Thomism as a Tradition of Understanding Jeremy D. Wilkins But in choosing or rejecting opinions, one ought not be led by love or hatred for the one who introduces the opinion, but rather by the surety of the truth; and therefore we ought to love both those whose opinion we follow and those whose opinion we reject. Both have diligently inquired into the truth, and helped us in this.1 SCHOLASTIC THEOLOGIANS were wont to identify themselves with schools. Despite their differences, the schools shared a common set of questions and a common procedure for establishing a question. Schools could be distinguished and related by their positions on these questions. Thus, a century and a half ago, the renowned historian of dogma Théodore de Régnon remarked that Thomism, in its widest sense, indicates the doctrinal options proper to the Dominican school, but, in a more restricted sense, means the positions of Bañez over against those of Luis de Molina on the efficacy of grace, predestination, and divine operation.2 As this [End Page 247] example suggests, however, historical scholarship has troubled our conception of the relationship between the schools and their eponymous masters.3 More momentously, it has dissolved the situation in which recognizable schools could flourish in controversial relation to one another. Theologians disagree not only in their evaluation of past achievement but also about what the important questions are today. Scholarship has become more sophisticated, but also more difficult to integrate systematically and coordinate methodically. The range of discourses now trading as "theological" is riotously diverse. The deprecation of Scholastic theology and philosophy may be one point on which almost everyone agrees. School loyalty seems otiose. Thomism, however, continues to inspire a following. The nature of the Thomist tradition has been the object of explicit reflection among professing Thomists ever since the provocation of William de la Mare's Correctorium fratris Thomae in the thirteenth century, and continues to be so today.4 Still, as [End Page 248] more recent reflections attest, the exemption of Thomists from the sociological and intellectual transformations of the field has been, if anything, only partial. A Thomist receives something from Thomas Aquinas, but what? "Thomism" may designate the thought or perhaps the system of Aquinas. In this sense, Thomism can be neither more nor less perfect than the thought of its originator; only Aquinas is the ideal Thomist, and the best we can do is internalize his lessons and defend them as the need of the hour suggests. Alternatively, "Thomism" can name a set of positions on recognized questions. These positions can be identified in retrospect. But retrospect does not settle the present, the possibility of a living Thomism, open to dialectical purification and development in relation to new questions. Here, I take up the question of a living Thomism, but what I have to say is germane, I believe, to larger questions about the development and authority of theological traditions. First, I distinguish traditions of belief from traditions of understanding, and suggest that a tradition like Thomism ought to be understood primarily as a tradition of understanding. However, the matter is not quite so simple, especially in the case of Aquinas, who came to occupy a place of unique privilege in the firmament of Catholic thought. A second section, accordingly, considers how the authority of Aquinas has been construed, and a third examines his enduring value. Besides Aquinas, there is the matter of Thomism. It once seemed possible to define Thomism by a set of theses on common Scholastic questions, but the introduction of new questions, the re-evaluation of some old ones, and historical criticism of the Thomist tradition has complicated matters. What, then, is it? At the very least, Thomism is a complex of intellectual and social relations among thinkers whose positions are shaped, in fundamental ways, by an apprenticeship to Aquinas, as I argue in a fourth section. What it might yet be, in our very different, post-Scholastic context, I suggest in a fifth part by the example of Bernard Lonergan. [End Page 249] I. Belief and Understanding In a famous little quodlibet, Aquinas was asked whether a teacher ought to respond...