Tuesday, February 02, 2010

Anniversary of the Death of Palestrina (1594)


Share/Bookmark And also of his birth (1526).



Giovanni Perluigi da Palestrina

The greatest composer of liturgical music of all time, born at Palestrina (ancient Praeneste) in 1514 or 1515, according to Baini, Riemann, and others, according to Haberl, in 1526; died at Rome, 2 February, 1594. His early history is practically unknown. Giuseppe Ottavia Pittoni (1657-1743), in notizie dei maestri di cappella si di Rome che ultramontani, 1600-1700, a manuscript in the Vatican, relates that young Pierluigi sang in the streets of Rome while offering for sale the products of his parents farm and that he was heard on such an occasion by the choirmaster of Santa Maria Maggiore, who, impressed by the boy's beautiful voice and pronounced musical talent, educated him musically. As to the identity of the choirmaster, tradition gives no clue. Some hold that Palestrina was taught by Jacques Arcadelt (1514-60), choirmaster and composer in Rome from 1539 to 1549. The opinion, so long held, that Claude Goudimel (1505-72) was his principal teacher has now been definitively abandoned. As far as is known, he began his active musical life as organist and choirmaster in his native city in 1544; his reputation increasing, in 1551 he was called to Rome, entrusted with the direction and musical formation of the choirboys at St. Peter's, and within the same year was advanced to the post of choirmaster. In 1554, he dedicated to Julius III (1549-55) his first compositions, a volume of masses for four voices, and was rewarded with the appointment as a member of the papal chapel in contravention of the rules governing that body. The pope had set aside the rule requiring those who held membership in the papal choir to be in Holy Orders, and also used his authority to exempt him from the usually severe entrance examination. These circumstances and the further fact that his voice was much inferior to those of the other singers, aroused the opposition, and antagonism of his fellow-members. The papal singers did not appreciate the object of the pope, which was to secure for the gifted young man the necessary leisure to compose.

In the course of the same year, Palestrina published a volume of madrigals. The texts of some of these the composer himself in later years considered too free. In the dedication of his setting of the Canticle of Canticles to Gregory XIII, he expresses not only regret but repentance, for having caused scandal by this publication. Marcellus II, as cardinal, had protected and admired Palestrina, but died after a reign of only twenty-one days. Paul IV, shortly after his accession, re-inforced the former rules for the government of the papal choir. Besides Palestrina, there were two other lay married members in the choir. All were dismissed with a small pension, in spite of the understanding that these singers were engaged for life.

The worry and hardship caused by the dismissal brought on a severe illness; restored, the composer took charge, 1 October, 1555, of the choir at St. John Lateran, where he remained until February, 1561. During this period he wrote, beside Lamentations and Magnificats, the famous Improperia. Their performance by the papal choir on Good Friday was ordered by Paul IV, and they have remained in its repertoire for Holy Week ever since. This production greatly increased Palestrina's fame. In 1561 he asked the chapter of St. John Lateran for an increase in salary, in view of his growing needs and the expense of publishing his works. Refused, he accepted a similar post at Santa Maria Maggiore, which he held until 1571. It is not know at what period of his career Palestrina came under the influence of St. Philip Neri, but there is every reason to believe it was in early youth. As the saint's penitent and spiritual disciple, he gained that insight into the spirit of the liturgy, which enabled his to set it forth in polyphonic music as it had never before been done. It was his spiritual formation even more than his artistic maturity, which fitted him for the providential part he played in the reform of church music.

The task of hastening the reforms decreed by the Council of Trent was entrusted by Pius IV to a commission of eight cardinals. A committee of two of these, St. Charles Borromeo and Vitellozzo Vitelli, was appointed to consider certain improvement in the discipline and administration of the papal choir, and to this end they associated to themselves eight of the choir members. Cardinal Vitelli caused the singers to perform certain compositions in his presence, in order to determine what measures could be taken for the preservation of the integrity and distinct declamation of the text in compositions in which the voices were interwoven. St. Charles, as chancellor of his uncle, Pius IV, was the patron of Palestrina, increasing his pension in 1565. He celebrated a solemn Mass in presence of the pontiff on 19 June, 1565, at which Palestrina's great Missa Papae Marcelli was sung. These historical data are the only discoverable basis for the legends, so long repeated by historians, concerning the trial before the cardinals and pope of the cause of polyphonic music, and its vindication by Palestrina, in the composition and performance of three masses, the Missa Papae Marcelli among them. Haberl's studies of the archives conclusively demolished these fictions, but their continued repetition for nearly two hundred years emphasizes the fact of Palestrina's activity, inspired by St. Philip and encouraged by St. Charles, in the reform of church music, an activity which embraced his entire career and antedated by some years the disciplinary measures of the Church authorities.

