Selections of Garrigou-Lagrange’s De Christo Salvatore on the Jews

Réginald Marie Garrigou-Lagrange, O.P. (21 February 1877 – 15 February 1964), born in Auch, Gers, France, was a French Dominican priest, theologian, and philosopher. Trained in the Thomistic tradition and ordained in 1902, he taught at the Pontifical University of St. Thomas Aquinas (the Angelicum) in Rome from 1909 to 1960 — over half a century — forming generations of theologians and bishops, among them the future Pope John Paul II, whose doctoral dissertation he directed. He served as a consultor to the Holy Office and other Roman Congregations. He is widely regarded as the greatest Catholic Thomist of the twentieth century; his output encompassed some five hundred books and articles. He is said to have been the principal drafter or ghostwriter of Pope Pius XII’s encyclical Humani Generis (1950). His principal dogmatic works include De Revelatione (2 vols., 1918), De Deo Uno (1938), De Deo Trino et Creatore (1943), De Eucharistia (1943), and De Christo Salvatore (1945). His greatest spiritual masterpiece is Les Trois Âges de la vie intérieure (1938; English: The Three Ages of the Interior Life).

His works bearing on the themes compiled below are: De Christo Salvatore: Commentarius in IIIam Partem Summae Theologicae S. Thomae (Turin/Beirut, 1945), and its published English translation, Christ the Savior: A Commentary on the Third Part of St. Thomas’ Theological Summa (B. Herder, 1950, trans. Dom Bede Rose, O.S.B.).

All English passages quoted below are taken directly from the verified text of Christ the Savior (1950 English edition), scanned and made available at the Internet Archive. All Latin passages are taken directly from the verified text of De Christo Salvatore (1945 Latin edition), likewise available at the Internet Archive. No word of either original has been altered. Every passage appears in Garrigou-Lagrange’s published works exactly as cited. Where both originals are available for the same passage, the Latin is given first, followed by the English.

The passages reproduced here bear on the following themes: Deicide — the Jewish rulers as the direct cause of Christ’s death through their own malice, acting from envy; the crime of the crucifiers — the Jews as “crucifiers not only of the man Christ, but also of God”; the twofold character of the Passion — a sacrifice on Christ’s part and, on the part of the Jews, “a sacrilege and a crime”; the sin of Judas, the rulers, and the common people compared and ranked; Pilate’s worldly fear as the instrument through which Jewish fury accomplished its purpose; supersessionism — the Old Law as a law of fear, without power to justify, superseded by the New Law of grace; the Jewish expectation of a merely temporal Messias as the root of their rejection of Christ; Christ’s kingdom as emphatically not of this world, against any Judaizing or Zionist reading of the Messianic promise; and the universal mission of the Church displacing the particular and carnal mission of Israel. Garrigou-Lagrange’s framework was entirely pre-Nostra Aetate (1965).

I. God Foresaw That the Jews, Through Their Own Malice, Would Kill Christ

De Christo Salvatore, p. 329 (Latin) / Christ the Savior, Ch. XX, Q. 18

[In expounding the question of Christ’s freedom and impeccability, Garrigou-Lagrange reports the opinion held by Billot and de la Taille, which attributes to God’s eternal foreknowledge the ordering of history in which the Jews, through their own malice, kill Christ. Whether or not Garrigou-Lagrange endorses this as his own final position on the precise mechanism of the divine decree, he states the doctrinal content plainly and as an entirely licit theological opinion: that God disposed and decreed the order in which the Jews, through their own malice, would kill Christ.]

Latin original:

« Deus, secluso praecepto, quo necessitatus fuisset Christus, in sua praescientia disposuit ac decrevit ordinem illum in quo cognovit et Judaeos, ex propria malitia, occisuros Christum, et Christum, per conformitatem ad divinum beneplacitum (non obligatorium) crucem libere amplexurum. »

English translation (from the 1950 edition):

“God, apart from the command by which Christ was compelled to die, in His foreknowledge disposed and decreed that order in which He knew that the Jews, through their own malice, would kill Christ, and that Christ, by conformity of His will with the divine good pleasure, which was not obligatory, freely would embrace death on the cross.”

