Maybe you would be kind enough to get more than a few phrases on either side of the cited lines so we can see the content, I'm sure you have access to it, you didn't say it was obtained from any other source. Where did it come from?
Here was my response:
I appreciate that you referred to me as "friend." Previous to this I had the feeling that you were most antagonistic to anything I post. It also appears from your recent comments that when I do take a moment or two to post on CARM, some of these occurrences you consider "good many times." It's nice to know you are a "friend" and you appreciate some of my posts as "good."
You did though make a few tedious errors in your recent comment (and I'm only pointing them out now that I know we're friends). First, I am not (nor have I ever been) employed by James White, but I have written articles for him on his aomin.org site (and I could still if I so choose) I am not paid for any of my contributions to his web site, I never have been paid by him. Second, James White is not a "notorious Catholic hater." Don't take my word for it, Simply ask Father Mitch Pacwa (he's endorsed at least one of Dr. White's books).
In regard to the actual substance of your comments: the Aquinas quote that makes it's way around the Internet (which I probably helped popularize) was from Joseph A. Fitzmyer Romans, A New Translation with introduction and Commentary, The Anchor Bible Series (New York: Doubleday, 1993) 360-361. He's on your side, not mine. If you don't own this scholarly Roman Catholic work, you can actually view pages 360-361 by going over to Amazon and use their "Look Inside" feature.
In regard to the contexts for those comments by Aquinas as cited by Joseph A. Fitzmyer: I'm not fluent in locating contexts for Aquinas like I am Reformation materials. However, I did take a few minutes to try to track the contexts down for you. I will certainly appreciate any corrections on the context locations (as we explore our new friendship!)
1. "Expositio in Ep. I ad Timotheum cap. 1, lect. 3 (Parma ed., 13.588): “Non est ergo in eis [moralibus et caeremonialibus legis] spes iustificationis, sed in sola fide, Rom. 3:28: Arbitramur justificari hominem per fidem, sine operibus legis” (Therefore the hope of justification is not found in them [the moral and ceremonial requirements of the law], but in faith alone, Rom 3:28: We consider a human being to be justified by faith, without the works of the law)."
I found the context for this quote on this link: Biblica. Super Epistulam ad Timotheum Primam. Feel free to read through the entire treatise. The paragraph the quote comes from can be searched for in the link:
"Sed apostolus videtur loqui de moralibus, quia subdit quod lex posita est propter peccata, et haec sunt praecepta moralia. Horum legitimus usus est, ut homo non attribuat eis plus quam quod in eis continetur. Data est lex ut cognoscatur peccatum. Rom. VII, 7: quia nisi lex diceret: non concupisces, concupiscentiam nesciebam, etc.; quod dicitur in Decalogo. Non est ergo in eis spes iustificationis, sed in sola fide. Rom. III, 28: arbitramur iustificari hominem per fidem sine operibus legis.
2. “reputabitur fides eius, scilicet sola sine operibus exterioribus, ad iustitiam”; In ep. ad Galatas 2.4 (Parma ed., 13.397b):
I found the context for this quote on this link. Scroll to page 45. I also found it here.
Deinde *** dicit ei vero, etc., ostendit qualiter se habeat merces aeterna ad fidem, dicens ei vero qui non
operatur, scilicet exteriora opera, puta quia non habet tempus operandi, sicut patet in baptizato statim mortuo, credenti in eum qui iustificat impium, scilicet in Deum, de quo dicitur infra, VIII, 18. Deus qui iustificat, reputabitur fides eius, scilicet sola sine operibus exterioribus, ad iustitiam, id est, ut per eam iustus dicatur, et iustitiae praemium accipiat, sicut si opera iustitiae fecisset, secundum illud infra, X, 10 corde creditur ad iustitiam, et hoc secundum propositum gratiae Dei, id est, secundum quod Deus proponit ex gratia sua homines salvare. Infra VIII, 28: his qui secundum propositum vocati sunt sancti.
3. “solum ex fide Christi” [Opera 20.437, b41]).
I found the context, here.
Infra IV, 9: conversi estis ad egena elementa, id est, gratiam non conferentia, neque gratiam in se continentia. Sacramenta vero novae legis, licet sint elementa materialia, non tamen sunt elementa egena, quia in se gratiam continent, unde et iustificare possunt. Si qui autem in veteri lege iusti erant, non erant iusti ex operibus legis, sed solum ex fide Christi, quem Deus proposuit propitiatorem per fidem, ut dicitur Rom. III, 20. Unde et ipsa sacramenta veteris legis non fuerunt nisi quaedam protestationes fidei Christi, sicut et nostra sacramenta, sed differenter, quia illa sacramenta gratiam Christi configurabant quasi futuram; nostra autem sacramenta protestantur quasi continentia gratiam praesentem.
I don't believe these references are from the "Parma ed" as cited by Joseph A. Fitzmyer, but they do appear to be the contexts.
You say, "The fact that 'faith alone' appears side by side in the works of a few Catholic doctors does not mean this is the "faith Alone" Martin Luther taught." Perhaps you missed this In my previous comment. I stated,
It is entirely possible Luther’s understanding of 'faith alone' differs from those before him, but that is not the issue. The issue is whether or not the thrust of Romans 3:28 implies “alone.” Others previous to Luther may have differed in theological interpretation, yet saw the thrust of the words implied “alone.” Hence, as a translator, Luther holds company with others, and cannot be charged with a mistranslation. If he’s guilty of such a charge, so are many before him.In other words, my new friend, I grant that Aquinas probably didn't understand justification the same way as Luther. However, Aquinas appears to have read Romans 3:28 in a similar way. So when your compatriots want to charge Luther with mistranslating Romans 3:28, pointing to Fitzmyer list of those previous to Luther is to simply demonstrate that other besides Luther see "alone" as implicit in the meaning of that verse.
Here are the pages from Fitzmyer: