THEOLOGICAL TOPICS. — According to Melchior Cano, theological topics are more than general propositions; they are «names and titles of the sources in which the principles of theological argumentation are found». Neither the dialectical concept of Aristotelian topical logic, nor the Ciceronian and humanist rhetorical concept coincides exactly with that of theological topics.
Practical and traditional, though not rigid, is the enumeration of theological topics in ten, distributed according to the following scheme:
1. Proper topics: a) constitutive (Scripture and Tradition); b) interpretative (Church, Councils, Pope); c) witnesses of the faith (Holy Fathers and theologians).
2. Improper topics (human reason, philosophy, history).
Every theological argumentation unfolds in contact with Revelation and reason. But the former reaches the theologian through the teaching authority of the Church (v.), while the latter has only instrumental value.
The theological interpretation of Holy Scripture, the soul of all theology (encycl. Providentissimus, in Enchiridion Biblicum, 99), must be made according to the sense held by the Church, never contradict the unanimous consensus of the Fathers, and conform to the analogy of faith. It offers effective argumentation wherever the text has an explicit and certain literal sense; 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 probable argumentation, unless it is defined by the Church. Certain argumentation is found in a text when following the unanimous interpretation of the Fathers or theologians, or the use of the magisterium that employs it as proof of a dogma. The typical or spiritual sense has the same value as the literal, provided it is established by 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 conformable to it is not always true.
The theologian will use all biblical texts of universal use, such as the Septuagint, the Greek New Testament, and versions that have at least implicit approval, as well as editions of the Hebrew text substantially conforming to the original; but for the Church the Vulgate is juridically authentic, which supposes a substantial critical authenticity, at least to the extent of immunity from error regarding revealed doctrine. This does not prevent, « rather, it almost demands in our day », comparison with original texts (encycl. 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, as understood in ecclesiastical documents (Denz-U, 783-84, 1787, 1792), is taken here as revealed doctrine transmitted to the Church not through inspired writings but through the living voice. It has authority equal to that of Holy Scripture. Its attestation depends even more strictly on explicit magisterium, being more difficult to ascertain. According to Cano’s four rules (Loci theologici, 3,4), a dogma, an institution, or an ecclesiastical power not established by any council and universally held in the Church at all times is Tradition. Tradition also includes what the Fathers, « ecclesiastical men », or the common consensus of the faithful of all times have unanimously recognized in II. From the « objective » sense of Tradition, one thus passes to the « subjective » sense, to the vehicle of transmission of oral Revelation.
This vehicle is constituted by the Church as a whole. Here, however, only the part of the faithful is considered. They do not represent in it a current of thought that imposes itself on the magisterium (Denz-U, 1958, 2006), but rather its echo (Denz-U, 1936 c.), the most general means without which the other means are incomplete. Their clear, certain, and unanimous consensus on 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 papal documents, three great principles must be remembered: a) the extent of the definition is measured by the intention of the defining authorities; b) the Church can influence the certainty of a truth as dogma or as certain, etc., with different sanctions against opponents (v. Censura, II. Doctrinal and theological censorship); c) only the substance of the definition is guaranteed by infallibility, not the motivations or incidental assertions that accompany II.
Infallible definition may also be found in conciliar chapters that positively expound what is later sanctioned in negative form in the anathemas; but this must be certain (e.g., in Denz-U, 792, 929, 1782, 1785, 1789, 1795). In the canons, there is generally indirect definition of the dogma through the condemnation of the contradictory heresy, but the sanction of excommunication sometimes also applies to doctrines condemned with lesser censure.
The Fathers are not considered here as scholars or bishops, but solely as witnesses of the faith, approved, at least tacitly, but sometimes explicitly, by the Church. In this capacity, they have been invoked as witnesses since early Christian antiquity. Their authority, historically and theologically always great, is decisive in the case of their morally unanimous consensus affirming a revealed doctrine or an interpretation of the Bible. This consensus is equivalently present even if only a significant group of Fathers from different places and times affirms a particularly important dogma without encountering opposition from other Fathers (cf. encycl. 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 magisterium become a sign or testimony of ecclesiastical preaching and play a significant role in the formulation of dogma. Their morally unanimous, certain, and long-standing consensus around a revealed doctrine is a secure argument. The consensus of a notable group of the most eminent theologians is equivalent to that of the schools themselves (Denz-U, 609, 1576, 1579, 1652, 1680, 1683-84). Among theologians, the greatest authority is that of St. Thomas Aquinas (v.), who enjoys a special approval that directs ecclesiastics to follow his method, doctrine, and principles in philosophy and theology (can. 1366 § 2). This does not confer theological certainty on everything he teaches, but it indicates the preference to be given to him over other theological schools, according to the motu proprio of Pius X, Doctoris Angelici, 29 June 1914 (cf. Benedict XV, encycl. Fausta appetente die, AAS, 13 [1921], pp. 329-35; more broadly Pius XI, encycl. Studiorum Ducem, 29 June 1923, Denz-U, 2192).
In reality, there is only one improper theological topic: natural reason. It is considered in its individual force, in the authority of philosophers, and finally in history. It is proper to reason to demonstrate the foundations of faith, to analyze, explain with natural analogies, and organize dogma into a system (Denz-U, 1796, 1799), thereby contributing to theology a body of rational terms that are purified, vitally assumed, and assimilated by authors. The authority of philosophers is particularly useful to the theologian in polemics. History plays in positive theology the same role that philosophical reason plays in speculative theology.
Federico dell'Addolorata