. Thomas himself assures us, “[sacred doctrine] uses +the authority of the canonical Scriptures properly and of necessity in its investigations ... for our +faith is founded on the Revelation made to the Apostles and Prophets, who wrote the canonical +books, but not on revelation (if such there be) made to other teachers.” +<a href="javascript:WPShow('WPFootnote4', WPFootnote4 )"><img src="footnoteicon.gif" alt="Footnote" width="16" height="14" border="0"></a> +<script type="text/javascript" language="javascript"> + if( bInlineFloats ) + { + document.write( '<span id="WPFootnote4" class="WPFloatStyle">' ); + document.write( WPFootnote4 ); + document.write( '<br><a href="javascript:WPHide(\'WPFootnote4\')">Close</a>' ); + document.write( '</span>' ); + } +</script> + In this conviction +Thomas developed all his own theology. That is to say, the “complement” to Thomas’ +speculations and synthesis are to be found in his commentaries on the books of the Old and New +Testaments, especially those on the Epistles of St. Paul.</p> +<p>In the opinion of those most expert to judge, Thomas’ commentaries on Scripture “shine with +such solidity, subtlety, and precision that they can be numbered among his greatest theological +works,” and are to be esteemed as such. “Wherefore, if anyone should neglect them, he is +scarcely to be said to clearly and fully enjoy a familiarity and knowledge of the holy Angelic +Doctor.” The significant fact is not that Pius XII emphasized the importance of studying Thomas’ +biblical commentaries to Dominicans, who had made their special prerogative the teaching of +“speculative Thomistic theology” and the pursuit of contemplative prayer. The significant fact +is that Pius XII expressed these sentiments shortly before his death and fifteen years after one of +his most important encyclicals, <i>Divino afflante spiritu </i>(30 Sept. 1943), the basic charter of all +Catholic biblical studies in our day, leading to the Dogmatic Constitution on Divine Revelation, +<i>Dei verbum, </i>of the Second Vatican Council (18 Nov. 1965). In other words, the enormous +advances of modern biblical studies do not automatically nullify the importance of St. Thomas’ +commentaries on the Sacred Text.</p> +<p>St. Thomas’ commentaries on the Sacred Text are typically <i>medieval, </i>that is, they lack the +unction, colloquialism, and engaging informality of Patristic commentaries (which were largely +homilies), and the technical and sometimes journalistic resources of modern commentaries, +explanations, and paraphrases. In other words, it is easier to read St. Augustine’s commentary +on John than it is to read St. Thomas’ or that of any other medieval writer addressing students +in the “schools” of Paris and elsewhere. The big difference is between Patristic and Monastic +commentaries, which were largely homiletic, pastoral, personal, and mystical, on the one hand, +and Scholastic commentaries aimed at teaching students in the university or <i>studium </i>the literal +meaning of the text. The style of medieval Scholastic commentaries is rather formal, literal, +student-orientated and bookish. This style often makes such commentaries difficult for a modem +reader to follow, and to some extent hinders him from deriving the greatest benefit for his mind +and heart. At first glance such a “commentary”—with its definitions, divisions, arguments +footnotes and concern for the orthodox meaning of the sacred message—may seem like searching +for a needle in a haystack. But in the case of Thomas’ commentaries the reader may be confident +that his efforts at discovering that needle will prove to be both intellectually and spiritually +rewarding; once discovered, it will be valued as “the pearl of great price” (Mt 13:46).</p> +<p>In this introduction I hope to show the historical context of this particular commentary and to +indicate some aids to a fruitful study of it.</p> +<p>First of all, this work is a biblical commentary by a master in a medieval university. In the Middle +Ages, the Bible and the Bible alone was the official basis for the teaching of theology by fully +qualified masters in the major universities of Europe. In fact, one could say with some +justification that the ultimate goal of all medieval education was an understanding of the Bible +for those who pursued the full course in the Faculty of Theology. Such an understanding was the +nature of sacred theology <i>(fides quaerens intellectum, </i>“faith seeking understanding”). It was the +source of all preaching of the Word of God, and it was the inexhaustible font of living water for +the spiritual life. In order to reach such a lofty goal, much preparation was required. First, tools +had to be acquired as a means of such study. This was the role of a good liberal arts education +and the acquisition of philosophy, “the handmaid of theology.” The study of the liberal arts and +the acquisition of philosophy were functions of the Arts Faculty in the university or <i>studium. +</i>Approximately eight years were devoted by medieval students to acquiring these tools—roughly +equivalent to our four years of high school and four years of college. After the full course had +been completed in “the humanities,” the young man, generally in his mid-twenties, would begin +his study of the Sacred Text, having already heard many sermons in Church and having received +much instruction at home. His study of the Sacred Text began with <i>listening </i>and <i>reading.</i></p> +<p>In the Middle Ages, a personal copy of the Bible was relatively rare, certainly outside university +circles. Every copy of the Bible was written out by hand on parchment, a writing surface made +from carefully treated skins of sheep. Such a copy was extremely expensive and hard to come by. +Although every student of theology tried desperately to obtain a personal copy, most people had +to rely on hearing the Word read to them and recollecting from memory the actual words of the +Bible. For that reason the beginner in theology would <i>listen </i>to older students and the master +(professor). One of the older students, the bachelor of theology, read aloud and paraphrased a +particular book of the Bible. This bachelor was called a “Cursor Biblicus,” a “runner through” +the actual words of the Bible, who did this to acquaint himself and his hearers with the inspired +words.</p> +<p>A splendid example of the work of such a “runner” is St. Thomas’ commentary on Isaiah; it is +the work of a <i>cursor </i>and not that of a master. Only a master could expound the text with +authority and confidence; the bachelor merely skimmed through it as a runner would skim over +the course in a race. A higher ranking bachelor devoted his energies mainly to explaining the +official theological handbook, the <i>Sentences </i>of Peter Lombard (d. 1160). These <i>Sentences </i>were +a systematic collection of Patristic teachings, arranged in four books following the order of the +Apostles’ Creed. This bachelor was called the <i>bachalarius Sententiarum, </i>a “Bachelor of the +<i>Sentences. </i>“After listening to others for about four years, the young student of theology would +himself become a bachelor and perform certain duties under a particular master, his main +professor of theology.</p> +<p>Every university in the Middle Ages had a limited number of chairs, or professorships, for the +masters to occupy. At the time of St. Thomas, there were twelve chairs of theology at the +University of Paris, the Dominicans having two of them. Before occupying one of these chairs, +the student had to have devoted many long years to study and actual discussions, or +“disputations,” in the university, He had to be at least thirty-five years old before meriting the +title of “Master of the Sacred Page” and the right to expound the Bible in an authoritative manner +as a true theologian, professionally qualified.