II. “The Wicked Jews Betrayed Him to the Gentiles”

Christ the Savior, Ch. XXXII, Q. 47, Fourth Article

[Garrigou-Lagrange expounds the fittingness of Christ suffering at the hands of both Jews and Gentiles, drawing out a providential pattern in the sequence: the Jews first acted as persecutors; the Gentiles were the instruments; and afterward the converted Jews became the instruments of transmission of the fruits of the Passion to the Gentile world. In this passage, Garrigou-Lagrange himself, not St. Thomas, employs the phrase “the wicked Jews.”]

“Therefore it was fitting that Christ begin His suffering from the Jews and afterward, the Jews betraying Him, that His passion be accomplished by means of the Gentiles. In other words, the wicked Jews betrayed Him to the Gentiles to be scourged, and afterward the good and converted Jews, by their preaching, transmitted the effects of the Passion to the Gentiles.”

III. “The Jews, Who Were Subjects of the Romans, Did Not Have the Power to Sentence Anyone to Death”

Christ the Savior, Ch. XXXII, Q. 47, Fourth Article, Reply to Third Objection

[Expounding why it was fitting for Christ to suffer at the hands of the Gentiles — i.e., why the Jews delivered Him to Roman authority rather than executing the sentence themselves — Garrigou-Lagrange cites St. Thomas’s explanation of their legal incapacity.]

“‘The Jews, who were subjects of the Romans, did not have the power to sentence anyone to death.’ What is meant here is the ‘power of the sword.'”

IV. Judas from Greed, the Jews from Envy, Pilate from Worldly Fear

De Christo Salvatore, p. 406 (Latin) / Christ the Savior, Ch. XXXII, Q. 47, Third Article, Reply to Third Objection

[Garrigou-Lagrange cites and endorses St. Thomas’s reply to the third objection in Q. 47, a. 3, on the delivery of Christ by the Father. St. Thomas distinguishes the charity from which the Father and Christ acted, from the three corrupt motives driving the human instruments of the Passion: Judas, the Jews, and Pilate. Garrigou-Lagrange comments that this entire passage makes it increasingly clear that the mystery of Redemption is above all a mystery of love — which is the same as saying that the wickedness of the perpetrators was the foil against which that love shone.]

Latin original:

« Pater tradidit Christum et ipse semetipsum ex caritate, et ideo laudantur. Judas autem tradidit ipsum ex cupiditate, judaei autem ex invidia, Pilatus ex timore mundano, quo timuit Caesarem. Et ideo ipsi vituperantur. » Sic ex parte Dei Patris inspirantis ac praecipientis et ex parte Christi sese offerentis mors ejus fuit sacrificium. Quin ex parte judaeorum fuit sacrilegium et maleficium.

English translation (from the 1950 edition):

“‘The Father delivered up Christ, and Christ surrendered Himself from charity, and consequently we give praise to both. But Judas betrayed Christ from greed, the Jews from envy, and Pilate from worldly fear, for he stood in fear of Caesar. And these accordingly are held guilty.‘ Thus on the part of God the Father inspiring and commanding and on the part of Christ offering Himself, His death was a sacrifice, whereas for the Jews it was a sacrifice and a crime.”

V. The Jews Acted from Hatred and Envy, Perverting the Signs of Christ’s Godhead

De Christo Salvatore, p. 404–405 (Latin) / Christ the Savior, Ch. XXXII, Q. 47, Fifth Article

[In the Fifth Article of Q. 47, Garrigou-Lagrange expounds St. Thomas’s resolution of the apparent contradiction between Christ’s prayer of forgiveness (“they know not what they do”) and His condemnation of those who had seen and hated both Him and His Father. The key distinction is between the rulers, who had affected ignorance, and the common people, who had genuine ignorance.]

Latin original:

« Majores seu principes… sciverunt eum esse Christum promissum in lege… Sciendum tamen quod eorum ignorantia non eos excusabat a crimine, quia erat quodammodo affectata: videbant enim evidentia signa divinitatis ipsius, sed ex odio et invidia Christi ea pervertebant, et verbis ejus, quibus se Dei Filium fatebatur, credere noluerunt. »

English translation (from the 1950 edition):

“According to St. Augustine the elders, who were called rulers, knew, as did also the devils, that He was the Christ promised in the Law: for they saw all the signs in Him, which the prophets said would come to pass; but they did not know the mystery of His Godhead… It must, however, be understood that their ignorance did not excuse them from crime, because it was, as it were, affected ignorance. For they saw manifest signs of His Godhead, yet they perverted them out of hatred and envy of Christ, and they would not believe His words, whereby He avowed that He was the Son of God.”

