Jesuits in Systematic Theology: A Historiographical Essay
(9,554 words)

Bernhard Knorn, S.J.1

Last modified: January 2017


Throughout the history of the Society of Jesus, its members have made important contributions to systematic theology. Indeed, many of the most read and debated theologians have been Jesuits. The article “Teología” in the Diccionario histórico de la Compañía de Jesús introduces the debates and movements connected with these Jesuit theologians, covering a wide range of disciplines and scholars.2 The name entries for theologians in the Diccionario provide biographical data and selected bibliographies.3 A comprehensive history of Jesuit systematic theologians, however, has not yet been written. One reason for this might be that there is arguably no typical Jesuit theology. Academic accomplishments of members of the order, for example, do not necessarily indicate the Jesuit background. In most cases a “Jesuit” position on a certain question could not be identified. Sometimes, for instance during the Modernist crisis in the early twentieth century, members of the Society of Jesus worked on both sides of hotly debated issues. Would the formal criterion that they all belonged to the same order be enough of a reason to write a history of Jesuits in systematic theology? Michel Fédou recently made an attempt in this direction. His small book Les théologiens jésuites provides brief introductions to the thought of important Jesuit theologians and contextualizes them within the currents of their time.4

‘Systematic theology’ is a relatively new name for the discipline that explores the doctrines of Christian faith and presents them in an organized way, providing theological and philosophical reasons for their truth. Various historic and contemporary approaches to theology are covered by this concept, including Scholastic, speculative, positive, controversial, apologetic, ecumenical, fundamental, and dogmatic theology. Though theological ethics, moral theology, and spiritual theology are often regarded as parts of systematic theology, this paper does not include theologians working primarily in these fields. The survey offered here examines biographical, theological, and historical literature on Jesuits who made important contributions to the systematic theology of their time. Priority is given to literature helpful for understanding the most influential of these authors both as systematic theologians and as Jesuits.


Practices and Guiding Principles of Systematic Theology from the Formative Period of the Society of Jesus

Ignatius of Loyola, the Spiritual Exercises, and the Constitutions

Given the doctrinal debates during the era of the Reformations, studying and teaching theology were important for Ignatius of Loyola (c.1491–1556) in order to pursue the goal of the Society of Jesus: “to help souls.” Academic theology, however, is not a major topic in the foundational texts of the new order. Ignatius was not a systematic theologian and did not envision the Society as a group of theology professors. Still, he decided to study theology properly, and he attracted his first companions from among fellow theology students and teachers. A number of publications by Jesuit theologians elucidate various aspects of Ignatius’s theology and its background: Cándido Pozo describes Ignatius’s own program of studies, which put him in close contact with the contemporary currents in theology, in particular with the new reception of Thomas Aquinas’s Summa theologiae that had begun to develop in the early years of the sixteenth century.5 Hugo Rahner provides a theological profile of Ignatius, drawing from his spiritual principles and his understanding of scripture and church. He furthermore highlights the influence of patristic theology on Ignatius.6 A recent detailed study, written by Rainer Carls in Swedish, interprets Ignatius’s theological background in a broader perspective, situating it between Renaissance humanism and the Reformation and elucidating Thomistic influences.7 Santiago Madrigal focuses on ecclesiology and charts Ignatius’s basic theological convictions in connection with his view of the church and ecclesial existence.8

Although primarily a book describing a spiritual method, the Spiritual Exercises contains on its last pages guidelines for theology. The “Rules for Thinking with the Church” have recently attracted attention as they reveal important Ignatian ecclesiological conceptualizations that have been passed on to the Society of Jesus.9 Apart from these rules, the Spiritual Exercises can be described as a seminal theology exerting influence on Jesuits in their own theologies, since every member of the order does the Exercises, and many study and give them.10 Hugo Rahner, for example, tries to identify Ignatius’s Christology behind the text and to define the often cited “Ignatian Christocentrism.”11 Compared to the text of the Spiritual Exercises, written by Ignatius soon after his conversion in the early 1520s, the Constitutions, which were elaborated during the first two decades of the order’s existence (they were promulgated only in 1558), reflect an institutional view of theology. They provide guidelines for systematic theology within the norms dealing with the formation of Jesuits and the universities of the Society of Jesus. They favor a Thomism open to current developments, without restricting the Jesuits to a specific school, and stress the importance of biblical and positive theology besides Scholastic theology.12 The Constitutions express a care for orthodoxy and a theology that responds to the needs of the time. Overall, however, they are much more concerned with study-methods than with contents, as they call for a thorough humanistic education, a broad theological foundation, disputational experience, and a pastoral orientation.13


Early Jesuits Responding to Theological Challenges

During the early years of the Society of Jesus, several further factors contributed to carving out what it meant to be a Jesuit systematic theologian. Jerónimo Nadal (1507–80) was of utmost importance for introducing the Constitutions and transmitting the common inspirations of the new religious order to all the Jesuit communities of his time. Jesuit historian William Bangert describes Nadal’s foundational theological convictions shining through his exhortations.14 Nevertheless, Jesuits, especially those in German-speaking lands who found themselves surrounded by the doctrinal debates of the Reformation, needed to find their roles within these debates and their theological approaches mostly on their own. Several authors have studied these efforts: Jos Vercruysse analyzes the views that Nadal, Pierre Favre (1506–46) and Peter Canisius (1521–97) held on Philipp Melanchthon (1497–1560) and his theology.15 Klaus Schatz gives an account of the historical setting of Favre within the colloquies between the Reformers and the Catholic representatives (1540–44) and describes his take on the theological situation.16 For Favre’s theology in general, two older, very different works are still important: Ignacio Iparraguirre’s characterization of Favre’s ecclesiology and theological method17 and Michel de Certeau’s interpretation of Favre’s eclectic theology as one standing between formal Scholasticism and Augustinian mysticism.18 Niccolo Steiner studies the work and influence of the Jesuit theologians Diego Laínez (1512–65), Alfonso Salmerón (1515–85), Claude Le Jay (1504–52), and Peter Canisius at the Council of Trent.19

Because of his catechisms and his talented preaching, Canisius was probably the most influential one of these theologians for wider audiences. Karlheinz Diez’s study of Canisius’s ecclesiology describes his systematic argumentation as not very skilled, as it mostly highlights contrast with Protestant positions, but still founded on a great knowledge of patristic texts and a pronounced Incarnational theology.20 More recently, Hilmar Pabel worked on various theological relationships of Canisius such as his use of Augustine, his view of Erasmus, and his relations to Protestants.21

Contact with other religions in the Jesuit missions overseas triggered theological questions, too. According to Klaus Schatz, Francis Xavier (1506–52) cannot be claimed a saint of inter-religious dialogue as many of his theological statements reveal an extreme soteriological exclusivism. In Japan, he developed a more balanced response, but only Cosme de Torres (1510–70), one of his collaborators, arrived at a theory of salvation for those who did not know Christ.22 Francisco de Toledo (1532–96) and Francisco Suárez (1548–1617) were the first Jesuit theologians who, during the 1560s and the 1580s, discussed these questions in academia. Ilaria Morali describes how the experiences from the missions led them, by comparison with Thomas Aquinas, to a more balanced theological understanding of non-Christians.23

During this early phase of Jesuits dealing with theological challenges, the process of drafting the Ratio studiorum began. This document was meant to standardize the system of Jesuit education. Before the publication of the Ratio in 1599, Jesuits debated the methods of teaching and the orientation of their theology for almost half a century—a process that Anita Mancia investigated and described in great detail.24 The norms regarding systematic theology in the Ratio studiorum do not much differ from those of the Constitutions. Both documents state that normally Thomas should be taught but that other positions are legitimate.25 The debate about the legitimacy of freely choosing theological opinions26 continued until Superior General Claudio Acquaviva (in office 1581–1615) issued a document on the uniformity of doctrine in 1613.27 Although many Jesuits desired greater clarity, he refused to provide a catalog of free and defined positions. Ulrich Leinsle concludes that within the Society of Jesus a stance on systematic theology was not formalized, while the general orientation to Thomas existed only to avoid eclecticism. This further enabled Jesuits to pass on the Scotist and Nominalist traditions.28


Teaching and Controversies (Sixteenth and Seventeenth Centuries)

Apart from towering figures like Bellarmine and Suárez, the history of theologians in the Society of Jesus before its suppression in 1773 remains very much in the dark. Most of the academic studies in this field are groundbreaking work. Sven Knebel and Jacob Schmutz have collected extensive material for bio-bibliographies of many mostly unknown Jesuit philosophers and theologians in seventeenth-century Spain and beyond.29 As the Roman College hired a good number of them, they often became influential for the formation of Jesuits from all over Europe, where they spread, for example, the Thomistic renewal of the School of Salamanca, which had been developed predominantly by Dominicans. In keeping with the growing importance of positive theology in this movement, Jesuits also started working on the church fathers. Dominique Bertrand and Hermann-Josef Sieben shed light on Jesuits who did patristic studies, many of them by editing sources.30


Juan Maldonado (1533–83), Gregorio de Valencia (1549–1603), and Gabriel Vázquez (1549–1604)

