Cajetan on Sacred Doctrine by Hieromonk Gregory Hrynkiw

Abstract

Reviewed by: Cajetan on Sacred Doctrine by Hieromonk Gregory Hrynkiw Thomas M. Osborne Jr. Cajetan on Sacred Doctrine. By Hieromonk Gregory Hrynkiw. Foreword by Andrew Hofer, O.P. Washington, D.C.: The Catholic University of America Press, 2020. Pp. xxii + 330. $75.00 (hardcover). ISBN 978-0-8132-3347-5. In this book, Gregory Hrynkiw provides a thorough account of the theology of Thomas de Vio Cajetan (1469-1534) and its relationship to faith. Hrynkiw pays special attention to Cajetan's understanding of the subject of theology, theological method, and biblical exegesis. The topic itself is difficult, and it seems to me that its difficulty is increased by three extrinsic factors. First, for much of the twentieth century many scholars largely dismissed Cajetan both as a thinker and as an expositor of St. Thomas Aquinas. Although more recent scholars such as Joshua Hochschild, Lawrence Feingold, and Steven Long have shown that such scholars frequently misunderstood Cajetan and the issues that he addressed, Cajetan's work is largely unknown. Second, Cajetan's readers need to be familiar with late medieval and Renaissance Scholasticism. Frequently Cajetan is not expounding Thomas's texts in their context but rather defending Thomas in light of difficulties raised by such figures as John Duns Scotus (ca. 1265/6-1308), Durandus of St.-Pourçain (ca. 1275-ca. 1332/34), and Petrus Aureol (ca. 1280-1322). Third, Cajetan is only one figure in a long Thomistic tradition. He often relies on the writings of earlier Thomists such as John Capreolus (ca. 1380-1444), and many of his own teachings were rejected or modified by later Thomists of equal or perhaps even greater stature, such as Domingo Bañez (1528-1604) and John of St. Thomas (1589-1644). Hrynkiw deftly guides the reader through these difficulties. He shows how Cajetan's account of sacred doctrine differs from that attributed to him by many twentieth-century scholars and provides an alternative account to that of theologians such as Scotus. Moreover, he shows how Cajetan responds to and builds on theologians such as Hervaeus Natalis (ca. 1260-1323) and Capreolus, and comes into conflict with some of his Thomistic contemporaries and immediate successors, such as Sylvester Mazzolini Prierias (ca. 1456/7-1527). [End Page 498] The book has two parts. The first is entitled "Sacred Doctrine Is the Framework." This part consists of three chapters about what sacred doctrine is in relation to faith, the Church, and the Apostles' Creed. The second part is entitled "Sacred Doctrine as the Habit of Theology." It consists of three chapters that in some way correspond to the various articles of question 1 of the Summa theologiae, which is on sacred doctrine. A conclusion indicates Cajetan's importance in the history of theology and as a resource for contemporary theology. Hrynkiw draws not only on Cajetan's famous commentary on the Summa theologiae, but also on many of Cajetan's theological opuscula and his later works on biblical exegesis. One historical controversy has been over the very meaning of "Sacred Doctrine" and its relationship to theology. For instance, article 1 of the Prima pars's question on sacred doctrine considers the necessity of revelation, which seems to be about faith, whereas the remaining articles are on sacred doctrine as a science, which is how Thomistic theologians understood theology. The argumentative nature of theology is discussed only in article 8. In chapter 1, Hrynkiw shows that some early Thomists, such as Capreolus and Natalis, held that the principles of faith are the principles of the science of theology, which draws conclusions from them. On this view, faith and theology would be distinct. In contrast to this earlier interpretation, a prominent contemporary Thomist, Sylvester Prierias, argued that faith and theology were both the same habit. Cajetan developed and defended the earlier position in his description of theology as a scientific habit that is distinct from the habit of faith even though it depends on it. Hrynkiw shows that the same issues were debated during the Thomistic revival of the twentieth century. He indicates how Marie-Dominique Chenu, who changed his mind over precisely this issue, would have benefited from a more careful...