The foundation of his reform is the two principles legitimately deduced from the only references to church music in the Tridentine decrees:
  • the elimination of all themes of reminiscent of, or resembling, secular music;
  • the rejection of musical forms and elaborations tending to mutilate or obscure the liturgical text.

Pius IV created for Palestrina the office of "Composer of the Papal Chapel" with an increased salary. In this office he had only one successor, Felice Anerio. When in 1571 Giovanni Animuccia, choirmaster at St. Peter's, died, Palestrina became his successor, thus being connected with the papal choir and St. Peter's at the same time. An attempt of his jealous and intriguing colleagues in the papal chapel to have him dismissed by Pius V was unsuccessful. During this year he wrote a number of motets and laudi spirituali for the Oratory of St. Philip Neri. Besides the duties of choirmaster at St. Peter's, composer to the papal chapel, director of music at St. Philip's Oratory, he also taught at the school of music of Giovanni Maria Nanini. In addition, Gregory XIII commissioned him to prepare a new version of the Gregorian chant. His exact share in this edition, afterwards published under the name of editio Medicaea because printed in a press belonging to Cardinal de' Medici, and what was prepared by his pupil Giovanni Guidetti, Felice Anerio, and Francesco Suriano, has long been a matter of controversy. The undertaking was not particularly congenial to Palestrina and kept him from original production, his real field of activity. His wife's death in 1580 affected him profoundly. His sorrow found expression in two compositions, Psalm 136, "By the waters of Babylon", and a motet on the words "O Lord, when Thou shalt come to judge the world, how shall I stand before the face of Thy anger, my sins frighten me, woe to me, O Lord". With these he intended to close his creative activity, but with the appointment in 1581 as director of music to Prince Buoncompagni, nephew of Gregory XIII, he began perhaps the most brilliant period of his long life.

Besides sacred madrigals, motets, psalms, hymns in honour of the Blessed Virgin, and Masses, he produced the work which brought him the title of "Prince of Music", twenty-nine motets on the words from the Canticle of Canticles. According to his own statement, Palestrina intended to reproduce in his composition the Divine love expressed in the Canticle, so that his own heart might be touched by a spark thereof. For the enthronement of Sixtus V, he wrote a five-part motet and mass on the theme to the text Tu es pastor ovium, followed a few months later by one of his greatest productions, the mass Assumpta est Maria. Sixtus had intended to appoint him director of the papal choir, but the refusal of the singers to be directed by a layman, prevented the execution of his plan. During the last years of his life Palestrina wrote his great Lamentations, settings of the liturgical hymns, a collection of motets, the well-know Stabat Mater for double chorus, litanies in honour of the Blessed Virgin Mary, and the offertories for the ecclesiastical year. His complete works, in thirty-three volumes, edited by Theodore de Witt, Franz Espagne, Franz Commer, and from the tenth volume on, by Haberl, are published by Breitkopf and Hartel; Msgr. Haberl presented the last volume of the completed edition to Pius X on Easter Monday, 1908. Palestrina's significance lies not so much in his unprecedented gifts of mind and heart, his creative and constructive powers, as in the fact that he made them the medium for the expression in tones of the state of his own soul, which, trained and formed by St. Philip, was attuned to and felt with the Church. His creations will for all time stand forth as the musical embodiment of the spirit of the counter-reformation, the triumphant Church.


