Devotion to St. Nicholas among the Dominicans and in the Life of St. Thomas Aquinas

Fra Angelico: detail of St. Thomas among the saints

Last year in my article “St. Nicholas, Beloved Bishop and Wonderworker,” I offered a brief sketch of the life and influence of St. Nicholas of Myra. This year, in honor of his feast, I will collate and comment on the appearances of St. Nicholas in the writings of St. Thomas.

Early Dominican history displays a more than passing connection with the cultus of St. Nicholas. Two illustrations may be given. The Order’s second and permanent priory in Bologna was located at the church of San Nicolò delle Vigne, where the Basilica di San Domenico now stands, enshrining the relics of the Order’s founder. It was in this church that Diana d’Andalo, through whose good offices the property at the vineyards had been donated to the Friars, made her profession, at the high altar of St. Nicholas. [1]

When Dominic decided shortly thereafter to go ahead with the founding of a convent of nuns in Bologna, he entrusted the affair to four brethren, one of whom was Master Paul of Hungary. A lecturer in canon law who later established a missionary province of the Order in Hungary, Paul wrote a manual for confessors, the Summa de penitentia, which he expressly dedicated ad honorem Dei sanctique Nicholai. [2] The evidence suggests that Dominicans, like everyone else, held St. Nicholas in high regard.

One may reasonably assume that St. Thomas would have celebrated his feast and called upon his intercession with that habitual fervor of spirit to which all the early witnesses testify. It would not matter which liturgical books Thomas was accustomed to reading, as there was no missal or breviary that lacked prayers and propers for the feast of St. Nicholas. The Dominican Missal, definitively established by Bd. Humbert of Romans in 1255/56 and papally approved in 1267, mandates, as do Western rites in general, the celebration of the feast of St. Nicholas on December 6. The Epistle and Gospel appointed for the day are the same in the Dominican Missal as in the Missale Romanum: Hebrews 13,7-17 and Matthew 25,14-23. [3]

The Charity of St Nicholas by G. Macchietti, 1570

Mentions of St. Nicholas in the works of Aquinas

1. Summa theologiae, II-II. A touching remark comes in a discussion of whether a benefactor is permitted to hide his benefaction, even though doing so will make it impossible for the recipient to show his gratitude, and hence leave him no choice, as it seems, but to be ungrateful. Thomas responds to the objection:

He that is unaware of a favor conferred on him is not ungrateful if he fails to repay it, as long as he is ready to repay it should he come to know it. Nevertheless, it is sometimes praiseworthy that the recipient of a favor should remain in ignorance of it, both in order to avoid vainglory, as when blessed Nicholas threw gold into a house secretly, wishing to avoid human applause; and because the favor is all the more ample when the benefactor takes into account the shame of him who receives the favor. [4]

2. Conferences on the Angelic Salutation. Thomas has in mind the same deed of almsgiving when he notes that the Mother of God

exercised the works of all the virtues, whereas the saints were conspicuous in the exercise of specific virtues: one was especially humble, another chaste, another merciful, and so in them is given a model of that specific virtue, as for instance blessed Nicholas as a model of mercy. [5]

3. Commentary on John. Meditating on the mystery of predestination in his comments on John 5:44, “No one can come to me unless the Father, who sent me, draws him,” Thomas underlines that all blessings we receive originate simply in God’s will. To illustrate the point, he mentions three saints and their God-given roles:

The reason why in His Church he made some apostles, some confessors, and others martyrs, is for the beauty and completion of the Church. But why He made Peter an apostle, Stephen a martyr, and Nicholas a confessor, there is no reason other than His will. In this way is laid bare the weakness of our human powers and the assistance granted us by divine help.[6]

4. Commentary on the Sentences. The most astonishing instance of God’s help aiding our weakness is baptism, which transforms a child of wrath into an adopted child of the Father. At one point in the Scriptum super Sententiis, Thomas, using the Greek baptismal formula as an objection against the Latin, has to think up a sample name for his argument. “The Greeks have this form of baptizing: ‘The servant of Christ, Nicholas, is baptized in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit.’” [7]

The hypothetical name is not mentioned again in the context; one may wonder why it occurred to Thomas to choose it in the first place. He might, of course, have read the example in another text and just reproduced it without further thought. But if it was his own choice, the possibilities are more intriguing. Did he associate the name in a special way with the Greeks, the Eastern Church? Did he have a reason for associating this Christian name with the sacrament of baptism? Could it simply be that he had St. Nicholas in the back of his mind, or in his heart, and so the name emerged spontaneously when he reached for an example?

5. Commentary on First Timothy. On the passage where the Apostle is exhorting Timothy to cherish the grace of his calling (1 Tim. 4:14), Thomas comments that “in the primitive Church, where elections [of bishops] took place for God’s sake and without corruption, no one was drawn up to the episcopal rank except by a divine election, as Ambrose and Nicholas were elected.” [8]

The story of the miraculous elevation of Nicholas was widely known, though tellings differ in matters of detail. The elderly bishop of Myra had died, and no one could agree on who the new bishop should be. Several priests had the same dream: they were to select as bishop the first man who walked through the cathedral doors for morning prayer the next day. This man turned out to be Nicholas, already a priest, but still young and a stranger in Myra. He was more than a little surprised when informed of his impending consecration, and though he resisted at first, he recognized in the dreams a divine decision, and submitted.

6. Commentary on Hebrews. Thomas alludes to the same incident in support of his contention that God may be trusted to single out worthy candidates.

It is contrary to nature that something lead itself to a state higher than its own nature, just as air does not make itself fire, but this is done by something higher than it. Hence, he does not have the discipline of God who takes to himself any honor by way of favor, money, or power. “In our strength we have taken up our horns” (Amos 6:14); “They have reigned, but not from me” (Hos. 8:4). He ought rather to be called by God, as was Aaron: “Take unto thee Aaron” (Ex. 28:1). And therefore the Lord confirmed Aaron’s priesthood by the rod which blossomed, as is clear from Numbers 17:5. Such therefore ought to be taken up [into the priesthood or episcopate], who do not thrust themselves forward. Whence in former times such men were pointed out by a visible sign, as occurred with blessed Nicholas and many others.[9]

7. Sermon for the Feast of St. Nicholas. Far outstripping the foregoing examples in length and detail, we find, among those rare echoes transmitted to us of Master Thomas the university preacher, an entire sermon devoted to the praise of St. Nicholas (a translation of this sermon in its entirety may be found here or here).

