La justificación en los comentarios de Pelagio, Lutero y Santo Tomás a la epístola a los Romanos

Abstract

The concept of justification is without doubt one of the most important in the Pauline epistles form the theological point of view. It has been the object, in particular, of numerous controversies since the time when Pelagius and St. Agustine confronted each other until the Reformation, when Luther wished to base his opinions on some texts of the Apostle. The Council of Trent deemed it necessary to clarify this concept in order to refute Luther's errror, using for this purpose the very words of the Bishop of Hipona which Luther had twisted to his own interpretation. This study tries to investigate the theological background of the Decree De Justificatione, promulgated by the Council of Trent, examining the interpretation which various authors have given to the principal texts of the Evistle to the Romans. The texts stlldied are: Rom 1, 16-17; 2, 14; 3, 20; 3, 21-22; 3, 28; 4, 2-8; 5, 12; 7, 18- 19; 10, 3; 10, 13- 17. The commentaries to this epistle are taken from St. Agustine's works (especially De spir. et litt., C. Iulianum and De div. quaest. ad Simpl.), the Commentary of Ambrosiaster, the Commentary of Pelagius as well as that of his later redactor (John the Deacon ?), and the Commentary as well as the Scholia of Luther. The contributions of modern commentators like Lagrange, Viard, Nuby, Lyonnet and Schlier are also taken into account. Finally, the various positions are compared to what St. Thomas says in his In Ep. ad Rom. lectura. It becomes evident, following the thread of the Commentaries, that both Pelagius and Luther approached the Pauline texts from a preconceived position which didn 't respect the thinking of the Apostle. While the exegesis of Ambrosiaster has its ups and downs, the interpretation of St. Agustine is very profound and suggestive, although at times incomplete. St. Tomas undoubtedly offers a clear example of equilibrium and penetration while he undoes the error of Pelagius and completes the thought of St. Agustine, he also rejects in advance the possible Lutheran interpretation of justification.