TEOLOGIA

THEOLOGY. – The science of divinity in itself and in its relations with creatures.

I. HISTORY OF THE TERM

Transcription of the Greek term θεολογία. Etymologically it means discourse about God. In Hellenic antiquity, theologians were called the poets (Homer, Orpheus, Hesiod) 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, theology is the part of metaphysics that treats of the First Cause, of divinity; for the Stoics, it is the manner of conceiving the gods, which can be mythical, “physical” (personification of natural phenomena) or “civil” (cultural practices).

Rejecting the pagan conception of divinity, the first ecclesiastical writers were likewise distrustful of the term, until a distinction was made between true (Christian) theology and false (pagan) theology. At that point Eusebius wrote *De theologia ecclesiastica*, and later Pseudo-Dionysius wrote *De mystica theologia*. During the Trinitarian controversies (cf. St. Athanasius), theology signified doctrine on the Trinity, reserving the Pauline term “economy” for Christology. In the sense of doctrine concerning divinity, it was first used by Abelard (*Introductio in theologiam*, *Epitome theologiae*). Only in the 13th century was it applied to the entire complex of revealed truths, gradually supplanting other terms.

II. NATURE OF THEOLOGY

It is defined as the science that treats of God and all things in relation to God, in the light of divine Revelation and human reason. The object is God in His essence and attributes (primary material object), but also all things insofar as they relate to Him (secondary material object). What distinguishes theology from other sciences that share the same subject matter is the manner in which God is considered, namely not as the supreme cause of being, as speculative reason might deduce, but in His intimate life (formal object *quod*) as manifested by Revelation (formal object *quo* or *sub quo*). The knowledge of God’s intimate nature certainly transcends every natural and created capacity. Nevertheless, a science of the divine mysteries founded upon Revelation and faith is both possible and necessary; St. Thomas deduces this from the fact of our election to the supernatural end, which is the beatific vision (*Summa Theologiae*, I, q. 1, a. 1), of which theology is but a dim anticipation.

One may speak of a Christocentrism in theology. Christ is included in the material object both as God and as man; indeed, as God He enters into the formal object *quod* (the Second Person of the Most Holy Trinity), and as Redeemer He is the living synthesis of the entire supernatural economy.

Yet while Christocentrism is more effective in transforming souls through its vital concreteness, the classical (theocentric) definition remains scientifically preferable.

III. THEOLOGICAL METHOD

Since theology proceeds from the articles of faith as proposed by the Church’s magisterium, the theologian, before studying the revealed datum directly, must acquaint himself with the doctrine proposed by the magisterium itself, which is the proximate norm of faith. Guided by this secure standard, he then turns to the sources themselves, both direct (Sacred Scripture) and indirect (the Fathers) of Revelation, gathering their doctrine and demonstrating its continuity through the centuries and its homogeneity with dogma. This work constitutes the so-called positive theology. In a third moment, it elucidates, systematizes, and rationally deepens the revealed datum, developing its potentialities with the aid of dialectic always subordinate to the light of faith. This is the proper task of speculative theology. Speculative and positive theology do not oppose but complement each other. Just as speculative theology cannot be pursued apart from the documents of Revelation, so too a merely historical inquiry would be insufficient. There are indeed truths contained integrally in the sources of Revelation (formally revealed, whether explicit or implicit) in a more or less clear manner. There are, however, other truths contained only radically, partially, and which are easily deduced by reasoning (virtually revealed or theological conclusions). It is debated whether these latter retain their homogeneity with the revealed datum and consequently whether they can be objects of divine faith should the Church’s magisterium define them. In principle, a clear distinction must be drawn between formally revealed truths, even if implicit and obscure, and virtually revealed truths, which require a rational element for their formulation. The former belong to divine Revelation; the latter go beyond it and thus cannot properly be objects of divine faith. The function of reason in theological elaboration raises the problem of the relationship between theology and philosophy.

