THE THOMIST
A SPECULATIVE QUARTERLY REVIEW
OF THEOLOGY AND PHILOSOPHY

THE DoMINICAN FATHERS oF THE PRoVINCE oF ST. JoSEPH

EDITORS:

Publishers: The Thomist Press, Washington 17, D. C.

VoL. XV

JANUARY, 1952

No.1

THE AUTHORITY OF ST. THOMAS AQUINAS

n

DECENTLY Pope Pius XII, in the Encyclical Humani
Generis of August 12, 1950 and in an Allocution delivered on September 17 of the same year and directed
to those at the Third International Thomistic Congress held
in Rome, seriously and repeatedly warned Catholic theologians
and philosophers to abandon the vagaries of novel theology and
philosophy infected with materialism, historicism, immanentism
and existentialism. They were to direct their attention to the
safe and sound doctrine of St. Thomas Aquinas in which salvation and truth are found.
Pius X had done the same when Modernism became strong,
especially in the Encyclical Pascendi dominici gregis of September 8, 1907. Likewise, Leo XIII, in an effort to turn the
human mind from the errors of pantheism, rationalism, ontologism and extreme traditionalism, against which the Vatican
Council had taken action, considered that there was no better
1

SANTIAGO

RAMIREZ

remedy at hand than to devote all his powers to restore,
nurture, prescribe and urge the doctrine of the Angelic Master.
For that reason he issued the Encyclical Aeterni Patris on
August 4, 1879, as well as many other documents.
From this evidence one fact clearly stands out: that in the
judgment of the Holy See there is a remarkable force and power
in the doctrine of SL Thomas for safeguarding faith and reason
against the multiple deviations which affiict our age.
Just how great this power is and how serious the obligation
of adhering to and following the commands and admonitions
of the Holy See in this matter is, perhaps, not sufficiently clear
to all. For this reason there is an evident need to discuss the
doctrinal authority of St. Thomas Aquinas in the fields of
philosophy and theology, together with the obligation which
binds Catholic philosophers and theologians by precept of the
Holy See to embrace and follow his authority.
In order that we may proceed without ambiguity in a matter
of such moment, we must above all keep in view what strictly
touches on our discussion, namely, the twin distinction of
doctrinal authority. One aspect deals with the object or matter,
and the other with the mode or form.
On the part of the matter there is one authority in philosophical science or in the order of truths which man can know by
reason. There is another authority in theological science or in
the order of truths exceeding the natural powers of human
:reason. This latter order of truth cannot be known unless it is
:revealed by God and accepted by faith.
On the part of the form the authority in each science,
whether philosophical or theological, is twofold. 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 arid commendation of the
Teaching Church. We omit that merely human extrinsic authority which depends upon the evaluation of learned men.
Such canonical or ecclesiastical authority of St. Thomas or

THE AUTHORITY

OF ST. THOMAS AQUINAS

3

of any other writer in the philosophical field should not be
considered incongruous. For just as the power of the Church
touches directly only spiritual things, but indirectly temporal
things by reason of the spiritual, so the Teaching Authority of
the Church indirectly and by way of consequence extends to
philosophical science, though primarily and directly it is concerned only with supernatural and theological truths. As Pius
XII explains:
Assuredly it is her task [the Teaching Authority of the Church]
by divine institution, not only to protect and interpret the deposit
of divinely revealed truth, but also to keep watch over the philosophical sciences themselves in order that Catholic dogmas may
suffer no harm from erroneous opinions. 1

I
SciENTIFIC

AuTHORITY

OF THE DocToR

1. In Philosophical Science

In speaking of the intrinsic philosophical authority of St.
Thomas, beyond doubt we must note the following. The intrinsic doctrinal authority of any philosopher rests in its entirety
on a double basis: the person or personal qualities which befit
a good philosopher; and his works, in that they give evidence
that his teaching is perennially true and unassailably valid.
Both of these apply perfectly to Aquinas. First, he possessed
an abundance of all the personal qualities requisite for a good
philosopher: a razor-keen mind, vivid memory, tireless effort,
profound learning, purposeful diligence, purity of life, the cultivation and love of truth alone; there is no doubt that nature
"wonderfully endowed him to be a philosopher," as Pius XI
dechl.red.2
There was no philosophical school known at that time, or
indeed which possibly could be known, in whose philosophy he
was not completely skilled. He fully understood the Greeks,
Encyclical Humani Generis, AAS 42 (1950), 575.
• Encyclical Studiorum Ducem, June 29, 1923, AAS 15 (1923), 318.

1

4

SANTIAGO

RAMIREZ

Latins, Jews, Arabs; yet at the same time he treated them with
gentleness and understanding. He clearly saw that, as he himself said, " the study of philosophy is directed not at knowing
what men have thought, but at knowing what is actually the
truth of things." 3 He adds: " to know what you may wish or
understand does not belong to the perfection of my intellect,
but only to know the truth in reality." 4
He was accustomed to read everything with a mind undisturbed and free of prejudice, so as to capture even the smallest
spark of truth. He warns us, " in choosing or rejecting opinions
one should not be influenced by love or hatred for the one
presenting the opinion, but rather by the certitude of truth"; 5
and again he says, " do not heed by whom a thing is said, but
rather what is said that is good, you should commit to your
memory." 6
His pure life gave rise to a sort of natural necessity of
uncovering and eagerly grasping the truth, especially of the
moral order, as if by instinct. He himself says, "One who has
the habit of virtue judges rightly concerning those things which
should be done according to the virtue, insofar as he has an
inclination towards it." For example, "in a matter pertaining
to chastity . . . that person will judge correctly . . . who has
the habit of chastity." 7 In these matters that other axiom of
Thomas holds true, " Life holds a priority over doctrine, for
life leads to knowledge of the truth." 8
He was possesseq of the greatest skill, coupled with a wonderful sense of balance and proportion, for learning and research,
reading and meditation, experimentation and abstraction, inductive and deductive reasoning, speculative and practical
activity, as well as in the use of analyzing or synthesizing.
This array of perfections flowed even into his works. He
Commentarium in I de Caelo et Mundo, Lect.. 22, n. 8.
• Summa Theol., I, q. 107, a. 2.
• Commentaria in libros Metaphysicorum Aristotelis, Lib. XII, lect. 9, n. 2566.
• De modo studendi; ed. Th. Esser, ui. Vienna, 1882.
• Summa Theol., I, q. 1, a. 6 ad 8; 11-11, q. 45, a. 2.
• Comment. in Matthaeum, cap. 5, n. 4 in fine. Ed. Marietti, 1912, p. 8la.
8

THE AUTHORITY

OF S'I'. THOMAS AQUINAS

5

gathered to himself alone as into a sea, the streams of
mnning through the philosophers and ecclesiastical writers.
These he assimilated and purified. Their doctrines, to use the
words of Leo XIII," like the scattered limbs of a body, Thomas
gathered together and arranged; he disposed them in
and increased them
mighty additions." 9
He published learned commentaries on the chief works of
Aristotle, based on a new and accurate translation with which
his fellow Dominican, William of Moerbeke, supplied him:
Aristotle's Logic, Natural Philosophy, Psychology, Metaphysics
and Ethics.
He was thoroughly versed in the substance of the doctrines
Plato and the neo-Platonists based not only upon the references in Aristotle, Cicero and St. Augustine but also upon a
reading of the actual texts, for he had in his possession Plato's
Timaeus with its commentary by Proclus. This fact comes to
light from a letter written by the Faculty of Arts of the University of Paris to the General Chapter of the Order of Preachers
dated May 2, 1274. 10 He also wrote clear and penetrating commentaries on the neo-Platonists Denis, Proclus, and Boethius on
the works De divinis nominibus, De causis, De hebdomadibus.
In writing these works he made use of the previous Greek and
Arab commentators such as Alexander, Ammonius, Porphyry,
Themistius, Philipon, Simplicius, Eustratius, Avicenna, and
Averroes. He had their works before him and subjected them
to a critical examination with the result that he surpassed each
and everyone in explaining Aristotle. " It was for this reason,"
says Louis of Valladolid, " that philosophers called him Expositor par excellence." 11
These commentaries on the works of Plato and Aristotle were
not made from a merely philological or historical point of view,
such as :recent writers often adopt. Rather his commentaries
were literal and doctrinal, though at the same time the phi• Encyclical Aeterni Patris, Acta Leonis XIII, ed. Bonne Presse, s. d., I, 6l!.
° Fontes vitae S. Thomae, ed. H. Laurent, 584.
11 Brevis historia Conventus Parisiensis Ord. Praed., ed. Martene
et Durand,
"Veterum scriptorum et monumentorum amplissima collectio," VI, 561.
1

6

SANTIAGO

RAMiREZ

lological, critical and historical aspects such as could be developed at that time were not neglected. If for this reason any
accidental and entirely secondary defects crept in, they were
restricted and fully compensated by his almost unbelievably
complete knowledge of all the works of all the authors he was
explaining. To this he added an incredible shrewdness in
searching out, examining and detecting the more obscure meanings of the same authors. So well did he assimilate the force,
spirit and mind of these philosophers that one might say their
very souls had, as it were, transmigrated into that of their
commentator; as though, through the exposition of Thomas, one
were hearing the authors themselves speaking.
Moreover, he refined their doctrine in a variety of ways, in
that he not only exposed their literal meaning but their intent
as well. Into their principles he put order, into their arguments
he put clarity and more profound conclusions. He corrected
their errors and rephrased their inaccurate statements so as
to bring-out the proper sense. He enriched their doctrine with
so many additions that, being compelled to betray themselves
at the hand of an interpreter, they seemed to put on and be
redolent of Philosophy itself.
It was Thomas alone who truly surpassed them, in that he
delineated, in their philosophical efforts and in the fragments
of truth which they found, the person of Philosophy, as it were,
and imbibed the whole truth in full draughts.
In addition he wrote many original works. Among the minor
works are: De ente et essentia, De principiis naturae, De natura

materiae, De principio individuationis, De natura generis, De
quatuor oppositis, De natura verbi intellectus, De unitate intellectus, De substantiis separatis, De regimine principum,
Among his major works are his Disputed Questions De veritate,
De anima, De spiritualibus creaturis, and the first three books
of the Summa contra Gentiles. In these, especially the Contra
Gentiles, the human faculty of reasoning seems to have reached
its supreme height.
Apropos of this Leo Xlli said:

THE AUTHORITY

OF ST. THOMAS AQUINAS

7

There is no part of philosophy which he did not handle with
acuteness and solidity. He so investigated the laws of reasoning,
God and incorporeal substances, man and other sensible things,
human acts and their principles, that the full selection of subjects,
a beautiful arrangement of their divisions, his excellent plan of
procedure, the soundness of his principles and the force of his
arguments, his perspicuity and propriety of expression, his facility
for explaining the most abstruse questions leave nothing to be
desired.12
In fact, as is evident in preserved fragments of the autograph
of the Contra Gentiles, St. Thomas expended the greatest effort
and care upon his work, subjecting his manuscript to the most
exacting criticism three or four times. He used to revise words,
phrases, arguments and whole chapters. He made corrections
and changes and polished his work in order to produce it in the
most accurate style and order.
On the other hand, he presented arguments so solid and full,
so clear and suitably arranged as to reveal the truth and
overcome error, that for true philosophers down through the
centuries he offers a lasting and inexhaustible armory of
weapons for revealing and protecting the truth against every
attack from its enemies.
Leo Xlll aptly stated:
It also happened that the Angelic Doctor, in his speculations, drew
certain philosophical conclusions as to reasons and principles of
created things. These conclusions have the very widest reach, and
contain, as it were, in their bosom the seeds of truths well nigh
infinite in number. These have to be unfolded with most abundant
fruits in their own time by the teachers who come after him. As
he used his method of philosophizing, not only in teaching the truth,
but also in refuting error, he has gained this prerogative for himself.
With his own hand he vanquished all errors of ancient times; and
still he supplies an armory of weapons which brings us certain
victory in the conflict with falsehoods ever springing up in the
course of years. 13
For this reason the famous Cardinal Francisco Toledo, S. J.,
19
13

Aeterni Patris, loc. cit.
Ibid., 62, 64.

8

SANTIAGO

RAMIREZ

with the advice and approbation
country, wrote:

of philosophers from every

Thomas has within himself the likeness of all in whom there is
any precision of interpretation, weight of doctrine coupled with
piety, wide, varied and solid learning and an incredible method for
the thorough treatment of whole disciplines" It was not merely
because of his Commentaries on Aristotle, but much more by reason
of his Summa Theologiae, Summa contra Gentiles, Quaestiones Disputatae, and other writings that he alone gave as much light to
Philosophy, to say nothing of Theology, as all the others put together. I believe that it would not at aU detract from their excellence if I were to say of Thomas that which each of them would
say if he were living and presenL 14 .

The philosophical doctrine of SL Thomas, that is, the spirit
of his system and its major propositions, cannot be called
Platonic or Aristotelian or the offshoot of any other schooL
Rather it is thoroughly Christian and human in that it gives
evidence of an organization of truths and principles towards
which the human mind, naturally Christian, is
by
nature" There is no system of philosophy which is so much a
part of and conformable to nature, and at the same time so capable of perfecting the human mind as the philosophical system of
Aquinas. Simple, pure, clear, brief, ordered, beginning with
ideas and principles per se known, it proceeds by natural steps,
as it were, to higher, more profound and hidden truths. Step
by step it ascends to the supreme pinnacle and ultimate causes
of things" With these well in mind it again :returns to the things
of the sensible order, weighing and explaining them with the
judgment of wisdom" The famous series of twenty-four theses
reveal this same order. These propositions, in the judgment of
the Sacred Congregation of Studies, March 7, 1916, truly contain the essence of the "philosophical doctrine of SL Thomas, in
its principles
major p:ropositionso15
These principles and many others of the same kind, especially
14 Commentaria una cum Quaestionibus in Octo libros Aristotdis
"de Physica
Ausculatione," Ad lectorem, fol. v., Venice, 1.578"
15 AAS 8 (1916), 157.

THE AUTHORITY OF ST. THOMAS AQUINAS

9

those proper to metaphysics, will never perish as long as nature
remains, nor will they age with the passage of centuries, but
with perpetual vigor will endure forever. As Pius XI wisely
pointed out, these principles are not subjective and artificial,
but natural and objective constructs, and therefore will last
forever. 16
The portions of St. Thomas' doctrine directly touching
sensible phenomena, as well as the method of treatment used
to explain them, do not constitute the substance of Thomistic
philosophy. These are entirely accidental and change in accordance with the day-by-day development of the experimental
sciences. Abstracting from such pdrtions and method, his superstructure of metaphysics remains integral and sound.
The consistency and unity of truth we find most clearly in the
system of philosophical doctrine of St. Thomas. Particularly
in his metaphysics, psychology, and natural ethics his doctrine
shows a wonderful harmony with divinely revealed truths.
Whether we consider St. Thomas' philosophical system in
itself, or with regard to supernatural truths accepted on divine
faith, or in his method of investigation and teaching, or his
succinct, sound, clear and energetic manner of explanation, we
must declare that it possesses the greatest worth and efficacy
and thus the highest scientific authority.
In Theological Science

St. Thomas' intrinsic and scientific theological authority is
likewise great, both in regard to St. Thomas himself and his
doctrine.
His personal gifts of nature and grace wonderfully equipped
him to grasp and expound Sacred Theology accurately and
completely. He was fully versed in all the sources of Sacred
Doctrine,-the Scriptures, Tradition, the Councils and Decrees
16 "Non verr/1. mai meno il valore della dottrina tomistica, perche bisognerebbe
che venisse meno i1 valore delle cose." Allocution to university students, Feb.
in M. Cordovani, "San Tommaso nella parola di Pio XI," Angelicum, 6

10.

10

SANTIAGO

RAMIREZ

of the Teaching Church, the writings of the Latin and Greek
Church Fathers and Doctors. He received their references to
the word of God with great faith and piety, and sounded their
depths through the gift of wisdom to such an extent that he
was frequently rapt in contemplation of the divine mysteries.
Thus, in a vital manner, he intimately penetrated and tasted
them.
He wonderfully adapted the natural wisdom with which he
was fully equipped, and the skill of his genius, which was
destined for divine things, to the examination, illustration and
defense of those truths of faith with scientific methodology.
This methodology bore both upon the truths he knew naturally
by analogy, and upon the connection of the mysteries themselves with man's ultimate end. In this matter, his way was
lighted and directed by divine faith and the gift of wisdom.
As Pius XI appositely said:
This is the region in which faith is supreme and the science of
faith is called Theology. Science of this kind will be all the more
perfect in a man in proportion as he is better acquainted with the
evidence for faith and has, at the same time, a more fully developed
and trained faculty of philosophizing. 17

Leo XIII tells us:
There is needed a use of Philosophy, both perpetual and manifold, in order that Sacred Theology may assume and put on the
nature, the habit and character of true science.18

This being the case, one may assert without boasting that
there was never a theologian stronger in faith than Aquinas,
one richer in wisdom, better provided with a deeper understanding of philosophy, nor one more dedicated to the study
of divine truth. He made his own the words of St. Hilary," I
regard this as the chief task of my life, my obligation to God
to see to it that my every word and meaning bespeaks God." 19
Studiorum Ducem, loc. cit, 817.
Aetemi Patria, loc. cit. 50.
10 C. Gentiles, I, 2.

17

18

THE AUTHORITY

OF ST. THOMAS AQUINAS

11

The following, taken from his own work, exactly corresponds to
this axiom:
Since the perfection of man consists in his union with God, a man
should rest in and be attracted to divine things with all his power,
as much as he is able, so that his intellect may be free for contemplation and his reason for the investigation of divine things, according to Psalm 72, v. 28: 'It is good for me to adhere to my God.' 20

And again he says, " The human mind ought always to be
moved more and more to a knowledge of God, according to the
measure that is proper to it," that is, in the highest degree
possible.21
It should not, then, be considered unusual that his many
great perfections flowed into his theological works, nor should
there be any doubt, as Pius XI said, " that Aquinas raised
Theology to, the highest eminence of dignity." 22
He treated every part of theology most skillfully and enriched
theology as a whole, lavishing upon it the incredible luxuriance
of his genius. He laid solid and lasting foundations for that
fundamental part of Theology called Apologetics. Succeeding
theologians have reared their structure upon the bases he had
afforded, such as his distinction between natural and supernatural truth concerning God, the proper qualities of each, the
nature of revelation and faith, the possibility and necessity
of revelation, the credibility of the mysteries of faith and the
motives supporting it. Cajetan, Banez,
NaV'arrete,
John of St. Thomas, and the Salmanticenses developed the principles of Apologetics supplied by Aquinas in
learned commentaries on the Prima Secundae and the Secunda
Secundae, where the nature of faith and theology is treated.
Through them these principles were made available to later
Thomists who brought out special works suited to our times, as
Cardinal Zigliara, Fathers Gardeil and Garrigou-Lagrange.
The treatises on the Church itself viewed by modern theo•• In Boethii de Trinitate, q. !!, a. 1.
Ibid., ad 7.
"" Studiorum Ducem, loc. cit.

"1

lfl

SANTIAGO RAMiREZ

logians as the Mystical Body of Christ, its constitution, qualities
and marks, the primacy and infallibility of the Roman Pontiff,
the members of the Church, all had St. Thomas as their
precursor and to all intents and purposes their creator. He
outlined the basic foundations later developed by his famous
pupils John of ')Torquemada, Cajetan, Bafiez, Nazarius.
Through them his fundamental ideas passed into the modem
tracts de Ecclesia Christi.
That the theological method, contained especially in his
tract de ·zocis theologicis, came chiefly from Thomas, is frankly
stated by the famous Melchior Cano, founder and parent of
this branch of theological science. He says:
As a manifestation of my gratitude I bow to him to whom I owe
so much, and I ever admit my lasting indebtedness to him in this
task. For my part, St. Thomas was both author and .teacher in the
composition of this work: 28

Even Dogmatic Theology " also found in Thomas by far the
richest of all commentators." 24 With so much acumen did he
treat the nature of God and His attributes, His unity, goodness,
perfection, simplicity, infinity, immensity, eternity, incomprehensibility, ineffability, omniscence, beatitude, providence,
omnipotence, the mysteries of the divine will and predestination,
that he left for succeeding theologians an opportunity to
imitate but not to equal or surpass. Clearly and aptly he
described the intimate life of God in the Trinity of Persons,
as far as that can be done by one not yet in heaven. He
delineated with amazing penetration the creation of the world,
man, angels, and the elevation of men and angels to the supernatural order, along with the fall of both. He treated also of
the divine conservation and direction of all creatures. Never
was there a theologian who so subtly penetrated or fully and
clearly explained the nature, faculties and operations· of human
and angelic creatures. In exploring and elucidating the
•• De locia tkeologicia, lib. Xll, cap. !l, no. 2, Melchioris Cani Opera, ed. T.
Cucchi (Rome 1900) III, II.
"' Studiomm Ducem, loc. cit., SIS.

THE AUTHORI1'Y

OF ST" THOMAS AQUINAS

13

mysteries of the Incarnation and Redemption, and other
mysteries hidden in the life and death of Christ, he appeared
to have wrested the honors from other theologians, just as
he did in his hymning and explanation of the Sacrament of the
Eucharist and in his eschatological questions" When he finished
his tract on the Sacrament of the Body and Blood of Christ,
he received the praise and approbation of the Lord Himself, who
said, Well have you written of Me, Thomas. 25 Indeed, his tract
on this _Sacrament was " clearly miraculous," said Benedict

XVo26
One must place the same evaluation upon his Moral Theology
dealing with the direction of human a.cts to a supernatural end"
No ecclesiastical writer, Father or Theologian, so fully, deeply
and dearly explained the ultimate end of man, human acts,
the passions, the divine law and its precepts, grace, the vices,
and the moral and theological virtues.
It was this part of theology which, in the estimation of
his contemporaries, Aquinas especially enriched. They called
him the " renowned instrument of God in Theology and Philosophy, and especially in Moral Theology"" 27 He not only
treated the life of the individual as regulated by the moral law,
but in addition exposed the principles and doctrine upon which
a rich family life must rest, as well as the rights and duties
of parents. Likewise he discussed the implications of social
life, and the true and safe direction of conduct among nations"
AU of these he handled from the viewpoint both of nature and
of grace" As for his teaching on personal prudence and the
prudence of rulers, right and justice, authority and obedience,
private property and almsgiving, war and peace, the rights of
nations and their mutual obligations, aU these were fruitfully
developed in later times by Cajetan, Francisco de Vitoria,
Dominic de Soto, Banez, and others, and applied later to the
G. de Tocco, Vita S. Thomae, cap. 52, ed. D. Priimmer, p. 126.
Letter to Fr. Lepicier, Jan. 10, 1917, AAS, 9 (1917), 102.
27 Ptholomaeus
de Lucca, "Hist. Eccl.," lib. XXII, cap. 24, in Mandonnet,
Des ecrits authentiques de saint Thomas d'Aquin, p. 50; Chronica minor auctore
:minorAa erphordiensi, "Monumenta Ge:rmaniae historica," Scriptores, XXIV, 212.
25

26

14

SANTIAGO

RAMIREZ

texture, development and preservation of American law. Even
at present his principles are considered to be of profound
practical worth and hold a position of respect.
With singular dignity and loftiness of thought he enhanced
and advanced Ascetical and Mystical Theology. Depth, devotion and thoroughness mark from start to finish his treatment
of the Gifts of the Holy Ghost, the Fruits and the Beatitudes,
the Indwelling of the Holy Trinity in the souls of the just,
the active and contemplative life, prayer and the mystical
states, religious and episcopal perfection, the rewards and effects
of burning and ardent charity.
These are his famous words on the verse: Taste and see
that the Lord is sweet (Ps. 83: 0) .
In the material order we first see and then taste; but in spiritual
things one must first taste in order to see, because no one knows
who does not taste. Therefore (the Psalmist) says first, taste; and
then, see.28

In another place he adds:
We should understand divine things according to this unifying
action of grace-1wt as if divine things were drawn down to the
level of our being, but rather our whole being is established above
nature in God, with the result that we become totally God-like
through his unifying action of grace. 29

In his Exegesis and Biblical Theology he completely and
learnedly interpreted Sacred Scripture. First, he firmly established and clearly explained the fundamental principles of this
study: its nature, which, as the word of God, has God inspiring
it as its principal Author; and the man who is inspired, whom
we call the hagiographer, as its instrumental author. 8 ° Further,
he explained the nature of inspiration and the light of prophecy; 31 its truth, in that it is the word of God Who cannot
deceive nor be deceived; 82 its multiple senses, the equivocal
•• Comment. in Psalm. SS :9.
•• Comment. in Dionysii de Divinis Nominibus, ch. 7, lect. I.
80 Quodl. VII, a. 14, ad 5.
81 Summa Theol., IT-II, qq. 171-175.
•• Ibid., q. 1, a S.

THE AUTHORITY

OF ST. THOMAS AQUINAS

15

sense and others, proceeding one from the other, but all depending upon the one fundamental literal sense.33 And finally, he
discusses the development of divine revelation in the Old
Testament and how it was suited in the manner of its presentation to the cultural conditions of. the Jews to whom it was
given. 34
He commented on the chief books of the Scriptures: Isaias,
Jeremias, Job, the Psalter of David in the Old Testament. In
the New Testament, besides the Catena Aurea on the four
Gospels, a work of great learning and incredible labor, in which
he collected and ordered with wonderful precision whatever the
whole tradition of the Greek and Latin Fathers had brought
forth, he wrote special expositions of the Gospels of Matthew
and John and all of the Pauline epistles.
In these commentaries, especially on the Gospel of St. John
and the Epistles of St. Paul, there is a marvelous fullness of
biblical and theological teaching, dogmatic, moral and spiritual.
The result is that they form an inexhaustible gold mine for
exegetes, theologians, preachers, and for all those who strive
for perfection.
St. Thomas' theology, as a complete unit, possesses such
dignity that it surpasses every human science in its theoretical
aspect and every practical science in the regulation and direction
of human action; in its supernatural grasp and tendency it is
without peer. As Cardinal Bessarion said, Among the saints he
is the most learned, and among the learned, the most saintly. 35
and for that reason he is the prince of all theologians. What
Thomas has said about the· perfect theologian fits no other
theologian as well as Thomas himself:
The doctrine of Sacred Scripture [and Sacred Theology] has this
peculiarity, that its content is not only speculative, as in Geometry,
but practical as well, in that it perfects the affections. It is for this
reason that Matthew (5: 19) says,' He that shall do and teach, he
88 Quodl. VII, aa. 14-16; Summa Tkeol., I, q. 1, a. 10.
•• Summa Tkeol., II-IT, q. I, a. 7; I, q. 68, a. S; q. 70, a. 1 ad S.
•• Adversus calumniatorem Platonis, lib. IT, cap. S.

2

16

SANTIAGO

RAMIREZ

shall be called great :in the kingdom of heaven} In other sciences
it is sufficient for a man to be perfect intellectually. In this science
one must be perfect not only intellectually but morally as well.36

Such fullness and inherent perfection of SL Thomas' theology
is apparent to anyone
reads or studies his many theological
works, or to put it briefly, his major
minor works.
His minor works include: De perfectione vitae spiritualis,
De duobus praeceptis caritatis et de decem legis praeceptis,
De articulis fidei et Ecclesiae sacramentis, Contra errores graecorum, De forma absolutionis, De rationibus fidei, Compendium
Theologiae, Expositio in primam et secundam Decretalem, In
dominicam expositio, In 8alutationem angelicam
expositio, In symbolum Apostolorum expositio.
His major works are: Commentarium super quatuor libros
Sententiarum Petri Lombardi, Quaestiones disputatae et quodlibetales, (such as De potentia, De unione V erbi Incarnati, De
malo, De virtutibus in communi, De sensibus Sacrae Scripturae)
especially his
contra Gentiles
logiae.
The celebrated words of William of Tocco apply quite accurately to these major works:
Thomas instituted new articles in his teaching, discovered a new
and brilliant method in his presentation, and adduced new reasons
in support of his arguments. No one who heard him teach new
things and illustrate doubtful matters with new reasons would
doubt that God had enlightened him with the rays of a new light.
So swift and certain in judgment was he, that he did not hesitate
to teach and write new opinions which God had thought worthy
to inspire anew. 37

Doubtless, besides his angelic genius fortified with heavenly
gifts of nature and grace, the cause of this fresh approach seems
to be a profound knowledge of the sources and instruments of
theology and a more precise and dextrous application of them.
He channeled into the service and utility of theology this fuller
•• Comment. in Epist. ad Hebraeos, cap. 5, lect.
37 Op. cit., cap. 14, p. 81.

THE AUTHORITY

OF ST. THOMAS AQUINAS

17

and more accurate knowledge of Scripture and the tradition of
the Fathers, his truer and more penetrating appraisal of reality
which stemmed from a more refined and penetrating grasp of
philosophy.
Previous theologians, and some of his own time as well, very
timidly applied reason and human science to explain theological
uncertainties and questions. Such usage was aimed more at
literary ornamentation than fuller understanding. But Thomas,
following in the footsteps of his beloved master, St. Albert the
Great, called upon every human science, and all the powers of
reason to be of service, not as masters but as servants, in the
defense, illustration and explanation of the faith. For Thomas
said, " Since grace does not destroy nature but perfects it,
natural reason should minister to the faith, as the natural bent
of the will ministers to charity." 38
And so Thomas completed the work of renovation and consolidation of divine and human science begun by Albert and
brought it to perfection. He established two bodies of doctrine
essentially distinct, philosophy and theology. Both enjoy full
autonomy in their own :field, in such a way that there is not
and cannot be any real opposition or contradiction between
them. Rather there is marvelous harmony, through their
mutual aid and assistance. For reason should be subordinate
to faith and serve it as nature serves grace and the creature
serves the Creator. So it happened that Theology, without in
the slightest abandoning its character as effective knowledge
aimed toward piety, as many theologians of his time asserted,
assumed at the same time the nature of a precise science, since
it is truly and in a full sense the science of faith.
This work of such
fruitfulness and value,
for which St. Thomas strenuously labored and spent himself,
suffered calumny and persecution while he was living and even
after his death. These attacks reached their culmination in the
condemnation of several propositions by Stephen Tempier, John
Peckham and Robert Kilwardby. 89 But, undaunted, he was
88

Summa Theol., I, q. 1, a. 8 ad

•• H. Laurent, op. cit., 596-617.

18

SANTIAGO

RAMIREZ

victorious in every skirmish, and as Pius XI said, " Like gold
which no acid can dissolve, so he retained his force and splendor
and still retains it." 40
In, witness of this are the words of the professors of the
Faculty of Arts of the University of Paris, calling him" morning
star preeminent in the world, radiance and light of the age,
indeed, we may say, a light greater than the light of day," and
by singular privilege given to the world by the Author of nature
to illuminate the secrets of nature.u
We find the same praises in a Lament on the death of Thomas
written about the same year."2
His hearers and pupils are of the same mind. He is celebrated
by Remigius Girolamus as Teacher among teachers and saint
at summit of perfection.t.a
Doctor doctorum
Sanctusque cacumine morum.
Ptolemy of Lucca, " Thomas. was the ark of Philosophy and
Theology." 44 According to Rain bert de
of Bologna,
" He wrote unexcelled treatises overflowing with truth," 45
•• Studiorum ducem, loc. cit., 817.
41 Letter to the Dominican General Chapter, May 2, 1274, H. Laurent, op. cit.,
584.
•• H. Laurent, op. cit., 586, 587:
Hie ut stella matutina, ut solaris radius,
Verbo, vita et doctrina praefulsit Parisius;
Cura dedit hunc divina, velut iubar clarius
In multis utilius
Gemma morum, f!oa doctorum, mente vir aethereus, ,
Fulgens orbis cereus;
Hie pudoris vali decorum, Scripturarum puteus,
Exemplar philoaophorum, thronus Regis aureus.
Alumnus Philosophiae, ex Aquino nobilis,
Lucerna Theologiae, scriptis admirabilis,
Explanavit nocte die libros Aristotelis;
Vir cunctis amabilis,
Bonis fuit mentis piae, malisque terribilis.
•• Ibid., 589:
•• Op. cit., cap. 15.
•• Apologeticum veritatia contra corruptorium, prol., p. 8, ed. J. P. Muller,
Rome 1948.

THE AUTHORITY

OF ST. THOMAS AQUINAS

19

through whose mouth spoke St. Augustine, Boethius, St.
Anselm, Richard of St. Victor and all who had any learning. 46
Further, they had no hesitation in comparing him to the
Fathers, especially to St. Augustine, and to the great Apostle
Paul. Blessed James Capocci of Viterbo
believed according to faith and the Holy Ghost that our Savior,
the Teacher of truth, for the enlightenment of the world and the
Universal Church, had sent Paul the Apostle, and later Augustine,
and recently Brother Thomas whom he believed would not be
supplanted by one of greater authority even to the end of the
world.47
Despite the attacks. of his rivals, his authority increased and
reached such a point that he convinced every mind and allied
it to his teaching, and was hailed as the universal master and
teacher. As Bartholomew of Capua, who had known him
personally testified:
Though after his death the
of Brother Thomas were
impugned by many great men and subjected to the test of sharp
criticism, nevertheless his authority never decreased but rather
waxed stronger. With reverence and respect it was diffused over
the whole earth, 48
since as Blessed James of Viterbo says:
In hi.s writings are found universal truth, universal clarity, universal enlightenment, and the universal order and doctrine necessary for arriving quickly at perfect understanding. 49
Stephen de Salanhac, before the year 1278, wrote:
Brother Thomas of Aquin in Apulia is an outstanding doctor,
famous throughout the world. He wrote much, and the whole East
and West with impartial judgment embraced his safe and clear
doctrine. They held it in admiration, rejoiced and gloried in its
possession. His doctrine, as a shining light, endures and increases
•• Ibid., a. S, p.
•• H. Laurent, op. cit., 888, Process of canonization at Naples, testimony of
Bartholomew of Capua, no. 88.
•• Ibid., 885.
•• Ibid., 884.

SANTIAGO

RAMIREZ

up until that day when the morning light will rise. All use him as a
source, even his rivals and disparagers, who do so slyly. 50
In the succeeding centuries and even up to our own time
he has elicited the approbation or at least the admiration of
men by his genius and knowledge. This was especially true of
the learned and even those not of the faith. If we listen to
Erasmus, there was no theologian equal in industry, or more
balanced in genius, or more solid in learning. 51 Leibnitz admired
the solidity of his doctrine, '' 2 Christian von Wolff the keenness
of his intelligence, 53 James Brucker the excellence of his mind,
fullnes of his teaching and his tireless industry/ 4 Adolph
Harnack the herculean strength of his understanding, 55 and
R. Seerberg salutes Thomas as the greatest of the theologians
and philosophers of the Church, who planted on high the
standard of progress in philosophy and theology. 56
Therefore, the intrinsic strength of the doctrine of St. Thomas
in philosophy and theology is so great that it is rated the
highest not only by his supporters and friends
even
his
rivals and his enemies.

II
CANONICAL

AuTHORITY

oF THE DocTOR CoMMUNIS

OF THE CHURCH

This authority which may also be called dogmatic corresponds
to the conformity of a theological or philosophical doctrine
with divine revelation. It is measured by the·approbation and
5 ° Chronica, cf. Berthier,
Sanctus Thomas Aquinas, "Doctor Communis" Ecclesiae, I, LVI-LVH, Rome, 1914. Cf. also G. de Tocco, Vita, cap. Hi, ed. Prlimmer,
85; Pthol. de Lucca, Hist. Eccl., cap. 8-9, cf. Berthier, op. cit. LVII.
51 "Adnotationes
in Epistulam ad Romruws," cap. I, in B. de Rubeis, Dissertatione criticae in S. Thomam Aquinatem, dissert. 6, cap. 2, no. l. Opera S. Thomae,
ed. leon. I, 115 b.
•• Tentamina Theoliceae, III, § 330. Opera. ed. L. Dutens, ][, 358.
53 Theol. Naturalis, § 683, p. 242, Verona, 1738.
•• Historia critica Philosophiae, III, 803. Leipzig, 1743.
•• Lehrbuch der Dogmengeschichte, 3, 498. Tiibingen, 1910.
56 Lehrbuch der Dog•mengeschichte, III, 318, Leipzig, 1913.

THE AUTHORITY

OF ST. THOMAS AQUINAS

21

commendation of the Teaching Authority of the Church whose
function it is to judge such conformity. Thus the weight of this
type of authority is wholly derived from the authority of the
As Thomas himself writes:
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. 57

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. The Church does not create the force
and truth of that doctrine out of nothing but rather supposes its
existence and recognizes it, authoritatively proposing it to be
followed and imitated. The manner of such approbation is
similar to that by which the canonization of one of the faithful
by the Church does not create but supposes the sanctity of the
person. The Church merely recognizes that sanctity, and authoritatively proposes it for veneration and imitation.
Primarily, the Church approves and commends theological
doctrine which deals per se with divinely revealed truths. But
secondarily, it can approve philosophical doctrine, which is
properly concerned with truths of the natural order, insofar
as that doctrine is in conformity with truths of the supernatural order. For this very reason Benedict XV called it
" philosophy according to Christ." 58 And so the canonical
doctrine of St. Thomas should be treated first in the field of
theology and then in philosophy.
1. In Theology

John XXII, who canonized St. Thomas, said before the
Cardinals
Consistory, when a motion was initiated to begin
the process of canonization:

in

Summa Theol., II-II, q. 10, a. H!.
Motu proprio, Non multo post, de Romana S. Thomae Academia, AAS '1
(1915), 6, Dec. 31, 1914.
57

58

SANTIAGO

RAMIREZ

His life was saintly and his doctrine could only be miraculous o o "
because he enlightened the Church more than all the other Doctors.
By the use of his works a man would profit more in one year than
if he studied the doctrine of others for his whole lifeo59

At the completion of the process of canonization, when more
than 300 miracles performed by Sto Thomas had been :recounted,
the Pontiff said:
Why should we seek more miracles? He has performed as many
miracles as he wrote articleso Truly this glorious Doctor, after the
Apostles and the early Doctors, has greatly enlightened the
Church. 60

Clement VI. in his Apostolic Letter In Ordine Fratrum
Praedicatorum of Febo 6, 1344, directed to all the faithful,
praised the Order of Preachers for producing:
That famous and fruitful branch, the blessed Thomas of Aquin,
outstanding doctor and confessoro The whole Church, gathering
many fruits of his spiritual maturity from the writing and teaching
of his wisdom and, doctrine, is continually refreshed by their
aroma. 61

Further, the same Pontiff proclaimed in the Dominican General
Chapter held at Brives in 1346, that all the brethren are
expressly forbidden even to dare to withdraw from the doctrine
of Sto Thomas. 62
For Blessed Urban V the mind of Sto Thomas was the
" treasury of divine wisdom," which, with the aid of divine
grace, ., has unlocked the hidden things of Scripture, solved its
puzzles, brought light to its difficulties, and cleared up its
questions." 63 And he added, "At Toulouse there is a new university for theology which We wish to be founded on the solid
59

Acta Sanctorum, vol. I-martii,

60

P. Percin, Monumenta Conventus Tolosani Ord. Praed., cf. J. Berthier, op.

cit., 50.
61 Cf. Berthier, op., cit., 55.
•• Ibid., 56.
•• Bull Copiosus, June 16, 1368, in which he ordered the body and head of
St. Thomas to be brought to Toulouse and given to the Friars Preachers, cf.
Berthier, opo cit., 63, 65.

THE' AUTHORITY

OF ST. THOMAS AQUINAS

and firm doctrine of that saint." M To the Archbishop of
Toulouse and to all the Masters and Doctors of the University
he wrote;
We wish, and the purpose of the present letter is, to enjoin upon
you that you follow the doctrine of the Blessed Thomas as the
true and Catholic doctrine, and endeavor to spread it with all your
power. 65

Indeed, as Nicholas V said, "By his doctrine the universal
Church is enlightened," 66 because he, on the word of Alexander
VI, "as a splendid light, enlightened the Christian world in
every respect." 67

Pius IV heartily praised the custom of the University of
Salamanca for its yearly celebration of his feast, in the Dominican Church of St. Stephen, and granted many indulgences so
that great devotion might attend the feast " of such a great
Doctor whose doctrine, as everyone knows, brought and daily
68 He further invited all
brings such great fruit to the
to imitate that custom and follow his doctrine.
St. Pius V, who declared him a Doctor of the Universal
Church, recognized in Thomas "the most brilliant light of the
Church," whose works are:
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. 69

He also said of Aquinas that " his theological doctrine, accepted
by the Catholic Church, outshines every other as being safer
and more secure." 70
•• Op. cit., 64.
65 Bull Laudabilis Deus, Aug. 81, 1868, cf. Berthier, op. cit., 64.
66 Bull Piis jidelium, July 20, 1451, op. cit., 76.
67 Bull Etsi cunctae, July 29, 1496, op. cit., 84.
68 Bull Salvatoris, April 15, 1564, op. cit., 96.
69 Bull Mirabilis Deus, April 11, 1567, op. cit. 98.
•• Bull In eminenti, July 29, 1570, op cit., 99.

24

SANTIAGO

RAMIREZ

Clement VIII praised him as the angelic interpreter of the
divine will, 71 and added:

The prQof of his doctrine is the great number of books which he
wrote in a very short time, in practically every branch of learning,
with remarkable order and wonderful planning, and with no error
at all. While writing these works he had the holy Apostles Peter
and Paul speaking to him and at the command of God they explained certain passages to him. When he finished his works he
heard them approved by the express word of Christ the Lord. 72
For Paul V, St. Thomas is the shining athlete of the Catholic
faith:
By the shield of whose works the Church Militant happily escaped
the darts of heretics/ 3 defender of the Catholic Church and conqueror of heretics. 14
Making this idea his own, Benedict
brethren of the Order of Preachers:

Xlll wrote to the

Pursue with energy your Doctor's works, more brilliant than the
sun and written without the shad.ow of error. These works made
the Church illustrious with wonderful erudition, since they march
ahead and proceed with unimpeded step, protecting and vindicating
by that surest rule of Christian doctrine, the truth of our holy
religion.75
His doctrine, continually commended to the faithful by the
constant approbation of the Supreme Pontiffs, cannot be
adorned with praise befitting its great merits in the Church.
That same doctrine, lighting up the whole world as the sun,
brought forth tremendous good for the Christian Church and
every day bears more fruit. 76
Benedict XIV again brought these things to mind and
adopted them in the Bull approving the Theological College of
Bull ln quo est, Nov. 22, 1603, op. cit., 109.
Bull Sicut Angeli, Nov. 22, 1603, op. cit., Hii!.
70 Bull Splendidissimus athleta, Sept. 17, 1607, op. cit., 117.
74 Bull Cum sicut, Oct. 20, 1614, ibid.
75 Bull Demissas preces, Nov. 6, 1724, op. cit. 147.
70 Bull Pretiosus, May 26, 1727, ibid., 148, 149.
71

72

THE AUTHORITY

OF ST. THOMAS AQUINAS

fl5

St; Denis outside of Granada, on August fll, 1756. At the time
he greatly praised and confirmed its statutes which commanded
" that henceforth none of the Masters or Lectors of the College
of St. Denis shall read, hand down or explain any other doctrine
to their students in that College." 77 Having himself written
many learned works, the !>'lntiff freely confessed on his own
behalf:
In the works We have written on various points, after We had
dill.gently perused and examined the opinion of the Angelic Doctor,
We adhered and subscribed freely to his ever admirable doctrine.
We candidly confess that if there is anything good in our books it
must be ascribed wholly to such a great Teacher rather than to
Ourselves. 78

The same Pontiff continued:
The other praises of the holy Doctor are surpassed by this, that
he never despised his opponents or seemed to vilify or betray them
but treated all courteously and very humanely. If he came upon
any of their expressions which were inaccurate, ambiguous or
obscure, he would temper his criticism with a smooth and benign
interpretation. If the cause of religion or faith demanded that he
investigate and refute their opinion, he would accomplish the
refutation with so much discretion that he deserved no less praise
for his manner of disagreement than for his assertion of the
Catholic truth. 79

Pius VI would not at all allow " that the divine eloquence
of Thomas should be bandied about, as if it were a novel
doctrine, and impugned by idle discussion " so since, as he
himself said later:
In many schools Thomas Aquinas was rightly called the Sun of
doctrine and the standard for theologians, because he taught only
what was consistent with Sacred Scripture and the Fathers. Every" Op. cit., 156.
78 Allocution to
the Dominican Gene1·al Chapter, July 8, 1756, the Pontiff
presiding, op. cit., 158.
79 Constitution Sollicita, op. cit., 161.
80 Allocution to the Dominican General Chapter, the Pontiff presiding, May 17,
1777, op. cit., 170.

26

SANTIAGO RAMiREZ

thing he wrote is worthy, as it is piously said, of divine confirmation. And so Our predecessors commended his doctrine with outstanding praises as the shield of Christian religion and the resolute
guardian of the Church. Recently, Benedict XIV, whose wisdom
We thoroughly admired, ordered Thomistic doctrine to be restored
in the College of St. Denis the Areopagite outside Granada, and
proposed the penalty of interdict for anyone who departed from it. 81

Pius IX said:
The facts testify that the Church, in the Ecumenical Councils
held after his death, so used his writings that many of the decrees
propounded found their source in his works and sometimes even
the same words were used to clarify Catholic dogmas or to destroy
rising errors.82

Leo XIII, recalling all these instances and going beyond
them, recollected with approval that Thomas' doctrine was
present at the deliberations and the decrees of the Fathers in
all the Ecumenical Councils held after his death. Not only
was it present but practically presiding " and contending with
irresistible force arid auspicious result against the errors of the
Greeks, heretics and rationalists." The Pontiff ! added:
This is the greatest glory of Thomas, altogether his own and shared
with no other Catholic Doctor, that the Fathers of Trent, in order
to proceed in an orderly fashion during the conclave, desired to
have opened upon the altar together with the Scriptures and the
decrees of the Supreme Pontiffs, the Summa of St. Thomas Aquinas
whence they could draw coul!-sel, reasons and answers.83
Leo XIII himself desired nothing more than
that the excellent wisdom of the Angelic Doctor flow far and wide.
There is nothing more suitable to oppose the perverse notions of
our times. There is no more powerful agent for conserving the
truth. 84
81

Ibid.

