Theology

THEOLOGY. - Science of divinity in itself and in its relations with creatures.

I. HISTORY OF THE TERM

Transcription of the Greek term ἀγολόγος. Etymologically it means discourse about God. In Hellenic antiquity the poets (Homer, Orpheus, Hesiod) were called theologians insofar as they explained the world through the activity of the gods, in opposition to the "physiologists" and "philosophers" who sought a purely rational and natural interpretation. For Aristotle t. is the part of metaphysics that treats of the First Cause, of the divinity; for the Stoics it is the manner of conceiving the gods, which can be mythical, "physical" (personification of natural phenomena) or "civil" (cultic practices).

Rejecting the pagan conception of divinity, the first ecclesiastical writers likewise distrusted the term, until a distinction was made between true (Christian) and false (pagan) t. Then Eusebius wrote De theologia ecclesiastica and later Pseudo-Dionysius the De mystica theologia. During the Trinitarian controversies (cf. St. Athanasius), t. meant doctrine on the Trinity, reserving for Christology the Pauline term "economy." In the sense of doctrine of the divinity, it was used for the first time by Abelard (Introductio in theologiam, Epitome theologiae). Only in the 13th century was it applied to the whole complex of revealed truths, gradually supplanting the other terms.

II. NATURE OF THEOLOGY

It is defined as the science that treats of God and of all things in relation to God, in the light of divine Revelation and of human reason. Its object is God in his essence and in his attributes (primary material object), but it also comprises all things insofar as they have a relation to him (secondary material object). What distinguishes theology from the sciences that have the same subject matter is its manner of considering God, that is, not as the supreme cause of being, as he appears to rational speculation, but in his intimate life (formal object quod) as it is manifested by Revelation (formal object quo or sub quo). The knowledge of the intimate nature of God certainly transcends every natural and created capacity. Nevertheless, a science of the divine mysteries founded on Revelation and faith is possible and necessary; St. Thomas deduces this from the fact of our elevation to the supernatural end that is the beatific vision (Sum. Theol., 1a, q. 1, a. 1), of which theology is but an obscure anticipation.

One may speak of a Christocentrism of theology. Christ is in fact included in the material object as God and as man; indeed, as God he enters into the formal object quod (second person of the Most Holy Trinity), and as Redeemer he is the living synthesis of the whole supernatural economy.

Yet if Christocentrism is more effective at attracting souls by its vital concreteness, the classical (theocentric) definition remains scientifically preferable.

III. THEOLOGICAL METHOD

Since theology starts from the articles of faith as they are proposed by the magisterium of the Church, the theologian, before directly studying the revealed datum, must give an account of the doctrine proposed by that same magisterium, the proximate norm of faith. With this sure guide he confronts the sources themselves of Revelation, both direct (Holy Scripture) and indirect (the Fathers), gathers their doctrine, demonstrating its continuity through the centuries and its homogeneity with dogma. This work constitutes so-called positive theology. In a third moment he illustrates, systematizes, and rationally deepens the revealed datum, developing its virtualities with the help of dialectic, always subordinated to the light of faith. This is the proper task of speculative theology. Speculative theology and positive theology are not opposed but complement each other. Just as one cannot engage in theological speculation outside the documents of Revelation, so too it would not be sufficient to limit oneself to a purely historical investigation. There are in fact truths contained integrally in the sources of Revelation (formally revealed, explicit or implicit) in a more or less clear way. There are, on the other hand, other truths contained only radically, partially, but which are easily deduced by means of reasoning (virtually revealed, or theological conclusions). It is debated whether the latter retain their homogeneity with the revealed datum and consequently whether they can be the object of divine faith should the magisterium of the Church define them. In principle, a clear distinction must be made between the formally revealed, even if implicit and obscure, and the virtually revealed, which needs a rational element in order to be formulated. The first is part of divine Revelation; the second, by contrast, goes beyond it and therefore cannot be the object of properly divine faith. The function of reason in theological elaboration raises the problem of the relations between theology and philosophy.

IV. THEOLOGY AND PHILOSOPHICAL SYSTEMS

Theology, while it presupposes certain philosophical truths (the existence of God, the first cause, etc.), makes use of philosophy to illustrate and formulate the data of Revelation. Historically, various philosophical systems or schools have contributed to the elaboration of theological concepts; but the need for continuity and stability in the official magisterium requires choosing the one that best adapts to dogmatic exigencies. The Church has manifested its preference for the Aristotelian-Thomist system, reserving for itself the freedom to welcome whatever good there may be in the others. These are not condemned, although history shows that several have led to untenable positions; but one cannot push relativism so far as to place on the same level of evaluation the most contradictory affirmations on the pretext that reality is ungraspable, and therefore no system can express it adequately, so that the multiplicity of systems, far from being harmful, is beneficial to an approximate expression of it. Dogmatic formulas, even when consonant with particular philosophical schools, remain immutable; they may, however, be deepened, made more precise, and developed "codem sensu eademque sententia" (v. DOGMA).