</p> +<p>St. Thomas was twice professor of theology at Paris—a fact most unusual in itself. There were +very few such cases where a fully fledged master would return to his old chair, thus preventing +a new master from occupying it. But the intellectual, social, and religious climate in Paris at that +time demanded the return of Thomas to the center of all theological learning in Europe. The new +mendicant Orders (mainly Dominicans and Franciscans) were again being attacked by secular +(i.e., diocesan) masters of theology, and their right to teach, preach, and beg was challenged by +some of the most powerful voices in Europe. The center of this controversy Was the University +of Paris, where the very existence of Dominicans and Franciscans was under fire. At the climax +of this renewed attack, the second in the history of the Dominican Order, St. Thomas was +recalled to Paris by the Master General of the Dominican Order, Blessed John of Vercelli. +Thomas arrived in Paris with his companion Reginald in the cold winter of 1269 after the +academic term had begun. Immediately Thomas took upon himself the duties of a master in +theology, namely, lecturing on a carefully chosen book of the Bible, presiding at academic +“disputations” and resolving the question under discussion, and preaching to the university +crowd. At the same time, he was composing the Second Part of his <i>Summa theologiae, </i>which he +had begun in Rome two years earlier, and dictating a number of literal commentaries on various +works of Aristotle for young masters in arts, that is, teachers in the Faculty of Arts, whose duty +it was to expound the text of Aristotle. During the two and a half years Thomas spent at Paris the +second time, he successfully defended the rights of mendicants to teach, preach, and flourish. +During this same Parisian regency he lectured on the Gospel of St. John.</p> +<p>These lectures on John would have been lost to posterity had not the faithful Reginald taken +notes, which were later “corrected” by Thomas himself. The reason Thomas “corrected” +Reginald’s transcription was that a wealthy secular (i.e., diocesan) student wanted a copy for +himself. This student was Adenulf of Anagni, an Italian cleric, provost of Saint-Omer (since +1264), later master in theology (1282-85), and canon of Notre Dame Cathedral in Paris. Adenulf, +a student of Thomas during the years 1269-72, offered a considerable amount of money to have +a professional scribe make a copy of this remarkable commentary for himself. Without Adenulf’s +enthusiasm and money, the “lectures” (<i>lecturae</i>)<i> </i>on John would have remained a simple report, +or <i>reportatio. </i>If it had not been for Reginald, apparently, these lectures would have gone +completely from history. But the fact is that we do have at hand the acute mind of Thomas +Aquinas, a master theologian and saint, on the Gospel of St. John. This commentary reflects the +mind of Thomas at its peak, but before he composed the Third Part of the <i>Summa </i>dealing with +Christ, the Sacraments, and the Church. It is a scholastic analysis of St. John’s remarkable +testimony of the Good News of Salvation, namely, that the Word became flesh, died for our +salvation, and is now risen from the dead to come again as our merciful judge.</p> +<p>Earlier, at the request of his intimate friend Pope Urban IV, Thomas had compiled a continuous +gloss on all four Gospels, which he had collated from the Latin and Greek Fathers of the Church. +Frequently he even instigated new translations of Greek sources, as he himself confessed in the +prologue. This continuous gloss, popularly called the <i>Catena Aurea, </i>or “Golden Chain,” was not +finished when Urban died in 1264. But Thomas continued his labors on the gloss, which he +completed in 1267 and dedicated to Cardinal Annibaldo d’Annibaldi, Thomas’ close friend and +former pupil at Paris. The intense labor on the Gospel of John for the <i>Catena </i>molded the mind +of Thomas in his personal understanding of the Sacred Text of John. St. John’s Gospel is very +difficult to understand. Unlike the Synoptic writers, Matthew, Mark, and Luke, St. John’s Gospel +is a carefully devised presentation of his personal understanding of the sacred doctrine taught by +Jesus, on whose breast he reclined at the Last Supper. John was always known as “the disciple +whom Jesus loved.” For St. Thomas, John, the Son of Zebedee, the author of this Gospel, was +a virgin, whose appropriate symbol is the eagle soaring in the heights of contemplation. Thomas’ +detailed study of the Latin and Greek Fathers, needed to complete his Gloss on John, prepared +him to shed his own light on the text when the opportune moment arrived. That moment arrived +when Thomas returned to Paris for the second time (1269-72) at the age of about forty-four, full +of strength and vigor.</p> +<p>But his is a typical medieval commentary because, unlike Patristic, monastic, and modern +commentaries on John, it utilizes certain techniques familiar to all in the Middle Ages, but +strange to us today. First of all, it is a theological commentary concerned with penetrating the +literal sense of the words recorded, and seeing through the literal sense to the spiritual. The +medieval university theologian was primarily concerned with the literal sense of scripture, that +is, with the sacred message intended by the human and divine author. It is therefore primarily +concerned with “the theological teaching” of the Bible. St. Thomas did not have at his disposal +the infinitely varied techniques of modern biblical scholarship. He knew almost nothing about +biblical and near-eastern languages, archeology, philology, comparative religion, and the +historical method. If he had, he would most certainly have used them. In the Encyclical <i>Divino +afflante Spiritu </i>(30 Sept. 1943), Pope Pius XII urged the importance of textual criticism, biblical +and oriental languages, archeology, profane and sacred history, as well as form criticism and the +demands of a sound historical method. +<a href="javascript:WPShow('WPFootnote5', WPFootnote5 )"><img src="footnoteicon.gif" alt="Footnote" width="16" height="14" border="0"></a> +<script type="text/javascript" language="javascript"> + if( bInlineFloats ) + { + document.write( '<span id="WPFootnote5" class="WPFloatStyle">' ); + document.write( WPFootnote5 ); + document.write( '<br><a href="javascript:WPHide(\'WPFootnote5\')">Close</a>' ); + document.write( '</span>' ); + } +</script> + He noted with the Angelic Doctor that “in Scripture +divine things are presented to us in the manner which is in common use amongst men.” +<a href="javascript:WPShow('WPFootnote6', WPFootnote6 )"><img src="footnoteicon.gif" alt="Footnote" width="16" height="14" border="0"></a> +<script type="text/javascript" language="javascript"> + if( bInlineFloats ) + { + document.write( '<span id="WPFootnote6" class="WPFloatStyle">' ); + document.write( WPFootnote6 ); + document.write( '<br><a href="javascript:WPHide(\'WPFootnote6\')">Close</a>' ); + document.write( '</span>' ); + } +</script> + The +Bible is the Word of God in the words of men, and this manner of speaking in various ages to +various people must be carefully studied with all the auxiliary sciences. But even after all this has +been tended to, there is still “the theological doctrine” contained in the Sacred Books. The +modem exegete should use every means available to discover and explain “the literal sense and +especially the theological. “ +<a href="javascript:WPShow('WPFootnote7', WPFootnote7 )"><img src="footnoteicon.gif" alt="Footnote" width="16" height="14" border="0"></a> +<script type="text/javascript" language="javascript"> + if( bInlineFloats ) + { + document.write( '<span id="WPFootnote7" class="WPFloatStyle">' ); + document.write( WPFootnote7 ); + document.write( '<br><a href="javascript:WPHide(\'WPFootnote7\')">Close</a>' ); + document.write( '</span>' ); + } +</script> + It is this “theological sense” <i>(sensus theologicus), </i>expounded by St. +Thomas in his commentary, that is most fruitful for our meditation, prayer, and preaching the +Word of God today.