IV. THEOLOGY AND PHILOSOPHICAL SYSTEMS

Theology, while presupposing certain philosophical truths (the existence of God, the First Cause, etc.), employs philosophy to illustrate and formulate the data of Revelation. Historically, various philosophical systems or schools have contributed to the elaboration of theological concepts; yet the need for continuity and stability in the official magisterium imposes the choice of that system which best accords with dogmatic requirements. The Church has manifested its preference for the Aristotelian-Thomistic system, while reserving the freedom to accept whatever is good in other systems. These are not condemned, though history shows that many have led to untenable positions; yet relativism cannot be pushed so far as to place contradictory assertions on the same level of evaluation on the pretext that reality is ineffable and thus no system can adequately express it, so that the multiplicity of systems, far from being harmful, aids in an approximate expression of II. Dogmatic formulas, even when consonant with particular philosophical schools, remain immutable; they may, however, be deepened, clarified, developed, and expressed *eodem sensu eademque sententia* (see 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 begin from Revelation and proceed in the light of faith, by which he receives that supernatural aid which 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, “salutary faith is generated, nourished, defended, and corroborated” by sacred doctrine (*De Trinitate*, XIV, 1, 3). The Vatican Council adds that reason, aided by faith, can fruitfully deepen revealed truths.

To this problem also pertain the long-standing disputes over the speculative or practical nature of theology. The Augustinian current demanded an affective theology, engaging mind and heart in the ascent toward the Supreme Good; the Aristotelian current, by contrast, sought a purely theoretical theology. These extreme positions betray the difficulty of the problem, but owing to their exclusivism they were abandoned, and many sought a middle way. Already St. Bonaventure (*In IV Sententiarum*, Prooemium, q. 3) and St. Thomas (*Summa Theologiae*, I, q. 1, a. 4) resolved it thus: the primacy of the theoretical and contemplative element, yet naturally ordered to influence human action. Nevertheless, the problem has been recently revived by kerygmatic theology.

VI. KERYGMATIC THEOLOGY

With the intent of rendering theology more consonant with the psychology of the concrete human person and the complex life of today, a form of theology known as kerygmatic or of preaching has recently developed.

especially by Jungmann, Rahner, Lakner, Lotz. They reproach classical theology for being too abstract, addressing only the intellect; they therefore prefer a Christocentric theology which, through symbols and images, appeals to all the faculties of man. This has found widespread acceptance, especially among younger clergy; indeed, some have abandoned the theology of the schools in favor of II. The misunderstanding must be resolved by recognizing Kremigian theology not as a new and distinct theology, nor, worse, as one opposed to Scholastic theology, but as an irradiation and an integration of II.
For if theology, for didactic reasons, must proceed in a rigorously logical and systematic manner, the theologian does not forget that the submission of the intellect to the truths of faith is only the first step in a religious homage that must engage man in all his manifestations of individual and social life.

VII. HISTORY OF THEOLOGY — In the face of Revelation, each person takes a personal stance. Here we do not recount the history of individuals, but rather outline in broad strokes the most characteristic and important movements of Catholic thought in its reflection upon the revealed datum.

1st Period: The Fathers. — The Apostolic Fathers adhered to the scriptural datum and apostolic catechesis without adding significant developments. In the 2nd century, contact with the pagan world and its culture gave rise to reactions of a philosophical, political, and social nature. The apologists then emerged, feeling the need for a systematic defense of Christian truths. Two currents soon manifested themselves among them: one traditionalist (Tatian) with contempt for philosophy, and another more open (Justin) that made use of all the contributions of Greek speculation. In these early sketches of theology, uncertainties and imprecision arose. Yet a graver danger loomed: 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 forcefully, appealing not to reason but to the tradition of the Church, the living and indefectible depository of truth. The line of St. Justin was continued in the Didascalium of Alexandria. Founded by Pantaenus, it owed its direction to Clement and then to Origen, creator of the first great synthesis of scientific theology. It bore fruit in theological developments with St. Athanasius, Didymus the Blind, St. Cyril, and also influenced the great Cappadocians—St. Basil, St. Gregory of Nyssa, and St. Gregory Nazianzen. The school of Alexandria is characterized by strong Platonic influences, a pronounced allegorical exegesis, and deep mysticism.