These three theologians of Paris, Ingolstadt, and Rome/Alcalá were deeply influenced by the theological methods and hermeneutics of the School of Salamanca. The theological methodology of Maldonado, who adopted Melchor Cano’s Loci theologici (1562) with a greater emphasis on positive theology, has been studied by a number of authors during the twentieth century.31 A theological biography by Paul Schmitt shows how Maldonado arrived at his specific approach and how he put it into practice.32 Other features of his theology taken up in scholarship are his debates with Calvinists and the conflict that arose because of his position on the immaculate conception of Mary.33

The other two authors were the first Jesuits to publish complete commentaries on Thomas’s Summa theologiae.34 Wilhelm Hentrich wrote a theological introduction to Valencia.35 He and José Espasa studied Valencia on the fundamental questions of human freedom, divine agency, and faith, and they compared his positions to those of Molina and Suárez.36 More recently, Valencia’s ecclesiology and issues from his sacramental theology have attracted attention, as they allow one to view him in the context of Protestant positions and the Council of Trent.37 A considerable number of studies also exist on the systematic theology of Gabriel Vázquez, who is often compared to Suárez, commonly seen as his adversary.38 All of these works, treating topics like justification, satisfaction, inhabitation of the Holy Spirit, Mariology, and ordination of women, date back to the 1940s through the 1970s. Luis Maldonado’s dissertation also serves as introduction to Vázquez’s understanding of theology.39


Luis de Molina (1535–1600)

Molina was one of the leading theologians and philosophers of his time with influence in many areas. Currently, however, he is most known for his controversial theory on human freedom and divine foreknowledge. Sven Knebel surveyed around four-fifths of all works published by seventeenth-century Jesuit theologians who treated this question.40 The controversy was rekindled when Alvin Plantinga and William Lane Craig rediscovered the philosophical value of Molina’s middle knowledge theory.41 The current debate usually does not take into account Molina’s theology in its historical setting.42 The articles in the 2014 Companion try to correct this lapse.43 Scholarship on other theological topics is sparse. In the context of studies on Cano’s Loci theologici at the time of the Second Vatican Council (1962–65), Cándido Pozo, using Molina’s manuscripts, described how Molina’s position on establishing dogmatic definitions developed.44 José Domínguez, complementing an earlier article by Joaquín Salaverri, offers a detailed investigation of Molina’s ecclesiology, highlighting in particular his tutiorism in questions of papal infallibility.45


Robert Bellarmine (1542–1621) and Francisco Suárez (1548–1617)

Bellarmine’s and Suárez’s works are much more accessible than those of the previous authors. Some are available in digital editions and translations.46 Large bibliographies of secondary sources reveal the wide-ranging scholarship on both of these authors.47 Recent works on Bellarmine’s systematic theology show a clear focus on ecclesiology. Detailed studies have been published by Thomas Löhr on the theory of general church councils and by Thomas Dietrich on Bellarmine’s ecclesiology in light of his theological presuppositions.48 Other topics of recent scholarship that go beyond an outline of Bellarmine’s positions are his early theology of predestination, his Christology, and his anthropology.49

Although Suárez’s writings are predominantly theological, most contemporary scholarship deals with his metaphysics and his theories of state and law. In the new Companion to Francisco Suárez, for example, only three out of fourteen articles treat his theology.50 The most thorough recent study is Thomas Marschler’s book on Suárez’s theology of the Trinity, including its sources and its influence on later authors.51 Still important are older works on further aspects of his systematic theology: Philipp Kaiser’s description of Suárez’s mediating role between diverging Christological positions and Francisco Aguilera’s thesis on Suárez’s concept of theology, his methodology and understanding of revelation.52 Eleuterio Elorduy studied Suárez’s theory of predestination in his debates with three fellow Jesuit theologians.53


Denis Pétau (1583–1652)

Pétau’s Opus de theologicis dogmatibus was one of the standard handbooks for the history of dogma until the nineteenth century. For example, the Roman School, Möhler, and Scheeben saw Pétau as their forerunner.54 In the context of the debates about theological method after the Second Vatican Council, Pétau has become a point of reference again. In the early 1970s, Karrer and Tshiamalenga challenged the widespread view of Pétau as the founder of the history of dogma: Cano, Maldonado, and others already employed a historical perspective by integrating positive theology.55 Furthermore, as Michael Hofmann argues, Pétau did not want to point out doctrinal developments or provide detailed dogmatic qualifications for specific teachings. His major concern—against Protestant views—was the unchanging truth in changing historical formulations.56


Enlightenment and Restoration (Eighteenth and Nineteenth Centuries)

For the period between the mid-seventeenth and the early nineteenth century, most sections of the otherwise very detailed “Teología” article in the Diccionario histórico do not mention any theologians. There were Jesuits, however, who during the age of Enlightenment engaged in the debates with Jansenism, deism, rationalism, and libertinism.57 Their apologetics had to shift from the post-Reformation controversies to the fundamental question of the rationality of Christian faith. Most baroque Scholasticism seemed unable to make this move. Also, for other, non-theological reasons, the role of the Society of Jesus in theological formation was increasingly questioned in the course of the eighteenth century. One example, which has been studied, are the Jesuit theology professors in Würzburg, who felt compelled to demonstrate their academic abilities in a unique Jesuit collaborative effort, writing the fourteen-volume Theologia Wirceburgensis (1766–71).58 Scholarship on other Jesuit theologians during the century before the suppression of the Society of Jesus (1773) is widely lacking. Academic interest in the study of the Catholic Enlightenment is currently growing, however; this development promises to shed further light on the history of Jesuit theologians of this time.


Giovanni Perrone (1794–1876), Carlo Passaglia (1812–87), Clemens Schrader (1820–75), Johann B. Franzelin (1816–86): The Roman School

Despite substantial differences in their theological methods and ecclesial standpoints, these four Jesuit theologians are commonly seen as the proponents of the “Roman School.”59 Most studies focus on their theories of the development of doctrine and on ecclesiology in order to highlight their innovations as well as to understand the process leading to the decisions of the First Vatican Council (1869–70). Walter Kasper’s dissertation relates Perrone’s, Passaglia’s and Schrader’s concepts of theological tradition back to different anthropologies and pneumatologies, which also led to different views on papal infallibility before the council.60 Michael Shea has recently taken up these questions with a fresh view of Perrone’s exchange with Newman and its consequences for Perrone’s theology of doctrinal development.61 Peter Walter analyzes Perrone’s and Franzelin’s theories of faith from personal religious experience in comparison to conciliar statements.62 In more recent years, two Italian scholars worked on ecclesiological topics: Domenico Massimino traces Franzelin’s influences on the council’s dogmatic constitution Pastor aeternus in relation to questions of papal infallibility, based on his ecclesiology.63 Gianluca Carlin’s dissertation is a valuable source not only for Passaglia’s ecclesiology in context of his political biography, but also an excellent outline of archival and secondary sources.64


Joseph Kleutgen (1811–83): The Victory of Neo-Scholasticism

Intrinsically connected with the victory of neo-Scholasticism and the definitions of the First Vatican Council, Joseph Kleutgen is one of the most controversial theologians of the century. Many studies analyze Kleutgen’s contributions to the restorative shift in theology after 1848, especially with his letters to fellow theologians and his reports to the Congregation of the Index.65 A newer theological discussion of one of his arguments is Oliver Wiertz’s critical analysis of Kleutgen’s apologetic method and its foundations.66 Besides his engagement in the propagation of the theological principles of strict neo-Scholasticism, Kleutgen also played a compromising role in the scandal of concocted miracles and other crimes in a Roman nuns’ convent, as Hubert Wolf has recently revealed on the basis of documents in the Vatican Secret Archives.67


New Approaches in Theology (Twentieth Century)

It seems that the twentieth century has brought forth more famous Jesuit theologians than any other century. Many of them are connected with new approaches and important debates; a considerable number of Jesuits contributed to the theological preparation and implementation of the Second Vatican Council. Since the process of reception of these theological developments is still in an early phase, there is not in every case much historiography yet, and it is difficult to identify the most important scholars. Only included here are those authors whose work has come to completion. The titles of the following chapters may indicate the variety of debates and approaches taken up by Jesuit systematic theologians.