Monday, February 01, 2010

Sermon Delivered the Night of the SSPX Vandalism/Protest against FSSP Apostolate


Share/Bookmark

Video of the San Pedro Chapel in Guadalajara, Mexico (Recorded Fall 2009)


Here is the much awaited sermon, translated from Spanish, which the SSPX faithful distracted by their loud protest.  Protest of what?  Go figure. They were told that the sermon was going to be on this subject, but they just wouldn't listen.  If you have any more questions, please send your email to the address on the sidebar and it will be forwarded to the FSSP priest in question.  The sermon, which is recorded in Spanish, was as follows.

Welcome to all who are attending the traditional Mass for the first time. In the pews you will find a missalette, which has the whole Mass in Latin and Spanish, but normally I recommend to those attending for the first time, that they do so rather as Our Lady participated at the foot of the Cross, in the silence of adoration, meditating on the crucifix and the symbolism of the ceremony, since the Mass is truly the real renovation upon the altar of the same infinite sacrifice present for all the ages. You can follow the example of the rest who already know this Mass as to when to stand and kneel. Holy Communion is only received on the tongue, and kneeling, for all who can kneel, here at the communion rail; and the priest, not the people, says amen, since the formula is not a profession of faith--Body of Christ--but rather a prayer in our rite which says, 'may the body of Our Lord Jesus Christ lead you to eternal life, Amen'. If there are non-Catholics present, we inform you that this is a Catholic Mass, and not an ecumenical celebration, and it is not permitted to those who are not members of the Church to receive Holy Communion, since the reception of Holy Communion is, in addition, a sign of that union which already exists in the Church founded by Jesus Christ. And I wish to tell you that we will be available after Mass to speak with you, with great pleasure, about our holy faith, and this ancient rite.

In fact, the traditional Mass in Latin, a Mass which has its origins in the apostolic tradition of Rome, and which was already codified in the time of St. Gregory the Great to the same [state as that in which] we celebrate it today, is a Mass which has served well for the unity of the Church throughout the world on account of the universality of a language which is common to the whole Western world, and at the same time consecrated, reserved for the most sacred ceremonies. For which reason, the second Vatican Council, commanded that the use of Latin be conserved in the Latin rites, following the command of Pope John XXIII, who said, in addition, that the Latin language "can be called truly Catholic."  It has been consecrated through constant use by the Apostolic See, the mother and teacher of all Churches, and must be esteemed "a treasure ... of incomparable worth."  It is a general passport to the proper understanding of the Christian writers of antiquity and the documents of the Church's teaching. It is also a most effective bond, binding the Church of today with that of the past and of the future in wonderful continuity.

And this is the Mass which is offered by our Priestly Fraternity of St. Peter, our community, founded by John Paul II in 1988.  Cardinal Ratzinger himself, who has recently made Pope, was very much involved with the foundation of our Fraternity, and has declared that the traditional Mass has never been juridically abrogated. And he adds that "what earlier generations held as sacred remains sacred and great for us too" and cannot be suddenly entirely forbidden or even considered harmful. And he adds that he made this declaration too so as to work out an internal reconciliation in the Church, with those who were mistreated and expelled for having followed this Missal, and who are very much wounded by irreverence in the liturgy. He says, "I have seen how arbitrary deformations of the liturgy caused deep pain to individuals totally rooted in the faith of the Church." Therefore, let us all participate in a spirit of great reverence before this divine mystery before which even the angels tremble.

We are in the middle of the week of prayer for the union of Christians. It is a devotion that began in 1899, when an Anglican minister, Lewis Thomas Wattson, converted to the Catholic faith. He had seen the division among Protestants, and noted that the Catholic Church has always remained the same in teaching the same truths throughout the ages. Very courageously, he attempted to preach in Anglican churches that they should return to the Catholic Church, but he was persecuted and they did not permit him to preach in this manner. He was received into the Catholic Church, and St. Pius X founded his community. He initiated the octave of prayer for the conversion of Protestants to the Catholic Church (today in fact we are praying for the Anglicans), and Pope Benedict XV extended this devotion to the Church Universal. The Octave is called the Octave of the Chair of St. Peter, since it begins on the 18th of January, the feast of the Chair of St. Peter, and ends on the 25th, the conversion of St. Paul.

It is very important to remember this title of the Octave, which tells us what is the aim of a true ecumenism, namely, union with and submission to the successor of St. Peter, the Vicar of Christ, the Pope. And the Church has many times infallibly condemned indifferentism or pan-christianity, which seeks the union of all Christians, as if a perfect unity did not already exist in the Catholic Church which Christ founded.