Letter to Fr. Raymond Bianchi, July 9, 1870, op. cit., 177.
83 Aeterni Patri.s, loc. cit., 66.
84 Motu proprio Placere nobis, on the complete edition of the works of St.
Thomas Aquinas, Jan. 18, 1880, cf. Berthier, op. cit.,
82

THE AUTHORITY

OF ST. THOMAS AQUINAS

27

Truly,
anyone seriously interested in Philosophy and Theology and desirous of attaining some proficiency in those disciplines needs
nothing more than a greater familiarity with the Summa contra
Gentiles and the Summa Theologtae. 85

Indeed,
the book par excellence whence students can study Scholastic
Theology with much profit is the Summa Theologiae of St.
Thomas. 86 And those who are doing any work in sacred science
so sharply attacked at present, have a source in the volumes of St.
Thomas whence they can fully demonstrate the bases of Christian
faith, whence they can convince others of supernatural truth, and
whence they can repel the vicious attacks of the enemy upon our
holy religion. 87

The Pontiff was lavish in his praise of Francis Satolli, later
Cardinal Prefect of the Sacred Congregation of Studies, for his
edition of commentaries
on the Summa of St. Thomas Aquinas, so that his readers might
not allow the text of the Angelic Doctor to escape from their hands.
In this way only and not otherwise will the genuine doctrine of
St. Thomas flourish in the schools, which is a goal very dose to
Our heart. For the method of teaching which relies upon the
authority and judgment of several masters has a changeable basis,
in that mutually contradictory opinions arise which cannot be
1·econciled with the mind of St. Thomas. Then, too, such diverse
opinions nourish dissension and disagreement which can no longer
disturb Catholic schools without great harm to Christian knowledge. We desire that teachers of Sacred Theology, imitating the
Tridentine Fathers, should wish to have the Summa of St. Thomas
open on their desks before them, whence they may find counsel,
arguments and theological conclusions. From such schools the
Church may rightly expect fearless soldiers who can destroy error
and defend Catholicism. 88
Letter to Cardinals Simeoni and Zigliara, Oct. 2, 1886, op. cit., 230.
Encyclical Depuis le jour, on the education of the clergy in France, Sept. 8,
1899. Acts, VI, 100.
87 Brief Cum hoc sit, Aug. 4, 1880, op. cit., I, H4.
88 Letter of June 19, 1886, op. cit., 228.
85

86

SANTIAGO

RAMIREZ

He also strongly praised A. Breznay for editing the works
of Cardinal Peter Pazmany,
Pazmany is one who with profound sense and lofty erudition has
issued treatises on the nobler branches of learning. He followed as
leader and master our remarkable Thomas, who is easily the prince
of Sacred Science. 89

He insisted yet more urgently:
This point is vital, that Bishops expend every effort to see that
young men, destined to be the hope of the Church, should be
imbued with the holy and heavenly doctrine of the Angelic Doctor.
In those places where young men have devoted themselves to the
patronage and doctrine of St. Thomas, true wisdom will flourish,
drawn as it is from solid principles, and explained by reason in
an orderly fashion. 90
We know that the Catholic clergy will be more solidly penetrated
by divine science the more fully and thoroughly it is imbued with
the doctrine of St. Thomas Aquinas. 91 The more the clergy is
penetrated by the doctrine of St. Thomas, the more it will go forth
instructed with stronger bases for a solid faith, and so much the
more fruitful and useful will be its ministry to the faithful. Furthermore, those who impede Catholic truth with fallacious arguments will find its defenders better prepared, and supplied with
excellent weapons for a strenuous defense. 92

If Sacred Theology is seen to flourish and progress according
to the mind of St. Thomas, that fact should be a cause for
rejoicing. So the Archbishop of Milan is congratulated upon the
restoration :in the Theological Faculty o£ Milan of
Theology proceeding correctly and well according to the plan and
method of Aquinas in accordance with Our command. Every day
We become more clearly aware how powerfully Sacred Doctrine
taught by its Master and Patron, Thomas, affords the greatest
possible utility for both clergy and laity. 93

In following the leadership of Thomas scholars enter upon
Letter of Sept. 5, 1901, op. cit., 269.
Apostolic Letter on the Mexican Hierarchy, June 23, 1891, op. cit., 239.
91 Letter to Rev. P. J. Berthier, Aug. 29, 1892, op. cit., 242.
92 Letter to the Patriarch
of Venice, March 26, 1881, op. cit., 217-218.
98 Letter of July 31, 1893, op. cit., 254.

89

90

THE AUTHORITY

OF S'.r. THOMAS AQUINAS

!l9

the right path for seeking a knowledge of the mysteries of faith,
as far as this life allows. And so,
It is right that young men in the Academies and Schools should
be chiefly exercised in acquiring a scientific knowledge of dogma
by means of reasoning from the articles of faith to their consequences, according to the rules of approved and sound philosophy;
yet the judicious and instr.ucted theologian will by no means pass
by that method of doctrine which draws its proof from the
authority of the Bible; for Theology does not receive its principles
from any other science but immediately from God by revelation.
So it does not receive of other sciences as from a superior but uses
them as her inferiors and handmaids. (Summa Theol., I, q. 1, a
5 ad 2.) It is this view of doctrinal teaching which is laid down
and recommended by the prince of theologians, Aquinas. 94

St. Thomas is to be considered the master not only in
speculative theology but also in positive theology and biblical
exegesis. The Pontiff went on,
Care must be taken that young men approach biblical studies
suitably instructed and formed; otherwise just hopes will be
frustrated, or what is worse, they will unthinkingly risk the danger
of error, falling an easy prey to the sophism and labored erudition
of the Rationalists. They will be very well prepared indeed if,
by the method We have pointed out and prescribed, they studiously cultivate and thoroughly understand Philosophy and Theology under the leadership of St. Thomas. In this way they will be
well prepared to begin the study both of the Bible and of positive
theology and will make satisfactory progress in both. 95
By his own example the Pontiff strengthened this admonition.
For, in his learned and salutary Encyclical Letters he always
used St. Thomas Aquinas as his guide and preceptor. This can
be easily recognized in his Encyclical Providentissimus Deus on
the study of Sacred Scripture, the Encyclicals Immortale Dei
and Sapientiae Christianae on the Christian constitution of
States and the civil duties of Christians, the Encyclicals Rerum
N ovarum and Libertas on social and political questions, the
Encyclical Satis. cognitum on the unity of the Church, the
•• Providentisaimus Deus, Nov. 18, 1898, op. cit., IV,
""Ibid.

30

SANTIAGO

RAMIREZ

Encyclicals Tametsi and Mime caritatis on Christ the Redeemer
and the Holy Eucharist, the Encyclical Divinum illud munus
on the action of the Holy Spirit in the souls of the just, and
many others.
Blessed Pius X made all these remarkable approbations of
Thomistic theology his own and asserted that the chief of Leo's
praises is his restoration of the doctrine of St. Thomas. For he
restored the Angelic Doctor . . . as the leader and master of
Theology, whose divine genius fashioned weapons marvelously
suited to protect the truth and destroy the many errors of the
times. Indeed, those principles of wisdom, useful for all time,
which the holy Fathers and Doctors passed on to us, have been
organized by no one more aptly than by Thomas, and no one has
explained them more clearly. 96

He also found much consolation in the fact that the study of
Theology in the University of Fribourg in Switzerland
Was being guided by Dominican brethren who, following a true
appraisal of science, especially of sacred science, clothe themselves
with the security of true teaching, for they have their own brother
in Theology, that divine light, Thomas Aquinas, who is not only
the prince but also the leader and master of sacred schools. This
is as Our predecessor Leo XIII ordered and We confirm that order
with the certainty of fruitful results. 97

In addition he urged,
That no one, in any way whatsoever, depart from the regulations
of the Church in the matter of teaching. Rejecting modernistic
fallacies, let them deal only with the sources of Sacred Doctrine and
well-based Philosophy from the rich vein of the Angelic Doctor. 98

Indeed those who depart from Thomas, especially in Theology,
"seem to effect ultimately their own withdrawal from the
Church." 99
96 Apostolic Letter In praecipuis to the Roman Academy of St. Thomas, Jan. 23,
1904, Acta Pii X, ed. Bonne Presse, I, 124.
97 Letter to the Bishop of St. Gall, Feb. 6, 1906, cf. Berthier, op. cit., 1!74.
98 Letter
to the Professors of the Theological Faculty of Fribourg, July 11,
1908, op. cit., £77.
•• Letter to Fr. Pegues, Nov. 17, 1907, op. cit., 276.

THE AUTHORITY

OF ST. THOMAS

AQUINAS

31

On the contrary, to follow Thomas as leader is the same as
never departing from the rule of Christian truth. 100
In this particular matter no safer principle can be employed than
to follow Thomas as leader and master. Those who write of divine
things according to his mind draw great light and strength from
this source. 101

We consider of very great value the doctrine of St. Thomas Aquinas,
with which We especially wish all students to be imbued, in order
that they may sweep out depraved ideas of divine and human
things, which insinuate themselves everywhere, and being solidly
based in Christian truth themselves, they may implant it deeply
in the hearts of all. 102
As we have said, one may not desert Aquinas, especially in philosophy and theology, without great harm; following him is the
safest way to a knowledge of divine things. 103
His golden doctrine lights up the mind with his own brilliance, his
path and method lead to the deepest knowledge of divine things
without any danger of error.104

He added this most grave pronouncement in which unique
doctrinal authority in the Church is attributed to Aquinas,
If the doctrine of any author or saint has ever been approved at
any time by U's or Our predecessors with singular commendation
joined with an invitation and order to propagate and to defend it,
it may easily be understood that it was commended only insofar
as it agreed with the principles of Aquinas or was in no way opposed
to them. 105

So, Theology as taught in Catholic schools must strictly
follow the true doctrine of St. Thomas,
the master of Sacred Theology. . . . Teachers should prudently
call to mind that the power to teach has been given to them not in
Letter to Fr. Velasquez, March 7, 1909, AAS 1 (1909), £75.
Letter to Fr. Lottini, Aug. 8, 1910, AAS 2 (1910), 7£4.
102 Letter to Fr. Cormier, Aug. 4, 1913, op. cit., 280.
103 Motu proprio Praeclara, June 24, 1914, AAS 6 (1914), 335.
104 Ibid., 134.
105 Motu proprio Doctoris Angelici, June 29, 1914, AAS 6 (1914).
100
101

3

SANTIAGO

RAMIREZ

order to pass on their own opinions to their students, but to impart
to them the approved doctrines of the Church. 106
Furthermore,
For the more profound study of this science, as it ought to be
studied in Universities and Colleges, and in all Seminaries and
Institutes empowered to grant academic degrees, it is of first importance that the old system of lecturing on the actual text of the
Summa Theologica-which should never have been allowed to fall
into disuse-be revived; for the reason also that lectures on this
book make it easier to understand and even to illustrate the solemn
decrees of the Teaching Church and the acts which have since been
passed. For, ever since the happy death of the holy Doctor, the
Church has not held a single Council, but he has been present at
it with the wealth of his doctrine. 101
And so, in order that the genuine and entire doctrine of St. Thomas
may flourish in our schools, a hope which is very close to Our heart,
and in order that the system of teaching be abolished which
depends upon the authority and judgment of the individual teacher,
and therefore has a changeable foundation whence many diverse
and mutally conflicting opinions arise not without great injury to
Christian learning, (Leo XIII; Letter Qui .te, June 19, 1886) We
will, order and command that teachers of Sacred Theology in Universities, Academies, Colleges, Seminaries and Institutes having
the power by Apostolic indult to grant academic degrees and doctorates in that field take the Summa Theologica as the text for
their lectures and explain it in Latin. They should also take particular care that their students develop a deep affection for the
Summa. . . . In this way and in no other will Theology be restored
to its pristine dignity, and the proper order and value will be
restored to all sacred studies, and the province of the intellect and
reason flower again in a second spring. 1 os
The Roman Pontiff himself explained the sense and force
of his words in an audience granted the professors and students
of the Angelicum College at Rome, June 28, 1914, at which we
were privileged to be present. Pius X said then that he wanted
no other doctrine than that of Thomas in the Church of God,
in view of the fact that his is the pure, solid, complete doctrine
108Jbid.

107Jbid.

108Jbid.

THE AUTHORITY

OF ST. THOMAS AQUINAS

88

of the Church, and more than that, the
of Christ
Himself and of God Himself.
From this the meaning of what he wrote a few days before to
the College of St. Anselm in Rome is clearly evident:
That the privilege of conferring all the academic degrees in philosophy and theology may bear more abundant fruit for the Order
and the Church, We desire and command that the Professors of
the College of St. Anselm always follow the doctrine of Aquinas in
philosophy and theology, and use the text itself in their lectures
to the students of Theology who are working for degrees.109

Benedict XV unhesitatingly repeated the same thought:
It is a holy and salutary practice, and practically necessary in
Catholic schools where young men are acquiring a knowledge of
philosophy and theology, to have Thomas Aquinas as the supreme
master. Therefore, what has been most wisely determined in this
matter by Our predecessors, especially Leo XIII and Pius X of
happy memory, is to be retained whole and inviolate at all costs.
In addition, we consider it extremely useful if the Angelic Doctor
were to step out from the very ·sanctuary of the school, as it were,
and proffer the almost divine light of his brilliance to all who de!lire
to be more deeply learned in their religion. For it is clear that the
Modernists, as they are called, have fallen into such a great variety
of opinions, all distant from the faith, precisely because they have
neglected the principles and teaching of St. Thomas. 110

He wrote to Fr. Theissling:
We know as well as Our wise predcessors how to be zealous for the
glory of Aquinas and We desire that this great Doctor, as he is
the more viciously assailed by the heretics of our times, should
on that account be more conscientiously regarded as leader and
master by students for the Church in the study of philosophy and
in sacred studies.m

Indeed, he is the one " whom, as a son of Dominic, God
considered worthy to illumine His Church"; 112 for he with his
Motu proprio Praeclara, loc. cit.
Letter to Fr. Hugon, May 5, 1916, AAS 8 (1916), 174.
111 Letter of Nov. 17, 1918, AAS 10 (1918), 480.
112 Encyclical Fausto appetente, June 29, 1921, AAS 18 (1921), 884.
109
110

34

SANTIAGO RAMIREZ

marvelous wisdom and holiness bound fast to himself every
lover of the true and the good. For,
Who is there devoted to serious study, with love for Holy Church
joined to zeal for learning, who does not most faithfully cherish
Thomas Aquinas, whose doctrine by the gift of divine providence
furnishes so dependable a light for the Church to strengthen the
truth and destroy error forever? To the credit of the Order of
Preachers we must add this praise, not so much that it nourished
the Angelic Doctor, but that never after, even in the slightest degree,
has it deviated from his doctrine. 118
To the Theological College of Bologna he wrote:
We note with approval that Thomas Aquinas is there held in a
proper position of respect. Our predecessors, the illustrious Leo
XIII and Pius X, extolled his doctrine with highest praise and
prescribed that it be religiously retained in Catholic schools.
He strongly praised this policy. And at the same time he
reminded the Theological Faculty of the obligation of holding
inviolate the principles of St. Thomas and of teaching the
Summa Theologica itself in the schools of Theology, according
to the prescriptions of the :J\..Iotu proprio Doctoris Angelici.114
He commanded the same in the statutes of the Roman
Academy of St. Thomas Aquinas republished by his order on
March 12, 1915.115 And on March 7, 1916 he confirmed on his
own authority the decree of Pius X on using the· Summa
Theologica as the text for lectures in all the Theological
Faculties of Italy and the adjacent islands:
The Summa Theologica must be used as the text for lectures in
the scholastic part of teaching, in such a way that, together with
some other text indicating the logical order of questions and containing the positive part of theology, the Summa Theologica is
used and explained for the scholastic part of the doctrine. 116
The theological wisdom of Aquinas holds a very high place
Letter to Fr. Theissling, Oct. 29, 1916, AAS 8 (1916), 397.
proprio Sacrae Theologiae, Dec. 8, 1914, AAS (1914) 690, 691.
110 AAS 7 (1915), 129.
16 Response of the S. Cong. of Seminaries and Universities, AAS 8 (1916), 157.
113

114 Motu

THE AUTHORITY

OF ST. THOMAS

AQUINAS

35

not only in dogmatic and moral theology but also in Apologetics, Ascetical, and Mystical Theology, as well as in Catechetics.
In Apologetics, as the Pontiff wrote to Fr. Garrigou-Lagrange:
That Aquinas has a phenomenal power for clarifying and defending
Christian wisdom, is dear from your recent book De Revelatione.
In your explanation of that part of fundamental theology called
Apologetics you use the doctrine and method of St. Thomas in
such a way that you singularly overcome not only the ancient but
even the recent adversaries of the Christian faith. 117

In Ascetical and Mystical Theology as well,
Everyone is aware of the power of St. Thomas' doctrine to illustrate
spiritual principles in both the ascetical and mystical life, and We
freely admit Our indebtedness to him on more than one occasion.U 8
For he explained most clearly the doctrine of the Scriptures and of
the Saints and Fathers on the elevation to the spiritual life and the
conditions necessary for progress in the grace of the virtues and
gifts of the Holy Ghost, of which the perfection of the mystical
life is composed.m

In the fielq of Catechetics Thomas holds a high place, as
is clear from the words Benedict used in his hearty congratulation of Fr. Pegues on the appearance of his French edition of
the Summa in the form of a catechism. Using this occasion the
Pontiff declared that Thomas is the Master and Doctor of the
whole Church, i.e., of all the faithful, clergy, laity, the wise
and the unlearned, and of all time.
The eminent commendations of Thomas Aquinas by the Holy See
no longer permit a Catholic to doubt that he was divinely raised
up that the Church might have a master whose doctrine should
be followed in a special way at all times. The singular wisdom of
the man seems suitable to be offered directly not only to the clergy
but to all who wish to extend their study of religion, and to the
117

118
119

Letter of Feb. 14, 1919, AAS ll (1919), 121.
Letter to Fr. Bernadot, Sept. 15, 1921, AAS 13 (1921), 528.

Ibid.

36

SANTIAGO

RAMIREZ

people generally as well. For nature brings it about that the more
dearly a person approaches to the light, the more fully is he
illuminated. 120
Finally the Pontiff desired all these approbations and commendations to be a law for the Universal Church, preserved
inviolably forever, for he inserted this prescription in the Code
of Canon Law:
Professors shall teach Theology and Philosophy and train students
in these studies entirely according to the method, doctrine and
principles of the Angelic Doctor, which they shall hold inviolately.
(can. 1366, 2)
In these words, as Pius XI said, " The method, doctrine and
principles of the Angelic Doctor are clearly consecrated." 121 and
as it were, canonized.
By this law St. Thomas is truly raised to the position of
teacher of the Church itself, and there is a literal fulfillment of
the complete sense of that saying of Benedict XV: "The
Church declared that the doctrine of Thomas is its own." 122
Rightly, therefore, did Pius XI recognize and restore the
primitive title " Common Doctor of the Church " attributed to
Aquinas;
Indeed, We so approve of the tributes paid to his almost divine
brilliance that We believe Thomas should be called not only Angelic
but even Common or Universal Doctor of the Church. As innumerable documents of every kind attest, the Church has adopted his
doctrine for her own.123
This Pontiff, following the footsteps of his predecessors, 124
added:
Letter of Feb, 9, 1919, AAS H (1919), 71.
Studiorum ducem, loc. cit., 314.
122 Encyclical Fausto appetente, loc. cit.,
123 Studiorum ducem, loc. cit.
124 " Si, Eminenza, noi cammiremo, per quanto Iddio ci concedera, sulle orme dei
nosti predecessori," Allocution to the members of the Roman Academy of St.
Thomas, Cardinal Bisleti presiding, March 18, 1923, cf. M. Cordovani, 0. P., "San
Tommaso nella parola di Pio XI," Angelicum 6
6.
120

THE AUTHORITY

OF ST. THOMAS AQUINAS

87

What has been providentially determined in canon law on this
matter should by all means be religiously and inviolately observed,
since its purpose is to prepare a plenitude of priests who are equal
to a task of such great magnitude. 125
Applying this to the Universities and Faculties of ecclesiastical
studies in the whole Church he decreed:
Sacred Theology holds the chief place in a Theological Faculty.
This study must be pursued by both a positive and a scholastic
method. Therefore, when the truths of faith are explained and
demonstrated from Scripture and tradition, their nature and close
relation to the principles and doctrines of St. Thomas is to be
investigated and clarified.126
So that no part of the Church would remain exempted from
the obligation of following Thomas, he extended the regulation
to the regular clergy:
Let that, indeed, be inviolable for you which We published in agreement with Canon Law in Our Apostolic Letter on Seminaries and
Clerical Studies, namely, that teachers, in teaching the principles of
philosophy and theology, faithfully adhere to the scholastic method
according to the principles and doctrines of Aquinas. Is anyone
unaware how wonderfully suitable the scholastic discipline and
angelic wisdom of Thomas is, which Our predecessors continually
embellished with the most fulsome praise, for the purpose of
explaining divine truths and refuting the errors of every age? The
Angelic Doctor, so states Leo XIII, Our predecessor of immortal
memory, in the encyclical Aeterni Patris, rich in divine and human
knowledge, comparable to the sun, is responsible for the fact that
he alone vanquished every error then in existence and supplied us
with invincible weapons for destroying later errors which would
continually arise.127
For this reason the Pontiff expressed the greatest pleasure
which the "Dogmatic Tracts" of Fr. Edward Hugon, 0. P.
afforded him:
Apostolic Letter 0/ficiO'I"Um omnium, Aug. 1, 1922. AAS 14 (1922), 454, 455.
Apostolic Constitution Deus scientiarum Dominus, May 24, 1981. AAS 28
(1981)' 258.
107 Apostolic Letter Unigenitus Dei Filius to the supreme moderators of Religious
Orders and of other Societies of religious men, March 19, 1924, AAS 16 (1924), 144.
106

100

38

SANTIAGO

RAMIREZ

Understand, dear son, that your treatises in which you explain
theology for students in the form of a commentary on the principal
dogmatic questions of the Summa of St. Thomas merit Our hearty
approval, especially because you seem to have treated those very
points which We not so long ago directed in an Apostolic Letter to
the Cardinal Prefect of the Sacred Congregation of Seminaries and
Universities. For you have followed, as We then advised, not only
the plan and method of St. Thomas, but his doctrines and principles
as well. Throughout the whole tract you have caused positive
theology, as it is called, to serve scholastic theology in such a way
that the latter holds the chief place, as it should. Your work does
not offer merely a dry review of dogmas. Rather, it presents a true
and solid body of doctrine made up of principles and conclusions.
Further, We are pleased to commend the lucidity of its content and
expression and the zeal which prompts you, when the occasion is
offered, to inject a spark of piety into the mind of the reader by
your apt comments. So, continue with eagerness to pass on sacred
science by word and writing to youths studying for the priesthood,
following the mind of Aquinas. 128

Not only is the clergy to be steeped in this advantageous
doctrine-and on this
he congratulated the
Archbishop of Bologna, N assali Rocca, and the professors of the
Theological Faculty of Bologna for drawing wisdom from the
most pure source of Aquinas in order to educate their students
in accordance with the commands and exhortations of himself
and his predecessor 129-but even the laity should more fully
cultivate and steep themselves in Christian wisdom. For that
reason he praised the bishops of the whole region of Emilia
for courses provided to this end. 130 It also afforded him great
pleasure that the professors of the Catholic Institute of Paris
follow Thomas Aquinas as a leader in such a way that many
of the clergy and educated laity taste and study his doctrine,
as it were, by the right of return to former privileges. 131
Indeed,
The doctrine of St. Thomas i.s light which descends from God and
Letter of February 25, 1923. AAS 15 (1923), 209.
Letter of Jan. H, 1924. AAS Hi (1924), 90.
130 Letter of July 4, 1925. AAS 17 (192.5), 375.
131 Letter to Cardinal Luc;;on, Oct. 18, 1925. Ibid., 574.

128

129

THE AUTHORITY

OF ST. THOMAS AQUINAS

89

returns to God. Truly in this man, whose virtue and doctrine, as
has been well said, made of him the most learned of the saints and
the most saintly of the learned, the divine wisdom willed to imprint
Its mark more broadly and to enkindle one of the most luminous
rays of Its immortal light. . .. It is no wonder that the Church
has made this light. her own and has adorned herself with it and
has illustrated her immortal doctrine with it. . . . It is no wonder
that all the Popes have nobly vied with one another in exalting
him, proposing him, inculcating him, as a model, master, doctor,
patron and protector of all schools.
As for himself,
He will always recommend to all true friends of faith and knowledge, of natural and revealed truth, that they remain faithful to
St. Thomas and his doctrine. 132
Truly Thomas is the Leader and Master of studies and the
Universal Doctor o£ the Church, as the Pontiff pointed out in
his Encyclical Studiorum Ducem. He is the master in the major
branches o£ learning, especially the sacred sciences, in which
with marvelous sagacity he joins true science and piety.
This union of doctrine with piety, learning with virtue, truth with
charity, is singularly manifest in the Angelic Doctor. And it is not
without reason that he has been given the sun for a device, for he
both brings the light of science to the mind, and at the same time
fires the will with virtue. And, therefore, God the source of all
sanctity and wisdom, evidently seems to have desired to point out
in the case of Thomas how each of these qualities assists the other,
how the practice of the virtues disposes to the contemplation of
truth, and in turn, the profound consideration of truth gives lustre
and perfection to the virtues. 133
Through the work and accomplishment of Thomas Sacred
Theology was raised to the pinnacle of its dignity. This is true
in apologetics, dogma and moral, ascetical and mystical, biblical
and liturgical matters, as is clear from the office he composed
in honor of the Holy Eucharist. He is considered to be not only
the Theologian of the Holy Eucharist but its greatest prophet
132
133

Allocution to the members of the Roman Academy, lac. cit.
Lac. cit., 809-810.

40
and herald.
Doctor. 18 '

SANTIAGO RAMIREZ

For that reason he is· also called Eucharistic

St. Thomas is the bard of the Eucharist and its Doctor: Cantor
et Doctor Eucharisticus; a poet sweet, sublime, luminous even when
he employs neither verse nor meter. When he treats of the Divine
Eucharist he carries us to the center which was his center, to the
secret which was his secret, to the source of his purity, to the
celestial.food which was his angelic nourishment. 135
All these things are especially resplendent in his Summa
Theologiae which "is heaven seen from earth." 136
In this allocution the Pontiff himself declared the real sense
of how St. Thomas is the Guide of studies and Common Doctor
of the Church, which title he had conferred upon Thomas in
the Encyclical Studiorum Ducem.

Guide in studies:
Of all studies and of the method in all studies. The question of
method is of capital importance. In order for science to be strict
and luminous, method is all-important. When the method is erroneous and the path is lost, progress is impossible; and therefore a
guide is necessary. Thomas is the guide, the Dux in via. . . .

Of a method which teaches how to prepare, so to speak, order in
the soul, which forms a sort of spiritual filing cabinet. When we
have many things to keep in proper order a filing cabinet is necessary, just as a card index is kept in archives and in libraries. Intellectual compartments in which all knowledge must be stored and
systematized are found in that which we call method; and St.
Thomas is, in this respect, a peerless master, and therefore he is
the Leader in studies.

Common Doctor:
Doctor of the whole Church, of every science, of all knowable
things; a characteristic which approaches divine power. In few
intellects has the participation of the divine intellect sparkled so
brilliantly, for which reason we ask ourselve_sif the Eternal Creator
Ibid., 817-820.
Allocution to the professors and students of the Angelicum College, Nov. 12,
1924, cf. Xenia Tkomistica, ill, 600-601, Rome, 1995.
188 lbid., 600.
184

186

THE .AUTHORITY

OF ST. THOMAS .AQUINAS

41

ever left a deeper imprint upon other minds. In his teaching is
found par excellence one of the characteristics of the book of life.
In all circumstances of life, for all problems which can arise that
book has a word and a solution to proffer us. Such is the character
of the Holy Gospel because it is the word of God. Something of
this divine characteristic is in St. Thomas in his classical works:
the Summa Philosophica and the Summa Theologica. In these
books, well read and carefully consulted, there is a word and a
solution for all the questions that can be presented to us: a sure
word and a word of genius; they are two books which summarize
the entire universe, heaven and earth. The Summa Theologica is
heaven seen from earth, and the Summa contra Gentiles is earth
seen from heaven ... It is for this :reason that St. Thomas
merited the name of Common Doctor.
Let him, therefore, always be your light; let his books be your
constant advisers; from his books always attain truth: if studied
wisely and tirelessly, they will furnish the reply to all your questions with immense benefit for life.137
From this he concluded in the Encyclical Studiorum Ducem:
Just as it was said of old to the Egyptians in time of famine: "Go
to Joseph," so that they should receive a supply of corn to nourish
their bodies, so to those who are now in quest of truth We now say:
" Go to Thomas,'' that they may ask from him the food of solid
doctrine of which he has an abundance to nourish their souls unto
eternal life.138
Finally, Pius XII following the footsteps and counsels of
his predecessors stated that those precepts found in the Code of

Canon Law and in the C(Yf/,stitution"Deus scientiarum DominWJ ' relative to following and teaching the theological doctrine
of St. Thomas in Catholic schools bind and have an obligatory
force, issued as they were in the manner of a decree. That
doctrine, resting upon a solid rock, above and beyond the
ravages of time, flourishes perpetually. It forms an invincible
protection for the deposit of Catholic faith and even now safeguards it. It furnishes a safe path in leading to new investigations, and when they are completed, safely and prudently enjoys
the results. In these studies " the Angelic Doctor is always a
131

Op. cit., 599-600.

108

Loc. cit., 823.

42

SANTIAGO

RAMiREZ

most skilled leader and is a never-failing light whose accomplishments will always remain fresh." 139 " By this road one
may proceed to a safe and solid knowledge of the truth." 140
He admonished the members of the Society of Jesus " to
observe with all diligence their laws which command them to
follow the doctrine of St. Thomas as being more solid, safe,
approved and consonant with their Constitutions." 141
" These things have the force of law, which bind all Catholic
schools of philosophy and theology," 14' 2 and therefore are to be
observed by all as sacred and inviolable. He declared to the
students of the regular and secular clergy pursuing sacred
studies at Rome:
It is that wisdom of Aquinas which collected the truths of human
reason, illustrated them with brilliance, and most aptly and solidly
unified them into a wonderful whole. It is the wisdom of Aquinas
which is especially suited to declare and defend the dogmas of the
faith. And finally it is his wisdom which was able to refute effectively the basic errors continually arising, and conquer them invincibly. Wherefore, dear sons, bring to St. Thomas a heart full
of love and zeal. With all your powers strive to explore with your
intellect his excellent doctrine. Freely embrace whatever clearly
pertains to it and is supported by a solid reason found in it. 143

Aquinas, the Angelic and Common Doctor, like the sea receiving
into himself the rivers of wisdom from all who lived before his
time, and whatever human reason had attained by thought and
mental labor, so composed and ordered all of it in a wonderful
manner and with brilliant clearness after exposing it to the supernal
light emanating from the Gospel, that he seems to have left to
his successors the power to imitate but to have taken away the
power to surpass. The doctrine of Thomas not only was most apt
for destroying ancient heresies, and for that reason stands forth
as the champion of faith and firm bulwark of religion, but also
189 Allocution to the Dominican General Chapter, Sept. 22, 1946. AAS 88 (1946),
887-888.
140

Ibid.

Allocution to the Jesuit General Congregation September 17, 1946, AAS 88
(1946)' 880.
142 Allocution to the Dominican General Chapter, loc. cit.
us June 24, 1989. AAS 81 (1989). 246.
141

THE. AUTHORITY

OF ST. THOMAS AQUINAS

48

offers the most powerful weapon for destroying thoroughly enors
which are being reborn in perpetual succession and which wear
the garb of newness.
Therefore, all who attend Catholic schools of any type should
cherish, revere and imitate Thomas Aquinas as a heavenly patron,
those especially who study him in philosophy and theology, and
specifically students divinely called to the priesthood and growing
into the hope of the Church, ought to follow Thomas as leader and
master, recalling that there is an innate excellence in Thomistic
doctrine and a singular force and power to cure the evils which
affiict our age. 144

Those things which in om day have been foolishly and
erroneously proposed by certain people on the Mystical Body
of Christ which is the Church, could have been avoided if they
had followed Aquinas in the matter. Fo:r examination of this
doctrine
should have taken into account the very lucid opinions of masters
of scholastic theology and especiallY, the Angelic and Common
Doctor, for they had discoursed on this point. You surely realize
that his arguments closely correspond to the thought of the
Fathers. Those arguments add nothing new but merely comment,
by way of explanation, upon the divine words of Scripture. 145

Similarly, the doctrine and deeper investigation of biblical
inspiration, resting on the principles of the Angelic Doctor,
offers new aids and insights for exegesis. The Pontiff said:
Among other things, this seems to deserve special mention. Catholic
theologians following the ;doctrine of the Fathers and especially
that of the Angelic and Common Doctor, have examined and explained the nature and effects of biblical inspiration more exactly
and more fully than was wont to be done in previous ages. For
having begun by expounding minutely the principle that the
inspired. writer, in composing the sacred book, is the living and
reasonable instrument of the Holy Spirit, they rightly observe that,
impelled by the divine motion, he so uses his faculties and powers,
that from the books composed by him all may easily infer the
special character of each one and, as it were, his personal traits.
to Fr. Gillet, March 7, 1942, .AAS 34 (1942), 97.
Encyclical Mystici Corporis, June 29, 1943. AAS 35 (1948), 208.

u. Letter
145

44

SANTIAGO

RAMIREZ

Let the interpreter then, with all care and without neglecting any
light derived from recent :research, endeavor to determine the
peculiar character and circumstances of the sacred writer, the age
in which he lived, the sources written or oral to which he had
reCOurSe and the forms Of expression he employed. 146

Further on he says,
For of the modes of expression which, among ancient peoples, and
especially those of the East, human language used to express its
thought, none is excluded from the Sacred Books, provided the way
of speaking adopted in no wise contradicts the holiness and truth
of God, as, with his customary wisdom, the Angelic Doctor already
observed in these words. ' In Scripture divine things are presented
to us in the manner which is in common use amongst men.'
(Comment. ad Hebr., Cap. l.lect. 4) (For as the substantial Word
of God became like tq men in aU things, except sin, so the words of
God, expressed in human language, are made like to human speech
:in every respect, except error. 147

The same may be said on the question of so-called " humanism " concerning which some speak today at great length,
though not always aptly.
Humanism is now the order of the day. Undoubtedly it is not an
easy task to extract and recognize a dear idea of its nature in the
course of its historical evolution. Nevertheless-although humanism has for long had the pretension of being formally opposed to
the Middle Ages which preceded it-it is none the less certain
that everything it contains of truth, of goodness, of the great and
the eternal, belongs to the spiritual universe of the greatest genius
of the Middle Ages, Saint Thomas Aquinas. In its general characteristics, the concept of man and of the world as it appears in the
Christian and Catholic perspective, remains essentially identical
with itself: the same in St. Augustine as :in St. Thomas or Dante;
the same again in contemporary Christian Philosophy. The obscurity of certain philosophical or theological questions, which have
been illuminated and gradually resolved in the course of the centuries, detracts in no way from the reality of this fact. 148
,.. Encyclical Divino affiante Spiritu, Sept. 30, 1943. .AAS 35 (1943), 814.
1 41 Loc. cit., 315-316.
Studies, Rome, Sept. 25, 1949 .
" 8 Allocution to the Congress on Humanistic
.AAS 41 (Hl49), 555.

THE AUTHORITY

OF ST. THOMAS AQUINAS

45

With new errors or at least the danger of error arising, the
Pontiff is more insistent in urging a return to SL Thomas and
more strongly commands fidelity in the observance of the
Church's precept on following the doctrine of the Angelic
Doctor. This is clear from his Encyclical Humani Generis,
Aug. 12, 1950. To those present at the Third International
Thomistic Congress in Rome he said,
This represents a safe path for you who are engaged in discussion
and publication; follow the doctrine of St. Thomas Aquinas, which
lights up the road like a brilliant ray of sun. 149

Indeed,
Heaven is distant from the earth in the same degree that the truths
of divine revelation exceed the powers of the human mind. They are
loftier than those powers of mind but not in the least contradictory or repugnant to them. They are above reason but not
opposed to it. With infectious eagerness St. Thomas leads human
intelligence, hesitating and dubious by reason of the brilliant
splendor, into the very temple of the mysteries of God. Producing
the solution to problems by the artistry of his arguments, he
brings out the dear and splendid harmony existing between divine
and human things.
How sharply the contest waxes at present in fixing reasons used
both in faith and :in philosophy, is shown in Our Encyclical Letter
mentioned above. We published it with this plan and purpose in
mind, to preserve the deposit of Catholic faith whole, untarnished
and uninjured. Discuss among yourselves those questions which
We touched on in Our letter, and afterwards pass the results on to
the studious youths whom you are teaching. Always follow that
inspiration by which the Angelic Doctor learned the truth, namely,
by the greater efl'ort of intelligence and by religious piety. Treat
these matters thoroughly, insisting upon his method, by which he
always defined the limits and content of his opinions, with no useless
flow of words but with serious and solid discourse. 150

In the Apostolic Exhortation to all the Clergy on Sept. 23,
1950, he concludes:
Wherefore, lest the zeal of sacred ministers be miserably subject
to change and hesitation, We particularly urge you, Venerable
u• Sept. 17, 1950. AAS 4S (1950), 734.

150

Ibid., 785.

46

SANTIAGO

RAMIREZ

Brethren, to be especially vigilant in insuring that those special
regulations for such studies which this Holy See has established
be received and preserved with complete :fidelity.151

In the Preface for the Mass of St. Thomas, which the Holy
Father himself wrote, he gives thanks to God and addresses
Him in these words: " Who wished to raise up in Thy Church
the blessed Doctor Thomas, truly Angelic by reason of his pure
life and sublime mind; that he might communicate his solid
and salutary doctrine and illuminate the Church like the sun;
whose wisdom, especially commended to all, is admired by the
whole world." 152
Weighing and considering all these points together it must
be candidly and ungrudgingly admitted that the Church concedes the highest theological authority to Thomas alone over
the other ecclesiastical writers of all times. Therefore, his
canonical authority in the field of theology is truly the greatest
over each and every one of the Fathers and Doctors.
With good reason, then, Fr. Salaverri, S. J. wrote that: "in
Theology ... the authority of St. Thomas is entirely matchless
and greater than that of any other Doctor or Theologian in the
Catholic Church. 158 And again, "the authority ... of St.
Thomas, which may be called canonical, is greater than the
authority of any other Catholic theologian." 154
2. In Philosophy

When the minds of philosophers were accepting the Catholic
faith and exercising the task of philosophy with due reverence
for the truths held by faith, there was no necessity for the
Teaching Authority of the Church. to protect natural reason
and Philosophy itself.
But from the time of the Renaissance, as it is called, and
especially the Reformation, when philosophers did not hesitate
151

Menti Nostrae, AAS 42 (1950), 688.'

Dominican Missal, Preface of the Mass of St. Thomas.
De Ecclesia Christi, no. 872, p. 757. Madrid, 1950.
1 .. Ibid., no. 874, p. 758.

162

168

THE AUTHORITY

OF ST. THOMAS AQUINAS

47

" to philosophize without any regard whatever to the faith,
asking, and conceding in return, the right to invent anything
that they can think of, and anything that they please," 155
philosophy gradually degenerated into a seminary of errors, and
philosophers into artisans fashioning arguments against the true
faith. The noble exercise of the mind reached such a low state
that it finally attacked reason itself, and Philosophy, so-called,
began to devour itself. This condition of Philosophy accurately
fulfilled the axiom of Aquinas: Philosophy " is wisdom only as
long as it is subject to divine wisdom; but when it withdraws
from God, it becomes foolishness." 156 This especially resulted
from Kant's critique.
And so, in order to cleanse reason and philosophy as grace
does fallen nature, the Teaching Authority of the Church
eagerly and seriously concerned itself with the restoration and
renovation of true Christian philosophy. First, by the ordinary
magisterium, Gregory XVI and Pius IX spoke out against the
errors of fideism or extreme traditionalism on the one hand, and
rationalism, ontologism and pantheism on the other. Then the
Vatican Council solemnly condemned the same errors, especially
those relating to revelation and faith, and the motives of credibility, and also the relation between faith and reason. In its
deliberations the Council very accurately distinguished and
affirmed the complete lack of opposition between reason and
faith, philosophy and theology, the natural and the supernatural orders.
To cure these errors arising from the abuse of Philosophy,
the Fathers stated that no means was better suited than the
reestablishment of a true and healthy philosophy, which had
reached its peak of perfection in St. Thomas Aquinas. Then,
after the Council was temporarily adjourned due to the state
of world ·affairs, the several Fathers began to send letters to
Pope Pius IX asking and begging him to declare Thomas Patron
of all Catholic Schools. These Fathers said in their discussions
155
158

Aeterni Patris, loc. cit., 68.
Comment. in I Cor., cap. 15, lect. 5.

4

48

SANTIAGO

RAMIREZ

about this that, since the impurities of every kind of error
flowed from a disrespect for the teaching authority of the
Angelic Doctor, they would be dispersed if he were established
and accepted as Patron of Schools. Eminent among the Fathers
urging this were Cardinals Riario Sforza of Naples and Joachim
Pecci of Perugia, both of whom assisted at the Vatican Council
and took a large part in its affairs.
However, Pius IX died on Feb. 18, 1878, and on the 20th,
Cardinal Pecci was elected ashis successor, taking the name of
Leo XIII. In assuming the Supreme Pontificate he bent all
his energy to restoring, urging, spreading, and even by his
Apostolic authority prescribing a safe and healthy philosophy:
" the more energetically the enemies of religion attempt to suggest
to simple men and youths that they learn those things which
becloud the mind and corrupt morals, so much the more readily
must we lean upon not only a suitable and approved method of
instruction, but the very content of the instruction must strictly
conform to the Catholic faith in letter and in spirit. This should
be especially true in philosophy upon which correct procedure in
other sciences very greatly depends. The purpose of philosophy
is not to undermine divine revelation but rather to pave the road
for it, and defend it from enemies, as the great Augustine, the
Angelic Doctor and other masters of Christian wisdom have taught
us by their example and writings." 157
That this is especially true of the philosophy of St. Thomas,
he signified to the scholarly A. Uccelli, who edited, from autograph manuscripts, the Summa contra Gentiles:
We are very grateful to you for having contributed your care and
effort to this remarkable work, in which the holy Doctor pours out
from a rich vein the treasures of a profound philosophy, and supplies very timely weapons to refute the errors of the age.158
The famous Encyclical A.eterni Patris of August 4, 1_879 had
as its special purpose to inculcate the philosophy of Aquinas
and to prescribe that it be followed.
157

168

Encyclical Inscrutabili, April !!1, 1878. Acta, ed. cit. I, 18.
Letter of Dec. 7, 1879, cf. Berthier, op. cit. 178.

THE AUTHORITY

OF ST, THOMAS AQUINAS

49

Indeed, if one should examine the evils which affiict our age, he
would easily discover that the fruitful cause both of those which
we now suffer and those which we greatly fear is depraved knowledge of human and divine things, Such knowledge, long poured
out from the schools of philosophers, has crept into every level of
society, and it has been received with the common applause of very
many. Since it is natural for man to follow reason as the guide of
his actions, if the understanding go wrong in anything, his will
easily follows. This is the way that perverse ideas, residing in the
mind, influence human actions and pervert them. On the contrary,
if the mind of man be healthy and strongly grounded in solid and
true principles, many benefits would accrue to both the public and
private good. 159

While it is true that the whole salvation of the human race
should not be expected from philosophy, since that depends
upon the grace of God through Jesus Christ, still,
Natural aids should neither be despised nor undervalued, for the
of divine wisdom disposing an things strongly and
sweetly, supplies the human race with those aids. Among them
the right use of philosophy is clearly the most important, 160

True and sound philosophy renders three kinds of assistance
to the Catholic religion. Fi·rstly, philosophy paves the way for
it in the proof for the preambles of the Faith, namely, the
existence of one personal God, distinct from the world, Who is
omnipotent and can neither deceive nor be deceived. This
supplies the basis for the rational credibility of divine revelation. The consequence should be, then, that if God speaks to
men, they should give the full assent of their minds. That He
has actually spoken to men is abundantly clear from the many
miracles performed by God Himself to support His word,
Human reason is manifestly capable of knowing the existence
and probative force of such miracles with reference both to the
credibility of divinely revealed doctrine and the fact that it
should be believed.

Secondly, when by faith the divinely revealed mysteries are
159

Aeterni Patris, loc. cit., 44.

••• Ibid.

50

SANTIAGO

RAMIREZ

accepted, philosophy helps, in various ways, to understand and
explain them in its function as the instrument of the science
of faith which is called Sacred Theology. Indeed, to use the
words of the same Pontiff:
The constant and varied use of philosophy is required that sacred
theology may assume and wear the nature, habit and character of
true science. For in this noblest of the sciences it is especially
necessary that the many and different parts of heavenly doctrine be
gathered together, as it were, into one body. Thus they are united
by a union of harmony among themselves, all the parts being fittingly arranged, and derived from their own proper principles.
Finally, each and every part is strengthened by its own unanswerable arguments.
Nor·must we pass over in silence, or reckon of little account that
more accurate and fuller knowledge of our belief and, as far as may
be, that somewhat clearer understanding of the mysteries of the
faith which St. Augustine and the other Fathers both praised and
labored to attain and which the Vatican Council itself 161 decreed
to be most fruitful. Such knowledge and understanding are certainly acquired more fully and easily by those who join to integrity
of life and study of'the faith a mind that has been disciplined by
philosophical culture. Especially is this so since the same Vatican
Council teaches that we ought to seek for understanding of holy
dogmas of that kind both from the analogy of the things which
are naturally known and also from the way in which the mysteries
themselves are related to one another, and also to the ultimate end
of man. 162

Lastly, this also
is the task of philosophy, to guard with religious care all truths
that come to us by Divine tradition, and to resist all who dare
to attack them. Philosophy enjoys high repute because it holds
the position of bulwark of the faith and strong defense of religion. 16 a

These three dttties and offices of reason and philosophy
to'Ward the Catholic religion, already clearly indicated by
Thomas/ 64 are completely and accurately fulfilled by the philosophy of Thomas himself.
Dogmatic Constitution de Fide Catholica,
4.
Aeterni Patria, loc. cit., 50.
163 lbid.
1 .. ln Boethii de Trinitate, q. 2, a. 3 c.
181
18 "

THE AUTHORITY

OF ST. THOMAS AQUINAS

51

Every true and sound fruit of reason which the Fathers and
other ecclesiastical writers discovered in the field of philosophy
over the course of centuries Thomas has gathered unto himself as into a sea and embellished in many ways by his own
work. He fashioned a body of philosophy which is complete,
sound, unified and ever powerful, in that it is based on principles so solid and universal that they penetrate and even
anticipate all time and change. The result is that he encloses
within his grasp an almost infinite number of truths to be
opened up later masters at the proper time and with much fruit.
He alo:J?.e destroyed all errors, ancient, modern and future or,
at least, he certainly supplies invincible weapons to destroy
them.
Moreover, carefully distinguishing reason and faith, as is right, and
yet joining them· together in a harmony of friendship, he so guarded
the rights of each, and so watched over the dignity of each, that,
as far as man is concerned, reason can now hardly rise higher than
she has risen, borne up in the flight of Thomas; and faith can hardly
gain more helps and greater helpers from reason than those which
Thomas has given her. 165
There is no sounder and safer philosophical doctrine and one which
is more in accord with the Teaching Authority of the Church than
that which is contained in the volumes of Thomas. 16 6

No one ever so well demonstrated the existence, nature and
attributes of God and the other preambles to the faith, as is
clear from an examination of the Summa contra Gentiles alone.
In the same work he also prepared a defense of the Catholic
faith more powerful than all others. Finally, no one ever
offered such true, sound and deep elucidations and explanations
of the mysteries of faith based on analogy and the connections
of the mysteries one with another and with the ultimate end
of man, a,s is set forth in his Summa Theologiae.
Therefore, the philosophy of St. Thomas is to be established
and vigorously promoted in Catholic Schools, and teachers are
required to teach it and students must accept it.
105

Aetemi Patris, Zoe. cit., 64.

160

Ibid., 70.

SANTIAGO

RAMIREZ

We earnestly urge all of you, Venerable Brethren, to restore the
golden wisdom of St. Thomas and spread it as far as you can, for
the safety and glory of the Catholic faith, for the good of society,
for the increase of all the sciences. 167

Indeed,
There is nothing which We have longer wished for and desired
than you should give largely and abundantly to youths engaged in
study the pure streams of wisdom which flow from the Angelic
Doctor as from a perennial and copious spring. 168
Moreover,
Let teachers carefully chosen by you endeavor to instil the doctrine
of Thomas Aquinas in the minds of their hearers and let them
clearly point out its solidity and excellence above all other
teaching .189

He also gave this grave warning:
Lest the false should be drunk instead of the true; or lest that
which is unwholesome should be drunk instead of that which is
pure, take care that the wisdom of Thomas be drawn from his own
fountain, or at any rate from those streams which, in the certain
and unanimous opinion of learned men, yet flow whole and untainted, inasmuch as they are fed from the fountain itself. But
take care to shield the minds of youths from streams which are
said to have flowed from thence, but in reality have been fed by
unhealthy waters from other springs.U 0

In this Letter, as he himself often recalled later, he stated
and clearly proved,
That the best form of philosophy is that developed by the brilliant
genius of St. Thomas Aquinas in such a way that it will never die.
For he carefully searched it out in all the works of ancient wisdom. 171
What We have often striven to impress upon you before, We now
repeat, that no method of philosophy is more suited to reach the
truth or more powerful to destroy growing errors than the method
of that blessed tlnd most wise man. 172
167

Ibid., 7'!l.

168

Ibid., 70.

169

Ibid., 74.

170

Ibid.