Louis Billot (1846–1931) and George Tyrrell (1861–1909): The Modernist Crisis

Louis Billot was one of the most active Integralist proponents of the Thomistic revival in the early years of the twentieth century.68 Apart from his interventions at the Vatican curia,69 his Christology and his theory of the act of faith have been studied recently.70 His activity was directed against Modernism. George Tyrrell, dismissed from the Society of Jesus in 1906, was regarded one of Modernism’s major figures.71 Three older studies on Tyrrell’s theology intended to work out the Catholicity of his theology, seen as pioneering prophecy.72 Newer articles contextualize his theology, in particular his understanding of the church, within the Modernism debate.73


Pierre Rousselot (1878–1915) and Henri de Lubac (1896–1991): Nouvelle Théologie

Rousselot’s interpretation of Aquinas initiated a fresh approach to fundamental theology.74 Scholarship on Rousselot exists in a variety of languages and investigates different topics, mostly however his analysis of faith.75 John McDermott underlined the Christological foundations of Rousselot’s theology, while Hans Boersma examined the underlying sacramental ontology.76 Rousselot’s work was highly influential on Henri de Lubac77 and opened the path towards the nouvelle théologie, which on the Jesuit side is closely connected with the School of Fourvière.78 Since the past decade, de Lubac’s theology has been subject of a lively discussion on an international level, supported by the publication of introductions to de Lubac’s work79 and Chantraine’s multi-volume biography.80 The main areas of interest are his fundamental theology and ecclesiology.81 Many authors employ de Lubac for questions of secularity and faith, faith and reason, nature and grace, or the paradoxical nature of human existence.82


Erich Przywara (1889–1972): Difference and Identity

If Hans Urs von Balthasar (1905–88) had not left the Jesuits in 1950 before he published his major theological works, he could be placed alongside Przywara and function as an intellectual connection between Przywara and de Lubac.83 Both Balthasar and Przywara also reflected theologically on Ignatian themes. Przywara’s theology of the Spiritual Exercises, however, has not attracted as much academic attention as his theory of analogy.84 Even more studies are to be expected in the following years, because Spanish and English translations from the German original of Analogia entis (1932) were published in 2013 and 2014. French and Italian translations had already been made in the 1990s. In systematic theology, Przywara’s thought has primarily been connected with topics of Christology (in particular theology of the Cross),85 ecclesiology,86 and negative theology.87


Karl Rahner (1904–84) and Bernard Lonergan (1904–84): Transcendental Theology

Although very different in the scope of issues treated in their publications, Rahner and Lonergan share similar theological intentions. Both came from the neo-Thomist school of theology and each addressed Kant’s epistemological and ontological challenges for theology. They also, independently of each other, developed a transcendental method, which integrated historical consciousness and authentic subjectivity into theology. The discussion of their theologies is ongoing and thematically very wide-spread. Compared to the broad international reception of Rahner, most scholarship on Lonergan comes from the English-speaking world. Online bibliographies provide details of primary and secondary sources.88

Bernard Sesboüé and Thomas O’Meara wrote concise and balanced theological introductions to Rahner’s work.89 Further aspects of Rahner’s systematic theology, in particular the development of his thought, were worked out in collections of introductory articles.90 Bernd Jochen Hilberath and Bernhard Nitsche published overviews of Rahner scholarship between 1984 and 2005.91

The English introductory bibliography to Lonergan is dominated by Frederick Crowe, a close friend and dedicated scholar of Lonergan. His biography92 and many of his articles shed light on the development of Lonergan’s thought. Robert Doran describes the Ignatian background of his theology.93 Studies on Lonergan in other languages and academic cultures, which are still sparse, may offer a wider diversity of approaches.94


Jesuits Shaping and Implementing the Systematic Theology of the Second Vatican Council

Of the manifold engagement of Jesuit theologians for a renewal of theology before, during and after the council, only a few aspects and examples can be mentioned here. Giovanni Caprile provides an impressive list of Jesuits as members of commissions, as consultors and periti, and of the Jesuit bishops as members of the council; Santiago Madrigal is one of the leading Jesuit theologians who, in many publications, has investigated their various theological contributions.95 Theological approaches, developed by Jesuits, prepared some of the decisive ideas of the conciliar theology:96 Mentioned already in this article are the efforts towards a ressourcement, connected with Jesuits like de Lubac and Jean Daniélou (1905–74), and a new understanding of apologetics through Rahner’s transcendental method. Otto Semmelroth’s (1912–79) ecclesiological concept of sacramentality became central for Lumen gentium.97 He and another Jesuit ecclesiologist, Sebastiaan Tromp (1889–1975),98 worked on different ideological sides in the preparation and redaction of the dogmatic constitutions of the council. Current research focuses on the diaries and journals of these theologians, which reveal the mutual influence of theology, institutional procedures, and personal relationships. Pieter Smulders (1912–2000), furthermore, played a decisive role in the development of Dei verbum, the constitution on divine revelation.99

For the implementation of the conciliar theological impulses, the continuous Jesuit engagement in ecumenical theological research, dialogues, and relationships must be mentioned.100 This is often overlooked, because it is less connected with well-known names. Further examples can be found in Jesuits as teachers of theology who helped in the formation of generations of theologians. One from the Spanish, the English, and the French speaking world each shall be mentioned. The Uruguayan Jesuit Juan Luis Segundo (1925–96), with his five-volume Teología abierta para el laico adulto (1968–72), intended to adopt the conciliar teachings for a Latin-American setting. Together with the Dominican Gustavo Gutiérrez, he is regarded a co-founder of liberation theology.101 His Christology “from below,” and more recently his ecclesiology, have been widely discussed.102

Two other influential teachers of theology worked for the implementation of the decisions of the Second Vatican Council mainly within the classical fields of theology: Avery Dulles (1918–2008) in the United States and Joseph Moingt (1915–) in France. Both, during very long periods of academic activity, covered a wide range of central issues from the Catholic faith in their publications and teaching. Dulles intervened controversially in public debates within the American church.103 Academic research focused mostly on his theological methodology in connection with his theology of divine revelation. In newer publications, the focus also included his ecclesiology.104 Moingt was deeply influenced by his teachers Daniélou and de Lubac. His earlier academic contributions have not attracted as much attention as his late trilogy of systematic theology (1993–2007), which has been discussed in numerous publications over the past twenty years.105


Alois Grillmeier (1910–98) and Piet Schoonenberg (1911–99): Explorations in Christology

Both Grillmeier and Schoonenberg worked at the foundations of Christology—in ways, however, that could not be more different. Grillmeier was a research scholar who received only little attention by the wider public, but his work on terminology and systematization has shaped modern Christology. Recent articles, which characterize his research, underline this.106 In his studies of the history of Christology, he laid the foundations for successful ecumenical dialogues with various Oriental Orthodox churches.107 Schoonenberg’s proposals for new foundational concepts in Christology have been hotly debated from the early 1970s onwards, in particular his theory of a double enhypostasis of the humanity of Christ in the divine Logos and vice versa, and more recently his Spirit Christology.108 Schoonenberg criticized historical mainline positions of Christology. Jürgen Mettepenningen showed, however, that Schoonenberg’s theological innovations cannot be understood without the recovery of history in theology brought about by the ressourcement—which also motivated Grillmeier’s historical studies.109


Ignacio Ellacuría (1930–89) and Jacques Dupuis (1923–2004): Theology at the Frontiers

Ellacuría and Dupuis reflected on central issues of the Christian faith, while facing contemporary challenges of the world, namely the reality of poverty and exclusion, and the dialogue with other religions. These confrontations were rooted in their commitment to living at the frontiers: As Europeans, they spent most of their lives in El Salvador and India respectively, where they encountered at first-hand the social realities that inspired their theologies. Both had to face resistance too: Ellacuría was murdered, and Dupuis was investigated by the Roman Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith.

Kevin Burke and Robert Lassalle-Klein have published extensively on Ellacuría’s liberation theology.110 In recent years, a considerable number of publications on his philosophical and theological background111 and on many aspects of his theology have appeared.112 Dupuis’s theology has often been discussed in recent years, with the focus being almost exclusively on his theology of religions. The Roman investigation of his theology stirred up further debates.113 Articles in the Dupuis Festschrift from 2003 still serve as an introduction to his work.114



The story of Jesuit engagement in systematic theology is rich in characters and standpoints; there has been research at the foundations of the Christian faith as well as explorations of new areas. This essay has focused on publications, but all of the theologians mentioned above were also involved in teaching. The questions that others ask out of their own engagement with their environment and with people they serve have always motivated further theological reflection and proposals for solutions. The way Jesuit theologians confronted these questions was often inspired by their spiritual background and a particular world-view, shaped by “God’s immediacy, […] sacramentally incarnated in the flesh of Jesus and in the visible Church.”115 This demanded that at some times Jesuits were defending the more orthodox positions; at other times their theologians heard a call to search out new paths. Regardless, Jesuit theology has been marked by humanism,116 which includes several aspects: the orientation towards “helping souls,” the focus on the human being as an instrument of the divine, and the integration of history into theology as its necessary foundation. These few, very general shared characteristics are certainly not enough to constitute a uniform Jesuit theology.117 Unity of opinions was seen as necessary in the debates during the drafting of the Ratio studiorum, but over the centuries, because of a true engagement with and adaptation to the situation into which God places humanity at a certain time, plurality has for all intents and purposes emerged as a principle of Jesuit systematic theology.


For more bibliographical information, consult Boston College Jesuit Bibliography: The New Sommervogel Online (NSO).


^ Back to text1. The author wishes to thank Jack Nuelle for assistance in research and Joseph Appleyard, S.J., for his editorial review of the manuscript.

^ Back to text2. Robert Brunet et al., “Teología,” in Diccionario histórico de la Compañía de Jesús, vol. 4 (Rome: Institutum Historicum Societatis Iesu, 2001), 3720–77.