I would like therefore to preach to you tonight about these teachings of the Church many times forgotten, so that we might always practice an ecumenism in full accord with these teachings of the Church. The most famous encyclical on the theme of dangers of a false ecumenism is Mortalium Animos, written by His Holiness Pius XI, in which he notes the attempts of many Protestants at uniting themselves so as to overcome their divisions and give a better testimony to the world. But the Pope says that it is wrong to say that we are searching for a unity and accord of doctrine which we have lost, because Jesus Christ said that 'the Holy Ghost will teach you all truth', and that 'the gates of hell would not prevail against' the rock, of St. Peter, upon whom the Church is built. And it was the same Lord who said to His apostles that he who hears you hears Me, and he who rejects you rejects Me; and that He has prayed for Peter that his faith may not fail, that he might in turn confirm his brethren. And he concludes by saying that it would be blasphemous to say that the Church has lost the integral Catholic Faith. For which reason he says that we cannot approve of an ecumenical movement that is founded on the false opinion of those that thing that all religions are, with little difference, good and praiseworthy. Now we see how a Catholic ecumenism is very different from the pan-Christianity that arose from the Protestants.

Our “ecumenism” is received from the command of our Lord, who told us, 'Go unto all the world and preach the gospel, he who believes and is baptized will be saved, but he who does not believe shall be condemned', confirming the faith with our charity, without which one cannot be saved either. Wherefore, our salvation depends on the faith, the faith integrally preserved and absolutely certain. Thus does the Church profess in the Athanasian Creed: "Whosoever will be saved, before all things it is necessary that he hold the Catholic Faith. Which Faith except every one do keep whole and undefiled; without doubt he shall perish everlastingly"; which is a but a reiteration of what the Word of God says: "without the faith it is impossible to please God." And if one doubts the faith, and thinks that the word of God--revealed to man in its plentitude in Jesus Christ, confirmed and proved by thousands of prophecies and miracles, and guarded infallibly by the Church for 2000 years--is only a mere opinion, he no loner has the faith, and cannot please God, as the Bible says, because the faith, which is a gift of God, carries with itself absolute certitude. It was modernism, a heresy condemned more than a century ago, that said that the faith is a sentiment of our consciousness, a subjective opinion; and it is Freemasonry, and not Catholicism that says that all religions are equal and the important thing is to preserve the unity of mankind and not of doctrine; but it was Love Incarnate, who said, "Think ye that I have come to bring peace to the earth? No, I tell you, but rather division, the division that comes with the truth."  When we say “yes” absolutely to Christ and to his Church, it implies an absolute “no” to all that is contrary. When the saints said "I believe," they wrote it in their blood. The Cristeros did not cry out “long live the liberty to choose whatever religion you like,” but rather “long live Christ the King, long live the Virgin of Guadalupe.” Thus shouted the niño Cristero, of 14 years of age with much more faith than we have. They did not say, “well, I think so, but I am not sure.” And not for one moment did they tolerate a teaching contrary to the Catholic faith to be considered. And this is the spirit of Christ, the spirit of true love, which conserves and dies for the truth that makes us free.

We, therefore, must judge everything from the point of view of God. How would Christ feel, when it is said that the very gift of Himself in the Most Blessed Sacrament of the Altar, is not Him, but rather merely bread. Are we OK with those who deny Christ? Such tolerance is not a virtue, but rather a sin. It was Christ our God who proposes to us a salvation and love that is conditional--which depends absolutely on his divine will: "If you eat not the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, you shall not have life within you. And he who eats my flesh and drinks my blood shall have eternal life." And when we offer worship to God, neither can we choose the worship which we like, when He has said, "Do THIS in commemoration of me"--the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass. For which reason, the Pope teaches us, repeating the words of Lactantius that, 


It is only the Catholic Church that retains the true worship. It is the fountain of truth, it is the household of the faith, it is the temple of God: If anyone does not enter it, or if anyone departs from it, he is a stranger to the hope of life and salvation. Let no one deceive himself by continuous wranglings. Life and salvation are in the balance, which if not looked to carefully and diligently will be lost and destroyed.