Allocution to the International Congress of Scholars at Rome, March 7, 1880.
Cf. Berthier, op. cit., '!l05.
172 Letter
to D. Mercier, President of the Institut Superieur de Philosophie at
the University of Louvain, Jan. 2, 1895, op. cit., 258.
171

THE AUTHORITY

OF ST. THOMAS AQUINAS

53

In this way,
While We have recommended adherence to the doctrine of St.
Thomas for the deliberate purpose of restoring soundness to philosophy, Our special purpose is to use it as a sword cutting at the
root of present evils.173
For, by his principles and method of philosophy, he has a marvelous
power to illustrate every facet of the truth and destroy every kind
of error, even those engendered by the very difficult times in which
we live.174
Therefore,
We propose as a model one in whom virtue and wisdom shine with
a maximum of splendor; a man fully imbued with human and
divine learning drawn from the treasury of the ages; one celebrated
by the praises of the Church and the approval of the Roman
Pontiffs; one made equal in mind to the angels.175

It was with the highest approval that this letter and these
recommendations of the Supreme Pastor were received by the
Cardinals, Bishops, Superiors of Religious Orders, Faculties of
Philosophy, Seminaries and learned Catholic men throughout
the world. Representatives sent letters attesting to their admiration of and veneration for the doctrine of St. Thomas.
Practically by referendum, Aquinas was recognized and proclaimed as the Prince of Philosophers and Universal Doctor.
Motivated by these letters and by others forwarded to Pius
IX, Leo XIII declared St. Thomas Patron of all Universities,
Colleges, Lycea and Catholic Schools:
" for they [the letters] have made clear to him as well as to
Ourselves that there is inherent in Thomistic doctrine a certain
outstanding excellence as well as a phenomenal force and power
calculated to cure the evils which afflict our times." 176
This is the chief and supreme reason which moved the Pontiff
to decree for Thomas that,
Letter to the Bishop of Piacenza, Oct. 9, 1882, op. cit., 228.
Letter to Fr. Coconier, July 12, 1894, op. cit., 257.
175 Allocution to the International
Congress of Scholars, loc. cit.
176 Brief Cum hoc sit, declaring St. Thomas Aquinas Patron of Catholic Schools,
loc. cit., 110.
173

174

54

SANTIAGO

RAMIREZ

St. ThOmas is preeminent among all. Catholic men regard him as
the exemplar in the various branches of knowledge. Indeed, magnificent ornaments of mind and soul, inviting imitation by others,
are all present in him: complete, pure and well-ordered doctrine;
obedience to the faith and the finest harmony with divinely revealed
truths; integrity of life united with the splendor of the greatest
virtues. 177

Nor was the Roman Pontiff satisfied with these solemn pronouncements. Great energy and purpose marked his continuous
efforts to recommend the doctrine of Aquinas. He founded the
Roman Academy named after St. Thomas
to explain and expound his work; to set forth his opinions and
compare them with the opinions of ancient and modern philosophers; to show the force of his opinions and his reasons for them;
to strive to spread his salutary doctrine and apply it both to the
refutation of modern errors and to those which would arise in the
future.
He was careful to see that in the Roman Faculties and Seminaries " philosophical studies according to the mind and principles of the
Doctor were being cherished and taught
simply, clearly and fully." 179 By his own order a:nd at his own
expense he published a new critical edition " which embraces
all the writings of the holy Doctor," together with the commentaries of Cajetan and Ferrariensis on the Summa Theologiae
and the Summa contra Gentiles, through which, "as through
many rivulets, the doctrine of this great man might flow." 180
He continually urged Bishops, Religious Superiors and all
scholars throughout the Catholic world to do likewise in the
seminaries and schools under their care:
Endeavor to spread further every day the doctrine of such a great
master; in studying his doctrine keep this regulation in mind, that
you should embrace any given opinion because it recommends
Ibid., 112.
Letter to Cardinal de Luca, de Romana S. Thomae Academia, Oct. 15, 1879,
cf. Berthier, op. cit., 197.
179 Ibid., 198.
180 Ibid., 199, 200.
177

178

THE .AUTHORITY OF ST. THOMAS AQUINAS

55

itself freely to you on account of his wonderful propriety and
simplicity of speech, and not because you have been perhaps
persuaded by some prejudiced opinion foreign to common and
approved doctrine. 1 8 1
-

To the President and Students of the Academy of St. Thomas
at Parma he wrote:
You can choose no safer guide for your work than St. Thomas,
whose shining sanctity joined with brilliant genius and penetration
surpassing-the human level, has earned for him the fitting tribute
of Angelic Doctor; 182 and he seems to have abundantly filled
the measure of that name.183
In him are all the qualities which establish him as the Guide
and Teacher of a healthy and true philosophy. He has the
correct method of philosophy; philosophical doctrine which is
sound, mature, strong and safe; universal and fruitful principles
touching the chief problems of all times and offering the answers
to them; a compact, clear,
style; an understanding
manner toward all philosophers, yet with perfect freedom to
disapprove of their opinions and advance others; and the finest
harmony with divinely revealed truth.
His philosophical method. His doctrine "always retains its
great power to stimulate wisely the minds of men." 184
It was for this reason that We have advised and frequently and
seriously urged that the works of the great Aquinas be kept at hand
and continuously and fittingly expounded . . . because the doctrine
of the Angelic Doctor has; been wonderfully fashioned to form
minds and is equally useful for a commentator, philosopher or one
who would dispute succinctly and invincibly: he clearly proves
individual points, one depending upon the other in a continuous
series. He shows that all of them are connected and joined one
with another. He relates them all to one basic principle; then he
lifts one up to the contemplation of God, Who is the efficient
Allocution to the Int. Congress of Scholars, loc. cit.,
Letter of June
1880, cf. Berthier, op. cit.,
183 Letter to Cardinal de Luca, op. cit., 197.
18 ' Letter to the Bishops of the provinces of Milan, Turin and Vercelli, Jan.
op. cit.,
181
182

56

SANTIAGO RAMIREZ

cause, source, and archetype of all things, to Whom all philosophy,
and indeed every man, should be related. 185
He is strong in his praise of B. Lorenzelli who had already
himself entirely to the teaching of Aquinas, stating
that he set forth Thomas' method of treatment and l:!-dmirable
system of philosophy, in which he excelled, in his Philosophiae
Theoreticae Institutiones. 186 He also sent hearty congratulations to the Professors of the Faculty of Philosophy of
Catholic University in Washington:
Especially because they purposely maintain in its entirety the
established system of philosophy of St. Thomas Aquinas according
to Our precept and religiously foUow him as guide.181 Wisdom in
philosophy is exactly proportioned to the degree in which Thomas
is followed.188 For his is the truest and most suitable of all the
systems of philosophy and We wish all to use that system whether
they are teaching or learning. 189

The body of his doctrine is solid, mature, strong and safe.
His doctrine is so inclusive that he has embraced within himself
as in a sea all the wisdom flowing from the ancients. Whatever
truth was spoken or discussed by pagan philosophers, by the
Fathers and Doctors of the Church, by great men who lived before
him, he not only thoroughly investigated but augmented, perfected
and disposed with such a clear penetration of ideas, such an accurate system of argumentation, such an economy of speech, that
he appears only to have left the power to imitate but not to excel.
. . . He stands invincible, strengthening his arguments by the
force of reason, and striking great terror in the minds of his
adversaries. 190

His full and fruitful principles embrace the special problems
of all times and offer their solution.
••• Officio sanctissimo, Encyclical Letter to the Bavarian Hierarchy, December 22,
1887, op. cit., 284.
188 Letter of Dec. 8, 1895, op. cit., 261.
181 Letter to Cardinal Gibbons, June 29, 1895, op. cit., 260.
188 Letter to Cardinal Bataglini, Nov. 20, 1890, op. cit., 289.
••• Letter to Cardinal Deschamps, Dec. 25, 1880, op. cit., 215.
100 Brief Cum hoc sit, loc. cit., U!t.

THE AUTHORITY

OF ST. THOMAS AQUINAS

57

This
an outstanding point about his doctrine, that, being based
upon and arranged according to principles which have the widest
extension, it is not limited to one period only but is adaptable to
the needs of all times, and is especially suited to overcome the
constant rise of error. 191
The Angelic Doctor, in his speculations, drew certain philosophical
conclusions as to the reasons and principles of created things.
These conclusions have the very widest reach, and contain, as it
were, in their bosom the seeds of truths well-nigh infinite in number. These have to be unfolded with most abundant fruits in
their own time by the teachers who come after him. As he used
his method of philosophy, not only in teaching the truth, but
also in refuting error, he has gained this prerogative for himself.
With his own hand he vanquished all errors of ancient times; and
still he supplies an armory of weapons which brings us certain
victory in the conflict with falsehoods ever springing up in the
course of years. 192

His style is serious, succinct and clear.
He employs a quiet style and serious manner of speech, not only
when he is teaching a truth and composing an argument but also
when pursuing and pressing upon his adversaries. 193
Very recently Pius XII proposed this form of argumentation
to philosophers for imitation:
Proceed strictly according to his method, for he always defined the
content and limits of his opinions, without useless verbiage, but
with sober and solid expression and evident precision. 194
For this reason he praised the celebrated Anthony Muratori
who possessed a similar style of presentation:
he discarded that inflated form of writing tP.en in vogue as well as
bombastic, fancy and lengthy forms of expression which were also
frequently employed; instead he fashioned for his use a style and
191

Aeterni Patris, loc. cit., 62.

192Jbid.
' 93 Letter
to Cardinal Deschamps and the Belgian Bishops, Aug. 8, 1881, cf.
Berthier, op. cit., 220.
194 Allocution to the Third Int. Thomistic Congress, loc. cit., 785.

58

SANTIAGO

RAMIREZ

type of writing which was unadorned yet compact, strong and
penetrating .195

His gentleness toward every philosopher coupled with a
freedom to disagree and to bring forward some new
solution. So, that philosophy of the greatest of all philosophers,
Aristotle,
the Angelic Doctor interpreted in an uniquely brilliant manner.
He made that philosophy Christian when he purged it of the errors
into which a pagan writer could easily fall; he used these very
errors in his exposition and vindication of Catholic truth. Among
the important advances which the Church owes to the great
Aquinas this certainly should be included, that so nicely did he
harmonize Christian truth with the enduring peripatetic philosophy
that. he made Aristotle cease to be an adversary and become, instead, a militant supporter for Christ. 196
Indeed, one should embrace the truths discovered by others
in such a way that new truths are sought at the same time.
It is true that in these days too many find their praise for genius
in a contempt for antiquity; nevertheless, that is evidently the best
system of philosophy which endeavors by rational procedure to
discover new truths without at the same time discarding the wisdom
of the ancients. 191

The marvelous harmony with divinely revealed truths.
The holy Doctor clearly proves that truths springing from the
natural order cannot contradict those which are believed by faith:
consequently, the support and cultivation of the Christian faith is
not a mean and servile function of reason, but rather its noble
obedience by which the mind is aided and educated in a loftier
realm of truth. Finally, science and faith both coming from God
should not exercise a rivalry of dissension but, bound together by
the ties of friendship, should offer help to each other. An outstanding example of this wonderful harmony and concordance is
Letter to the Archbishop of Modena, Feb. 15, 1950. AAS
(1950)
Brief Gravissime nos, to the Jesuit Fathers, Dec. SO,
cf. Berthier, op.
cit., 247.
197 Letter to the publisher Louis Vives on the occasion of his new edition of
the works of St. Albert the Great, Dec. 10, 1889, op. cit.,
195
198

THE AUTHORITY

OF ST. THOMAS AQUINAS

59

found in all the writings of St. Thomas. In them that harmony
shines brilliantly; at one time reason predominates, with faith leading the way in the investigation of nature; at another time faith
takes the lead defended and supported by reason, in such a way
that each maintains inviolate its proper force and dignity. When
a problem so demands, both join together, having made a compact,
as it were, to destroy the enemies of each.198
Hence the best philosophers are they who join philosophical study
with the obedience of the Christian Faith. Thus the brightness of
Christian truths falls on the mind, and by that brightness the
understanding itself is helped. This takes nothing from the dignity
of the reason; nay, rather, it adds to the reason a great deal of
grandeur and sublety and strength. 199
Therefore, those who wish to be true philosophers . . . should take
the principles and foundations of their doctrine from Thomas
Aquinas. 200 To follow his leadership is praiseworthy: 201 on the
contrary, to depart foolishly and rashly from the wisdom of the
Angelic Doctor is something far from· Our mind and fraught with
peril ... the name of Thomas ... should be held sacred by all.202

But if other authors " should depart from the doctrine of the
Common Doctor, there must be no dispute as to which is the
right way," namely, the way of Aquinas. 203
Further, to follow Thomas as guide is not only a laudable
privilege but a duty as well, and a most pressing duty at that:
For those who apply themselves to the teaching and study of
Theology and Philosophy should consider it their capital duty,
having left aside the findings of a fruitless philosophy, to follow
St. Thomas Aquinas and to cherish him as their master and their
leader. 204
Let it be a law for teachers as well as students to follow Thomas
Brief Cum hoe sit, loe. cit.
Aeterni Patris, loe. cit., 54.
••• Letter to the Minister General of the Friars Minor, Nov. 25, 1898, cf.
Berthier, op. cit., 264.
••• Letter to Bishop Haine, Aug. 8, 1899, ibid.
••• Letter to the Minister General 0. F. M., loe. cit.
••• Gravissime nos, op. cit., 248.
••• Letter to the Bishop of Verdun, Oct. 1, 1901. Acta VI. 278-274.
108

010

60

SANTIAGO

RAMiREZ

Aquinas as their guide and cherish and protect his doctrine from
all impurity. 205
In no sense is this to be construed as a curtailment of one's
freedom to investigate truth. Rather it directs that liberty in a
safe manner and preserves it intact.
Human reason should exercise a f1'ee hand in its effort to penetrate to the. interior and hidden knowledge of things, nor can it be
otherwise; indeed, following Aquinas as leader and guide it does
so more freely and expeditiously, because then reason acts most
securely since it is entirely free from the danger of exceeding the
safety of the faith.
You would erroneously call that freedom, which follows and spreads
opinions at choice and at random. Rather it is the worst kind of
license, lying and false knowledge, the slavery and blight of the
soul. Thomas, the wise Doctor, moves within the bounds of truth,
for he never takes issue with God, the highest principle of all
truth. To Him he always clings and he follows Him most closely
as He opens His divine secrets. 206 Thomas' doctrine, as it is the
most eminent and wholesome of all, approved for secular use and
praised above others by the Church, not only does not coerce the
mind but rather supplies pure and salutary food. 201
There is no better course of study, no safer system of philosophy, no stronger instrument for sharpening the mind in its
investigation of truth. Leo XIII repeated this again and again
at every opportuninty. He wrote to Cardinal Deschamps, upon
the establishment of a Chair of Thomistic Philosophy at the
University of Louvain,
Devote your efforts to studying the masters wisely, to nourishing
the important studies vigilantly, and be definitely assured that the
course of studies will be better as it more closely approaches the
doctrine of the same Aquinas. 208
We have often said that t{l,e course of studies will be better as it
more closely approaches the doctrine of the same Aquinas. 209
••• Motu proprio instituting the Leonine Commission, Aug. 22, 1897, cf. Berthier,
op. cit., 268.
••• Letter to the Bavarian Hierarchy, loc. cit.
207 Gravissime nos, loc. cit., 246.
••• Letter of Dec. 25, 1880, op. cit., 216.
••• Letter to Fr. De Maria, Jan. 14, 1898, op. cit., 252.

THE AUTHORITY

OF ST. THOMAS AQUINAS

61

Those, indeed, will become finished and accurate philosophers who
have been deeply steeped in the scholastic method and study. We
have repeatedly and seriously admonished and mentioned to you
on other occasions, that the course of studies will be better as it
approaches more closely to the doctrine of Aquinas. 210
In an allocution to the moderators and students
Seminaries and Faculties of Rome he said:

of the

We seem to have acted with good purpose and opportunity, when,
having in mind the acquisition of greater knowledge of things, We
recalled the studies of clerics to the doctrine of Thomas Aquinas.
In this matter We repeat in your presence today what We have
said clearly and repeatedly in Our Letters: follow the Angelic
Doctor as guide and teacher; consider yourselves, beloved sons, to
have come closer to doctrinal excellence as you devote more effort
and study to him. 211
His successor, Pius X, commanded exact observance of all
these prescripts:
We take the lead in saying that all those regulations must be
religiously observed which Our illustrious predecessor determined
in the study of Thomistic philosophy and doctrine, and We shall
take care to promote the hope for even greater fruit. 212
And therefore,
All who teach philosophy in Catholic schools throughout the world
. . . , should take care never to depart from the path and method
of Aquinas, and to insist upon that procedure more vigorously
every day. 213
He gives special advice on this matter to the Catholic Institutes
in France 2 a and specifically to the Institute at Paris:
210 Letter to Cardinal Goosens on the Institut Superieur de Philosophie at Louvain,
March 7, 1894, op. cit., 256.
" 11 Allocution of Jan. 18, 1885, op. cit., 226.
219 Apostolic Letter In praecipuis on the Roman Academy of St. Thomas, loc.
cit., 1!!6.
218 Ibid.
•u Circular Letter of the Sacred Congregation of Studies to the Rectors of the
Catholic Institutes of Angers, Lyons, Lisle, Paris and Toulouse, Sept. 10, 1906.
Acta, II, !!91-29!!.

SANTIAGO RAMIREZ

On the subject of philosophy We wish you never to allow that the
regulations providentially set forth by Our predecessor in the Encyclical Aeterni Patris be less strictly observed in your seminaries.
This is a matter of very great consequence for the protection and
safety of the faith .

.It. is not enough to imbue the students for Sacred Orders with
that philosophy corresponding to the official programs of the
State, but they should be more fully and deeply instructed
" according to the doctrine of Thomas Aquinas so that they can
receive solid knowledge of sacred theology and biblical science. 215
He suggested the same thing more solemnly in his Encyclical
Letter Pascendi dominici gregis of Sept. 8, 1907 against the
doctrines of the Modernists, especially in the field of metaphysics.
In the matter of studies We wish and at this time command that
Scholastic philosophy be made the basis for sacred studies . . .
Specifically when We prescribe that Scholastic philosophy is to be
followed We mean especially that philosophy which is taught by
Thomas Aquinas: We state that whatever was sanctioned by Our
predecessor on this point is still in force, and whatever We have
done by way of encouragement and confirmation, We order that it
be followed by all religiously. It is the business of the bishops,
in whatever seminaries these points have been neglected, to see
what they are encouraged and required hereafter. We prescribe
the same for Moderators of Religious Orders. We warn teachers
to keep this religiously in mind, especially in metaphysics, that to
disregard Aquinas cannot be done without suffering great harm. 216

He repeated this in his Motu proprio Sacrorum Antistitum,
especially insisting upon a faithful and strict adherence to
Aquinas in metaphysics.
We warn teachers to keep this religiously in mind, that disregarding
Aquinas even slightly cannot be done without great harm. A small
error in the beginning, to ·use the words of Aquinas in the prologue
to his De ente et essentia, becomes very great in the end.211
215

Letter to the Episcopal Patrons of the Catholic Institute of Paris, May 6,

1907, Acta, III, 58, 60.
216 Acta, III, 160.
217 Sept. 1, 1910. AAS 2 (1910), 656-657.

THE AUTHORITY

OF ST. THOMAS AQUINAS

63

This was his particular point in the Motu proprio Doctoris
Angelici of June
1914, where he complained of the false
understanding with which some have interpreted preceding
decrees, as though one might follow any Scholastic doctor
indiscriminately, though the doctrine is foreign to the doctrine
of Thomas and even opposed to it. He scored this error and
commanded that Thomas alone be followed, especially in metaphysics, which treats of the principles and major propositions
of the whole Christian philosophy. These principles truly contain the quintessence of the perennial wisdom, which was discovered with much labor by the finest minds of the whole human
race. Therefore, it is a terrible thing to despise these principles,
and they must rather be religiously observed. If they are
neglected, theologians would put forth vain effort to protect
the faith or to understand any of its dogmas.
These are the famous words of the Pontiff himself:
When We recommended that the philosophy of Aquinas "particularly " but not " exclusively " be followed, some persuaded themselves that they were acting in conformity with Our will, or at least
not actively opposing it, in the indiscriminate adoption of and
adherence to the philosophical opinions of some other Scholastic
doctor, though they be repugnant to the principles of St. Thomas.
They were greatly deceived. It is very clear that when We set up
Thomas as the chief guide in scholastic philosophy, We desired this
to be understood above all as referring to those principles upon
which that philosophy is based as its foundation. For just as the
opinion of certain ancients is to be rejected which holds that what
one thinks of the nature of creation makes no difference to the
truth of faith so long as his opinions on the nature of God are
sound, because error about created things begets a false knowledge
of God; so the principles of philosophy developed by Aquinas must
be preserved sacred and intact, for by those principles that knowledge of created things is uncovered which is not congruent with
faith, and all the errors of all times are refuted. Thus, certain
knowledge can be had of those attributes which are proper to God
and to no one else, and the diversity and analogy existing between
God and His works can be wonderfully illustrated . . .
Moreover, if We speak of these principles of Thomas in general
and as a whole, We must declare that his doctrine contains only
5

64

SANTIAGO RAMIREZ

those principles which the most eminent philosophers and Doctors
of the Church discovered through prolonged reflection and discussion regarding the particular reasons determining human knowledge,
the nature of God and creation, the moral order, and the pursuit of
the goal of human life. Such brilliant patrimony of wisdom which
he inherited from those before him, he perfected and augmented
by the almost angelic quality of his mind. Then he applied it to
prepare, illustrate and protect sacred doctrine in the minds of men.
Sound reason cannot neglect such wisdom, nor can religion suffer
it to be diminished in the slightest.
·
And this is the more true, since, if Catholic truth were once deprived of this strong bulwark, one would seek in vain for assistance
for its defense from those philosophies whose principles are either
common to or at least not opposed to materialism, monism, pantheism, socialism, and other modern errors. For the main points in
the philosophy of St. Thomas should not be considered as opinions
about which it is ·legitimate to argue, but are rather foundations
upon which all knowledge of natural and divine things is based.
· When these foundations are removed or weakened, it necessarily
follows that students of sacred studies cannot perceive even the
meaning of the words which are used by the Teaching Church to
propose divinely revealed dogmas.
And so We have desired that all who are engaged in the task of
teaching philosophy and sacred theology be warned that they cannot depart from Aquinas in the slightest degree, especially in metaphysics, without great harm resulting therefrom.
Moreover, We declare further that those who perversely interpret
or entirely despise the principles and major theses of his philosophy
are not only not following Thomas but have wandered very far from
the holy Doctor. And if the doctrine of any other writer or saint
was ever approved by Ourselves or Our predecessors with singular
praise and the invitation or command to spread and to defend it
were added to that commendation, it must be clearly understood
that that doctrine is approved to the extent that it agreed with the
principles of Aquinas or at least in no way contradicted them. 218

With these points in mind, some teachers in various Institutes
and Faculties,-the Order of Preachers was not represented
among them,-proposed twenty-four theses to the Sacred Con018

Loe. cit., 887-888.

THE AUTHORITY

OF ST. THOMAS AQUINAS

65

gregation of Studies for examination. They were accustomed
to propose and to teach these theses, having drawn them from
the doctrine of St. Thomas as the chief principles of the holy
Teacher, especially in metaphysics. 219
When these were duly submitted to the Supreme Pontiff and
carefully examined, the Sacred Congregation replied that they
clearly contained the principles and major propositions of the
holy Doctor. 220 The theses were grouped into the various
branches of philosophy. Seven referred to Ontology, five to
Cosmology, nine to Biology and Psychology and three to
Theodicy. 221
Meanwhile, Cardinal Merry del Val, in the name of the
Pope, congratulated Fr. Peillaube, Rector of the Seminary of
St. Thomas Aquinas at the Catholic Institute of Paris, on " the
cult of the Angel of the Schools, whose incomparable doctrine
the Sovereign Pontiff has glorified anew." 222
To Humbert Everest, 0. P. under whose auspices the Summa
Theologiae of St. Thomas was translated into English, he wrote:
To publish the immortal works of Aquinas is the same as divulging
in writing the most complete human and divine knowledge, and
offering to everyone desirous of knowledge the best method of
philosophy to unlock sacred truths and effectively to destroy
errors.223
And so it is only right that we read in the eulogy of Pius X,
placed at the foot of his coffin: " he zealously promoted the
teaching of Thomas Aquinas." 224
219 It is evident
that these twenty-four theses were set down by Fr. G.
Mattiussi, 8. J., with the help of Joseph Biagioli, professor of Dogmatic Theology
at the seminary of Fiesole, and by other men who were very learned in and
faithful to Thomistic philosophy. When Pius X died Mattiussi wrote and published in La Civiltd Cattolica, at the behest of Benedict XV, a commentary on
these theses. Later this commentary was separately published: Le XXIV Tesi
della filosofia di San Tommaso d'Aquino approvate dalla S. Congregazione degli
Studi, Rome, 1917. Cf. Tit. Sante Centi, 0. P. in San Tommaso d'Aquz'no, La
Somma Teologica, Introduzione generale, 268-272. Florence, 1949.
••• Ibid., 884-886.
••• July 27, 1914, AAS (1914), 888-884.
••• Letter of July 16, 1914. AAS 6 (1914), 472.
••• Letter of Feb. 24, 1912. AAS 4 (1912), 164-165.
••• AAS 6 (1914), 480.

66

SANTIAGO

RAMIREZ

After the death of Pius X difficulty arose concerning the
twenty-four philosophical theses, which the Sacred Congregation of Studies had declared contained the genuine doctrine
of St. Thomas. The difficulty was proposed in this form:
Do the twenty-four philosophical theses approved by the Sacred
Congregation of Studies really contain the genuine doctrine of St.
Thomas, and if so, should Catholic schools be obliged to subscribe
to them?

The Sacred Congregation gave this response: "All the
twenty-four philosophical theses express the genuine doctrine
of St. Thomas, and they are proposed as safe directive norms. 225
In other words: Catholic schools should not be obliged to
subscribe to them, yet these theses should be proposed in those
schools as safe directive norms which should be follou,ed,
namely," as the doctrine preferred by the Church," as Benedict
XV, who ratified this response, himself explained to Fr. Hugon,
0. P., and as the latter related in his work Les vingt-quatre
theses thomistes, p. VH (Paris: Tequi, 1922) .
The new Pontiff constantly desired that the prescripts of
Leo XIII and Pius X on the faithful and religious adherence to
the philosophy of Thomas Aquinas be followed and observed,
for his is the philosophy according to Christ.
Along with Our predecessors We are equally persuaded that the
only philosophy worth our efforts is that which is according to
Christ (Colos. II, 8). Therefore, the study of philosophy according
to the principles and system of Aquinas must certainly be encouraged so that the explanation and invincible defense of divinely
revealed truth may be as full as human reason can make it. And so,
We wish this Academy of St. Thomas to be under Our care not
less than it was under the care of Our predecessors. 226

In the statutes of the Academy renewed by order of the
Pope in this motu proprio is found the following:
The Roman Academy of St. Thomas has this particular purpose,
to explain, defend and protect the philosophy of the Angelic Doctor.
••• March 7, 1916, AAS 8 (1916), 157.
Motu proprio Non multo post, loc. cit., 6-7.

226

THE AUTHORITY

OF ST. THOMAS AQIDNAS

67

Moreover, teachers, at least once every week during the academic
year, should read the works of St. Thomas on philosophy, especially
the commentaries on Aristotle and Boethius. 227

Thereupon the regulations which should guide the Academy
were promulgated.
The purpose of this Academy is to explain, protect and spread the
doctrine of the Angelic Doctor especially in philosophy, and follow
strictly what was set down in the Encyclical Aeterni Patris. The
chief works of the Academy are these: to join their studies and
forces with the other academies of the same Institute so as to
establish Christian philosophy everywhere according to the principles of Aquinas. 22 s

Mention can be made also of the letter of Cardinal Bisleti,
Prefect of this Congregation, to Fr. A. Baudrillart, Rector of
the Catholic Institute of Paris, referring to a more intense
cultivation of the doctrine of St. Thomas, in which the prescripts of Leo XIII, Pius X and Benedict XV on following
the theological and philosophical teaching of St. Thomas are
recalled and renewed. 229 The Pontiff used every occasion to
extol and urge this philosophy as is evident in his letters to
Frs. Hugon, 280 J. Simbaldi, 281 and L. Theissling. 282 In the Encyclical In praeclara of April 80, 1921, he praised Dante who
midst a great variety of studies followed especially Thomas Aquinas,
Prince of the Schools; following him whose angelic qualities of mind
ennobled his own, he learned practically everything he knew in the
realm of philosophy and theology. 2 s.a

Pius XI said that Benedict XV especially
was to be praised for having promulgated the Code of Canon Law
in which the system, doctrine and principles of the Angelic Doctor
are unreservedly sanctioned. 284
227 Decree of the Sacred Congregation of Studies, March 12, 1915. AAS 7 (1915),
128, 129.
••• Decree of the same Congregation approved by Benedict XV on Feb. 11, 1916.
AAS 8 (1916), 864.
••• AAS 10 (1918), 480.
••• Sept. 80, 1916. AAS l1916), 412-414.
••• AAS 18 (1912), 210.
••• AAS 8 (1916), 174.
281 AAS 9 (1917), 107.
••• Studiorum ducem, loc. cit., 814.

68

SANTIAGO RAMIREZ

In canon 1366, § 2 of the Code, promulgated on Pentecost 1917,
is found this law:
Professors should by all means treat the studies of rational philosophy and theology, and should train students in these subjects,
according to the method, doctrine and principles of the Angelic
Doctor, and should hold these as sacred.
Recalling the same precept in a letter to Cardinal Schulte
on the founding of the Catholic Institute of Philosophy at
Cologne, June 29, 1921, the Pontiff said:
Indeed, nothing could be more salutary and timely than to establish an Institute of true science, i. e., philosophy, where not only
solid and safe doctrine may be taught but, in addition, all those
matters touching the highest notions of the good and the true may
be explained clearly so as to furnish a solution to the various
questions which will continually arise. The Philosophy We mean
is the scholastic philosophy, which is of principal importance with
Catholics. Developed by theholy Doctors, it was brought to such
a pinnacle of perfection through the genius of Aquinas that practically no one can raise it any higher. On this point the prescripts
of the Roman Pontiffs have been clearly formulated and the Code
of Canon Law now embodies them. 235

Pius XI took the same course, inviting all to follow his
predecessors, and he ordered their injunctions to be observed
strictly and sacredly.
What was providentially established in Canon Law on this matter
should be inviolably and religiously observed. . . . When they finish
the course of arts, our students should study Philosophy for at
least two years in order to build a solid foundation for Sacred
Theology. The Philosophy We mean is the Scholastic Philosophy
developed at the cost of great labor by the holy Fathers and
Doctors of the Schools, and advanced to the highest point of its
perfection by the work and brilliance of Thomas Aquinas. Our
illustrious predecessor, Leo XIII, did not hesitate to call it ' the
bulwark of faith and solid fortress of religion' (Aeterni Patris).
It was to the great praise of Leo that he restored Christian Philosophy, urged by his love for and cultivation of the Angelic Doctor.
We will go further and say that of all the things he did during his
••• AAS 18 (1921), 428.

THE AUTHORITY

OF ST. THOMAS AQUINAS

69

long Pontificate which were useful for the Church and for society,
this restoration was of such importance that if he had done nothing
else that alone would suffice to commend the name of so great a
Pope to immortality.
Therefore, teachers of Philosophy should consider it a duty of prime
importance when teaching this subject to clerics to follow not only
the system or method but the doctrine and principles of Thomas
as well. They should do this even more eagerly because they know
that no Doctor of the Church is so terrifying and formidable [to
Modernists and other enemies of the Catholic faith] as Aquinas. 236
The Pontiff wrote in the same vein to the Moderators of
Religious Orders and other societies of religious men:
Hold sacred and inviolate what We have said in Our Apostolic
Letter on the matter of Seminaries and clerical studies in conformity with Canon Law, that teachers in explaining the principles
of philosophy and theology should faithfully follow the scholastic
method according to principles and doctrine of Aquinas.
He called to mind and adopted the famous words of Leo XIII
in the Letter Nostra ergo of Nov. 25, 1898:
Those who wish to be true philosophers-and surely men ought
especially to desire this-should place the bases and foundations
of their doctrine in Thomas Aquinas. 237
Indeed, no one ever " better explained the nature and method
of philosophy, its parts and force." Thomas handled these parts
" in a way which was proper to each. Starting from those elements which are native to human reason and gradually ascending to others which are more remote, he arrived at the summit
of all things." His propositions on the natural power of the
human mind to know truth rooted out the errors of agnosticism.
His doctrine on the existence of God as demonstrable from
creatures through cause and effect stand today, as in the
Middle Ages, as the most solid and strongest of all. 238 In this
••• Apostolic Letter on Seminaries and Clerical Studies, Aug. I, 1922. AAS.
14 (1922). 454-455.

""' Apostolic Letter Unigenitus Dei Filius. loc. cit., 144.
••• Studiorum ducem, loc. cit. 816, 817.

70

SANTIAGO RAMiREZ

letter, as he recalled in an Allocution to the Cardinals on Dec.
he urged all the clergy" especially to follow this leader
in their studies." 239
There is present in the philosophy of St. Thomas,
so to speak, a certain natural Gospel, an incomparably solid foundation for all scientific construction, since the chief characteristic
of Thomism is its objectivity: its constructions or elevations are
not those of a mind cut off from reality, but are constructions of
a spirit which follows the real nature of things . . . The value of
Thomistic doctrine will never seem less because this would require
that the value of things become less.240

In a word, the philosophy of Aquinas is the philosophy of the
Church of Christ, i. e. " a Christian, Catholic, Roman philosophy." 241 Indeed, "as innumerable documents of every kind
attest, the Church has adopted his philosophy for her own." 242
So, he heartily praised Cardinal Mercier for his philosophical
writings based on the doctrine of St. Thomas," namely, Ontology," and, the Pontiff added:
By your explanation you protect the metaphysical principles of St.
Thomas. To recede from them, even slightly, will cause great harm,
as Our predecessor of happy memory, Pius X, warned.243

Pius XII recalled all these precepts of his predecessors and
" if any precept be wanting anywhere, he restores them in their
original force." 244
The perennial philosophy or Christian philosophy which St.
Thomas brought to perfection and left at its peak after composing and strengthening it with a marvellous order, 245 rests
on a solid rock. Perpetually strong and fresh, its fruit will
••• AAS ibid., 607.
••• Loc. cit., cf. note 16.
.. , Allocution to preachers and others gathered at Rome for Thomistic Week,
Nov. 19-!t5, 19!t4. Acta Hebd. Thom., 294, Rome, 1924.
••• Studiorum ducem, loc. cit., 814.
••• Letter of March 26, 19!t4. AAS 16 (1924), 225.
••• Discourse to the clerical students at Rome, loc cit.; Allocution to the
Dominican General Chapter, loc. cit.
·••• Letter to Fr. Gillet, loc. cit.

THE AUTHORITY

OF ST" THOMAS AQUINAS

71

endure forever. Following its guidance one may safely proceed
to a solid knowledge of truth. 246
Indeed, the perennial philosophy is a work of great magnitude. To
construct that work the flower of wisdom and the learned geniuses
raised up by the provident power of God over the centuries have
labored. Strong in its perpetual youth, it now grows stronger and
continually offers increase to various studies, either when physical
studies need deeper investigation, or history needs a more circumspect treatment, or critical method needs more precision.
But the palm is reserved for St. Thomas among all the cultivators
of scholastic philosophy. He holds prirnacy of place. Unique lover
of the truth, with what reverence, as truth demands, does he
thoroughly consider the things to be known, carefully examining
the facts, investigating the texts and documents from which acts
and statements are discovered! How adept he is in disposing the
parts of his inquiries! What firm strength in his arguments and
clear dignity in his language! With conquering fortitude, which
loftiness of mind engenders, he proceeds to his conclusions. By
his calm and confident development he extracts their conclusions
from metaphysical principles which are the common heritage of
Christian wisdom for all ages. 247
Going further in his Encyclical Humani Generis of August 12,
1950, he adds:
This is that healthy philosophy which stands as the heritage from
previous Christian times, and it enjoys a higher order of authority,
because the very Teaching Authority of the Church weighs her
principles and assertions, gradually clarified and defined by men of
genius, in the balance of divine revelation itselt This philosophy,
recognized and accepted by the Church, protects the true and
genuine validity of human knowledge, the unshakable metaphysical
principles of sufficient reason, causality and finality, and ultimately
the mind's ability to attain certain and immutable truth.

In this philosophy many things are explained which touch faith
and morals neither directly nor indirectly, and these the Church
leaves to free discussion of learned men. As for many other matters, especially the principles and chief tenets which We have
246

247

Allocution to the Dominican General Chapter, loc. cit.
Allocution to the Third International Thomistic Congress at Rome, loc. cit.,

:374-375.

SANTIAGO

RAMiREZ

mentioned above, the same liberty is not granted. But, even in
these essential questions philosophy may be clothed in a more convenient and richer raiment, may be fortified with more precise
distinction, may be divested of less useful scholastic aids, may be
prudently enriched with the fruits of the progress of the human
mind; but never may it be overthrown or poisoned with false
principles or be regarded as a great, but obsolete, relic. Truth and
its philosophic expression cannot change daily, especially in the
realm of the self-evident principles of the human mind, or of
those opinions which lean upon both the wisdom of the ages and
the support and approbation of divine revelation. Whatever new
truth the human mind can find in its sincere quest can hardly be
opposed to truth already discovered, since God, the highest Truth,
has created and guides the human mind, not that it may daily
oppose new truths to those already established, but, having removed the errors which possibly have crept in, it may build truth
upon truth in the same order and structure found in reality, the
source of truth. The Christian philosopher and theologian should
not, therefore, embrace eagerly and lightly whatever novelty is
thought up from day to day. Rather, they should weigh it with
the greatest care and a balanced judgment, so as not to lose or
corrupt the truth already acquired, with consequent grave danger
and harm to the faith.
If one has a true perspective in these matters, he will readily see
why the Church requires that future priests be instructed in philosophy ' according to the method, doctrine and principles of the
Angelic Doctor' (CIC, can. 1366, 2) since, as the experience of
many centuries proves, the method and doctrine of Aquinas is
singularly preeminent for teaching students and for investigating
obscure truths. His doctrine is in wonderful harmony with divine
revelation and is most effective for safeguarding the foundations
of the faith as weU as for reaping, usefully and safely, the fruits of
sound progress.248

Of such a kind are " those which by their nature are closely
connected with the doctrine of faith " and which deal especially ·
with the two philosophical studies, " theodicy and ethics." 249
These do not agree with the tenets of immanentism, idealism,
historical or dialectical materialism, nor with existentialism, all
of which are opposed to Catholic dogma. 250
••• AAS 42 (1950), 571-578.
••• Ibid., 574-575.
••• Ibid., 574; Allocution to the pilgrimage to Rome of the teachers and students

THE AUTHORITY

OF ST. THOMAS AQUINAS

73

Students of sacred studies should receive instruction in many
other fields, among which
the study of social questions is of considerable importance; but
the greatest effort must be expended in philosophy and theology
' according to the method of the Angelic Doctor' (can. 1366, 2)
and to these should be added a knowledge of the needs and errors
which afflict our age.251
These errors cannot be effectively refuted unless one has
thoroughly learned the basic elements of philosophy and
theology.
In order that the study of sacred sciences may not unhappily
suffer, We strongly exhort all of you, Venerable Brethren, to watph
carefully that the precise regulations which this Apostolic See has
laid down for such studies be faithfully received and translated
into action. 252
In this way and in no other will the deposit of Catholic Faith
be preserved whole, pure and unharmed, as well as untainted
by the tenets of false philosophies. 258
This extended list of documents is more than sufficient to
show clearly that the canonical doctrinal authority of Aquinas
in philosophy is the greatest in a unique sense. To no other
ecclesiastical writer in the field of philosophy does the Church
extend such great approbation and commendation.

of the Universities and Schools of France, Sept. 20, 1950. AAS 42 (1950), 787;
Allocution to the General Congress at Rome of all the Religious Orders, Congregations, Societies and Secular Institutes, Dec. 8, 1950. AAS 48 (1951), 82, 84.
051 Menti Nostrae, loc. cit., 687-688.
059 Ibid., 688; Discourse to the Cardinals, Archbishops, Bishops and other local
Ordinaries ... gathered at Rome, Nov, 2, 1950. AAS 42 (1950), 791.
058 Humani Generis, loc. cit., 575; Allocution to the Third Thomistic Congress,
loc. cit. 785.

74

SANTIAGO

RAMIREZ

m
GENERAL

AuTHORITY

OF THE ENTIRE BonY OF ST. THOMAs'
DocTRINE

There are distinct categories of St. Thomas' doctrinal authority, namely, scientific and canonical, philosophical and theological, each outstanding and supreme in its own field as well as
distinct from the others. Still, these categories may not and
should not be separated, but are rather intimately joined in
perfect unity. The result is that all of them taken together are
as integral parts of one complete and total doctrinal authority.
All these parts mutually assist and complete each other, and,
arising from this natural harmony between the philosophical
and theological and between the scientific and canonical authority of both, we find the highest authority of the whole and
integral body of St. Thomas' doctrine.
This intimate harmony of reason and faith and consequently
of philosophy and theology is extremely clear and distinctly
mentioned in the works of St. Thomas. He says of Theology:
This science may receive help from the philosophical sciences, not
that it stood in need of them, but only to make its teaching
clearer. For it accepts its principles not from other sciences but
immediately from God, by revelation. So, it does not depend
upon other sciences as upon the higher, but it makes use of them
as of the lesser, and as handmaids; even so the master sciences
make use of the sciences that supply their materials, as political
of military science. That it thus uses them is due not to its own
defect or insufficiency but to the defect of our intelligence, which
is more easily led by what is known through natural reason (from
which the other sciences proceed) to that which is above reason.
·
such as are the teachings of this science. 254

It is not the business of Theology to demonstrate the principles of Philosophy but only to weigh their validity in relation
to its own proper principles. " Whatever is found in other
sciences contrary to any truth of this doctrine must be con••• Summa Theol., I, q. 1, a. 5 ·ad !!.

THE AUTHORITY

OF ST. THOMAS AQUINAS

75

demned as totally false." 255 So, what does not agree with the
truth revealed by God, Who can neither deceive nor be deceived,
but rather contradicts the truth, cannot be true, but is false and
is to be rejected. Such falsity is totally inept and Theology
cannot use it to illustrate and explain its propositions. And so
the holy Doctor adds:
Inasmuch as sacred doctrine makes use of the teachings of philosophy for their own sake, it does not accept them because of the
authority· of those who taught them but because of the reasonableness of the doctrine; for this reason it accepts such truths and
rejects others. 256
This same harmony is apparent in the way in which the
Church approves a doctrine, stating that the doctrine has been
adopted as her own and commanding that it be followed. All
proof previously adduced incontrovertibly demonstrates this.
In the Code we find:
Professors shall by all means treat the
of rational philo_sophy
and theology, and shall train students in these subjects according to the method, doctrine and principles of the Angelic Doctor,
and should hold these as sacred. 251
The philosophy and theology of St. Thomas are at the same. time
to be held sacred and explained in Catholic schools, not only
as to system or method, nor only as•to principles or major
propositions, but even as to doctrine, i. e., the doctrinal system
based on those principles and that method, in such a way that
the students " may be instructed in a complete and coherent
synthesis of doctrine according to the principles and method
of St. Thomas Aquinas." 258
In this matter SOJile declarations of the Popes are much to the
point. Leo XIII said:
We propose for imitation a man whose virtue and wisdom shine
brilliantly, a man fully imbued with human and divine knowledge
••• Ibid., a. 6 ad
••• In· Boethii de Trinitate, q.
a. 8 ad 8.
••• Can. 1866,
••• Deus scientiarum Dominus, loc. cit.,

76

SANTIAGO

RAMIREZ

culled from the fruit of centuries, a man honored by the praises
of the Church and the Roman Pontiffs and found equal in mind
to the angels. 259

Taking this into consideration, devotion to this great and holy
man affords the most powerful help to restore philosophic and
theological learning with consequent great utility for the
State. 260
Referring to this some years later he said:
We have taken care to restore the studies of philosophy and
theology under Thomas' leadership to their time-honored niethod. 261
A cleric should grow up with and be exercised in his school of
philosophy and theology: for he stands forth as the most learned
and most capable in holy contests. 262 Let each one consider this
imposed by law, that Thomas Aquinas should be followed as guide
by both Faculties, and let them especially cultivate and safeguard
his doctrine. 263
The best preparation will be conscientious application to philosophy
and theology under the guidance of St. Thomas Aquinas, and a
thorough training therein, as We have pointed out and directed. 264

With good reason was he able to write on May 9 in an
Encyclical Letter confirming the Constitutions of the Roman
Academy of St. Thomas, that,
From the very beginning of Our Pontificate, driven by a knowlhave often striven that the studies of
edge of serious evils,
Philosophy and Theology should be reintegrated according to the
time-honored scholastic system of St. Thomas, and that the discipline of his scholastic method should be established as handmaid
and companion to the truth of faith. We now rightly rejoice that
this has been accomplished in practically every Catholic School.265

Mter the publication of his Encyclical Aeterni Patris, the
••• Allocution to an International Congress of scholars at Rome, loc. cit.
••• Brief Cum hoc cit, loc. cit., 114.
261 Letter to Cardinal Parocchi, May 20, 1885, cf. Berthier, op. cit., 226.
••• Encyclical to the Bavarian Hierarchy, loc. cit., 128.
••• Letter to La Civilta
July 8, 1890, cf. Berthier, op. cit., 288.
••• ProvidfmtisaimuaDeus, loc. cit., 28.
••• Cf. Berthier, op. cit., 259. Cf. also Letter to the quarterly DiV'UII Thfi'TOOS,
Feb. 7, 1898, ibid., 258.
·

THE AUTHORITY

OF ST. THOMAS AQUINAS

77

foregoing was artistically expressed on a medal struck for the
occasion. On the obverse was a likeness of the Pontiff; on the
reverse was a likeness of St. Thomas, wearing the doctoral
insignia and extending with the right hand his Theology, and
with the left his Philosophy. Across the top was this inscription,
The doctrine of Thomas Aquinas restored to its pristine place
of honor, and across the bottom, Renewal of the covenant
between divine and human wisdom.
Pius X considered it sufficient to recall among many others
this one phrase:
Studies in Philosophy, Theology and cognate sciences, especially
Sacred Scripture, should be made in conformity with the pontifical
directives and the study of Saint Thomas, so often recommended
by Our revered predecessor and by Us. 266
To discard Aquinas especially in philosophy and theology, as We
have said, cannot fail to cause great harm. Using his guidance is
the safest way to a profound knowledge of divine things. 267

Benedict XV who promulgated the regulation now included
in the Code of Canon Law deemed it enough to call to mind the
words:
It is a sacred and salutary and almost necessary duty to follow
Thomas Aquinas as the great teacher in schools where youths
are instructed in philosophy and theology. 268

His philosophy, since it is truly in accord with Christ, can be
used safely and with no danger of error, and applied by Sacred
Theology, "in orde:r that the explanation and defense of
revealed truth may be as full as human reason can make it." 269
To this Pius XI added:
Teachers of Philosophy should consider it of prime importance in
teaching clerics this science to follow the system and method as
well as the doctrine and principles of St. Thomas. They will do
that even more zealously because they know that no Doctor of
••• Encyclical Pieni l'animo, July £8, 1906, ASS (89), 824.
267 Motu proprio Praeclara, loc. cit., 885.
268 Letter to Fr. Ed. Hugon, 0. P., loc. cit.
••• Motu proprio Non multo post, loc. cit., 6.

78

SANTIAGO RAMIREZ

the Church is so terrifying and formidable to modernists and other
enemies ot the Catholic faith as Aquinas.
What we say in reference to Philosophy is likewise to be understood in the study of Sacred Theology . ... For that which accomplishes the aim of making this study a true science and of giving,
as Our predecessor of illustrious memory said, a complete and
unshakable explanation of divinely revealed truth is scholastic philosophy under Aquinas' guidance, being put at the disposal of
sacred science. 270

He repeated these commands to religious men studying for
the priesthood:
In treating the principles of philosophy, professors should follow
closely the scholastic method according to the principles and doctrines of Aquinas ....
How important it is for your students to follow the scholastic
method is apparent from the fact that because there is a very
dose connection between philosophy and revelation, the scholastics
themselves joined both in a wonderful harmony, and set forth
arguments in such a way that one offers light and important help
to the other. Since both come from God, the highest and eternal
truth, and one furnishes and explains the truths of :reason and the
other the documents of faith, they cannot oppose each other, as
some have foolishly maintained. Rather, they harmonize so easily
that one completes the other. It follows from this that an ignorant
and unskilled philosopher will never make a learned theologian.
Conversely, one who is entirely barren of divine knowledge will
never be a perfect philosopher.
On this point St. Thomas aptly states: 'With the faithful a matter
of faith is proved by the principles of faith, just as from selfevident principles a point can be proven to the satisfaction of all.
So, theology also is a science.' (Summa Theol., II-II, q. 1, a. 5,
ad 3.) To put it in other words, just as philosophy takes its
principles of natural knowledge from reason which is a participation of the divine light, and enunciates and explains them, so
theology by the light of supernatural revelation which illuminates
and fills the intellect with its own light, deals with, develops and
explains the notions of fa,ith, just as if they were two rays from
the same sun, or two rivers from one source, or a double building
on one foundation.
370

Apostolic Letter Officiomm Omnium, loc. cit.