^ Back to text3. This article and the provided literature focus exclusively on topics of systematic theology. Biographical works on the theologians mentioned in this article are not included in the references insofar as they can be found in the Diccionario histórico de la Compañía de Jesús.

^ Back to text4. Michel Fédou, Les théologiens jésuites: Un courant uniforme? (Brussels: Lessius, 2014).

^ Back to text5. Cándido Pozo, “San Ignacio de Loyola y la teología,” Archivo teológico granadino 53 (1990): 5–47.

^ Back to text6. “Ignatius the Theologian” (1959) and “Ignatius and the Ascetic Tradition of the Fathers“ (1942), in Hugo Rahner, Ignatius the Theologian, trans. Michael Barry (New York: Herder and Herder, 1968), 1–31, 32–52.

^ Back to text7. Rainer Carls, Ignatius av Loyolas teologiska profil: Mellan riddarväsen, renässans och reformation (Skellefteå: Artos, 2013).

^ Back to text8. Santiago Madrigal Terrazas, Eclesialidad, reforma y misión: El legado teológico de Ignacio de Loyola, Pedro Fabro y Francisco de Javier (Madrid: Universidad Pontificia Comillas, 2008), 57–139.

^ Back to text9. On theology in particular, see the Eleventh Rule: SpEx 363. Gill K. Goulding, A Church of Passion and Hope: The Formation of Ecclesial Disposition from Ignatius Loyola to Pope Francis and the New Evangelization (London: Bloomsbury, 2016), 19–109; Madrigal, Eclesialidad, 105–39; Alfons Knoll, “Derselbe Geist”: Eine Untersuchung zum Kirchenverständnis in der Theologie der ersten Jesuiten (Paderborn: Bonifatius, 2007), 107–19.

^ Back to text10. Pierre-Antoine Fabre, “The Writings of Ignatius of Loyola as Seminal Text,” in Companion to Ignatius of Loyola: Life, Writings, Spirituality, Influence, ed. Robert A. Maryks (Leiden: Brill, 2014), 103–22.

^ Back to text11. “The Christology of the Spiritual Exercises” (1962), in: Rahner, Ignatius the Theologian, 53–135.

^ Back to text12. Const. 351; 366; 446; 464–466. Pozo, “San Ignacio de Loyola y la Teología,” 20–29; Fédou, Théologiens jésuites, 9–18.

^ Back to text13. Antonio M. de Aldama, An Introductory Commentary on the Constitutions, trans. Aloysius J. Owen (St. Louis, MO: Institute of Jesuit Sources, 1989), 164–78.

^ Back to text14. William V. Bangert, Jerome Nadal, S.J. 1507–1580: Tracking the First Generation of Jesuits, ed. Thomas M. McCoog (Chicago, IL: Loyola University Press, 1992), 43–55; for Nadal’s work on Jesuit identity construction with these ideals, see Ignacio Ramos Riera, Jerónimo Nadal (1507–1580) und der “verschriftlichte” Ignatius: Die Konstruktion einer individuellen und kollektiven Identität (Leiden: Brill, 2015). Despite its title, Ruiz Jurado’s detailed, recent biography does not provide Nadal’s theological profile: Manuel Ruiz Jurado, Jerónimo Nadal: El teólogo de la gracia de la vocación (Madrid: Biblioteca de Autores Cristianos, 2011).

^ Back to text15. Jos E. Vercruysse, “‘Melanchthon, qui modestior videri voluit…’: Die ersten Jesuiten und Melanchthon,” in Der Theologe Melanchthon, ed. Günter Frank (Stuttgart: Thorbecke, 2000), 393–409.

^ Back to text16. Klaus Schatz, “Deutschland und die Reformation in der Sicht Peter Fabers,” in Die Zeit ist der Bote Gottes: Der heilige Peter Faber SJ und sein Wirken in Mainz, ed. Christoph Nebgen (Würzburg: Echter, 2014), 29–46; Jos Vercruysse, “‘In Wahrheit lieben …’: Peter Faber und die lutherische Reformation,” Geist und Leben 89, no. 1 (2016): 82–90.

^ Back to text17. Ignacio Iparraguirre, “Carácter teológico y litúrgico de la espiritualidad del Bto. Fabro,” Manresa 19, no. 1 (1947): 31–41.

^ Back to text18. Michel de Certeau, “Introduction,” in Pierre Favre, Mémorial (Paris: Desclée de Brouwer, 1960), 18–26.

^ Back to text19. Niccolo Steiner, “Laínez und das Konzil von Trient: Ein Überblick,” in Diego Laínez (1512–1565) and His Generalate, ed. Paul Oberholzer (Rome: Institutum Historicum Societatis Iesu, 2015), 467–526; Steiner, Diego Laínez und Alfonso Salmerón: Zwei Jesuitentheologen auf dem Tridentinum; ihr Beitrag zur Eucharistie- und Messopferthematik, in preparation for publication in 2017; for ecclesiology, see Knoll, Derselbe Geist.

^ Back to text20. Karlheinz Diez, Christus und seine Kirche: Zum Kirchenverständnis des Petrus Canisius (Paderborn: Bonifatius, 1987), 364–73; Diez, “Petrus Canisius als Theologe,” in Petrus Canisius – Reformer der Kirche: Festschrift zum 400; Todestag des zweiten Apostels Deutschlands, ed. Julius Oswald and Peter Rummel (Augsburg: Sankt Ulrich, 1996), 178–93.

^ Back to text21. Hilmar M. Pabel, “Peter Canisius and the ‘Truly Catholic’ Augustine,” Theological Studies 71, no. 4 (2010): 903–25; Pabel, “Praise and Blame: Peter Canisius’s Ambivalent Assessment of Erasmus,” in The Reception of Erasmus in the Early Modern Period, ed. Karl Enenkel (Leiden: Brill, 2013), 129–59; Pabel, “Peter Canisius and the Protestants: A Model of Ecumenical Dialogue?,” Journal of Jesuit Studies 1, no. 3 (2014): 373–99 (doi: 10.1163/22141332-00103002).

^ Back to text22. Klaus Schatz, “Franz Xaver und die Herausforderung der nicht-christlichen Religionen,” in Sendung – Eroberung – Begegnung: Franz Xaver, die Gesellschaft Jesu und die katholische Weltkirche im Zeitalter des Barock, ed. Johannes Meier (Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 2005), 99–117.

^ Back to text23. Ilaria Morali, Gratia ed infidelitas nella teologia di Francisco de Toledo e Francisco Suárez al tempo delle grandi missioni gesuitiche,” Studia missionalia 55 (2006): 99–150.

^ Back to text24. Anita Mancia, “La controversia con i protestanti e i programmi degli studi teologici nella Compagnia di Gesù 1547–1599,” Archivum historicum Societatis Iesu 54 (1985): 3–43, 209–266; Mancia, “Il concetto di ‘dottrina’ fra gli Esercizi Spirituali (1539) e la Ratio studiorum (1599),” Archivum historicum Societatis Iesu 61 (1992): 3–70. See also John W. Padberg, “Development of the Ratio Studiorum,” in The Jesuit Ratio Studiorum: 400th Anniversary Perspectives, ed. Vincent J. Duminuco (New York: Fordham University Press, 2000), 80–100.

^ Back to text25. RS 174–179. The RS includes a detailed catalog of matters to be treated, following the structure of Aquinas’s Summa theologiae with modifications. The point of this list is not to specify positions that Jesuits must hold.

^ Back to text26. Markus Friedrich, “Einheit und soziale Kohärenz: Debatten um die Homogenität von doctrina im Jesuitenorden um 1600,” in Vera Doctrina: Zur Begriffsgeschichte der Lehre von Augustinus bis Descartes, ed. Philippe Büttgen et al. (Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 2009), 297–324; Antonella Romano, “Pratiques d’enseignement et orthodoxie intellectuelle en milieu jésuite (deuxième moitié du XVIe siècle),” in Orthodoxie, christianisme, histoire, ed. Susanna Elm, Éric Rebillard, and Antonella Romano (Rome: École française de Rome, 2000), 241–60.

^ Back to text27. Cristiano Casalini and Claude Pavur, eds., Jesuit Pedagogy, 1540–1616: A Reader (Chestnut Hill, MA: Institute of Jesuit Sources, 2016), 233–42; cf. the statements of Diego Ledesma from c.1574 (223–32) and Juan Maldonado from c.1573 (317–24).

^ Back to text28. Ulrich G. Leinsle, “Delectus opinionum: Traditionsbildung durch Auswahl in der frühen Jesuitentheologie,” in Im Spannungsfeld von Tradition und Innovation, ed. Georg Schmuttermayr et al. (Regensburg: Pustet, 1997), 159–75.

^ Back to text29. Sven K. Knebel, “Salamanca und sein Ambiente: Ein Repertorium zur Jesuitenscholastik des 17. Jahrhunderts,” in Die Ordnung der Praxis: Neue Studien zur spanischen Spätscholastik, ed. Frank Grunert and Kurt Seelmann (Tübingen: Niemeyer, 2001), 429–58; Jacob Schmutz, Scholasticon, (accessed December 5, 2016).