An offhand reference to the crowded “Little Bridge” over the Seine places the sermon in Paris. Thomas is likely to have preached it there during his second period as Regent Master — that is, on the sixth of December in 1269, 1270, or 1271 [10]—before returning to Naples where he was to suffer a shattering ecstasy on the same date in 1273.

The fact that Nicholas, though beloved to all, was invoked also as a special patron of scholars suggests an added importance his feastday may have enjoyed in Paris. It bears noting, too, that many of Thomas’s students, the “cream of the crop” among clerics, were destined for high office in the Church, often episcopal honors. This would make the example of the holy Bishop of Myra all the more relevant to a Parisian audience — a point not lost on Thomas, who, using the second person singular, forcefully warns his listeners:

If you are doing good in order to get prebends, you are serving yourself, not God. A good bishop ought not to be like these sorts of people, but rather he ought to be upright [innocens] in his own person, devout before God, merciful to his neighbor, faithful in all things in respect to everyone.

St Nicholas consecrated bishop: medieval reredos in Burgos

The Sermon for St. Nicholas: Inueni Dauid

The sermon is structured around two verses applied to sainted bishops and therefore regularly preached upon: “I have discovered David, my servant; with my holy oil I have anointed him; my hand will help him, and my arm will strengthen him” (Ps. 88, 21–22).

Many Parisian preachers took this text for their sermons in honor of Nicholas on December 6. With the aid of Johannes Baptist Schneyer’s Repertorium, [11] a fair number can be identified, with the probable year of delivery stated when known: Guidardus de Laon (Master and canon at Paris, cancellarius in 1236) between 1226 and 1229, [12] Jacobus de Vitry, [13] Nicholaus de Aquaevilla, [14] Odo de Châteauroux (Paris Master) in 1228, [15] Petrus Aureoli (Paris Master) between 1318 and 1320. [16]

The text is particularly well-suited for the feast of St. Nicholas, since his relics were known to exude a sweet-smelling oil possessed of healing power, a fact to which Thomas refers near the end of his sermon. After his introductory remarks (among which we find the statement: “we are not able to scrutinize these wonders that God accomplishes in his saints unless he who searches the mind and heart should instruct us”), the Angelic Doctor divides his sermon into four parts, the “four commendable things about this holy bishop: first, his wondrous election; second, his singular consecration; third, his effective execution of office; and fourth, his unshakable and steadfast stability.”

One cannot do justice to this admirable sermon without going through it line by line, but for our purposes it will be enough to consider a few lines that, while paying homage to the saint of the day, make transparent the hidden, interior life of the preacher who was soon to join him in heaven. The Lord, says Thomas, discovers in Nicholas “something very rare, namely, virtue in the prime of his youth”; “he was not subject to vanity” and had “preserved his holiness from childhood . . . Fish and fruit in season are very much desired; so, too, very desirable to God is the man who carries the Lord’s yoke from his youth.” The preacher asks: “What does the Lord seek?,” and answers:

Surely, he seeks a faithful soul, hence [we read] in John (4:24): God is spirit, and those who worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth. And why does God seek out the man with a faithful soul? I say: whoever takes delight in dwelling with another person seeks out that person. So it is with God, because it gives Him delight to dwell with a faithful soul. Hence he says: My delights are to be with the children of men (Prov. 8:31). And God discovered in blessed Nicholas a faithful soul, because he was frequently in church, faithfully at his prayers; so, what is said in Hosea (12:4) is suitably said of him: He wept and made supplication to him . . .

Shortly thereafter Thomas poses another question: “What makes a person stand out? I say that nothing makes a person so outstanding as piety and a ready will to do good for others.” As in the contemporaneous Secunda secundae, the example cited is that of Nicholas’s gift of gold to relieve the poverty of the virgins. “A servant is one who carries out his lord’s work; and the principal work of the Lord is mercy.” Then, concerning Nicholas’s faithfulness, Thomas makes a remark that could be taken as a theologian’s fundamental rule of life no less than a bishop’s: “A faithful man must be a servant, so that he refers all that is his to God” (or “offers everything of his own back to God”): fidelis debet esse seruus ut omnia sua in Deum referat.

We are told how oil in its varied uses can serve as metaphor of spiritual realities: oil heals wounds, as does healing grace; it fuels light, symbol of the desire for wisdom; it flavors food, as spiritual joy seasons good works; it softens, “and this signifies mercy and kindness of heart, both of which blessed Nicholas possessed, since he was utterly filled with mercy and devotion.” (At this point Thomas gives a twist to the familiar Neoplatonic axiom bonum est diffusivum sui: “Oil is diffusive of itself; mercy is the same way.”) A few lines later he asserts that the glorified bodies of the saints will bear the evidence of their due rewards, “and even in this life the signs of their affection appear”: thus the body of blessed Francis showed “the signs of the passion of Christ, so vehemently was he affected” by this Passion. It is at this point that Thomas mentions how the tomb of Nicholas sweats oil, “indicating that he was a man of great mercy.” As with question 21 of the Prima Pars, so here, too, one cannot help noticing the tremendous weight Thomas gives to the theme of misericordia; in this short sermon, the word or one of its variants is used fifteen times, and the notion is hinted at in a dozen other ways. [17]

At the sermon’s close, Friar Thomas lauds Nicholas as “filled with the power to perform miracles” wrought by the hand of the Lord:

Who is there that has ever sought the glory of the world and obtained it as did blessed Nicholas, who was but a poor bishop in Greece? The Lord adorned him with miracles because he showed the greatest mercy. Know that the Lord has made wonderful his holy one (Ps. 4:4). It was mercy that made blessed Nicholas an extraordinary man, and the Lord [Jesus Christ] strengthened him even unto everlasting life. May He lead us there, who lives [and reigns] with the Father and the Holy Spirit, [God, for ever and ever, Amen.]

All the virtues, all the good works of Nicholas that Thomas had praised briefly and singly in earlier writings, he here combines and amplifies in a discourse whose plain language, heartfelt appeals to listeners, and evident spirit of devotion give us a vivid glimpse of daily university life in medieval Paris, as well as a window into the personality of Friar Thomas.