With an antithetical character (more positive, Aristotelian), the school of Antioch developed with St. John Chrysostom, Theodore of Mopsuestia, Theodore, and others. These currents exerted 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 milestones 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 championed the Nicene faith. Trinitarian theology was then deepened and systematized by the Cappadocian Fathers, while St. Hilary of Poitiers spread the fruits of Eastern speculation in the West. In 431 at Ephesus, the unity of person in Christ was affirmed against the Nestorians: the struggle was led once more by an Alexandrian, St. Cyril. Yet the controversies arising from this Council threatened to end in Monophysitism (q.v.), initiated by Eutyches. Therefore, in 451 at Chalcedon, the two natures of Christ were recognized, with 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 (one will of Christ), condemned at the Third Council of Constantinople (681).

In the West, Trinitarian theology developed but with a different character. Tertullian, Hippolytus, and later Novatian were engaged in combating the Trinitarian error of Modalism. 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 upon theology of all ages was truly immense, for he summarized all previous tradition, clarified and deepened more difficult questions, weighed and systematized all sacred learning in a work suffused with ardent mysticism (a characteristic of the current named after him), which served as a source and guide for Scholastic theology, not excluding St. Thomas Aquinas. The links between the Fathers and the Scholastics were, in the East: Pseudo-Dionysius, a mystic with Neoplatonic motifs; Leontius of Byzantium; St. Maximus the Confessor; and above all St. John of Damascus, not a great theologian but a diligent compiler; 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 learning in the Middle Ages was the Carolingian school (8th–9th centuries), begun by Alcuin and continued by Rabanus Maurus. Theodulf of Orléans (q.v.) treated especially of the Holy Spirit; Paschasius Radbertus (q.v.) and Ratramnus (q.v.) of Corbie discussed the Eucharist, a question revived a century later by Berengar of Tours (q.v.). His error was refuted by many, among them Lanfranc (q.v.) of Pavia, later Archbishop of Canterbury. His disciple St. Anselm (q.v.) of Aosta, who succeeded him in the same see, is the true initiator of Scholastic theology, no longer content to gather the sayings of the Fathers on various truths but introducing and emphasizing dialectic. This tendency was continued by Abelard and, until his error, by Gilbert of Poitiers, whom St. Bernard combated and had condemned by the Council of Reims (1148). St. Bernard, like his contemporary St. Peter Damian, stands in the line of St. Augustine, placing faith above dialectic. The same is true of the School of St. Victor (Hugh, Richard).

The times were ripe for the great syntheses, which were called *Sententiae*. The Laon (v.), but the most perfect was by Peter Lombard (v.), known as the *Magister Sententiarum*. His four books became the textbook 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 teaching method consisted precisely in an exposition (*lectio*) of Scripture and the Fathers followed by a dialectical exercise (*disputatio*). The teaching remained substantially along the Platonic-Augustinian line, while from Spain came the first objections from Arab philosophers (Averroes, Avicenna), drawn from the recent translation of Aristotle’s works. At first, Aristotelianism was rejected, but later, especially through the work of St. Thomas and his master St. Albert the Great, it was rehabilitated. Representatives of Scholasticism in the first half of the 13th century were William of Auxerre (v.), Philip the Chancellor (v.), POLITEISMO (v.), and William of Auvergne (v.). But St. Thomas is undoubtedly the greatest for the diligence and breadth of his erudition, for the clarity and precision of his expression, and above all for the depth of his doctrine. The school of thought named after him, Thomism, extends well beyond the circle of the Dominican school. This was illustrated by Giles of Rome, Hervé Nédellec, and later by Capreolus (d. 1444), known as the *princeps thomistarum*. Alongside it flourished the Franciscan school, rather Platonic-Augustinian in character. Its first and greatest exponent was St. Bonaventure, a disciple of Alexander of Hales and a contemporary of St. Thomas at the University of Paris. Among his disciples was Cardinal Matthew of Aquasparta. The controversy with the Dominican school found its greatest representative in Duns Scotus, who later inspired the Franciscan school.