^ Back to text30. Dominique Bertrand, “The Society of Jesus and the Church Fathers in the Sixteenth and Seventeenth Century,” in The Reception of the Church Fathers in the West: From the Carolingians to the Maurists, ed. Irena Backus, trans. A. Bevan, vol. 2 (Leiden: Brill, 1997), 889–950; Hermann Josef Sieben, “Von der Kontroverse zur Zusammenarbeit in der Res publica literaria (1546–1643): Jesuitenpatristik von Petrus Canisius bis Fronton du Duc,” in Petrus Canisius SJ (1521–1597): Humanist und Europäer, ed. Rainer Berndt (Berlin: Akademie, 2000), 169–201.

^ Back to text31. José Ignacio Tellechea Idígoras, “Metodología teológica de Maldonado,” Scriptorium Victoriense 1, no. 2 (1954): 183–255; Inos Biffi, “La figura della teologia in Juan de Maldonado: Tra rinnovamento e fedeltà,” in Figure moderne della teologia nei secoli XV–XVII, ed. Inos Biffi and Costante Marabelli (Milan: Jaca, 2007), 137–55, both with references to earlier studies.

^ Back to text32. Paul Schmitt, La réforme catholique: Le combat de Maldonat (1534–1583) (Paris: Beauchesne, 1985).

^ Back to text33. Jean Céard, “Calvin et le calvinisme selon le jésuite Maldonat,” in Calvin insolite, ed. Franco Giacone (Paris: Garnier, 2012), 267–76; José Ignacio Tellechea Idígoras, La Inmaculada Concepción en la controversia del P. Maldonado, S.J. con la Sorbona (Vitoria: Editorial del Seminario, 1958).

^ Back to text34. Only biographical sketches exist so far: Antolín Álvarez Torres, “Gregorio de Valencia,” in La filosofía española en Castilla y León: De los orígenes al Siglo de Oro, ed. Maximiliano Fartos Martínez and Lorenzo Velázquez Campo (Valladolid: Universidad de Valladolid, 1997), 393–411; Cristóbal de Castro and José Hellín, “Vida inédita del P. Gabriel Vázquez,” ed. M. Ramírez, Archivo teológico granadino 37 (1974): 227–44. For details on primary sources, generally see Carlos Sommervogel, ed., Bibliothèque de la Compagnie de Jésus, 11 and 2 suppl. vols. (Brussels: Schepens, 1890); Diccionario histórico de la Compañía de Jesús, 4 vols. (Rome: Institutum Historicum Societatis Iesu, 2001). Many of the early prints have been digitized and are available through the HathiTrust library ( or the Internet Archive (

^ Back to text35. Wilhelm Hentrich, “Gregor von Valencia und die Erneuerung der deutschen Scholastik im 16. Jahrhundert,” in Philosophia perennis: Abhandlungen zu ihrer Vergangenheit und Gegenwart, ed. Fritz-Joachim von Rintelen, vol. 1 (Regensburg: Habbel, 1930), 293–307.

^ Back to text36. Wilhelm Hentrich, Gregor von Valencia und der Molinismus: Ein Beitrag zur Geschichte des Prämolinismus mit Benützung ungedruckter Quellen (Innsbruck: Rauch, 1928); José Espasa, “Relación entre la fe infusa y la adquirida en Gregorio de Valencia,” Archivo teológico granadino 8 (1945): 99–123.

^ Back to text37. José Arturo Domínguez Asensio, “La obra eclesiológica de Gregorio de Valencia,” Anthologica annua 33 (1986): 11–157; Domínguez Asensio, “‘De efficacia sacramentorum novae legis:’ La causalidad sacramental en la obra polémica de Gregorio de Valencia,” Archivo teológico granadino 61 (1998): 5–40; Lothar Lies, Origenes’ Eucharistielehre im Streit der Konfessionen: Die Auslegungsgeschichte seit der Reformation (Innsbruck: Tyrolia, 1985), 176–87; Pastor Gutiérrez Vega, El bautismo de los niños en Gregorio de Valencia: Una visión postridentina del problema (Rome: Pontificia Università Gregoriana, 1984).

^ Back to text38. For a bibliography, see Thomas Marschler, “Vázquez, Gabriel,” in Thomistenlexikon, ed. David Berger and Jörgen Vijgen (Bonn: Nova & Vetera, 2006), 690–94.

^ Back to text39. Luis Maldonado, El comentario de Gabriel Vázquez a la “Quaestio I” de la Summa en la perspectiva de la problemática contemporánea planteada en torno a la esencia de la teología (Vitoria: Eset, 1964).

^ Back to text40. Sven K. Knebel, “Scientia media: Ein diskursarchäologischer Leitfaden durch das 17. Jahrhundert,” Archiv für Begriffsgeschichte 34 (1991): 262–94.

^ Back to text41. William Lane Craig, Divine Foreknowledge and Human Freedom: The Coherence of Theism; Omniscience (Leiden: Brill, 1991).

^ Back to text42. Example for an analytical defense of Molina’s theory: Thomas P. Flint, Divine Providence: The Molinist Account (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1998).

^ Back to text43. Matthias Kaufmann and Alexander Aichele, eds., A Companion to Luis de Molina (Leiden: Brill, 2014).

^ Back to text44. Cándido Pozo, “La teoría del progreso dogmático en Luis de Molina S.I.,” Archivo teológico granadino 24 (1961): 5–13.

^ Back to text45. José Arturo Domínguez Asensio, “La eclesiología en los comentarios de Molina a la ‘Secunda Secundae,’” Archivo teológico granadino 50 (1987): 5–110.

^ Back to text46. The Digital Library of the Catholic Reformation, (accessed December 5, 2016); Sydney Penner, Suárez in Latin Onlin, (accessed December 5, 2016). In the DLCR, there are also theological works of Molina and of Pétau, who will be treated in the following chapter.

^ Back to text47. Anita Mancia, “Bibliografia sistematica e commentata degli studi sull’opera Bellarminiana dal 1900 al 1990,” in Roberto Bellarmino, arcivescovo di Capua, teologo e pastore della riforma cattolica, ed. Gustavo Galeota, vol. 2 (Capua: Istituto superiore di scienze religiose, 1990), 805–72; Jean-Paul Coujou, Bibliografía suareciana (Pamplona: Universidad de Navarra, 2010); Jacob Schmutz and Sydney Penner, Bibliography of Works on Francisco Suárez, 1850–present, (accessed December 5, 2016).

^ Back to text48. Thomas Löhr, Die Lehre Robert Bellarmins vom allgemeinen Konzil (Limburg, 1986); Thomas Dietrich, Die Theologie der Kirche bei Robert Bellarmin (1542–1621): Systematische Voraussetzungen des Kontroverstheologen (Paderborn: Bonifatius, 1999). More recent reprisals of these topics: Dietrich, “Eine Versammlung von Menschen? Bellarmins Kirchenbild in seinen katechetischen Schriften,” in Theologie aus dem Geist des Humanismus, ed. Hilary A. Mooney, Karlheinz Ruhstorfer, and Viola Tenge-Wolf (Freiburg: Herder, 2010), 42–56; Christian D. Washburn, “St. Robert Bellarmine on the Infallibility of General Councils of the Church,” Annuarium historiae conciliorum 42 (2010): 171–92; Anselm Schubert, “Bellarmin und die lutherische Ekklesiologie des konfessionellen Zeitalters,” Evangelische Theologie 75, no. 2 (2015): 135–51.

^ Back to text49. Manfred Biersack, Initia Bellarminiana: Die Prädestinationslehre bei Robert Bellarmin SJ bis zu seinen Löwener Vorlesungen 1570–1576 (Stuttgart: Steiner, 1989); Ervin J. Alácsi, The Christological Thought of St. Robert Bellarmine: A Selective Study in Light of the Sixteenth-Century Christological Controversies (Budapest, 2009); Yilun Cai, “Desiderium naturale vivendi [sic] Deum in Robert Bellarmine’s Commentary on Summa theologiae,” Gregorianum 95, no. 3 (2014): 511–34.

^ Back to text50. For an overview, see Robert L. Fastiggi, “Francisco Suárez as Dogmatic Theologian,” in A Companion to Francisco Suárez, ed. Victor M. Salas and Robert L. Fastiggi (Leiden: Brill, 2015), 148–63.

^ Back to text51. Thomas Marschler, Die spekulative Trinitätslehre des Francisco Suárez S.J. in ihrem philosophisch-theologischen Kontext (Münster: Aschendorff, 2007).

^ Back to text52. Philipp Kaiser, Die gott-menschliche Einigung in Christus als Problem der spekulativen Theologie seit der Scholastik (Munich: Hueber, 1968), 94–156; Francisco María Aguilera González, El concepto de teología en el Padre Francisco Suárez (1947; repr., Mexico City: Universidad Iberoamericana, 2000).

^ Back to text53. Eleuterio Elorduy, La predestinación en Suárez: Controversias con Vázquez, Salas y Lesio (Granada: Facultad Teológica Granadina, 1947).