</p> +<p>The literal sense, as St. Thomas teaches, is the objective, formal, and direct meaning intended +by the words in the sacred and inspired text. +<a href="javascript:WPShow('WPFootnote8', WPFootnote8 )"><img src="footnoteicon.gif" alt="Footnote" width="16" height="14" border="0"></a> +<script type="text/javascript" language="javascript"> + if( bInlineFloats ) + { + document.write( '<span id="WPFootnote8" class="WPFloatStyle">' ); + document.write( WPFootnote8 ); + document.write( '<br><a href="javascript:WPHide(\'WPFootnote8\')">Close</a>' ); + document.write( '</span>' ); + } +</script> + The author of these words is both God and man, +since the Bible is “the inspired Word of God.” Modem biblical techniques, of course, were +unknown to Thomas. All he had was his personal copy of the Latin Vulgate (which was not a +critical edition), the familiar teaching of all the Latin and Greek Fathers known to him, his own +prayerful reflection on the text, and his native genius attentive to the Spirit of God and to the text. +Among the human means Thomas had at his disposal were grammar, logic, and Aristotelian +philosophy. The literal (or historical) sense was in principle the only basis of theological thought +and discussion. The spiritual sense only enlarged, or extended, the basic literal sense. By +“spiritual sense” we do not mean the pious, personal, private, and subjective sense a reader might +derive from a prayerful reading of the text. Rather, the “spiritual sense” is the enlarged reality +“intended” by person, place, or thing signified in the literal, as when the brazen serpent raised +by Moses in the desert is taken to signify Christ’s crucifixion as the divine means of healing +mankind, or when the paschal lamb is taken to signify Christ who was sacrificed for our sins. The +“spiritual sense” is the enlarged sense “intended” by a given symbol in the plan of divine +providence.</p> +<p>Since only God as the author of all things can make one symbol significative of another reality, +the Bible is the only book that can contain a “spiritual sense” as it was understood by medieval +theologians. Consequently only the sacred author himself can inform us of the existence of such +a sense. We could never know that one reality is to be taken as a symbol of another reality unless +the Sacred Author so informs us in the literal sense. For example, the author of the Book of +Numbers (21:19) explains how Moses was directed to make a brazen “serpent” and set it up as +a sign; whoever was bitten by one of the fiery serpents and “looked at the sign” that Moses had +set up was saved from death. But it is John (3:14 15) who explains that “as Moses lifted up the +serpent in the desert, so must the Son of man be lifted up that whoever believes in him may not +perish, but may have life everlasting.” The significance of Old Testament texts is declared by the +sacred writer when he explains Christ’s actions as being “in fulfillment of the Scriptures.” +Similarly St. Paul frequently reveals the “spiritual sense” of the Law and Prophets by declaring +the Christian fulfillment in Jesus.</p> +<p>There were three kinds of spiritual sense recognized by medieval theologians: the allegorical, the +moral, and the anagogical. +<a href="javascript:WPShow('WPFootnote9', WPFootnote9 )"><img src="footnoteicon.gif" alt="Footnote" width="16" height="14" border="0"></a> +<script type="text/javascript" language="javascript"> + if( bInlineFloats ) + { + document.write( '<span id="WPFootnote9" class="WPFloatStyle">' ); + document.write( WPFootnote9 ); + document.write( '<br><a href="javascript:WPHide(\'WPFootnote9\')">Close</a>' ); + document.write( '</span>' ); + } +</script> + When anything in the Old Testament was taken to signify something +in the New Testament, this sense was called allegorical. Under this sense would be included all +those figures, persons, and events as symbolic of Jesus and his life and death on earth. When +anything in the life of Jesus is taken as a model for our life, we call this the moral sense. Under +this sense would be included all those virtues presented to us for our imitation of Christ. When +anything in the Scriptures is taken to signify something in the eternal kingdom hereafter, for +example, “the new Jerusalem,” we call this the anagogical sense. Thus the “spiritual sense” of +a passage was taken to be an objective meaning intended by the sacred author, the Holy Spirit. +This, of course, presupposes that the authors of the New Testament were inspired by the Holy +Spirit.</p> +<p>Whatever personal message one may derive from reading the Bible prayerfully and thoughtfully +is purely personal and beyond the science of theology as the study of God’s message to mankind. +The personal message is most significant for the reader, but this personal significance must be +carefully controlled by objective theological norms such as the Christian faith, sacred doctrine, +the constant teaching of the Church, and a prayerful listening to the Holy Spirit.</p> +<p>The most difficult technique of medieval commentators for us to comprehend is the use of logic +and the “scholastic method.” Aristotelian logic is the most significant technique contained in the +scholastic method. The purpose of the scholastic method was to instill “scientific” knowledge +through (1) definition, (2) division, and (3) demonstration, or demonstrative proof. These +techniques (or <i>modi sciendi) </i>were taken for granted by every medieval theologian as the best +means of learning the truth about anything. It was a method of teaching, the via <i>docendi, </i>which +was an imitation of the “way of discovery” <i>(via inveniendi </i>or <i>inventionis). </i>The goal of all +education is truth. The goal of theological education is an understanding of the doctrines of +revelation, the <i>sacra doctrina</i>. +<a href="javascript:WPShow('WPFootnote10', WPFootnote10 )"><img src="footnoteicon.gif" alt="Footnote" width="16" height="14" border="0"></a> +<script type="text/javascript" language="javascript"> + if( bInlineFloats ) + { + document.write( '<span id="WPFootnote10" class="WPFloatStyle">' ); + document.write( WPFootnote10 ); + document.write( '<br><a href="javascript:WPHide(\'WPFootnote10\')">Close</a>' ); + document.write( '</span>' ); + } +</script> + It is faith seeking understanding (<i>fides quaerens intellectum</i>),<i> </i>as +St. Anselm puts it, The scholastic method, in a sense, is artificial and humanly contrived by +ineans of logic. In the Middle Ages the scholastic method was thought to be the best way of +learning everything from A to Z. An example of this method of learning is embedded in Thomas’ +commentary on John’s Gospel. It cannot be eliminated. Therefore it depends on us moderns to +bend a little by trying to see through it, and not be put off by it. Always one will find definitions, +divisions, and proofs in all medieval commentaries, whether they be on Aristotle, Boethius, or +the Bible.</p> +<p>The Scholastics had a penchant for <i>order; </i>where none existed, one was imposed. Heeding the +words of Aristotle that “it belongs to the wise man to order,” they thought the prerogative of a +good teacher was to order all things well, setting out the message, or truth to be conveyed, in an +orderly and fitting way. +<a href="javascript:WPShow('WPFootnote11', WPFootnote11 )"><img src="footnoteicon.gif" alt="Footnote" width="16" height="14" border="0"></a> +<script type="text/javascript" language="javascript"> + if( bInlineFloats ) + { + document.write( '<span id="WPFootnote11" class="WPFloatStyle">' ); + document.write( WPFootnote11 ); + document.write( '<br><a href="javascript:WPHide(\'WPFootnote11\')">Close</a>' ); + document.write( '</span>' ); + } +</script> + This is why the first thing one notices when reading a medieval +commentary is the <i>division, </i>or the ordering of the whole into parts. The least one can perceive +is a beginning, a middle, and an end. But more than not, one can usually perceive some orderly +procedure in the middle.