Theological Places

THEOLOGICAL PLACES. - According to Melchior Cano, they are, rather than most general propositions, « names and titles of the sources in which the principles of theological argumentation are found ». Neither the dialectical concept of Aristotle's topics, nor the rhetorical Ciceronian and humanistic one, coincides exactly with that of theological loci.

The enumeration of the theological loci into ten, distributed according to this scheme, is practical and traditional, though not rigid:

1. Proper theological loci: a) constitutive (Scripture and tradition); b) interpretive (Church, Councils, Pope); c) witnesses of the faith (the Holy Fathers and theologians).

2. Improper theological loci (human reason, philosophy, history).

Every theological argumentation unfolds in contact with Revelation and with reason. But the former reaches the theologian through the magisterium of the Church (v.), the latter has only instrumental value.

The theological interpretation of Sacred Scripture, the soul of all theology (encyclical Providentissimus, in Enchiridion Biblicum, 99), must be made according to the sense held by the Church, must never contradict the unanimous consensus of the Fathers, and must conform to the analogy of faith. It offers an effective argument wherever the text has an explicit and certain literal sense; an argument of faith wherever the text is dogmatic, explicit, evident in itself, or defined by the magisterium. The implicit or uncertain literal sense is only a probable argument, if it is not defined by the Church. A certain argument is had in a text by following the unanimous interpretation of the Fathers or of the theologians, or the usage of the magisterium that brings it forward as proof of a dogma. The typical or spiritual sense has the same value as the literal, provided it is established from Revelation itself. The consequent sense has the force of the deduction that establishes it. A sense contrary to the analogy of faith is always false, but that which appears conformable to it is not always true.

The theologian will make use of all the texts of the Bible of universal use, such as the Septuagint, the Greek New Testament, and of the versions that have at least implicit approval, as well as of the editions of the Hebrew text, substantially conformable to the original; but for the Latin Church the Vulgate is juridically authentic, which supposes a substantial critical authenticity, at least to the point of including immunity from every error concerning revealed doctrine. This does not prevent, « indeed in our days it almost demands », comparison with the original texts (encyclical Divino afflante Spiritu, and Denz-U, 785-86, 995, 1787-88, 1942-44, 1948, 2002, 2004, 2012, 2019, 2023 ff., 2188; examples of defined texts, ibid., 858, 874, 908-10, 913 and 920, 949).

Tradition here is taken, as in ecclesiastical documents (Denz-U, 783-84, 1787, 1792), in the sense of revealed doctrine transmitted to the Church, not by means of the inspired writings, but by the living voice. It has authority equal to that of Sacred Scripture. Its attestation depends even more strictly on the explicit magisterium, being more difficult to discern. According to Cano's four rules (Loci theol., 3,4), a dogma, an institution, an ecclesiastical power not established by any council and at the same time held at all times and universally in the Church, is Tradition. To Tradition also belongs what the Fathers, the « ecclesiastical men », or the common consent of the faithful of every age have concordantly recognized in it. From the « objective » sense of Tradition one thus passes to the « subjective » one, to the vehicle of transmission of oral Revelation.

This vehicle is constituted by the Church, taken globally. Here, however, only the part of the faithful is considered. These represent in it not a current of thought that imposes itself on the magisterium (Denz-U, 1958, 2006), but the echo of the latter (Denz-U, 1936 c.), the most general means without which the other means are inert. Their clear, certain, unanimous consent on the easy articles of the Creed, historically so effective, for example, in the struggle against Arianism, is commonly held by theologians as a sure criterion of tradition (cf. Cano, op. cit., 7,3). It is often invoked by the Fathers and is in some way included in certain solemn documents of the Church (Denz-U, 1795; Rouet de Journel, Enchiridion Patristicum, 226, 295).

For the theological interpretation of conciliar and pontifical documents, three great principles must be remembered: a) the extension of the definition is measured by the intention of the defining teachers; b) the Church can infallibly teach a truth as dogma or as certain, etc., with different sanctions against opponents (v. CENSORSHIP, II. Doctrinal or theological censorship); c) only the substance of the definition is guaranteed by infallibility, not the motivations or incidental assertions that accompany it.

However, an infallible definition can also be found in the conciliar chapters, which positively expound what is then sanctioned in negative form in the anathemas; but this must be established with certainty (e.g., in Denz-U, 792, 929, 1782, 1785, 1780, 1795). In the canons there is generally an indirect definition of the dogma with the condemnation of the heresy contradictory to it, but the sanction of excommunication sometimes strikes even doctrines condemned with a lesser censure.

The Fathers are here considered neither as learned men nor as bishops, but only as witnesses of the faith, approved, at least tacitly, but sometimes also explicitly, by the Church. In this capacity they are invoked to bear witness from Christian antiquity onward. Their authority, historically and theologically always great, is decisive in the case of a morally unanimous consensus of theirs affirming a revealed doctrine or an interpretation of the Bible. This consensus is equivalently had even if only a conspicuous group of Fathers, from different places and times, affirms a particularly important dogma, without encountering opposition from other Fathers (cf. encyclicals Providentissimus and Aeterni Patris; Denz-U, 148 ff., 212, 270, 786, 1320, 1657, 1788, 1942, 1944, 1948, 2145-47).

Theologians approved at least tacitly by the episcopate become a sign or a testimony of ecclesiastical preaching and have a relevant part in the formulation of dogma. Their morally unanimous, certain, long-standing consensus concerning a revealed doctrine is a sure argument. The consensus of the most celebrated heads of schools is equivalent to that of the schools themselves (Denz-U, 609, 1576, 1579, 1652, 1680, 1683-84). Greatest among theologians is the authority of St. Thomas Aquinas (v.), since he enjoys a most special approval, which orders ecclesiastics to follow his method, doctrine and principles in philosophy and theology (can. 1366 § 2). This does not confer on him theological certainty in everything, but indicates the preference to be given him over other theological schools, according to the motu proprio of Pius X, Doctoris Angelici, 29 June 1914 (cf. Benedict XV, encyclical Fausta appetente die, AAS, 13 [1921], pp. 329-35; in a broader sense, however, Pius XI, encyclical Studiorum Ducem, 29 June 1923, Denz-U, 2192).

There is in reality only one improper theological locus, natural reason, but it is considered in its individual force, in the authority of the philosophers, and finally in history. It is proper to reason to demonstrate the foundations of the faith, to analyze, explain with natural analogies, organize dogma into a system (Denz-U, 1796, 1799), thus bringing to theology a contribution of rational terms that are purified, vitally assumed and assimilated by the authors. The authority of the philosophers is of help to the theologian particularly in polemics. History has in positive theology the part that philosophical reason has in speculative theology.

Federico dell'Addolorata