And the Church has condemned, as well, consequently the following doctrines:

16. Man may, in the observance of any religion whatever, find the way of eternal salvation, and arrive at eternal salvation. -- Encyclical "Qui pluribus," Nov. 9, 1846.
17. Good hope at least is to be entertained of the eternal salvation of all those who are not at all in the true Church of Christ. -- Encyclical "Quanto conficiamur," Aug. 10, 1863, etc.

He doesn't say that it is absolutely impossible, since Pius IX mentioned the possibility of salvation for those who are baptized, and go about in invincible ignorance, but he does say that there is no well founded hope, since if one is virtuous he is going to investigate the motives of his beliefs and see what Leo XIII said, “Since, then, the profession of one religion is necessary in the State, that religion must be professed which alone is true, and which can be recognized without difficulty,...because the marks of truth are, as it were, engraven upon it.”  The following phrase is also condemned:
18. Protestantism is nothing more than another form of the same true Christian religion, in which form it is given to please God equally as in the Catholic Church. -- Encyclical "Noscitis," Dec. 8, 1849.
Let us be sincere, therefore, dear faithful, with non-Catholics, practicing an evangelization based always on fidelity to Jesus Christ and his Church. It is a betrayal of fraternal charity, if one places in doubt the faith received from the Church of Christ, and says that he is OK with an error against its teachings. It was the same Apostle of Love, that said, "Love one another," who also said, notes the Pope, "If anyone comes to you and does not bear this doctrine, do not receive him in your house, and do not even greet him, if he places a danger to our faith."

May we be filled with the same charity, the charity which always rejoices in truth, the truth which saves us. And let us never, ever think that Jesus Christ has not conserved all of the truth for us: for the theologian as much as for the lady in the pew or for the child studying his catechism, since He promised us that "I am with you always even unto the consummation of the ages," always present in his Mystical Body, which is the Catholic Church. And if you have but one question that you can pose to one who is not counted amongst her members, ask him the following, the most fundamental question: What is the pillar and foundation of truth? And the Bible, which we have received from the Catholic Church, tells us, that it is "the Church of the living God."

After Mass we will offer a rosary of reparation for the times in which we have placed the love of man before the love of God; for when we have not loved our brother for the sake of God; and for when we have hid the truth that can save us.

Scholasticism as Modern Philosophy


Share/Bookmark
Of course, history is one continuous flow of time.  With the sole exception of the BC-AD division, there is little room to speak of absolute divisions in history.  But historians rightly make rough divisions in history, using critical, revolutionary events and persons as dividing points, and thus make it more convenient to speak of history in terms of periods: the "classical" period, the "middle ages", the "renaissance," "modern" times, etc.

It is no different in the case of the history of western philosophy.  The history of philosophy is typically divided into two major eras: ancient/medieval and modern.  Descartes is considered the "Father of Modern Philosophy" because he caused a revolution in philosophical thinking in Europe.  For this reason, he is typically taken as the dividing point in the history of philosophy.

Now, these two eras are also typically sub-divided into two or three periods each (this, of course, depends on whether or not you consider Medieval and Renaissance philosophy as one unit, and Early Modern and Later Modern Philosophy as one unit):


  • Ancient Philosophy (c. 600 BC to c. AD 400), spanning from Thales, the first Greek pre-Socratic philosophers, to Damascius and Proclus, the last of the pagan neo-Platonists.  It also includes Philo and some Patristic writers, such as Justin Martyr and Origen.
  • Medieval Philosophy (c. AD 400 to 1450), from St. Augustine to William of Ockham.  It normally includes the whole range of medieval scholastics, from the precursor like Boethius and St. Anselm, to the scholastics proper, such as Alexander of Hales, St. Albert, St. Bonaventure, St. Thomas, Bl. Duns Scotus, etc.  It also includes medieval Islamic and Jewish philosophers, such as Avicenna, Averroes, and Maimonides.
  • Renaissance Philosophy (c. AD 1450 to 1600), from Nicholas of Cusa to Giordano Bruno.  Some historians also include in this period some of the later scholastics, such as Báñez, Molina, Suárez, John of St. Thomas (pictured above and to the right), etc.
  • Early Modern Philosophy (c. AD 1600 to 1800), from Descartes to Hume.  This period typically includes the Rationalists (Descartes, Spinoza, and Leibnitz) and the Empiricists (Locke, Berkeley, and Hume).  A few other thinkers are usually included, such as Pascal and Hobbes.
  • Later Modern Philosophy (c. AD 1800 to 1900), from Kant to Nietzsche.  This normally includes the German idealists, the Existentialists, and a few other major figures like Marx, Mill, and their ilk.
  • Contemporary Philosophy (c. AD 1900 to the present), from Husserl and Frege to Quine and Derrida.  The major figures in this period are the Continental Philosophers (Existentialists, Phenomenologists, etc.) and the Analytic Philosophers (Russell, Wittgenstein, Frege, etc.).  Depending on the author, the movement pejoratively known as "neo-Scholasticism" or "neo-Thomism" is acknowledged as worth mentioning.