St Nicholas, Jacques de Poindre, 1563

NOTES 

[1] See the account from the Chronicle of St. Agnes’ Monastery in S. Tugwell, op, trans., Early Dominicans. Mahwah, Paulist Press, 1982, 395.

[2] I have this detail from Mark Johnson, who is working on a critical edition of Paul’s Summa. On Paul of Hungary, see Tugwell, Early Dominicans, 396, 426.

[3] The Introit (Statuit ei Dominus testamentum pacis), Collect (Deus, qui beatum Nicolaum Pontificem), Secret (Sanctifica, quaesumus Domine Deus, haec munera), and Postcommunion (Sacrificia, quae sumpsimus, Domine) also concur, but the Gradual, Alleluia, Offertory antiphon, and Communion antiphon differ. The Roman Missal has for its Gradual, Inveni David; for the Alleluia, Justus ut palma; for the Offertory, Veritas mea; for the Communion, Semel juravi. The Dominican Missal, on the other hand, has for its Gradual, Ecce sacerdos magnus; for the Alleluia, Justus germinabit; for the Offertory, Justus ut palma; for the Communion, Beatus servus. All eight of these chants are very ancient and appear frequently in the common Masses for martyrs, bishops, confessors, and doctors.

[4] Summa theologiae [ST] II-II, q. 107, a. 3, ad 4. The editors of the one-volume Editiones Paulinae Summa theologiae (Milan, 1988) cite three sources here: Jacobus de Voragine, Legenda Aurea; Mombritius, Sanctuarium, Vita B. Nicolai Episcopi; the Dominican Breviary, fourth reading for the Matins of December 6.

[5] In salutationem angelicam expositio, art. 1, n. 1116.

[6] Super Evangelium S. Ioannis lectura, cap. 6, lec. 5, n. 938.

[7] Scriptum super libros Sententiarum [=Sent.] IV, d. 3, q. 1, a. 2, qa. 2, arg. 1.

[8] Super I ad Timotheum 4, lec. 3, n. 173.

[9] Super ad Hebraeos 5, lec. 1, n. 249.

[10] In 1271, the feast of St. Nicholas fell on a Sunday, and hence if Thomas preached the university sermon at Saint Jacques on that day he could reasonably have taken Nicholas as his theme. However, St. Thomas also makes reference to the stigmata of St. Francis, suggesting that it might have been a weekday sermon delivered to the Franciscans.

[11] J. B. Schneyer, Repertorium der lateinischen Sermones des Mittelalters für die Zeit von 1150–1350 [RLSM], Beiträge zur Geschichte der Philosophie und Theologie des Mittelalters, vol. 43.1–11. Münster, Aschendorff, 1969–1990.

[12] RLSM 2:266–67, nn. 192, 195–197, 199.

[13] RLSM 3:205, n. 287.

[14] RLSM 4:195, n. 63.

[15] RLSM 4:436, n. 525.

[16] RLSM 4:588, n. 74. This same incipit was also used for the feast of Saint Martin of Tours by Bartholomaeus de Tours, op, Paris Master, 1258–59 (cf. RLSM 1:438, n. 26) and Bartholomaeus de Bonnia, om, Paris Master (cf. RLSM 1:388, n. 17).

[17] See J. Saward, “‘Love’s Second Name’: Saint Thomas on Mercy,” in The Canadian Catholic Review 8.3 (1990), 87–97.

A Mystic Who Shed Tears During Mass: Revising Our Image of St. Thomas Aquinas

On March 7th, we observe the dies natalis of St. Thomas Aquinas, the day on which he passed from this mortal life to immortal glory, and, for that reason, the traditional date of his liturgical feast. In a biographical sketch, Fr. Simon Tugwell notes the following:

Thomas’ deep devotion to the Mass emerges clearly from all our sources. Sometimes he evidently became deeply absorbed in it and was profoundly moved by it. Toward the end of his life he sometimes became so absorbed that he just stopped and had to be roused by the brethren to continue with the celebration. [1]

The contemporaries of this often silent Dominican friar testified far more often about his tears at Mass, his vigilant prayer and virginal purity, than of his disputations and publications. As one of his early biographers, William of Tocco, writes:

He was especially devoted to the most holy Sacrament of the Altar; since it had been granted him to write so profoundly of this, he was likewise given grace to celebrate it all the more devoutly. . . . During Mass he often would be seized by such strong feelings of devotion that he dissolved in tears, because he was absorbed in the holy mysteries of the great sacrament and invigorated by its offerings. [2] 

The narrative related by Tugwell gains all the more plausibility when we consider the well-documented lives of more recent saints — Philip Neri, Ignatius of Loyola, Padre Pio — for whom the action of offering the Mass was such an overwhelming experience that a server or assistant had to nudge them back on track, otherwise the Mass would never end.

Throughout his life, which ended before he was 50 years of age, St. Thomas was given to taste by experience the mysteries of God, of Christ and the Church, that he pondered and wrote about with such astonishing energy and penetration. Contrary to the popular picture of Aquinas as an abstract professor, the actual hagiographical accounts left by people who knew him or could report stories from those who knew him tell us about a man who always made time to help others with their questions, who always put himself at the disposal of the Church and of his own Order of Preachers, who dealt swiftly and capably with family difficulties. Even his university teaching constantly involved an extasis caritatis, a going out of himself in charity, as he unstintingly handed over to others the fruits of his own contemplation, and as he composed apologetic and pedagogical works with a vigorous competence seldom seen in the human race. We know for a fact that he would compose multiple works at once, dictating to several secretaries in sequence. His was a soul on fire, never resting so long as the Word was to be pondered, preached, taught.