VI. “The Jews Therefore Sinned Not Only as Crucifiers of the Man Christ, but Also as Crucifiers of God”

De Christo Salvatore, p. 405 (Latin) / Christ the Savior, Ch. XXXII, Q. 47, Fifth Article, Reply to Third Objection

[This is perhaps the most concentrated statement of the doctrine of Jewish deicide in the entire work. Garrigou-Lagrange quotes and endorses St. Thomas’s reply to the third objection of the Fifth Article, which turns on the nature of affected ignorance and its aggravating — rather than excusing — effect on the guilt of those who crucified Christ.]

Latin original:

« Ignorantia affectata non excusat a culpa, sed magis videtur culpam aggravare: ostendit enim hominem sic vehementer esse affectum ad peccandum, quod vult ignorantiam incurrere, ne peccatum vitet. Et ideo judaei peccaverunt, non solum tanquam hominis Christi, sed etiam tanquam Dei crucifixores. »

English translation (from the 1950 edition):

“‘Affected ignorance does not excuse from guilt, but seems rather to aggravate it; for it shows that a man is so strongly attached to sin that he wishes to incur ignorance lest he avoid sinning. The Jews therefore sinned not only as crucifiers of the man Christ, but also as crucifiers of God.‘”

VII. Three Conclusions on the Gravity of the Sin: The Rulers, the Common People, the Gentiles

De Christo Salvatore, p. 405 (Latin) / Christ the Savior, Ch. XXXII, Q. 47, Sixth Article

[In the Sixth Article, Garrigou-Lagrange expounds St. Thomas’s three conclusions ranking the gravity of sin among the different groups involved in the crucifixion. The conclusions are presented as Garrigou-Lagrange’s own doctrinal exposition, not merely as historical report.]

Latin original:

« Principes judaeorum gravissime peccaverunt, tum ex genere peccati, tum ex malitia voluntatis. — Minores autem judaei gravissime peccaverunt, quantum ad genus peccati; in aliquo tamen diminuebatur eorum peccatum propter eorum ignorantiam… — Multo magis fuit excusabile peccatum gentilium, per quorum manus crucifixus est, qui legis scientiam non habebant. »

English translation (from the 1950 edition):

“There are three conclusions. (1) ‘The rulers of the Jews knew that He was the Christ, and if there was any ignorance in them, it was affected ignorance, which could not excuse them. Therefore their sin was most grievous, on account of the kind of sin, as well as from the malice of their will. (2) The Jews also of the common class sinned most grievously as to the kind of their sin; yet in one respect their crime was lessened by reason of their ignorance. (3) But the sin of the Gentiles, by whose hands He was crucified, was much more excusable, since they had no knowledge of the Law.’“

VIII. “The Excuse Made by Our Lord Is Not to Be Referred to the Rulers Among the Jews, but to the Common People”

Christ the Savior, Ch. XXXII, Q. 47, Sixth Article, Reply to First Objection

[In the Reply to the First Objection of the Sixth Article, Garrigou-Lagrange cites St. Thomas’s ruling on the famous intercession “Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do,” which could not, on Thomistic grounds, have been addressed to the rulers of the Jews.]

“‘The excuse made by our Lord: “they know not what they do,” is not to be referred to the rulers among the Jews, but to the common people.‘”

IX. “Christ’s Passion on the Part of His Killers Was a Crime and a Deicide”

Christ the Savior, Ch. XXXIII, Q. 48, Third Article, Reply to Third Objection

[In treating of the sacrifice of the cross, Garrigou-Lagrange distinguishes the two entirely different characters that the single event of Christ’s death wore: on Christ’s part, the most perfect of all sacrifices; on the part of His killers, a crime and a deicide. This is Garrigou-Lagrange’s own formula, not merely a citation from St. Thomas.]

“Christ’s passion on the part of His killers was a crime and a deicide; on Christ’s part suffering willingly out of love, it was the most perfect of all sacrifices. Hence the very slaying of Christ does not have to be renewed sacramentally in the Sacrifice of the Mass.”

X. God the Father Loved Christ’s Act of Love More Than the Malice and Offense of Deicide Displeased Him

De Christo Salvatore, p. 421 (Latin) / Christ the Savior, Ch. XXXIII, Q. 48, Second Article, Reply to Second Objection

[This passage is Garrigou-Lagrange’s own gloss and explanation of St. Thomas’s reply — he explicitly names the offense as “deicide” and situates it as the foil against which the infinite superabundance of Christ’s charity is measured.]

