|
Getting your Trinity Audio player ready...
|
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).
The Extrinsic Authority Considered
Considering the extrinsic authority, or more properly the canonical authority of St. Thomas Aquinas, we can see that the Church has most certainly commended the teaching of St. Thomas above all others granting him greater authority than any other theologian. Firstly it is necessary that we establish that this is in fact an acceptable principle. Ramirez comments that “When the authority of the Church consistently and over a long period approves and commends the doctrine of anyone for all the faithful, it makes that doctrine its own, and invests it with its own authority.” And Ramirez quotes St. Thomas himself to reinforce this claim: “The teaching of Catholic Doctors has its authority from the Church; for that reason we must rely upon the authority of the Church more than upon the authority of an Augustine, a Jerome or any other Doctor.”[12]
My article alone is simply not enough to propound every single approbation of St. Thomas from the Roman Pontiffs. Here again Ramirez is an excellent source to see the successive and consistent recommendation from the 14th century Church onwards, but here we might show a few briefly. To begin, it is useful to prove that the approval and recommendation of Thomism is not, as is sometimes popularly claimed, a relic of the 19th century revival but far predates the First Vatican Council. Already mentioned is the approval of John XXII in his Bull of Canonization, but further we see Pope St. Pius V in declaring St. Thomas the universal Doctor stated that he is “the most brilliant light of the Church” and that produced by his writings
the most certain rule of Christian doctrine by which he enlightened the Apostolic Church in answering conclusively numberless errors… which illumination has often been evident in the past and recently stood forth prominently in the decrees of the Council of Trent.”[13]
St. Pius V also says elsewhere of Aquinas that “his theological doctrine, accepted by the Catholic Church, outshines every other as being safer and more secure”[14]
While this approval of St. Thomas remained until the First Vatican Council, it was after the Council that the Angelic Doctor received “singular and very special approval.”[15] We firstly see this in Leo XIII who says in Aeterni Patris that St. Thomas is the “chief and master of all towers” and that he “in a certain way seems to have inherited the intellect of all [the doctors of the Church]”[16] We then see with the bulwark against Modernism, Pope St. Pius X in often neglected motu proprio Doctoris Angelici that
If the doctrine of any writer or Saint has ever been approved by Us or Our Predecessors with such singular commendation and in such a way that to the commendation were added an invitation and order to propagate and defend it, it may easily be understood that it was commended to the extent that it agreed with the principles of Aquinas or was in no way opposed to them.
It was Benedict XV who notably in the Code of Canon Law established as a universal law of the Church that “Professors should carefully direct the study of rational Philosophy and Theology and the formation of the students in these disciplines according to the thinking, doctrine and principles of the Angelic Doctor, and hold on to them in a holy manner.”[17]
Pius XI would confirm the Doctoris Angelici text of Pope St. Pius X and add to it, in addition to what has already been quoted above, that
We so heartily approve the magnificent tribute of praise bestowed upon this most divine genius that We consider that Thomas should be called not only the Angelic, but also the Common or Universal Doctor of the Church; for the Church has adopted his philosophy for her own, as innumerable documents of every kind attest.[18]
Finally, lest we neglect Pope Pius XII who was the last pope of the pre-conciliar period, we can also find this confirmation in Humani generis, where he says that we must grasp that “his doctrine is in harmony with divine revelation, and is most effective both for safeguarding the foundation of the faith, and for reaping, safely and usefully, the fruits of sound progress.”[19]
The preceding quotations should suffice for a thorough proof that the teachings, system and principles of St. Thomas Aquinas are both safe, pre-eminent, uniquely protected and preferred above all other schools or Doctors.
Objections and application
Ramirez and Salaverri go to great lengths to give the proper response to said documents, avoiding errors of both excess and defect. Here, I believe the definition of what I set out to establish is sufficient to avoid these errors, as we do not say that in matters unclear or in dispute that other schools cannot be cited and sought out, nor do we say that this means that particular emphasis can be given to certain teachings with different charisms and schools. This does mean, however, that the doctrine of St. Thomas is the safest course, and that to discard Aquinas would be harmful and that “other doctrines inconsistent with or even contradictory to [the doctrine of St. Thomas] cannot be or called equally safe, let alone safest.”[20]
Applied to today, I believe that much of the emphasis on “open Thomism” has more to do with vain curiosity and lack of real understanding than it does with a desire to strengthen theological diversity. The weight of the documents provided, and the sheer breadth of the teachings given should make the Catholic think seriously before haphazardly discarding St. Thomas out of a desire to adopt Kant, Balthasar or even (though he is much more admirable than the other two) Duns Scotus. With such approbations should the average Catholic, or the novice reader of philosophy and theology dare to stray from the path of St. Thomas? There does not seem to me to be a necessity for doing so, and if we do one runs the risk of cutting out crucial parts of his theological and philosophical system.