</p> +<p>Modern biblical scholars usually see in, St. John’s Gospel a prologue (1:1-14), a middle (cc. 1-20), and an epilogue (c. 21). They then proceed to divide the middle into the Book of Signs (cc. +1-12) and the Book of Glory (cc. 13-20). St. Thomas also divides the Gospel into roughly these +two parts, but he considers chapter 12 as belonging to the Book of Glory, because the chapter +opens “six days before Passover” with the anointing of the feet of Jesus for his burial (12:1 -11), +continues on to the triumphal entry into Jerusalem (12:12-19), builds to the coming of the Greeks +(12:20-22), and the long discourse of Jesus in which he cries out, “Father, glorify your name” +(12:28). In any case, it is particularly in this second part that Thomas had to use his ingenuity to +resolve the discrepancies between John and the Synoptics. The Synoptics compress the public +life of Jesus into one year with the one tragic journey of Jesus up to Jerusalem, where he is +crucified and dies, to be raised up on the third day. John extends the public life of Jesus into three +years with the final year ending in his passion, death, and resurrection. St. Thomas is very much +concerned with the literal, or historical, sense of the narrative, especially as concerns the passion, +death, and resurrection of the Lord. Throughout the whole exposition of the narrative, Thomas +relied heavily on the interpretation of the Fathers of the Church, both Latin and Greek. He quotes +the authority of St. Augustine 373 times, St. John Chrysostom 217 times, and Origen 95 times. +It is an exposition that relies heavily on the tradition of the Church and on his own prayerful +theological reflections.</p> +<p>In the commentary on St. John’s Gospel, Thomas is concerned not only with the literal sense, +which for him is of Prime importance and concern, but also with the spiritual sense, as explained +above. More than the other Evangelists, John reveals the “fulfillment of the Scriptures,” that is, +concern with the prophecies and symbols of the Old Law. Christ’s own prophetic words and +actions are seen by John to be a foreshadowing of the passion, death, and resurrection of the Lord +by which we are all saved. Above all, for St. Thomas, John is the Evangelist of the divinity of +Jesus, “the Word made flesh.” He says, “While the other Evangelists treat principally of the +mysteries of the humanity of Christ, John, especially and above all, makes known the divinity +of Christ in his Gospel” (Prologue). Thomas, following the lead of St. Jerome, thought that John +wrote his Gospel after the other three Gospels had been written, in order to refute new heresies +that had arisen concerning the divinity of Christ. Following Jerome, Thomas singled out the +Ebionites (whose founder Thomas erroneously thought to have been “Ebion”)—and Cerinthus, +a Gnostic heretic who flourished around 100 A.D., as among those who denied the divinity of +Christ. Even St. Irenaeus <i>(Adv. haer.</i>, III,<i> </i>11) asserts that St. John wrote his Gospel to refute +Cerinthus. Thus, St. Thomas observes in his Prologue, while John did not pass over the mysteries +of Christ’s humanity, he especially conveys the divinity of Christ in his Gospel. In this +commentary, therefore, Thomas repeatedly refutes the heresies of Apollinaris, Arius, the Arians, +Ebionites, Eutyches, the Manichees, Nestorius, Pelagius, the Pelagians, and Sabellius - all of +which plagued the Church in the first five centuries of its existence. For Thomas these heresies +were not merely false doctrines irrelevant to the modem Christian, but vital guidelines to the +purity of the Christian faith, the orthodox teaching of the living Church.</p> +<p>Earlier in his career, Thomas had been asked by the archbishop of Palermo to write a short work +that could be memorized, dealing with the articles of faith “from the Creed of the Fathers” (i.e., +the Apostles’ Creed) and also the basic errors concerning them; the archbishop apparently asked +also for the same presentation for all the sacraments of the Church. +<a href="javascript:WPShow('WPFootnote12', WPFootnote12 )"><img src="footnoteicon.gif" alt="Footnote" width="16" height="14" border="0"></a> +<script type="text/javascript" language="javascript"> + if( bInlineFloats ) + { + document.write( '<span id="WPFootnote12" class="WPFloatStyle">' ); + document.write( WPFootnote12 ); + document.write( '<br><a href="javascript:WPHide(\'WPFootnote12\')">Close</a>' ); + document.write( '</span>' ); + } +</script> + Thomas complied with this +request in a most remarkable treatise in two parts: <i>De articulis fidei </i>and <i>De ecclesiae +sacramentis</i>. +<a href="javascript:WPShow('WPFootnote13', WPFootnote13 )"><img src="footnoteicon.gif" alt="Footnote" width="16" height="14" border="0"></a> +<script type="text/javascript" language="javascript"> + if( bInlineFloats ) + { + document.write( '<span id="WPFootnote13" class="WPFloatStyle">' ); + document.write( WPFootnote13 ); + document.write( '<br><a href="javascript:WPHide(\'WPFootnote13\')">Close</a>' ); + document.write( '</span>' ); + } +</script> +<i> </i>The wide popularity of this treatise is attested to by the 277 extant manuscripts +of this work. The six articles pertaining to the divinity of Christ and the six pertaining to his +humanity are set forth, and all the errors concerning the twelve articles of the Creed are briefly +named and refuted. Although the sacraments of the Church are implicit in the fourth article of +the Creed, they are discussed separately in the second part of the treatise, because the archbishop +explicitly asked for a special discussion of the sacraments and the heresies concerning them. +Thomas’ knowledge of the various heresies in the history of the Church is most remarkable. All +of these same heresies are again discussed in his commentary on John’s Gospel. That is why St. +Thomas says in the Prologue, “[This Gospel] refutes all heresies.” The numerous heresies of the +past ought to be of great concern to the modern Christian so that he may avoid all taint of them +in his own, personal belief. A conscious affirmation of belief in the truth of revealed teaching that +developed in the living Church guided by the Spirit of Christ can bring us into a deeper and more +meaningful awareness of being united with the Eternal Truth. In this commentary, Thomas is +concerned above all with bolstering the faith of the hearer or reader, or, as he put it, “to confirm +the Catholic Truth.”