In general outline, this division of the history of philosophy is convenient insofar as it accurately represents six general trends in doing philosophy.  For example, the way in which the 'ancients' did philosophy is quite distinct from that of the medievals, and medieval philosophy is quite different from the philosophy of Descartes, Locke, and Kant.

But this division also has its problems, particularly in its understanding of the relationship between Scholasticism and Modern Philosophy.  It gives the impression that Scholasticism lasted only from the Middle Ages to the Renaissance.  It excludes Scholasticism altogether from Modern Philosophy... as if Scholasticism were an obsolete medieval thing that was only revived by some right-wing papists of the Twentieth Century.  It makes you believe that the Franciscans, Dominicans, Carmelites and Jesuits were happily doing their scholastic disputations until they ran out of gas, and then came Descartes and ended the whole thing with his cogito... as if Modern Philosophy got started and Scholasticism completely disappeared.  Hence, Modern Philosophy is portrayed as essentially non-scholastic (or anti-scholastic).

This conception of Modern Philosophy is utterly flawed.  This is a case where history is completely written by the victors.  The philosophy that was taught during this period in the universities was Scholasticism.  Hence the name: 'scholas-tic', the philosophy of the schools (of the scholas).   Descartes did not end Scholasticism.  At no point during his life did Descartes change or even affect the way philosophy was done in the universities.  In fact, none of the Empiricists and almost none of the Rationalists (with the sole exception of Wolff, who was himself a Scholastic Leibnitzian) ever taught at a university.  They were literally amateurs.  What we are being taught today as mainstream Early Modern Philosophy (Descartes, Spinoza, Leibnitz, Locke, Berkeley, Hume, etc.) is really an afterthought of the Early Modern Period, a movement completely peripheral to what the professional scholars of the time were doing.  No one at that time saw the thought of these men as being part of the mainstream academic philosophical thinking.

So who were the mainstream, professional scholars--the Scholastics--during the Early Modern Period? There were thousands, but the best known are:  Báñez, Molina, John of St. Thomas, Suárez, Contenson, Gonet, De Lugo, the Salmanticenses and Complutenses, etc., etc.  Although some of authors place these figures within the Renaissance period, nonetheless John of St. Thomas and Suárez were contemporaries of Descartes; and, in fact, De Lugo, Contenson, Gonet, the Salmanticenses (and the Salamanca school of economics) together with the Complutenses came a generation later.  These men rightly belong to Descartes' period but they are typically either completely ignored by historians or dismissed as medieval remnants that do not deserve to be considered 'modern'.



And even much later, after the new philosophy of the Rationalists, Empiricists and Idealists made its way into secular and Protestant academia (Kant was the first to bring this amateur philosophy into the universities), Scholasticism was still being practiced and taught in Catholic universities.  Billuart, De Rubeis, St. Alphonsus de Liguori, San Severino, Cornoldi, Kleutgen, etc. were all within a generation of Kant and thus rightly belong to the Later Modern Period.


