Apologeticae sive Theologiae Fundamentalis, Tomus II (Pars Altera): Demonstratio Catholica

After it has been established that oral Tradition is the principal source by which revelation flows down to us from Christ and the apostles, we must now treat of the monuments or ancient documents by which the truths handed down by word of mouth were gradually committed to writing. And indeed we shall speak of the monuments of Tradition in general, and likewise individually of the works of the Fathers and of the writings of the theologians.

Concerning the monuments in general, three things are considered: necessity, species, and certitude.

1. Necessity of the monuments. The monuments of Tradition are necessary not indeed absolutely, but nevertheless in a certain respect.

a) The monuments of Tradition are not absolutely necessary. For the principal organ chosen by Christ for witnessing, transmitting, and preserving Tradition is the apostolic succession, i. e. the ever-living magisterium of the Church, as is evident from the preceding article. Hence Tradition is perpetually safeguarded and manifested by the living testimony of the bishops who actually rule the Church. And indeed the moral consensus of the bishops, since it coincides with the magisterium of the whole dispersed Church,¹ is an infallible testimony of Tradition. Therefore, even if no monuments existed or were employed to prove the transmitted truth, the transmitted truth would be certain by the very fact that the college of bishops consents to it. Nevertheless:

b) The monuments of Tradition are necessary in a certain respect for preserving and investigating Tradition. For although the magisterium of the Church possesses a "sure charism of truth," it nevertheless does not attain the truth by the charism of a new revelation. Hence an inquiry into the faith and profession of Christian antiquity is often necessary, either when the present consensus is not sufficiently clear, or whenever, in order to instruct the faithful or to confound heretics, the connection of the present profession with antiquity and the unity of faith through all ages must be demonstrated. Therefore the living magisterium of the Church and, a fortiori, theological science stand in need of the support of the monuments of Tradition.

2. Species of the monuments. The pristine traditions were committed to writing in various documents by the rulers of the Church, by the simple faithful, and sometimes also by heretics and unbelievers. The principal documents are these:

a) The acts of councils, of the supreme pontiffs, and of individual bishops. These acts are placed in the first place both because they are immediate testimonies of the guardians of Tradition, and because they are at the same time authentic judgments of the magisterium, which constitute also the proximate rule of faith.

b) The symbols of faith, namely the apostolic symbol, the Niceno-Constantinopolitan, the Athanasian, and the Tridentine. The commentaries on the symbols are the catechisms of various times and of various churches, among which stands out the "Roman Catechism published by Pius V by decree of the Council of Trent."²

c) Liturgical books: missals, sacramentaries, pontificals, rituals, breviaries, finally all the monuments which pertain to religious worship. These indeed are of outstanding authority according to that saying: "The law of praying establishes the law of believing."³ For the liturgies express in practice the dogmas of faith and set before the eyes the most ancient Traditions of the Church.

d) The canon law of all ages: penitential books, disciplinary canons, ecclesiastical laws general and particular. For by all these the life of Christians is directed according to the norm of faith, and hence faith itself is copiously manifested.

e) The works of Christian art, sculpted, painted, architectural, in the catacombs, crypts, sanctuaries, sarcophagi, chairs, and furnishings destined for the sacred or profane use of the faithful, in which inscriptions or epigraphs are very often found. Monuments of this kind sometimes illustrate the transmitted doctrine more vividly than written books, because they set before the eyes by art the life, the worship, and faith itself of the ancients.

f) Whatever documents of ecclesiastical history: acts of the martyrs, lives of the saints, the history of heresies, of dogmas, of popes, of bishops, of religious orders, etc.

g) The writings of the Fathers and of the theologians, which so excel all the other monuments of Tradition that they deserve to be treated individually.

