THEOLOGICAL PLACES. — According to Melchior Cano, rather than being very general propositions, they are “names and titles of the sources in which the principles of theological argumentation are found.” Neither the dialectical concept of the Aristotelian topoi, nor the Ciceronian and humanistic rhetorical concept, coincides exactly with that of t. p.
The enumeration of the t. p. in ten, distributed according to the following scheme, is traditional and practical, though not rigid:
1. Proper t. p.: a) constitutive (Scripture and Tradition); b) interpretative (Church, Councils, Pope); c) witnesses to the faith (SS. Fathers and theologians).
2. Improper t. p. (human reason, philosophy, history).
Every theological argument proceeds in contact with Revelation and reason. But the former reaches the theologian through the Church’s magisterium (v.), while the latter has only instrumental value.
The theological interpretation of S. 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, unless it has been defined by the Church. A certain argument is found in a text when it follows the unanimous interpretation of the Fathers or theologians, or the usage of the magisterium when it adduces the text as proof of a dogma. The typical or spiritual sense has the same value as the literal sense, provided that it is established from Revelation itself. The consequent sense has the force of the deduction that establishes II. A sense contrary to the analogy of faith is always false, but what appears to conform to it is not always true.
The theologian will make use of all the universally used texts of the Bible, such as the Septuagint and the Greek New Testament, and of versions that have at least implicit approval, as well as editions of the Hebrew text substantially conforming to the original; but for the Latin Church the Vulgate is juridically authentic, which presupposes substantial critical authenticity, at least to the extent of including immunity from every error concerning revealed doctrine. This does not prevent, “indeed in our own days almost requires,” 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 is understood here, as in ecclesiastical documents (Denz-U, 783-84, 1787, 1792), in the sense of revealed doctrine transmitted to the Church, not through inspired writings, but by the living voice. It has authority equal to that of S. Scripture. Its attestation depends even more strictly upon the explicit magisterium, since it is more difficult to identify. According to Cano’s four rules (Loci theol., 3,4), a dogma, an institution,
or an ecclesiastical power not established by any council and at the same time held in the Church always and universally is Tradition. Also belonging to Tradition is what the Fathers, the “ecclesiastical men,” or the common consensus of the faithful of every age have unanimously recognized in II. From the “objective” sense of Tradition one thus passes to the “subjective” sense, to the vehicle for transmitting oral Revelation.
This vehicle is constituted by the Church, taken as a whole. Here, however, only the faithful are being considered. They represent in the Church not a current of thought that imposes itself upon the magisterium (Denz-U, 1958, 2006), but its echo (Denz-U, 1936 c.), the most general means without which the other means are inert. Their clear, certain, unanimous consensus concerning the easy articles of the Creed, historically so effective, for example, in the struggle against Arianism, is commonly regarded 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 scope 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 its opponents (v. CENSURE, II. C. doctrinal or theological); c) only the substance of the definition is guaranteed by infallibility, not the reasons or incidental statements accompanying II.
An infallible definition may, however, also be found in the conciliar chapters, which positively set forth what is subsequently 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 dogma through the condemnation of the heresy contrary to it, but the sanction of excommunication sometimes also affects doctrines condemned with a lesser censure.
The Fathers are considered here neither as learned men nor as bishops, but only as witnesses to the faith, approved, at least tacitly, but at times also explicitly, by the Church. In this capacity they have been invoked as witnesses since Christian antiquity. Their authority, always great historically and theologically, is decisive in the case of a morally unanimous consensus affirming a revealed doctrine or an interpretation of the Bible. This consensus is equivalently present even when only a substantial group of Fathers, from different places and periods, 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 tacitly approved at least by the episcopate become a sign or testimony of ecclesiastical preaching and play an important 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 leaders is equivalent to that of the schools themselves (Denz-U, 609, 1576, 1579, 1652, 1680, 1683-84). Greatest among theologians is the authority of s. TOMMASO D'AQUINO, SANTO (v.), since he enjoys a very special approval that orders ecclesiastics to follow, in philosophy and theology, his method, doctrine, and principles (can. 1366 § 2). This does not confer theological certainty upon everything he says, but indicates the preference to be given him over other theological schools, according to Pius X’s motu proprio, Doctoris Angelici, 29 June 1914 (cf. Benedetto 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).
In reality there is only one improper t. p., natural reason, but it is considered in its individual force, in the authority of philosophers, and finally in history. It is the proper task of reason to demonstrate the foundations of the faith, analyze and explain them by means of natural analogies, and organize dogma into a system (Denz-U, 1796, 1799), thereby contributing to theology a stock of rational terms that are purified, vitally adopted, and assimilated by its authors. The authority of philosophers is particularly useful to the theologian in polemics. In positive theology, history has the role that philosophical reason has in speculative theology.
Federico dell'Addolorata