THE AUTHORITY

OF ST. THOMAS AQUINAS

79

Human science is indeed very great as long as it yields to the
teachings of faith. But, if they are ignored, then it must necessarily fall into many errors and aberrations.
But, beloved sons, if your students gather to themselves the best
of human knowledge and apply it to the service and use of sacred
doctrine, and if they burn with a love and desire for divine truth,
they will be, and will be considered, men of God, and will bring
much benefit by .word and example to Christian people. 271
Finally, Pius XII gives generous praise to the Order of
Preachers for its uncommon merit in philosophy and theology,
and adds:
You have given Thomas Aquinas, Common Doctor of these studies,
to the Church. His authority is unique, whether for educating
students or in leading the search for hidden truth, and is enunciated by decree in the Code of Canon Law. Of these studies the
Angelic Doctor is always a most skilled leader and never-failing
light, bringing forth perpetual fruit. 272
In the Encyclical Humani Generis, he gives stern warning
that not just any philosophy can be used by a theologian as
an apt instrument to explain and defend the truths of faith.
Only that philosophy may be used which the Church has judged
to be true and healthy for secular use, i. e., Christian philosophy
under the leadership and teaching of Aquinas. He says:
It is clear that the Church cannot be bound to every system of
philosophy that has existed for a short space: but those which
through general agreement were composed by Catholic doctors
over the course of the centuries to bring about some understanding
of dogma are certainly not based upon any such frail foundation.
They depend upon principles and notions deduced from the true
knowledge of created things. In the deduction of this knowledge,
truth divinely revealed has illuminated the human mind through
the Church like a star. Therefore it is not at all astonishing that
the Ecumenical Councils have not only employed these notions
but even sanctioned them in such a way that it is wrong to depart
from them.

Wherefore, to neglect or reject or devalue what has been accom271 Apostolic Letter Unigmitus Dei Filius, loc. cit., 144,145.
••• Allocution to the Dominican General Chapter,
cit.

·zoe.

6

80

SANTIAGO

RAMIREZ

plished over many centuries by great effort by men of uncommon
genius and sanctity under the watchful eye of Mother Church, and
with the light and guidance of the Holy Spirit, in order to express
ever more accurately the truths conceived, expressed and perfected by the mind, and to :replace it with conjectural notions and
with some formless and unstable tenets of a new philosophy,
which as the flowers of the field are today and are gone tomorrow,
this is not only the height of imprudence but it also makes dogma
but a reed shaken by the wind. 213 St. Thomas with wonderful
cleverness leads the intelligence of men, hesitant and doubtful by
reason of the splendor of divine revelation, into the very temple of
the mysteries of God. Answering difficulties by the skill of his
argumentation, he emphasizes the brilliance and clarity existing in
the harmony between human and divine things. 274 So, the greatest
importance must be given to philosophical and theological teaching
according to the method of the Angelic Doctor

in the training of youths. 275
Therefore, there can be no doubt that the complete doctrinal
authority of St. Thomas both intrinsic and extrinsic, by the
approval and commendation of the Church, is truly the greatest
among all ecclesiastical writers in philosophy as well as in
theology. For this "enduring, constant and repeated approval
of the Holy See, time after time and even up to the present in
a manner at once particularly insistent and always encouraging," of his philosophical and theological doctrine above all
others, is entirely distinctive and was never attributed to
anyone else. 276
To estimate properly this unique authority one must avoid
extremes arising from excess and defect and with the Church
hold a proper middle course.

Some err by defect and do not obey the commands of the
Church:
Loc. cit., 566-567. Cf. ibid., 571-574.
Allocution to the Third International Thomistic Congress, loc. cit. 735.
275 Menti Nostrae, loc. cit.
276 Cardinal L. Billot, S. J., Discourse delivered on March n, 1915 in the great
hall of the Apostolic Chancery on the occasion of erection of the Academy of St.
Thomas, published in Xenia thomistica, I, 19, (Rome,
273

274

THE AUTHORITY

OF ST. THOMAS AQUINAS

81

1. Those who openly condemn or minimize the philosophical
and theological doctrine of Thomas, and attempt to impugn it
and to hold it up to derision. As Pius XII says:

How deplorable it is that this philosophy accepted and honored
by the Church is scorned by some and shamefully rejected as being
outdated in form and rationalistic in its method of thought. They
say that this philosophy of ours upholds the perverse notion that
there is an absolutely true metaphysic. And, on the contrary, they
hold that reality, especially transcendent reality, cannot better be
expressed than by disparate teachings which mutually complete
each other, although in a way mutually opposed. So they concede
that our traditional philosophy with its clear exposition and solution of questions, its accurate definition of terms, and its clear-cut
distinctions, can indeed be useful as a preparation for scholastic
theology, though it is more suited to the mentality of the Middle
Ages. Yet it does not offer a method of philosophy suited to the
needs of modern culture.
Then, they allege that our perennial philosophy is only a philosophy
of immutable essences, whereas the modern mind must look to the
' existence ' of things, and to life, which is ever in flux. While
scorning our philosophy they praise others, ancient and modern,
oriental and occidental, by which they seem to imply that any
philosophy or theory, graced with a few corrections or additions
if need be, can be reconciled with Catholic dogma. No Catholic
can doubt that this is entirely false, especially where there is
question of those fictitious theories they call immanentism, idealism, historic or dialectical materialism, and even existentialism,
whether atheistic or simply the type that denies the validity of
reason in metaphysics.
Finally, they reproach the philosophy taught in our schools for
regarding only the intellect in the process of cognition and neglecting the function of the will and the emotions. This is simply not
true. Christian philosophy has never denied the usefulness and
efficacy of good dispositions of soul for perceiving and embracing
fully moral and religious truths. In fact, it has always taught
the lack of such dispositions can be the reason why the intellect,
influenced by the passions and evil inclinations, is so darkened
that it cannot see clearly. Indeed, St. Thomas holds that the
intellect can in some way perceive higher goods of the moral order,
whether natural or supernatural in that it experiences in the soul
a certain ' connaturality ' with these goods whether this be natural

82

SANTIAGO

RAMIREZ

or the result of grace; 277 and it is clear how much even this somewhat obscure knowledge can help reason in its investigations.
But it is one thing to recognize the power of the dispositions of the
will in helping reason to reach a more certain and solid knowledge
of moral truths; it is quite another to contend, as these innovators
do, that the appetitive and affective faculties have a certain power
of understanding, and that man, since he cannot decide with certainty based on reason itself what is true and therefore to be
embraced, turns to his will, by which he freely chooses among
opposite opinions.
It is not at all · surprising that these new opinions constitute a
dangerous influence for the two philosophical sciences which are
by nature closely connected with the doctrine of the faith, namely
theodicy and ethics. They maintain that the function of these
scierrces is not to prove with certitude anything about God or any
other transcendental being, but rather to show that what faith
teaches about a personal God and His precepts is perfectly consistent with the necessities of life and therefore are to be embraced by all to avoid despair and to attain eternal salvation. All
of these opinions are openly contrary to documents of Our predecessors Leo XIII and Pius X, and cannot be reconciled with the
decrees of the Vatican Council.
It would be unnecessary to deplore these aberrations from the
truth, if all, even in philosophy, directed their attention with
proper reverence to the Teaching Authority of the Church. It is
the mission of the Church, by divine institution, not only to safeguard and interpret the deposit of divinely revealed truth but
also to watch over the philosophical sciences in order to prevent
Catholic dogma from being harmed because of erroneous opinions. 278
2. They err by defect and disobey the commands of the
Church, who, under any pretext whatever, withdraw from the
doct1ine of Thomas, or do not study him with proper sincerity,
but rather spend their time in looking for his defects, if there
are any, and not in attempting to discover his genuine doctrine
and to explain it. As Leo XIIT said: " to depart unadvisedly
and rashly from the wisdom of the Angelic Doctor is not only
against Our will, but is fraught with danger as well." 279 Pius X
•n Summa Theol., II-II, q. 1, a. 4, ad 8; q. 45, a.
••• Humani Generis, loc. cit., 578-575.
••• Letter to the Minister General 0. F. M., loc. cit.

THE AUTHORITY

OF ST. THOMAS AQUINAS

83

added, '' it is true even today that when someone parts company
with Thomas, he seems to be ultimately aiming at parting
company with the Church." 280
Pius XI advised Professors:
To be persuaded that then only will they satisfactorily discharge
their duty and Our expectation when, after long and diligent
perusal of his writings, they begin to feel an intense devotion for
the Doctor Aquinas and by their exposition of him succeed in
inspiring their pupils with like fervor and train them to kindle a
similar zeal in others. 281
Pius XII concludes:
Wherefore, beloved sons, fill your souls full with love and zeal for
St. Thomas: strive with all your powers to perceive his clear
doctrine with your minds; freely embrace whatever has a clear
connection with it and is supposed by a sound reason in
doctrine. 282
St. Augustine wisely set up this law for understanding and
interpreting the works of any author-first, that the authors
themselves should at least not be despised and, secondly, that
they should be loved. " Who ever thought that the obscure
and hidden books of Aristotle ought to be interpreted by one
of his enemies? " 283 A man who wrote his works with such labor
and care as St. Thomas is especially entitled to the same degree
of diligence in one who is studying or explaining him. Otherwise we can suitably apply to him that saying of St. Augustine,
"If you believe that I am in error, carefully consider again what
was said, lest perhaps you fall into error." 284

3. They also err by defect who admit the great and powerful
authority of St. Thoma.<J for other times, though not for our
times which present new problems. According to them the
historian of philosophy and theology should attribute a great
Letter to Fr. Th. Pegues, lac. cit.
Studiorum ducem, lac. cit., 323.
••• Discourse to the clerical students at Rome, lac. cit.
••• De utilitate credendi, cap. 6, no. 18, ML 42, 74.
••• De dono peraeverantiae,cap. 24, no. 68, ML 45, 1084.
280

281

84

SANTIAGO RAMIREZ

position to him in noting the doctrines of the Middle Ages, but
the modern philosopher and theologian should recognize only
his archaeological value.
On the contrary Leo XIII asserted:
This is a great accomplishment, that his doctrine is founded upon
and provided with principles enjoying the widest possible extension, is fitted to the needs not alone of one particular age but of
all ages, and is especially accommodated to the destruction of
errors which perpetually arise.285
Benedict XV wrote:
The Apostolic See's famous praises of Thomas Aquinas allow no
Catholic to doubt that he was divinely raised up that the Church
might have a Teacher whose doctrine should be followed for all
time; 286 a Teacher indeed and a Doctor who never grows old.287
St. Thomas, in the words of Pius XII, " is always a most
skilful guide and a never-failing light"; the structure he has
erected "is living perpetually, above and beyond all time, and
is even now a strong and powerful bulwark to protect the
deposit of Catholic faith." 288 Therefore, it is neyer lawful "to
overthrow [even one of his philosophical doctrines] or contaminate it with false principles, or regard it as a great, but
obsolete relic." 289
4. They err by defect who acknowledge and praise the
supreme authority of St. Thomas by words, and state that it
is valid even in our time, but deny and disparage his authority
by deeds, insofar as they consider it to be merely symbolic, as
if Thomas was not a singular individual person but represented
all scholastic writers indifferently. And so that highest doctrinal
authority would affect scholastic doctrine indistinctly, and not
especially the doctrine of Thomas himself, though it would
••• Cum hoc sit, loc. cit., 1U.
••• Letter to Fr. Pegues, loc. cit., cf. note 119.
287 Letter of Pius X to Fr. Hugon 0. P., July 16, 1918, AAS 5 (1918), 487.
••• Allocution to the Dominican General Chapter, loc. cit.
••• Humani generis, loc. cit.,

THE AUTHORITY

OF ST. THOMAS AQUINAS

85

be named after Thomas since he was the most outstanding of
the scholastics; or even if they accept him really and as himself,
they equate his authority with that of other ecclesiastical writers
in such a way· that Thomas' authority and that of these others
is practically the same. So there is no special obligation to
follow Aquinas as guide, but rathe1· every kind of liberty is
given in a sort of eclectic manner to embrace several kinds of
doctrine at once, even including contrary doctrines.
Indeed, as they say, the doctrine of St. Thomas is held up
by the Roman Pontiffs as safe and sound; yet this does not
prevent the doctrine of other writers, though inconsistent with
and contrary to Aquinas' teaching from being called safe and
sound. Indeed, it may be safer and sounder! It is merely
scholastic doctrine that is being approved and commanded by
the Church when she extolls Aquinas, rather than Thomistic
doctrine.
Such people have sadly deceived themselves. The documents
of the Church clearly and positively exclude opinions of this
kind. It is sufficient to refer to only a few among a great
number.
Leo XIII said:
When We declare that one should receive with a willing and glad
mind whatever has been wisely said, or whatever is profitable no
matter by whom it is discovered or thought out, We exhort all of
you, Venerable Brethren, with the greatest earnestness for the
safety and glory of the Catholic faith, for the good of society, and
for the increase of all knowledge, to restore the golden Wisdom of
St. Thomas and to spread it as widely as possible.
We said the wisdom of St. Thomas, for it is not by any reason in
Our mind to set before this age, as a standard, those things which
may have been inquired into by scholastic doctors with too great
sublety or taught with too little consideration, not agreeing with
the investigations of a later age; or, lastly, anything that is not
probable. Let these teachers carefully chosen by you do their
best to instill the doctrine of St. Thomas Aquinas into the minds
of their hearers; and let them point out clearly its solidity and
excellence above all other teaching. 290
290

Aeterni Patris, loc. cit., 7i.!, 74.

86

SANTIAGO RAMIREZ

He wrote to the Fathers of the Society of Jesus that they
should not be so engaged in the study of their· own authors as
to withdraw in the slightest from the cultivation of the true
teaching of St. Thomas, in which they should be uniform. Such
uniformity
is impossible unless the students of the Society adhere to one
author, i. e. one already approved, concerning whom there is one
precept [in the laws of the Society] 'they shall follow St. Thomas
and consider him as their own proper doctor'. It follows then that
if any of those authors [of the Society] whom We have praised,
disagree with the doctrine of the Common Doctor [namely, St.
Thomas,] there should be no doubt as to which is the right path to
follow,
namely, the path of Aquinas. 291
To the Minister General of the Order of Friars Minor he
wrote:
The name of Thomas should be held sacred by all the children of
St. Francis and they should be fearful if they fail to take as their
guide him of whom Jesus Christ said that he had written well of
Him.292
Pius X complained that some misunderstood him when he
said that the philosophy of Aquinas should be chiefly followed 298
He stated that because he said chiefly but not uniquely:
Certain persons persuaded themselves that they were acting in
conformity with Our will or at any rate not actively opposing it,
in adopting indiscriminately and adhering to the philosophical
opinions of any other Doctor of the School, even though such principles were contrary to the principles of St. Thomas. They are
completely mistaken. For, if the doctrine of any author or saint
has even been approved by Us or by Our predecessors with singular
commendation joined with an invitation and order to propagate
and to defend it, it may be clearly understood that it was commended only insofar as i1 agreed with the principles of Aquinas,
or was in no way opposed to them. 294
Brief Gravisaime nos, loc. cit., 248.
••• Loc. cit.
••• Motu proprio Sacrorum Antistitum, loc cit.
••• Motu proprio Doctoris Angelici, loc. cit., 886, 888.
291

THE· AUTHORITY

OF ST. THOMAS AQUINAS

87

Far from permitting the doctrine of St. Thomas to degenerate
into some weak, amorphous scholastic relic, this injunction must
be obeyed in reference to it:
In teaching the precepts of philosophy and theology, teachers
should follow faithfully the scholastic method according to the
principles and doctrine of Aquinas. 295

St. Thomas' authority in both philosophy and theology is
entirely unique: 296 Among all the doctors of scholastic philosophy 'the palm is reserved for St. Thomas, and he holds a
principal position. 291
Moreover, the doctrine of St. Thomas is not only approved
and commended by the Church as merely safe and sound, rather
it is safer and sounder than the rest, indeed, it is the safest,
soundest and surest.
St. Pius V said of St. Thomas that " his theological doctrine
accepted by the Catholic Church is more safe and sound than
the rest: " 298 for he is " the surest ruie of Christian doctrine." 299
Benedict XIV recalled and adopted the words of Clement
VIII who said that Thomas wrote his works without any error
at all; and added that it can consequently be followed without
any danger of error.30° Further, he commanded:
That henceforth none of the masters or lectors of the College of
St. Denis may explain, teach and read to their students any other
doctrine, especially in theology, beside the sole doctrine of St.
Thomas Aquinas. 301

Leo XIII praised his pure doctrine. For:
Whatever truth was enunciated or reasonably discussed by pagan
philosophers, by the Fathers and Doctors of the Church, by
••• Pius XI, Apostolic Letters, Unigenitus Dei Filius, loc. cit., 144; Ojficiorum
omnium, loc. cit., 454-455; Pius XII, Humani generis, loc. cit.,
••• Pius XII, Allocution to the Dommican General Chapter, loc. cit.
297 Allocution to the Third Thomistic Congress, loc. cit., 784.
••• To the Master of the Sacred Palace, July
1570, cf. Berthier, op. cit., 99.
••• Constitution Mirabilis Deus, April 11, 1567, ibid., 98.
800 Brief of Aug.
1756. Berthier, op. cit., 156.
801Jbid.

88

SANTIAGO RAMIREZ

learned men who lived before him, he not only thoroughly knew,
but even increased, perfected and expanded. 302

It is that
which the fulsome praises of the Roman Pontiffs and Councils
commended, and which by the vote of the ages leaves nothing
to be desired of a more firm and fruitful nature. 303 Domestic and
civil society, which We perceive is in danger to the degree that
it is persuaded by perverse ideas, would be immediately much more
peaceful and secure if in universities and schools that doctrine
were taught which is healthier and more in accord with the Teaching Authority of the Church. Such doctrine is contained in the
volumes of Thomas Aquinas. 30 4.
St. Thomas has the surest method for philosophy. 305 His
method of philosophy is " the truest and most suitable of all,"
and "We wish all to use it in both teaching and learning." 306
For,
Human reason has an innate inclination to reach to the interior
and hidden knowledge of things, and it cannot will otherwise; it
follows this inclination much more freely and easily when Thomas
is its teacher and guide, because then it acts most safely without
any possibility of exceeding the bounds of truth. 307
Pius X said:
His golden doctrine illuminates the mind with its brilliance and by
its use reason attains the deepest knowledge of divine things without
any danger of error.sbs
To discard Aquinas, especially in philosophy and theology, as We
have said, is very harmfu],; following him is the safest path to a
profound knowledge of divine things. 309
We urge you always to consider it a sacred and a solemn duty to
Brief Cum hoc sit, loc. cit. 112.
Letter Graviasime nos, loc. cit., 244.
800 Aetemi Patria, loc. cit., 70.
806 Letter to Cardinal Gibbons, loc. cit.
808 Letter to Cardinal Deschamps, loc. cit.
801 Encyclical Officio aanctiasimo, loc. cit.
808 Motu proprio Praeclara, loc. cit., 884.
aoo Ibid., 885.
802

808

THE AUTHORITY

OF ST. THOMAS AQUINAS

89

follow Thomas as guide in philosophy, and in the discussion of
divine things. In this way, midst the excitement about studies, you
wiU never wander from the rule of Christian truth; there are a great
many such aberrations today, because there is an imprudent indulgence in each one's own judgment or in the unproved authority of
certain men.aHl In this matter there can be no safer course than
to follow Thomas as guide. Those who gave written treatises on
divine things according to his mind have drawn from him much
light and solidity. 311

If, therefore, the doctrine of Thomas is safer and has been
declared and praised as the safest, other doctrines inconsistent
with or even contradictory to it cannot be or be called equally
safe, let alone safest. Comparatives and superlatives exclude
the same grade of perfection or quality in others, as we know
from the very grammatical meaning of the words: " no doctrine
can be found which is safer," as we have just heard from the
mouth of Pius X.
Indeed, from the fact alone that the doctrine of Aquinas is
approved merely as being safe and sound and that approbation
is not given to others inconsistent with him, it is clear that these
cannot be called equally safe and sound. John of St. Thomas
writes:
To be approved for soundness of doctrine is the highest type of
approval; though others may not be condemned or rejected, still
this one is to be preferred. It would seem to be madness if the
Church with great praises of many kinds extolls and approves St.
Thomas' doctrine, and admits and approves as equal those which
contradict it; thus she would destroy what she was building.312

From this, one should not fly to the opposite extreme. Thus,
those are in error by excess who do not obey the precepts of the
Church:
1. Those who deny all authority in other writers of the

Church as if Thomas' authority excluded all other doctrinal
Letter to Fr. Velasquez, loc. cit.,
Letter to Fr. Lottini, loc. cit.
312 Tractatua de approbatione et auctoritate doctrinae angelicae Divi Thomae,
disp. I, a. 8 no.
ed. Solesm. Cursus theol.
b., Paris, 1981.
310

311

90

SANTIAGO

RAMiREZ

·authority, and as if the Angelic Doctor were the only Doctor
of the Church. This would be contrary to the doctrine of St.
Thomas himself and contrary to his approbation by the Church.
Contrary to St. Thomas himself, who advises the student of
wisdom:
Do not heed by whom a thing is said but rather what is said you
should commit to your memory. 813
Moreover, no one by his own thinking can find out all that pertains to wisdom and therefore, no one is so wise that he cannot learn
from another: 314 and in this way, additions are made to knowledge.
In the beginning a little bit was discovered, then, later through
different people it began gradually to increase into a great quantity;
for it is everyone's concern to add what was lacking in the preceding additions to knowledge.315
He himself attributes great authority to Aristotle in philosophy and St. Augustine in theology, but he does not in any
way exclude others. Of Thomas Cajetan says 316 in a reference
which Leo Xlll used and approved, " because his veneration
for the ancient and sacred Doctors was so great, he may be
said to have gained a perfect understanding of them all." 317

Contrary to his approbation by the Church, which expressly
recognizes the authority of others. When we praise St. Thomas,
Leo XIII said:
not disapprove, indeed, of those learned and able men who
bring their learning and industry and the riches of new discoveries to the aid of philosophy: for We clearly see that such a
course tends _to the increase of learning. 318 Indeed, We declare that
everything wisely said should be received with willing and glad
mind, as well as everything by whomsoever profitably discovered
and thought out. 819
Passing over the Fathers of the Church and the Doctors
whose numbers daily increase and receive the approbation of
818

Opusculum d6 modo studendi.

In Ps. 43, no. I, Opera Omnia XVIII, 495, ed. Vives.
In I Ethicorum ad Nicomachum, lect. II, n. 188.
818 Comment. in Summam Theol., II-II, q. 148, a. 4.
818 Ibid., 68.
811 Aeterni Patris, loc. cit.,
8"

315

810

Ibid.,

THE AUTHORITY

OF ST. THOMAS AQUINAS

91

authority in accord with their merits, we will mention onl;r
these words of Leo XIII:
It is a joyous thing to recall the fortunate period when there came
out from the halls of the Theological Faculty of Paris, and in return
poured forth on it the treasures of wisdom, such men as Peter
Lombard, William of Paris, Albert the Great, Bonaventure, Giles
and many others who illumined the whole world by the light of
their learned wisdom. Because of their number it is necessary to
pass over some of them, yet We must mention Thomas Aquinas
whom the whole Church admires and respects as the most
liant sun. New Doctors should follow such distinguished leaders,
and if they read their works, and especially if they embrace the
doctrine of the Angelic Master and diligently teach and strenuously
safeguard it, we may hope that that pristine dignity and unique
excellence will be recaptured by a great increase in studies and in
Christianity itself.S20

The brightness of the sun, the moon and the stars are all
different, for star differs from star in brightness. 321 All shine but
with different degrees of light. The more intense brightness of
the sun does not blot out the lesser brightness of the other stars,
but perfects them and renders them brighter. So the brilliance
of the Aquinian Sun does not exclude the refulgence of other
Doctors, but from the fact that be has perfected, explained and
expanded their doctrine, he renders them brighter and more
lustrous.

They err by excess who consider that each and every
element of the Thomistic doctrinal synthesis is of equal scientific
or canonical authority, even though they be secondary and of
less importance, or with no intrinsic relation to faith or morals.
As Pius X wrote:
It is clear that when We present Thomas as the chief guide for
our scholastic philosophy, We want this to be understood especially
of his principles upon which his philosophy is based as its foundation.223 For those which are the capital theses in the philosophy of
320 Letter on the founding of a Theological Faculty at the Catholic Institute of
Paris, Dec. 10, 1889, cf. Berthier, op. cit., 286-287.
821 I Cor. XV, 41.
••• Doctoris Angelici, loc. cit. 887.

92

SANTIAGO RAMIREZ

St. Thomas are not to be considered as debatable one way or
another, but as the foundation upon which all knowledge of natural
and divine things is based. If such principles are removed or in
any way impaired, it necessarily follows that students of sacred
sciences will fail to perceive even the meaning of the words in
which divinely revealed dogmas are proposed by the Teaching
Authority of the Church. We, therefore, desired that all teachers
of philosophy and theology should be warned that if they deviated
so much as a step, especially in metaphysics, from Aquinas, they
exposed themselves to the greatest risk.823
Among such principles or major propositions in philosophy
must be numbered the twenty-four thomistic theses which the
Sacred Congregation of Studies declared " clearly contain the
principles and major propositions of the holy Doctor." 324
Hence we have the words of Pius XII to students studying
at Rome for the priesthood: " adopt freely whatever pertains
clearly to it [the doctrine of St. Thomas] and finds a solid
basis in it." 325
Again in the Encyclical H umani Generis: " In this philosophy
many things are explained which neither directly nor indirectly
touch faith or morals and which consequently the Church
leaves to the free discussion of experts. But this does not hold
for many other things, especially those principles and fundamental tenets to which We have just referred [the unshakable
metaphysical principles of sufficient reason, causality, and
finality]." 326
At the same time we must keep in mind what he said to the
teachers and students of the Universities and Schools of France
who were visiting in Rome: "all the sciences have directly or
indirectly some rapport with religion, not only theology, philosophy, history, literature, but even those other sciences in the
juridical, medical, physical, natural, cosmological, paleontological and philological fieias. The presumption that they include
no positive relation to dogmatic and moral questions leaves
••• Ibid., 338.
••• July 27, 1914, loc. cit.; March 7, 1916, loc. cit.
825 Discourse of May 24, 1939, loc. cit.
••• Loc. cit., 572.

THE AUTHORITY

OF ST. THOMAS AQUINAS

93

them op(m to the risk of finding themselves often in contradiction with such questions. It is necessary, then, that, even if the
teaching of these sciences does not directly touch religious
truth and conscience, the teacher himself should be well versed
in religion, i. e., the Catholic religion." 327
And so, though every element in the Thomistic doctrinal
synthesis is fully organized, connected and ordered, not every
element has the same weight of firmness and authority. The
fundamental principles upon which all the others depend and
from which the rest flow, enjoy the greatest authority.

3. They are equally in error by excess who exclude all freedom of thought, judgment, investigation and verbal expression
of this doctrine as to its principles and major propositions, as
if each and every one of these principles were imposed upon the
mind for belief and assent.
When the Sacred Congregation of Studies was asked if the
twenty-four philosophical thomistic theses should be imposed
upon and held by Catholic schools, it answered that they all
contain and express the genuine doctrine of St. Thomas, but it
did not say that they must be imposed upon Catholic schools
and held by them. The Congregation said simply: " they
should be proposed as safe directive norms," 328 " with no obligation being imposed of embracing all the theses," as Benedict XV
declared in a letter to the Superior General of the Society of
Jesus on March 19, 1917. At the same time, he praised Fr.
Hugon, 0. P. for having made a commentary on the theses and
placing their force and objective truth in a clear light; and to
him the Pontiff reiterated, as he himself says, that " if he did not
mean to impose them for interior assent, he demanded that they
be proposed as the preferred doctrine of the Church." 329 And
so they always remain greatly approved, praised and preferred
to those which are inconsistent or opposed. These latter are
merely permitted and tolerated, but the others are positively
Allocution of Sept. 21, 1950. AAS 42 (1950), 735.
Response of March 7, 1916, loc. cit.
••• Les Vingt-quatre theses thomiatea, p. VII. (Paris, 1922).
827

828

94

SANTIAGO

RAMIREZ

approved, praised and preferred, and there is an obligation imposed to teach them in the schools as safe directive norms. So,
just as one would fail by excess if he should say that all are a
matter of obligation in Catholic schools, so one would fail by
defect should he say that all doctrines which are opposed or
inconsistent are equally approved or considered to be of equal
authority; as if the Church had manifested no preference for
the theses of St. Thomas.
With respect to self-evident principles and immediate deductions from them to be approved for secular use and confirmed
by the truths of faith, Pius XII says:
However, even in these fundamental questions we may clothe our
philosophy in a more convenient and richer dress, make it more
vigorous with a more effective terminology, divest it of certain
scholastic aids found less useful, prudently enrich it with the fruits
of the progress of the human mind. But we may never overthrow
it, or contaminate it with false principles, or regard it as a great,
but obsolete, relic. Truth and its philosophic expression cannot
suffer daily change, least of all when there is a question of selfevident principles of the human mind, or of those propositions
supported by the wisdom of the ages and by divine revelation. 330

Catholic theologians and philosophers
should so speak by word of mouth or in writing to the men of
their age that they may be intelligently and easily understood.
It is inferred from this that in proposing and setting forth questions, in leading discussions, in choosing any form of speech, they
should wisely accommodate their expression to the talent and
inclination of their own age. For what is unchangeable, let no one
disturb or attempt to change. 331
But if it should not happen to be a difficult matter, as experience
and practice point out, its wisdom should be translated into the
common idiom for laymen and through fuller explanation present
technical ideas which are ordinarily obscure for those unskilled in
theology. 332

4. Finally, they err by excess who consider the doctrinal
Humani generis, loc. cit. 57'/t.
Allocution to the Jesuit General Congregation, loc. cit., 384-385.
332 Allocution to the Dominican
Genera! Chapter, loc. cit., 388.
330
331

THE AUTHORITY

OF ST. THOMAS AQUINAS

95

system of St. Thomas to be a closed book already enriched with
every perfection so that neither the ideas nor words used to
express them can be further developed. This, of course, is not
human, because the human level is not capable of absolute perfection in its works. And it is not in accord with Thomas' own
usual mode of action. He was continually developing, eliminating where necessary, and completing his doctrines and expressions, as can be seen in the autographs which are still preserved
today, e. g. Summa contra Gentiles, Commentarium in librum
Boethii de Trinitate, Opusculum De rationibus fidei. Furthermore, this notion is contrary to the mind of the Church which
approves and praises his doctrine.
Pius X, following Leo X:III who heaped praises upon the
doctrine of Thomas and commanded that it be followed and
spread, recalled that Leo did not fail to recognize the advances
in knowledge being made in our day and to urge the clergy to
keep au courant so that they might discharge their office
worthily. Pius himself roundly praised those who work:
to illustrate the opinions of Aquinas with learned commentaries,
or develop his thought by the investigation of new points developed
from his principles or weigh his findings in the light of more modern
philosophy.
And he congratulated them,
because they help the genuine progress of philosophy to a great
degree.833
The Sacred Congregation of Studies in its decree on the use
of the Summa Theologica of St. Thomas as the text in Universities, Colleges, Seminaries and Institutes enjoying the power
to grant degrees in Theology, is to be interpreted in this way:
that,
together with some text indicating the logical order of questions
and containing the positive part, the Summa Theologica should
be used and explained for the scholastic
333 Motu proprio In praecipuia laudibus, to the Roman Academy of St. Thomas,
Jan. i'lS, 1904, cf. Berthier, op. cit., i'l7i'l.
••• March 7, 1916, AAS loc. cit.

96

SANTIAGO RAMIREZ

It believed that even that great work of Aquinas needs the
service and help of some other work pointing out the order of
questions and containing positive theology.
Pius XII, after praising St. Thomas' doctrine, recalls the
precept of the Code of Canon Law (can. 1366,
and himself
adds:
We are not speaking now of those opinions and doctrinal formulas
relating to physical or natural things, which in past times were
proper and peculiar to their supporters, in that the discoveries of
human knowledge in our age have surpassed and gone beyond
these opinions. The Church favors these discoveries, is not at all
opposed to them, and rather promotes than fears them. 835
Rejecting these extremes and opposing interpretations, the
true and just interpretation of the validity of the doctrinal
authority of St. Thomas and the obligation to accept it stands
in the middle between these two extreme opinions. The method,
principles and philosophico-theological doctrinal synthesis of St.
Thomas is to be held sacred by all and inviolably preserved, 837
With assiduous effort search the books <;ontaining the institution,
laws and history of religion. Weigh wl)Qt is discovered with wise
investigation and turn it to the use of sacred science,386
in such a way that it may be enriched by rightly and subsequently acquired truths, illustrated from research and historical
investigations, and expanded by its application to new problems
arising today. It does not deny freedom to investigate its
genuine doctrine when its interpreters disagree, and indeed
offers its support in leading the search for true knowledge, but
not that which is false and specious.
The doctrine of Aquinas is so solid and firm in itself that it
does not fear or avoid discussion and comparison with others.
Rather, it invites such discussion and directs it along a safe
••• Allocution to the Dominican General Chapter, loc. cit., 887.
••• Ibid., 888.
837 CIC, can. 1866, !l; Deus acientiarum Dominus, art. !l9; Pius XII, Discourse
to Seminarians at Rome, loc. cit.; Allocution to the Dominican General Chapter,
loc. cit.; Humani Generia, loc cit.

THE AUTHORITY

OF ST. THOMAS AQUINAS

97

path in the acquisition of truth. Thomas is not proposed for
imitation in such a way that his followers and disciples may
sleep and take their rest or be sluggish, but, imitating his work
and industry, they should intensely apply all their energy in
learning and expanding the truth. As Thomas himself says:
" A man should employ every force within him as intensely as
possible to strive towards divine things, that his intellect may
be free for contemplation and his reason for the investigation
of reality." 888 And again: "the human mind should always be
moved more and more intensely to know God according to its
measure," i.e. as far as it possibly can. 389
Leo XIII said:
Indeed, it seems that today too many mark genius by its aversion
for antiquity. But the best method of philosophy is that which
by thought finds new truths, and does not at the same time
neglect the wisdoni of the ancients: 340 and We declare that everything wisely said should be received with willing and glad mind,
as well as everything by whomsoever profitably discovered and
thought out. 841

Pius XI said:
We desire that among lovers of St. Thomas, as all sons of the
Church who are engaged in higher studies ought to be, there be
honorable rivalry in a just and proper freedom which is the life
blood of studies, but let no spirit of malevolent disparagement
prevail among them, for any such, so far from helping truth, serves
only to loosen the bonds of charity. Let everyone hold inviolable
the prescription of the Code of Canon Law, that ' teachers shall
treat the studies of philosophy and theology and train students
therein according to the method, doctrine and principles of the
Angelic Doctor, and religiously adhere thereto,' and all should obey
this regulation in such a manner that they can truly call St. Thomas
their teacher. And so that no one will require of others more than
the Church, Mother and Teacher of all, demands, even in those
matters which are disputed by more reputable authors in Catholic
888 In Boethii de Trinitate, q.
••• Ibid., ad 7.
••• Letter to L. Vives, loc. cit.
841 Aeterni Patris, loc. cit.,

a. l c.

98

SANTIAGO

RAMIREZ

schools, let none be prevented from following an opinion which
seems to him to be closer to the truth. 342
These famous words of the Pontiff which some frequently use
and perhaps sometimes abuse, and which should be correctly
understood and interpreted, come from previous utterances of
his and are even found in the declarations of Pius XII. For the
right and power resides within the jurisdiction of the Roman
Pontiffs not only to interpret authentically their own laws, but
even those established by their predecessors.
It is evident that Pius XI did not equate the doctrinal authority of other ecclesiastical writers with that of St. Thomas
even in proved and established fields, let alone in controversial
and disputed matters. In both fields the authority of Aquinas
is always preeminent, though on controversial and disputed
points it is not imposed with any internal force arising from the
weight of its arguments, and assent consequently and quite
reasonably is not required by the Church.
We have recounted above 343 many of his words written and
proclaimed after that Encyclical which established anew the
obligation to follow Thomas in philosophy and theology. The
result is that the doctrine of Aquinas should not be regulated by
the opinions of others, but rather, other doctrines should follow
his method, principles and doctrine. 345 He highly praised and
congratulated Cardinal Mercier for his philosophical works
which show
how strong the perennial philosophy is, not only to unite with
ancient wisdom what has been recently discovered by the praiseworthy work and brilliance of famous men, but to refute all errors
so sharply opposed at present to right reason and the doctrine of
the Church.
The Pope makes special mention of his Ontology:
••• Studiorum ducem, loc. cit., 323, 324.
••• Pp. 36-43; 68-71.
••• Apostolic Letter, Officiorum omnium, loc. cit., confirmed in the Apostolic
Letter Unigenitus Dei Filius, loc. cit.; Allocution to the professors and students
of the " Angelicum," loc. cit., 599-600.

THE AUTHORITY

OF ST. THOMAS AQUINAS

99

Since you there support by illustration the principles of St. Thomas'
metaphysics. To withdraw from them, even slightly, will cause
great harm, as Our predecessor of happy memory, Pius X, warned. 345

Thus he approved and adopted the words of Pius X. Since by
the witness of the Church itself the twenty-four thomistic theses
truly contain the principles and major propositions of St.
Thomas in metaphysics, it clearly follows that to withdraw in
the slightest from them will be a cause of great harm.
Pius XII has given the authentic interpretation of these
words. He recognized a certain freedom within the doctrine of
St. Thomas and his school, when he said that noted interpreters
of Aquinas may dissent and dispute among themselves, but not
against his certain and genuine doctrine.
These are his famous words:
Beloved sons, fill your hearts full of love and zeal for St. Thomas:
strive with all your powers to understand his brilliant doctrine;
freely embrace whatever clearly relates to his doctrine and finds
safe support in it.
These precepts, already imposed by Our predecessor, We Ourselves bring forth and recall at present, and if any are not being
followed they are to be restored in full vigor; at the same time We
adopt the exhortations of Our predecessors by which they desired
to protect progress in true science and real liberty in studies. We
entirely approve and commend the measuring, where necessary, of
new discoveries in studies, with ancient wisdom. It is perfectly
legitimate to investigate freely those matters upon which wellknown interpreters of the Angelic Doctor usually dispute; new
findings from history should be applied for fuller understanding of
the texts of Aquinas. No individual 'should act as if he were a
master in the Church; ' 346 nor ' should anyone require more from
others than the Church, Mother and Teacher of all, demands; ' 347
nor should foolish dissent be encouraged.
If aU these points, as We trust, are followed, a fullsome increase
may be expected from studies. For, encouragement to spread truth,
far from being suppressed by the doctrine of St. Thomas, is rather
stimulated and safely directed. 348
••• Letter of March 26, 1924, loc. cit.
346 Benedict XV, Encyclical Ad Beatissimi, Nov. l, 1914, AAS 6 (1914), 576.
347 Studiorum ducem, loc. cit.
••• Discourse to the Seminarians at Rome, loc. cit., 246-247.

100

SANTIAGO

RAMiREZ

We should not pass over those words making Thomas, in a
way, like the Church. Recalling his Encyclical Humani generis
to the scholars meeting at Rome for the Third International
Thomistic Congress he said:
This encyclical letter represents a safe path to you who are discussing and interpreting, with the doctrine of St. Thomas Aquinas
leading you like the brightest Sun. 349

Indeed, encouragement in seeking and spreading truth is not
suppressed but rather stimulated and safely directed by the
doctrine of St. Thomas Aquinas, as by the encyclicals of the
Roman Pontiff.
He adds, further, that though it is true
that the Pontiffs generally allow freedom to theologians on matters
which are disputed in various ways by men of great reputation,
still history teaches that many matters that were formerly open
to free discussion no longer now admit of discussion. 350

So, today, after so many approbations, commendations and
precepts by the Church, no Catholic is free to deny the matchless doctrinal authority of St. Thomas, whose teaching in philosophy and theology, amidst all that surround it, not only
outside but also within the Church, she prefers and praises
over others: "justly favored by the Church." 351
God has raised up the Angelic Doctor in the Church to communicate his salutary and solid doctrine and to light it up like the Sun.
His wisdom, especially commended to all, is admired by the whole
world. 352

Truly, "among the Scholastic Doctors, Thomas Aquinas
stands eminently as the prince and master of them aU," 353
"'" Loc. cit.
860 Humani generis, loc. cit., 568.
851 Letter of adherence to the Roman Pontiff by the Lateran
Athenaeum in
Rome on the occasion of his Encyclical Humani generis, Nov. 9, 1950, in L'OsservatOTe Romano, 90 (1950), no. 271, Nov. 19, 1950, p. 1, col. 5.
••• Pius XII in the Preface of the Mass of St. Thomas Aquinas according to the
rite of the Order of Preachers, composed by the Pope himself.
••• A eterni Patris, loc. cit., 62.

THE AUTHORITY

OF ST. THOMAS AQUINAS

J.Ol

whose doctrine is not only safer and more solid than the rest,
but even more in accord with the teaching of the Church, 354 and
therefore teachers should clearly point out his soundness and
excellence in Catholic schools. 355 In the judgment of the Church,
"it is praiseworthy to follow Thomas"; 356 "to depart foolishly
and rashly from him is fraught with great peril": 357 to depart
from Aquinas even slightly especially in metaphysics and
theology, will cause great harm; 358 not to depart from his
discipline even in the slightest is the highest praise/ 59 and a
security preventing any danger of wandering from the rule of
Christian truth. 860 In a word, 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.
So, the Order of Preachers, which retains the doctrine of
Thomas as its most precious treasure and regards it as sacred
and inviolable, 361 puts this great fidelity together with the
encouragement and freedom to seek and explain truth, in the
form of law:
Following the example of so great a doctor and leaning upon him
as upon a solid rock, our professors and writers should take care
to follow with docility and reverence in the footsteps of the doctrinal tradition of the Church and our Order. This does not at all
conflict with the legitimate academic freedom of investigating,
judging, and resolving current or ancient questions with impartial
consideration. From any suitable and approved source means may
•••Jbid., 70.
••• Ibid., 74.
••• Leo XIII, Letter to Bishop Haine, loc. cit.
857 ldenn, Letter to the Minister General 0. F. M., loc. cit.
858 Pius X, Praeclara, loc. cit., 885; Doctoris Angelici, loc. cit., 888; Pius XI,
Letter to Cardinal Mercier, loc. cit .. 227.
859 Bendict XV, Letter to Fr. L. Theissling, loc. cit., 897, "And to this Order
[of Preachers] must be awarded the tribute that it not only nourished the Angelic
Doctor, but also that never afterwards did it deviate from his doctrine in the
slightest "; Pius XI, Studiorum ducem. loc. cit., 824.
••• Pius X, Letter to Fr. Val:isquez, loc. cit.; Praeclara, loc. cit., 884.
861 Acts of the General Chapter, Rome, Sept. 21-80, 1946, no. 68 (Rome, 1946)
p. 57.

102

SANTIAGO

RAM:hlEZ

be adopted more safely to find the truth which is from God, to
assimilate it more fully, to develop it more fruitfully, keeping in
mind the exhortation of our most Holy Father, Pius XII, to the
Fathers at the preceding chapter: 'whatever truth our times bring
forth, weigh it with impartial investigation, and turn it to the use
of sacred science.' ' Encouragement to seek and spread truth is
not at all suppressed by the doctrine of St. Thomas, but is rather
stimulated and safely directed.' 362

This freedom, especially in matters recently under discussion.
and consideration, should be carefully and prudently used, lest
the false be accepted for the true and the shadow for the substance. As Pius XII says, professors teaching philosophy and
theology in Catholic schools,
in regard to new questions which modern culture and progress
have brought to the forefront, should submit them to careful
research, but with the necessary prudence and caution. . . . They
should not think, indulging in a false eirenism, that the dissident
and erring can happily be brought back to the bosom of the Chmch,
if the whole truth found in the Church is not sincerely taught to
all without any corruption or diminution. 363

The Pontiff is grieved to note that some indulge in these
novelties without sufficient examination and approbation. They
seem to be influenced by this reason, "lest we be unaware of
the knowledge which recent progressive research has brought
forth," 364 which is the way it appears to intellectuals of the
modern stamp. And what is more serious, this affects priests
with a zeal and an itch for novelty and many of these priests
seem to be
less equipped than others with learning and doctrine and austerity
of life.
Novelty itself is nevelt' a criterion of truth, and it can be praise362

Acts of the General Chapter, Washington, Sept. 18-24, 1949, no. 59 (Rome,

HMO), p. 53-54.

••• Humani generis, loc. cit., 578; 564-565: Instruction of the Congregation of
the Holy Office to local Ordinaries de motione oecumenica, Dec. £0, Hl49, AAS
4£ (1950) 142-147 .
••• lbid., 564.

THE AUTHORITY

OF ST. THOMAS AQUINAS

108

worthy only when at the same time it confirms the truth and leads
to virtue and probity of life. What has made its appearance in
our time has wandered very far from the true path: philosophical
systems which are born and die without improving morals in any
way.a&5

In the same way,
much is said, but hardly weighed on the scale of reason, about the
' new theology ' which is always changing along with all other
things; it is always about to reach but never quite arrives at its
goal. If such opinions should be embraced, what will become of
changeless Catholic dogmas and the unity and stability of the
faith?
While you continue, therefore, to reverence and regard as sacred
and serious the never-failing Truth, have regard for the studious
investigation and solution of problems which arise with the times,
especially if they beget obstacles and difficulties for the learned
faithful. By your explanation of these problems, thereby changing
a difficulty into a help, strengthen their faith.
When new and debatable questions arise, let the principles of
Catholic doctrine stand out in your minds; when some novelty
arises in theology, let it be weighed with vigilant caution. Distinguish solid and certain doctrine from that which is merely conjecture, and from that which a fallible and not always laudable
practice can introduce and use even in theology and philosophy.
Offer a friendly hand to those in error but lend no ear to erroneous
opinions. 366

Among the doctrines proposed as novel mention must be
made of the denial or at least the doubt of the possibility that
human reason without the help of revelation and grace can
prove the existence of a personal God by arguments drawn from
the created universe; the denial that the world had a beginning;
the affirmation that creation of the world is necessary in that
it proceeds from the necessary liberality of divine love; the
denial of God's eternal and infallible foreknowledge of the free
actions of man; the denial of the transmission of original sin
from the one Adam to all other men descending from him
885
888

Menti Noatrae, loc. cit., 694.
Allocution to the Jesuit General Congregation, loc. cit., 885.