3. Certitude of the monuments. The monuments of antiquity furnish a certain argument of divine Tradition insofar as they manifest the consensus of the successors of the apostles. This indeed happens:

a) When the concordant monuments of all ages attest some doctrine as revealed. This is surely the same as if the successors of the apostles, that is, the living magisterium of all centuries together with the learning Church, stood present to testify to the faith preached always from the apostles onward. But no more manifest demonstration of Tradition can be conceived. Therefore...

b) When the concordant monuments of one age only attest some doctrine as revealed. For in this way it is shown that the living magisterium of the respective age consented to that doctrine. But the consensus of the living magisterium of every single age infallibly testifies the faith. Therefore...

c) When monuments are at hand which are indeed few in number, but of such weight that they represent the common faith of the Church. For there are truths which have been expressed in rare monuments. Likewise very many ancient monuments have perished in the course of the centuries. Nevertheless, having weighed their character and circumstances, the few monuments that remain are sometimes able to demonstrate with certainty the consensus of the magisterium. Therefore...

d) When finally it is proved even by a single monument that the Church has proposed some doctrine as revealed by a solemn judgment. For if it infallibly stands by the solemn judgment of an ecumenical council or of the supreme pontiff that some doctrine is revealed, a fortiori it stands that it was handed down by the apostles and their successors. Therefore...

Scholion. From what has been said one may estimate the well-known canon of s. Vincentii lirinensis: "Great care must be taken that we hold what has been believed everywhere, always, and by all. For this is truly and properly catholic."⁴ This rule is positive, i. e. everything is catholic "which has been believed everywhere, always, and by all"; but not exclusive, i. e. as if only that is catholic "which has been believed everywhere, always, and by all". For very many things are contained in Tradition only implicitly, and at length in the course of the centuries and with the progress of knowledge and of proposition they are preached explicitly by the teaching Church, and are likewise believed by the learning Church. Although, however, that saying of s. Vincentius taken in the exclusive sense does not hold for these, nevertheless they are truly and properly catholic. Nor indeed does Vincentius himself deny this, since in his work he sets the greatest store by the progress of faith through the more explicit knowledge and proposition of those truths which previously were admitted only implicitly.⁵

By the name of Fathers, in the broad sense, are understood all ecclesiastical writers who in the earlier centuries illustrated Christian doctrine by their writings.¹

They are called by the name of Fathers because they upheld the Church in her youth, i. e. during the first eight centuries or so. Hence St. John Damascene († 764) is called the last Father. Less aptly is the age of the Fathers sometimes extended up to the twelfth century; for then some particular Churches, indeed, were younger in age, but not the universal Church, which the title of Father regards. Now we must weigh the authority both of the consenting Fathers and of the individual Fathers.

1. The authority of the consenting Fathers. Proposition: The unanimous consensus of the Fathers on some doctrine as revealed is a certain argument of divine Tradition.

It is explained. The proposition says:

a) The unanimous consensus of the Fathers. For the Fathers testify infallibly to Tradition inasmuch as they represent the faith of the universal Church. But neither individual Fathers nor the Fathers of several particular Churches are able to represent the faith of the universal Church, but only the Fathers of the whole world, that is, the consensus of all the Fathers taken morally. This consensus can be established directly or indirectly. It is established directly, or by an accumulation of consensus, if so many Fathers can be cited that a moral unanimity, numerically proven, appears. To this pertains the rule of Cardinal Perron, commonly received by the theologians: "Then the unanimous consensus of the Fathers, proved cumulatively, ought to be esteemed, when the most eminent men of individual nations agree in the assertion of some matter, so that among them no one who, always orthodox, has always adhered to the orthodox, dissents." It is established indirectly, or by inference, if the condition of the testifying Fathers is such that from the testimony of several, the opinion of all and the faith of the whole Church can be inferred. And this happens when all the Western Fathers agree,² or all the later Fathers, who flourished after some doctrine first began to be impugned or treated, or several Fathers diverse in age and homeland, the rest not objecting,³ or finally a few Fathers, whom the whole Church follows as leaders in some controversy, e. g. Basil, Hilary, Athanasius, the two Gregories, and Augustine defending the mystery of the Most Holy Trinity against the Arians; Cyril of Alexandria, Leo the Great, Agatho, Sophronius establishing the christological dogma against the Nestorians and Monophysites; Augustine and Fulgentius fighting for grace against the Pelagians.