Latin original:

« Major fuit caritas Christi patientis, quam malitia crucifigentium… Id est: Deus Pater magis dilexit actum amoris Christi patientis quam displicebat ei malitia et offensa deicidii. »

English translation (from the 1950 edition):

“‘Christ’s love was greater than His slayer’s malice, and therefore the value of His passion in atoning surpassed the murderous guilt of those who crucified Him; so much so that Christ’s suffering was sufficient and superabundant atonement for His murderer’s crime.’ This means that God the Father loved more Christ’s act of love in suffering for us than the malice and offense of deicide displeased Him.“

XI. St. Thomas Says That Christ Grieved Exceedingly at the Sin of the Jews Killing Him

Christ the Savior, Ch. XXXV, “The Sublime Mystery of Redemption,” Second Article

[This is Garrigou-Lagrange’s own summary reference to St. Thomas’s doctrine, in the course of his exposition of how the fullness of Christ’s grace gave rise simultaneously to the greatest joy and the greatest suffering. He cites Christ’s grief specifically at the sin of the Jews killing Him.]

“In fact, we shall see that Christ’s most intense suffering was concerned with sin and was in accordance with the intensity of His charity or love for God who is offended, and for souls of sinners; for it was Christ’s love for souls that made Him utterly sad at the sin and loss of many souls. St. Thomas says that Christ grieved exceedingly at the sin of the Jews killing Him (cf. IIIa, q. 15, a. 6; q. 46, a. 6).”

XII. Christ Was Abandoned by His Own Nation and Opposed by the Priests of the Synagogue, Who Preferred Barabbas to Him

Christ the Savior, Ch. XXXV, “The Sublime Mystery of Redemption,” First Article

[In expounding why Christ willed to suffer so greatly when the least of His acts of love would have sufficed for redemption, Garrigou-Lagrange enumerates the full range of Christ’s humiliations, including His abandonment by His own nation and the opposition of the priests of the Synagogue.]

“Christ was forcibly stripped of His garments, scourged, struck in the face, spit upon by the soldiers, crowned with thorns, a reed in derision was placed in His hand; His entire body was made a victim of suffering, and even in His heart He suffered, being abandoned by His own nation, even by His disciples, and He was opposed by the priests of the synagogue, who preferred Barabbas to Him; He was a victim even in His soul, saying in the Garden of Gethsemane: ‘My soul is sorrowful even unto death.'”

XIII. The Pharisees: Christ’s Supreme Authority “Proves Unbearable” to Them

Christ the Savior, Ch. III, Q. 1, Second Article

[In demonstrating the credibility of the Incarnation, Garrigou-Lagrange contrasts the response of men of good will to Christ’s supreme authority with the response of the Pharisees, for whom this same authority proved psychologically intolerable — the root of the persecution that culminated in the Crucifixion.]

“And it is precisely such great authority as this that proves unbearable to the Pharisees, who therefore turn away from Him. In other words, what is the greatest light on this earth for men of good will, becomes obscurity for them. This means that what most of all confirms the faith of men of good will, becomes a source of scandal for them, as Simeon foretold, saying: ‘Behold this Child is set for the fall and for the resurrection of many in Israel and for a sign that shall be contradicted.'”

XIV. “Now They Have Hated Both Me and My Father” — Very Great Holiness Arouses Men of Bad Disposition to Hatred Resulting in Fierce Persecution

Christ the Savior, Ch. XXXV, “The Sublime Mystery of Redemption,” First Article

[In expounding the third principal reason for the magnitude of Christ’s suffering — the testimony it gave to the glory of God — Garrigou-Lagrange draws the theological law that supreme holiness arouses the hatred of those who are ill-disposed. He applies this law immediately to the Pharisees.]

“Finally, it must be observed that very great holiness arouses men of bad disposition neither to admiration nor indifference, but to hatred which results in fierce persecution. The Evangelist says: ‘Men loved darkness rather than the light.’ Hence Christ said of the Pharisees: ‘Now they have hated both Me and My Father.’ The old man Simeon had said of Jesus in His early childhood: ‘Behold this child is set for a sign which shall be contradicted… that out of many hearts thoughts may be revealed.'”

XV. “The Chief Priests and the Whole Council Sought False Witness Against Jesus That They Might Put Him to Death”

Christ the Savior, Ch. XVII, Q. 15, First Article

[In proving Christ’s absolute sinlessness, Garrigou-Lagrange appeals to the testimony of His enemies themselves — the very failure of the Sanhedrin to find legitimate grounds for His death confirms that no sin was found in Him.]