104

SANTIAGO

RAMIREZ

through natural generation, the Virgin Mary alone being excepted by a special privilege of God, the denial being the
asserted theory of polygenism; the perversion of the Catholic
doctrine of sin as an offense against God, and of the satisfaction
offered for us by Christ; the corruption of the doctrine of the
free elevation of human nature to the supernatural order, as if
God could not create beings with an intellect and yet not order
and call them to the beatific vision; the denial of transubstantiation and of the Real Presence of Christ in the Sacrament of
the Eucharist, as though they should be reduced to pure and
simple symbolism; the grave and positive doubt whether angels
are personal beings and whether matter and spirit differ essentially; the acceptance without any discretion of the philosophical
doctrine of existentialism and evolutionism; and many exegetical aberrations as well. All these points Pius XII condemned in
this Encyclical Humani Generis, and other recent documents,
and decreed that they are forbidden in Catholic Schools. 367
There are some who interpret this moderate and rightful
manner of following St. Thomas in this fashion: what the
Angelic Doctor did for his age and what he would do for our age
if he were living, is what his modern Thomist disciples should do.
This statement, if correctly understood, is true. H taken in
the sense, as many do, that Thomas adopted the philosophy of
his time, i.e. the peripatetic, for the service of Theology, and
accordingly, if he lived now, he would adopt the philosophies
which surround us, such as idealism, immanentism, existentialism and the rest, then the statement must be pronounced
entirely false. He did not take Aristotelian philosophy as it
was, nor as interpreted by Greek, Jewish and Arab commentators, but as purified and developed and expanded and
greatly enriched by Chi:istian philosophers, especially by his
••• Humani gene:ris, loc. cit., 568-571, 573-574, 576-578; Menti Nostrae, loc. cit.,
688; Discourse to the Cardinals, Archbishops, Bishops and other local ordinaries
at Rome for the solemn definition of the Assumption, Nov. 2, 1950, AAS 42 (1950),
791; Allocution to the delegates at the General Congress of all Religious Orders,
Congregations, Societies and Secular Institutes, Dec. 8, 1950. AAS 43 (1951)
32, 34.

THE AUTHORITY

OF ST. THOMAS AQUINAS

105

teacher, St. Albert the Great, and most especially by himself.
He worked very industriously and suffered many calumnies. In
his time and at the same University of Paris there were- some,
the so-called A verroists, who without discretion or prudent
caution accepted some philosophical doctrines from Aristotle
or from his expositors, which contradicted divinely revealed
truth. These denied the personal immortality of the human
soul or at least laid the foundation for the doctrine of the active
intellect entirely incompatible with the personal immortality
of the soul.
The holy Doctor directly alludes to them in a sermon probably delivered in July U70 before the University of Paris in
which he said:
There are some who study philosophy and say things which are
not true according to the faith. And when they are informed that
what they said contradicts the faith, they state that Aristotle said
it, but they, far from asserting the same, merely repeat the words
of Arisotle. Such a one is a false prophet or a false teacher because
it amounts to the same thing to raise a doubt and not to solve it,
as to concede it. This is pointed out in Exodus (21 : 33-34) when it
says that if a man open a pit and dig a cistern and cover it not,
and the neighbor's ox comes and falls into the cistern, the one who
opened the cistern is bound to restitution. He opens a cistern who
raises a doubt pertaining to the faith. He does not cover the
cistern who does not solve the doubt, though he happens to have
a clear and capable mind and is not liable to error. But someone
else who does not have such a clear mind is easily deceived, and
the one who raised the doubt is held to restitution, because through
his fault someone fell into the ditch.
See how many philosophers there were and how much they had to
say about things pertaining to the faith, yet you can hardly find
two to agree on one opinion, and even those who do say something
true do not say it without some mixture of error. A little old man
may know more about his faith than all the philosophers before
him.
We read that Pythagoras was at first a boxer. He heard a teacher
arguing on the immortality of the soul and declaring that the soul
was immortal. He was so affected that he put everything aside
and took up the study of Philosophy. What ordinary person is

106

SANTIAGO

RAMIREZ

there today who does not know that the soul is immortal? Faith
has a much wider extension than philosophy. So, if philosophy
contradicts the faith, it must not be accepted. 368

Leo XIII, admiring the great work and labor of St. Thomas,
wrote:
This is numbered among the great benefits which the Church owes
to the great Aquinas, that he so beautifully harmonized Christian
theology with the peripatetic philosophy then popular, that we
have Aristotle fighting for Christ and no longer an adversa:ry. 369

By this purification and elevation joined with multiple additions from the neo-Platonists and St. Augustine and the Arabs,
and especially from his own work and effort, by which he joined
all those fragments of truth into one body and raised it to a
higher and more perfect synthesis, peripatetic philosophy was
entirely altered, but its system and method of philosophy was
preserved. Indeed, as Martin Grabmann says: " the work of
the ages more enduring than bronze which Aquinas accomplished was his synthesis of Augustine and Aristotle." 370 Yet,
he far surpassed both of them and established with one impulse
a superior doctrinal synthesis fully philosophical and fully
Christian: " a Christian philosophy in the full sense of the word,
without ceasing to be a philosophy in the full sense of the word,"
to use the words of Etienne Gilson. 371
Rather, therefore, than taking this or that philosophy, as
peripatetic or academic, Stoic or Arabian, he took for the use
of theology and the service of the faith, the truths of the
natural order sought after by the continuous labor and effort
of human reason. These truths constitute the perennial philosophy or common sense philosophy as Benedict XV calls it, 372
368 S. Thomae Aquinatis et S: Bonavinturae
Balneoregiensis sermones anecdoti,
ed. P. Uccelli, p. 71. (Modena, 1879).
369 Brief Gravissi,;,e nos., loc. cit., 247.
370 " De quaestione ' Utrum aliquid possit esse simul creditum et scitum ' inter
scholas augustinismi et aristotelico-thomismi medii aevi agitata," in Acta hebdomadae augustinianae-thomisticae, 139. Rome, 1931.
371 "L'idee
de Philosophic chez Saint Augustin et chez Saint Thomas," in the
same Acta, 84.
872 Letter to Cardinal Schulte, loc. cit., 428.

THE AUTHORITY

OF ST. THOMAS AQUINAS

107

i. e., the philosophy without qualification. 313 He would not use
but would entirely reject the many false philosophies which
surround us today, as immanentism, existentialism, materialistic
or agnostic philosophy, in that they are incompatible with the
truths of faith and contrary to right reason. Fr. Schultes says:
There can be a possible expurgation in Aristotelian philosophy of
the errors which are accidental. Aristotle can be corrected from
his own fJindamental principles. But the errors present in modern.
philosophy are so fundamental that they cannot be corrected. Thi::
philosophy must be entirely rejected and expunged. 374

Fr. Gar:rigou-Lag:range adds:
They say moreover that the modern philosophical systems ought
to be baptized as St. Thomas baptized Aristotelianism. For that,
two things would be necessary. It would be necessary first to
possess the genius of St. Thomas, and then the modern philosophical
systems would have to be baptizable. To be baptizable a soul is
necessary. A system which reposes entirely on a false principle

cannot be baptized. 375
But if one understands how he acted towards the philosophers
of his time and how he would act towards modern philosophers
if he were now living, then the statement is true. He proceeded
very cautiously and prudently with the philosophers of his own
and previous timeE., treating them with great understanding, yet
most precisely distinguishing the true from the false in their
writings so as to take the' truth and reject error.
In this matter he was no respecter of persons but of reality,
for he was a unique lover and cultivator of truth. Fame, fortune
or opportunism failed to touch or affect him, but with a calm
and serene spirit he thoroughly weighed all things and judged
them from the height of eternal principles. He always fortified
••• Cf. above pp. ·3-9.
De Ecclesia Catholica, 726.

(Paris, 1925)
La structure de l'Encydique Humani grmeris,'' in Angelicum, 28 (1951), !l-10.
Cf. also A. Perego, S. J., "La Nuova Teologia. Sguardo d'insime alia luce dell'
Enciclica Humani generis," in Divus Thomas Pl., 58 (1950), 44!2-443.
370

375 "

108

SANTIAGO

RAMiREZ

himself with the reading of spiritual books, so as not to lose
devotion from delving into the philosophers. 876
Without any doubt, Aristotle and the Jewish, Arabian and
Latin philosophers of his time were much less dangerous than
modem philosophers in that all of them admitted the first and
fundamental principles of a healthy and perennial philosophy,
which many of the modems reject.
He would proceed much more cautiously and prudently with
modern philosophers if he lived now. How thoroughly he would
investigate and prudently weigh the novelties of our time; how
unhesitatingly he would accept those which were tried and
approved; how eagerly he would accept the chance from others
to investigate more deeply and proceed more cautiously; he
would always take encouragement from all to ascend to higher
and bettc;r things. There is no doubt that he would follow the
admonitions and cautions which Pius XII declared must be
maintained with reference to proposing new doctrines openly
or counterfeitly, and he would keep them to the letter.
The true cultivation of St. Thomas, according to reality and
the reco:pmlendation of the Church, consists in holding sacred
and inviolate his method, principles and doctrine in philosophy
and theology, and imitating at the same time his scientific,
intellectual and moral qualities, as well as cultivating them, and
manfully expressing them in the life of his disciples, so that
Thomas continues to live in them completely, especially according to the spirit.
His discipline is not hard or tyrannical but sweet and human,
yet prudent and firm. With how much modesty, consideration
and simplicity he proposes his doctrines that his readers may
mull them over and convince themselves. There is so much
order in his exposition together with brevity, and so much clarity
does he pour out along with profundity of ideas and propriety
of speech, that he fully convinces the sincere mind. Frequently
878

Cf. his Com111umt. in I de Anima, lect. 2, no. SO; in II Metaph., lect. I, nis,

287-288; in III Metaph., lect. I, no. 842; in XII Metaph., lect. 9, no. 2566; in I
Ethic., Iect. ll, nis. 182-188; in II Ethic., lect. I no. 246; in Psalm. 43, no. 1; de
Veritate, q. 16, a 2c; de Tocco, Vita S. Thomae, cap. 21.

THE AUTHORITY

OF ST. THOMAS AQUINAS

109

meeting with him never engenders aversion but rather promotes
a continually new admiration for him. He inspires security of
mind and joy in finding the truth, and at the same time he
stimulates one's capacity and directs it safely in the search
after new truths with free and bold spirit. As Leo XIII said:
" Far from draining the power of the mind, he feeds it lasting
and salutary food." 377
With evident right, therefore, from the supreme intrinsic
value of St. Thomas' doctrine, and from the most special approbation and commendation of the Church, we may conclude with
J. de Guibert, S. J.:
By the very fact of anyone embracing the doctrine of St. Thomas,
he embraces the doctrine most commonly accepted in the Church,
safe and approved by the Church itself . . . ; when there is no
grave contrary reason, the authority of St. Thomas suffices to
prefer his opinion. 378

This is not only true in theology to which he solely refers, but
in philosophy as well; for there is one and the same force and
approbation for both.
SANTIAGO RAMiREZ, 0. P.
Pontifical Theological Faculty
Convento de San Esteban
Salamanca, Spain.

871 Gravissime nos, loc. cit., 246.
••• De Ecclesia Christi, 886. (Rome, 1928) •

THE PLACE OF TRADITION IN THE
THEOLOGY OF ST. THOMAS

I

N its fainous decree of the fourth session, dated AprilS, 1546,

the Council of Trent defined as a dogma of the Catholic faith
that divine revelation is entirely contained in two sources,
namely: the " written books " (libri scripti) and the " unwritten traditions" (sine script.o traditiones). The contents of the
decree are indicated by the title: " The accepted sacred books
and traditions of the Apostles" (recipiuntur libri sacri et traditiones A. postolorum) .1 Already the formula " traditions of the
Apostles " by itself alone clearly indicates that the Council
intended to limit the existence and the transmission of the
" unwritten traditions " exclusively to the Apostles of Christ
and therefore to the New Testament. It was not so for the
" books." In fact the historic setting of the Council, that is to
say the Protestant controversy, demonstrates beyond the
shadow of a doubt that by the word " Scriptures " the Council
intends to signify the two Testaments and consequently all
the inspired books of these two Testaments. If the Council
did not detail the different categories of the authors, the writers
of these books,---on the contrary, the text of the decree explicitly mentions only the name of " Prophets " (a collective
name to designate all the writers of the Old Testament) 2 and
says not a single word about the writers of the New Testament,
-the reason was that, from all the evidence at hand, the
expression "written books" (sacred, holy) already designated
1 Concilium Tridentinum (ed. Societas Goerresiana) t.V. Actorom prn altera p.
91-the same text will likewise be found in Denzinger, Enchiridion Symbolorum
(1982) n. 788-784. Cf. Schroeder, Canons and Decrees of the Council of Trent,
(Herder, 1941), pp. 18-20.
" St. Thomas likewise says that the canonical books have been written by the
"Apostles and Prophets" (collective name) to designate all the authors of the
New and Old Testaments, Summa Theol., I, q. I, a. 8, ad 2 et passim.

110

THE PLACE OF TRADITION IN THE THEOLOGY OF ST, THOMAS

111

sufficiently by itself a very definite group of writers whose
names and qualifications were known by all. Moreover, the
text of the decree itself expressly states, by way of refreshing
the memory, that the Council" has thought it proper, moreover,
to insert in this decree a list of the sacred books, lest a doubt
might arise in the mind of someone as to which are the books
received by this Council. They are the following." Thereafter
follows a detailed list of these books, with their titles as commonly taken from the sacred writers of the two Testaments.
On the other hand, speaking of the .. unwritten traditions,"
the text of the decree expressly mentions " the Apostles " of the
Lord. The title of the decree is already rather significant, ami
the text of the decree expresses itself formally in three different
modes upon this subject. In fact it declares that these " traditions " are those " which, received by the Apostles from the
mouth of Christ Himself, or from the Apostles themselves, the
Holy Ghost dictating, have come down to us, transmitted as it
were from hand to hand." 3 Further on, it is repeated that they
"relate to faith or morals," and that they are "as having been
dictated either orally by Christ or by the Holy Ghost, and
preserved in the Catholic Church in unbroken succession""
Finally, all who would scornfully reject the books are
matized, as well as any persons who . " . "knowingly and
deliberately reject the aforesaid traditions"" To this the text
also adds that, from the Scriptures and from Tradition thus
clearly indicated and determined, the Council win use " the
chief witnesses and supports to whom it will appeal in the
confirmation of dogmas and in the restoration of morals in the
Church."
Thus, it was evident, that a pretended " knowledge of
revelation " which would deny that Tradition is a source of
Christian doctrine, would be only a heretical theology and a
8cientia falsi nominis. At the same time, such a theology would
be condemned as being a garbled and an incomplete science.
• The three variants (a propos of: ab ipsius Christi ore, ab Apostolis acceptae,
aut ab ipsis Apostolis ... ) which can be :read in the edition of Go:rresgesellschaft
(cf. note l) in no way change the meaning of the text.

G. GEENAN

It seems useful to recall this famous text of the Council of
Trent as a most fitting introduction to the following study. It
is, moreover, necessary because it puts us face to face with a
problem of theology such as St. Thomas understood theology.
As a matter of fact, St. Thomas Aquinas does not expressly
mention the Traditions (or Tradition) as a source of his
theological doctrine. 4 We say: he does not mention it explicitly,
which is to say that he does indeed mention it in one way or
another. That is why a study which attempts to analyze, even
briefly, the place of Tradition in the theology of the Angelic
Doctor, must answer the following two questions:
1. What was St. Thomas' attitude toward the problem of
Tradition as a source of theology?
What was his notion of Tradition and what use did he
make of it?
Only an adequate response to these two closely connected
questions will give us an accurate idea of the place of Tradition
in the theological work of Aquinas.
1. The Attitude of St. Thomas toward the Problem of
Tradition as a Source of Theology.

St. Thomas lived in the thirteenth century, whereas the
Council of Trent took place in the sixteenth century, a fact of
considerable consequence for this study. Always most careful
about the teachings of. the M agisterium of the Church, St.
Thomas, whose theological and historical learning far outstripped that of his predecessors and contemporaries, must have
been acquainted with the moving exhortation of Pope Gregory
IX
Ab Aegyptiis, dated July 7,
and directed
to the theologians of Paris. 5 In it he reminded the Masters of
• In this study we use the word " Tradition " or " Traditions " indifferently, in
the same sense for both.-The Vatican Council, session III, c. 8, gives the example
when it teaches that " credenda sunt, quae in verbo Dei scripto vel tradito
continenter," etc. Denzinger, loc. cit., n. 1792; cf. also n. 1781. In the encyclical
Humani Generia the word is equally used in the singular and it is uniformly placed
between quotation marks ("traditio"). AAS (1950), 567, 568, 569, 575.
• Chart. Univ. Paris., t. 1, 114-115. The text can be read in Denzinger, loc. cit.,
n. 442-448.

THE PLACE OF TRADITION IN THE THEOLOGY OF ST. THOMAS

113

Sacred Science of the dangers of " documenta terrena," by
which words the Pope meant the new philosophies; and he
urged the theologians to adhere, after the example of the Holy
Fathers, to the " understanding of the divine Scriptures, limited
by the studies of the Fathers," to determined terms of expression. The Teaching Authority of the Church thus recalled,
through the mouth of Gregory IX, that the role of the Masters
of the Faculty of Theology was to remain God-teachers
(theodidacti) or theologians (theologi) and not to become
God-revealers (theophanti); at the same time, he prescribed
for them the conduct and the duty they were to observe:
" they should expose theology according to the approved traditions of the saints" (that is, the Fathers), and he wished to
caution them against the ' idolatry ' of those who " by force
and even distorted expositions bend the sacred and divinely
of the teaching of philosophers
inspired words to the
ignorant of God." ·He formally ordered them: " teach pure
theology without the leaven of earthly knowledge, not adulterating the word of God (II Cor. 2: 17) with the figments of
philosophers."
A few years later, in 1231, William of Auxerre, Archdeacon
of Beauvais and theologian of Paris, was commissioned to
purify the works of Aristotle, in order to render them useful
in theology " lest the useful be vitiated by the useless." 6 (A
few Aristotelian fragments, until thep. forgotten, had just been
discovered. The doctors and theologians had acquired a taste
for Aristotle, notwithstanding the initial prohibitions on the
part of the religious authority.) Example of this purifying
as well as utilization in favor of theological exposes had, moreover, been given by the Archdeacon of Beauvais in his Summa
Aurea, whif?h was widely read in ·the thirteenth century, and
which had, it appears, a rather considerable influence upon the
first doctors of the Order to which St. Thomas belonged.
Thus, therefore, the starting-point of true theology is Revelation; and what distinguishes it as a science of the Revealed
• Chart. Univ. Paris., t. 1, 148.

114

G. GEENAN

-the maxime proprium of theology-is " to argue from
authority" (argumentari ex auctoritate).
As has just been seen from the document of Gregory IX, the
task of the doctors of the thirteenth century was thus dearly
indicated, the path to be followed well outlined: they were to
follow the example of the Fathers, and therefore they were to
adhere to what theology had always done: to give an understanding of the "sacred and divine inspired words" (sacra
eloquia divinitus inspirata). This forn{ula "sacred words"
designated above all and throughout the course of centuries in
the past both Testaments of the Scriptures, whose authors were
the "asserters of divine grace, namely, the Prophets, Evangelists and Apostles," as the Bull of Gregory IX also noted. 7
It will not be surprising, therefore, to notice that St. Thomas,
faithful to theology's past, was strictly faithful also to those
directives of the Teaching Authority of the Church.
Sacred doctrine, being, according to its nominal definition,
a " theology or discourse about God " (theologia, seu sermo
Dei) should be based upon and anchored in Scripture. 8 And
St. Thomas did just that. But theology is not the same thing
as Scripture or Tradition. Theology is a human "science"; it
should be the " science of the Scriptures." 9 The principles of
this science must therefore be borrowed from the texts of the
Scriptures. Now, according to Aristotle, whose theory in this
matter was taken over by St. Thomas, a science must argue
from principles in order to arrive at its conclusions drawn from
these principles and based upon them. And these principles are
• Gregory IX also indicates the authors of the Scriptures by collective names:
"Prophets, Evangelists and Apostoles."
• This nominal definition of Theology crops up frequently in St. Thomas, for
example: Summa Theol., I, q. l, a. 7, sed contra; ibid., a. 1, objs. 2-3; In VI
Metaphys. lect. I (ed. Cathala, n. 1168); In Boethium de Trinitate, q. 5, a. 4.
The definition "theologia, sermo de Deo (de divinis) is already found in Simon
de Tournai (d. circa 1201); cf. G. Pare, A. Brunet, P. Tremblay, La Renaissance
du Xll• siecle (1933), :no, note 2 (d'apres Summa) . ... Paris, Nat. lat. 14886,
fol. I. r. and J. Warichez, Les Disputationes de Simon de Tournai (Louvain, 1932).
• We can read in the works of the Medievalists,-as also in St. Thomas, passimrthe explanation according to which the doctrine of the Scriptures was practically
b:rought back to the content of the "articuli fidei," principles of theological science.

THE PLACE OF TRADITION IN THE THEOLOGY OF ST. THOMAS

115

known either from natural reason or through revelation contained in the Scriptures.
We will not be surprised, then, to find the general mode of
procedure of St. Thomas in the Summa Theologica, I, q. 1, a.
8, obj. 2 and response, in regard· to this problem.. Objecting
against the nature of theological doctrine, or at least against
its manner of procedure, he writes:
If (sacred doctrine) is a matter of argument, the argument is either
from authority or from reason. If it is from authority, it seems un-

befi.tting its dignity, for the proof from authority is the weakest
form of proof. :aut if from reason, this is unbefitting its end, because,
.according to Gregory (Hamil. 26) faith has no merit in those things
of which human reason brings its own experience. Therefore sacred
doctrine is not a matter of argument.
St. Thomas answers by this famous text:
This doctrine is especially based upon arguments from authority,
inasmuch as its principles are obtained by revelation: thus we ought
to believe in the authority of those to whom the revelation has been
made. Nor does this take away from the dignity of this doctrine,
for although the argument from authority based on human reason
is the weakest, yet the argument from authority based on divine
revelation is the strongest.
The holy Doctor, therefore, teaches clearly and textually that
theological doctrine must be based upon and anchored in
revelation. That is why he concludes that those to whom
(or by whom) the revelation is made (or given) must have
our trust. To proceed in this wise is most proper to this science
(maxime proprium hujus doctrinae), and it is, at the same
time, all to the honor and dignity of this theological science.
To account for and to explain how and why theology appeals,
on the other hand, to natural reason, that is, to the principles of
philosophy, he adds in the same text:
But sacred doctrine makes use even of human rel!son, not indeed, to
prove faith ... but to make clear other things that are put forward
in this doctrine.

116

G. GEENAN

And he explains the fact that theology sometimes makes appeal
to philosophy in these words:
Since therefore grace does not destroy nature, but perfects it, natural
reason should minister to faith as the natural bent of the will
ministers to charity. Hence the Apostle says: Bringing into captivity every understanding unto the obedience of Christ. (II Cor.,
10: 5). Hence sacred doctrine makes use also of the authority of
philosophers in those questions in which they were able to know the
truth by natural reason, as Paul quotes a saying of Avatus: As
some also of your own poets said: For we are also His offspring.
(Acts 17: 28).

This is sufficiently dear: natural truth known by the power
of reason alone is also truth; it cannot, therefore, be in contradiction to truth known through revelation; consequently, it
can be useful and can render service to the doctrine based upon
the revealed datum. Truth does not contradict itself.
In the very same text, the Prince of Scholastics proceeds to
establish the distinction and :relative importance of the different
categories of "authorities" (auctoritates) . He writes:
Nevertheless, sacred doctrine makes use of these authorities (i.e.,
those of the philosophers) as extrinsic and probable arguments;
but properly uses the authority of the canonical Scriptures as an
incontrovertible proof, and the authority of the doctors of the
Church as one that may properly be used, yet merely as probable. 10
:For our faith rests upon the revelation made to the Apostles and
Prophets, who wrote the canonical books, and not on the revelations
(if any such there are) made to other doctors. 11
10 In this text, several words and expressions should be understood
according
to the sense which they had in the Middle Ages. Thus, for example, the expression
"probabilia argumenta" or the word "probabiliter."
Lexicographical studies of
this kind will render immense services for the exact understanding of the ideas
of the Medievalists. A lexicographical index of the works of St. Thomas would
render the task of theologians much easier.
11 By " Revelation made to the other doctors " SL Thomas does not mean that the
non-canonical writers had a " divine inspiration " equal to that which the Church
recognizes in the sacred writers designated (collectively) by" Apostles and Prophets."
St. Thomas here echoes an opinion, rather widespread in the Middle Ages, according
to which the Fathers were privileged writers, because in their way they, as doctors
of the Faith, expound for us the revealed doctrine drawn from the sources of Revelation, under the vigilance of the Church and with her approbation: " for it is

THE PLACE OF TRADITION IN THE THEOLOGY OF ST. THOMAS

117

Thus, the starting-point of true theology is revelation; and what
distinguishes it as a science of the Revealed-the maxime
proprium of theology-is " to argue from authority."
We must look closely at the distinction of " authorities "
established by St. Thomas, for. their value in theology is unequal, since, according to his own words, this value depends
as much upon the foundation upon which they rest as upon
the role which they are called upon to play in theological
argumentation.
St. Thomas, therefore, recognizes in Theology the use of
certain "extrinsic and probable arguments" (argumenta extranea et probabilia), which supposes and implies that he distinguishes them from the category of arguments which this
label does not fit; he mentions authorities of which theology
makes use "properly, of necessity" (proprie, ex necessitate),
which again supposes that he distinguishes them from those
which the theologian does not use in that manner; finally, he
speaks of a category which he qualifies with the title " properly
but probably" (ex
sed probabiliter). Utilizing St.
Thomas' own words, and for greater clarity, we may propose
the following schema in accordance with his text: among the
arguments of the " sacred doctrine," there are:
proper

necessary= authority of the canonical Scriptures
(divine revelation)
probable = authority of the doctors of the Church
(Saints, Fathers)
necessary to preserve not only what has been handed down in the Sacred Scriptures,
but also what has been said by the holy doctors who have preserved Sacred Scripture
intact" (Exp. de Div. Nom., cap. !l, lect.l). Thus it was said: "Let us see what the
Holy Spirit says in the Fathers " ; or again: " The Fathers, taught by the Holy
Spirit," etc., "whatever truth is said is from the Holy Spirit," etc. In iconography
certain Fathers, for example St. Ephrem, "the harp of the Holy Spirit," St.
Gregory, later St. Francis de Sales, etc. are precisely for this reason represented as
bearing upon their shoulder a dove, the symbol of the Holy Spirit. St. Thomas
himself is sometimes portrayed in the same manner; ordinarily, however, he bears
the figure of the sun upon his breast. Nor is it a question of "private revelations "
which moreover are not the concern of theology properly so-called.

118

G. GEENAN

Arguments
probable

proper = authorities of the doctors of the Church
.
(Saints, Fathers)
extrinsic = authority of the philosophers
(human reason)
Practically speaking, therefore, the famous text of the Summa
Theologica, q. 1, a. 8, ad
makes mention of three categories
of authorities for use by theology as; a human and argumentative science namely:
the authority of Scripture
the doctors of the Church
philosophers
Since the authorities of the first category furnish reasons why
one argues "properly, necessarily," we must conclude that,
without them, we cannot discuss theology, because theology
cannot exist without them. The authorities of the third category
furnish reasons which constitute only extrinsic and probable
arguments. These ·do not belong strictly to the proper domain
of theology; they belong to it from without, "probable," i.e.,
"not proper arguments" (argumenta probabilia. i.e., non
propria).
But there are also the authorities of the second category,
which is a quasi-intermediate category, for they can be distinguished by a double epithet: in fact, they furnish us with
reasons which are "proper but probable" (ex propriis, sed
probabiliter), and thus they belong as much to the "proper"
authority of the Canonical Scripture as to the probable authority of the philosophers. Yet, precisely because, on the one
hand, they are not extrinsic (on the contrary, they are proper),
and because, on the other hand, they are not necessary (on the
contrary they are only probable), their importance and their
value can be designated either by the expression " proper
probably" (propria probabiliter), or by the expression" probable properly" (probabilia ex propriis). This means that in
their way and according to their origin they can be classed

THE PLACE OF TRADITION IN THE THEOLOGY OF ST. THOMAS

119

between the two, while at the same time preserving and possessing a proper value and physiognomy of theU: own.
It :was absolutely essential lor this study of the attitude of
St. Thomas toward the problem of Tradition as a source of
theology, to note this matter well. We willingly confess that
this point alone poses a number of problems which need not
be resolved here. But the subject is equally fruitful in consequences and it will prove useful to indicate a few of them.
" Tradition " is not explicitly mentioned as a source of theology in the famous text of the Summa of St. Thomas. Having
stated the fact of this absence, a satisfactory explanation must
be found for this seemingly strange fact. 12 Let us first of all
dispel a few secondary difficulties. If St. Thomas did not
mention Tradition, certainly it is not because he would have
completely identified it with what we call the Teaching Authority (Magisterium) of the Church. Teaching Authority as
such is not a source of Revelation, since it is solely its guardian
and interpreter. Nevertheless, it is equally true that St. Thomas
teaches that the M agisterium is intimately and indissolubly
li,nked to the sources of Revelation. It is linked in such fashion
as to be indispensable, because it alone has the exclusive right
to give us an exact and authentic knowledge of what is taught
by Scripture and Tradition. 13 Elsewhere we have shown,-and
we hope to return to the same subject later on,-that St.
Thomas already taught this. Therefore, an answer must not
be sought in that direction to the problem which concerns
us here.
12

In an article " The Place of Holy Scripture in the Theology of St. Thomas,"

(The Thomist, [1947] 898-422), J. van der Ploeg, 0. P. primed the problem which
concerns us at the moment. The author referred to one of our studies which
appeared ten years ago (1941 and not 1988 as Fr. van der Ploeg notes on p. 419),
in which we sketched in broad outline the solution to the problem. After ten years
of research we still maintain the ideas expressed at that time. It is sufficient here
merely to develop them.
18 For the texts, proofs and details, cf. G. Geenen, "De opvatting en de houding
van den H. Thomas van Aquino bij het gebruiken der bronnen zijner theologie,"
in
van de philosophische en theologische faculteiten der N ederlandsche
Jezuieten, IV (1941) 112-146, 224-254; "Saint Thomas et.Ies Peres," in Dictionnaire
de Theologie, art. "Saint Thomas," VII, t. xv (fasc. 189-1940), col. 788-761.

120

G, GEENAN

It is equally true that St, Thomas, following the example
of his predecessors and thus making himself an authorized witness of the past of Catholic theology, did not identify Tradition
with the teachings of the Fathers, as certain modern authors
however have taught, Quite the contrary: he very often used
his prerogative as critic of the doctrines of certain Fathers
and of their exposition of doctrine or of the formulas which
they used, But he never allowed himself such conduct with
respect to the sources of Revelation, He prized even the formulas and expressions of Scripture as being, under the aegis of the
Teaching Authority, sufficiently clear, He teaches that expert
theology could not better explain :revealed truth than the sacred
writers had already done, 14 Moreover, in the text of the Summa
quoted above, it seems dear that for him the Fathers were not
a source of Revelation, since he teaches that the use of their
"authorities" in theology, is different from that of the "authorities " of Scripture, precisely because they are not authors
to whom Revelation has been made, We might add that the
great Scholastic does not appear to be acquainted with "unanimous consent of the Fathers," nor the " consent of the
bishops " as an argument to prove apodictically that such or
such doctrine belongs to the deposit of Revelation.
We cannot pause here to demonstrate all this in detail from
the very text of St. Thomas, lest we prolong unduly this study.
It is sufficient to point out these facts which, moreover, will
be discussed in the second part of this study. For St. Thomas,
revealed truth is found in the Scriptures and the " Tradition of
the Apostles," and it is taught to us by the Universal Church,
i.e., the Pope, as head of the Universal Church, and by the
u " De divinis non de facili debet homo aliter loqui quam Sacra Scriptura
loquatur." Contra errores Graecorum, cap. 1-" Joannes ... nomine Verbi pro
Filio utitur, nee est aliter loquendum de divinis quam Sacra Scriptura loquatm "
De Potentia, q. 9, a. 9, ad 7.-" De Deo dicere non debemus quod in Sacra
Scriptura non invenitur vel per verba, vel per sensum," Summa Theol., I, q. 36, a.
ad 1; cf. De Veritate, q. 14,
apropos of the definition of faith in HebrtJws, 11: 1;
Summa Theol., II-II, q. 4, a. 1, ibid., HI, q. 60, a. 8, ad 1; In Ill Sent., d. 25, q. 1,
sol. 3, ad. 2, 3, 4. This principle of method wasi borrowed from Dionysius, the
pseudo-Areopagite, De Div. Nom., cap. 1; cf. St. Thomas, lect l.

.THE PLACE OF TRADITION IN THE THEOLOGY OF ST. THOMAS

Ul

Ecumenical Councils under the authority of the Sovereign
Pontiff.
The teaching of the Fathers,-the majority of whom were
bishops,-is not an organ of Faith save in the measure that
this teaching is conformable to, and faithfully translates, the
teaching of the Pope, the head of the Universal Church. But
in the last
it is to the Church, i. e., to the Pope as
head of the Universal Church, that we must have recourse in
order to_ know what is revealed doctrine, for it is his Teaching
Authority which is the authentic and definitive norm. 15 It
may appear to some that, after all this, the solution of the
problem becomes only the more complicated and difficult. In
reality, the elimination of these secondary aspects puts us
squarely on the road to a solution.
St. Thomas recognized Tradition as a source of Revelation.
His historical and critical sense, all too little recognized by
some, and especially his genius for Catholic theology made him
repeat with the Scriptures, with the documents of the Sovereign
Pontiffs, with the acts of the Ecumenical Councils and with the
whole history of the Church's past that, in addition to the
Scriptures, there was also a" Tradition of the Apostles" (Traditio Apostolorum) or a" Tradition of the Church" (Traditio
Ecclesiae). The second part of this study will furnish us an
opportunity to return to this point in greater detail. And if
the texts of the Summa seem to say that all Revelation was
sufficiently expressed in and by the Scriptures, as they are
taught by the Church, the fact is that St. Thomas placed them
on the plane of the theological technique of his time. According
to this technique, anchored in and completely built upon the
" authority " (in the medieval sense of the term) , it appeared
to him both possible and necessary to associate theological
science with the Scriptures alone. This does not mean that,
for him, Scripture alone contained all Revelation, even less
does it signify that Scripture alone and of itself taught all the
principles which medieval theology needed in order to con15

Compare Quodlibetum, II, a. 7 with Summa Theol., II-II, q. 10, a. 12.

122

Go GEENAN

strut its scientific edifice according to the rules and the technical
method proper to it. 16
St. Thomas, then, does not deny that Tradition is a source
of theology, notwithstanding the fact that he does not speak of
it explicitly in his famous text. As a matter of fact, at the
time when St. Thomas was writing the first question of the
Summa (about 1267) he had already written a goodly number
of theological workso Now, in these earlier works, he had
already, occasione data, taught again and again, although often
in scattered texts;,;tke sufficiency of the Scriptures for theological
work. Yet at the same time he had shown clearly and expressly,
-either by scattered texts, or by concrete examples,-that
Tradition is a source of his theology. Without fear of mistake
or exaggeration it may even be said that the sacramentology of
St. Thomas, as taught in the Summa, is above all dependent on
a doctrine and on practices which were known only through
Traditiono Doubtless, it is not always easy to state what is the
exact range and the precise meaning of certain formulas, such
as " teaching of faith, tradition of the faith, tradition of the
Church, tradition of the Apostles," etco, which we have taken
from his works. Later. on we hope to devote a special monograph to this subject. Nor is it always easy to verify whether
in such circumstances Aquinas is speaking of a source clearly
distinct from the Scriptures, in that Tradition was for him a
source containing truths that are in no way found in the
Scriptureso Here arises a host of problems, each one of which
must be studied separately if we would arrive at even a partially
16 Cf. Diction. Theol. Cath., loc. cit., col. 756-757. Saint Robert Bellarmine and
'Gardinal Newman taught the same thing. See Vacant, Etudes theologiques IIUT
les constitution// du Concile du Vatican, t. l (1895), 376. If Vacant is of the
opinion (ibid., note 1), that this position is not tenable, it is because he had not
sufficiently read, or had poorly understood, the texts of St. Thomas, and because he
seems not to have been aware of the theological technique of the Medievalists. It
is true that his work appeared a half century ago and that the profound and
methodic& study of their technique did not begin until later. The sequel of our
article will show that Vacant's reproach has no foundation, since he did not place
the problem on the terrain demanded, and he did not envisage it from the same
point of view as did St. Thomas.

THE PLACE OF TRADITION IN THE THEOLOGY OF ST. THOMAS

128

concrete view of the ensemble. And it is to be desired that the
number and the capability of those with the courage and the
devotion to undertake these patient and difficult researches will
become greater and greater.
For the moment we are going to limit ourselves to the citation
of a few texts in which St. Thomas affirms the existence of

Tradition as a source of theology.
1) To the objection: "the worship of images is not found
expressly in Sacred Scripture/' Aquinas makes answer: " the
Apostles handed down many things which were not written
in the Canon, one of which concerns the use of images." 17
2) He teaches that the doctrine of original sin is known to us
through revelation: "According to the tradition of the Catholic
faith, it must be held that men are born with original sin."
" We are taught from the Tradition of the Church that the
whole human race is infected by sin!' 18
3) In commenting on the text of SL Paul, II Thess., 2: 14,
he writes:
" Paul taught that they might hold to the Traditions and documents
which had been decreed by the Apostles and elders, who were at
Jerusalem ... and he published these Traditions in a two-fold way;
some by words, wherefore he says: through speech (per sermonem);
some in writing, thus he adds: or by letter (sive per epistolam).
Wherefore it is dear that many things not written in the Church
have been taught by the Apostles, and therefore must be preserved.
For in the judgment of the Apostles, it was better that many
things be hidden, as Denis says." 19

4) Likewise in the Summa Theologica, III, q. ll5, a. 3, ad 4,
where he takes up again the objection against the worship of
images: " Scripture does not set down anything concerning the
worship of images," he answers:
The Apostles, led by the inward instinct of the Holy Ghost, handed
down to the Church certain instructions which they did not put
In Ill Sent., d. 9, q. 1, sol.
ad 3.
IV C. Gentes, 50, 54.
19 In IV Sent., d.
q. l, a. 1, sol. 3, ad. l.

17

18

124

G. GEENAN

in writing, but which have been ordained, in accordance with the
observance of the Church as practiced by the faithful as time went
on. Wherefore the Apostle [that is, St. Paul, whose objection had
been the text of I Cor., 11:
says (II Thess.,
14): Stand fast;
and hold the traditions which you have learned, whether by word-that is by word of mouth-or by our epistle-that is by word put
into writing. Among these traditions is the worship of Christ's
image.
5) In the Summa Theologica, in the treatise on Baptism,
III, q. 64, a. 2, ad 1, he is to refute the following objection:
"In the sacraments certain things are done which are nowhere
mentioned in Holy Scripture; for instance, etc." He answers:
Those things that are essential to the sacraments, are instituted
by Christ Himself, Who is God and man. And though they are not
all handed down by the Scriptures, yet the Church holds them from
the intimate tradition of the Apostles, according to the saying of
the Apostle (I Cor., 11: 34): The rest I will set in order when I
come."
6) The institution of certain sacraments is not known to us
except by Tradition. 20
7) Commenting on certain formulas of the de Divinis
Nominibus of Denis the pseudo-Areopagite, St. Thomas tells
us that certain truths are taught us by the
" hidden veils of words, that is, of the Holy Scripture and the ' Tradition of the hierarchies,' that is, of the other dogmas which the
Apostles and their disciples handed down, which are not contained
in Holy Scripture, as for instance those things which pertain to the
rites of the sacred mysteries."
8) In Catholic Mariology, he points out several truths
which are solely attached to Tradition:
"Concerning the
sanctification of the Biassed Virgin ... nothing is handed down
20 In IV Sent., d.
q. 1, a. 1, sol. 3, ad 1. The first sentence of this citation
"Paulus docebat .... Jerosolymis" is an allusion to Acts, 15: 41 and 16: 4-5. In
the absence of a critical editioq of this commentary of St. Thomas, we retain the
lesson "non scripta, sunt ab Apostolis doctis docta, etc." in place of "non-scripta
sunt ab Apostolis docta " according to the Parma and Marietti editions.

THE PLACE OF TRADITION IN THE THEOLOGY OF ST. THOMAS

125

in the canonical Scriptures; indeed, they do not even make
mention of her nativity." And referring to the authority of
St. Augustine (in reality the pseudo-Augustine) he teaches:
"that her body (the Blessed Virgin's) was assumed into heaven,
and yet Scripture does not relate this." 21
These few texts, taken at random, show us that St. Thomas,
living in the thirteenth century was perfectly aware of what
the Council of Trent would proceed to teach three centuries
later, in its famous decree on the " Sacred Books " and the
" Traditions of the Apostles." In fact, summing up the texts
cited above, we can state that St. Thomas taught:
-Together with the Scriptures there exists an oral Tradition
(texts 4, 1, 6).
-This Tradition is a source of Revelation; it comes from Christ
(texts 5, 6).
-This Tradition dates back to and is linked up with the
Apostles (texts 5, l, 3, 4, 7).
-This Tradition of the Apostles has for its Author the Holy
Spirit (text 4).
-This Tradition is maintained in and taught by the Church
(texts 4, 3, 2).
-This Tradition is as much a source of dogmas as of Christian
practices founded upon Catholic dogma (texts 4, 7).
-This TraditiQn teaches us certain truths of the Catholic Faith
as, for example, the Assumption of the Virgin Mary, and
the existence of certain sacraments,-which are not explicitly
expressed in the Scriptures (texts 8, 7).
-This Tradition has its place in the exposition of the problems
of" sacred doctrine," that is, in Theology (texts 8, 4).
-The formula for designating this source of Revelation in and
21 Summa Theol., III, q. 9-7, a. I c. The "auctoritas"
to which St. Thomas here
makes appeal is that of the pseudo-Augustine, well known in the controversy of the
high Middle Ages, author of the Assumption of the Virgin Mary, and who would
in fact be Peter the Venerable (d. ll56) according to the report of Fr. Barre, in
Journees de la societe francaise d'etudes mariales, held at Notre Dame du Chime
(Sarthe) on September
1949. (Cf. Marianum (1949), 510-511)-For the
attitude of St. Thomas vis a vis the pseudo-epigraphic literature, cf. G. Geenen:
"St. Thomas d'Aquin et ses sources pseudepigraphiques," in Ephem. Theol. Lovan.
(1943)' 71-80.

G. GEENAN

taught by the Church is sometimes in the plural (traditions),
sometimes in the singular (tradition). (texts 2, 4).
-This formula is presented with variations (Tradition of the
Church, Tradition of the Catholic faith, observance of the
Church) (texts 2, 4).
The Church possesses this Tradition " through the succession
of the faithful" (per successionem fidelium) (text 4). In
fact, we touch here upon all the points which the Council
of Trent taught with reference to the existence and the nature
of Tradition.

With all this in mind, it is to be wondered, and not without
reason, why the Angelic Doctor did not also make explicit
mention of Tradition, among the "authorities" (auctoritates)
of " sacred doctrine." How must this fact, at once so obvious
and so disconcerting, be explained? The principal, if not the
sole reason that can be offered, must be sought, on the one
hand, in a Scholastic procedure well known to the Medievalists,
namely the medieval technique of Scholastic Theology, and, on
the other hand, in the very nature of Tradition itself. Moreover, these two elements are so intimately connected that
we may say they are but two different aspects of the same
procedure.
By way of explanation, it can be noted again that the
medieval theology of the great Scholastics was anchored in the
"auctoritas." Now, "auctoritas" was the text itself which
Theology had at its disposal. It was with this very precise
signification that the word was used in the schools of that
time. 22 That means that when appeal was made to the "authority of Augustine " for example, the text of St. Augustine
was above all signified, the material expression, the word, the
formula, the adage of the author. The word " authority"
(auctoritas), therefore, did not designate, at least not in the
first place, the- "sense" (sens'us),
content, the thing or
22 For these semantics of the word "auctoritas"
see for example: M. D. Chenu,
0. P., Introduction on l'Etude de Saint Thomas d'Aquin, Publications de l'Institut
d'etudes medievales de l'universite de Montreal, XI (1950), 106-118. Cf. G. Geenen,
De opvatting en de houding, etc., loc. cit., 119, note 18.

THE PLACE OF TRADITION IN THE THEOLOGY OF ST. THOMAS

19l7

truth affirmed by the text, but rather the "saying" (dictum)
or the" sayings" (dicta) of the author cited,-in other words,
the material statement. 28 "The authorities of the canonical
Scriptures, of the doctors of the Church, of the philosophers "
discussed in the Summa I, q. 1, a. 8, signified, therefore, according to the thinking of the time, the material expression, the
text of the Scriptures, of the doctors, of the philosophers.
When appeal was made to the " auctoritas " there was no
question, in the first place, of the intrinsic value, but of its
extrinsic value; it was a question of the written text, of the value
which was recognized in it and the weight it carried due to
the official recognition which the text possessed and which
gave it the right to be
in theological argumentation. It
should be clearly noted that the "auctoritas" was cited in
order to support a doctrine; the content of the text had its
importance, the affirmation expressed by the " dictum " was
neither denied nor disowned; but for all that, it still remains
that it was, so to speak, presupposed to the text, since it was
contained and translated by the text. For the Scriptures, there
was no difficulty in admitting, with the " auctoritas," the
contents of the latter and the teaching which it represented.
Being a " Scripture divinely inspired," the meaning of which
was authentically explained by the Teaching Authority of the
Church, 24 and having as authors the hagiographers" who wrote
the canonical books," the truth of the Scriptures was guaranteed
by God Himself, the principal author of the Sacred Books.
•• " Si diversorum dicta (Patrum) ad convenientiam reducere volumus, quod
tamen necessarium non est, potest dici quod auctoritates quae ... , exponendae sunt"
(In II Sent., d. 2, p. 1, a. 3, ad 1.) "dicta philosophorum" (ibid., d. 14, q. 1, a. 2,
ad 1); "dicta Patrum" (Contra e:rrores Graecorum, epilogus), etc.
•• "Now the formal object of faith is the First Truth, as manifested in Holy
Writ and the teaching of the Church, which proceeds from the· First Truth. Consequently whoever does not adhere, as to an infallible and Divine rule, to the
teaching of t.he Church, which proceeds from the First Truth manifested in Holy
Writ, has not the habit of faith." (Summa Theol., II-II, q. 5, a. 8). "Faith adheres
to all the articles of faith by reason of one mean, viz. on account of the First Truth
proposed to us in the Scriptures, according to the Teaching of the Church who
has the right understan<j.ing of them. Hence whoever abandons this mean is altogether lacking in faith" (ibid., ad !!) •

9

128

G. GEENAN

Such texts also enjoyed an absolute intrinsic value. But from
the viewpoint of technical theology, it was purely a secondary
aspect, albeit a further motive for guaranteeing and motivating
their use, for these " authorities of the canonical Scriptures "
were " proper and necessary arguments," and this the more
so since " the argument from authority based on divine revelation is the strongest." The other " dicta " of which St. Thomas
speaks,-authorities of the doctors and of the philosophers,while they have the real value of auctoritas, will be only
"proper but probable arguments" (argumenta propria, sed
prohabiliter) (probabilia ex propriis), or pure and simple
" probable and extrinsic arguments " (argumenta probabilia
extranea) .
As a good medieval theologian of the thirteenth century, St.
Thomas respected his profession as a theologian and he paid
all honor to it through the conscientious observance of the
elementary rules of the technique of the School in the structure
of his theological work. Thenceforth everyone will readily
understand that " Tradition " is absent in the famous text of
the Summa, since it was difficult to introduce Tradition as such
into the theological technique. In fact, Tradition by its very
definition is the source of revealed truths which exist " sine
scripto," which were not written. And a truth known by way
of Tradition (considered as a source distinct from the Scriptures) was a" word of God handed down" (verbum Dei traditum) as the Vatican Council later declared. 25 Appeal, indeed,
would not be made to a text which does not exist! It is, therefore, in this sense that we said above that theological science
was practised with the Scriptures only. Evidently, this does not
mean that the medieval theologian, like every other Catholic
theologian, could not and should not have recourse to Tradition
to explain "sacred doctrine,"-we have cited a few texts of
St. Thomas where he himself precisely gives the example of the
contrary ,-but the theologian could do so only when that
Tradition was presented under the form of " auctoritas," accord•G

Denzinger, loc. cit., n. 1792-1781.