b) On some doctrine as revealed. It does not, therefore, suffice that the Fathers affirm some doctrine, but it is required that they affirm it to be revealed. And this they must teach either in express words or at least in equivalent ones, saying e. g. that the whole Church so believes, that the contrary opinion is heretical, that it is altogether necessary to embrace such a doctrine, etc. On the other hand, the opinion of the Fathers, even when consenting, is not safe, if they do not teach that the doctrine is revealed, professed by the Church, absolutely necessary. A fortiori, the testimony of the Fathers is not certain when, by opining, by doubting, by inquiring, they act as private doctors. You have a celebrated example in the chiliasm of several of the older Fathers, namely Papias, Justin, Irenaeus, Tertullian, Lactantius, Commodianus, Sulpicius Severus. This opinion of theirs about the millennial kingdom is not safe, both because very many other Fathers reject it, and because the chiliasts themselves frankly confess that the opposite opinion does not contradict the faith.⁴

c) It is a certain argument of divine Tradition. Doctrines, namely, which are affirmed as revealed by the consensus of the Fathers, are by that very fact proved with infallible certainty to pertain to Tradition. And indeed to divine or divine-apostolic Tradition, i. e. to the deposit of faith handed down by God through the apostles, not to merely ecclesiastical traditions (namely, the precepts and institutions which took their beginning in the Church after the apostles), nor to human-apostolic traditions (which have their origin from the apostles themselves as the first pastors of the Church).

Proof. Our proposition is established invincibly by:

a) All Christian teachers. And first indeed the Fathers themselves, whom, however, we cite here only as historical witnesses. Thus St. Cyril of Alexandria: One will easily correct himself from his errors, "if he has examined the labors of the holy Fathers, who are celebrated by all on account of the rectitude and certainty of their dogmas and have merited the approbation of all; then he will diligently examine his own faith. For to all who are of sound mind this goal is set, that they follow their opinions, since they themselves, having filled their mind with the apostolic and evangelical tradition and having treated the doctrine of faith rightly and without stain and error, were lights in the world, holding the word of life."⁵ St. Vincent of Lérins: "It is surely necessary for all Catholics henceforth, who strive to prove themselves legitimate sons of mother Church, that they cleave to, be glued to, and die in the holy faith of the holy Fathers, and that they detest, abhor, attack, and persecute the profane novelties of the profane."⁶ Cassiodorus: "Let us follow with pious zeal the ways of understanding discovered by the labor of the Fathers ... Let us without doubt believe this to be divine; if anything dissonant or discordant with the rules of the Fathers should happen to be found, let us judge that it must be avoided."⁷

The scholastic theologians of the whole Middle Ages also trod the path of the Fathers. Thus St. Anselm of Canterbury, the father of scholastic theology, professes that in the exposition of Scripture he admits nothing "that does not cohere with the writings of the Catholic Fathers",⁸ and that several truths alone can be proved by the "invincible reasons of the holy Fathers after the apostles and evangelists ... without the authority of Scripture".⁹ Peter Lombard protests that the Book of Sentences follows the path of the Fathers: "In which [book] you will find the examples and the doctrine of the ancients ... But wherever our voice resounded with the voice of the Fathers, it has not departed from the paternal limits."¹⁰ According to St. Bonaventure the concordant documents of the Fathers are of the same firmness as the utterances of the Scriptures.¹¹ All the scholastics think likewise, indeed all the theologians of all ages, except the Protestants alone and the favorers of liberalism and modernism.

b) All the councils are of this mind, that they closely follow the doctrine of faith handed down by the Fathers. Concerning the First Council of Nicaea (325) St. Athanasius writes: "The bishops, not devising words for themselves, but having them from the Fathers, wrote down the testimonies."¹² The First Council of Constantinople (381) drove the Macedonians to stand by "the judgment of the Fathers, who flourished before those heresies which were in question were born".¹³ The Council of Ephesus (431) decreed: "It pleased God to decree nothing else to be believed by posterity, except what the sacred antiquity of the holy Fathers, agreeing with itself, has held."¹⁴ The Second Council of Constantinople (553): "We confess that we hold and preach the faith ..., which the holy Fathers confessed and explained."¹⁵ The Lateran Council of the year 649: "If anyone does not confess, according to the holy Fathers, properly and according to truth, all things which have been handed down and preached to the holy catholic and apostolic Church of God ... let him be condemned."¹⁶ The Fourth Council of Constantinople (869): "Willing to walk inoffensively along the equal and royal way of divine justice, we ought to retain the definitions and senses of the holy Fathers, as certain lamps always shining and illuminating our steps, which are according to God."¹⁷ Concerning the later councils there is no reason for us to speak.