And Scholasticism kept being taught in Catholic universities throughout the 19th and 20th Centuries.  So how do anti-scholastic histories of philosophy deal with this point?  They have interpreted the so-called Neo-Scholastic / Neo-Thomist movement as bearing a discontinuity with what they disparagingly call 'Barroque Thomism' (or Second Thomism).  They portray it as a resurrection of Thomism, passing strictly from a completely defunct state to a vibrant Catholic trend in the late 19th Century thanks to Pope Leo XIII's encyclical Aeterni Patris, long after Descartes has put the last nail on the coffin of 'Barroque Scholasticism'.  But in fact, 'Neo-Scholasticism' (which is really a misnomer because it was not really discontinuous with traditional scholasticism) was a 'revival' in the sense of giving Scholasticism more life, not in the sense of giving life to something that was dead.  Pope Leo XIII's Aeterni Patris does not call for a resurrection of something that had been long defunct, but rather, for greater efforts to keep it going.  "Neo-Scholasticism," then, is nothing other than Scholasticism as it regained vigor in the 19th-20th centuries.  But it is given that name to make us think that it is something new.  As the Catholic Encyclopedia's article on Thomas Zigliara states, "in some universities and seminaries, the teaching of St. Thomas had never been interrupted...."  Even today, Scholasticism is not entirely dead, although we must fight to revive it once again.


It is due time for someone to write a history of philosophy that portrays things the way they really are: Scholasticism as a continuous whole that throughout modern times represented the mainstream mode of Catholic thought and that lasted from the time of St. Anselm up until today. 


The following is a continuous list of selected Scholastics (mainly Thomists) from the 13th to the 19th Centuries, taken from The Catholic Encyclopedia's articles on Thomism and Neo-Scholasticism. (Death dates in parenthesis; asterisk denotes a non-Thomist.) 

Thirteenth century

Thomas de Cantimpré (1270); Hugh of St. Cher (1263); Vincent of Bauvais (1264); St. Raymond de Pennafort (1275); Peter of Tarentaise(Pope Innocent V — 1276); Giles de Lassines (1278); Reginald de Piperno (1279); William de Moerbeka (1286); Raymond Marti (1286);Bernard de Trilia (1292); Bernard of Hotun, Bishop of Dublin (1298); Theodoric of Apoldia (1299); Thomas Sutton (1300).

Fourteenth century

Peter of Auvergne (1301); Nicholas Boccasini, Benedict XI (1304); Godfrey of Fontaines (1304); Walter of Winterburn (1305); ÆgidiusColonna (Aigidius Romanus), O.S.A (1243-1316); William of Paris (1314); Gerard of Bologna, Carmelite (1317); four biographers, viz PeterCalo (1310); William de Tocco (1324); Bartolommeo of Lucca (1327); Bernard Guidonis* (1331); Dante (1321); Natalis Hervieus (1323);Petrus de Palude (Paludanusi — 1342); Thomas Bradwardin, Archbishop of Canterbury (1349); Robert Holkott (1349); John Tauler (1361);Bl. Henry Suso (1365); Thomas of Strasburg, O.S.A. (1357); Jacobus Passavante (1357); Nicholas Roselli (1362); Durandus of Aurillac (1382), sometimes called Durandulus, because he wrote against Durandus a S. Portiano*, who was first a Thomist, afterwards an independent writer, attacking many of St. Thomas's doctrines; John Bromyard (1390); Nicholas Eymeric (1399).

Fifteenth century

Manuel Calecas (1410); St. Vincent Ferrer (1415); Bl. John Dominici (1419); John Gerson*, chancellor of the University of Paris (1429);Luis of Valladolid (1436); Raymond Sabunde (1437); John Nieder (1437); Capreolus (1444), called the "Prince of Thomists"; John deMontenegro (1445); Fra Angelico (1455); St. Antoninus (1459); Nicholas of Cusa*, of the Brothers of the Common Life (1464); John ofTorquemada (de Turrecrematai, 1468); BessarionBasilian (1472); Alanus de Rupe (1475); John Faber (1477); Petrus Niger (1471); Peter of Bergamo (1482); Jerome Savonarola (1498).

