St. Thomas on Sola Scriptura

Florent Gaboriau is a great theologian, among whose works will be found studies of Karl Rahner, Hans Kung, Heidegger and phenomenology. His book on the philosophy of Edith Stein is arguably the best available. An Alsatian who is fluent in both German and French, he is particularly well-equipped to assess the theological traffic coming across the border from Germany. FAC Editions in Paris [30 rue Madame, 75006 Paris] publish him, most recently Thomas D'Aquin Penseur dans l'Eglise (1992) and Entrer en Theologie avec saint Thomas d'Aquin (1993). He is a worthy successor of Paul Toinet, one of the great post-conciliar theologians in France.

Having said these nice things, I want now to take Gaboriau to task for his misuse of a passage in Thomas to substantiate the claim that Thomas is, in his own way, a sola scriptura advocate. He does this in his 1985 work Theologie Nouvelle and has repeated it in an article in the Revue thomiste. Gaboriau's main point is a solid one and solidly argued for: theology is chiefly a reflection on Sacred Scripture. Scripture is its source, its nourishment, its measure. Not only true but, as Gaboriau argues, in need of being argued for. Alas, one of his arguments is based on a misreading of a text. This does not vitiate the book - far from it - but it would be wrong to let stand the suggestion of the section called "la Scriptura sola" on pp. 146 ff. Gaboriau puts forth a text of Thomas which, he says, makes the usual opposition of evangelical Protestants and Catholics on sola scriptura dubious:

"Here is the text, apparently unorthodox, and one I have been able to verify is passed over in unanimous silence on the Catholic side: sola scriptura canonica est regula fidei. Coming from the Common Doctor, it is of a kind to bring him close to our separated brethren, separated on a point on which Thomas, anticipating an ecumenical demand, furnishes a principle for the unity of the Church" (P. 147).

Does Thomas say that Scripture alone is the measure of our faith? The words Gaboriau has quoted are from Thomas's commentary on John's Gospel, Super Evangelium S. Ioannis Lectura, ed R. Cai, OP, Marietti: Roma, 1952, n. 2656. Thomas is commenting on John's peroration, "This is the disciple who bears witness concerning these things, and who has written these things, and we know that his witness is true. There are, however, many other things that Jesus did; but if every one of these should be written, not even the world itself, I think, could hold the books that would have to be written. Amen" (John 21: 24-25). In the paragraph Gaboriau cites, Thomas is concerned with "and we know his witness is true." Here is the text:

"It should be noted that though many might write concerning Catholic truth, there is this difference that those who wrote the canonical Scripture, the Evangelists and Apostles, and the like, so constantly assert it that they leave no room for doubt. That is what he means when he says 'we know his witness is true.' Galatians 1:9, "If anyone preach a gospel to you other than that which you have received, let him be anathema!" The reason is that only canonical Scripture is a measure of faith. Others however so wrote of the truth that they should not be believed save insofar as they say true things."

It is clear that Thomas is contrasting canonical and apocryphal works and saying that only the former have credence for Christians. The issue Gaboriau is interested in simply does not arise in this passage.