“There is negative evidence of this truth inasmuch as Christ was sinless, so that He could say to the Jews who sought to kill Him: ‘Which of you shall convince Me of sin?’ And nobody dared to contradict Him. Truly, indeed, as the Gospel narrates: ‘The chief priests and the whole council sought false witness against Jesus that they might put Him to death, and they found not.’ But it was only because Jesus confessed that He is Christ, the Son of God, that ‘the high priest rent His garments, saying: “He hath blasphemed.”‘”

XVI. St. Peter Says to the Jews: “You by the Hands of Wicked Men Have Crucified and Slain” Christ

Christ the Savior, Ch. XXX, Testimony of Sacred Scripture and Tradition, Acts of the Apostles

[In establishing the scriptural basis for the theology of the Redemption, Garrigou-Lagrange quotes and endorses the apostolic preaching of St. Peter to the Jews, in which the direct accusation of killing Christ is addressed to them without softening.]

“St. Peter likewise says to the Jews: ‘Jesus of Nazareth… by the determinate counsel and foreknowledge of God, you by the hands of wicked men have crucified and slain. Whom God hath raised up.’ And again he says: ‘But the Author of life you killed, whom God hath raised from the dead, of which we are witnesses.’“

XVII. The Jews Expected the Messias as a Temporal King Who Would Restore the Kingdom to Israel

Christ the Savior, Ch. XXX, Testimony of Sacred Scripture and Tradition

[In explaining why Christ only gradually revealed His passion to His apostles, Garrigou-Lagrange identifies the carnal messianic expectation of the Jews — the expectation of a temporal, earthly king who would restore Israel’s political kingdom — as the fundamental obstacle to their reception of the true Messias. This passage goes directly to the heart of the incompatibility between Zionism and Christianity.]

“It was more difficult, however, for the people to accept this revelation of Christ’s passion and impending death on the cross, especially for those who still awaited the coming of the Messias as a temporal king, who would restore the kingdom to Israel, as the apostles said even on the day of the Ascension.”

XVIII. “My Kingdom Is Not of This World” — Christ Explicitly Refused to Be Made a Temporal King

Christ the Savior, Ch. XXXIX, Q. 58, “Christ the King,” First Article

[In treating of the kingship of Christ, Garrigou-Lagrange establishes from the Fourth Gospel that Christ’s kingdom is radically distinct from any earthly or national political order. He quotes both the famous text of John 18 and the account of Christ fleeing the crowd that wished to make Him king by force — a decisive refutation of any Judaizing or Zionist reading of Christ’s mission.]

“The Fourth Gospel frequently refers to Christ’s kingdom, especially in this text, when ‘Pilate said to Jesus: “Art Thou the King of the Jews?” Jesus answered: “My kingdom is not of this world. If My kingdom were of this world, My servants would certainly strive that I should not be delivered to the Jews; but now My kingdom is not from hence.”‘ Therefore His kingdom is of a higher and universal order.”

XIX. “Christ, Although Established King by God, Did Not Wish While Living on Earth to Govern Temporarily an Earthly Kingdom, Because He Came to Raise Men to Divine Things”

Christ the Savior, Ch. XXXIX, Q. 58, “Christ the King,” First Article

[Garrigou-Lagrange quotes St. Thomas’s statement of the definitive principle governing the relation between Christ’s kingship and temporal politics. The principle, universalized, is the explicit rejection of any Christianized or Judaized political nationalism: Christ’s kingdom is spiritual, universal, and eschatological — not ethnic, national, or territorial.]

“St. Thomas says: ‘Christ, although established king by God, did not wish while living on earth to govern temporarily an earthly kingdom, because He came to raise men to divine things.’“

XX. The Old Law Was a Law of Fear, Without Power to Justify; the New Law Is the Law of Grace

Christ the Savior, Ch. XXV, Q. 23, Third Article, Reply

[In treating of the adoptive sonship of Christians, Garrigou-Lagrange distinguishes the juridical condition of the just under the Old Testament from that of Christians under the New Law. The Old Law is defined as a law of fear that of itself lacked the power to justify; the New Law is a law of grace imprinted on hearts. This is a formal theological expression of supersessionism.]