</p> +<p style="text-align: justify">In other words, there are four goals Thomas aimed to achieve in his commentary on St. John:</p> +<ol> +<li>determination of the literal, or historical, sense of the narrative; +<li>explanation of the spiritual sense as found in the Old Testament (allegorical sense), the goals +of our own life in imitating Jesus (moral sense), and life of the “kingdom” here and hereafter (anagogical sense); +<li>refutation of all error through the testimony of the inspired Word of God; +<li>confirmation of the true Catholic Faith given to us by God through his Church, the Body of Christ. +</ol> +<p>These are the same goals Thomas had set for himself in composing the <i>Catena Aurea, +</i>particularly in the <i>Catena </i>on John’s Gospel, which was composed only four or five years +earlier. +<a href="javascript:WPShow('WPFootnote14', WPFootnote14 )"><img src="footnoteicon.gif" alt="Footnote" width="16" height="14" border="0"></a> +<script type="text/javascript" language="javascript"> + if( bInlineFloats ) + { + document.write( '<span id="WPFootnote14" class="WPFloatStyle">' ); + document.write( WPFootnote14 ); + document.write( '<br><a href="javascript:WPHide(\'WPFootnote14\')">Close</a>' ); + document.write( '</span>' ); + } +</script> +</p> +<p>There are four outstanding features that will be noticed as one studies the commentary of Thomas +on the Gospel of John. First, Thomas had an extraordinary knowledge of the whole Bible. It has +been said, not without likelihood, that Thomas memorized the entire Bible during the year he was +confined to his family castle at Roccasecca, 1244-45. This is not at all difficult to believe. His +memory was far superior to any man-made concordance of the Bible. Thomas always saw the +<i>unity </i>of divine revelation. It was the unity of <i>sacra doctrina </i>as a single “science.” +<a href="javascript:WPShow('WPFootnote15', WPFootnote15 )"><img src="footnoteicon.gif" alt="Footnote" width="16" height="14" border="0"></a> +<script type="text/javascript" language="javascript"> + if( bInlineFloats ) + { + document.write( '<span id="WPFootnote15" class="WPFloatStyle">' ); + document.write( WPFootnote15 ); + document.write( '<br><a href="javascript:WPHide(\'WPFootnote15\')">Close</a>' ); + document.write( '</span>' ); + } +</script> + The +“orthodox” teaching of Christ, Son of the Living God, cannot be anything but <i>one. </i>Because of +this unity, Thomas could use any one part of Sacred Scripture to explain and illumine any other +part. Thus Thomas could use the teaching of St. Paul and the Psalms to explain the text of John. +This use of one part of revelation to illumine another has been aptly called “the analogy of faith” +(<i>secundum rationern fidei, </i>as St. Paul says in Romans 12:6). +<a href="javascript:WPShow('WPFootnote16', WPFootnote16 )"><img src="footnoteicon.gif" alt="Footnote" width="16" height="14" border="0"></a> +<script type="text/javascript" language="javascript"> + if( bInlineFloats ) + { + document.write( '<span id="WPFootnote16" class="WPFloatStyle">' ); + document.write( WPFootnote16 ); + document.write( '<br><a href="javascript:WPHide(\'WPFootnote16\')">Close</a>' ); + document.write( '</span>' ); + } +</script> +</p> +<p>Second, Thomas had an unusual knowledge of the Latin and Greek Fathers of the Church. This +knowledge, no doubt aided by his work on the <i>Catena Aurea, is </i>brought to bear on every difficult +question or obscure passage in John, even when it is a question of chronology, geography, Jewish +customs, or language. The medieval mind associated words, quotations and parallels with +uncanny facility, always trying to find the best pertinent quotation from the proper authorities +(<i>auctoritates</i>)<i>. </i>Great weight, sometimes of probative value, was always given to the recognized +<i>auctoritates, </i>which, in theology were always the Bible and the <i>sancti, </i>meaning recognized or +canonized Doctors of the Church, who were the <i>regula fidei </i>(“the rule of faith”), the “norms” of +Christian belief. Thomas’ knowledge of these Doctors was prodigious. The contemporaries of +Thomas relied heavily on all available works of the Latin Fathers, especially those of St. +Augustine. But, as has been pointed out earlier, Thomas not only accepted the eminent authority +of St. Augustine, but also had a wealth of Greek sources from which to draw, including the early +Ecumenical Councils of the Church, whose <i>Acts </i>were largely neglected or forgotten in the Latin +Middle Ages. +<a href="javascript:WPShow('WPFootnote17', WPFootnote17 )"><img src="footnoteicon.gif" alt="Footnote" width="16" height="14" border="0"></a> +<script type="text/javascript" language="javascript"> + if( bInlineFloats ) + { + document.write( '<span id="WPFootnote17" class="WPFloatStyle">' ); + document.write( WPFootnote17 ); + document.write( '<br><a href="javascript:WPHide(\'WPFootnote17\')">Close</a>' ); + document.write( '</span>' ); + } +</script> +</p> +<p>Third, Thomas was, after all, an outstanding theologian for any season. His theology was not only +biblical and patristic, but also logical and philosophical. While he absorbed and refined the +philosophy of Aristotle, newly translated from the Greek, he never put this philosophy ahead of +his Catholic faith. Rather he used that philosophy <i>in obsequium fidei </i>(Phil 2:17), as a “handmaid +of theology.” His comprehension of Aristotle and his use of the scholastic method are among the +glories of the Middle Ages. In St. Thomas we find an exceptionally gifted mind carefully honed +to human perfection by self-discipline, long study, and clear thinking. This was natural talent, +ranked by many as a true genius, brought to the highest human perfection by the grace of God.</p> +<p>Finally, Friar Thomas d’Aquino was a saint, one of the great saints in the Latin Church. A basic +principle of Thomas’ theology is that “grace perfects nature”; that is, the grace of God never +destroys or replaces nature, but builds upon it. For St. Thomas, there is in divine providence a +certain kind of proportion between God’s gifts of nature and his gifts of grace. Even when we +accept this principle with all the necessary qualifications needed, we can readily see that in the +mind and heart of St. Thomas, God’s grace abundantly perfected an already great man. Not only +did Thomas meditate prayerfully on the Sacred Scriptures, but lie drew from them substantial +nourishment for his soul. This process of enrichment can be seen conspicuously in the +commentary on John, particularly the section dealing with the “Last Discourse” of Jesus to his +disciples at the Last Supper, collected in “the sayings of Jesus” in chapters 14 to 17. Here +Thomas’ discussion of the Son’s procession from the Father while being consubstantially one +with the Father, is precise, illuminating, and brilliant; the mission of the Holy Spirit from the +Father <i>and </i>from the Son (<i>Filioque</i>) is clearly demonstrated against the Greek Orthodox who used +this question as one of the many issues that separated them from Rome, initially in the ninth, and +decisively in the eleventh century. But above all, the indwelling of the Holy Trinity in the hearts +of the faithful is alive and vital; the extraordinary love Jesus had for his faithful disciples is +movingly real and dynamic. In this commentary on John we have all the elements of a real +masterpiece of its kind in medieval literature.</p> +<p>St. Thomas was very much impressed by the force and absolute veracity of the Gospel +proclaimed by John: “This disciple is the one who vouches for these things and has written them +down, and we know that his testimony is true” (Jn 21:24). St. Thomas comments that the +Evangelist makes this statement “in the person of the whole Church (<i>in persona totius Ecclesiae</i>)<i> +</i>from whom this Gospel is received [by us].” The Evangelist himself knows the veracity of his +narrative, and even St. Paul condemns those who would preach a gospel other than the one he +had received (see Gal 1:9). The firmness and stability of our Christian faith is the authority of +God speaking through Evangelists, Apostles and other authors of the canonical Books of +Scripture. Their testimony leaves us without any doubt as to our faith, because “the Canonical +Scriptures alone are the rule of faith.” +<a href="javascript:WPShow('WPFootnote18', WPFootnote18 )"><img src="footnoteicon.gif" alt="Footnote" width="16" height="14" border="0"></a> +<script type="text/javascript" language="javascript"> + if( bInlineFloats ) + { + document.write( '<span id="WPFootnote18" class="WPFloatStyle">' ); + document.write( WPFootnote18 ); + document.write( '<br><a href="javascript:WPHide(\'WPFootnote18\')">Close</a>' ); + document.write( '</span>' ); + } +</script> + This <i>sola scriptura </i>of which St. Thomas speaks is far +different from the <i>sola scriptura </i>(“only the Bible”) of the Reformers. This battle cry was made +famous