THE PLACE OF TRADITION IN THE THEOLOGY OF ST, THOMAS

129

ing to the rules of the theological technique of the Medievalists.
It must be remembered that in the time of St. Thomas the
" philosophers," stimulated by the revival of their studies,
thanks to a better and a more ample use of the works of
Aristotle, blamed the " theologians " for the fact that the work
of the latter was not a " science " or at least, it was not presented in a " scientific " aspect. According to these " philosophers," science was not possible except when there was a
"discursus demonstrativus"
and "argumentativus,"
since
" science," being a " certain and evident knowledge through
causes," was also a " habit of discoursing or deducing conclusions."
Now" to deduce conclusions" supposes that there are" principles." Theology as science should itself then begin with
principles. In the first question of the Summa Theologica,
which is in substance an introduction to all the rest, in order to
establish the raison d'etre of "sacred doctrine," St. Thomas
undertook the task of answering this reproach of the " philosophers." He demonstrated to its adversaries that it is truly
a " science," 26 which, while being a" science subordinate to the
science of God and the blessed " has a procedure that is " argumentative and deductive." He demonstrated that the principles
of this science are the truths revealed by God. The believer is
in possession of these principles through the " habit of faith "
which enjoys in theology the same role as the "habit of first
principles " of every science worthy of the name. Having thus
exposed his program and his concept of theology as a doctrina
sacra, he could begin and tranquilly continue his work. Sure
of his position, it was sufficient for him to :repeat, from time to
time, that the ":reasons" furnished by the "sacred authors"
and " holy men " to prove " things that are of faith " were
not always solely " certain persuasions showing that what is
proposed to our faith is not impossible," but sometimes also
26 This does not mean that St. Thomas
restricted the function of theology to
the single role of drawing conclusions. But he wanted to teach that this role is
likewise suitable to theology. Apropos of this read the long note of our article:
De opvatting en de houding-loc. cit., 147, note 64.

130

G. GEENAN

are drawn from principles of faith, i.e., from the authority of Holy
Writ, as Denis discloses (Div. Nom. 2). Whatever is based on these
principles is as well proved in the eyes of the faithful, as a conclusion
drawn from self-evident principles is in the eyes of all. Hence again,
theology is a science, as we stated at the outset of this work. 27

Let us remember this little text: hence again theology is a
science, for it is full of consequence and it speaks volumes
concerning the background of the affirmation which it reveals.
St. Thomas had not forgotten his first question. Hence we
have, according to the technical procedure of medieval theology
with relationship to Tradition, the explanation of the fact that
St. Thomas did not explicitly mention Tradition also as a
source of his theology.
2. The Notion of Tradition and its Use by St. Thomas.

It now remains for us to answer the question: how then did
Tradition make its entry into the technique of theology such as
St. Thomas practised it? A complete and adequate answer to
this question would go beyond our present limits, because,
before solving this problem we should have to know precisely
what opinion St. Thomas had as to the nature of Tradition,
what are, according to him, the organs of this Tradition, and
especially what use he made of it. For all of this a synthetic
study must be minutely made of texts scattered about in his
works, through which he exposes his idea in this regard, as
well as an analytic study of several concrete cases through
which the holy Doctor allows us to glimpse, by his practice and
examples, what was his concept of the nature of Tradition. It
may suffice here to give the salient lines. We shall sketch the
solution by indicating the principal aspects of the problem.
As has been seen, Tradition has a real and indispensable
place in the theology of St. Thomas. It enters therein on the
same level and by the same title as the Scriptures: it is a
source of Revelation. But its entry is an indirect one, and
why? Because, of itself it is not a written text, that 1s, an
27

Summa Theol., II-II, q. I, a. 5, ad

THE PLACE OF TRADITION IN THE THEOLOGY OF ST. THOMAS

181

"authority" (auctoritas). It enters in the form and the
manner of a text (auctoritas) namely, by the statements
(dicta), i.e. the written documents (scripta) (auctoritas) of
the Teaching Authority of the Church (Pope, Councils) and
likewise by the statements of the doctors and saints (dicta
doctorum et sanctorum) who have repeated and taught us the
doctrine of this M agisterium. Now it is evident that all these
" authorities " which are by nature and origin different, do not
have the same value nor the same importance, since all these
organs of Tradition are not uniformly joined to Revelation, and
all of them do not translate its content with the same guarantee
of fidelity and veracity. St. Thomas himself distinguished the
" authority of Scripture " frQm the " authority of the doctors "
according to the value which they had (proprie ex necessitate;
ex propriis probabiliter) . The hierarchy of these organs and the
importance which they merit in theology must therefore he
studied. We shall do so later on, when we study what St.
Thomas understands by the " M agisterium, custom of the
Church, doctrine of faith, doctrine of the Church, Catholic
doctrine, Fathers, etc."
Meanwhile, we must first state that the argument drawn
from Tradition is hound up with that drawn from the Scriptures, because it is the Teaching Authority of the Church which
is the guardian and the interpreter of the two sources of Revelation, and because it is the Teaching Authority which teaches
both authentically, by telling us what is the "traditional"
meaning of the Scriptures. For the Scriptures and Tradition
are so intimately connected that it is impossible to understand
the one without at the same time appealing to the other. 28
•• According to all that has preceded,-especially
the assertion that the Assumption of the Virgin Mary and the existence of certain sacraments are not
expressly mentioned in Scripture,-it appears, therefore, that the expression of Fr.
Van der Ploeg is not a happy one ·when he writes: " Holy Scripture was for him
(St. Thomas) by far the principal source of faith, especially with regard to the
more speculative doctrines." (loc. cit., 419) . It would be more exact to say that
for St. Thomas Scripture is a source of theology, developed according to the
medieval technique. Even more, there still remains to be determined subsequently
whether or not it is the principal source, since Tradition occupies a real place,

132

G. GEENAN

A few texts and examples of trinitarian theology as expounded
by St. Thomas furnish us magnificent examples demonstrating
this truth. Thus, it is true that even a truth " which Scripture
does not contain" (explicitly, that is) has some support in
Scripture. If, from the viewpoint of "authority," Scripture is
a source of theology, so will Tradition be at the same time.
For the " text " of Scripture is already an expression of Tradition, since the meaning of the Scripture-the truth expressed
-is the very one which Tradition gives to it through the
expression of the Teaching Authority of the Church (Pope,
Councils).
Thus, Tradition is a real and an indispensable, albeit indirect,
source of the theology of St. Thomas, as we believe we have
demonstrated by his very own words. We say: l) Really and
indispensably, because Tradition contains Revelation. fl) Indirectly, because, although not being in itself an "authority"
such as was demanded by the medieval technique, it does assume, nevertheless, this quality of a " written text " when we
consider it
the inspired text o:r in the texts of the Popes and
the Councils. St. Thomas never missed an opportunity to
criticize the expressions (and sometimes the doctrine) of the
Fathers, because the texts of these authors were for him but
proper and probable arguments (argumenta propria probabiliter
or probabilia ex propriis) . Yet, never did he criticize the expression of the Scriptures, the Popes, or the Councils. Indeed,
quite the contrary: he always considered them as being the best
and therefore the sufficient expression of revealed doctrine. And
when there was question of a few exceptional cases where the
Teaching Authority of the Church expressed the doctrine of faith
albeit an indirect one, thanks to the texts of the Magisterium of the Church. It
woulq have been better to have said that, in facv,, St. Thomas appeals almost
exclusively to Scripture. And finally, certain doctrines, for example that of the
Immaculate Conception, the Assumption, the sacramentary doctrine, the sacramental
character, etc., must not be excluded from what is commonly called "speculative
doctrine." Thus, for example, Pius IX taught that the Immaculate Conception is
contained not only in the " divina eloquia " but also in the " veneranda traditio "
(Bull lneffabilis). Pius XII wrote that the Assumption of Mary "inititur Sacris
Litteris," Munificentissimus Deus, AAS (1950), 769; cf. p. 764.

THE PLACE OF TRADITION IN THE THEOLOGY OF ST, THOMAS

133

with words that are extra-scriptural, as for example the " Theotokos " or the " homo-ousion," he felt duty-bound to show that,
as a matter of fact, these new words corresponded in their own
way to the words of Scripture. Likewise he seeks to find the
Catholic doctrine concerning the divine " processions " in the
word" procedere" which is to be found in Scripture, 29 and that
of the procession of the Holy Spirit " ab utroque " in the word
"accipere" likewise to be found there. 30
In conclusion, we may use this passage because it fittingly
illustrates all that has just been said. St. Thomas writes:
We ought not to say about God anything which is not found in
Holy Scripture either explicitly or implicitly. But although we do
not find it verbally expressed in Holy Scripture that the Holy Ghost
proceeds from the Son, still we do find it in the sense of Scripture,
especially where the Son says, speaking of the Holy Ghost, He will
glorify Me, because He shall receive of mine. 31

The holy Doctor concluded from this, that the text " Spirit of
Truth, Who proceeds from the Father " (cited in the objection
to support the fact that the Holy Spirit proceeds solely from the
Father according to the expressed text of Scripture itself) does
not contradict the doctrine of the " ab utroque," since the
Church teaches us the doctrine of the " procession from the
Son." To substantiate the Catholic doctrine according to which
the Spirit also proceeds from the Son, St. Thomas cites the text
of John, 16: 14, and rightly so, since this doctrine-which
according to St. Thomas is not found literally (i. e., per verba,
explicitly) in Scripture 32-teaches that in the Holy Trinity
29 Summa
Theol., I, q.
a. l. Having cited the text ''Ego ex Deo processi"
(John, 8: 4!<!) in the argument sed contra, in order to broach the problem, he concludes, after explaining how this procession must be understood according to
Catholic doctrine: "Et sic fides catholica processionem ponit in divinis."
ad l.
"'' Ibid., q. 36, a.
01 lbid.
32 By this word we mean to state that Scripture
does not employ totis litter-is
the word "procedere" when it speaks of the "processio Spiritus Sancti a Filio."
Moreover it is the Church's prerogative to say what is the true "Iitteral " meaning
of the word "accipere" in Trinitarian theology.

134

G. GEENAN

there cannot be, and there is not an " accipere " which is not
at the same time a " procedere."
Moreover, to cut short all objection, St. Thomas then unfolds
his famous principle of the " exclusive term." He writes:
It is also a rule of Holy Scripture that whatever is said of the
Father, applies to the Son, although there be added an exclusive
term; except only as regards what belongs to the opposite relations,
whereby the Father and the Son are distinguished from each other.

And he supports this with an example to prove and confirm
what he has just said:
For when the Lord says (Matt. 11: 27), No one knoweth the Son,
but the Father, the idea of the Son knowing Himself is not excluded.
So therefore when we say that the Holy Ghost proceeds from the
Father, even though it be added that He proceeds from the Father
alone, the Son would not thereby be at all excluded.

Why must it be said then that, even though Scripture might
have said that the Holy Spirit does proceed from the Father and
solely from Him, he proceeds also and equally from the Son?
St. Thomas answers:
Because as regards being the principle of the Holy Ghost the Father
and the Son are not opposed to each other, but only as regards the
fact that one is the Father and the other is the Son. 33

" Tradition " has a real place in the theology of Aquinas, since
at times it is due to Tradition alone that we can arrive at an
understanding of the Scriptures and that we can demonstrate
that, even Scriptural texts, which at first sight and secundum
litteram seem to affirm the contrary of revealed doctrine,
express in fact this revealed doctrine such as it is taught by
the Church. The " Filioque," 84 a formula of extra-scriptural
•• The same canon of Trinitarian theology is repeated, under another form, in
the responses to objections 4 and 6, apropos of a patristic " auctoritaa " and concerning a principle (auctoritas) of grammatical, philosopl!ical language.
•• St. Thomas cites the text under the name of .Athanasius because he doubtless
wanted to cite a Greek witness in this controversy between the East and the West,
all the more so in that he still believed, with all his contemporaries, that the
Creed " Quicumque " was really from the hand of the great Alexandrian. This

THE PLACE OF TRADITION IN THE THEOLOGY OF ST. THOMAS

135

origin, contains " expressly " and explicitly what was not found
in Scripture except " per sensum," since " in divinis " the
" accipere " is-according to Catholic doctrine-a " procedere."
The holy Doctor was not afraid to go even further than the
objection dared to do, in order to show how Tradition entered
into theology indirectly under the form of auctoritas. We hope
to have occasion later to develop this in an article wherein
will be studied the understanding of the Angelic Doctor concerning the nature of Tradition and the use he made· of it.
Then only shall we have an exact and a complete perspective
of the place which Tradition occupies. in the theology of the
Prince of Scholastics.
G. GEENAN,

0. P.

CoUegio Angelicum,
Rome, Italy.

pseudo-epigraphy in no way weakens the value of the auctoritas, as we have pointed
out elsewhere. Cf. De opvatting en de kouding, etc., loc. cit., 134-185 and !l86-!l37.

TIME AND THE POSSIBILITY OF AN
ETERNAL WORLD

H

E who wishes to understand creation philosophically
cannot neglect the problem of the nature of time and
its bearing upon the hypothesis that an order of created
things could have coexisted from eternity with God. Now this
hypothesis clearly raises the problem of the beginning of things.
Since a world eternal in the sense of having an endless duration
a parte ante still would be temporally eternal, we have on our
hands a nest of problems, not the less thorny for being ancient,
centering around time: Is it possible, without self-contradiction, to conceive of a non-temporal origination of time? How,
if at all, can time be understood to have begun? How, if at all,
can it be understood to have possibly existed always? These and
allied questions are vitally important in the doctrine of creation
as a whole. The problem of understanding the act of creation
in relation to its effects is involved, specifically as regards the
latter's duration, as well as the problem of the relation of the
effects to the Author of that act. Respecting the first of these
problems, we may recall, for instance, that the act of creation,
being God's own proper act, is one with Himself and therefore
is eternal in the mode wherein He Himself is eternal. This act
then is outside of time, yet its effect-the world, the order of
things other than God-is undoubtedly in time. Could it have
been in time from all eternity and nevertheless have originated?
Of course it must have originated, for everything other than
God was and is being created by God. On the other hand, it
is not less easy to indicate how the problem of time and an
"eternal" world bears. upon that of understanding the relation
ofpassive creation, namely, the total dependency in being of the
creature upon God. 1 This relation is not really grasped unless
1 See my article, "Creation as a Relation," The New Scholasticism, XXIV (July
1950). pp. 268-288.

136

TIME AND THE POSSIBILITY

OF AN ETERNAL WORLD

137

it is seen to be per se independent of time. And yet all creatures
in their natural state, at least, seem to exist in time. 2 Is a
successive duration infinite a parte ante really compatible with
created being as such? If so, how can this compatibility be
conceived and explained?

1.

CREATED BEING AND ETERNAL DURATION

In a broad sense of the term, time is a measure of motion
or change of every kind. 3 It is important to notice that the
essence of time-time as time-consists in measurable successiveness, not (any more than does the essence of eternity) in
beginninglessness and endlessness. For even if time never began
and will never end/ it still must retain its measurably successive character. 5 Observe further that even if time and a world
had always been, they could not be said to exist" coeternally"
with God. Eternity, properly so called, is found only in God,
Who alone has being and life simultaneously whole in an
• Even intellectual substances, whose duration is aeviternal, participate in time;
for, though their substantial being is not subject to change, they are transmutable
as
the accidental being of their immanent and transient operations, of their
thoughts, volitions, and local changes. Cf. Summa Theol., I, q. 10, a. 5, c. and ad
• We need not be concerned with a technical analysis of the meaning of the
celebrated Aristotelian definition: " Time is the number of motion in respect of
Here it is sufficient, I think, to
before and after" (IV Physic., cap. 11;
describe time in terms which, though very general, nevertheless indicate clearly its
essential character. In fact, St. Thomas himself, following Aristotle, recognizes this
broad sense of " time " : Dicitur magis communiter numeTUS ejus quod habet
quocumque modo prius et posterius. I Sent., dist. VIII, q. 8, a. 8, ad 4; cf. Aristotle,
Physic, loc. cit. "Motion" can be understood to stand for actual succession, transition, or change of every kind. Cf. Summa Theol., I, q. 10, a. 1; q. 58, a. 8. The
motion of which time is the measure may consist in succession of any sort, including that of purely spiritual acts, like those of the intellect; thus we have " tempus
mensurans simplices conceptiones intellectus, quae sunt sibi succedentes." I Sent.,
loc. cit.
8.
• As Aristotle argned: E. g., Physic., loc. cit.,
• Cf. I Sent., dist. XIX, q. !i!, a. 1, sol. The material factor, so to speak, of time
is the successiveness in actual change, whereas the formal factor is the " measurement," the " enumeration," as the classical Aristotelian doctrine has it, which is
suplied by the intellect. Ibid.; cf. I Sent., dist. XXXVII, q. 4, a. 8, sol.

138

JAMES F. ANDERSON

immutable present. The duration of an always-existing world
would be successive. 6
Can any creature have existed always? Obviously this is a
question about possibility. 7 In what sense, or senses, is the
term " can " to be understood here? The word " potency "
(more broadly, "possibility") is used sometimes to signify
real power, sometimes not. 8 Used is the :first way, "potency"
can denote either active power (ability to act) or passive power
(ability to receive action or be acted upon); in the second
way, it can have a purely metaphorical sense, as in mathematical " powers/' or it can assert the absolute possibility of
intrinsic logical non-repugnance.
Which, if any, of these four modes and meanings of "possibility" is involved in the proposition: Something other than
God can have existed always? 9 Clearly, possibility of active
power is implied. God never lacked the power of producing
something f:rom all eternity. Since the divine esse, being pure
act, suffers no limitation, neither does the divine power; for
God's power is His being. Conversely, passive possibility in a
certain sense 10 is likewise entailed; for if God can have created
always, something can have been created always. Of course,
the realization of these correlative possibilities has been precluded by the :revealed truth that God did not in fact make any
creature to coexist with Him from eternity, not indeed because
He could not have done so, but simply because He did not will
to do so.
Since we are concerned with real possibility, the third (metaphorical) sense obviously does not apply. It is the fourth mode
of possibility that is here most significant, namely, absolute
6 Cf. De Pot., q. 3, a. 14, ad "1 (replies to second set of Objections:
":rationes
oppositae ") .
7 Cf. ibid., corpus.
• Ibid.; cf. Aristotle, Metaphysic., .d, 12; St. Thomas, V Metaphys., lect. U, n.

961-76.

Cf. De Pot., loc. cit.
Possibility of passive power is excluded, because creation is not the actualization
of a potentiality in the creature.
6

10

TIME AND 'fHE POSSIBILITY

OF AN ETERNAL WORLD

139

possibility, definable negatively as the absence of internal
contradiction in intelligible being.
The principle governing the problem at hand is found in the
simple statement that being-from-another is not repugnant to
being-always. 11 There is nothing in the nature of caused being
to prevent its existing from all eternity-if the being in question is created. When something proceeds from another by
" motion," by change of any sort, it must be posterior in time
to its efficient cause. Creation, however, can be described only
as an instantaneous act; and if an action is all-at-once, and not
successive, the agent need not be prior in duration or in time
to the effect produced. 12 The act of creating is not any species
of change. 13 Notwithstanding the general principle of the compossibility of created being with eternal being, there are some
noteworthy arguments and ideas contrary to this principle,
arising from the very attempt to conceive of an eternal created
duration and especially of its beginning.
In dealing with these arguments, let us. bear in mind the
elementary fact that even if a world had always existed, its
duration would not be eternal strictly speaking-not simultaneously whole, that is, but successive. Ev"€n so, an acute
difficulty may be felt in the reflection that any conceivable
world would necessarily be mutable in the most absolute sense:
mutable with
to its very existence. Are mutability and
eternity really compatible? Certainly not, where "eternity"
stands for the divine duration, yet they are, where " eternity "
signifies infinite
duration: " Variability by its very
nature excludes eternity, but not infinite duration." 14 A world
having infinite duration would be created. Such a world would
Hoc quod est esse ab alio, non repugnat ei quod est esse semper. De Pot., loc. cit.
Cf. Summa Theol., I, q. 46, a. 2.
13 E. g., d. ll C. Gent., cap. 17. The theological argument:
if to be from another
were per se repugnant to being from eternity, the Son of God could not proceed
from the Father (De Pot., q. 3, a. 13), demonstrates that the :repugnance in question
is philosophically inadmissible .. Nothing could be rationally possible if it implied a
theological impossibility or contradiction.
24 Variabilitas de sui ratione excludit aeternitatem, non autem infinitam durationem.
De Pot., q. 3, a. 14, ad 3 (replies to second set of Objections).
11

12

140

JAMES F. ANDERSON

originate without being" new." The problem of the meaning of
this last statement will be treated presently. For the moment
suffice it to recall that if the creative causality of God had
been operative from eternity, some effect of it could have been
always/ 5 and that, since God's act of creation proceeds freely
from His will, it could have been operative always. Hence I
should like to introduce an argument that is particularly significant for the understanding of creation as origination in the
absolute mode.
No creature, this argument runs, could exist from eternity,
because it is of very essence of eternity not to have a beginning, whereas it is of the very essence of created being to begin
to be: " It is of the essence of the eternal not to have a principle,
but it is of the essence of the creature to have a principle;
therefore no creature can be eternal." 16 Now the conclusion
asserted does not follow, for though both premises are true,
they are not true with respect to the same type of" principle":
" It is of the essence of the eternal not to have a principle of
duration; but it is of the essence of creation to have a principle
of origin, though not of duration-unless ' creation ' be taken as
Faith takes it." 17
The distinction is crucial. Observe, first, that St. Thomas has
said it is of the essence of the eternal (de ratione aeterni) not
to have a principle of duration (principium durationis). Does,
or could, this imply that " the eternal," for St. Thomas, may
have another sort of principle? It does, as the context shows.
For here by " the eternal " is not meant that immutable, successionless duration exclusively possessed by and identified withGod Himself; of course, God's eternity is absolutely without a
principle of any kind. Here, as in various other places, St.
Cf. ibid., obj. 4 and ad 4.
De ratione aeterni eat non habere principium, de ratione vero rtreaturae eat
habere principium; ergo nulla rtreatura poteat esae aeterna. Ibid., obj. 8 (second set
of Objections).
1 • De ratione. aetemi eat non habere durationis principium; de ratione vero rtreationis eat habere principium originis, non autem durationis; nisi accipiendo rtreationem
ut accipit fides. Ibid., ad 8.
16

18

TIME AND THE POSSIBILITY

OF AN ETERNAL WORLD

141

Thomas is using " the eternal " (aeternum) to signify that
which exists and has existed "always" (semper), and thus
has or had no " principle of duration," no inception de novo,
no beginning. Now, as we have seen, the objection states that
it is of the essence of the eternal not to have a principle. 18 Were
"the eternal" identified with the divine eternity, this last proposition would be true. Moreover, we should not lose sight of
the fact that the verb" to have" in this entire context implies
to-be-caused. Obviously, only causal principia are in question,
for the problem is precisely the possibility of an "eternal"
creation.
Clearly, then, it is contrary to the nature of the eternal, in
the sense of that which is and has been always, to have a
principium durationis: a first term, a beginning in the ordinary
sense. On the other hand, created being that had existed always,
or "from all eternity," would indeed enjoy an "infinite," a
termless, duration, yet a successive one for all that. But in
either case such being would have that absolute origination
which the act of creation is; the absolute principium of its
duration, whether infinite or finite, would lie necessarily in the
creative act of God. The cause " eternal," as such, far from
being incompatible with a principium originis, could· not be
without one. Everything other than God originates from God.
This is what St. Thomas means by saying that it is of the
essence of creation to have a principium originis, but not a
principium durationis-an originative principle or source, but
not a "durational" one, not a beginning.
It need hardly be remarked that the statement, every created
being has a principium originis, is self-evident; to be a creature
is to have originated. But since there is nothing in the nature
of created being as such that necessarily implies an inception
or a beginning (principium durationis) such being could have
coexisted with God continuously, no ontological interval having
come between God and His created effect. There is no intrinsic
18 Principium is an analogical term; it can have as many different realizations as
there are different kinds of sources, starting points, or " firsts."

142

JAMES Fo ANDERSON

impossibility involved in the conception of a creature, or a
created order, having existed from aU eternity, as it were,
alongside of God"
The question, whether this conclusion can apply to aU possible creatures, we shall have to consider later at some length;
for there exists an important argument, that no being having
a successive duration could have existed from eternity" As for
spiritual things, things unchangeable in their substantial being,
it seems unquestionable that they could existed from eternity"
Indeed, their very substantial unchangeableness may appear
to support the hypothesis that they must have existed from
eternity"
Now in the doctrine of SL Thomas the duration of angels is
aeviternal, and aeviternity participates in the divine eternity
:itself, inasmuch as it too enjoys a certain simultaneous wholeness.19 This matter is clearly germane to our study. It even
demands consideration, for were it shown that aeviternity
necessitated existence from eternity, the entire doctrine of
creation as a free act would collapse"
The duration of created being as such is measurable either by
time or by aeviternity; God's duration, one with Himself, alone
is measured by eternity. Only God's duration is altogether
immutable. But the duration of aeviternity, while intransmutable 20 in respect of substantial being, is transmutable as
regards the accidental being of immanent and transient action,
of affectiones, and local change. Thus, the duration of spiritual
creatures is simultaneously whole with respect to substantial
being. Yet such beings are not eternal in the strict sense,
because motion, change, and hence time, are necessarily involved in the manifestation of their potencies or powers. In
a word, while spiritual substances participate in the intransmutability of eternal duration, they also of necessity share in
the changeableness of temporal duration; whereas the divine
E. g., cf. Summa Tkeol., I, q. 10, a. 5; Quodl., X, q. !i!, a. 4.
lntransmutabile is the word St. Thomas uses (cf. Summa Theol., loc. cit.), and
it conveys the sense intended more precisely than "unchangeable," " immobile," or
even " immutable."
19

20

TIME AND THE POSSIBILITY

OF AN ETERNAL WORLD

143

eternity is absolutely incompatible with mutability in any
mode. 21 The aeviternal is indeed infinite in duration, inasmuch
as it is not limited, not bounded by time. Since all things
aeviternal were brought into being by the act of God's free will,
none of them need ,have existed always. Nevertheless, nothing
in the nature of the aeviternal would have prevented it from
so existing. Nor is it absolutely necessary that the aeviternal
should exist in an infinite or endless duration a parte post.
Though the substantial being of an aeviternal creature is intransmutable, its existence, like that of every creature, is
contingent absolutely upon the will of the Creator; it is within
God's power, of course, to withdraw His creative and conservative causality from any creature: the substantial esse of
the spiritual substance is annihilable, but not transmutable by
any power. 22
It may be useful to sum up the chief points that have been
made. According to the Christian revelation, no aeviternal
being did in fact exist always, or, in the usual formula, " from
eternity." Yet in the very essence of such a being there is found
no necessary reason why it should not have so existed. The
total absence of this kind of necessity is a mark of substantially
unchangeable created being as such. It is possible, by absolute
intrinsic possibility as well as by the active possibility of God's
creative power, that some being or order of beings essentially
other than God should have existed always. The possibility of
a temporal or durational beginninglessness, in the sense previously explained, necessarily entails the absolute possibility
consisting in the intrinsic, essential compatibility of existencefrom-another with existence-always. Stated in logical terms,
the concept of caused being does not include the concept of
beginning de novo. The former, however, does include the
01 Ibid., and ad !!.
•• In the doctrine of St. Thomas, aeviternal duration illustrates the principle that
God's creative power is not limited to the production of that which is in every way
finite-though all creatures are finite in their being-, but extends to the production
of beings infinite secundum quid, i.e., relatively or in certain modes. Cf. Summa
Tkeol., I, q. 7, a. !!.

10

144

JAMES F. ANDERSON

concept of origination-to be an effect is to originate from a
cause-, but not of the mode of that origination. This brings
us to a point which, though contained implicitly in what has
been said already, may have been missed, or grasped only
obscurely.
It is because the act of creation is an absolute origination
that its effect can have existed always. No thing having originated via motion of any kind can have existed always, because
a thing produced through motion exists in the beginning of that
motion before it exists in the end thereof. A cause that produces
its effect by moving must precede the latter in time. 23 On the
other hand, an effect proceeding from the act of creation need
never have not been. I use the indefinite article " an," because
it is a debated question whether some kinds of effects could
have existed from eternity. This problem will be considered
later. A world that never began to exist, but always was,
necessarily would have been made to be by that instantaneous,
non-mutational, origination which is God's creative ad. 24
Whether or not a world of change and time could have existed
always, it clearly could not have originated from any transmutative cause or causes.
TIME AND SoME PRoOFS

OF THE WoRLD's

ETERNITY

There exist some weighty considerations respecting the nature
of duration, of time, and especially of the now of time, that seem
to offer :reasonable grounds fo:r the doctrine of the demonstrability of the " eternity " of the world. 25 The theories and arguments analyzed below are all, I believe, based directly or
indirectly upon Aristotle. The problems in ideogenesis that
they raise, being not immediately relevant to our purpose, we
23 On the
other hand, that which proceeds from another without motion is
simultaneous in duration with that from which it proceeds. Cf. De Pot., q. 3, a. 13.
24 Cf. ibid., and see Summa Theol., I, q. 46, a. fl, ad 1, with II C. Gent., cap. 17,
for detailed proofs that creation is not a motion or a mutation.
25 Cf. particularly
the following: De Pot., q. 3, a. 17, Objections and replies; II
C. Gent., cap. 3S fl'.; Summa Theol., loc. cit., aa. 1,
II Sent., dist. I, q. 1, a. 5;
dist. II, q. 1, a. 3.

TI:ME AND THE POSSIBILITY

OF AN ETERNAL WORLD

145

pass over, limiting our attention to their purely speculative
content.
First, I should like to underscore the following argument,
because it evokes from St. Thomas a response hinging upon a
particularly significant distinction. The argument is substantially this: Whatever is prior to time is eternal. Now the
world existed before time properly so called, since it was
created in the first instant of time, which was itself not yet
actually time, but its principle.:ro This objection against the
possibility of a non-eternal world is not without force. Does not
time necessarily imply a before and an after? We shall observe
other arguments in which the essence of this one is incorporated.
St. Thomas replies, as he frequently does, by first analyzing
the meaning of a key word or phrase. 27 "To be before time,"
he says, has two senses. In one sense it means to precede all
time and everything partaking of time, while in another it
signifies priority to completed time, to time in the full sense,
time as time. If priority to time be taken in the first sense, St.
Thomas explains, it cannot be said that the world existed before
time; for, although the instant in which the world (as we
know by Revelation) began is not time in its complete or
achieved being, that instant nevertheless is " something of
time" (aliquid tempori.'j); not, indeed, a part of time, it is
time's initial point, its terminus a quo.
According to the second meaning of the phrase " to be before
time," it is true to say that the world existed before time,
because time is realized and exists simply as time only in the
instant that is. preceded by another instant. Although nothing
of time exists actually except the now, succession is of its
very essence. In a word, time as such entails a before and an
after. Thus, time as such entails a before and an after. Thus,
it is divisible, whereas the instant is indivisible. 28 That is
why St. Thomas, 29 while granting that time can begin only with
•• Cf. De Pot., loc. cit., obj. 5.
' 7 Ibid., ad 5.
28 Cf. Summa Theol., loc. cit., a. S, obj. S.
•• Ibid., ad S.

146

JAMES F. ANDERSON

respect to a now, denies that there is time as such in the first
now inaugurating time; rather, it is from this now that time
itself begins.
Let no one fail to appreciate the plausibility of the objection
St. Thomas is answering. It is based on a twofold truth respecting time: that nothing of time exists in act except the now, 30
and that time is essentially successive. Observe how the
objection develops from this ground. The past no longer is,
and the future is not yet. The past really was, and the future
really will be. And the total reality of the present includes
both; for the present not only is heir to the past, but also is
big with possibilities of future fruition. Nevertheless, the past
has
point of contact with actual being, solely in the present.
And the future only potentially is; it achieves actuality by itself
perishing in the now. But the now of time, as contrasted with
the immutable now of eternity, is always flowing. Does not
that which flows, flow from one thing into another thing? Must
not every now proceed from a prior now to a posterior now? Is
not this what everybody understands
now of
so, there could have been no first now, nor could there ever be
a last one. Aristotle was right. The world is necessarily eternal,
both a parte ante and a parte post. 81
In this simple formulation we have perhaps one of the most
effective introductions to the doctrine of creation as the necessary absolute Source (principium originis) of all being as being.
I trust it is dear that the argument confronting us is really
answerable only in virtue of that doctrine.
If time had not been created, could it have existed always?
In any case, time must have originated via creation. On the
supposition that time always existed, every now would have
been preceded by another now. But on the supposition that
time began, this conclusion, of course, would not follow. This
last supposition, however, is possible only on the ground of the
doctrine of creation. Had time not been created, no absolutely
primary now could have existed. For, if time was not created,
•• Cf. ibid., a. 1, obj. 7.

31

Cf. De Pot., loc cit., obj. HI.

TIME AND 'fHE POSSIBILITY

OF AN ETERNAL WORLD

147

it was generated. But generation is itself a movement, a
temporal process; indeed, motion is materially time. A motion
can produce motion, and hence time. Yet the first instant
of time, we have seen, is not time, but its beginning. This
beginning was not a motion. And that which is not motion
could not have been produced by a motion. The effect of every
act of natural generation is measured by. time, is in time, presupposes time, and thus has a before and an after. The now of
time cannot be conceived except as flowing. But thanks to the
instantaneous, non-temporal character of the act of creation,
it is possible to conceive of a nmv that flowed into another,
and not from another, now; and this is the now whence time
began. 32
Aristotle had argued 33 that since time cannot exist and is
inconceivable apart from the instant now, and the now is a
middle-point uniting in itself both a beginning and an end (a
beginning of future time and an end of past time), it follows
that there must always be time. And if this is true of time, it
must also be true of motion, of which time is the number. If
no part of time can exist except the now, and if the now is
always the end of the past and the beginning of the future,
then time obviously can neither cease nor begin, and consequently neither can motion. Let us consider St. Thomas'
detailed treatment of this argument. 34
First, he sets forth the classical analogy: the now is to time
as the point to the line. It does not pertain to the nature of the
point to be a mean or a medium; on the contrary, there exists
one point that is the line's beginning and not a part of the line,
and another point that is a termination only. If a line were
infinite, or endless, in both directions, then indeed every point
would be at once a beginning and an end. Thus, it cannot be
demonstrated that a line is infinite, on the ground that every
•• " Time " is understood materially here (i.e., in respect of its subject, which is
reality moving), and elsewhere, unless otherwise indicated.
33 VIII Physic., cap. l; 25lb 19-27.
84 This whole matter is dealt with fully by St. Thomas in his Commentary on VIII
Physic., !ect. fl.

148

JAMES F. ANDERSON

point is a beginning and an end. Quite the reverse: given an
infinite line, it could be proved that every point was at once a
beginning and an end. Apply these considerations to time, and
it will be seen that the now can be said to be always in its
beginning and always in its end, only on the supposition that
time itself is infinite, termless, or eternal. Therefore Aristotle's
argumentation is circular; it assumes precisely that which is to
be proved. It cannot be admitted that every now is at once a
beginning and an end of time, unless it be granted that motion
is eternal. I£ we hold that motion did not always exist, but that
there was. an original indivisible momentum before which no
motion whatever existed, then at the same time we will have
affirmed the existence of a primordial now prior to which there
was no time whatever. In this case, Aristotle's insistence that
before and after cannot exist apart from time will be of no
avail. We say that "before" the beginning of time, no time
exists. But this "before" signifies ontological priority only.
We are not falling into the na'ive self-contradiction of asserting
a time before time's inception. Prior to the first now, inaugurating time, no time exists in reality, but only in the imagination. When we say that outside of the world, there is nothing
except God, we are not positing a space or a dimension beyond
the world. Neither are we implying that some kind of successive
duration or time existed before the world, when we say that
prior to the world nothing was.
Motion, and in consequence time, whether they be supposed
eternal or not, necessarily had an absolute originative principium. St. Thomas' distinction between principium originis
and principium durationis is indispensable for the correct understanding of a number of his statements and arguments concerning the beginning and the end of motion, time, etc. For he
frequently uses principium simply to designate an initial point
of a segment of motion or of time in the motion-time continuum.
Thus, taking principium in this sense, it is true to say that
every instant now is both the principium and the finis of time,
since every moment in motion is a beginning and an end of

TIME AND THE POSSIBILITY

OF AN ETERNAL WORLD

149

motion. 35 Where motion and time exist from eternity, there is
of course no problem of an absolute first. Motion in such a
world would be completed motion and time always completed
time. As Aristotle showed, 86 motion cannot have originated by
a " becoming," because a becoming of motion would entail the
existence of a process of change prior to the first; and likewise
a perishing of motion would involve the existence of a process
of change subsequent to the (hypothetical) last one.37 Now,
before and after belong to time according as they are found
in motion, so that beginning and end in time are to be considered
in the same way as in motion. 38 Thus, granted the eternity of
motion and time, any given moment in motion or in time must
be at once a beginning and an end. If motion begins,39 however,
the first momentum will be a beginning only. The Aristotelian
view of the instant now, as being always the beginning and the
end of time, presupposes the eternity of time and motion. As
St. Thomas points out/ 0 Aristotle brought up his argument on
this head against those who contradicted themselves by asserting the eternity of time while denying the eternity of motion.
Indeed, St. Thomas had penetratingly observed 41 that Aristotle's arguments for the eternity of the world are not absolutely
demonstrative, but only relatively, namely, as against the
argu:ments of some of the ancient philosophers who held that
the world began in various impossible ways. Nor, St. Thomas
thinks, did Aristotle himself consider his own arguments on
the world's eternity to be absolutely demonstrative. To enter
•• Cf. De Pot., loc. cit., ad 15; Summa Theol., loc cit., ad 7; Aristotle, IV, Physic.,
cap., 11; 222b 1-8.
•• VIII, Physic., cap. 1; 251b 28-252a 4.
87 Cf. the correlative argument
proving the beginninglessness (" becominglessness") and endlessness of time. Ibid., 251b 19-28.
•• Summa Tkeol., loc. cit.; cf. Aristotle, IV Physic., cap. 11; 219a 17.
•• Incipere in St. Thomas means to begin "after" (ontologically after) not having
been, so that whatever "begins" is "new "-has novitas essendi. See, for example,
Summa 7'heol., I, q. 46, a. 2; II C. Gent., cap. 82, 84, 87; II Sent., dist. I, q. I, a. 5,
ad finem, and dist. II, q. 1, a. 8.
•• Summa Theol., loc. cit., ad 7.
" Ibid., a. I.

150

JAMES F. ANDERSON

into this interesting matter, however, would carry us far away
from our subject.
Certainly Aristotle gives considerable weight to his argument
about the eternity of circular motion. He infers the world's
eternity from the hypothesis of a beginningless and endless
circular motion. Circular or rotatory motion, he reasons/ 2 alone
can be eternal because in motion of any other kind rest must
occur, and with the occurrence of rest the motion ceases; circular motion can be continuous and infinite-hence eternal in
the sense of being perpetually operative, without starting-point,
middle-point, or ending-point; whereas any other kind of locomotion, whether the rectilinear or a combination of the circular
therewith, is necessarily discontinuous, divisible, incomplete,
and in consequence perishable.
Is Aristotle's inference as to the fact of eternal motion valid?
I think it is clear from the foregoing. summary that the argument
is entirely hypothetical. If motion is eternal-beginningless,
endless, continuous-, then it is circular. Aristotle does not
prove
eternity of motion from
on the
supposition that motion is eternal, he concludes that it is circular. Aristotle has not demonstrated that "eternal" circular
motion actually exists. NOll." could he have done so, because in
the very nature of the case it cannot be done. Nothing concerning actual physical motion can be positively concluded
from a consideration of the properties of mathematical objects. 48
From the fact that a circle (which exists intelligibly only in its
geometrical definition) is an abstract continuum, without either
starting-point, middle-point, or end, it by no means follows
that eternal-beginningless
and endless (circular) -motion
actually is.
To have shown the inconclusiveness of the Aristotelian arguments from time and motion for the world's eternity is not to
have eliminated the possibility of establishing that thesis.
Demonstrations on other grounds have been proposed. The
•• Cf. VITI Physic., cap. 8-9.
43 Ex mathematicis non potest aliquid efficaciter de motu concludi. De Pot., III,
17, ad 17.

TIME AND THE POSSIBILITY

OF AN ETERNAL WORLD

151

following A vicennian line of argument commands the attention
of all who would understand the relation of God the Creator
to His effect. For to misconceive the nature of God's priority
to the world is to fall into a dialectical trap from which there
is no more possibility of escape than from the time and motion
arguments previously considered, once the assumptions on
which they are based have been granted. Consider, then, this
proof of the world's eternity. 44
God precedes the world either in nature only, or also in
duration. There is no third possibility. Now a cause in act is
simultaneous with its effect. Therefore, if God is only ontologically prior to the world, and moreover, as everyone admits,
existed from eternity, does it not follow that creatures also will
have existed from eternity? Put positively and summarily:
Creation is God's action; whatever is " in" God, is God; hence
God's action is Himself. But God is eternal; therefore His
action is eternal; the effect of His action-the world-, then, is
likewise eternal. 45
Take now the other side
the disjunction: God precedes
the world in duration as well as in nature. That prior duration,
then, is related to the world's duration as a before to an after.
Thus time existed before the world, and if so, then motion and
the movable also.
Wherein, according to St. Thomas, does the fallacy in that
argument lie? It lies first of all in the failure to distinguish
between the duration of thne and that of eternity. God precedes
the world not only in nature, but also in duration-not indeed
in the duration of time, but in the immutable, simultaneously
whole," duration" of eternity. It is obviously necessary always
to bear in mind the fact that " before " the world no real time
could have existed. Not only is it possible for us to imagine
a" time" before the world, stretching back to infinity, we do so
almost spontaneously, because all our mental activity is rooted
in our sense cognitions of spatio-temporal things. Now the
44 Cf. ibid., obj.
thereto.
•• Cf. ibid., obj. 10.

ad

Summa Theol., Zoe cit., objs. 6, 8, 10, and replies

15fl

JAMES F. ANDERSON

important point to remember is this: such a" time" cannot be
conceived, because it could not be; and it could not be because
it is self-contradictory: a "time " before the world would be
a time before time.
The second part of the argument-that God being eternal
His effect also is eternal-is answered in terms of the principle
that God is an intelligent agent acting by free will. An effect
proceeding from intellect and will follows the determination of
the intellect and the command of the will. The intellect predetermines, prescribes, preordains the time when the effect is
to be produced or the thing made. Creation is God's art, His
making; and art not only determines this or that to be such,
but also to be at a given time. If, as with God, an act of will
suffices to produce an effect, the latter will follow at the time
predetermined by the intellect. Any intellectual agent, of
course, can will now to do something later. God wills what He
wills from all eternity. It is indeed possible absolutely speaking,
but not at all necessary, that some effect or effects of His will
should exist from eternity .46 But since in intellectual agents
(which act by free choice) the principle of action is what is
conceived and preordained by them, it is evident that from
God's eternal action no eternal effect need ensue. The effect
can have any duration, consonant with its nature, that God
freely chooses to give it. 47
3.

CAN MoBILE OR SuccESSIVE

BEING HAVE ExiSTED

FROM ETERNITY?

Permanent things must exist integrally at their inception; if
they begin, they must be wholly when they begin. 48 If the being
of time is conceived after the fashion of such beings, then it
•• Cf. II C. Gent., cap. 85.
" Praefixio mensurae temporis dependet ex simplici voluntate Dei, qui voluit [as
we know from revelation only] quod mundus non esset semper, sed quandoque esse
inciperet. De Pot., q. 8, a. 17. Cf. Summa Theol., loc. cit., ad 10.
•• Cf. Summa Theol., I, q. 66, 4, and 5: Quia loeus est de permanentibus, concreatua est totus simul. Tempus autem, quod est non permanens, concreatum est in
suo principio; etiam modo nihil est acciperre in actu de temmore. nisi nunc.

TIME AND THE POSSIBILITY

OF AN ETERNAL WORLD

153

will be argued that time cannot begin, inasmuch as it is of its
essence always to be complete, always to have a before and an
aftero This conception underlies all the Aristotelian arguments
for the eternity of time. But no such argument can be demonstrative. The being of time is not to be conceived on the
analogy, so to speak, of that of permanent things whose being is
simultaneously whole, and which therefore must exist wholly
whenever they exist. Remove the false comparison and it will
be seen_ that time need not exist in its complete actuality at
its inception: " Time need not exist wholly when it begins;
thus nothing prevents our saying that time begins to exist in
an instant." 49 Indeed, time could not exist integrally in its
beginning: " It cannot be made to be except with respect to
some now; not because there is time in the first now itself, but
because from it time beginso" 50
Time itself was and is created, or rather concreated. To be
made by creation does not imply a before and an after, because
creation is neither motion nor the term of motiono51 Nothing
of time exists actually except the instant nowo But nothing is
made in any way except according to the mode wherein it
existso Therefore, as St. Thomas has just said, time cannot be
made except according to some now. Had time existed from
eternity, then, it necessarily would have been created permanently according to "some now." Can anything impermanent
in its being-and surely nothing is more fleeting than motion
and
been created permanently? "Since time is not
permanent," St. Thomas says, " it was in fact concreated only
in its beginning; just as even at the present moment we cannot
lay hold of any part of time except the nowo" 52 Could time
have been concreated always?
•• Non oportet quod totum tempus sit quando incipit esse; et sic nihil prohibet
dicere quod tempus incipit in instanti esse. De Pot., loc. cit., ad 25.
50 Non potest fieri [tempus] nisi secundum aliquod nunc; non quia in ipso prima
nunc sit tempus, sed quia ab eo incipit tempus. Summa Theol., I, q. 46, a. 3, ad 3.
51 Cf. ibid., ad 2.
52 Tempus
autem, quod est non permanens, concreatum est in suo principia;
etiam modo nihil est accipere in actu de tempore, nisi nunc. See above, note 48.

154

JAMES F. ANDERSON

Allow me to review John of St. Thomas' treatment of the
problem. 5 3 To his mind this matter presents a special difficulty.
Obviously no beginning could be assigned to that which exists
successively from eternity; no infinite or termless duration could
be included between any hypothetical beginning and the present
moment. But to exist from eternity is to have a duration endless a parte ante. On the other hand, we cannot really conceive
of a beginningless motion or time; an infinite succession existing
from eternity, !ohn of St. Thomas believes, is unintelligible.
For it is of the essence of succession, he argues, 54 that one part
cease and another begin. Now to suppose that a part which
ceases, or a moment that ends, had endured throughout an
infinite time, is to contradict oneself. On that hypothesis, no
part could cease, nothing could pass; in a word, no succession
whatever could take place. It is because motion is successive
that it is necessarily finite, necessarily embraced within terms.
If successive duration exists, it must be finite. If it is finite, it
cannot be " from eternity!'
John of St. Thomas signalizes two opinions on this subjecL
The first one (shared, for example, by Dominic Soto, the
Conimbricenses, Suarez) is that no motion, substantial generations included, could have existed from eternity. Some advocates of this general view, however, adopt the circular motion
theory, thinking it possible that the continuity of such motion
makes its beginninglessness at least conceivable. The other
opinion (held by Capreolus, Sylvester of Ferrara, Scotus, the
Salmanticenses) is that every kind of motion and generation
could have existed from eternity, and thus have endured
through an infinite time. John of St. Thomas does not attribute
either of these opinions to St. Thomas himself, though he thinks
that the first opinion is not only more probable, but also more
certain. 55 He attempts to show, moreover, that it is in harmony
with the principles and essential thought of St. Thomas, whereas
the second view is not.
•• Phil. Nat., I, q. 24, a. 2, in Cur/IUS Philosophicus, ed. Reiser, II, 480-84.
"'Ibid., pp; 480b 40-48la '1,7.
•• lbid., p. 48lb 8.