There is no doubt that St. Thomas embodies in his spirit and in his work the highest expression of Scholastic philosophy and theology, not only in content but also in method (v. santo).

---

**30. Modern Period.** — The 14th and 15th centuries marked a decline in Scholasticism and theology in general, caused by the nominalism of Ockham, political revolutions, religious schisms, and the rise of Humanism. The 16th century, however, saw a powerful revival, initiated at Salamanca VITA (v.), who introduced into the schools the commentary on St. Thomas’s *Summa Theologiae* instead of Peter Lombard’s *Sentences*. He had illustrious disciples: Domingo and Pedro de Soto (v.), Carranza (v.), CANTO (v.). In Italy, the Dominican school boasted the names of Tommaso De Vio (Cardinal Cajetan) and Francesco Silvestri (il Ferrarese).

The Carmelites, reformed at Salamanca, vied with the Dominicans with their famous *Cursus Salmaticensis* on St. Thomas’s *Summa*, while a flourishing theological university arose at Louvain. Soon the Jesuits also appeared: a dispute arose between them and the Dominicans that dominated the schools for centuries down to our own day on the question of Grace and free will. The Dominicans (Dominic Báñez, Alvarez, De Lemos; later the more balanced John of St. Thomas) were more concerned with the sovereignty of God, while the Jesuits (Luis de Molina) started from human freedom to defend it against the attacks of the new Lutheran heresy.

The Society of Jesus sent distinguished theologians to the Council of Trent (Lainez, Salmeron), produced celebrated controversialists such as Gregory of Valencia, Peter Canisius (v.), Robert Bellarmine, and strong thinkers like Lessius (v.), Vázquez (v.), Suárez (v.). The Franciscan school, which was represented at the Council of Trent by Andrés Vega (v.) Medina (v.), also revived with the publication of Scotus’s works by Wadding (d. 1657) and the writings of Francisco de Herrera, Bartolomé Mastrius (v.), and others.

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

In the 17th and 18th centuries, theology became arid in internal and external controversies, and was then corrupted by Cartesian and Leibnizian philosophy. However, against the Jansenists, the Gallicans produced extensive works of ecclesiology, major positive studies, and some good speculative theologians (Bilart, Gotti, the Benedictine work of Salzburg, and the Jesuits of Würzburg). Moral theology developed remarkably with St. Alphonsus Liguori (d. 1787), and theological method, freed from the commitments of particular schools, assumed a modern positive-speculative aspect.

The 19th century opened Hermes (v.) and Günther (v.) and the French traditionalists, but later saw the revival of positive studies (v. MOHLER, LUDWIG; MIGNE; SCHWANE, JOSEPH; HEFELE; HERGENRÖTHER, JOSEP) that highlighted 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 in December it found its official sanction in Leo XIII’s encyclical *Aeterni Patris* (1879), theology was engaged in defending the supernatural and objective character of revealed doctrine against naturalism and subjectivism.

The theologians Karl Barth, Friedrich Gogarten, and Eduard Thurneysen are its founders: united more by a common opposition to extreme liberalism than by the elaboration of doctrinal principles accepted by all. It therefore seems more logical to study the theology of its principal exponent, bearing in mind once and for all that each of the theologians belongs to it to a greater or lesser degree. If Barth’s *Romans* (*Römerbrief*), first published in the autumn of 1918 but known especially in its fully revised edition of 1921, had such a resonance, it was particularly because its author was a young theologian (Barth was born in 1886) trained in the liberal school. In his youth, Barth belonged to liberalism, was a pupil of W. Hermann in Marburg, and an enthusiastic disciple of Harnack in Berlin. By the end of his studies, Barth had been completely won over to the cause of the modern school, for which, following the orientations of Schleiermacher (v.) and Ritschl (v.), Christianity was a phenomenon to be studied by critical methods and a matter of personal experience with predominantly moral tendencies. The desire to break away from this trend made Barth’s *Romans* famous.