V. THEOLOGY AND FAITH

Theology presupposes faith both objectively and subjectively. Objectively, it moves within the sphere of divine Revelation and under the guidance of the Church's magisterium; subjectively, the theologian must start from Revelation and proceed in the light of faith, from which he receives that supernatural inspiration that transforms arid science into savory and life-giving wisdom. It need not be said, however, with Stolz, that theological science is a charism, at least in the strict sense. On the other hand, faith is strengthened by theology. According to St. Augustine, "truly salutary faith is generated, nourished, defended and corroborated" by sacred doctrine (De Trin., XIV, 1, 3). The Vatican Council adds that reason, aided by faith, can fruitfully deepen the revealed truths.

The age-old disputes over the speculative or practical nature of theology also relate to this problem. The Augustinian current demanded an affective theology, one that engaged mind and heart in the ascent toward the Supreme Good; the Aristotelian current, by contrast, wanted a purely theoretical theology. These extreme positions are an indication of the difficulty of the problem, but because of their exclusiveness they were abandoned, and many sought the middle way. Already St. Bonaventure (IV Sent., Prooemium, q. 3) and St. Thomas (Sum. Theol., 1a, q. 1, a. 4) resolved it in this way: predominance of the theoretical and contemplative element, ordered by its nature, however, to influence man's action. Yet even recently the problem has been raised again by kerygmatic theology.

VI. KERYGMATIC THEOLOGY

With the aim of making theology more closely attuned to the psychology of concrete man and to the complex life of today, a form of theology called kerygmatic, or of preaching, has recently developed. It arose through the initiative of the Jesuits of Innsbruck and was developed especially by Jungmann, Rahner, Lakner, Lotz. They reproach classical theology for being too abstract, addressing itself only to the intellect: they therefore prefer a Christocentric theology that, through symbols and images, appeals to all the faculties of man. It has met with numerous approvals, especially among the younger clergy; some have even given up the theology of the schools for its sake. The misunderstanding must be resolved by considering kerygmatic theology not as a new theology distinct from, or worse, opposed to, scholastic theology, but as a radiance and an integration of it.

In fact, if theology for didactic reasons must proceed in a rigorously logical and systematic manner, the theologian nonetheless does not forget that the submission of the intellect to the truths of faith is only the first step of a religious homage, which must engage man in all his manifestations of individual and social life.

VII. HISTORY OF THEOLOGY

In the face of Revelation every man takes his own personal attitude. Here we are not writing the history of individuals, but rather outlining in broad strokes the most characteristic and important movements of Catholic thought in its reflection on the revealed datum.

1st period: the Fathers. - The Apostolic Fathers adhere to the scriptural datum and to apostolic catechesis without adding notable developments. In the 2nd century, contact with the pagan world and its culture brought about reactions of a philosophical, political and social order. Then arose the apologists, who felt the need for a systematic defense of the Christian truths. Two currents soon appeared among them: one traditionalist (Tatian) with contempt for philosophy, and the other broader (Justin) which instead made use of all the contributions of Greek speculation. In these rough sketches of theology there were uncertainties and imprecisions. But there was a graver danger, that of falling into Gnosticism. This complex philosophical-religious current threatened to absorb Christianity, reducing it to an arbitrary and extravagant gnosis. St. Irenaeus of Lyons reacted strongly, appealing not to reasoning but to the tradition of the Church, the living and unfailing depositary of the truth. The line of St. Justin was continued in the Didascaleion of Alexandria. Founded by Pantaenus, it owes its orientation to Clement and then to Origen, the creator of the first great synthesis of scientific theology. It was fruitful in theological developments with St. Athanasius, Didymus the Blind, St. Cyril, and it also influenced the great Cappadocians, St. Basil, St. Gregory of Nyssa and St. Gregory of Nazianzus. The school of Alexandria is characterized by strong Platonic influences, by a pronounced allegorism in exegesis and by a profound mysticism.