^ Back to text54. Christoph Binninger, “Die pneumatologisch-anthropologischen Ansätze in der Trinitätslehre des Dionysius Petavius und ihr Einfluss auf die ‘Römische Schule’ um Carlo Passaglia und Johann Baptist Franzelin,” Münchener theologische Zeitschrift 62, no. 4 (2011): 343–55.

^ Back to text55. Leo Karrer, Die historisch-positive Methode des Theologen Dionysius Petavius (Munich: Hueber, 1970); Ignace-Marcel Tshiamalenga Ntumba-Mulemba, “La méthode théologique chez Denys Petau,” Ephemerides theologicae Lovanienses 48, no. 3 (1972): 427–78.

^ Back to text56. Michael Hofmann, Theologie, Dogma und Dogmenentwicklung im theologischen Werk Denis Petau’s (Bern: Lang, 1976).

^ Back to text57. For examples of such theologians, see Brunet et al., “Teología,” 3721; Fédou, Théologiens jésuites, 62–68; Ulrich L. Lehner, “Benedict Stattler (1728–1797): The Reinvention of Catholic Theology with the Help of Wolffian Metaphysics,” in Enlightenment and Catholicism in Europe: A Transnational History, ed. Jeffrey D. Burson and Ulrich L. Lehner (Notre Dame, IN: University of Notre Dame Press, 2014), 167–90; Jeffrey D. Burson, “Distinctive Contours of Jesuit Enlightenment in France,” in Exploring Jesuit Distinctiveness: Interdisciplinary Perspectives on Ways of Proceeding Within the Society of Jesus, ed. Robert A. Maryks (Leiden: Brill, 2016), 212–34.

^ Back to text58. Title from the two nineteenth-century re-editions; original title: Theologia dogmatica, polemica, scholastica et moralis. Klaus Schilling, Die Kirchenlehre der Theologia Wirceburgensis (Paderborn: Schöningh, 1969); Karl Josef Lesch, Neuorientierung der Theologie im 18. Jahrhundert in Würzburg und Bamberg (Würzburg: Echter, 1978), 121–27.

^ Back to text59. This label has been introduced by Heribert Schauf, Die Einwohnung des Heiligen Geistes: Die Lehre von der nichtappropriierten Einwohnung des Heiligen Geistes als Beitrag zur Theologiegeschichte des neunzehnten Jahrhunderts unter besonderer Berücksichtigung der beiden Theologen Carl Passaglia und Clemens Schrader (Freiburg: Herder, 1941); questioned by Peter Walter, “Carlo Passaglia: Auf dem Weg zur Communio-Ekklesiologie,” in Theologen des 19. Jahrhunderts: Eine Einführung, ed. Peter Neuner and Gunther Wenz (Darmstadt: WBG, 2002), 165–82. An excellent introduction to the Roman School and to further developments of Jesuit theology in the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries: Karl Heinz Neufeld, “Jesuitentheologie im 19. und 20. Jahrhundert,” in Ignatianisch: Eigenart und Methode der Gesellschaft Jesu, ed. Michael Sievernich and Günter Switek (Freiburg: Herder, 1990), 425–43.

^ Back to text60. Walter Kasper, Die Lehre von der Tradition in der Römischen Schule (1962; repr., Freiburg: Herder, 2011).

^ Back to text61. C. Michael Shea, “Father Giovanni Perrone and Doctrinal Development in Rome: An Overlooked Legacy of Newman’s Essay on Development,” Journal for the History of Modern Theology 20, no. 1 (2013): 85–116.

^ Back to text62. Peter Walter, Die Frage der Glaubensbegründung aus innerer Erfahrung auf dem I. Vatikanum: Die Stellungnahme des Konzils vor dem Hintergrund der zeitgenössischen römischen Theologie (Mainz: Grünewald, 1980).

^ Back to text63. Domenico Massimino, “Franzelin e l’ecclesiologia del Vaticano I,” Ho theológos 9, no. 1 (1991): 61–100; Massimino, “L’apporto del Franzelin alla stesura della Pastor aeternus e al dibattito sull’infallibilità,” Ho theológos 9, no. 2 (1991): 157–94.

^ Back to text64. Gianluca Carlin, L’ecclesiologia di Carlo Passaglia (1812–1887) (Münster: Lit, 2001).

^ Back to text65. Konrad Deufel, Kirche und Tradition: Ein Beitrag zur Geschichte der theologischen Wende im 19. Jahrhundert am Beispiel des kirchlich-theologischen Kampfprogramms P. Joseph Kleutgens S.J. (Paderborn: Schöningh, 1976); Peter Walter, “Zu einem neuen Buch über Joseph Kleutgen SJ: Fragen, Berichtigungen, Ergänzungen,” Zeitschrift für katholische Theologie 100 (1978): 318–56 (warning against historical inaccuracies in Deufel’s book); Walter, “‘Für die eine katholische Wahrheit ohne Menschenfurcht zu kämpfen:’ Briefe Joseph Kleutgens an den Mainzer Theologen Christoph Moufang aus den Jahren 1863–1866,” in Bücherzensur – Kurie – Katholizismus und Moderne (Frankfurt am Main: Lang, 2000), 271–307; Elke Pahud de Mortanges, Philosophie und kirchliche Autorität: Der Fall Jakob Frohschammer vor der römischen Indexkongregation (1855–1864) (Paderborn: Schöningh, 2005), 226–52; Peter Henrici, “Matteo Liberatore und Joseph Kleutgen, zwei Pioniere der Neuscholastik,” Gregorianum 91, no. 4 (2010): 768–89.

^ Back to text66. Oliver J. Wiertz, Begründeter Glaube? Rationale Glaubensverantwortung auf der Basis der analytischen Theologie und Erkenntnistheorie (Mainz: Grünewald, 2003), 21–171; from a different perspective: Walter, Frage der Glaubensbegründung, 117–31.

^ Back to text67. Hubert Wolf, Die Nonnen von Sant’Ambrogio: Eine wahre Geschichte (Munich: Beck, 2013).

^ Back to text68. A source of names and events: Oliver P. Rafferty, “The Thomistic Revival and the Relationship between the Jesuits and the Papacy, 1878–1914,” Theological Studies 75, no. 4 (2014): 746–73.

^ Back to text69. Claus Arnold, “Die römische Indexkongregation und Alfred Loisy am Anfang der Modernismuskrise (1893–1903): Mit besonderer Berücksichtigung von Thomas Esser O.P. und einem Gutachten von P. Louis Billot S.J.,” Römische Quartalschrift für christliche Altertumskunde und Kirchengeschichte 96, no. 3–4 (2001): 290–332; Jesús Villagrasa, “Origine, natura e prima ricezione delle ‘XXIV tesi tomistiche’ alla luce della controversia tra neotomismo e suarezismo,” Divinitas 49 (2006): 341–82.

^ Back to text70. Alberto Cozzi, La centralità di Cristo nella teologia di L. Billot (1846–1931) (Milan: Glossa, 1999); Ireneusz Korzeniowski, Fede e atto di fede in Louis Billot: Una ricognizione storico-teologica (Rome: Pontificia Università Gregoriana, 1998).

^ Back to text71. For the development of his thought, see Claus Arnold, Kleine Geschichte des Modernismus (Freiburg: Herder, 2007), 69–76; Andrew Pierce, “Crossbows, Bludgeons and Long-Range Rifles: Tyrrell and Newman and ‘The Intimate Connection between Methods and Their Results,’” in George Tyrrell and Catholic Modernism, ed. Oliver Rafferty (Dublin: Four Courts, 2010), 56–75; James C. Livingston, “George Tyrrell as ‘Modernist’: His Key Theological Principles and His Replies to His Anti-Modernist Critics,” in “In wilder zügelloser Jagd nach Neuem”: 100 Jahre Modernismus und Antimodernismus in der katholischen Kirche, ed. Hubert Wolf and Judith Schepers (Paderborn: Schöningh, 2009), 239–59.

^ Back to text72. David F. Wells, The Prophetic Theology of George Tyrrell (Chico, CA: Scholars Press, 1981); David G. Schultenover, George Tyrrell: In Search of Catholicism (Shepherdstown, WV: Patmos, 1981); Ellen M. Leonard, George Tyrrell and the Catholic Tradition (London: Darton, Longman & Todd, 1982).

^ Back to text73. Clara Ginther, “George Tyrrell: Eine Stimme aus einer missionarischen Kirche,” in “Blick zurück im Zorn?” Kreative Potentiale des Modernismusstreits, ed. Rainer Bucher et al. (Innsbruck: Tyrolia, 2009), 194–216; Anthony Maher, “Tyrrell’s Ecclesiology: Mysticism Contra Realpolitik,” in George Tyrrell and Catholic Modernism, ed. Oliver Rafferty (Dublin: Four Courts, 2010), 76–93.

^ Back to text74. Robert N. St. Hilaire II., “Desire Divided: Nature and Grace in the Neo-Thomism of Pierre Rousselot” (PhD diss., Harvard University, 2008).