by Luther, who insisted that what is not contained in the Bible is not “of faith.” But +Luther and Thomas (or any other medieval theologian) meant two different things by the word +<i>Bible, </i>or <i>Sacred Scriptures. </i>For Luther and the Reformers the Bible was thought of as a finished, +edited, and (by then) printed collection, while Thomas and the medieval theologians meant the +Sacred Word <i>together with </i>the gloss of the Fathers, liturgy, and the living Church. The +Reformers thought of “The Bible” completely devoid of a history and a historical context, devoid +of transmission and development; in short, they thought of “The Bible” distinct from the Church. +Thus in the face of this misunderstanding, the Council of Trent spoke as <i>though </i>there were two +sources of our faith: “the written books and the unwritten traditions.” +<a href="javascript:WPShow('WPFootnote19', WPFootnote19 )"><img src="footnoteicon.gif" alt="Footnote" width="16" height="14" border="0"></a> +<script type="text/javascript" language="javascript"> + if( bInlineFloats ) + { + document.write( '<span id="WPFootnote19" class="WPFloatStyle">' ); + document.write( WPFootnote19 ); + document.write( '<br><a href="javascript:WPHide(\'WPFootnote19\')">Close</a>' ); + document.write( '</span>' ); + } +</script> + But even this manner of +speaking was a concession to a false dichotomy that was historically conditioned. The Second +Vatican Council, however, described these two sources” more traditionally as a single mirror +(<i>veluti speculum sunt</i>)<i> </i>reflecting both sacred tradition and Sacred Scripture. +<a href="javascript:WPShow('WPFootnote20', WPFootnote20 )"><img src="footnoteicon.gif" alt="Footnote" width="16" height="14" border="0"></a> +<script type="text/javascript" language="javascript"> + if( bInlineFloats ) + { + document.write( '<span id="WPFootnote20" class="WPFloatStyle">' ); + document.write( WPFootnote20 ); + document.write( '<br><a href="javascript:WPHide(\'WPFootnote20\')">Close</a>' ); + document.write( '</span>' ); + } +</script> +</p> +<p>Historically speaking, the revelation given by God and received by the chosen people was prior +to any scriptural document. Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob were given the message of salvation long +before there was any question of a written Torah. Christ’s message of salvation was accepted by +the Apostles, disciples, and early Christians for a quarter of a century before the first fraction of +the New Testament was written—and this by St. Paul (1 Thessalonians, probably at the beginning +of 52 A.D.). We must always remember that the Canon of the New Testament was not +established as an inspired unit until 382 A.D., at the earliest. That is, the living Church existed +long before the New Testament was “written,” and it existed for 350 years before the present +books were collected into an exclusive and canonical unity. For this reason, St. Thomas could +speak of the “whole Church from whom this Gospel is received.”</p> +<p>Finally, a word should be said in aid of a fruitful reading of St. Thomas’ commentary on John. +Although the pericope or section commented upon in every “Lecture” is printed in full at the +head of the commentary, it would be best to procure a second copy of the whole text and read the +particular chapter in full before proceeding to the comment. It is of utmost importance to follow +the <i>divisions </i>of the text made by St. Thomas and always keep the context well in view. The +lemmata, or phrases commented upon, are clearly set off from the comment by the printer. Unless +the particular lemma is constantly related to the context as a whole, one can easily get lost in the +forest of words, cross references, and quotations. Since <i>order </i>and <i>division </i>are such important +elements in the scholastic method, these must be continuously related to the <i>whole, </i>whether it +be a collection of chapters, an individual chapter, part of a chapter, a parable, narrative, pericope, +or sentence. Those who wish to obtain the greatest understanding of the Sacred Text might well +augment the study of St. Thomas’ “theological sense” of John with a modern commentary, such +as the outstanding commentary by Father Raymond Brown in the Anchor Bible (2 vols.).</p> +<p>For the fruitful reading of St. Thomas’ commentary on John, we should further note that +throughout the long history of the Church, listeners and readers of tile Sacred Text have always +been encouraged to prepare their minds and souls for a fruitful reception of the Word. The Word +of God, like the seed in the parable (Lk 8:15), needs to be received in “good ground” in order to +yield fruit a hundredfold. The reception of anything, according to the ancient philosophers, +depends on the condition of the receiver. The Word of God is Spirit (Jn 6:63), and only the Holy +Spirit cdn prepare the soul for fruitful reception of the Word. In the solemn proclamation of the +Gospel in the Liturgy of the Word, the Church prays for the Deacon that the Lord be in his heart +and on his lips in order to announce the Holy Gospel of Peace. +<a href="javascript:WPShow('WPFootnote21', WPFootnote21 )"><img src="footnoteicon.gif" alt="Footnote" width="16" height="14" border="0"></a> +<script type="text/javascript" language="javascript"> + if( bInlineFloats ) + { + document.write( '<span id="WPFootnote21" class="WPFloatStyle">' ); + document.write( WPFootnote21 ); + document.write( '<br><a href="javascript:WPHide(\'WPFootnote21\')">Close</a>' ); + document.write( '</span>' ); + } +</script> + Preparing one’s mind and heart +by prayer and recollection is of greatest importance for the reception of God’s message for us. +This message is directed primarily to us as God’s chosen people, the pilgrim Church on earth, +and through the Church to us as individuals beloved by God and “purchased at a great price” (1 +Cor 6:20). The message of salvation is addressed to us individually and collectively, and we both +individually and collectively must attune our minds and hearts to the Spirit. “The Advocate, the +Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, will teach you everything and remind you +of all I have said to you” (Jn 14:26). The Holy Spirit speaks to our hearts through the Scriptures, +inspired and animated by him. The Scriptures as a spiritual resource cannot be dissociated from +personal prayer and cultivation of our sacramental life in the Church. Being receptive is the +important thing as we begin our study.</p> +<p>Finally, the power of reading or hearing the Sacred Scriptures is so great that it actually forgives +sins. Apart from “the Sacraments of the faith” (<i>sacramenta fidei</i>),<i> </i>it is one of the many ways by +which our many sins are forgiven. The Fathers of the Church have always listed—along with +almsgiving, contrition, and good works—the special efficacy of reading the Scriptures for the +forgiveness of sins. The new liturgy of the Mass prompted by the Second Vatican Council still +retains the ancient prayer: “May the words of the Gospel wipe away our sins.” The humble and +contrite reading of any part of the Scriptures wipes away sin because the power of the Word is +the power of God, who alone can forgive sins. Thus we should always approach the Scriptures +with a “humble and contrite heart.” The Psalmist declares, “A contrite and humbled heart, 0 God, +you will not despise” (Ps 50:19). God always answers a humble and contrite heart in order to +glorify himself in us, just as the Father is always glorified in the Son. “Whatever you ask for in +my name I will do, so that the Father may be glorified in the Son” Qn 14:13). This “glory” of the +Father through the Son in the Holy Spirit is sometimes called the indwelling of the Trinity within +our souls. It is the “conformity” of our whole being to the Father through the Word animated by +the Spirit. In this conformity of our innermost being with the splendor of God lies the whole +perfection of the Christian life. In this perfection consists the glory and splendor of God himself. +This union of one’s deepest self and the innermost being of God is the answer to the prayer of +Jesus to the Father: “That they may be one, as we also are one” (Jn 17:11).