When we dive into Saint Thomas' works and the historical and educational background in which he lived, it is quite clear as to what his texts represent concerning Sacred Scripture. I can assure you, it is nothing close to the Protestant flavor which guys like William Webster and others claim him to be. In fact, he is a pure Catholic, and his theology concerning Sacred Scripture is identical with the Catholic Church today.(source - emphasis added)
We'll see about that. We're going to carefully check Bellisario's post (when it comes) to see whether Aquinas' theology concerning Scripture is "identical with the Catholic Church today." We have no doubt at all that Aquinas' view of the church (and particularly the Roman Church) is different than the view held by folks who are Reformed today. We expect that this will be the bulk of Bellisario's post - comments about how Aquinas was submissive to the authority of Rome and viewed the Roman pontiff as the earthly head of the church with broad authority over the church. Things that don't really address Aquinas' view of Scripture or those points at which Aquinas differs from modern Roman Catholicism. We hope that in his book-length blog post, Bellisario will address the following issues:
What did Aquinas mean by the following statements:
a) "Hence Sacred Scripture, since it has no science above itself, can dispute with one who denies its principles only if the opponent admits some at least of the truths obtained through divine revelation; thus we can argue with heretics from texts in Holy Writ, and against those who deny one article of faith, we can argue from another."
b) "Nevertheless, sacred doctrine makes use of these authorities 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. 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. Hence Augustine says (Epis. ad Hieron. xix, 1): "Only those books of Scripture which are called canonical have I learned to hold in such honor as to believe their authors have not erred in any way in writing them. But other authors I so read as not to deem everything in their works to be true, merely on account of their having so thought and written, whatever may have been their holiness and learning."
c) "Nevertheless, nothing of Holy Scripture perishes on account of this, since nothing necessary to faith is contained under the spiritual sense which is not elsewhere put forward by the Scripture in its literal sense. "
(discussion of these three may found at this link - additional comment on the third one, here)
d) "the teaching of the Church, which proceeds from the First Truth manifested in Holy Writ" (discussed here - and here)
e) "sola canonica scriptura est regula fidei" ("only canonical scripture is the/a rule of faith") (discussed here - and here)
We hope that Bellisario will not neglect to address these points in his lengthy blog post, carefully explaining what they do mean, rather than trying to focus on what they do not mean.