With an antithetical character (more positive, Aristotelian) the school of Antioch developed, with St. John Chrysostom, Theodore of Mopsuestia, Theodoret and others. These currents had great influence in the controversies that fostered the evolution of theology from the 3rd to the 6th century, which is the golden age of patristic theology. The stages of this journey are marked by the first seven Ecumenical Councils. In 325 at Nicaea the consubstantiality of the Son with the Father was defined against the Arians, and it was St. Athanasius who for half a century became the champion of the Nicene faith. Trinitarian theology was then deepened and systematized by the Cappadocian Fathers, while St. Hilary of Poitiers spread in the West the fruits of Eastern speculation. In 431 at Ephesus a single person in Christ was affirmed against the Nestorians: the struggle was again conducted by an Alexandrian, St. Cyril. But the controversies brought about by this Council threatened to end in Monophysitism (v.) initiated by Eutyches. Therefore in 451 at Chalcedon the twofold nature of Christ was recognized, with the unanimous approval of the dogmatic letter of Pope Leo the Great to Flavian of Constantinople (the tome of St. Leo).

Christology was subsequently developed by Leontius of Byzantium and then by Maximus the Confessor, under the pressure of the Monothelite heresy (a single will of Christ) condemned in the Council of Constantinople III (680-81).

In the West Trinitarian theology developed but with a different character. Tertullian, Hippolytus and later Novatian were engaged in combating the Trinitarian error of the modalists. Their doctrine was completed in the 4th century by St. Hilary of Poitiers and above all by St. Augustine (De Trinitate libri XV). The influence of the latter on the theology of all times was truly immense, because he summarizes the whole preceding tradition, clarifies and deepens the most arduous questions, sifts and systematizes all sacred knowledge in a work pervaded by ardent mysticism (characteristic of the current that takes its name from him), which was the source and guide of scholastic theology, not excluding St. Thomas Aquinas. Links of connection between the Fathers and the scholastics were in the East pseudo-Dionysius, a mystic with Neoplatonic motifs, Leontius of Byzantium and St. Maximus the Confessor and above all St. John Damascene, not a great theologian but a diligent epitomator; in the West Severinus Boethius, Cassiodorus, St. Isidore of Seville and St. Bede the Venerable.

2nd period: the scholastics. - The first center of sacred and profane culture of the Middle Ages was the Carolingian school (8th-9th centuries) begun by Alcuin and continued by Rabanus Maurus. Theodulf of Orléans (v.) treated above all of the Holy Spirit; Paschasius Radbertus (v.) and Ratramnus (v.) of Corbie discussed the Eucharist, a question raised again a century later by Berengar of Tours (v.). His error was refuted by many, among them Lanfranc (v.) of Pavia, later archbishop of Canterbury. His disciple St. Anselm (v.) of Aosta, then successor in the same see, is the true initiator of scholastic theology, no longer content to gather the sentences of the Fathers on the various truths but introducing and emphasizing dialectic. This tendency was continued by Abelard and, to the point of error, by Gilbert de la Porrée, whom St. Bernard fought and had condemned by the Council of Reims (1148). St. Bernard, like his contemporary St. Peter Damian, is on the line of St. Augustine, who places faith above dialectic. The same holds for the school of St. Victor (Hugh, Richard).

The times were ripe for the great syntheses, which were called Sententiae. The first is by Anselm of Laon (v.) but the most perfect is by Peter Lombard (v.), called the Magister Sententiarum. His four books constituted the text of the theological faculty of Paris, founded in 1215, which soon became the goal and center of theological studies for more than a century. The didactic method consisted precisely in an exposition (lectio) of Scripture and the Fathers followed by a dialectical exercise (disputatio). Teaching remained substantially on the Platonic-Augustinian line, while from Spain came the first objections of the Arab philosophers (Averroes, Avicenna), drawn from the recent translation of the works of Aristotle. At first Aristotelianism was rejected, then, especially through the work of St. Thomas and his master St. Albert the Great, it was rehabilitated. Exponents of scholasticism in the first half of the 13th century were William of Auxerre (v.), Philip the Chancellor (v.), Godfrey of Poitiers (v.), William of Auvergne (v.). But St. Thomas remains without doubt the greatest for the diligence and vastness of his erudition, for the clarity and precision of his expression and above all for the depth of his doctrine. From him takes its name Thomism, a current that goes well beyond the circle of the Dominican school. This was illustrated by Giles of Rome, Hervaeus Natalis and later by Capreolus (d. 1444), called the princeps thomistarum. Alongside it flourished the Franciscan school, rather Platonic-Augustinian. Its first and greatest exponent was

St. Bonaventure, a disciple of Alexander of Hales and companion of St. Thomas at the University of Paris. Among his disciples Cardinal Matthew of Aquasparta distinguished himself. The polemic with the Dominican school found its greatest representative in Duns Scotus, from whom Franciscan theology was later inspired.