TIME AND THE POSSIBILITY OF AN ETERNAL WORLD

155

John's espousal of the first opinion rests on the ground that
corruption from eternity is impossible. Now there can be no
succession, he says, without corruption. 56 Aristotle and St.
Thomas have shown that nothing can be produced through
motion from eternity. H indeed a cause produces its effect
instantaneously, that cause need not precede its effect in
duration or time. But causes that operate through motion,
must, of course, be temporally prior to their effects; the beginning or starting-point of the process obviously antedates its
end. 57 But if it is incongruous that an effect be caused by
motion or change from eternity, it will also be incongruous,
John concludes, for anything changed or moved (mutatum) to
have existed from eternity; for such a thing is a term of motion.
Consequently, for motion itself to have existed from eternity
would be incongruous. 58
This judgment, John states, results from a two-fold consideration, which St. Thomas always thought exceedingly dif:ficult, and which he left unsolved. 59 The first consideration, as
John had pointed out, concerns the nature of motion: motion
is successive and consists of transitive parts, of which the one
ends and the other begins. H motion did not begin, it could
endure in neither an infinite nor a finite time. Not in an infinite
time because (as John had previously argued) then there
could be no succession, but permanence only, and consequently
no motion at all. Nor again, in a finite time, for a beginningless
""Ibid., p. 48lb 11.
61 Cf. St. Thomas' Opusculum XXVll, De aeternitate mundi, in med.
•• John of St. Thomas, op. cit., p. 48lb 11-26.
•• Fv.ndamentv.m hv.iUB aententiae B'Umitv.T ea: dv.plici Tatione, quam D. Thomas
semper dif/i,cillimam Tepv.tavit et inaolv.tam Teliqv.it. Ibid., p. 48lb 26. To my
knowledge, St. Thomas always speaks of the matter in question with extreme caution.
He certainly affirms that a world could have always existed, and there is no reason
to suppose that he did not have in mind an " eternal " world of time and motion
such as Aristotle conceived of. But St. Thomas does not attempt to demonstrate
how it is not impossible that such a world could have existed always. Why this
negative attitude? In my opinion, because St. Thomas considered that specific
problem insusceptible of demonstrative treatment. In later pages I shall try to
make clear the grounds of this opinion, showing wherein and why the solution of
John of St. Thomas appears to me indemonstrative.

156

JAMES F. ANDERSON

motion is precisely an infinite or termless one. A finite time is
one that begins and ends. Beyond any given finite duration,
therefore, there would remain another part or segment of
motion, likewise finite. Thus the entire motion would be finite
from eternity; which is contradictory.
The situation is not the same, John is careful to point out,
in regard to motion a parte post. Eternal, that is, ceaseless or
perpetual, motion in the future is conceivable. Finite parts of
motion could be traversed endlessly. Motion in this sense would
be called infinite syncategorematically, and thus potentially.
On the contrary, a permanent thing, if it endures eternally a
parte post, does so in one single infinite duration, because it
endures permanently and not successively. It is for this reason
that a permanent, as contrasted with a successive, thing could
have been created from eternity. 60 St. Thomas himself, according to John, touches upon (tetigit) this argument. 61 Concerning
the opinion that i£ the world had existed from eternity, an
infinity of days would have passed, St. Thomas points out 62
that any part of the past can be traversed, because it was finite;
but had the world always existed, no first day or first time could
be attributed to it, and consequently no transition, for transition always requires two terms. Observe, John says, how St.
Thomas is admitting that an infinity of days (or circulations
of the sun), taken collectively, cannot be traversed; and that,
since on that hypothesis no first day is assignable, it follows
that transition could not be attributed to such a world. But
motion is transition. Therefore, John concludes, motion existing from eternity is impossible. Is this argument valid?
It is true that every transition is between two terms. Now, i£
the world had always existed, there would be no first, and for
that reason, no transition. 63 This does not mean that motion
John of St. Thomas, op. cit., pp. 48lb 26-482a 80.
In II C. Gent., cap. 88, and in Summa Theol., I, q. 48, q. 2, ad6.
62 Quaelibet circulatio ·praecedentium transiri potuit, quia finita fuit; in omnibus
autem simul, si mundus semper fuisset, non esset accipere primam, et ita nee transitum, qui semper exigit duo extrema. II C. Gent., loc. cit.: "Quoad etiam tertia.
60

61

68

Cf. Summa Theol., loc cit., a. 2; II C. Gent., loc. cit.

TIME AND THE POSSIBILITY

OF AN ETERNAL WORLD

157

could not have existed from eternity, but that motion would
always be finite actually. Even on the hypothesis of an eternal
world, the infinite could not have been actually traversed. All
we could say is that the eternal world would have traversed
throughout an infinite or endless duration an infinity of finite
temporal intervals. In this hypothesis there is no contradiction
whatever. 64 As Father Sertillanges points out, 65 the notion of
traversing the past can be understood only in two ways: either
as a transition from any point at all in the past to the present,
or as a retrogression from the present into the past. In the first
case, one is confronted with a finite distance, which therefore
can be traversed, however great its extent may be conceived to
be. In the second case, we have an untraversable infinity, in the
conception of which, however, there is no intrinsic difficulty.
The reason for the apparent antinomies involved lies in the fact
that the absence of any starting-point confronts us with the
infinity or termlessness of the past, on the one hand, while on
the other, the initial point taken in the present will always,
however many successive additions be made, prevent us from
ever attaining the infinite-a self-contradictory undertaking
indeed. 66
To sum up, according to John of St. Thomas, every part of
an eternal, beginningless, motion would have been preceded
by another part, so that to choose one part of the motion which
would have coincided with creation, in order to attribute to it
•• Cf. D. Nys, La notion de temps (Louvain, 1918), p. 158.
•• In his article, "La preuve de I' existence de Dieu et l'eternite du monde,"
Revue thomiste (1897), p. 619.
•• Cf. Nys, op. cit., p. 158. The essentially negative character of St. Thomas'
position regarding the demonstrability of an eternal world should be kept in mind.
His position is that reason cannot demonstrate that creation had a principium
durationis, that the world had a beginning: mundum incepisse est credibile, non
autem demonstrabile, vel scibile. Summa Tkeol., loc. cit. It does not seem true to
say, however, that St. Thomas' thesis is" purely negative" (purement negative) and
that St. Thomas makes no claim to be able to demonstrate the possibility of an
eternal creation. (Nys, op. cit., p. 184) . St. Thomas has shown that the arguments
known to him against the possibility of an eternal world are indemonstrative; but,
as we have observed, he has shown also that some created order could have existed
always.

158

JAMES F. ANDERSON

an existence either finite or infinite, is to affirm either that movement has begun in time or that the initial point of the movement had been subject to change throughout an eternity. On
either hypothesis, motion cannot have been beginningless. The
supposition of a motion ab aeterno is thus self-refuting.
Against this theory, however, it must be said that there is
rio intrinsic contradiction in the concept of a beginningless
motion. Indeed, there would be no determinate part of such
motion that was not successive, temporal, and finite. But the
very concept of " eternal motion " excludes the possibility of
'choosing a part of motion that would have coincided with
creation,' that is to say, a First. Now, a successive infinity, an
endless progression or recession, is not an actual infinity. The
purely potential infinity of an eternal, termless, successive duration John of St. Thomas has transformed into an actual one.
This, I think, is the prime root of all his argumentation against
the possibility of " successiyes " having existed from eternity.
There exist much older, and no less subtle and intricate dialectics, to the same end.
For example, in St. Bonaventure, among several other arguments against the possibility of an eternal world, we find the
following, which I give in abridged form. 67 If, in the limitless
past of an " eternal " world, there was no day which preceded
eternally the present day, then one is admitting that all temporal intervals or distances are finite, and consequently that the
world did in fact have a beginning. On the other hand, if such
a hypothetical " day " be granted, then it alone is eternal, and
so again the series of times of which that " day " is the first, is
actually finite.
This argument is reduced to the question: Is the first term
of the time-series finite o:r infinite? 68 The question itself betrays
a failure to apprehend the very meaning of an eternal or infinite
successive duration. For it is of the essence of such a duration
not to have a first term at all. In a multitude of past days,
87 Sententiarom, Lib. II, p. I, a. I, q. 2; Opera Omnia, Qu&"rachi ed. (I885),
II, p. 21, n. 2-8.
" 8 Cf. Nys, op. cit., p. I68.

TIME AND THE POSSIBILITY

OF AN ETERNAL WORLD

159

hypothetically limitless, it is illusory to seek a " first ": an
undertaking intrinsically impossible, because self-contradictory.
Having disposed of this impossible hypothesis of a "first"
day in an eternal duration, what remains? Each and every part
or segment of the limitless time or motion series then is seen to
be absolutely finite. Now choose in this infinite succession any
term at all, no matter how remote. Being, by hypothesis, always
posterior to any other term, part, point, or moment, this term
will be separated. from you by a finite duration or distance.
Any conceivable temporal interval is finite. Is not the sum of
all possible intervals therefore itself finite? No matter how
many finites be added to finites, the result will always be finite.
True indeed; but the very
assumes what is impossible,
namely, that the parts or elements of an infinite duration are
actual entities addable in such a way as to constitute an actually
infinite multitude. But nothing of time or motion exists in act
except the now. And a duration termless either a parte ante or
a parte post, it should be remembered, is no actual infinity but
only a potential one. 69
John of St. Thomas gives considerable weight to his argument that a beginningless creature would necessarily be immobile both with respect to its substance and its operation. 70 He
contends that if a creature were produced without a beginning
of duration, it was produced as permanent and was conserved
throughout an infinite duration. An instantaneous, that is,
immobile, operation conceivably can have been in existence
from eternity. Activity involving motion, however, cannot have
69 To the question,
Would not the sum of all possible time-intervals itself be
finite?, Father Nys' answer is inadmissible. He says (op. cit., p. 163) that if the
multitude of these finite intervals has no limits, then the totality of them is not finite
but infinite, whereas if that multitude is itself limited, then it is finite as a whole.
He is implicitly assuming that the individual parts of a termless duration can be
taken collectively, can be conceived to constitute an actual infinite. However,
Father Nys has correctly diagnosed the error in St. Bonaventure's argument, namely,
that it is valid only on the supposition that the time-motion series has a term-only
on the supposition that an eternal or infinite duration cannot be: "L'argument n'a de
force probante qu'a Ia condition de supposer un terme a Ia serie, ou d'enlever a Ia
multitude infinie son caractere essentiel." Ibid.
7 ° Cf. op. cit., p. 483b 24-47.

11

160

JAMES F. ANDERSON

existed from eternity, because motion requires transition, and
thus corruption of the parts of the moving thing. Hence, for a
thing to exist through an infinite duration, it must be immobile.
Note how this line of reasoning applies to time. If time had
no starting-point, it would be immobile, for to move is to
proceed from a beginning. If there is no beginning, no first
time, then certainly there has been no progress, no advance,
from any assignable time in the past. On such a hypothesis
time, in short, is only an appearance.
Is it not clear that " infinite duration " has been actualized,
by being conceived, or rather imagined, as a kind of actual
totality? There is advance in relation to no matter what past
time one may designate; there is no advance whatever in
relation to
illusory (because non-existent) starting-point;
and it is of the essence of an " infinite duration," of course, to
have no beginning. Advance and retrogression are purely relative terms/ 1 Now, looking to the future, one can argue in the
same way.
Let us grant that the universe in its totality need never come
to
end. So, one might insist, we are not advancing at all.
For, just as tO advance is to get farther and farther away from
a starting-point, so is it to come ever nearer to an end. If there
is no end, then there is no motion at all. That argument is
easily answered. At this very moment we are coming nearer to
any and every conceivable future time. We are not approaching
an illusory terminus, an " endless " end-which; being a patent
contradiction in terms, is a simple non-entity, like a square
circle. In an infinite successive duration, there is an infinite
number of beginnings and ends, or there are none at all, depending upon whether one is speaking of relative terms or absolute
ones. The hypothesis of a duration, infinite a parte ante as well
as a parte post, excludes absolute terms. A duration infinite a
parte post but finite a parte ante, or conversely, is termless in
one direction and terminated in the other. Now, in order that

an

" 1 Cf. Sertillanges, La creation (Editions de Ia Revue des Jeunes: Paris, 19!!7),
pp. !!61 f.

TIME AND THE POSSIBILITY

OF AN ETERNAL WORLD

161

a succession be real, terms really assignable suffice. Yesterday
was and tomorrow will be. Hence, one can really advance from
yesterday to tomorrow, from any yesterday to any tomorrow.
On the hypothesis of a beginningless and endless duration,
however, an absolute yesterday that would be the first day of
the world could no more exist than the absolute tomorrow that
would be the world's last day. 72 The great caveat to heed in all
this is: Beware of converting the potential infinity of an
eternal successive duration into an actual one.
JAMES

University of Notre Dame,
South Bend, Indiana.

""Ibid.

F. ANDERSON

BOOK REVIEWS
Rudolf Allers ou l'anti-Freud. By Louis Jugnet.
1950. Pp. 176. Frs. 210.

Paris: Editions du cedre,

In the eighty odd years of experimental psychology, the Aristotelian
science of man has had no stouter champion to defend it on the very soil
of its adversaries than Rudolf Allers. Fortified, through both his .formal
training and his years of practice, with a first-hand knowledge of medicine,
psychology, and psychiatry, he grew to a sound ontological view of man
by the same logic of fact that is alleged to tum modern scholarship away
from Aristotle and Thomas Aquinas.
Those privileged to sit in his classrooms know the kind of head and the
kind of heart that Allers has. Even more than in written words, Allers,
the professor, can claim the highest mark of a teacher-imparting an
intellectual method and then inspiring his students to move forward within
it. Allers has a gift of introspection for the probing of human activities.
This gift has enabled him to exploit phenomenology for the rejection of
misconceptions concerning man and for the description of psychological
data as they are in conscious life. His wide and rapid reading have allowed
his mind to range far and deep and to inove in a single life-time through
.fields that would each normally be a life's work. Above all, unlike many
others that succeed in practical pursuits like medicine or even psychiatry,
Allers has the philosopher's habit for penetration and perception.
Louis Jugnet, who in 1949 gave us Pour connaUre la pensee de St. ThOmas
d' Aquin, has done a distinct service to sound philosophy by a sympathetic
and instructive sketch of Allers' philosophy of the normal and abnormal
man. The alternate title is regrettable; it conveys the impression that the
meat of Allers' contribution to philosophy is a criticism of Freud. A similar
impression may linger in those who have read only Tke Successful Error.
But that impression is false. Allers gives his own counter-proposals against
the false psychologies of our times.
Jugnet has clarified dark comers of Allers' doctrine by means of letters,
and Allers' replies are, like his books and articles, both interesting and
enlightening. Allers feels that Jugnet has successfully summarized his
thought, as shown by a passage from Allers' letter of January 10, 1950 and
quoted in Jugnet's preface: " As far as an author is a judge- of his work,
it seems to me that no one could have presented my ideas more clearly
nor summarized them so well in so few lines." A reviewer can only second
that statement.
The book opens with a rapid review of the case against Freud so forcefully argued in Tke Successful Error. As Allers sums it up, Freudianism
may be reduced to six basic principles: 1} All mental processes work in

162

BOOK REVIEWS

168

the same mechanical way as reflex actions; 2) psychic phenomena follow a
pattern of strict determinism; 8) everything mental is merely a complex of
physical energies; 4) the conscious life of man is rooted only in instinct;
5) man's present behavior is the result of phylogenetic evolution; and 6)
free associationism is the means of getting at the causes of mental events.
Jugnet records also other highlights of the Allers estimate of Freudianism:
for instance, .Freudians beg the question by psychoanalyzing the very
objections made against them; they are subjectivists, and they cannot
establish that the cures they claim might not be due to other causes than
Freudian analysis. All these arguments are not of equal force. They are not
meant to be. The basic error of Freudianism remains, as both Allers and
Jugnet would admit, the reduction of spirit to matter and the view of man
as merely a complex of minerals headed back to this lowly birthplace
through his Todesimtinkt.
It is well known that Allers parts company with other critics of
Freudianism who likewise claim 8.negiance to Aristotle. Roland Dalbiez
and Mortimer Adler would reject the materialism of Freud but retain something of his analytic method within a spiritual perspective. Allers is
emphatically opposed to such a compromise. According to his investigations, the method and matter of Freud cannot be dissociated, and if a
psychiatry is to be psychoanalytic, then it must operate within a Freudian
atmosphere of evolutionism, mental" topology," and determinism.
To resolve this conflict would require a study of what and where the
unconscious is, if it is at all in the make-up of man, and such a study
has been retarded in the twentieth century by the failure of Thomists to
analyze more closely the rich texts of St. Thomas on the exterior and
especially the interior senses. For instance, In I Metapky. Arist., 1, St.
Thomas compares memory and animal " prudence " in a manner that,
studied more fully, might discover the connection between memory's
thesaurus of latent impressions and those value judgments which are instrumentally made through the cogitative power.
The Thomistic notion of habitus gives promise also as a way of finding
whether there are stored " impressions " midway between act and potency
and hence, because not completely potential, able in some way to influence
conscious life. Whatever and wherever the storehouse of latent impressions
may be and however it may exert a virtual influence in conscious life, it
will certainly not be found to be the unconscious in the Freudian and
deterministic sense of that word. But it may still, for all that, yield to
analysis of a highly qualified sort. The fact that the analysis of man
must be qualified is of crucial importance, and it is a merit of Allers to
have shown, with incisive logic, that " elementalism " is a false psychology
of man.
The final two sections in Jugnet's book outline the positive doctrine of

164

BOOK REVIEWS

Allers in the field of psychiatry. Allers has forcefully shown that if the
dividing line between the normal and the abnormal in somatic medicine
is difficult to draw, the problems are even more acute when we come to
define the abnormal mind. Neurosis, Allers holds, is not necessarily a
malady in the sense of a suffering, and if, for the practitioner of somatic
medicine, every case of a disease is different, the uniqueness of every
person is even a greater factor in psychotherapy.
Whereas Freud simplifies all neuroses into a physical common denominator, Allers would hold that man's mental disorders are radically " metaphysical." In a letter quoted by Jugnet, Allers re-affirms this stand but
insists further that the " metaphysical " difficulties of men always have their
echoes in the moral order.
What Allers means by stressing the " metaphysical " roots of neuroses is
simply this: Every man has a station in life, a certain vocation
the
wide meaning of that word, a work to do, a niche that his talents challenge
him to fill. Mental disorders spring up when men try to be too much or
too little, to do more than their talents allow or less than their calling
commands.
In this adjustment to life, the supreme task is to find and to follow what
God wills for us as unique persons. Forsaking God leads very obviously to
maladjustment, but there is also danger in the other extreme of trying to
serve God not according to our own and possibly modest capacities but in
an over-heroic and quasi-angelic fashion. The janitor, for example, may
not have the same mental capacities as the executive, and so normalcy for
the janitor consists in recognizing whatever limits he may have and adjusting his life accordingly. In this connection Allers recalls a patient morbid
at the destruction of house and home; the proper psychotherapy was to
advise the patient to recognize reality as it is and meet it with the tools at
hand: Do not weep over the loss of the mansion, take the stones and build
a more modest home!
Normalcy consists in taking an inventory of our abilities and then pursuing a life's pattern that seeks no more nor .no less than they require.
Such a pattern brings fulfillment to the individual as God endowed him
to be fulfilled, and doing what God wills for us, personally, is the road to
psychological as well as moral success. Allers concludes that the most
normal man is the saint, and that the therapy of the abnormal personality
is to lead the patient to see and to seek its own level of attainment in
the economy of creation.
There are, Allers holds, other and less ultimate relationships than that
of creature to Creator, and these may get out of line to bring on mild or
serious neuroses. There are, for instance, marital or other social attitudes
that may not be adjusted to realities as they are and are not in accordance
with one's station. Yet these social attitudes, whether they be inferiority-

m

165

BOOK REVIEWS

or superiority-complexes or still something else, are cases again of missing
what God wants us to do or be. Here again, the most normal man is the
saint. For the relation of creature to Creator is the basic value in human
life, and all neuroses can be traced back to the .failure to discover this relation and to behave accordingly.
This is a challenging thesis, and Jugnet sums it up in a challenging way.
Scholars will be glad to have all of this dialectic of Allers gathered together
in one book. Yet Jugnet's achievement is of more than academic interest,
and it is to be warmly hoped that his book will soon find its way into a
competent English translation.
VINCENT

EDwARD SMITH

University of Notre Dame,
Notre Dame, Indiana

The Works of George Berkeley, Bishop of Cloyne. Edited by A. A. LuCE
and T. E. JEssoP. Edinburgh: Thomas Nelson and Sons, Ltd.
Vol.

I. Philosophical Com1nentaries.Essay Towards a New Theory

of Vision, Theory of Vision Vindicated. Edited by A. A.
Luce. 1948. Pp. 287.
Vol. IT. The Principles of Hurnan Knowledge, First Draft of Introduction to the Principles, Three Dialogues between Hylas
and Philonous, Philosophical Correspondence with Johnson.
Edited by T. E. Jessop. 1949. Pp. 302. 30/.
Vol. ill. Alciphron, or the Minute Philosopher. Edited by T. E.
Jessop. 1950. Pp. 343. 30/.
Vol. IV. De Motu (with English translation), The Analyst, A
Defence of Free-Thinking in Mathematics, Reasons for not
replying to Mr. Walton's" Full Anstoer," .Arithemetica and
Miscellanea Mathematica, Of lnfinites, Letters on Vesuvius,
on Petrifactions, and on Earthquakes; Description of the
Cave of Dunmore. Edited by A. A. Luce. 1951. Pp. 273.
80/.
The Life of George Berkeley, Bishop of Cloyne. A. A. LuCE. Edinburgh:
Thomas Nelson and Sons, Ltd., 1949. Pp. 272 with index. 25/.
With the approach of the bi-centenary of George Berkeley's death (1753)
there is likely to be renewed interest on both sides of the Atlantic in the
famous Anglican Bishop of Cloyne, whose life combined astonishing proportions of far-sighted and high-minded action with unusual philosophical
and literary abilities. For these reasons, the volumes noticed here are
opportune and deserve recognition not only by the professionally concerned

166

BOOK REVIEWS

few but also by a wider circle of readers who will find Berkeley the man.
more intriguing than his excursions into philosophy and science.
:For these last mentioned, the Reverend A. A. Luce's The Life of George
Berkeley, Bishop of Cloyne, is bound to prove attractive. They may know
the work of J. Stock· (Life of George Berkeley, 1784} and A. C. Fraser
(Life and Letters of George Berkeley, 1871} and appreciate B. Rand's
Berkeley and Percival (1914}, the later studies of Hone and Rossi (Bishop
and John Wild's George
Berkeley: His Life, Writings, and Philosophy,
Berkeley (1936); they should be happy to greet Dr. Luce's version. From
the first he resolved to keep the biographical element uppermost, and he has
succeeded as well as anyone could who has to deal with a man like George
Berkeley, whose life was so intermingled with his philosophical, religious
and scientific interests. Dr. Luce has produced a book which I should
hesitate to call a definitive study but which, with all his adulation of
Berkeley, qualifies as the best "life" to date.
The author is acquainted, of course, with previous studies of Berkeley,
and he uses them with due tribute and critical appreciation. But his account
is no mere retelling of an old story. Among the new material he turned up
are over forty of Berkeley's letters. This alone would make his work
significant. But there is the added factor of his situation as a Senior Fellow
in Trinity College, Dublin. For years he lived where Berkeley lived and
taught where he taught, and he has visited the scenes of the Bishop's
labors in the New World. Dr. Luce makes no secret of his admiration for
Berkeley, and while this leads to creating something of a nimbus, a biography without enthusiasm for its subject is likely to be bland and mediocre
-attributes not found in this book. It amounts really to a vigorous effort
to replace the caricature of Berkeley with a picture of the man as he was.
Dr. Luce contends with some heat and much learning that, on the basis
of first-hand knowledge, the Bishop of Cloyne emerges as a man of affairs,
sane, shrewd and efficient. " There was nothing soft or namby-pamby about
him, unless benevolence and charity are such. He was a strong man, a
fighting man, a man of physical and moral courage, who drew his sword
and faced a wolf, who stood for an hour or more looking down into the
seething crater of Vesuvius in eruption. . . . He was a man of solid learning, though the very extent of his attainments has blinded some biographers
to the fact. He was not a specialized college don, and he does show a
certain impatience with ' bearded boys ' and ' learned dust,' with barren
scholarship and trifling speculations. He preferred studies with a practical
bearing, but he took the term practical in its broad and enlightened sense,
and himself guided his practice throughout life by the wisest reading of both
ancients and modems." (pp.
This is the man Dr. Luce offers as the real Berkeley. But unfortunately
popular tradition has made him an amiable fool, with every virtue under

BOOK REVIEWS

167

heaven, save commonsense. And while this might be accounted for by his
scepticism or alleged denial of the existence of matter, the author thinks
the misconception had a more obvious origin.
It goes back, he thinks, to the fact that after Berkeley's death, in 1758,
no serious memoir appeared for some fifteen years. The interval gave
"' Grub Street' (or that hack-work journalism for which the name stands)
a long start. In consequence, the public saw the caricature of Berkeley
before the portrait, and the caricature' caught on.' How like a philosopher,
men said. Even when biographers were supplied with an authentic portrait
of the real man, they were not content; their public expected something
different, and so they framed the portrait in legend and draped it with
those foolish tales, traditionally associated with the name of Berkeley."
(p. 1}
Professor Luce's criticism of the main accounts of Berkeley may not win
universal approval but it is bound to be welcomed if for no other reason
than that it furnishes a forthright and intelligent summary of the sources.
For instance, on the British Plutarch, The Life of George Berkeley
he writes: " The misspelling of the name is an index of the ignorance here
displayed. The ',Life' is a slight, chatty, pretentious, and irresponsible
account without any attempt at documentation. Its earlier pages in particular make Berkeley appear ridiculous-in fact, they state that he was
' ridiculous ' in his younger days. Here almost certainly is the source of
the general misconception of the man, fons et origo mali." (p. 2}
With equal candor Dr. Luce discusses the contribution of Bishop
Berkeley's daughter-in-law, Mrs. Eliza Berkeley, in her Preface to her son's
Poems. The poetry runs 178 pages while the mother's Preface along with
her Postscript, Farewell Epistle, Apology, and Postscript to the poems
number some 650 pages! Eliza Berkeley herself probably did not know the
Bishop, but she was none the less proud of him and jealous of his memory.
In spite of her. old-womanish garrulity and of what she called "these
undigested immethodical pages," Dr. Luce concludes: "The size of the
Preface and its rambling character inevitably arouse suspicion, but it ought
not to be discredited in toto. I began to read it with a strong prejudice
against it, but I changed my views as I read on ... on the whole I would
accept what she says, especially when she makes plain, unvarnished statemerits where her little foibles have no scope. Her naivete is in her favour.
She was in a position to get accurate information about her father-in-law,
and sufficiently well trained to convey it. When she is not sure, she says
so, and sometimes she puts a blank for a doubtful name of place or person."
(p. 10} That sort of balanced criticism begets confidence in a biographera confidence I have in the author in spite .of a curious lapse (p. 146},
where he speaks of the list of " Berkeley scholars " including some of the
most eminent men in America and mentions Dwight and Wheelock as
Presidents of the United States!

168

BOOK REVIEWS

Dr. Luce, it is true, set his course to avoid the shoals of philosophical
disputation. But he cannot entirely escape Berkeley's polemic against matter
and the fires of controversy it enkindled. Here perhaps the author's
personal feelings for his subject do lead him into over-simpification. It is
difficult to agree, for instance, that Berkeley's alleged immaterialism is so
obviously refuted by an item in his will. The author writes that " Berkeley's
philosophy has been so persistently maligned from his day to ours, and
his denial of material substance so entirely misrepresented that certain
directions in his last will and testament become of decisive importance. . ..
His hostile critics say, quite wrongly, that he did not believe in the reality
of sensible body; had that been so, Berkeley must have held that his own
body was unreal, and that the appearance of it, sight, touch, smell, etc.,
would cease at once on separation from the soul or mind. But Berkeley
held no such nonsense. The terms of his will with the solemnity and the
crudity of utter conviction and habitual belief affirm both body and soul,
and the real existence of the identical body and its sensible appearance for
days after death." Berkeley's wish was that "my body, before it is buried,
be kept five days above ground, or longer, even till it grow offensive by the
cadaverous smell, and that during the said time it lye unwashed, undisturbed, and covered by the same bed clothes, in the same bed, the head
being raised upon pillows." {pp. 221-222)
Berkeley probably did not deny the reality and existence, as he understood the terms, of material substance. On the contrary I should say he
insisted that it was real and did exist-but its reality and existence were
tke reality and existence of being tlwught. As Dr. John J. Laky so well
points out (A Study of George Berkeley's Pkilosopky in tke Light of tke
Pkilosopky of St. Thomas Aquinas, Washington, 1950, p. 88), Berkeley
reduced all objects of knowledge to " ideas " of the sense and internal feelings, such as emotions and acts of the imagination. Since we can know
only what is in the mind, we cannot assert the existence of independent
extramental realities. Yet without a doubt Berkeley admitted the "existence " of his own body and such commonplace objects as chairs, tables,
apples and birds. But they are brought into being in no way by material
causes, and have no dependence upon them. They rely for their existence
upon the supremely spiritual and immaterial being, God, and though I
may not at any given moment perceive them, other human minds may;
and in the last analysis they exist always as objects of the divine mind.
Thus as I understand Berkeley, all objects are essentially mind-dependent
esse is percipi- if I may
with no material support of any kind.
balance a "decisive" text with a few others. (Cf. Principles of Human
Knowledge, sections I, 17, 20, 24)
The best advice, perhaps, for dealing with Berkeley's obfuscated thinking
came from himself, when he told his friend Dr. Samuel Johnson, in 1780,

BOOK REVIEWS

169

that he would like his works read in their order of publication. This seems
to be also Dr. Wild's view (Op. cit., p. 489): "If Berkeley's thought as a
whole is to be comprehended it must be conceived as a development. Without a sense of the direction of his reflections, they dissolve into a chaos of
separate ' positions.' " It seems futile, therefore, and peevish to use single
texts to settle controversies, which, for better or worse, have been inherited
from the outspoken and prolific Bishop.
But an important step towards getting a grasp on his thought is certainly
a knowledge of his life and Dr. Luce's contribution on this score deserves
high praise. It is a necessary adjunct to the immense labor which he and
Professor Jessop, of University College, Hull, have undertaken in bringing
out a new and complete edition of Berkeley's writings.
It is the first in the Library of British Philosophers and will undoubtedly
replace Fraser's incomplete four-volume work (Oxford, 1901). When
finished, it will comprise nine volumes, with a general index, and constitute
a fitting memorial to the eighteenth century philosopher, writer, scientist,
missionary, controversialist and churchman. It will likewise bear tribute to
the well-known Berkeleian scholars who are its editors and to the publishers
who are fabricating the volumes of good quality white paper, beautifully
printed and substantially bound. Material that has come to light since
Fraser's time is included and, contrary to his work, Professors Luce and
Jessop try to give the latest of Berkeley's own revisions, citing' departures
from earlier editions and manuscript variants in footnotes.
There is no question about the scholarship, devotion and craftsmanship
which are going into this project on the part of both editors and publishers.
Still it is unlikely to produce a sudden and dramatic reevaluation of
Berkeley. It will certainly make him more available and along with the
valuable introductory essays and technical apparatus will facilitate an
estimation of Berkeley· based not on what his critics have left of him' but
on the literary remains he left of himself. If they lack the voice that once
could be raised to "tremendous thunder," they are still more likely to
give us the true Berkeley than what appears in the tortured images of
historians.
JosEPH B. McALLISTER
Catholic Univeraity of America,
Washington, D. C.

Philosophical Analysis: a CoUection of Essays. Edited by MAx BLAcK.
Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1950. Pp. 429. $5.00.
In both the Preface and the Introduction to this volume of essays, the
editor, Mr. Max Black, stresses the fact that the contributors were not
called upon to provide anything like a formal definition of " philosophical

170

BOOK REVIEWS

analysis " or even argument in its defense. Instead, their assignment was
to offer mere specimens of such analysis. And specimens there are to
the number of no less than 17, treating somewhat exhaustingly of all sorts
of random topics in the fields of ethics, logic, aesthetics, epistemology, etc.
However, despite the self-denying ordinance of the editor and the contributors, it is hard for either reviewer or reader not to keep asking," Just
what is this analysis of which so many supposedly impressive specimens
are here exhibited? " Indeed, such curiosity is but whetted by the opening sentence of the Introduction, where the editor declares that " The
essays which follow might provide an ' ostensive definition ' of 'philosophical
analysis.'"
But having whetted our curiosity, Mr. Black does little to
satisfy it, indeed, one gets the rather uneasy feeling that it is here the
blind who are about to lead the blind.
At any rate, under the circumstances the reviewer feels justified in
attempting something that may perhaps be unwise and even unfair. For
since its proponents can't describe it but will only point to it, perhaps one
might try to understand this strange phenomenon of philosophical analysis
in terms of an alien terminology and set of ideas. Thus, is not the contemporary analyst one who considers that the business of philosophy is to
analyze not being, but meaning? That is to say, he concentrates his
attention not on tl;llngs, but rather on linguistic and logical intentions.
Now from the point of view of, say, classical Aristotelian realism, such a
program of analyzing meanings or intentions would in certain respects
appear not altogether fruitless. After all, intentions are perforce intentions of something. Hence, an examination or analysis of the intention
might well lead one to a better understanding of the real which is thus
intended. And yet this is not the sort of result which the method produces
in the hands of the analysts themselves. On the contrary, they would
probably feel that before they could come to a knowledge of the real
through an analysis of meanings, they would first have to analyse the
meaning of" real.'' And more generally, it would seem as if an analysis of
meanings never leads to a knowledge of things, but only to more meanings.
Besides, one cannot down the suspicion that this whole program of
analyzing meanings and intentions has been adopted and followed rather
uncritically. For instance, is it not necessary to distinguish between logical
and linguistic intentions, i.e. between formal and instrumental signs?
Also, can it be legitimately" assumed that the meaning of meanings or
intentions can be established quite without reference to the real which
these intentions are designed to intend or formally signify? Likewise, is
there not something highly questionable in the whole attempt to substitute
meaning for being as the proper object of philosophical analysis?
Now to all such questions the ordinary analyst seems to pay no heed.
It presumably strikes him that such concerns involve metaphysical and

BOOK REVIEWS

171

epistemological presuppositions; and he wishes to proceed without presuppositions. Consequently, he appears simply to take " meanings " in the
raw, or as given, and then proceeds. to analyze them, in order to see just
what these given meanings mean.
Thus, to pass in review a few examples from the present volume, we
might first consider Mr. Frankena's careful essay on "Obligation and
Ability." By means of an analysis that is almost excruciating in the pains
which it takes, the author discriminates various meanings of " ought " and
various meanings of " can," in order to determine whether there is any
sense in which "ought" implies "can." Needless to say, the answer is
that " ought " does not imply " can " simpliciter but only in a certain sense.
Now without denying that many of Mr. Frankena's discriminations and
eorrelations are both sound and apt, the interesting thing to this reviewer
is that he apparently never gets to the question as to what obligation or
what ability is. No, the assumption of the method would seem to be that
any
as to what a thing is must always be bracketted in favor of
the question as to what the term means. And the result is that the ques:tion of the " is " never gets raised at all.
Or again, to take another illustration-this time from the field of IogieMr. Ryle has an essay on"' If,'' So,' and' Because.'" Quite legitimately,
he wants to distinguish between the meanings of the respective terms; and
quite acutely he does so. Nevertheless, to this reviewer at least, his distinctions often seemed more ingenious than sound, and more haphazard
than systematic. And might not the reason for this be that the kind of
meanings which Mr. Ryle has here chosen to ari.alyze are logical meanings
or second intentions? Nor would there seem to be any other way of
making systematic and relevant distinctions between logfcal entities, save
with reference to the different phases or aspects of the real which these
logical entities Are designed to disclose or represent. And yet Mr. Ryle
never asks the question as to just what it is in reality that we attempt to
grasp through the use of such ;logical devices as " if,'' " so " and " because."
Mr. Ayer in his essay attempts to show that a so-called descriptive language need not contain any " basic propositions " or propositions that are
absolutely certain. However, in order to show this, he treats the reader to
quite an analysis of the meaning of the sentence " This is green.'' Again,
Mr. Noni:tan Malcolm in a long and rather paiD.fully cautious essay succeeds in presenting a very illuminating and cogent analysis of " The Verification Argument.'' . This is the argument so often enuntiated by Lewis,
Carnap and others that no empirical statement is ever certain. And the
reason is that any such
statement would presumably have
infinite "consequences" or "expected results in experience." Hence, it
seems always to be possible that at some time in the future some one or
more of these expected results .would not occur; arid should this happen,

172

BOOK REVIEWS

then doubt would immediately be cast upon the original statement. However, Mr. Malcolm shows that the force of this argument is in large
measure due to an ambiguity in the word "possible." Thus, one might
say that it is possible that some of the expected results might not occur,
meaning thereby only that the statement to this effect is not self-contradictory. But clearly, this is not to say that such a thing is possible in the
sense that there is actual positive evidence in support of the statement that
they will not occur.
One would think that through this skillful analysis of the meanings of
possibility, Mr. Malcolm would see that he was getting at the all-important
metaphysical distinction between mere logical possibility or absence of
contradiction on the one hand, and real possibility and contingency on
the other. And yet true to the supposed restrictions of the method of
analysis, Mr. Malcolm never takes this step from meaning to being.
Moreover, there is still another interesting ·feature of some of these
essays which, perhaps, should ·be mentioned. As is well known, what
originally gave no little impetus to the use of this method in philosophy
was the conviction that a careful analysis of meanings in language would
serve to bring to light any number of bogus metaphysical entities, which
could then be properly exorcised . and so rendered harmless. Witness
Bertrand Russell on the subject of ·substance. And sure enough, in this
present volume there is an essay by Mr. Lazerowitz entitled " Substratum "
and one by Mr. Marhenke on "Phenomenalism."· Nevertheless, the significant thing is that in neither of these essays is the claim explicitly made
that through an analysis of language such a thing as substance can be
shown not to exist. On the contrary, the logic of both essays would seem
to be something like this: They assume on other grounds than strictly
analytical ones that there are no such things as substances; then, they
attempt to provide an analysis of language that will serve to explain how
the illusion of substance could have arisen.
This resorting to assumptions other than strictly analytical ones calls to
mind two other essays in the volume which, even if they· be "analytical,"
still do not seem to exhibit quite the
type of analysis as many of the
others. Of these, the one is a very stimulating essay by Mr. Chisholm on
" The Theory of Appearing." Here the procedure would scarcely seem to
be the familiar one of taking certain simple terms or sentences and then
analyzing their meaning. On the contrary, Chisholm seems to be asking
not about meanings but about things, his specific concern being with how
and whether the so-called sensory appearances of things-the diamc;mdshaped look of the square table, the elliptical appearance of the penny,
etc.-may be said to be. It's true that his concern is in large measure
with
" the language of appearing " is after all to be preferred to
" the sense-datum language "; and yet be makes it quite clear that the issue
is not merely a linguistic but a metaphysical one.

BOOK REVIEWS

178

The other essay which would seem to diverge somewhat from the other
specimens of analysis is one by Mr. Feigl. It is true that his paper could
hardly be said to be about beings rather than meanings. Besides, it is a
confusing and, perhaps, somewhat confused discussion, so that one hesitates to characterize it too definitely. And yet, it would seem that what
Feigl is concerned to do is not to analyze specific meanings, so much as to
broach the much more general question as to how ultimate philosophical
principles may be justified.
Moreover, in pondering the volume as a whole, one is tempted to ask
whether such is not precisely the sort of thing that needs to be done with
regard to.philo.Sophical analysis itself. What are its principles? Can they
be justified? Is its apparent attempt to m&ke philosophers concentrate on
meanings rather than being really defensible? After all, the mere exhibition
of specimens just does not suffice. Besides, one cannot suppress the feeling
that if analysts continue to do little more than just analyze more and more
meanings, or the same meanings over and over again, their whole movement
will eventually come to have the look of a very sterile scholasticism.
HENRY VEATCH

Indiana Ufiiveraity,
Bloomington, Ind.

Whitehead's Theory of Ezperience. By EWING P. SIIAHAN. New York:
King's Crown Press, 1950. Pp. 150, With index. $2.50.
Any book on Alfred North Whitehead seems infected with that author's
own obscurity. Prof. Shahan's small volume on one aspect of the philosophy of organism is, for the most part, a healthy exception. Nevertheless, this recent book on Whitehead's theory of experience is intended
mainly for the clientele of Whitehead and presupposes at least some rudimentary knowledge of his system of thought. Thanks to an excellent first
chapter, Dr. Shahan states clearly the problem he intends to solve.
The author is of the opinion that Whitehead had two views of experience. He calls them the limited or narrow view and the broad or general
view. Each corresponds to two periods in the development of Whitehead's
thought, namely, to the extension analysis of nature, wherein Whitehead
emphasized space and timfi, and the process analysis, wherein he concentrated on the becomingness of nature or his notion called " feeling." The
terminology, extension and process analysis, is that of Shahan's. Had he
wished he could have cited Whitehead to justify the present study. In
a note in the appendix of the second edition of Concept of Nature, Whitehead admits that he was not too clear on some of his early theories but
that his later works attempt to remove the obscurities. In the course of

174

BOOK REVIEWS

his study, Dr. Shahan comes to the conclusion that Professor Whitehead
was not completely successful.
Shahan designates " creativity " and " life " as the fundamental notions
of the philosophy of organism. " Life " is of main interest for Shahan
since it is, for all practical purposes, synonymous with experience. " Life "
contains three elements. The first is self-enjoyment or what the Thomist
would call the unity or self-identity of an organism. Secondly, there is
creative activity which roughly corresponds to a thing's nature and its
process of development. For the benefit of Thomists it might be added
that "self-creative" is not a contradiction for Whitehead since creation
simply means the growth of an organism according to its nature. In reading Whitehead one must resign himself to that author's annoying habit of
switching generally accepted meanings of words to fit his fancy. Finally,
there is aim. This is the teleological aspect of the organism. From the
Thomistic view this properly belongs to creative activity. Shahan is hard
pressed to concede that Whitehead is justified in giving an organism so
arbitrary a faculty as that of being able to change the end intended by
its nature.
Whitehead's initial position, as explained by Dr. Shahan, consists in
viewing nature exclusively in itself. He concentrates entirely on what is
known and gives no consideration of the knower nor the role of thought
in reaching the known. He sees in nature only two things: events and
objects. An event is a particular concrete happening; an object is the
abstraction of the event, that is, the removal of it from its concreteness.
In his later works, Whitehead shifts his terminology so that event becomes
the actual occasionof experience or actual entity and object is the eternal
object. These latter are really universals and the events are particulars,
but it is worth noting that the particular is not a single thing but rather a
conglomeration of things.
As to human experience, Whitehead limits it to what is gained in
perception. The observer, man in this case, is simply an event in events.
He is a part of nature. As to knowledge, it is wholly objective and Whitehead accepts what one receives. He has no doubts about the reality of
qualities such as color and sound nor of nature itself. Man is in nature
and any dichotomy would only lead to subjectivistic errors or empiristic
dilemmas. Man is not passive but active in the process of knowledge since
he is acted upon by nature as well as being selective of what he considers.
This latter he does through abstraction.
As to the general result of this limited view, Shahan finds Whitehead
particularly weak when it is a question of explaining the intellectual role
in man for his knowledge of nature. The author goes, perhaps, too far in
concluding that Whitehead ·is not aware of the need of inference and
hypotheses simply because he makes no direct mention of these in the

BOOK REVIEWS

175

early works. One need but look at Whitehead's Universal Algebra and
Principia M athematica to discover that he knew considerable about the
subject. Of course, Shahan is correct in censuring him for not being
explicit. Whitehead never did have very clear notions on the psychological aspects of knowledge. In the second half of his book Shahan reads
this information into Whitehead. Actually it is not there.
In the later works of Whitehead, Shahan discovers two shifts in thought.
The philosopher of organism devises a categorical scheme which is really a
series of hypotheses for his metaphysical interpretation of nature. Secondly,
Whitehead introduces the notion of " feeling " which, it might be added, is
elaborated to a point of being pan-psychism.
The intricacies involved in this portion of Shahan's book defy a summary
treatment for a mere book review. It must be stated, however, that Shahan
gives an excellent analysis and provides many valuable insights. He even
gives a treatment of the nine " Categoreal· Obligations " which is quite a
feat in itself. It is also in this section that Shahan, a friendly critic of
Whitehead, is forced to admit that author's grave limitations.
On page 54 he shows clearly, by means of quotations from Process and
Reality, how Whitehead has a tendency to contradict himself even in the
same book. Later, on page 77, he gives another illustration of Whitehead's
obscurity. This time it is on the question of the possibility of error. Of
course, the whole book is an attempt to reconcile, inasmuch as it is possible,
Whitehead's views on experience. Only once does Dr. Shahan indicate any
impatience with Whitehead and it is quite mild: " In this matter, as in
others in Whitehead's philosophy, there are statements which represent
a curious mixture of both points of view" (p. 99). The matter being
discussed is that of consciousness.
The final chapter of the book takes up difficulties still remaining from
Shahan's interpretation of Whitehead's theory of experience. For those
who have never read Whitehead, this last chapter of concluding remarks
will probably convince them never to try. But for the Whiteheadian student it is a rich mine of information. Shahan points out clearly and conclusively the inadequacies of Whitehead's explanation of sense-perception.
Likewise the clumsy theory of actual entities related to eternal objects by
negative prehensions is exposed with its shortcomings and suggestions for
its revision are given.
Finally, Shahan decides that Whitehead's concept of God is that He
"is simply the most important aspect of the hypothesis of life" (p. 129).
Although Shahan does not say so, it seems that Whitehead had hit on
the immutable nature of God and His Providence. Whitehead was unable
to reconcile the two. As a result, his God is dependent upon the world
from certain aspects.
Whitehead contains too many sweeping generalizations to be accepted

12

176

BOOK REVIEWS

as an accurate thinker. Often he misses the whole point of a problem and
invents a solution that confounds the original difficulty. Certainly Dr.
Shahan has shown something can be done with Whitehead's thought. Yet,
there is little solace in
a man's philosophy in order to extricate
him from his own contradictions. The real problems still remain. Of course,
Whitehead did advance some thoughtful objections to traditional solutions
of old problems. Unfortunately, his answers are, in all too many cases, so
obscure as to be almost worthless. His main value seems to lie in his
capacity to stimulate thought.
RAYMOND SMITH, O.P.
DCJ'T/'UnicanHOU8e of PhiloBOphy,
Springfield, Kentucky

1 Was A Monk. By JoHN TETTEMER. New York: Alfred Knopf, 1951.
Pp. 281. $3.50.
Professional
Catholics will find little comfort or ammunition in this
sad, strange odyssey of a quondam Passionist. Although published as the
"Autobiography of John Tettemer," it is rather difficult to ascertain just
how much of this book is the work of John Tettemer. Editor Janet Mabie,
the daughter of a lnin.ister, who worked with the advice and assistance of
Tettemer's widow, fails to enlighten the reader on this very interesting
point. She does, however, add a rather vacuous foreward by Jean Burden
and also an introduction as vague as it is
by John Burton.
The general effect is to leave the reader with a feeling of sadness and pity
for a man who lost his way.
The first thirteen chapters tell in a rambling but exceptionally friendly
style the story of a youth whose background was typical of many another
priest. John Tettemer's mother was a pious Irish Catholic; his father was
a devout convert from Presbyterianism. His home life was a most happy
one, since he grew up in an atmosphere of faith and friendliness. His
brother became a diocesan priest. Hence when he asked permission to
leave home to join the Passionists, nobody was very much surprised. On
September 21, 1896, he pledged his vows after a difficult year of solitude,
prayer, and strict monastic observance. He took the name of lldephonsus
of the Sorrowful Virgin.
After fiv.e years of study in this country and in Rome, he was ordained
by Cardinal Respigli in the Cathedral of St. John Lateran on
21, 1901.
He remained in Rome for three more years as a student priest, and then
returned to the United States to enter upon a career that was unusual,
meteoric. Four years passed, teaching and directing students. Recalled to
Rome, he helped to organize and direct the new International College for

•

177

BOOK REVIEWS

PaBsionist Students at the MonaBtery of Saints John and Paul. New
experiences crowded the next five years. Having .long since made his
mark as a splendid student and teacher, he merited the distinction of
serving as a consultor to two of the Congregations of the Holy See. When
the time came for Fr. lldephonsus to return home again, Pius X manifested his esteem and affection for him in a most paternal manner.
Soon after his return, he waB elected rector of St. Francis Monastery, a
new foundation at St. Paul, KansaB. From this office in 1914 he was
elected to be one of the Consultors General, a highly important position.
This new duty requiring residence in Rome, he returned there, and continued to charm all with his warm and gentle disposition; his ability and
integrity were apparently unquestioned. Indeed, he refused a bishopric
and he received more than gentle hints that a cardinal's hat was in the
offing.
In the midst of this activity, sickness torced him to leave it all for the
peace and quiet of a sanitarium in Switzerland. Here. something happened. The long days of enforced idleness, spent in what he called detached contemplation, resulted according to him, in the birth of a new
faculty of knowing, rendering all former knowledge false and illusory.
Soon he came to believe that the sense of " I " is a great illusion, since
all consciousness is one. Losing one's own personality in that of larger
consciousness that he may call God seemed to him to be progress in the
right direction. He felt the need of a long purgative training for philosophers and teachers in order to free them from the illusions of the senses
and the mind, enabling them to function in the higher air of intelligence.
The almost inevitable consequence of such a pattern of thought is familiar
to every serious student of philosophy, and the result was no different in
the caBe of Father lldephonsus. A decision, therefore, WIIB called for after
these six months of detached contemplation. In making his fateful decision, he was forced to tum his back on human reaBon, human experience,
and the teachings of the Church. He epitomized the tragedy of his confused mind in these words: " God is: I am not."
Obviously this picture painted for us by John Tettemer is neither clear
nor complete. True, the colors in the foreground are soft and pleaBing;
sometimes they are highly flattering. There is an abundance of detail.
The account of his boyhood, vocation, religious life, and priestly career
haB a deep aostalgic tone running through it all. There is no bitterness.
He expresses great admiration and affection for his former religious brethren.
There are no quarrels with superiors, no hidden scandals of monastic life
to reveal. Certainly this is a strange book from the pen of a fallen-away,
and a great disappointment to those who accuse the Church of being an
enemy of :reason.
It is the background of this picture that is obscure: there are too many

a

178

BOOK REVIEWS

shadows; This is where the "artist" fails-and -badly. The thoughtful
reader wants to find out something about the literary and personal influences that caused this retreat from reason at Davos. John Tettemer mentions a few friends, but rather deliberately omits whatever might illuminate
the background of this picture of his life. What influence, for example,
did Baron Von Hugel have on him, if any? Did he help in any way to
lead Von Hugel out of the maze of Modernism? What about his subsequent religious affiliations? His bishopric among the Liberal Catholics?
His marriage?
Some few critics and reviewers of his book have sought to belittle John
Tettemer's mental stature by snide remarks; one reviewer sought to trace
his difficulty to the inadequacy of his training, referring to his early ordination as a case in point. The seminary training he received does not suffer
by comparison with that of any diocesan or regular course of studies.
Father lldephonsus was a brilliant priest. This fact remains even though
the volume in question does not give any indication that he ever mastered
his Catholic sources. Yet granting this contention for the moment, how
explain the defection of great minds like Tyrrell and Loisy? To point to
his early ordination simply displays a lack of familiarity with privileges
granted in exceptional cases for excellent reasons by the authority of the
Holy See. Moreover, a book does not always mirror accurately the image
of its author. Accordingly, this reviewer hesitates to give an appraisal of
John Tettemer. Those who knew him and lived with him are the first to
tell how kind and generous he was. When some former associates heard
that his book was to be published, they remarked that any book by him
would be a rather mild publication. They were right. He himself stated
that he had everything to lose and nothing to gain when leaving the Passionist Congregation. He possessed the love and esteem of his brethren;
he was well established in ecclesiastical circles. There was no woman in
the background. It is difficult, therefore, to question his sincerity.
Nevertheless, if a reason must be found for this tragic flight from reason
and the Faith, pride may be the answer. All through the book there is
an abundance of the perpendicular pronoun. There is little reluctance
about recording remarkable prowess in sports or in telling of the ease with
which academic distinction was won. The flippancy with which he disposes of Plato and Aristotle, while at the same time elevating his own subjective opinions to the rank of objective truth, is another instance. The
conversion of G. K. Chesterton he reduces to something akin to intellectual
weariness. Such an attitude certainly smacks of intellectual smugness,
if not pride.
Further, he displays little of the humility of the monk, else he might
have heeded the solemn warning of St. Paul of the Cross in regard to
intellectual novelties: "Let all the schools of the Congregation firmly

BOOK REVIEWS

179

adhere to the unshaken doctrine of the Angelic Doctor, and let all the
Lectors be strictly obliged to teach it." Submission to this point of the
Rule might have helped John Tettemer to remain a good monk.
How far afield he wandered may be judged from his own lines: " What
I have lost is, I feel, of no importance or consequence; the mere shell, the
intellectual background or framework, which I know now was not the real
foundation of my life as a monk, but rather scaffolding that could be
removed without damaging the main structure. The scaffolding belonged
to the illusory stage of life, seemingly essential while the need lasted, but
forgotten when it was over." When the reviewer read these lines he could
not help thinking of another scaffold, that of the Cross, upon which the
Wisdom of the Father died, that there might be light and life for those
sitting in sin and darkness. It is significant that all through these pages
there is no mention of the shadow of the Cross falling upon his life. Could
this be the answer?
To the very end his former religious brethren prayed for him. Their
attitude remained that of the Man in the Gospel toward his Prodigal Son:
They prayed that someday he might find his way home and once again
clothe himself in the garment of Faith, receive the ring of God's grace, and
sit down at the Banquet Table in his Father's House. Could it be that
the mountain of pride kept him from finding his way home?
I WAS A MONK, therefore, must be classified as an unimportant book,
one written by an unprofitable servant.
M. NESTOR, C.P.
St. Gabriel'a Monaatery,
Boatoo, Maas.