The principles expounded in this first work of Barth were clearly formulated in a lecture of 1922 entitled *The Word of God and the Task of Theology*. The main reproach that Barth made to liberalism was that it ignored God, considering Him only as an extension of a human psychological experience. The dialectical school, on the other hand, is marked by the explicit will to affirm God as a distinct completion. On Barth and on dialectical theology in general, the thought of Søren Kierkegaard exercised a notable influence. In the opening lines of the second edition of *Romans*, Barth admits this without any reservation.

The dialectical apparatus and the problems connected with it were abandoned by Barth around 1930. He considers the work published in 1931 on Anselm’s proof of the existence of God as the beginning of a new period in his thought. Even recently, since the international meetings in Geneva in 1949, Barth has insisted on emphasizing the evolution of his thought from his earlier positions. Barth’s thought is organized around a decisive reaction against the possibility of human intelligence. In the preface to the first book of the *Kirchliche Dogmatik*, he does not hesitate to state that the *analogia entis* is an invention of the Antichrist and that every other reason adduced for not becoming Catholic is simply futile. In the *analogia entis*, he sees, in fact, an attempt to achieve an impossible synthesis between God and man. In 1934, polemicizing with E. Brunner, already his disciple, he further clarified his position. Here is how Brunner summarizes it:

“Neither rational nature, nor cultural disposition, nor any other human element can be considered even minimally as traces or remnants of a likeness to God lost through sin. For the same reason, one cannot admit in man a point of insertion (*Anknüpfungspunkt*) for the salvific action of God. This would run counter to the thesis of the exclusive action of the grace of Christ, the center of the scriptural theology of the Reformers.”

The exclusion of the *analogia entis* is thus based on this profound heterogeneity between man and God (in which it is difficult to separate the part of man as man and of man as sinner), which produces a clear separation of man from God.

Strictly speaking, both before and after Revelation, human knowledge cannot rise to God. This profound pessimism about the nature and condition of man ends up compromising the very existence of theology. And Brunner has rightly noted: “The *analogia entis* has nothing specifically Catholic about it; it is the basis of any theology, whether Catholic or pagan.” If man is separated from God, God is not, however, separated from man. The *analogia fidei*, which comes to replace the *analogia entis*, thus allows Barth to insist on the notion of God as the acting subject and on His attributes of sovereignty and freedom. The following synthesis can be made: if man does not know God, God, however, knows man, and this knowledge of man by God constitutes precisely the fact of faith.

In his more recent works, Barth widely employs a new theological category, the *analogia relationis*, which makes possible a theological understanding of man, founded on the very life of God. God, who is Trinity, is essentially being in relation. To this first subsisting relation there corresponds, by way of analogy, a second relation, that which constitutes Christ. Jesus, in fact, is for Barth the relation between the being of God and the being of men. He is God for men. Finally, a third relation, analogous to the two preceding ones, constitutes man’s very being. “Man exists in his free encounter with man, in the lived relation between him and his neighbor, between the I and the Thou, between man and woman. Isolated man is not man. Humanity means co-humanity.” Therefore, only in the Trinitarian life and in the being of Christ do we understand man. As several Protestant theologians have noted, this *analogia relationis* in reality contains the *analogia entis*. Thus Barth cannot maintain his distinction without forcing the category of *analogia entis*, giving it a meaning that no one, except himself, attributes to II. He attributes to the notion of being of God of Catholic theologians a value (practically univocal) that they have never attributed to II.
Historically, Barth’s thought has had a notable influence: it has freed Protestant theology from the shackles of liberalism. The critique he made of liberalism is the most vital element in his work. He showed that the science of an Harnack or Herrmann was not theological but a presumptuous “humanism.” However, upon this legitimate opposition, Barth attempted a theology that, while it has undoubtedly favored a renewal of biblical studies, has not, on the other hand, respected the scriptural datum, resulting in a doctrine of divine transcendence without real communication, in a Christology that does not engage with our time and our history, and in an anthropology with a decidedly pessimistic background. Beyond the philosophical influences that Barth has undergone, one must recognize in his work the echo of the Protestant interpretation of the evangelical message: sin, which reaches to the very roots of man, corrupts man in himself and in all his manifestations.