</p> +<p>From this it follows that the study of St. Thomas’ commentary on St. John’s Gospel is richly +rewarding in healing our wounds and leading us to greater union with the Father of our Lord +Jesus Christ, whose message of salvation is here proclaimed by “the disciple whom Jesus loved” +(Jn 20:2). For our guide we can have none better than the Angelic Doctor, whom Jesus loved.</p> +<p style="text-align: right; margin-bottom: 0.125in">James A. Weisheipl, O.P. +<br>Pontifical Institute of Mediaeval Studies +<br>Toronto, Canada</p> +<br> +<hr> +<A NAME="02"><p style="text-align: center; margin-bottom: 0.125in"><span style="font-weight: bold">PROLOGUE</span></p> +<p style="text-align: justify; margin-left: 0.5in; margin-right: 0.5in; margin-bottom: 0.125in"><i>I saw the Lord seated on a high and lofty throne, and the whole house was full +of his majesty, and the things that were under him filled the temple.</i> (Is 6:1)</p> +<p>1 These are the words of a contemplative, and if we regard them as spoken by John the +Evangelist they apply quite well to showing the nature of this Gospel. For as Augustine says in +his work, <i>On the Agreement of the Evangelists: </i>“The other Evangelists instruct us in their +Gospels on the active life; but John in his Gospel instructs us also on the contemplative life.”</p> +<p>The contemplation of John is described above in three ways, in keeping with the threefold +manner in which he contemplated the Lord Jesus. It is described as high, full, and perfect. It is +high: <span style="font-weight: bold">I saw the Lord seated on a high and lofty throne; </span>it is full: <span style="font-weight: bold">and the whole house was +full of his majesty; </span>and it was perfect: <span style="font-weight: bold">and the things that were under him filled the temple.</span></p> +<p>2 As to the first, we must understand that the Height and sublimity of contemplation consists +most of all in the contemplation and knowledge of God. “Lift up your eyes on high, and see who +has created these things” (Is 40:26). A man lifts up his eyes on high when he sees and +contemplates the Creator of all things. Now since John rose above whatever had been +created—mountains, heavens, angels—and reached the Creator of all, as Augustine says, it is +clear that his contemplation was most high. Thus, <span style="font-weight: bold">I saw the Lord. </span>And because, as John himself +says below (12:41), “Isaiah said this because he had seen his glory,” that is, the glory of Christ, +“and spoke of him,” the Lord <span style="font-weight: bold">seated on a high and lofty throne </span>is Christ.</p> +<p>Now a fourfold height is indicated in this contemplation of John. A height of authority; hence +he says, <span style="font-weight: bold">I saw the Lord. </span>A height of eternity; when he says, seated. One of dignity, or nobility +of nature; so he says, <span style="font-weight: bold">on a high throne. </span>And a height of incomprehensible truth; when he says, +lofty. It is in these four ways that the early philosophers arrived at the knowledge of God.</p> +<p>3 Some attained to a knowledge of God through his authority, and this is the most efficacious +way. For we see the things in nature acting for an end, and attaining to ends which are both useful +and certain. And since they lack intelligence, they are unable to direct themselves, but must be +directed and moved by one directing them, and who possesses an intellect. Thus it is that the +movement of the things of nature toward a certain end indicates the existence of something +higher by which the things of nature are directed to an end and governed. And so, since the whole +course of nature advances to an end in an orderly way and is directed, we have to posit something +higher w1iich directs and governs them as Lord; and this is God. This authority in governing is +shown to be in the Word of God when he says, Lord. Thus the Psalm (88:10) says: “You rule the +power of the sea, and you still the swelling of its waves,” as though saying: You are the Lord and +govern all things. John shows that he knows this about the Word when he says below (1:11), “He +came unto his own,” i.e., to the world, since the whole universe is his own.</p> +<p>4 Others came to a knowledge of God from his eternity. They saw that whatever was in things +was changeable, and that the more noble something is in the grades of being, so much the less +it has of mutability. For example, the lower bodies are mutable both as to their substance and to +place, while the heavenly bodies, which are more noble, are immutable in substance and change +only with respect to place. We can clearly conclude from this that the first principle of all things, +which is supreme and more noble, is changeless and eternal. The prophet suggests this eternity +of the Word when he says, <span style="font-weight: bold">seated, </span>i.e., presiding without any change and eternally. “Your throne, +O God, is forever and ever” (Ps 44:7); “Jesus Christ is the same yesterday, today, and forever” +(Heb 13:8). John points to this eternity when he says below (1:1), “In the beginning was the +Word.”</p> +<p>5 Still others came to a knowledge of God from the dignity of God; and these were the Platonists. +They noted that everything which is something by participation is reduced to what is the same +thing by essence, as to the first and highest. Thus, all things which are fiery by participation are +reduced to fire, which is such by its essence. And so since all things which exist participate in +existence (<i>esse</i>)<i> </i>and are beings by participation, there must necessarily be at the summit of all +things something which is existence (<i>esse</i>)<i> </i>by its essence, i.e., whose essence is its existence. +And this is God, who is the most sufficient, the most eminent, and the most perfect cause of the +whole of existence, from, whom all things that are participate existence (<i>esse</i>)<i>. </i>This dignity is +shown in the words, <span style="font-weight: bold">on a high throne, </span>which, according to Denis, refer to the divine nature. +“The Lord is high above all nations” (Ps 112:4). John shows us this dignity when he says below +(1:1), “the Word was God,” with “Word” as subject and “God” as the predicate.</p> +<p>6 Yet others arrived at a knowledge of God from the incomprehensibility of truth. All the truth +which our intellect is able to grasp is finite, since according to Augustine, “everything that is +known is bounded by the comprehension of the one knowing”; and if it is bounded, it is +determined and particularized. Therefore, the first and supreme Truth, which surpasses every +intellect, must necessarily be incomprehensible and infinite; and this is God. [fence the Psalm +(8:2) says, “Your greatness is above the heavens,” i.e., above every created intellect, angelic and +human. The Apostle says this in the words, “He dwells in unapproachable light” (1 Tim 6:16). +This incomprehensibility of Truth is shown to us in the word, <span style="font-weight: bold">lofty, </span>that is, above all the +knowledge of the created intellect. John implies this incomprehensibility to us when he says +below (1:18), “No one has ever seen God.”</p> +<p>Thus, the contemplation of John was high as regards authority, eternity, dignity, and the +incomprehensibility of the Word. And John has passed on this contemplation to us in his Gospel.