BRIEF NOTICES
1'he Concept of the Diocesan Priesthood.
Bruce, 1951. Pp. 189.

By J. C. FENTON. Milwaukee:

Monsignor Fenton is in an especially authoritative position to discuss
the nature and work of the diocesan priesthood. For many years he has
been teaching and writing on Ecclesiology, a tract the adequate development of which demands clear perception of the role of the secular priest
in the life of the Church. At the same time his teaching has been directed
to seminarians from very many dioceses, a circumstance bound to impress
any sensitive teacher with whatever deficiencies in the evaluation and appreciation of their vocation may be more usual or more dangerous among
diocesan priests and seminarians. Very distinctly, Msgr. Fenton writes to
correct such deficiencies.
The ten chapters fall roughly into three main sections: the nature of
the diocesan vocation (chapters 1-3), the work of the diocesan priest
(chapters 4-6), and his qualifications (chapters 7-10). Such is the unity of
the work, however, that its intent is ultimately reducible to the single
principle which the author uses as his starting-point; namely, that the full
meaning of the dioces!'-n priesthood is understandable only in terms of the
presbyterium, the college, the body of priests gathered immediately under
the head of the local Church (the Bishop) to assist him in the communication of the Christ-life to the local family of Christ.
Now in Catholic teaching only the Bishop has true and full membership
in the College of Apostles. He in his own name has and exercises the threefold Christ-given powers of the Church, viz. to teach, to sanctify, to rule.
" The presbyterium is immediately subject to the bishop and it has no function other than to act as the instrument of the bishop in the liturgical,
doctrinal and administrative direction of the diocese" (p.
This
dignity of membership in a priestly body directly constructed around the
bishop to aid him in the administration of the local church is the prerogative of the diocesan priest as such.
From this essential concept the nature of the diocesan priest's work
follows easily. What is his special work? The work of the presbyterium is
not specialized at all; that is the point (and in this again it differs from
religious institutes) -its work is to assist the Bishop; and the Bishop's
work is the totality of the Church's work in some true sense. Hence, while
the work of this or that diocesan priest may be very specialized, the corporate presbyterium is not narrowed in its work to any one aspect of the
Church's activity; and it is by the work of the presbyterium that the nature

180

BRIEF NOTICES

181

of the diocesan priesthood is specified, somewhat as the special goal of an
Order, and not the particular work of this or that member, specifies that
Order.
The diocesan priest's ministry, then, has a unique universality; for the
ministry of the preabyterium has a universality derived from that of the
bishop's own plentitude of function. So, as a member of the preabyterium
the diocesan priest's ministry is doctrinal (for the bishop is par exceUence a
teacher), missionary (for it must" build up" the body of Christ), unitive
(in imitation of that Apostolic unity for which Christ prayed) and perfective of each member of the local Church. This very adequate consideration of the work of the diocesan priest (like the consideration of the nature
of his vocation) is particularly impressive for the exalted yet very practical insistence on Charity as the subjective root whence all must flow.
These two notions-the diocesan priest is a member of the preabyterium;
the, diocesan priest has an altogether special obligation to charity within
the local Church (and outside it)-are immediately
and
Msgr. Fenton never fails boldly to draw their full implications. Very much
worth while, too, is the insistent emphasis on the gravity of the diocesan
priest's doctrinal obligations, and the nobility of his position as preacher
and teacher of his people.
The whole fruit of this work is to be found in the last Chapters delineating something of the requirements which the diocesan 'vocation makes on a
priest and candidate for the priesthood. Msgr. Fenton eliminates. any
confusion about the diocesan priesthood as a state of perfection in the
technical sense of that phrase; but in a clear and strong fashion he indicates the need for extraordinary faith, hope, charity, and prayer in the
soul of the diocesan priest together with unfailing obedience-of a distinct
kind of course, since his vocation is distinct. The chapter on learning is
impressive; but the special consideration on the Mass in the life of a
diocesan priest is most powerful. Notably in this whole section, too, all
the practical conclusions drawn rest upon the fact that the diocesan priest
is a member of the preabyterium; here, then, is an outline of the requisites
for true holiness in a priest whose vocation is precisely diocesan.
Most of the content of these ten chapters has appeared in various articles
by the author in the Ecclesiastical Review. But they bear re-reading, and
in any case it is in the gathering together at once of these various aspects
of the diocesan priesthood, and their complete unification under the one
dominant judgment-the diocesan priesthood is explicable in terms of the
preabyterium-that the great value of this work consists. Its value is
indeed great. Here in compact, readable, yet theologically exposed form
is a Summa of the diocesan priesthood. The insight into the immense
grandeur of that vocation is rather breath-taking; and the spirit of true and
virile piety which speaks out with constant frankness lends practicality and
strength to every page.

182

BRIEF NOTICES

The Gifts of the Holy Ghost by John of St. Thomas. Trans. by DoMINIC
HuGHEs, 0. P. New York: Sheed and Ward, 1951. Pp. 300, with index.
$3.75.

One of the brightest jewels in St. Thomas' theological crown is undoubtedly his treatment of the gifts of the Holy Ghost. Refusing to consider for one moment any radical separation of the science of Ascetics and
Mystics from that of Sacred Theology, his study of the virtues led him
quite naturally to a consideration of the gifts in connection with them.
He established two conclusions which were to prove of vital importance
for the future development of christian spirituality, namely the fact that
these gifts are necessary for salvation and also that they are essentially
distinct from the. virtues, although intimately connected with them and
perfecting their action. Theologians prior to St. Thomas had already made
attempts to solve this intricate problem, but their efforts had only led to
greater confusion. It was left to the penetrating intellect of Aquinas to
unravel the tangled skein of Tradition and to establish the true solution.
based on cogent theological and metaphysical principles.
Basing his doctrine on the principle that habits are distinguished by
their formal objects, St. Thomas outlines his solution in the Commentary
on the Sentences and perfects it in the Summa. Although man's supernatural life is much mqre perfect in itself than his natural life, nevertheless he possesses this supernatural life less perfectly. If man is to be safe
in his progress towards God, this basic imperfection must, be removed and
he must be brought to complete subjection to the movements of the First
Cause. Supernatural though they be, the virtues still depend on human
reason for their activity, while the gifts are directly subject to the divine
action, thus perfecting man's response to operative grace by making him
submissive to the inspirations of God.
In this brief review it is impossible to trace the effects of this solution
throughout the history of christian spirituality-a history which includes
the famous treatise on the gifts from the pen of John of St. Thomas. He
may well be called the last of the great scholastics, heir to a magnificent
tradition, with all the material at his disposal which had been laboriously
gathered together by those who went before him. With his death at the
age of 55, scholasticism entered upon a period of seeming decadence which
was to last almost to our own times. Fittingly his last gift to posterity is
this classical treatise on the gifts. It is also a sign of the renewed interest
in the gifts which is characteristic of modern theology that at last a bold
publisher should give to the English speaking world in book form a translation of that famous treatise which appeared originally in article form in
The Thomist (1945-1946) .
The importance of the subject matter alone justifies a warm welcome for

BRIEF NOTICES

188

this book. Since the gifts lie at the very heart of all spirituality, those who
write on the spiritual life will do well to study this treatise carefully. The
translation has much to recommend it, owing to its smoothness and its
faithfulness to the original thought even in the most difficult passages.
From that point of view, Fr. Hughes has performed a difficult task with
exceptional skill and judgment, for, if all translation is difficult, the task
of rendering faithfully the highly complex thought of John of St. Thomas
might well daunt .the boldest.
Those who study this book-because it is not sufficient just to read itwill reap a-rich harvest in many ways. The remarks on the gift of Piety
in chap. VI, for example, have a special application in our modem civilization. The description of Charity ·in its relation to God and to creatures
(p. 151, No. 57) expresses the very foundation of the christian spiritual life
with a simplicity and sublimity unsurpassed even in the writings of the
great mystics. For these and for other reasons it is to be hoped that no
one will be put off by the thought of a formal treatise in the scholastic
manner, because this book contains much that will be useful, not merely
to the specialist and the theologian, but also to all who are trying to know
and to love God better.

Ideas and Men. The Story of Western Thought. By CRANE BRINTON. New
York: Prentice-Hall, 1950. Pp. 587 with index. $6.00.
America can boast of no outstanding philosopher of intellectual historyno one to compare with men like Toynbee, Spengler, and Dawson. Whatever interest our thinkers have taken in
past has not Wen accompanied
by a corresponding measure of respect. Perhaps our culture is still too
young to be conscious of any long and unbroken traditions; more accurately
and in the spirit of James Truslow Adams' Epic of America, we have been
too much engrossed by the ecqnomic and political progress of the passing
day to become excited over our roots in distant centuries. Dewey, in his
Reconstruction in Philosophy, Northrop, in The Meeting of East and West,
and Randall, in The Making of the Modern Mind, all essay something of
an intellectual history. But all of them warp historical fact to fit their
philosophical preconceptions. Brinton is different.
The present work is not intended to cover the same ground as the books
of Toynbee or Spengler, and if it were, it covers ground at a different and
much more popular level. Parts of the work are superlative, and perhaps
that adjective could apply on the whole. It is certainly superior to any
of the three other fairly contemporary American works mentioned above.
The big flaw-and ill the absolute sense there could be none bigger in a
work of this sort-is the treatment of Judaeo-Christianity. Moses, for
instance, is called " a shadowy and legendary figure to the mere historian."

184

BRIEF NOTICES

(p. 100) Going on to Christianity, Brinton guards himself thus: "In this
book, an attempt will be made to study Christianity from the outside, from
a position that denies the existence {his italics) of the supernatural."
(p. 185) In fairness to the author, it should be pointed out that, as his
context indicates, he is not attacking Christianity-in fact he later
defends it; he wishes rather to take it out of the hands of historians and
scientists, equipped to judge it only in terms of a specialized method. Thus,
Brinton counters, " lio Christian reader should have a moment's doubt:
The core of Christian faith, the belief in the existence of the supernatural,
the divine, is forever proof not merely against naturalistic and historical
attacks, but involves rejection of naturalistic and historical ewplanation
(his italics) ."
What Brinton seems to be doing here is divorcing rather than distinguishing grace and nature, revelation and reason, faith and the motives
of credibility. Such historical "purism," where faith becomes a kind of
Tertullian absurdity, leads Brinton to cast doubt, as an historian, on the
historicity of the Gospels and the divine claims of Christ, despite all the
evidence marshalled by Catholic scholars, on both questions, since the days
of Strauss and Harnack. Then too, there are other historical inaccuracies
such as in the following statement:. " ... during the first three O!-" four
centuries with which we are here conCerned, the Church had no single head
on earth." (p. 151)
Brinton's bibliographical sections clearly indicate that he must not have
read the literature about the origins of Christianity, written by sound
historians of the Church. Nor does he take into account the element of
tradition as a source of historical knowledge. If he applied the canons of
criticism to other matters that he uses in regard to the historical origins
of the Church, he would have to. throw out practically every document that
he consulted to write the book.
Yet despite these severe restrictions, the book remains, as was said above,
a superlative work on the whole. There is a sympathetic treatment of the
Middle Ages, a good discussion of rationalism, and some remarks on
the Renaissance humanists. Surprisingly enough, beginning with the study
of medieval ideas and ending with the present-day problem of a viable
democracy, Brinton, the philosopher, is clearly and strongly sympathetic
to the Christianity whose origins he questions, as an historian. He does
not believe secularized democracy, socialism, nationalism, and the rest of
what he terms modem " surrogates " for religion can achieve the good
society. Though having an appea.J. to reformers wishing to revolutionize
society, once established on their own, such modem " isms " ca,m;_ot
satisfy man's thirst for truth and his desire for happiness. Such doctrines,
Brinton feels, cannot unite the historically struggling man with his lofty
ambitions; they provide no ethical code that makes for the success of

BRIEF NOTICES

185

democracy and the happiness of the democrats. To the reader of Brinton's
work, Christianity appears as the moral in his story of western tltought.
Except for the unfortunate aberrations on Christianity's beginnings, this
is a sane and sober book that will be both a profitable and pleasurable
adventure to Catholic philosophers. Neither too heavy with empirical
detail nor too hasty with generalization (except as indicated above),
Brinton has given us the best book on the history of western ideas yet
to come from a native American pen. In general, he is complete without
being confusing, balanced without being indifferent, critical without missing
the good in what he condemns. His ianguage is both lucid and lively.
There
fifteen chapters in the book; two on Greece; three on
Christianity and the Middle Ages; one each on humanism, Protestantism,
and rationalism; one on the eighteenth century; and two each on the
nineteenth and twentieth centuries. At the end of the book, there are two
sections of annotated bibliography, dealing respectively with primary and
secondary sources. In the selection of these works, the Catholic theologian
and philosopher would find faults of commission and omission.

Natural Philosophy of Oauae and Chance. By MAX BoRN. New York:
Oxford University Press, 1949. Pp. 233, with index. $4.50.
The title of this book is somewhat misleading. The work is concerned
with Born's analysis of the concepts of cause and chance as he has seen
them develop in the growth of modem empiriological physics, and as such
it is more properly a philosophy of science than a philosophy of nature.
Even as a philosophy of science, it differs from the average book in this
field; it presupposes a detailed knowledge of theoretical physics, and the
author relies heavily on mathematical symbolism throughout his presentation. The result is a book that satisfies Born's demand for clarity, precision, and " aesthetic appeal," but will leave not a few natural philosophers
wondering about the practical value of his contribution.
The main line of Max Born's thought centers around the notions of determinism, causality, antecedence, contiguity, and chance. The first four
are defined early in the development, but the fifth is left undefined, as is
the related concept of probability. Following an historico-logical outline,
Born attributes the first mathematical, deterministic description of nature
to Galileo and Kepler. Newton built on their foundations, generalized the
laws of motion, and through a recognition of dependence in gravitational
attraction, implicitly used the notion of causality. Because of the symmetry of his equations involving time, however, he overlooked the principle of antecedence (that the cause must be prior to, or at least simultaneous with, the effect), and also missed the principle of contiguity (that
the cause and effect must be in spatial contact) since his forces were

186

BRIEF NOTICES

supposed to act through empty space. Cauchy and Maxwell improved
the insight into nature with explicit introduction of contiguity in their
theories of continuous media, but antecedence had to wait until the development of thermodynamics. In presenting the foundations of this sci.;.
ence,. Born eschews the classical analysis based on engineering notions in
favor of Caratheodory's formulation of the basic laws; thus he is able to
show how the advent of the principle of antecedence marked the end of
descriptive method in
and prepared the way for new advances.
These came through kinetic theory, with the introduction of chance and
probability into the laws of motion. The complete integration of Born's
five basic concepts is achieved in modern quantum mechanics, which- dissolves the older, deterministic notions in favor of a broader interpretation
permitting the interplay of causality and the " laws of chance."
The philosophical implication of this emergence,c9f causality and probability as primary " metaphysical conceptions " is that it accentuates the
necessity of dual aspects and complementary considerations in human
knowledge. Born sees in this contribution a solution to numerous philosophical problems, particularly the problem of free will.
The evaluation of this work poses a problem for the philosopher-physicist.
In the realm of theoretical physics, the book is all that could be expected
of it, and more. It gives a remarkably lucid, complete review of current
physical theories, shows their origins-and interconnections, and supplies an
adequate interpretation for the formalism of modern quantum mechanics.
In this respect, it is a book worthy of the great theoretical physicist who
wrote it. Yet in the philosophical domain, wherein will be found the
audience
which Prof. Born specifically addresses himself, the work is a
signal failure. The analysis of the concepts of cause and chance is skimpy;
it lacks penetration and insight, as the author's knowledge gives evidence
of being restricted only to the grosser aspects of material being. Causality
is watered-down to the notion of extrinsic, physical dependence. The fourfold division of causality is missed (or perhaps dismissed) from the very
outset. and this places the writer in a bad position to attempt an analysis
of chance. In fact, he never does analyze either chance or probability, but
simply accepts them- with the -observation: " I think chance is a more
fundamental conception than causality " (p. 47} . He prefers to speak of
only one cause for each effect, being of the- opinion that the ' number ' of
causes is a meaningless notion because, in a causal series, " the number of
causes may be, and will be in general, infinite" (p. 129}. And despite this,
though his philosophical convictions be "not much more than common
sense improved by sporadic reading " (p. 8} , he yet feels confident in saying
that " only in physics has _a systematic attempt been made to use the
notions of cause and chance in a way free from contradictions" (p. 1}!
From such· beginnings, we hardly need underline the illogic of Born's

BRIEF NOTICES

187

attempt to urge the plausibility of free will or " interference of deity "
from a study of the formalism of quantum mechanics.
There are one or two conclusions of Prof. Born, however, that substantiate the recent findings of such philosophers of science as Vincent Smith,
Gavin Ardley, and others. One is that modern science is fundamentally in
the realm of art. Scientists follow a " code of scientific rules " laid down
by the masters, says Born, and what is more " there is no logical argument for doing so; it is a question of faith'' (pp. 7, 209). Another is that
symbolic logic, and in particular a three-valued logic such as Reichenbach
offers, is powerless to solve the problems. raised by quantum mechanics.
" The problem is not one of logic or logistic," says the writer, " but of
common sense" {p. 107). These conclusions we endorse; unfortunately
there are not many such in the volume.

The Seed and the Glory. By MARY ELLEN EvANs. New York: McMullin,
1950. Pp. 250. $8.00.
Samuel Charles Mazzuchelli, 0. P ., the youngest son of a patrician
Milanese family was recruited for the American mission from the Dominican studium of Santa Sabina in Rome. After finishing his education for
the priesthood in the United States, he was sent almost immediately upon
ordination (Sept. 5, 1880) to Mackinac, Michigan, to begin an apostolate
that has had few equals in the history of the Catholic Church in the
United States.
In the course of his thirty-four years as a missionary to both Whites and
Indians in the Northwest, the great Dominican, a controversial figure both
in his own time and long after his death, proved himself not only an exceptional missionary but one of the most talented men ever to labor for the
Church in this country. A summary of his life reads like one of the more
improbable hagiographical legends.
Skilled in preaching and theological controversy, the little Italian was
also a linguist, for he could preach fluently in four languages and he composed a catechism in the Winnebago dialect, the first such in any Sioux
language; a writer, for he wrote a masterly volume of Memoirs on the
American mission; an architect, for he designed the first Capitol of Iowa
and a dozen churches. In addition to all this, the versatile Dominican was
an educator who founded one of the first colleges in the Northwest. He
was also a religious founder, who established the Dominican Province of
St. Charles, which died shortly after its premature birth, and the Dominican
Congregation of the Most Holy Rosary of Sinsinawa, Wisconsin, which
lived and flourished.
The Seed and the Glory is the story of the life of this remarkable man,

188

BRIEF NOTICES

the first full-length biography in English, and the first biography in any
language of the colorful friar since Sister Rosemary's critical study of him
in French for her doctoral dissertation. Truly this was a grand opportunity for a gifted writer, and Mary Ellen Evans who wrote this badly
needed popular life came to her task peculiarly fitted for it. An ardent
admirer of Father "Kelly" (as the Dubuque Irish called him) from her
Dubuque childhood, Miss Evans, as a labor of love, followed the footsteps
of the Dominican missionary wherever they led. The Seed and the Glory
is the fruitful result of that research, although the complete lack of
bibliography and footnoting gives no hint of the scholarship that went into
the making of the book.
In the opinion of this reviewer, the novelesque metier chosen by Miss
Evans to present her hero is the book's greatest weakness. Father Mazzuchelli is unbelievable enough without making him appear more so by
giving his life a fictional cast. Notwithstanding this, the gigantic figure of
the holy friar emerges clearly from her pages. The work, too, is unevenly
written. Some of the writing is equal to any that has come from a contemporary pen, but there are spots where Miss Evans abandons her own
style for a pseudo-Joycian, stream-of-consciousness mode that has a false
ring and a nerve-racking effect on the reader. It is, in short, only a good
book when it could have been and should have been a great one.

Questions de Cosmologie et de Physique chez Aristote et Saint Thomas. By
JosEPH DE ToNQuEDEC. Paris: Libraire Philosophique J. Vrin, 1950.
Pp. 127 with index.
Much of the modern criticism that has been lodged against the physics
of Aristotle and St. Thomas is traceable to an unsympathetic attitude
towards their teachings, in turn prompted by a meager, insufficient knowledge as to why they taught what they did. Inexcusable though such
scholarship may be, it is yet understandable how those conversant with
modern physics might experience difficulty with the explanations of ancient
and medieval physics, and perhaps the sin has not been so much on the
part of the moderns, as on the part of the expositors of AristotelianThomistic physics. Certainly there has been a quasi-void in the technical
exposition of such works as De Caelo et Mundo and Meteorologicorum, or
even in the popular presentation of the basic theories that underlie the
Aristotelian physics of local motion.
Father de Tonquedec has not attempted a ·detailed, technical study of
such matter in these Questions, but he has succeeded admirably in
providing a readable exposition of three fundamental theories of Aristotle
and St. Thomas. The major portion of his work is devoted to a description
of the medieval theory of the world system, which included the Aristotelian

BRIEF NOTICES

189

counterpart of the solar system as well as the " fixed " stars; supplementing
this are two shorter treatises, one on the theories of light and color, the
other on the theory of measurement. All three accounts are documented
with numerous :references and citations. However, the merit of the treatment does not lie so much in this, as in the fact that the author has taken
pains to point out the common-sense observations that led to the adoption
of these theories. Modern theoretical physicists might well disagree with
the tentative explanations of Aristotle and St. Thomas; faced with the
experimental knowledge of ages gone by, however, they cannot help but
admire the genius of these men at having seen so much of the truth in
such a paucity of data.
The author has made some telling points in noting parallels between
Aristotelian and modern physics. Still he has not pushed this to excess,
but has been content to note resemblances in conclusions rather than in
methodology. Apart from the generally known similarity in the solar
system (excepting the interchange of earth and sun) , notable concordances
are the interrelations of light and heat energies, the non-instantaneous
transmission of light, the possibilty of energy transformation, and some
connections between diaphaneity and the quantum theory of light. Such
observations may help in disposing the more contemptuous moderns towards
a favorable hearing of the Stagyrite and his greatest commentator.
No exposition of the world system of Aquinas would be complete without
a description of the role of the angels in the physical universe. To the
author's credit, he has written eloquently and well on this subject. It
seems to this reviewer, however, that he has concluded much too conservatively in saying (p. 56): " ... nous pouvons penser, en general, que les
Anges sont les ministres de Dieu pour ces commencements, ces dispositions
originelles, ces impulsions premieres d'ou part le determinisme scientifique,
mais qu'il n'explique pas." This still conceeds far too much to determinism,
and relegates the angels to the order of subordinated causes in essendo,
whereas it is the mind of the Angelic Doctor that they are causes in
causando in the government of the universe. A similar concession to
determinism seems to underlie the author's treatment of the quantity of
sensible qualities, but unfortunately he does not go into the matter in
sufficient detail to warrant a thorough analysis here.
These inaccurcies are matters of refine rnent, however, they detract little
frcm the value of the work as a non-technical presentation of the basic
theories of Aristotelian physics.

190

BRIEF NOTICES

Against the Academics. By ST. AuGUSTINE. Trans!. and annotated by John
J. O'Meara. Ancient Christian Writers, 12. Westminster: The Newman Press, 1950. Pp. 219, with index. $3.00.
The patristic collection in the English translation edited by J. Quasten
and J. C. Plumpe is being received with praise by all the critics. It surely
deserves such an acceptance, and the addition of this first philosophical
dialogue of St. Augustine maintains undoubtedly the high standard of the
series.
As customary with the Newman Press, the typographical presentation is
perfect. The translation itself is clear, simple and generally accurate. We
have noticed only one dubious translation: I, 1, 4, p. 39: " ... mea vero
et Alypii etiam VERBA lecturus es," rendered: " . . . you will read . . .
the THINGS said by Alypius and myself." Why not: "WORDS?"
Would the discussion about the historicity of the dialogue have influenced
the translator?
The Introduction and the notes are extensive and very scholarly: they
suppose a good amount of research and a well digested erudition. The
preliminary remarks and the numerous references concerning other works
of St. Augustine, Cicero's Academica and Plato's dialogues are surely
valuable, even if a reader might not subscribe to all the author's conclusions and inferences.
The Introduction gives, first, a succinct description of St. Augustine's life
and intellectual evolution up to the time of composition of the dialogue.
Then follows a brief identification of each of the interlocutors. This setting
of the milieu will help the reader to an easier understanding of the dialogue.
As for the internal value of St. Augustine's refutation of the Skeptics,
the author believes it to be very thin: " ... they [the arguments] ... are,
it must be said, of little value " (p. 17) ; " The Contra Academicos cannot
be recommended as a valuable contribution to the theory of knowledge, not
even as an answer to scepticism" (p. 18). We fear that this negative
judgment so definitely formulated will not be accepted by all, by those at
least who hold that St. Augustine has a certain value as a philosopher. For
a good use of the Contra Academicos, see, for example, C. Boyer, L'lilee de
verite dans la philosophie de saint Augustin. Paris, 1936.
The question of historicity of the Contra Academicos is discussed at
length and with skill (p, 23-32). The arguments pro and contra are clearly
given according to the most accredited writers on this topic. The author's
conclusion definitely favors the evidence against an absolute historicity,
but recognizes that while " it is impossible to assess the extent to which
fiction may have been employed. . . . It is evident that the element of
fiction is far from being negligible" (p. 32). This prudent conclusion seems
quite logical if we consider the previous argumentation as a whole, but

BRIEF NO'.riCES

191

we doubt that " it is comparatively easy to dispose of the arguments " in
favor of historicity (p. 27) , and we think that the positive arguments
against it are not so weighty as they appear to be: The first objection
taken from the literary genre of the dialogue is, indeed, presented with a
great number of references to different models {p. 28-30; notes to the Introduction (n. 148-162, p. 165-167). This erudition is praiseworthy, but if
we must suppose that St. Augustine, as a rhetor, knew somehow the rules
of a dialogue, nevertheless, we think it would be difficult to prove that he
had access to all the quoted dialogues of Plato and other Greek works.
From these similarities one can conclude to no more than a possible-or at
the most, an indirect-influence.
As to the second argument, based on
" the change from the dialectical method of inquiry to what amounts to a
formal lecture" (p. SO), the author could have taken into account the
explanation proposed by H.-T. Marrou (in S. Augustin et la fin de la culture antique, Paris, 1938-1949, p. 310-315) : that the first part of the
dialogue is a dialectical exercise intended as such by St. Augustine for the
formation of his pupils (C. Acad. I, 9, 25); the second part being the effective solution of the question by the teacher. This hypothesis which is not
devoid of authority and value explains the apparent failure of St. Augustine's
Contra Academicos, De Ordine, De Beata vita. But it supposes also that
these dialogues are quite new in their genre, and that their claim to historicity does not lack foundation. To which extent are they historical?
Who can tell, if the internal assurances of the dialogue are to be denied
trustworthiness?

Kreuzeswissenschaft: Studie uber Joannes de Cruce. By EDITH
Louvaiu: Navwelaerts, 1950. Pp. 312.

STEIN.

Edith Stein was born at Breslau in 1891 of an orthodox Jewish family.
She studied philosophy, mainly under E. Husser!, whose assistant she
became. Her studies and the acquaintance with the works of St. Teresa
of Avila led her to the Faith. In 1934 she entered the Carmelite convent
at Cologne. From here she was transferred to the convent at Echt in
Holland. She was arrested by the Germans in August 1942, and sent to
Auschwitz where she was killed a few days later. Prior to her entrance in
the order she had published several articles and a translation of St. Thomas'
De V eritate in a modernized and highly readable form. During her years
in the convent she finished a great work on ontology and almost completed
the present book. The former, together with works published previously
will be brought out as the other volumes of her works. The convent at
Echt has been destroyed by bombs. But the manuscripts were recovered
and edited by the archivist of the Husserl-Archives at Louvain and Rev.
Romaeus Leuven, 0. C. D.

13

192

BRIEF NOTICES

The present volume contains the last work of E. Stein most of which exists
in its final shape. The author was obviously occupied with finishing the
book when she was taken away. The editors report on the state of the
manuscripts and their editorial activity and add a short biographical note
as well as an evaluation of the author's personality.
The book is divided. into three parts: the Message of the Cross, the
Doctrine of the Cross, and the unfinished essay on Following the Cross
(Kreuzesnachfolge). It is mainly a penetrating commentary on the works
of St. John for whom Dr. Stein had a particular admiration; in fact she
took the name Sr. Teresia Benedicta a Cruce. This work is chiefly a
commentary on the works of St. John whose doctrine is analyzed in the
second part. (pp.
It is destined to render more clear the views of
the Saint and to draw therefrom consequences for a deeper understanding
of the fundamental notions, such as the " night." So as not to give rise
to any erroneous interpretation, the author notes carefully in her preface
the parts of her text which are not explanations of the doctrine but her
own contributions. These latter are dependent on her conceptions of a more
general nature to be exposed in the second volume of the works, Finite
and Eternal Being: Attempt at an Ascent to the Meaning of Being. In the
present work, these statements are mostly in a chapter entitled " The Soul
in the Realm of the Spirit and of the Spiritual Beings " (Die Seele im
Reich des Geistes und der Geister), which is the second of the third section
on " Death and Resurrection," the preceding dealing with the " night of
the senses " and the "night of the spirit."
In view of the promised larger work, it seems perhaps unjust to analyze
the ideas of Dr. Stein on the basis of the remarks made here. They refer
to the problems of the ego or self and of liberty. One of the fundamental
categories seems to be the opposition of inner and outer; there are things
which have an inner and others which have only an outer. The soul pertains
to the former and one has to distinguish within the soul an inner and an
outer. (These rather clumsy terms are used to render the German das
Innere, das Aeussere which are, perhaps, not quite covered by internal and
external, or interior and exterior. These notions are, as the author indicates,
related somehow to St. Auguistine's views on the homo interior et exterior.)
There is a correlation between the " weight " of outer things and the
"depth" of the soul wherein these are received. In doing so, however,
the soul need not abandon her deepest stand (Standort) because the soul,
while dwelling in its deepest, has the freedom to move everywhere withiin
itself. This is made possible by the fact that the soul has the " form of an
ego." "The ego is that in the soul by which the soul possesses itself and
which moves in the soul as in its proper space." (p. 142) Although living,
or capable of living, in his deepest, man never becomes perfectly transparent to himself; this secret is revealed only by God if and when He so
pleases. This view, too, is clearly reminiscent of St. Augustine. Though

193

BRIEF NOTICES

never knowing itself wholly, the soul has the right of self-disposal. These
ideas are correlated, by Dr. Stein, with those of St. Teresa in the Interior

Castle.
The author devotes much space to a harmonization of the views of the two
great Carmelite Saints and achieves in this regard, perhaps, a greater clarity
than one finds in other such attempts.
On the whole, one has to do here with a work on mystical theology
rather than on philosophy. For an appraisal of the author's philosophical
conceptions one has to wait for the publication of the second volume. One
may look forward to this other work with great expectations, since the
author seems well qualified, both by virtue of her philosophical and phenomenological training and by her religious experience, to shed some new light
on certain basic questions.
The present work should be of greatest interest to all students of the
Carmelite mystics and of mystical theology in general.

Immortal Fire. By SisTER MARY JusT, 0. P.

St. Louis:

Herder, 1950.

Pp. 598. $7.50.
In this " journey through the centuries with the missionary great " the
author collects a number of biographies of great missionary figures, ranging
from St. Patrick of Ireland to Father Donovan of Maryknoll. This is not
a work of scholarship, most of the biographies are twice told tales, but it
does collect into one volume a varied amount of inspirational reading, just
the sort of book that should be on the good Catholic's bedside table. In
addition to the biographical sketches, the pious authoress also attempts to
recount, as background for her heroic characters, some of the Church's
tremendous panorama of missionary history, based, for the most part, upon
common secondary sources, but using some primary source material such as
is found in The Field Afar. It is only to be expected that there would be
some lack of focus in a work of such ambitious proportions, particularly one
based almost entirely upon sources written in the English language.

De Principiis Naturae. By ST. THOMAS AQUINAS. Introduction and Critical Text by John J. Pauson. Fribourg and Louvain, 1950. Pp. 111,
with indexes.
Under the moderation of I. M. Bochenski, the University of Fribourg is
putting out a series of critical texts in philosophy. Pauson, an American,
has done his introduction in English. This is an advantage for Englishspeaking readers since the bulk of the book is concerned with introductory
remarks. Only twenty-five pages are needed for the critical text and half
of each is occupied with footnotes.
As far as the technical quality of the work is concerned, the editor has

194

BRIEF NOTICES

done a superb job. Much of the historical material and genealogy of texts
will not interest the average reader. However, the section should not be
ignored. Chapter Three, concerned with the historical and critical aspects,
gives considerable useful information to the philosopher. For instance,
Pauson puts the date of the work at H!52 or 1253. Further, he explains,
briefly of course, the influences on the work from such thinkers as Boethius,
Avicenna, and Averroes.
In the critical text of De Principiis Naturae, a sixfold division is given.
This chapter arrangement, the work of Pauson, is a good one. Just a glance
at the chapter headings indicates the scope of the work. The first is concerned with potency and act. In the second chapter matter, form, and
privation are discussed. Then follow three chapters on the causes. Finally,
there is a chapter on analogy.
St. Thomas shows in this very early work that same supreme ability he
demonstrates so brilliantly in the Summa. He is crystal clear with the
added perfection of brevity. De Principiis Naturae is a work to be read
with profit by one who has finished natural philosophy and metaphysics.
It would be too much to expect a neophyte in philosophy to comprehend
its full significance.
One hopes that the work begun in this series at Fribourg will continue.
It is an excellent contribution to scholarship. Its first volume helped
clarify many textual difficulties concerning St. Thomas' teaching on the
division of the sciences. The present work should have the additional
value of gaining new readers for this small but valuable work of the
Angelic Doctor on the principles of nature.

Footnotes for the Atom. By VINCENT EDWARD SMITH. Milwaukee:
l95L Pp.
$3.50.

Bruce,

Dr. Vincent Edward Smith has added another excellent book to his
already distinguished library of works in philosophy and science. In Footnotes for the Atom, the Notre Dame professor has shown the way to make
the atom but a footnote in the final redaction of the present page of human
history. He has challenged Science, not as a dreamy arm-chair philosopher,
but as one who knows Science, both its worth and its limitations. The
fact that he also knows Aristotle and St. Thomas makes his criticism not
worthless vituperation but valuable construction.
The thesis of the book is simple enough and repeated frequently. Empiriological physics is of proven value in its own field of operation; it is not,
however, "a good guide for thought and life and society in the Atomic
Age " (p. 16) . Or again: " Physics can guide man in the control of
matter and open new potencies to him for such ambitions. It cannot guide
him in the control of self " (p. 41) .
Of the eleven chapters of the book, the last nine are mainly philosophical.

BOOKS RECEIVED

195

Yet in all the chapters, Dr. Smith drives home one main point: empmological physics is, by its very nature, designed to do just the opposite of
what is needed by man to face the problems of daily living. It divides,
separates, and considers outside influences. It ignores being, the unity
and integrity of the creature and especially of man.
In may ways, Footnotes for the Atom is a book for meditation on man
and his present plight in the modern world. Likewise it is a brilliant expose
of the shallow thinking and empty verbiage of modern non-metaphysical
thinkers. " It is an anomaly that the war which was fought to conquer
fear, as stated in the four freedoms, should have backfired with the terrifying blast of the atom bomb which has spread fear everywhere in the
civilized world " (p. 131) .
Dr. Smith's conclusion is that modern physics when taken as a philosophy " fails to return to man, and lacks the dynamism necessary to
refresh, revitalize, and reassure itself " besides sowing the seeds of its own
destruction (p. 199). The real answer to the world's woes will be found
in a sound metaphysics and in the acceptance of Divine Revelation. Here
is a book that scientists, statesmen, and teachers should especially read.
It is a first class, professional job on the critical problems of modern man
in science and philosophy.

BOOKS RECEIVED
Adam, K., One and Holy, 1951. New York: Sheed & Ward. Pp. 137. $2.00.
Bentley, E., Out of Bondage, 1951. New York: Devin-Adair. Pp. 311.
$3.50.
Bourke, V. J., Ethics, 1951. New York: Macmillan Company. Pp. 509,
with index. $4.25.
Boxtel, Robbers, and Van Der Putte, Zijnsleer En Godsbestaan, 1951.
Utrecht: Uitgeverij Het Spectrum. Pp. 64.
Brod, M., The Master, 1951. New York: Philosophical Library. Pp. 426.
$4.75.
Burleigh, W. (Boehner, P., ed.), De Puritate Artis Logicae, 1951. St. Bonaventure: Franciscan Institute. Pp. 130. $1.50.
Ceram, C.
Gods, Graves, and Scholars, 1951. New York: Knopf.
Pp. 454, with index. $5.75.
Davitt, T. E., The Nature of Law, 1951. St. Louis: Herder Book Co.
Pp. 274, with index. $4.00.
Deman, T., Au.x Origines de la Theologie Morale, 1951. Montreal: Inst.
d'Etudes Medievales. Pp. 117.
Dominican Tertiary, Simple Rosary Meditations, 1951. Westminster: Newman. Pp. 164. $2.25.
Doolan, A., Revival of Thomism, 1951. Dublin: Clonmore & Reynolds,
Ltd. Pp. 54. 2j6d.

196

BOOKS RECEIVED

Fortescue, A. (ed.), The Roman Missal, 5 vols., 1951. New York: Macmillian Co. Cloth, red edges, $3.75; cloth, gold edges, $4.50; rexine,
collapsible gusset, $7 .00; morocco, collapsible gusset (black) , $9.00
and calf, collapsible gusset, $10.00.
Foster, K. and Humphries, S., Aristotle's De Anima with Commentary of
St. Thomas Aquinas, 1951. New Haven: Yale University Press. Pp.
504, with index .. $6.50.
Gonzalez, A., Ideas Politicas de Sor Maria de Agreda, 1950. Manila:
lmprenta de Ia Universidad de S. Tomas. Pp. 166.
Grabmann, M. (trans. Ashenbrener, N.), The Interior Life of St. Thomas
Aquinas, 1951. Milwaukee: Bruce. Pp. 101, with index. $2.75.
Greenstock, D., Catholic Parents, 1951. London: Bums Oates & Washbourne, Ltd. Pp. 286, with index. ISs.
Hallowell, J., Main Currents in Modern Political Thought, 1950. New York:
Henry Holt. Pp. 771, with index.
Hayes, C. J. H., The United States and Spain, 1951. New York: Sheed &
Ward. Pp. 197. $2.75.
Herberg, W., Judaism and Modern Mind, 1951. New York: Farrar, Straus
& Young, Inc. Pp. 324, with index. $4.00.
Hoffman, R., The Spirit of Politics and the Future of Freedom, 1951.
Milwaukee: Bruce. Pp. 108. $2.50.
Houseland, C., Guilt, 1951. New York: Sheed & Ward. Pp. 296. $3.75.
Hugh of St. Victor (trans. Deferrari, R. J.), On the Sacraments of the Christian Faith, 1951. Cambridge: Mediaeval Academy of America. Pp.
506, with index. $5.00.
Hunt, P., Primitive Gospel Sources, 1951. New York: Philosophical Library.
Pp. 359, with index. $6.00.
Jaspers, K. (trans. Manheim, R.), Way to Wisdom, 1951. New Haven:
Yale University Press. Pp. 208, with index. $3.00.
Jordan, R., The New Perspective, 1951. Chicago: University of Chicago
Press. Pp. 316. $5.00.
Kelly, 0. F., Good, F. L., MarriO{Je, Morals, and Medical Ethics, 1951.
New York: Kenedy. Pp. 218. $3.50.
Lossky, N., History of Russian Philosophy, 1951. New York: International
Universities Press. Pp. 416, with index. $10.00.
Madden, W., Religious Values in Education, 1951. New York: Harper &
Bros. Pp. 203, with index. $3.00.
Marcel, G., The Mystery of Being, Vol. IT, 1951. Chicago: Henry Regnery
Co. Pp. 196. $3.75.
Maritain, J., Philosophy of Nature, 1951. New York: Philosophical Library.
Pp. 208, with index. $3.00.
Martindale, C., The Queen's Daughters, 1951. New York: Sheed & Ward.
Pp. 468, with index. $3.00.

BOOKS RECEIVED

197

Mauriac, F, (trans. Pell, E.), Men I Hold Great, 1951. New York: Philosophical Library. Pp. 130, with index. $3.00.
Mindszenty, J., The Face of the Heavenly Mother, 1951. New York:
Philosophical Library. Pp. 160, with index. $3.00.
Ministere de L'Education Nationale, Bulletin Analytique. Philosophie. Vol.
V, No. 3, 1951. Paris: Centre De Documentation. Pp. 145.
Mumford, L., Conduct of Life, 1951. New York: Harcourt, Brace & Co.
Pp. 352, with index. $5.00.
Nagle, U., Behind the Masque, 1951. New York: Declan X. McMullen Co.
Pp. 316. $3.50.
Nuttin, J., Tendences Nouvelles dans la Psychologic Contemporaine, 1951.
Louvain: Publications Universitaires de Louvain. Pp. 58. $0.60.
Osgniach, A. N., Must It Be Communism? 1951. New York: Wagner.
Pp. 496, with index.
Payne, R., The Fathers of the Western Church, 1951. New York: Viking
Press. Pp. 320, with index. $5.00.
Polimeni, E., Leon Bloy, the Pauper Prophet, 1951. New York: Philosophical Library. Pp. 119. $2.75.
Prentice, R. P., The Psychology of Love According to St. Bonaventure,
1951. St. Bonaventure: Franciscan Institute. Pp. 150, with index.
$2.00.
Rousseau, 0., The Progress of the Liturgy, 1951. Westminster: Newman.
Pp. 234, with index. $2.75.
Sherley-Price, L., Confucius & Christ, 1951. New York: Philosophical
Library. Pp. 248. $4.75.
Smith, G., Natural Theology. II, 1951. New York: Macmillan Co. Pp.
313, with index. $3.50.
St. Thomas Aquinas (trans. Reid, J. P.), The Virtues (in general), 1951.
Providence: Providence College Press. Pp. 210, with index. $2.00
(paper) $3.00 (cloth).
Sullivan, J. F., The Externals of the Catholic Church, 1951. New York:
P. J. Kenedy & Sons. Pp. 414, with index. $4.50.
Thomas, ME., Medieval Skepticism and Chaucer, 1951. New York: The
William-Frederick Press. Pp. 184, with index. $3.00.
Valentine, F., Religious Obedience, 1951. Westminster: Newman. Pp. 142.
$2.00.
Warbeke, J. M., The Power of Art, 1951. New York: Philosophical
Library. Pp. 502, with index. $6.00.
Weil, S. (trans. Craufurd, E.), Waiting for God, 1951. New York: Putnam's
Sons. Pp. 228. $3.50.
Wenzl, A., Unsterblichkeit, 1951. Bern: A. Francke. Pp. 216. 7.80 S. fr.
Wach, J., Types of Religious Experience, 1951. Chicago: University of
Chicago Press. Pp. 291, with index. $3.50.
Williams G., Humanistic Ethics, 1951. New York: Philosophical Library.
Pp. 237, with index. $3.75.