c) The theological argument from the relation of the Fathers to the contemporary and subsequent magisterium of the Church. The Fathers grew together in an intimate relation with the contemporary magisterium of the Church. Most of them were bishops and therefore belonged to the then living magisterium; those, however, who were not bishops were consulted and approved by the bishops as the best interpreters of the faith. Therefore either the concordant doctrine of the Fathers was foreign to error, or the living magisterium itself erred. — Moreover, as is clear from what has been said (under a and b), the Fathers have cohered and still cohere in an intimate relation also with the subsequent magisterium of the Church. The living magisterium of all ages has pressed and presses the footprints of the Fathers, nor has it ever turned aside or turns aside from their consensus. Therefore either the consensus of the Fathers does not err, or the whole teaching Church errs. Since, however, the teaching Church, the principal organ of divine Tradition and the infallible rule of faith, cannot err, our proposition is surely established: The consensus of the Fathers on some doctrine as revealed is a certain argument of divine Tradition.

2. The authority of individual Fathers. Proposition: The testimony of individual Fathers in a matter of faith and morals is a probable argument of divine Tradition.

It is explained. The proposition is to be understood thus:

a) The testimony of individual Fathers. Individual Fathers, therefore, are presupposed, i. e. one or another only, or certainly not such a number of Fathers as could constitute a patristic consensus. Moreover, the testimony of the Fathers is presupposed, i. e. that the respective Fathers speak as witnesses of Tradition, not that as private doctors they bring forth their own subjective opinion. For if as witnesses they report the Tradition of the Church, they borrow a greater or lesser authority of the Church; but if as private doctors they put forward their own opinion, they are worth only as much as they prove. Wherefore the weight of witnesses is greater than that of doctors.¹⁸ That they, however, speak as witnesses and not from their own opinion, is evident, if they affirm this expressly or equivalently, if they appeal to the faith of the Church, if they reject the opposite doctrine as heretical, etc.

b) In a matter of faith and morals, i. e. in a matter which pertains to the object of the ecclesiastical magisterium. For in profane matters the Fathers have no greater authority than the Church itself; indeed they do not judge such matters from supernatural revelation, but from natural reason, following the opinions of the age and the scientific systems then in favor. Whence not even the consensus of the Fathers in merely philosophical, physical, mathematical matters, etc. is binding; therefore a fortiori the opinion of individual Fathers is not binding in these matters.

c) It is a probable argument of divine Tradition. The testimonies of individual Fathers do not provide a certain argument, since each single one is neither subjectively infallible nor a resounding voice of the whole living magisterium, the infallible organ of Tradition. Indeed, many Fathers erred in matters of faith, and scarcely one can be adduced who has not erred in some point. This notwithstanding, the testimony of individual Fathers provides a probable argument, and indeed the more probable, the greater the authority of the Father is. This force of individual testimony grows, if several Fathers consent, and the probability of the argument is increased the more the number and the weight of the witnesses is increased. On the other hand, the testimony of individual or of several Fathers is weakened or even entirely taken away, if other Fathers dissent.¹⁹

Proof. The proposition, thus understood, is readily established:

a) From the character of the Father. The Fathers, having regard to their antiquity, their learning, and, for the most part, their holiness, knew the revealed and handed-down truth in the highest degree, propagated it with all zeal, and defended it with a singular love, often undergoing the gravest hardships or sometimes even death ... Therefore of them that saying holds most fully: "Those skilled in an art are to be believed."

b) From the practice of the Church. The Church has received and receives the holy Fathers, even without regard to their consensus, with pious veneration, reverence, and devotion. St. Augustine writes of them: "God himself dispensed his stewards, faithful and in many respects most excellent, though few, through the diverse ages, the distances of times and places, as it pleases him and he judges expedient."²⁰ Leontius of Byzantium: "After the apostles and prophets God placed teachers in the Church according to the incomprehensible providence of the Holy Spirit, for the work of ministry, for the edification of the body of Christ."²¹ By the Second Council of Nicaea (787) there is extolled "the doctrine of our holy Fathers, that is, the Tradition of the holy catholic Church"²² The Fourth Council of Constantinople (869) declares: "Therefore we profess to keep and preserve the rules which ... have been handed down by any God-speaking Father and teacher of the Church."²³ Pius IX laments that by certain moderns there is not had "that reverence for the holy Fathers which the canons of the councils prescribe and which the most splendid lights of the Church altogether merit"²⁴ Pius X binds Catholic theologians by oath: "I sincerely receive the doctrine of faith, transmitted to us from the apostles through the orthodox Fathers, always in the same sense and always in the same meaning ... I most firmly retain the faith of the Fathers and will retain it to the last breath of life."²⁵

By theologians are here understood those distinguished cultivators of sacred science who, after the Fathers, illustrated the Catholic truth in the name and by the mission of the ecclesiastical magisterium. Hence by the name of theologians are called the scholastics of the Middle Ages and their followers down to our own age, insofar as, imbued with the same scholastic principles, they wrote and taught. For this reason all these theologians are sometimes called scholastics simply, although not all lived in the scholastic age, nor did all use and do all use the scholastic method. We must speak of the authority of the consenting theologians, and likewise of the authority of individual theologians and especially of St. Thomas.

1. The authority of the consenting theologians. Proposition: The unanimous consensus of the theologians concerning a doctrine as to be believed is a certain argument of divine revelation.

The proposition needs no explanation, since it is subject to the same conditions as the thesis on the consensus of the Fathers. It is proved, however:

a) From the connection with the magisterium of the Church. For from the twelfth century down to our times the whole magisterium of the Church came forth from the Catholic schools: priests, confessors, preachers, bishops, supreme pontiffs were and are instructed in scholastic principles and doctrines. If therefore all the schools had taught errors, the whole magisterium itself would have been imbued with errors. Moreover, the ecclesiastical magisterium at all times kept watch over the theological schools, inspecting their doctrine, approving or reprobating scholastic books, praising or restraining doctors. Therefore it would have to be imputed to the ecclesiastical magisterium if errors were commonly taught in the schools. Finally, the whole magisterium relied on the Catholic schools in preparing, elaborating, publishing, and proposing to the faithful the documents of faith. Therefore either the schools as a whole do not err, or the whole Church, both teaching and learning, errs, which is absurd.

b) From the pontifical decrees by which scholastic theology is extolled and its assailants are condemned. Among very many¹ let the letters of Pius IX alone suffice, sent to the archbishop of Munich in the year 1863: "Nor were we unaware that in Germany too a false opinion had prevailed against the old school and against the doctrine of those great doctors whom the universal Church venerates on account of their admirable wisdom and the sanctity of their life. By this false opinion the authority of the Church herself is called into peril, since the Church herself not only permitted through so many continuous centuries that theological science be cultivated according to the method of those same doctors and according to the principles sanctioned by the common consent of all Catholic schools, but also very often extolled their theological doctrine with the highest praises and vehemently commended it as the strongest bulwark of the faith and as formidable arms against her enemies."²

c) From heretical persecution. "Contempt of the school and the plagues of heresies are and always have been connected after the school was born."³ Heretics always hated scholastic theology. Thus Luther: "I simply believe that it is impossible for the Church to be reformed, unless the canons, decretals, scholastic theology, philosophy, logic, as they now exist, are rooted out and other studies instituted."⁴ Melanchthon: "Scholastic theology is nothing but a vain, feigned, invented, damned, diabolical cavil and the dream of monks."⁵ Hatred of scholastic theology always led to heresy. For history teaches that the unanimous consensus of the schools or of the theologians was never pertinaciously opposed without heresy itself being incurred sooner or later. Certainly, e. g., de Lamennais, Bautain, Gioberti, Hermes, Bonnetty, Günther, Döllinger, Tyrrell and other modernists fell into their deplorable errors for this reason, because they despised and abandoned the footsteps of the scholastic theologians.

2. The authority of individual theologians. Proposition: The authority of individual theologians is diverse according to the number and weight of the authors; St. Thomas surpasses all in authority, without however the other scholastic masters, and especially St. Bonaventure, being to be neglected.