St. Thomas is temperamentally scientific but his doctrine and life are purely mystical. [3] It is fitting to recall a curious “contradiction” that has drawn the attention of all of his biographers. There is perhaps no theologian as famed for sobriety and dispassionate reasoning as Thomas, whom one finds throughout his life, at Paris, Orvieto, Rome, or Naples, busy lecturing, disputing, preaching, dictating. At the height of his work on the Summa theologiae, in the midst of a swirl of events in the Church and in the world, he is calmly commenting line by line on the Philosopher’s De generatione et corruptione, a treatise on different kinds of natural change, primarily changes in substance. Yet in response to the anxious questioning of Countess Theodora near the end of her brother’s life, his socius Reginald could only say: “The Master is often borne away in spirit when absorbed in contemplation, but never have I seen him estranged from his senses for as long as today.” [4]

In spite of how busy he must have been to have written such mighty works in so short a time, we find him described as miro modo contemplativus, “wondrously contemplative.” Nor did this make him an ivory-tower intellectual, cut off from his neighbors, for he readily helped hierarchs of the Church, brother Dominicans, blood-relatives and other laypeople, and vigorously engaged the pressing issues of his day. [5] The “Dumb Ox” took an interest in the biology of animals, because they are God’s gifts to mankind, to aid his life and enrich his wonder; the Angelic Doctor mounted upwards like the Seraphim, who are “named from the burning of charity” (nominata ab incendio caritatis)  —  such gifts only intensifying his desire for their Giver. [6] In the character of Thomas, the world-embracing wonder of Aristotle and the mystical eros of Dionysius are not opposed, they are contained in each other.

Pondering these well-known facts of the life and work of the Angelic Doctor, Etienne Gilson rightly concludes:

If we want to recapture the true meaning of Thomism we have to go beyond the tightly-woven fabric of its philosophical doctrines into its soul or spirit. What lies back of the ideas is a deep religious life, the interior warmth of a soul in search of God. ... The burning desire of God which in a John of the Cross overflows into lyric poems is here transcribed into the language of pure ideas. Their impersonal formulation must not make us forget that they are nourished on the desire for God and that their end is the satisfaction of this desire. … Only a complete giving of himself can explain his mastery of expression and organization of philosophic ideas. Thus his Summa Theologiae with its abstract clarity, its impersonal transparency, crystallizes before our very eyes and for all eternity his interior life. … Only that will to understand [reality], shared between ourselves and St. Thomas the philosopher, will serve to make us see that this tremendous work is but the outward glow of an invisible fire, and that there is to be found behind the order of its ideas that powerful impulse which gathered them together. [7]

It is as if Gilson would say that there is no “secret life” of Thomas beneath the writings, no esoteric mysticism cordoned off from the public products of reasoning. His total dedication to the truth of creation and of revelation, in which he submerged his ego into nothingness and aspired to maximal lucidity and cogency, shows a soul ravaged out of itself into God.

Thomas’s submission, at the end of his life, of all of his teachings on the sacraments to the authority of the Roman Church is the act of a teacher par excellence: in humble deference to the heavenly Teacher, he places himself at the disposal of a Truth that is neither his handiwork nor his possession. He is and always was its servant, never its master. Thus he provides to worshipers, choirmasters, liturgists, rubricians, masters of ceremonies, clergy — indeed, to all of us — a perfect model of disponibilité: the capacity to give of oneself for the sake of others, and ultimately, for the sake of Him who gave Himself for us. “Christ died for all: that they also who live may not now live to themselves, but unto him who died for them and rose again” (2 Cor 5:15).

A recent icon of St Thomas Aquinas
(from the Byzantine chapel in Gaming, Austria)

NOTES

[1] Simon Tugwell, Albert and Thomas: Selected Writings (Mahwah, NJ: Paulist, 1988), 264.

[2] See Thomae Aquinatis vitae fontes praecipue, ed. Angelico Ferrua, O.P. (Alba: Edizioni Domenicane, 1968), n. 30, p. 73.

[3] It is necessary to recover an authentic and profound understanding of “mysticism” and “mystical theology,” in view of their distortion by conventional “spiritual theology” and, more recently, their dismantling by arrogant reductionisms (psychoanalysis, cultural history, feminism, etc.). For two brilliant contributions towards this recovery, see Louis Bouyer’s The Christian Mystery: From Pagan Myth to Christian Mysticism (1989) and Denys Turner’s The Darkness of God: Negativity in the Christian Tradition (1998).

[4] “Frequenter Magister in spiritu rapitur, cum aliqua contemplatur, sed nunquam tanto tempore sicut nunc uidi ipsum sic a sensibus alienatum” (Ystoria sancti Thome de Aquino de Guillaume de Tocco §47, quoted in Jean-Pierre Torrell, Saint Thomas Aquinas, The Person and His Work, trans. Robert Royal [CUA Press, 1996], 289). The legendary abstractio mentis of Thomas is not the mark of an absent-minded academic; it is the mark of one whom his contemporaries referred to as homo magnae contemplationis et orationis (Processus canonizationis S. Thomae, Neapoli §40, in Fontes fasc. 4, p. 317, quoted in Torrell, Thomas Aquinas, 284, n. 81; see 283–95).

[5] See Torrell, Thomas Aquinas, 141; Pieper’s biography is also good on this point, and Gilby (Blackfriars Summa, vol. I, Appendix 4, p. 54, opening paragraph). In “St. Thomas Aquinas and the Profession of Arms” (Mediaeval Studies 50 [1988]: 404–47), Edward Synan discusses Thomas’s views on social and military issues of his day.

[6] On the material creation as a gift of divine amor amicitiae, see ST I.20.2 ad 3; the phrase regarding the Seraphim is from Sent. II.6.1.5, notitiae.

[7] Etienne Gilson, The Christian Philosophy of Saint Thomas (1924), trans. Laurence K. Shook, CSB (Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press, 1994), 375–76.

Visit Dr. Kwasniewski’s website for selected articles, sacred music, and books from Os Justi Press, his SoundCloud page for lectures and interviews, and YouTube for additional talks and sacred music.

Full Latin Text of St. Francis Borgia's Litany of the Summa Theologiae

I was pleasantly surprised by the great interest aroused by St. Francis Borgia's Litany of the Summa Theologiae, a segment of which I posted on the eve of the feast of St. Thomas Aquinas. So many readers contacted me to ask (a) if an English translation had been done or could be done, and (b) if the original Latin text could be made available in full. In answer to (a), to my knowledge no one has ever translated this text. However, as to (b), I am glad to offer the text to NLM readers at the link below, and I strongly encourage any enterprising Latinist out there to render it into English. If you do so, please let me know; I'd be happy to discuss ways to make it available to a wider readership.

The title of the book is

Studi Tomistici 22

S. Francisci Borgiae, S.I.

Praecipuae Divi Thomae Aquinatis materiae in litaniarum rationem redactae

denuo editae a B. de Margerie, S.I.