^ Back to text75. Erhard Kunz, Glaube – Gnade – Geschichte: Die Glaubenstheologie des Pierre Rousselot S.J. (Frankfurt am Main: Knecht, 1969); Davide Zordan, “Occhi della fede o luce della grazia? Note per ripensare l’atto di credere nel solco di Pierre Rousselot,” Rassegna di teologia 52 (2011): 103–17. Index of works on Rousselot’s theology: St. Hilaire II., “Desire Divided,” 245–47.

^ Back to text76. John M. McDermott, “Sheehan, Rousselot, and Theological Method,” Gregorianum 68, no. 3–4 (1987): 705–17; Hans Boersma, Nouvelle théologie and Sacramental Ontology: A Return to Mystery (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2009), 67–83.

^ Back to text77. Emmanuel Tourpe, “Au principe de Surnaturel: Le thomisme de Pierre Rousselot (1879–1915),” Revue des sciences religieuses 77 (2003): 166–82; John M. McDermott, “De Lubac and Rousselot,” Gregorianum 78, no. 4 (1997): 735–59.

^ Back to text78. Étienne Fouilloux, “Une ‘école de Fourvière’?,” Gregorianum 83, no. 3 (2002): 451–59; Jürgen Mettepenningen, Nouvelle Théologie – New Theology: Inheritor of Modernism, Precursor of Vatican II (London: T&T Clark, 2010); Gabriel Flynn and Paul D. Murray, eds., Ressourcement: A Movement for Renewal in Twentieth-Century Catholic Theology (New York: Oxford University Press, 2012), 236–77.

^ Back to text79. Rudolf Voderholzer, Meet Henri de Lubac: His Life and Work, trans. Michael J. Miller (San Francisco, CA: Ignatius Press, 2008); David Grumett, De Lubac: A Guide for the Perplexed (London: T&T Clark, 2007). A provocative reading of Surnaturel in the light of Radical Orthodoxy: John Milbank, The Suspended Middle: Henri de Lubac and the Renewed Split in Modern Catholic Theology, 2nd ed. (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2014).

^ Back to text80. Georges Chantraine and Marie-Gabrielle Lemaire, Henri de Lubac, vol. 1–2, 4 (Paris: Cerf, 2007–).

^ Back to text81. Jean-Pierre Wagner, La théologie fondamentale selon Henri de Lubac (Paris: Cerf, 1997); Jean-Dominique Durand, ed., Henri de Lubac: La rencontre au cœur de l’Église (Paris: Cerf, 2006).

^ Back to text82. Two recent books on the internal structure of de Lubac’s theology: Dominik Arenz, Paradoxalität als Sakramentalität: Kirche nach der fundamentalen Theologie Henri de Lubacs (Innsbruck: Tyrolia, 2016); Joseph S. Flipper, Between Apocalypse and Eschaton: History and Eternity in Henri de Lubac (Minneapolis, MN: Fortress, 2015).

^ Back to text83. Manfred Lochbrunner, Hans Urs von Balthasar und seine Theologenkollegen: Sechs Beziehungsgeschichten (Würzburg: Echter, 2009), 18–146 (exchange of letters with Przywara). Thomas F. O’Meara, Erich Przywara, S.J.: His Theology and His World (Notre Dame, IN: University of Notre Dame Press, 2002).

^ Back to text84. For the development and general structure of the theory, see Kenneth R. Oakes, “Three Themes in Przywara’s Early Theology,” Thomist 74 (2010): 283–310; Rafael Francisco Luciani Rivero, El misterio de la diferencia: Un estudio tipológico de la analogía como estructura originaria de la realidad en Tomás de Aquino, Erich Przywara y Hans Urs von Balthasar y su uso en teología trinitaria (Rome: Pontificia Università Gregoriana, 2002).

^ Back to text85. Christian Lagger, Dienst: Kenosis in Schöpfung und Kreuz bei Erich Przywara SJ (Innsbruck: Tyrolia, 2007); Peter Lüning, Der Mensch im Angesicht des Gekreuzigten. Untersuchungen zum Kreuzesverständnis von Erich Przywara, Karl Rahner, Jon Sobrino und Hans Urs von Balthasar (Münster: Aschendorff, 2007); Kenneth R. Oakes, “The Cross and the analogia entis in Erich Przywara,” in The Analogy of Being: Invention of the Antichrist or the Wisdom of God?, ed. Thomas Joseph White (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2011), 147–71; Jonathan M. Ciraulo, “Divinization as Christification in Erich Przywara and John Zizioulas,” Modern Theology 32, no. 4 (2016): 479–503.

^ Back to text86. Eva-Maria Faber, Kirche zwischen Identität und Differenz: Die ekklesiologischen Entwürfe von Romano Guardini und Erich Przywara (Würzburg: Echter, 1993); Aníbal Edwards, “Mariología, espíritu misionero y sentir con la Iglesia: Caras permanentes del legado de Erich Przywara S.J. (1889–1972),” Teología y vida 51, no. 3 (2010): 365–85.

^ Back to text87. Martha Zechmeister, Gottes-Nacht: Erich Przywaras Weg negativer Theologie (Münster: Lit, 1997).

^ Back to text88. Universitätsbibliothek Freiburg, Karl Rahner, Bibliographie, (accessed December 5, 2016); Lonergan Research Institute Toronto, Lonergan Bibliography, (accessed December 5, 2016).

^ Back to text89. Bernard Sesboüé, Karl Rahner (Paris: Cerf, 2001); Thomas F. O’Meara, God in the World: A Guide to Karl Rahner’s Theology (Collegeville, MN: Liturgical Press, 2007); more critical: Karen Kilby, Karl Rahner: A Brief Introduction (New York: Crossroad, 2007).

^ Back to text90. Andreas R. Batlogg, ed., Der Denkweg Karl Rahners: Quellen – Entwicklungen – Perspektiven (Mainz: Grünewald, 2003); Declan Marmion and Mary E. Hines, eds., The Cambridge Companion to Karl Rahner (New York: Cambridge University Press, 2005); Giorgia Salatiello, ed., Karl Rahner: Percorsi di ricerca (Rome: Gregorian & Biblical Press, 2012).

^ Back to text91. Bernd Jochen Hilberath and Bernhard Nitsche, “Transzendentale Theologie? Beobachtungen zur Rahner-Diskussion der letzten Jahre,” Theologische Quartalschrift 174, no. 4 (1994): 304–15; Nitsche, “Bilanz – Umbrüche – Desiderate: Rahner-Forschungsbericht 1995–2004/05,” Theologische Quartalschrift 185, no. 4 (2005): 303–19; 186, no. 1 (2006): 50–65.

^ Back to text92. Frederick E. Crowe, Lonergan (Collegeville. MN: Liturgical Press, 1992).

^ Back to text93. Robert M. Doran, “Ignatian Themes in the Thought of Bernard Lonergan,” Toronto Journal of Theology 22, no. 1 (2006): 39–54.

^ Back to text94. For an overview, see Giovanni B. Sala, “Lonergan, Bernard J.F.,” in Thomistenlexikon, eds. David Berger and Jörgen Vijgen (Bonn: Nova & Vetera, 2006), 388–99; Ulf Jonsson, “Bernard Lonergan und die Frage nach der Methode der Theologie,” in Große Denker des Jesuitenordens, ed. Janez Perčič and Johannes Herzgsell (Paderborn: Schöningh, 2016), 107–20; Pierrot Lambert, Bernard Lonergan: Introduction à sa vie et à son œuvre (Montréal: Guérin, 2008).

^ Back to text95. Giovanni Caprile, “Vaticano II, Concilio,” in Diccionario histórico de la Compañía de Jesús, vol. 4, 3902–9; Santiago Madrigal Terrazas, Los jesuitas y el Concilio Vaticano II: Meditación histórica en el bicentenario de la restauración de la Compañía de Jesús (Madrid: Universidad Pontificia Comillas, 2014); for the German Jesuits, see Clemens Brodkorb, “Deutsche Jesuiten als Periti auf dem Zweiten Vatikanischen Konzil,” in Erneuerung in Christus: Das Zweite Vatikanische Konzil (1962–1965) im Spiegel Münchener Kirchenarchive, ed. Andreas R. Batlogg, Clemens Brodkorb, and Peter Pfister (Regensburg: Schnell und Steiner, 2012), 143–76; for biographies and bibliographies see Michael Quisinsky and Peter Walter, eds., Personenlexikon zum Zweiten Vatikanischen Konzil (Freiburg: Herder, 2012).

^ Back to text96. For Augustin Bea, Otto Semmelroth, Henri de Lubac, and John Courtney Murray, see the section “The Jesuits and Vatican II,” in Massimo Faggioli and Andrea Vicini, eds., The Legacy of Vatican II (New York: Paulist Press, 2015), 185–272.

^ Back to text97. Santiago Madrigal Terrazas, “Die Aufzeichnungen über die Kirchenkonstitution Lumen gentium im Konzilstagebuch des Frankfurter Theologen Otto Semmelroth SJ,” in Das Zweite Vatikanische Konzil: Impulse und Perspektiven, ed. Dirk Ansorge (Münster: Aschendorff, 2013), 103–40; Dennis M. Doyle, “Otto Semmelroth and the Advance of the Church as Sacrament at Vatican II,” Theological Studies 76, no. 1 (2015): 65–86.

