In the post-conciliar age, there is often a tendency to look to the times preceding the Second Vatican Council and find attitudes that we can blame the whole crisis on. This is not an attitude unique to those who seek to save the Council from the “Spirit of the Council”; it is also found among traditionalists, who I believe don’t wish to seem unhinged by pretending that all our problems began in the 1960s. One of the so-called problems that can be presented is what is said to be the over-emphasis of Thomism. This, of course, was a primary point of the Nouvelle théologie theologians who repeatedly stressed the need for us to embrace an attitude of Ad fontes, oftentimes going to the sources around St. Thomas entirely. Father Garrigou-Lagrange, speaking of the Nouvelle theologians said of them “We do not think that the writers whom we have discussed abandoned the doctrine of St. Thomas. Rather, they never adhered to it, nor ever understood it very well.”[1] But those who decry the over-emphasis of St. Thomas now do so in different ways and are much more subtle.
For example, Bishop Barron, while calling himself a Thomist, decries the “closed Thomism” of the past which closes itself off as a self-contained system, but promotes an “open Thomism,” which allows for the simultaneous embrace of contemporary theologians like Balthasar or the embrace of phenomenology. Another way is by means of some elements of Eastern Catholicism, insisting on having their own means of theological and philosophical thought as we can see in one of the foundational documents of Eastern Catholicism, “The Courage to be Ourselves” of the Melkite Archbishop Tawil, which states that the East must not copy the theology of the West.
These attitudes, while potentially being able to be taken in a certain tolerable sense, has led to the exaggeration of such sentiments, often stemming from a poor understanding of the history and terms of the philosophical and theological topics involved. One still finds on the parochial level many priests who know more of Rahner or Kant than they know of St. Thomas, while perhaps paying lip-service to the contributions of the Saint. Similarly, I have encountered some Eastern Catholics who take the statement of Archbishop Tawil to mean that Thomism has no place for Eastern Catholics, and that they are free to accept everything within Eastern Orthodoxy, including a denial of the Filioque, as implied by Melkite Archbishop Zoghby.[2] It nowadays seems quite fashionable to say that one may be a Thomist as long as he realizes that he is on the same footing as everyone else, and acknowledges an egalitarian rule of theological and philosophical schools. But is this what the Church teaches?
An Already-Established Tradition
The most pre-eminent work on the authority of St. Thomas has already been written, and it would be foolishness and hubris to attempt to do a better job. This work was The Authority of St. Thomas Aquinas, by Santiago Ramirez, O.P. in 1952. I do not aim fully in this article to reproduce his treatise, but merely to summarize some of the essential points of his work, examine the pre-conciliar[3] teachings on the authority of St. Thomas Aquinas and use these findings as a basis to evaluate the present controversies in our time. In general, I wish to defend the claim given by Ramirez that “the slightest digression from Aquinas is neither permitted nor tolerated; but the Church urges and strongly praises fidelity in following him, even in minor matters.”[4] Further, I here also reiterate the claim made by the pre-conciliar manuals[5] that a doctrine, by virtue of being held by St. Thomas, while not reaching the theological note of de fide or theologice certa, still holds a unique authority and “can and must be held safely, with simple assent, while also respecting the opposite opinion of another School or Doctor.”[6]
Intrinsic and Extrinsic Authority
To understand the authority of the Angelic Doctor we must first distinguish between intrinsic and extrinsic authority both in the philosophical and theological realm. Ramirez explains this as follows “One is intrinsic or scientific and is measured by the internal mental stature of the writer and the intrinsic doctrinal validity of his work. The other authority is extrinsic or canonical and is measured in a particular way by the approbation and commendation of the Teaching Church.”[7] In the former sense, we say that a man has intrinsic authority based on the stature of his work, and his ability in his science. In theology we also say that one has this intrinsic authority based on the sanctity of one’s life, and on this point, we see it reiterated time and time again by the Dominican school of thought and interestingly also in the East with its emphasis on sin darkening the intellect or the nous, and knowledge of divine things stemming from interior union with God. In the latter sense we say that a man has extrinsic authority based on statements from another. One could speak here of even having extrinsic authority in that other learned men give someone repute, which is certainly the case for St. Thomas, but I only wish here to look at the extrinsic authority that St. Thomas has from the teaching of the Church, a special kind of extrinsic authority often called canonical authority.