Pontificia Accamedia di S. Tommaso

Libreria Editrice Vaticana

1983

The book is comprised of several litanies that follow certain thematic areas in the text of St. Thomas. Their intellectual and devotional value is considerable. I have been told by a Benedictine monk that Borgia used the Summa for lectio divina, which, I must say (as a Thomist and as a Benedictine oblate) is an impressive feat.

The Litany of the Divine Attributes

The Litany of the Mystery of the Most Holy Trinity in general, and of each of the Three Divine Person in particular

The Litany of the Holy Angels

The Litany of the Mystery of the Incarnation, and the union of the Divine Nature with the Human

The Litany of the Virtues and Graces which adorned the Incarnate Word

The Litany of the Annunciation and Conception of the Eternal Word

The Litany of the Mysteries of the Life of Christ, beginning with His Baptism

The Litany of the Lord’s Passion

The Litany of Our Lord’s Resurrection

The Litany of the Glorious Ascension of Our Lord

The Litany of the Most Adorable Mystery of the Most Holy Sacrament of the Altar

The Litany of Thanksgiving for the endowments of the created Soul

The Litany of the Benefits conferred on the Soul by the infusion of the moral, cardinal, and theological virtues

The Litany of the Soul in its glorified and beatified state.

A complete PDF is available here.

In Honor of St. Thomas Aquinas: A Portion of St. Francis Borgia’s “Litany of the Attributes of God”

On the eve of the feast of St. Thomas Aquinas, recalling the very day of his passing from this life to life eternal (March 7, 1274), I would like to share with readers a translation of a curious little piece in the vast history of scholasticism and Counter-reformation piety.

Years ago, Fr. John Saward placed in my hands a remarkable little book written by St. Francis Borgia. It turned out to be a detailed litany, or rather, a series of litanies, modeled after and drawn from the text of the Summa theologiae of St. Thomas Aquinas. Apparently, Borgia, to prevent the study of Aquinas from becoming abstract and bloodless, decided to turn every article into a prayer. The result is intriguing. While I would not claim that these litanies ought to be introduced into the public worship of the Church, they do remind us that the ultimate goal of theology is union with God, whose praises we sing by inquiry into the truth. The right use of the intellect to ponder the truth is pleasing to God and can be offered to him as incense of the spirit.

Below is translated the litany that is based on the first treatise of the Prima Pars, namely, of the existence and attributes of God. The slim volume from which I translated it furnishes litanies similar to this one for every major treatise in the Summa.

St. Francis Borgia
LITANY
of the attributes of God taken from the Prima Pars of St. Thomas (qq. 1–26)

