Yikes, I thought his name was "TurnitinFan," a booster of the anti-plagiarism software. Boy, am I out of the loop. :Smile:(source - the ":smile:" was a graphical smiley and the link was a bit.ly link - also note that if what I'm writing is the funniest stuff Shea has been reading this week (as he says), he should check out Dave Barry)
Oh, by the way, my friend Ralph McInerny answered TF over 14 years ago: (link)
The entirety of Ralph McInerny's presentation, however, is to do exactly what my challenge forbade, namely to simply try to say what Aquinas was not saying. The article never explains what Aquinas meant by saying that the Scriptures are a/the rule of faith. If McInerny were actually responding to the challenge (he's not, obviously, this was written well before the challenge) we would say he failed to provide an appropriate response.
But what about what McInerny says? Are his comments as they stand accurate? Here's the most relevant part of the presentation from McInerny:
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:Note, however, that "apocryphal works" are not something that Thomas discusses. In fact, there's nothing in the context that limits Thomas contrast to apocryphal works. It is about others in general who write "concerning Catholic truth." Given the very broad nature of Aquinas' claim, one would expect a response to be in the form of alleging that somewhere in his voluminous writings Aquinas had once referred to someone else's writing as the rule of faith.
"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.
Furthermore, note what the immediate context is:
 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.
Note that the statement of interest is . Item  introduces the distinction (many other write about the Catholic truth) then item  draws the distinction (there is no room for doubt about the content of Scripture). Then item  reinforces  by emphasis (there is no room for doubt about Scripture) and item  reinforces  by contrast (but there is room for doubt about teachers).  is our statement, and  softens the impact of the distinction by noting that we can accept the true things (impliedly measured by the rule of faith) in those other writers about the Catholic truth.
McInerny's error is an understandable one. He has mistakenly emphasized "canonical" thinking that it means "belonging to the canon." Instead, as explained in the prior post, Aquinas calls Holy Scripture canonical, because it serves the purpose of guiding and directing us into the faith and life of Christ.
With all due respect to Prof. Beckwith, his friend has misunderstood Aquinas.