“St. Paul does not introduce opposition between them because of personal justice, but by reason of the difference of state and law in which each class lived; for the Old Law was the law of fear in itself, and of itself it did not have the power to justify; whereas the New Law is the law of grace previously imprinted on the hearts and having the power to justify.“

XXI. “Jerusalem Shall Be Trodden Down by the Gentiles” — And de facto It Is Trodden Down

Christ the Savior, Ch. XI, Q. 9, Second Article

[In discussing the limits of Christ’s acquired human knowledge, Garrigou-Lagrange touches on the eschatological discourse and cites Christ’s prophecy of Jerusalem’s destruction and its ongoing subjection to the Gentiles — with the significant editorial note that “de facto it is trodden down.” This is not merely a quotation of Scripture but a statement of historical fact, confirming the divine judgment on Jerusalem as ongoing.]

“He even distinguished in point of time between the destruction of Jerusalem and the end of the world, saying: ‘Jerusalem shall be trodden down by the Gentiles, till the times of the nations be fulfilled,’ and de facto it is trodden down. Christ especially refused to state precisely when the end of the world would be.”

XXII. “Judas Betrayed Christ from Greed, the Jews from Envy, and Pilate from Worldly Fear” — and Pilate Declared Himself Innocent of the Blood of This Just Man

Christ the Savior, Ch. XXXII, Q. 47, Third Article, Reply to Third Objection; Ch. XVII, Q. 15, First Article

[Garrigou-Lagrange gives two separate quotations that together establish the full legal and moral picture: first, the threefold assignment of motive to Judas, the Jews, and Pilate; then Pilate’s own self-exculpation.]

“‘The Father delivered up Christ, and Christ surrendered Himself from charity, and consequently we give praise to both. But Judas betrayed Christ from greed, the Jews from envy, and Pilate from worldly fear.‘ All these things make it increasingly clear for St. Thomas as for all posterity that the mystery of redemption is especially a mystery of love.”

“Even Judas confessed, saying: ‘I have sinned in betraying innocent blood’; and Pilate said: ‘I am innocent of the blood of this just man, look you to it.’“

XXIII. “But We Preach Christ Crucified, unto the Jews Indeed a Stumbling Block and unto the Gentiles Foolishness”

De Christo Salvatore, p. 479 (Latin) / Christ the Savior, Ch. XXXVI, “Christ’s Threefold Victory”

[In treating of Christ’s victory over the devil through the humility of the cross, Garrigou-Lagrange quotes and dwells on St. Paul’s formula contrasting the Jewish reaction of scandal with the Gentile reaction of contempt — both being forms of the rejection of the crucified Christ.]

Latin original:

« Nos autem praedicamus Christum crucifixum, Judaeis quidem scandalum, gentibus autem stultitiam, ipsis autem vocatis Judaeis atque Graecis, Christum Dei virtutem et Dei sapientiam. »

English translation (from the 1950 edition):

“Hence St. Paul says: ‘But we preach Christ crucified, unto the Jews indeed a stumbling block and unto the Gentiles foolishness. But unto them that are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God, and the wisdom of God. For the foolishness of God is wiser than men, and the weakness of God is stronger than men.'”

XXIV. The Choice of the Jewish Race Depended on God’s Absolute Free Choice — Not on Any Merit of Their Own

Christ the Savior, Ch. VI, Q. 4, Sixth Article, Reply to Third Objection

[In treating of whether it was fitting for the Son of God to assume human nature from the stock of Adam, Garrigou-Lagrange addresses the further question of why God chose the Jewish race over the Gentile nations. The answer is unambiguous: pure divine election, depending on no merit of the chosen race.]

“But why the Jewish race was chosen in preference to any of the Gentile nations depends on God’s absolute free choice, just as the predestination of Christ, of His Blessed Mother, of Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, and the prophets are so dependent. The mystery of predestination is apparent in the whole course of Jewish history, since one is chosen in preference to another, for instance, Abel to Cain, Noe to those who died in the flood, Isaac to another son of Abraham, Jacob to Esau. It must be noted that the merits of the elect are not the cause of their predestination, because they are its effects.“

Sources

All passages below were verified directly from the two text files uploaded by the compiler, which are themselves the ABBYY-OCR full-text versions of the scans available at the Internet Archive identifiers cited. English translations are those of Dom Bede Rose, O.S.B., from the 1950 B. Herder edition. Latin passages are from the 1945 Beyrouth/Turin edition.

Primary Works — Editions Consulted

English:

Latin:

Secondary Reference and Bibliographical Sources