	O highest God, whom no one save Thyself can perfectly know,	have mercy on us.
q. 1 a. 1	Thou, who art the subject of theology,	have mercy on us.
a. 7	Thou, who in Thyself art unknown to us,	have mercy on us.
q. 2 a. 1	Thou, whose existence as God is perfectly demonstrable,	have mercy on us.
a. 2	Thou, who art,	have mercy on us.
a. 3	O incorporeal God,	have mercy on us.
q. 3 aa.1,2	Thou, in whom is no composition of matter and form,	have mercy on us.
a. 5	Thou, who art Thy existence and Thy divinity,	have mercy on us.
a. 4	Thou, who art Thy existence and Thy essence,	have mercy on us.
a. 5	Thou, who art in no genus,	have mercy on us.
a. 6	Thou, in whom is no accident,	have mercy on us.
	O God, wholly simple,	have mercy on us.
a. 7	Thou, who are commingled in composition with no others,	have mercy on us.
q. 4 a. 1	O perfect God,	have mercy on us.
a. 2	Thou, O God, who contain in Thyself most eminently the perfections of all things,	have mercy on us.
q. 5 a. 2	O highest Good,	have mercy on us.
a. 3	Thou, who art good through Thy own essence,	have mercy on us.
q. 7 a. 1	O infinite God,	have mercy on us.
q. 8 a. 1	O God, existing in all things,	have mercy on us.
a. 2	O God, who art everywhere,	have mercy on us.
a. 3	O God, who art everywhere by essence, presence, and power,	have mercy on us.
a. 4	O God, to whom alone it belongs to be everywhere,	have mercy on us.
q. 9 a. 1	O changeless God,	have mercy on us.
a. 2	O God, to whom alone it belongs to be changeless,	have mercy on us.
q. 10 a. 2	O eternal God,	have mercy on us.
a. 3	O God, to whom alone it belongs to be simply eternal,	have mercy on us.
q. 11 a. 1	Thou, who art one God,	have mercy on us.
a. 3	Thou, who art one in the highest way,	have mercy on us.
q. 12 a. 3	O divine essence, whom the bodily eye does not see,	have mercy on us.
a. 4	O divine essence, whom the created intellect cannot see by its natural powers,	have mercy on us.
a. 5	O divine essence, the vision of whom demands a created light,	have mercy on us.
a. 6	O divine essence, seen more perfectly by the more perfect,	have mercy on us.
a. 7	O divine essence, incomprehensible to its beholders,	have mercy on us.
a. 9	O divine essence, through whom all things that the blessed see are not gazed upon through any likenesses,	have mercy on us.
a. 10	O divine essence, in whom all that the blessed see is known at once,	have mercy on us.
a. 12	O divine essence, of whom grace gives a higher knowledge than natural reason,	have mercy on us.
q. 13 a. 1	All-powerful God, whom we name in order to know,	have mercy on us.
a. 2	O God, of whom all names are said substantially,	have mercy on us.
a. 3	O God, whose names are truly applied according to that which they signify,	have mercy on us.
a. 5	O God, whose names with respect to creatures are said by way of analogy,	have mercy on us.
a. 6	O God, of whom this name, god, is the name of Thy nature,	have mercy on us.
a. 7	O God, whose name is incommunicable,	have mercy on us.
a. 8	O God, to whom this name, he who is, is most proper of all,	have mercy on us.
q. 14 a. 1	O God, the height of riches, of wisdom, and of knowledge,	have mercy on us.
a. 2	Thou, who art known to Thyself through Thyself,	have mercy on us.
a. 3	Thou, who comprehend Thyself,	have mercy on us.
a. 4	O God, whose knowing is Thy very substance,	have mercy on us.
a. 6	Thou, who know things other than Thee by proper knowledge,	have mercy on us.
a. 7	O God, whose knowledge is not discursive,	have mercy on us.
a. 8	O God, whose knowledge coupled with will is the cause of things,	have mercy on us.
a. 9	Thou, who have knowledge of non-being, of things called ‘those which are not,’	have mercy on us.
a. 10	O God, who know evil things by knowing good things,	have mercy on us.
a. 11	Thou, who know each and every particular,	have mercy on us.
a. 12	O God, who know the infinite,	have mercy on us.
a. 13	O God, whose knowledge extends to future contingents,	have mercy on us.
a. 15	O God, whose knowledge is unvarying,	have mercy on us.
a. 16	Thou, who have a gazing knowledge of things,	have mercy on us.
q. 15 a. 1	Thou, who have ideas of all good things,	have mercy on us.
q. 16 a. 5	Thou, who art the highest truth,	have mercy on us.
a. 6	Thou, who art the one only truth according to which all things are true,	have mercy on us.
a. 7	Thou, who art eternal truth,	have mercy on us.
a. 8	Thou, who art unchanging truth,	have mercy on us.
q. 18 a. 3	O God, in whom is the highest and most perfect life,	have mercy on us.
a. 4	O God, in whom all things are the same divine life,	have mercy on us.
q. 19 a. 1	O God, in whom is will, by which Thou lovest Thyself,	have mercy on us.
a. 2	Thou, who will even things other than Thee through Thy will,	have mercy on us.
a. 3	Thou, who dost not will of necessity the things which are created by Thee,	have mercy on us.
a. 4	O God, whose will is the cause of things,	have mercy on us.
a. 5	O God, for whose will no efficient cause can be assigned,	have mercy on us.
a. 6	O God, whose will is always accomplished,	have mercy on us.
a. 7	O God, whose will is unchanging,	have mercy on us.
a. 8	O God, whose will does not impose necessity upon free will,	have mercy on us.
q. 20 a. 1	O God, in whom is love,	have mercy on us.
a. 2	Thou, who love all that Thou hast made,	have mercy on us.
a. 3	Thou, who love all with one simple act of will,	have mercy on us.
a. 4	Thou, who love more the better things, in that Thou willest a greater good to them,	have mercy on us.
q. 21 a. 1	O God, in whom is a justice that grants all things their due,	have mercy on us.
a. 2	Thou, who art justice and truth,	have mercy on us.
a. 3	Thou, who art merciful and compassionate,	have mercy on us.
a. 4	O God, in all of whose works are found mercy and justice,	have mercy on us.
q. 22 a. 1	Thou, who govern all things by providence,	have mercy on us.
a. 2	O God, to whose providence all things are subjected,	have mercy on us.
a. 3	Thou, who provide immediately for all things,	have mercy on us.
a. 4	O God, who by Thy providence do not impose necessity upon the free,	have mercy on us.
q. 23 a. 1	O God, by whom are predestined those who are chosen,	have mercy on us.
a. 2	O God, in whose mind predestination is the reason for the ordering of some to eternal salvation,	have mercy on us.
a. 3	O God, who cast off some by permitting them to fall away,	have mercy on us.
a. 4	O God, who choose the predestined,	have mercy on us.
a. 5	O God, who save us according to Thy mercy and not from our works of justice,	have mercy on us.
a. 6	O God, whose predestination is unfailing,	have mercy on us.
a. 7	O God, who foreknow the exact number of the predestined,	have mercy on us.
q. 24 a. 2	O God, whose conscription, which firmly retains those who are predestined to eternal life, is the Book of Life,	have mercy on us.
a. 3	O God, by falling away from whose grace those abounding in present justice are said to be blotted from the Book of Life,	have mercy on us.
q. 25 a. 3	Thou, who can do all things more abundantly than we seek or understand,	have mercy on us.
q. 26 a. 1	O God, to whom blessedness belongs,	have mercy on us.
a. 2	Thou, who art blessed according to intellect,	have mercy on us.
a. 3	Thou, who, as object, art the very blessedness of the saints,	have mercy on us.
a. 4	Thou, who enfold all happiness in Thy divine blessedness,	have mercy on us.
	Prayers that follow
	From those who say that God is the soul of the world,	deliver us, O Lord.
	From those who say that God is the formal principle of all things,	deliver us, O Lord.
	From David of Dinant, asserting that God is prime matter,	deliver us, O Lord.
	From asserting that an infinite body is the principle of things,	deliver us, O Lord.
	From saying that God does not know things other than Himself except in what they have in common,	deliver us, O Lord.
	From those who say that God does not know singulars except by applying universal causes to particular effects,	deliver us, O Lord.
	From those who say that God creates nothing other than the first creature,	deliver us, O Lord.
	From the vanity of philosophers who attribute contingent effects to secondary causes alone,	deliver us, O Lord.
	From the Epicureans who maintain that the world came to be by chance,	deliver us, O Lord.
	From those who maintain that only incorruptible things are subject to divine providence,	deliver us, O Lord.
	From those who attribute to man the beginning of good works,	deliver us, O Lord.
	From those who say that divine predestination can be changed by prayers,	deliver us, O Lord.
	That theological study may inflame our hearts,	We beseech Thee, hear us.
	That through tracing effects we may arrive at the first cause,	We beseech Thee, hear us.
	That contemplating the divine simplicity, we may imitate it in simple hearts,	We beseech Thee, hear us.
	That full of praise we may admire the abyss of divine goodness,	We beseech Thee, hear us.
	That we may know God even as we are known,	We beseech Thee, hear us.
	That we may name Him with fear and trembling,	We beseech Thee, hear us.
	That the divine essence may enlighten us,	We beseech Thee, hear us.
	That loving the highest truth we may merit that the same truth will free us,	We beseech Thee, hear us.
	That we may live for Him who is our life,	We beseech Thee, hear us.
	That we may love Him who first loved us,	We beseech Thee, hear us.
	That we may follow the traces of divine mercy,	We beseech Thee, hear us.
	That we may contemplate divine providence, giving thanks in everything to God,	We beseech Thee, hear us.
	That He who predestines us to the adoption of sons may not see us ungrateful,	We beseech Thee, hear us.
	That we may be humbled in our knowledge by dwelling on the power of God,	We beseech Thee, hear us.
	That we may enjoy the God who is our blessedness,	We beseech Thee, hear us.
	V. What god is like unto our God for greatness?
	R. Thou who alone dost wonders.
	PRAYER.
	Look upon our weakness, O God, and make us not to grow faint in the praises of Thy attributes; that as Thou eternally takest delight in them without beginning, so we too, having been made partakers in them by rejoicing with Thee, may merit to praise them endlessly with Thy angels, for worthy is the Lamb that was slain, to receive wisdom, glory, and blessing, for ever and ever, Amen.