^ Back to text98. Santiago Madrigal Terrazas, “El Vaticano II en el Diario de Sebastián Tromp,” Razón y fe 260 (2009): 265–82; Stefano Alberto, “Corpus suum mystice constituit” (LG 7): La chiesa corpo mistico di Cristo nel primo capitolo della “Lumen gentium”; Storia del testo dalla “Mystici corporis” al Vaticano II con riferimenti alla attività conciliare del P. Sebastiaan Tromp S.J. (Regensburg: Pustet, 1996); Heribert Schauf, “Zur Textgeschichte grundlegender Aussagen aus ‘Lumen Gentium’ über das Bischofskollegium,” Archiv für katholisches Kirchenrecht 141, no. 1 (1972): 5–147.

^ Back to text99. Jared Wicks, “Pieter Smulders and Dei Verbum,” Gregorianum 82, no. 2 (2001): 241–97; 82, no. 3 (2001): 559–93; 83, no. 2 (2002): 225–67; 85, no. 2 (2004): 242–77; 86, no. 1 (2005): 92–134.

^ Back to text100. Michael A. Fahey and José Escalera, “Ecumenismo,” in Diccionario histórico de la Compañía de Jesús, vol. 2, 1193–1201; important additions regarding German-speaking Jesuits: Karl Heinz Neufeld, “Jesuiten und Ökumene: Zur Geschichte eines Verhältnisses,” in Die Entdeckung der Ökumene: Zur Beteiligung der katholischen Kirche an der ökumenischen Bewegung, ed. Jörg Ernesti and Wolfgang Thönissen (Paderborn: Bonifatius, 2008), 81–94; focusing on the institutional collaboration: Jos E. Vercruysse, “Jesuit Contribution to Church Unity: A Historical Overview,” Centrum Ignatianum spiritualitatis 20, no. 1 (1989): 15–41.

^ Back to text101. Afonso Murad, “Juan Luis Segundo’s Place in Latin American Theology,” trans. Jesús Castillo Coronado, Louvain Studies 22, no. 3 (1997): 245–62; for a socio-political in-depth analysis of different Jesuit stances towards liberation theology, see Malik Tahar Chaouch, “La Compañía de Jesús y la teología de la liberación: Convergencias y divisiones sociopolíticas del catolicismo contemporáneo en América Latina,” Historia y grafía 29 (2007): 95–129.

^ Back to text102. Marilyn Sunderman, Humanization in the Christology of Juan Luis Segundo (San Francisco, CA: International Scholars Publications, 1996), including a discussion of Segundo’s life, writings, theological methods, and his reinterpretation of the Spiritual Exercises; Matthew Tennant, “The Existential Dimension of Juan Luis Segundo’s Ecclesiology,” Ecclesiology 12, no. 2 (2016): 183–96. A refutation of Horacio Bojorge’s fundamental critique of Segundo’s thought: Félix-Alejandro Pastor, “Arcani disciplina: Sobre el pensamiento teológico de Juan Luis Segundo,” Gregorianum 83, no. 3 (2002): 545–58.

^ Back to text103. Patrick W. Carey, Avery Cardinal Dulles, SJ: A Model Theologian, 1918–2008 (New York: Paulist Press, 2010).

^ Back to text104. Ross A. Shecterle, The Theology of Revelation of Avery Dulles, 1980–1994: Symbolic Mediation (Lewiston, NY: Mellen University Press, 1996); Christian Lutz, Theologie in der Kirche: Eine Untersuchung der methodologischen Grundlagen der Theologie und des Verständnisses der Katholizität der Kirche bei Avery Kardinal Dulles und bei Leo Kardinal Scheffczyk (Frankfurt am Main: Lang, 2010).

^ Back to text105. Jean-Pol Gallez, La théologie comme science herméneutique de la tradition de foi: Une lecture de Dieu qui vient à l’homme de Joseph Moingt (Leuven: Peeters, 2015), with index of works on Moingt’s theology (focused on French publications): ibid., 464–66; on his method of narrative theology: Margit Eckholt, “‘Der Mensch, der von Gott kam’: Zur Suche nach einer Grundlegung systematischer Christologie bei Joseph Moingt; Einführung: ‘Théologie du récit’ als Antwort auf die bleibende Herausforderung der Theologie durch die Geschichte,” Zeitschrift für katholische Theologie 124, no. 2 (2002): 177–89.

^ Back to text106. Theresia Hainthaler, “Le Cardinal Alois Grillmeier: Renouveau de la christologie,” in Les Pères de l’Église aux sources de l’Europe, ed. Dominique Gonnet and Michel Stavrou (Paris: Cerf, 2014), 121–46; Michael Slusser, “The Personal Identity of Jesus Christ: Alois Grillmeier’s Contribution to Its Conceptualisation,” in Christians Shaping Identity from the Roman Empire to Byzantium, ed. Geoffrey D. Dunn and Wendy Mayer (Leiden: Brill, 2015), 409–25.

^ Back to text107. Theresia Hainthaler, “‘Jesus Christus ist der Herr’ (Phil 2,11): Zum Werk von Alois Kardinal Grillmeier S.J. (1910–1998),” Theologie und Philosophie 74, no. 1 (1999): 84–96.

^ Back to text108. Leo Bakker et al., La teologia di Piet Schoonenberg, ed. Rosino Gibellini, trans. Enrico ten Kortenaar (Brescia: Queriniana, 1973); Alfred Kaiser, Möglichkeiten und Grenzen einer Christologie “von unten”: Der christologische Neuansatz “von unten” bei Piet Schoonenberg und dessen Weiterführung mit Blick auf Nikolaus von Kues (Münster: Aschendorff, 1992); Birgit Blankenberg, Gottes Geist in der Theologie Piet Schoonenbergs (Mainz: Grünewald, 2000); discussing the development of his theology: Herwi Rikhof, “De weg van de theologie bij Piet Schoonenberg,” Bijdragen 73, no. 4 (2012): 353–70.

^ Back to text109. Mettepenningen, Nouvelle Théologie, 126–37; for an up-to-date bibliography of primary and secondary sources, see Mettepenningen, “Schoonenberg, Piet,” in Biographisch-bibliographisches Kirchenlexikon, vol. 30 (Nordhausen: Bautz, 2009), 1297–1300.

^ Back to text110. Kevin F. Burke, The Ground Beneath the Cross: The Theology of Ignacio Ellacuría (Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press, 2000); for Ellacuría’s sources and reception, see Kevin F. Burke and Robert Lassalle-Klein, eds., Love That Produces Hope: The Thought of Ignacio Ellacuría (Collegeville, MN: Liturgical Press, 2006).

^ Back to text111. Francisco de Aquino Júnior, Theologie als Einsicht in die Gottesherrschaft: Die Methode der Befreiungstheologie nach Ignacio Ellacuría, trans. Monika Ottermann (Regensburg: Pustet, 2014); Rodolfo Cardenal, “Itinerario intelectual de Ignacio Ellacuría,” in Ignacio Ellacuría: Intelectual, filósofo y teólogo (Valencia: ADG-N, 2012), 11–29; Martin Maier, “La influencia de Karl Rahner en la teología de Ignacio Ellacuría,” Revista latinoamericana de teología 39 (1996): 233–55; 44 (1998): 163–87.

^ Back to text112. J. Matthew Ashley, Kevin F. Burke, and Rodolfo Cardenal, eds., A Grammar of Justice: The Legacy of Ignacio Ellacuría (Maryknoll, NY: Orbis, 2014); Gabriele Fadini, Ignacio Ellacuría (Brescia: Morcelliana, 2012).

^ Back to text113. Gerald O’Collins, “Jacques Dupuis: The Ongoing Debate,” Theological Studies 74, no. 3 (2013): 632–54. A critical discussion of his theology of religions: Alexander Löffler, Religionstheologie auf dem Prüfstand: Jacques Dupuis im Dialog mit dem Zen-Meister Thich Nhat Hanh und dem Dalai Lama (Würzburg: Echter, 2010), 23–92.

^ Back to text114. Daniel Kendall and Gerald O’Collins, eds., In Many and Diverse Ways: In Honor of Jacques Dupuis (Maryknoll, NY: Orbis, 2003).

^ Back to text115. Avery Dulles, Saint Ignatius and the Jesuit Theological Tradition (St. Louis, MO: Institute of Jesuit Sources, 1982), 16.

^ Back to text116. Michael J. Buckley, The Catholic University as Promise and Project: Reflections in a Jesuit Idiom (Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press, 1998), 74–102.

^ Back to text117. Fédou, Théologiens jésuites, 130.

Cite this page
Bernhard Knorn, S.J., “Jesuits in Systematic Theology: A Historiographical Essay”, in: Jesuit Historiography Online. Consulted online on 30 March 2017 <>
First published online: 2017

▲   Back to top   ▲