The Intrinsic Authority Considered
When we consider the intrinsic authority of St. Thomas, is there a man in the world who would so foolishly doubt the outstanding nature of St. Thomas’s intellect? Could anyone read and thoroughly understand the Summa Theologica or the Summa Contra Gentiles and come away with the idea that St. Thomas was of a simple-minded nature? We ought to here consider the very fact of his vast understanding not just of one linear school but of the works of Pseudo-Dionysius[8], St. Augustine, Boethius, Plato, Aristotle and the Islamic commentaries on them. He further displayed his command over the philosophical world by himself writing extensive commentaries on many of the works written by these men. I find it is common for Thomists within academic circles to point to Leo XIII’s excellent encyclical Aeterni Patris to establish the excellence of St. Thomas, and this encyclical is certainly to be admired for its revival of the Angelic Doctor. But this is not the only document we might use, but rather we can point to many documents, such as Studiorem Ducem of Pope Pius XI, who at length discusses how St. Thomas excelled, thoroughly treated and answered each of the prevalent issues of the Philosophical and Theological schools. The Pontiff, among a long list of praises for the saintly Doctor, tells us:
His teaching with regard to the power or value of the human mind is irrefragable.
The metaphysical philosophy of St. Thomas, although exposed to this day to the bitter onslaughts of prejudiced critics, yet still retains, like gold which no acid can dissolve, its full force and splendor unimpaired.
There can be no doubt that Aquinas raised Theology to the highest eminence, for his knowledge of divine things was absolutely perfect and the power of his mind made him a marvelously capable philosopher. Thomas is therefore considered the Prince of teachers in our schools, not so much on account of his philosophical system as because of his theological studies. There is no branch of theology in which he did not exercise the incredible fecundity of his genius.[9]
We ought to also mention here the sanctity of St. Thomas Aquinas in both his thought and in his life. The stories of St. Thomas’ sanctity are well known including his mystical experiences and his steadfast devotion towards purity earning him the title of Angelic Doctor. We might also speak of his many miracles, of which Pope John XXII said after the canonization of St Thomas:
Why should we seek more miracles? He has performed as many miracles as he wrote articles. Truly this glorious Doctor, after the Apostles and the early Doctors, has greatly enlightened the Church.[10]
But we also owe St. Thomas a great debt for the great Spiritual Tradition of the Church, providing us with clear principles for Mental Prayer. It is here sufficient to recommend one read the short book of Father Fahey, Mental Prayer According to the Principles of Saint Thomas Aquinas, which shows clearly how Thomistic thought thoroughly animates and provides great light to the spiritual life. It was this knowledge of the Thomistic influence that led Pope Benedict XV in 1921 to say of progressing in the spiritual life that it is “absolutely necessary, then, to repeat oftener what Holy Scripture and the Fathers of the Church have taught us on this subject, taking as our guide St. Thomas Aquinas.”[11]
It is with this understanding that we might not only say that St. Thomas has a great degree of intrinsic authority but that he has the highest intrinsic authority, and this is confirmed by Pope Leo XIII who teaches in his Encyclical Aeterni Patris:
Again, clearly distinguishing, as is fitting, reason from faith, while happily associating the one with the other, he both preserved the rights and had regard for the dignity of each; so much so, indeed, that reason, born on the wings of Thomas to its human height, can scarcely rise higher, while faith could scarcely expect more or stronger aids from reason than those which she has already obtained through Thomas (emphasis mine).