Going Up to Heaven with the Blessed Sacrament (Part II)

(Co-authored with Dr. Jeremy Holmes)

In the first part, we looked at how the Roman Canon and St. Thomas alike seem to bear out the claim that the Eucharist is more our being brought to God than God being brought to us. To go a step further, let us consider the arc of Thomas’s own thinking on the matter. Fr. Jean-Pierre Torrell remarks:

In the earlier phase of his thought, Thomas preferred to avoid speaking about a ‘corporal’ presence of Christ in the sacrament, for it appeared to him linked with a ‘localization’, while the presence ‘in loco’ pertained only to the accidents. It is only in the Tertia Pars, several years later, that he will accept speaking of corporal presence, but, as we will see later, in an entirely different sense.[1]

Some pages later, Torrell addresses this “different sense.” In the office of the Blessed Sacrament, St. Thomas

centered the celebration on the mystery of Christ, God and perfect man, entirely contained in the sacrament, to such a point that he does not say: receive the body or the blood of Christ, but indeed: receive Christ (Christus sumitur, or even: Deus sumitur). The notion of presence also begins to be refined, and we intuit what will become the definitive formulation in the Summa: Christ does not become present to us (a ‘localizing’ conception that Thomas continued to discard), it is we whom He renders present to Himself.[2]

Then Torrell cites the corpus of Summa theologiae III, q. 75, a. 1, where St. Thomas gives as the second reason for the Christ’s true presence in the sacrament:

This befits the charity of Christ, out of which he assumed, for our salvation, a true body of our nature. And since what belongs to friendship most of all is dwelling together in a common life, as the Philosopher says (Ethics IX), He promises us His bodily presence as our reward (Matthew 24: “Where the body shall be, there the eagles will be gathered”). Yet meanwhile he has not left us destitute of His bodily presence in this pilgrimage, but by the truth of His body and blood He has joined us to Himself in this sacrament. Hence He says in John 6: “Whosoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood abides in me and I in him.” Hence this sacrament is the sign of the very greatest charity and a support of our hope, from such an intimate association of Christ with us.

On this magnificent passage, Torrell comments:

This evocation of hope in connection with the Eucharist does not occur by chance: full of the memory of the Passion, the celebration is entirely turned toward the eschatological achievement, since it is the pledge, the pignus, of future glory. According to Father Gy, who is quite convincing, this displacement of Thomas’s eucharistic theology toward eschatology . . . is entirely in line with his theological and spiritual personality, so deeply marked by a straining toward the vision of God.[3]

Thus the Eucharist is closely connected with the vision of God because in it, in a mystical way, we are already brought into God’s presence, brought before His throne, carried to Him, and embrace Him in the darkness of faith, not yet seeing the Beloved, but full of confidence and trust that He will reveal Himself to us when the fullness of time has come, when the period of trial is over: “Arise, my love, my fair one, and come away; for lo, the winter is past, the rain is over and gone . . . Let me see your face, let me hear your voice, for your voice is sweet, and your face is comely” (Song of Solomon 2:10-11, 14).

The liturgy of the Roman Rite bears witness to this Thomistic teaching, in the “Supplices te rogamus” of the Roman Canon:

Most humbly we implore Thee, Almighty God, bid these offerings to be brought by the hands of Thy Holy Angel to Thine altar on high, before the face of Thy Divine Majesty; that as many of us as shall receive the most Sacred Body and Blood of Thy Son by partaking thereof from this altar, may be filled with every heavenly blessing and grace. Through the same Christ our Lord. Amen.

This prayer, so beautiful and rich, seems to be woven of paradoxes. It asks God to command that the offerings (which are already divine) be brought by the hands of the “angel” (which, as St. Thomas suggests, is Christ himself) to the altar in heaven (which I take to mean: the throne where the Lamb reigns, as in the Apocalypse), so that those who receive the true body and blood from this earthly altar will be filled with the blessings of that heavenly altar. Those who participate in the earthly offering, as represented by the species, will participate in the heavenly offering of the ipse Christus passus—Christ Himself, as having suffered for our sakes—to the Most Holy Trinity. By participating in the Eucharist, the communicant is, like the Victim Himself, brought up to heaven, to the face of the Divine Majesty, by the Angel. Communion is to be re-located at the throne of the Lamb; it is divinization. This is why the sacrament is pignus futurae gloriae, the pledge or earnest of future glory, for that glory is nothing other than to be divinized by the face-to-face vision of God.


NOTES

[1] Jean-Pierre Torrell, O.P., Saint Thomas Aquinas, vol. I: The Person and His Work, trans. Robert Royal (Washington, DC: The Catholic University of America Press, 1996), 131. Torrell refers us to Sent. IV, d. 10, a. 1, ad 4, and Resp. de 36 art., prop. 33: “corpus Christi non est in sacramento ut in loco.”

[2] Ibid., 135.

[3] Ibid., 135–36. See also M.-J. Nicolas, O.P., What is the Eucharist?, 53–55.

Transcending Oppositions: Liturgy as the Synthesis of Faith and Reason

Philipp Rosemann argues that the very incompleteness of the Summa theologiae, which Saint Thomas could not bring himself to complete at the end of his life, should be taken as a sign, a gesture on the part of the Dominican preacher about the inadequacy of human language to capture the ultimate reality of the divine mysteries. (I have strong disagreements with how he fleshes out this thesis, but am sympathetic to something of the general idea.) Augustin Del Noce argues that rationalism and Christian philosophy differ not because the former is self-grounding and the latter demands a foundational act of faith, but rather, because the one expressly and honestly acknowledges its reliance on faith while the other naively or mendaciously fails to do so. Catherine Pickstock argues that the ancient Roman rite “purposefully” stumbles and struggles, wrestling with the angel of incomprehensible worship and unbloody sacrifice.