It is beyond doubt that St. Thomas embodies in his spirit and in his work the highest expression of scholastic philosophy and theology, not only as content, but also as method (v. TOMMASO D'AQUINO, saint).

3rd period: the moderns. - The 14th and 15th centuries marked a decline of Scholasticism and of theology in general, because of the nominalism of Ockham, of political revolutions, of religious schisms and of the resurgence of Humanism. The 16th century, on the other hand, saw a powerful revival, begun at Salamanca by the Dominican Francisco de Vitoria (v.), who introduced into the school the commentary on St. Thomas's Sum. Theol. instead of on the books of Peter Lombard. He had illustrious disciples: Dominic and Peter Soto (v.), Bartolomé Carranza (v.), Melchor Cano (v.). In Italy the Dominican school boasted the names of Tommaso De Vio (Cardinal Cajetan) and Francesco Silvestri (the Ferrarese).

With the Dominicans, the reformed Carmelites vied at Salamanca, with the celebrated Cursus Salmaticensis in Summam s. Thomae, while at Louvain a promising theological university was arising. Soon the Jesuits came as well: between them and the Dominicans a dispute flared up that dominated the schools for centuries down to our own days, over Grace and free will. The Dominicans (Domingo Bañez, Alvarez, De Lemos; more balanced, later, was John of St. Thomas) were concerned rather with God's dominion, whereas the Jesuits (Luis de Molina) started from human freedom in order to defend it against the attacks of the new Lutheran heresy.

The Society of Jesus sent distinguished theologians to the Council of Trent (Lainez, Salmerón), had celebrated controversialists, such as Gregory of Valencia, St. Peter Canisius (v.), Robert Bellarmine, and strong thinkers such as Lessius (v.), Vásquez (v.) and above all Francisco Suárez (v.). The Franciscan school too, which was present at the Council of Trent with Andrea Vega (v.), Miguel Medina (v.), recovered with the publication of Scotus's works, carried out by Wadding (d. 1657), and with the writings of Francisco de Herrera, Bartolomé Mastri (v.), etc.

At the same time theological specialization began. Exegesis took on its own physiognomy with the Jesuits Toledo, Maldonado, Cornelius a Lapide (v.), while patrology was inaugurated by another Jesuit, Petavius. The Dominican Melchor Cano founded the new theological methodology, and mystical theology received a great impulse from the Carmelite school. There then arose the problem of the relations between speculative and affective theology, which Vincent Contenson (v.) sought to resolve with his Theologia mentis et cordis.

In the 17th and 18th centuries theology dried up in internal and external controversies, later corrupted by Cartesian and Leibnizian philosophy. Nevertheless, against the Jansenists and the Gallicans vast works of ecclesiology arose, great positive works and some good speculative theologians (Bilhart, Gotti, the work of the Benedictines of Salzburg and of the Jesuits of Würzburg). Moral theology developed extraordinarily with St. Alphonsus de' Liguori (d. 1787) and theological method, freeing itself from the commitments of particular schools, assumed the modern positive-speculative aspect.

The 19th century opened with the unsuccessful attempts of Hermes (v.) and Günther (v.) and of the French traditionalists, but then saw the reflowering of positive studies (v. MÖHLER; MICHEL; SCHWANE; HEFELE; HERGENBÖTHER) which brought to light the continuity of traditional doctrine (v. NEWMAN). Speculative theology was reborn with Neo-Thomism, especially in Italy (Sanseverino, Liberatore, Cornoldi). Meanwhile in Germany the Jesuit Kleutgen (d. 1883) reconstructed classical philosophy and theology in two celebrated works. While Neo-Thomism found its official sanction in the encyclical Aeterni Patris (1879) of Leo XIII, theology was engaged in defending the supernatural and objective character of revealed doctrine against the naturalism and subjectivism spread by current philosophy. The Vatican Council (v.) reacted energetically against them, and around it a vast theological literature developed. Nevertheless subjectivism, under the guise of modernism (v.), reappeared and was definitively crushed by the encyclical Pascendi of Pius X. Present-day theology has inherited this situation and has sought to improve it. The return to Scholasticism and to St. Thomas has raised up distinguished theologians (L. Billot), but also harsh oppositions on the part of those who slide toward dogmatic relativism, enticed by the mirage of a false irenicism; positive studies likewise have numerous and valiant cultivators, but a part of them has not completely avoided the danger of historicism and of evolutionist subjectivism, under the influence first of immanentist philosophy, then of existentialist philosophy. These unhealthy elements were recently (1950) denounced by the encyclical Humani generis (v.), which marks the state of present-day theology and points out the goals of the future path. - See plate CXXXIX.

Pietro Parente