Sixteenth century

Felix Faber (1502); Vincent Bandelli (1506); John Tetzel (1519); Diego de Deza (1523); Sylvester Mazzolini (1523); Francesco Silvestro diFerrara (1528); Thomas de Vio Cajetan (1534) (commentaries by these two are published in the Leonine edition of the works of St. Thomas); Conrad Koellin (1536); Chrysostom Javelli (1538); Santes Pagnino (1541); Francisco de Vitoria (1546); Franc. Romseus (1552); Ambrosius Catherinus* (Lancelot Politi, 1553); St. Ignatius of Loyola (1556) enjoined devotion to St. Thomas; Matthew Ory (1557); Dominic Soto (1560); Melchior Cano (1560); Ambrose Pelargus (1561); Peter Soto (1563); Sixtus of Siena (1569); John Faber (1570); St. Pius V (1572); Bartholomew Medina (1581); Vincent Justiniani (1582); Maldonatus* (Juan Maldonado, 1583); St. Charles Borromeo* (1584); Salmerón* (1585); Ven. Louis of Granada (1588); Bartholomew of Braga (1590); Toletus* (1596); Bl. Peter Canisius* (1597);Thomas Stapleton*, Doctor of Louvain (1598); Fonseca (1599); Molina* (1600).

Seventeenth century

Valentia* (1603); Domingo Baflez (1604); Vásquez* (1604); Bart. Ledesma (1604); Sánchez* (1610); Baronius * (1607); Capponi a Porrecta (1614); Aur. Menochio * (1615); Petr. Ledesma (1616); Francisco Suárez* (1617); Du Perron, a converted Calvinistcardinal(1618); Bellarmine* (1621); St. Francis de Sales* (1622); Hieronymus Medices (1622); Lessius* (1623); Becanus* (1624); Malvenda(1628); Thomas de Lemos (1629); Alvarez; Laymann* (1635); Joann. Wiggers*, doctor of Louvain (1639); Gravina (1643); John of St. Thomas (1644); Serra (1647); Ripalda*, S.J.* (1648); Sylvius (Du Bois), doctor of Douai (1649); Petavius* (1652); Goar (1625); Steph. Menochio, S.J.* (1655); Franc. Pignatelli* (1656); De Lugo* (1660); Bollandus* (1665); Jammy (1665); Vallgornera (1665); Labbe* (1667); Pallavicini* (1667); Busenbaum* (1668); Nicolni* (1673); Contenson (1674); Jac. Pignatelli* (1675); Passerini* (1677); Gonet (1681); Bancel (1685); Thomassin* (1695); Goudin (1695); Sfrondati* (1696); Quetif (1698); Rocaberti (1699); Casanate (1700). To this period belong the Carmelite Salmanticenses, authors of the "Cursus theologicus" (1631-72) and the Complutenses.

Eighteenth century

Guerinois (1703); BossuetBishop of Meaux; Norisins, O.S.A. (1704); Diana (1705); Thyrsus González* (1705); Massoulié (1706); Duhamel* (1706); Wigandt (1708); Piny (1709); Lacroix* (1714); Carrières* (1717); Natalis Alexander (1724); Echard (1724); Tourney*,doctor of the Sorbonne (1729); Livarius de Meyer* (1730); Benedict XIII* (1730); Graveson (1733); Th. du Jardin (1733); HyacinthaSerry (1738); Duplessis d'Argentré* (1740); Gotti (1742); Drouin* (1742); Antoine* (1743); Lallemant* (1748); Milante* (1749); Preingue (1752); Concina (1759); Billuart (1757); Benedict XIV* (1758); Cuiliati (1759); Orsi (1761); Charlevoix* (1761); Reuter* (1762); Baumgartner* (1764); Berti* (1766); Patuzzi (1769); De Rubeis (1775); Touron (1775); Thomas de Burgo (1776); Gener* (1781); Roselli(1783); St. Alphonsus Liguori (1787); Mamachi (1792); Richard (1794).

Nineteenth century

Sanseverino (1811-65), Cornoldi (1822-92), Kleutgen (1811-83), Stöckl (1823-95), de San (1832-1904), Dupont, Lepidi, Farges, Dormet de Vorges (1910), Zigliara (1833-93), Satolli (1839-1909), Liberatore (1810-92), Barberis (1847-96), Schiffini (1841-1906), de Maria, Talamo, Lorenzelli, Ballerini, Matussi, Pesch, Hontheim, Cathrein, Gutberlet, Commer, Willmann, Kaufmann, Glossner, Grabmann, Schneid, Hugon, etc.