To put these together in reference to the liturgy, one might say that the ancient Roman Rite, in its swift simplicity and textured complexity alike, recognizes that all earthly worship must be, in some innocent and unintended way, imperfect and thus repeated (both within itself, built of blocks of repetition, and from day to day as the same sacrifice is represented ever anew until the end of the ages), at the same time recognizing that the sacrifice of Christ is perfect and all-sufficient, once for all, youthful as spring and abundant as summer. Like the Summa, the human act of liturgy is internally, that is to say, of its essence, incomplete, since it falls short of the heavenly Jerusalem’s eternal worship—but, again like the Summa, it is genuine knowledge, a triumphant ascent into the wisdom of the Cross.

In common with fideism, the liturgy prays “in order that there might be prayer”; it throws many prayers and chants into the air that the air might be filled with words as it is filled with clouds of incense, sweet-smelling and obscuring, luring while impeding. It stretches forth into the abyss, depth calling to depth in the dark night of faith. In common with rationalism, the liturgy knows that its prayer is rational through and through, an utterance of the Logos, heard for its righteousness; it knows that there is a fundamental soundness in the universe, which the liturgy expresses in its very dignity, stateliness, order, and beauty. In company with Christian philosophy, the liturgy transcends both fideism and rationalism; it is reason suffused with the utter abandonment of faith, faith anchored in truth and lifting the soul to truth.

The ancient Roman liturgy expressly (honestly) acknowledges its act of faith in the transcendent mystery of God. The new ordo risks turning worship into a communal act of gathering, a communal rationalism whereby man affirms what he already is and knows, instead of forcing upon him the weight of glory that demands the ascetical denial of the God’s-eye view, of adequacy, of any proportion between man and God, even while it paradoxically establishes the inner knowledge, the true proportion, which is none other than the one mediator between God and man, Christ Jesus, true God and true man, who not only knows all but, as the uncreated Word, is the infinite act of infinite knowledge. The liturgy brings man to God and to man himself—as yet unknown, destined to be broken and remade in the furnace of charity. The liturgy brings man to the edge of the abyss, where it is but one step, past the threshold of this life, to the beatific vision. For it is of the union of the soul with God by sanctifying grace that Pope Leo XIII wrote: “This wonderful union, which is properly called ‘indwelling,’ differ[s] only in degree or state from that with which God beatifies the saints in heaven” (Divinum Illud Munus 9).

The traditional liturgy establishes the link between God and man by focusing entirely on the God-man, reminding us of our nothingness, our incoherence apart from Him—the nihilism and fragmentation of fallen nature—and of our divine fullness and integrity in union with Him. In Christ Jesus we have access to the one and only knowledge that enlightens; as sinners, we are cut off from this light. That is why the ancient liturgy quavers between confession of sin and praise of God’s glory, between abasement and exaltation. Blessed Elizabeth of the Trinity begs of Jesus:

O Eternal Word, Word of my God, would that I might spend my life listening to you, would that I might be fully receptive to learn all from you; in all darkness, all loneliness, all weakness, may I ever keep my eyes fixed on you and abide under your great light; O my Beloved Star, fascinate me so that I may never be able to leave your radiance.

Is this not our experience, too, when we have plunged into the mysterious depths of the liturgy, tasted its otherworldly sweetness, become fascinated with its strange beauty, and then come face to face with our own darkness, loneliness, and weakness, our acedia, indolence, vanity, distraction, taste for things of the world... We say, with Elizabeth: “Keep my eyes fixed on you... make me abide under your great light... fascinate me so that I may never be able to leave your radiance.”

Update on the Publication of the Opera Omnia of Thomas Aquinas

Although this post is not strictly related to liturgy, it fits in well with one of the general aims of NLM, namely, the need for a return to the great theological sources so that the new liturgical movement may remain firmly grounded in the Catholic Tradition. Indeed, one of the tragedies of the original liturgical movement, particularly as it entered its cancer phase in the 1960s, seems to have been an inadequate and inconsistent rootedness in dogmatic theology, as the craze for antiquity took over and blinded many to the profound contributions of the scholastics.

The Aquinas Institute for the Study of Sacred Doctrine, located in Lander, Wyoming, embarked a few years ago on a monumental project to publish the complete works of Saint Thomas in a uniform edition. The text is given in parallel Latin-English columns (the Latin edition is the best one available and the English translations have been reviewed by an editorial team for accuracy). The volumes are hardcovers with sewn bindings and gold-stamped covers and spines. We have completed the first phase of our publishing project with the following sets:

Commentaries on Matthew and John (4 vols.)

Commentaries on the Letters of Paul (5 vols.)

The Summa Theologiae (8 vols.)

The masterful Scripture commentaries of the Angelic Doctor—greatly praised by Leo XIII and many other popes, acknowledged as the pinnacle of their genre, and yet bizarrely hard to come by until now, if available at all—are the first projects we took on, in recognition of the primacy of the Word of God in sacred theology. Future plans include all of Thomas’s Old Testament commentaries as well. Preachers, take note: rarely will you find more penetrating and useful comments on the Lectionary readings than what you get in the pages of St. Thomas!

Having published Matthew, John, Paul, and the Summa, we are now turning our attention to the rest of the Opera Omnia—and here is where we can definitely use your help! We keep the cost of our volumes low to make them widely available, but as a result, the only way we can manage the initial print run of volumes is to obtain funding through donations. Donors receive a complimentary copy of the volumes they help to fund.

Go to our website to use your donation as a vote for what will be printed next—and to be among the first to receive a copy of that set. Once a volume has been funded, this offer of a complimentary copy will cease for that volume, and we will then sell it via Amazon. (For multi-volume sets like the Sentences commentary, donors will receive each volume as it is printed. We are starting with Book IV, which contains Thomas's lengthiest treatment of the sacraments and the liturgy. Work on Book IV is, in fact, well under way.)

We have editors and translators lined up for most of the works of Aquinas, but we will focus our efforts on the works that are most funded by you, our readers. Please spread the word by sharing this article with any of your colleagues or friends who might be interested. (Below are some photos from the Summa and Pauline volumes.)

Ite ad Thomam!

The Aquinas Institute
www.theaquinasinstitute.org