a) The authority of individual theologians is diverse according to the number and weight of the authors. By individual theologians we understand theologians taken apart from the consensus. Their authority of itself does not equal the authority of the Fathers. For most of the Fathers were bishops and therefore authentic witnesses of Tradition; not so the theologians. Moreover, the Church approved the individual holy Fathers at least in general; but she approved not individual theologians, but the schools of theologians, as witnesses of Tradition. Hence the opinion of a single theologian does not produce a probable argument, unless perhaps he be among the weightiest authors, e. g. the Master of the Sentences, Bl. Albert the Great, St. Bonaventure, Scotus, Bellarmine, Suarez. But several grave and respected authors procure for themselves a probable authority. And the more the weight and the number of the assenting theologians increases, the greater becomes the probability of the argument. Nevertheless neither is the opinion of the very many altogether certain and necessarily to be embraced, if other schools or other approved authors contradict it.⁶ On this matter Canus speaks most aptly: "The testimony of scholastic theologians, even of many, if other learned men fight against it, avails no more for producing faith than their reason or an even weightier authority would have approved. Namely, in scholastic disputation the authority of the many ought not to overwhelm a theologian; but if he have with him few men, provided they be grave, he will surely be able to stand against the very many. For these things are judged not by number, but by weight... For if something is contrary to Scotist or Thomistic pronouncements, it is not immediately an error."⁷

b) St. Thomas surpasses all in authority, without however the other scholastic masters, and especially St. Bonaventure, being to be neglected. For "among the scholastic doctors the prince and master of all, Thomas Aquinas stands out far above the rest, who, because he supremely venerated the old sacred doctors, therefore in a manner obtained the understanding of all. Their doctrines, like the scattered members of some body, Thomas gathered and joined together into one, disposed them in wonderful order, and increased them with such great increments that he is rightly and deservedly held the singular safeguard and glory of the Catholic Church. Indeed, docile and keen in genius, easy and tenacious in memory, most upright in life, a unique lover of truth, richly endowed with divine and human science, compared to the sun, he warmed the whole world with the heat of his virtues and filled it with the splendor of his doctrine ... So he disputed that in him there is wanting neither a copious harvest of questions, nor a fitting disposition of parts, nor the best manner of proceeding, nor the firmness of principles or the strength of arguments, nor the perspicuity or propriety of speech, nor the facility of explaining every abstruse point ... He obtained this from himself, that he alone conquered all the errors of earlier times, and supplied most invincible arms for destroying those which are to arise in perpetual succession in the future. — Moreover, distinguishing reason, as is fitting, from faith above all, yet consociating both amicably, he preserved the rights of each and consulted the dignity of each, so that reason, borne up on Thomas's wings to the human summit, can now scarcely rise higher; nor can faith scarce expect more or stronger aids from reason than those which it has already obtained through Thomas."⁸

On account of this intrinsic authority the writings of St. Thomas likewise obtained the highest extrinsic authority. The most learned Catholic philosophers and theologians of all ages delivered themselves to the divine Thomas not so much to be cultivated as to be thoroughly nourished. Almost all the founders and legislators of religious orders either commended the doctrine of Aquinas to their followers or altogether prescribed it to be followed. The most celebrated universities, academies and schools chose the Angelic prince and supreme master. But, what is of more value, ecumenical councils and supreme pontiffs pursued him with wonderful praises and the amplest documents. "In the councils of Lyons, Vienne, Florence and the Vatican you would say that Thomas took part in the deliberations of the fathers and almost presided over them ... The fathers of Trent, in arranging the order of the very midst of the council chamber, wished the Summa of Thomas Aquinas to lie open upon the altar together with the codices of divine Scripture and the decrees of the supreme pontiffs, whence counsel, reasons and oracles might be sought."⁹ The supreme pontiffs themselves, from John XXII down to our age, commended the philosophy and theology of St. Thomas in almost innumerable documents.¹⁰ Especially, however, Leo XIII, Pius X and Benedict XV often ordered "that in Catholic schools, where sacred youth is instructed in the science of philosophy and theology, Thomas Aquinas be held the supreme master"¹¹ Finally, the new code of canon law strictly prescribes to all schools, both of secular clerics and of religious orders: "The professors shall treat the studies of rational philosophy and theology and the instruction of the students in these disciplines entirely according to the method, doctrine and principles of the Angelic Doctor, and hold them sacredly."¹² This law, insofar as it regards sacred theology, is to be understood in this way, that in the common schools "it be permitted to use the books of those authors who expound in compendium the doctrines derived from the source of Aquinas",¹³ but in the universities and other institutes to which power has been given of conferring academic degrees, "schools be held on the Summa theologica itself",¹⁴ i. e. the masters "are to have the Summa theologica of St. Thomas as the text of their lectures and explain it in the Latin tongue"¹⁵ Hence the doctrine of St. Thomas enjoys the most special approbation of the Church, and he who follows it follows the doctrine most commonly received in the Church.