For an illustration, if we start with a seemingly innocent abandoning of the Aristotelean-Thomistic understanding of the ten categories, or his epistemological basis of tabula rasa, we may upend the entire way St. Thomas settles the question of the one and the many, the process of intellection or the entire basis of his metaphysics. If one believes that there is such a problem with the over-emphasis of Thomism, or that Thomism is too limited, the onus is on the critic to explicate what exactly is overemphasized, and what is being limited. With such approbation of the Common Doctor and the warnings of what might happen if we stray from his thought, how could we justify leaving the Angelic Doctor without serious, studied, and academic reasons for doing so?
What I also hope to point out in this article is the potential error we have in removing St. Thomas from his place as Common Doctor not just of the West but of the universal Church. I fear that due to some more recent interesting details of scholarship, such as the now commonly accepted fact that the Philokalia (which contains the writings of Gregory Palamas) received the Imprimatur from the Catholic Venetian State and the University of Padua in 1781,[21] will lead towards a misconception that for Eastern Catholics all of philosophy is “fair game.” There does not seem to be any good justification to abandon Thomism for Palamism in light of what has been stated here, though there might be admirable attempts to reconcile points of the two.[22] Rather, submission to the Magisterium of the Church necessitates that we accept that St. Thomas Aquinas and his teachings do indeed have a special place, elevated above all other schools and doctors.
It is on this traditional feast day of the Angelic Doctor, then, that we should give thanks for God for setting up such a man to help enlighten our intellects and lead us safely on the path of wisdom and knowledge. I will here end with a quote from Father Fahey:
In the Collect for the Feast of St. Thomas we ask that ‘we may understand what St. Thomas taught and imitate him in our lives.’ As it was by prayer that he scaled the heights of holiness and penetrated into the secrets of the God of love, so it is of great importance for us to get a good grasp of St. Thomas’s teaching… praying as he did we may learn to live on our lowly level that admirable synthesis of study and prayer which we see so perfectly realized in him.[23]
[1] Emphasis mine. “Where is the New Theology Leading Us?” Republished in English by Catholic Family News, 1998
[2] See the “Zoghby Initiative”
[3] It would be an error to state that the influence of St. Thomas ceased after the Second Vatican Council, and this has been clearly shown in some lectures by Christian Wagner on his channel Scholastic Answers. I would add that there has, however, been an evident de-emphasis in word but most especially in practice, but this is not universally the case in the post-conciliar periods.
[4] Santiago Ramirez, O.P., “The Authority of St. Thomas Aquinas,” Thomist; a Speculative
Quarterly Review, 15 (1952), 101.
[5] It is proper to refer to the manuals and not the manualists themselves as pre-conciliar, as Salaverri himself was involved at the Second Vatican Council and even contributed to commentaries on Lumen Gentium.
[6] Sacrae Theologiae Summa, 1B, 879. Salaverri cites R. Schultes, De Eclessia, a. 73.
[7] Ramirez, op. cit., 2.
[8] “Pseudo-Dionysius” would have widely been considered St. Dionysius in the time of St. Thomas. This grasp of Pseudo-Dionysius is notable in the West, as St. Anselm, for example, notoriously lacked the influence and knowledge of his works.
[9] Studiorem Ducem, 15-17.
[10] Ramirez, op. cit., 22. Ramirez also mentions how over 300 miracles had been recounted during the canonization process.
[11] Cited in Father Fahey, Mental Prayer According to the Principles of Saint Thomas Aquinas, 41
[12] Ramirez, op. cit., 21.
[13] Mirabilis Deus, cited by Ramirez on p. 23, and it is also stated by Salaverri that this document alone gives St. Thomas a special approbation (Sacrae Theologiae Summa, 1B, 874).
[14] Ibid
[15] The words of Salaverri, Sacrae Theologiae Summa 1B, 875.
[16] Aeterni Patris,17.
[17] Cited in the Sacrae Theologiae Summa 1B, 876
[18] Emphasis mine. Studiorem Ducem, 11
[19] Cited in Sacrae Theologiae Summa, 1B, 878.
[20] Ramirez, op. cit., 95.
[21] See The Philokalia: Archeology of a Book by Fr. Maximos Constas
[22] I think the work of Dr. Matthew Minerd has been very admirable in this regard.
[23] Father Fahey, Mental Prayer According to the Principles of Saint Thomas Aquinas, page 10