</p> +<p>7 John’s contemplation was also full. Now contemplation is full when someone is able to +consider all the effects of a cause in the cause itself, that is, when he knows not only the essence +of the cause, but also its power, according as it can extend out to many things. Of this flowing +outward we read, “It overflows with wisdom, like the Pishon, and like the Tigris in the days of +the new fruits” (Sir 25:35); “The river of God is full with water,” since the divine wisdom has +depth in relation to its knowledge of all things (Ps 65:9). “With you from the beginning is +wisdom, who knows your works” (Wis 9:9).</p> +<p>Since John the Evangelist was raised up to the contemplation of the nature of the divine Word +and of his essence when he said, “In the beginning was the Word; and the Word was with God,” +he immediately tells us of the power of the Word as it extends to all things, saying, “Through him +all things came into being.” Thus his contemplation was full. And so after the prophet had <span style="font-weight: bold">said, +I saw the Lord seated, </span>he added something about his power, <span style="font-weight: bold">and the whole house was full of +his majesty, </span>that is, the whole fullness of things and of the universe is from the majesty and +power of God, through whom all things were made, and by whose light all the men coming into +this world are enlightened. “The earth and its fullness are the Lord’s” (Ps 23:1).</p> +<p>8 The contemplation of John was also perfect. For contemplation is perfect when the one +contemplating is led and raised to the height of the thing contemplated. Should he remain at a +lower level, then no matter how high the things which he might contemplate, the contemplation +would not be perfect. So in order that it be perfect it is necessary that it rise and attain the end of +the thing contemplated, adhering and assenting by affection and understanding to the truth +contemplated. Job (37:16) says, “Do you not know the path of the clouds,” that is, the +contemplation of those preaching, “how perfect they are?” inasmuch as they adhere firmly by +affection and understanding to contemplating the highest truth.</p> +<p>Since John not only taught how Christ Jesus, the Word of God, is God, raised above all things, +and how all things were made through him, but also that we are sanctified by him and adhere to +him by the grace which he pours into us, he says below (1:16), “Of his fullness we have all +received - indeed, grace in return for grace.” It is therefore apparent that his contemplation is +perfect. This perfection is shown in the addition, <span style="font-weight: bold">and the things that were under him filled the +temple. </span>For “the head of Christ is God” (1 Cor 11:3). The things that are under Christ are the +sacraments of his humanity, through which the faithful are filled with the fullness of grace. In this +way, then, <span style="font-weight: bold">the things that were under him filled the temple, </span>i.e., the faithful, who are the holy +temple of God (1 Cor 3:17) insofar as through the sacraments of his humanity all the faithful of +Christ receive from the fullness of his grace.</p> +<p>The contemplation of John was thus full, high, and perfect.</p> +<p>9 We should note, however, that these three characteristics of contemplation belong to the +different sciences in different ways. The perfection of contemplation is found in Moral Science, +which is concerned with the ultimate end. The fullness of contemplation is possessed by Natural +Science, which considers things as proceeding from God. Among the physical [natural] sciences, +the height of contemplation is found in Metaphysics. But the Gospel of John contains all together +what the above sciences have in a divided way, and so it is most perfect.</p> +<p>10 In this way then, from what has been said, we can understand the matter of this Gospel. For +while the other Evangelists treat principally of the mysteries of the humanity of Christ, John, +especially and above all, makes known the divinity of Christ in his Gospel, as we saw above. +Still, he does not ignore the mysteries of his humanity. He did this because, after the other +Evangelists had written their Gospels, heresies had arisen concerning the divinity of Christ, to +the effect that Christ was purely and simply a man, as Ebion and Cerinthus falsely thought. And +so John the Evangelist, who had drawn the truth about the divinity of the Word from the very +fountain-head of the divine breast, wrote this Gospel at the request of the faithful. And in it he +gives us the doctrine of the divinity of Christ and refutes all heresies.</p> +<p>The order of this Gospel is clear from the above. For John first shows us <span style="font-weight: bold">the Lord seated on a +high and lofty throne, </span>when he says below (1:1), “In the beginning was the Word.” He shows +secondly how <span style="font-weight: bold">the house was full of his majesty, </span>when he says, “through him all things came +into being” (1:3). Thirdly, he shows how the <span style="font-weight: bold">things that were under him filled the temple, +</span>when he says, “the Word was made flesh” (1:14). The end of this Gospel is also clear, and it is +that the faithful become the temple of God, and become filled with the majesty of God; and so +John says below (20:31), “These things are written so that you may believe that Jesus is the +Christ, the Son of God.”</p> +<p>The matter of this Gospel, the knowledge of the divinity of the Word, is clear, as well as its order +and end.</p> +<p>11 Then follows the condition of the author, who is described above in four ways: as to his name, +his virtue, his symbol, and his privilege. He is described as to name as John, the author of this +Gospel. “John” is interpreted as “in whom is grace,” since the secrets of the divinity cannot be +seen except by those who have the grace of God within themselves. “No one knows the deep +things of God but the Spirit of God” (1 Cor 2:11).</p> +<p>As concerns his virtue, John <span style="font-weight: bold">saw the Lord seated, </span>because he was a virgin; for it is fitting that +such persons see the Lord: “Blessed are the pure in heart” (Mt 5:8).</p> +<p>He is described as to his symbol, for John is symbolized by an eagle. The other three Evangelists, +concerned with those things which Christ did in his flesh, are symbolized by animals which walk +on the earth, namely, by a man, a bull calf, and a lion. But John flies like an eagle above the +cloud of human weakness and looks upon the light of unchanging truth with the most lofty and +firm eyes of the heart. And gazing on the very deity of our Lord Jesus Christ, by which he is +equal to the Father, he has striven in this Gospel to confide this above all, to the extent that he +believed was sufficient for all. Concerning this flight of John it says in Job (39:27): “Will the +eagle,” that is, John, “fly up at your command?” And further on it says, “His eyes look far away,” +because the Word of God is seen in the bosom of the Father by the eye of the mind.</p> +<p>John is described as to privilege since, among the other disciples of the Lord, John was more +loved by Christ. Without mentioning his own name John refers to himself below (21:20) as “the +disciple whom Jesus loved.” And because secrets are revealed to friends, “I have called you +friends because everything I have heard from my father I have made known to you” (below +15:15), Jesus confided his secrets in a special way to that disciple who was specially loved. Thus +it says in Job (36:32): “From the savage,” that is, the proud, “he hides his light,” that is, Christ +hides the truth of his divinity, “and shows his friend,” that is, John, “that it belongs to him,” since +it is John who sees the light of the Incarnate Word more excellently and expresses it to us, saying +“He was the true light” (below 1:19).</p> +<p>Now the matter, order, end and author of this Gospel of the blessed John are clear.</p> +</body> +</html>