Nevertheless, by this approbation St. Thomas is set as the common master of theology only with regard to the scholastic part (which they also call dogmatic and moral), since positive theology in the broad sense (apologetics, introduction, patrology, canon law, pastoral theology, ecclesiastical history) is wholly or for the most part foreign to St. Thomas and is to be taken from elsewhere. But even with regard to the scholastic part not all and singular points of the doctrine of St. Thomas are approved, but the doctrine in general, in which "if you regard its substantial elements, nothing is found that could not be defended."¹⁶ Therefore, the body of doctrine being preserved, it will sometimes be lawful in individual opinions reverently to dissent from St. Thomas; nay, in some opinions, though few, it is necessary to dissent from him.¹⁷ From which at length it is evident that the Church, by more solemnly approving and preferring St. Thomas, does not disapprove or neglect the other scholastics. The Church, as we have shown above, makes much of the whole genuine scholasticism. However much she extols St. Thomas, she nevertheless warns that the newer doctors also follow the other scholastic masters as "distinguished leaders".¹⁸ Nay, she acknowledges the consensus of the scholastics as an irrefragable testimony of divine Tradition. This one thing she disapproves, if by certain scholastics some things are established "repugnant to the principles of St. Thomas".¹⁹ Therefore "if the doctrine of some author or saint ... has ever been approved with singular praises, it is easily understood to have been approved to that extent in which it cohered with the principles of Aquinas or was in no way repugnant to them".²⁰

With this singular praise, before all other scholastics, St. Bonaventure was approved, so that after the divine Thomas indeed, but together with him, he is to be venerated by the Catholic schools.

Likewise the Sacred Congregation of Seminaries and of Universities of Studies decreed on 7 March 1916: "The Summa theologica of St. Thomas is to be held as the text of the lectures with regard to the scholastic part of the questions; namely so that, together with some text which ... contains the positive part, the Summa theologica be held in hand and explained with regard to the scholastic part." Acta ap. sed. II, 656 sq.; VIII, 157.

The supreme pontiffs themselves, who extol the Angelic Doctor, likewise concelebrate the Seraphic Doctor. Sixtus V declares: "By the gift of that Divine One, who alone gives the spirit of knowledge and wisdom and understanding, and who increases his Church through the ages of centuries, as need requires, with new benefits, and furnishes it with new safeguards, scholastic theology was found out by our ancestors, the wisest men, which two most glorious doctors especially, the angelic St. Thomas and the seraphic St. Bonaventure, the most distinguished professors of this faculty, ... cultivated and adorned with excellent genius, assiduous study, great labors and vigils, and handed it down to posterity best disposed and in many ways most excellently explained ... For these are the two olive trees and the two candelabra shining in the house of God, who illuminate the whole Church with the richness of charity and the light of knowledge: these, by the singular providence of God, at the same time came forth like two stars rising from two most distinguished families of religious orders. These two Saints, since they were contemporaries devoted to the same studies, fellow students, at once masters, honored in equal measure by Gregory X, the supreme pontiff, and in this pilgrimage of life were most closely united by fraternal charity, spiritual familiarity, and the fellowship of holy labors, ... so that Sixtus IV, recognizing these two Saints as most similar and almost twin brothers in Christ, rightly decreed that St. Bonaventure be adorned with a prerogative of veneration and honor like St. Thomas."²¹ Leo XIII, fully confirming this encomium of his predecessor, adds: "How great a bond existed between St. Thomas and the Seraphic Doctor, how great a likeness of holiness and doctrine, is known to all ... Wherefore there is in no way any doubt but that Catholic youths especially, growing up to the hope of the Church, who betake themselves to philosophical and theological studies to be pursued according to the doctrine of Aquinas, will draw the greatest utility from reading the works of St. Bonaventure, and from the writings of both, as from the principal armories, take up swords and weapons, with which in the most foul war stirred up against the Church and human society itself they may strenuously overcome the enemies."²² Finally Pius X: "We judge that Bonaventure, as one divinely given not only to his own century but to all posterity, can benefit this age also outstandingly ... The more so, because he stood forth as the second prince of the scholastics together with Aquinas."²³