Dogmatic Theology

Please help support the mission of New Advent and get the full contents of this website as an instant download. Includes the Catholic Encyclopedia, Church Fathers, Summa, Bible and more — all for only $19.99...

Dogmatic theology is that part oftheology which treats of the theoreticaltruths offaith concerningGod and His works (dogmata fidei), whereasmoral theology has for its subject-matter the practicaltruths ofmorality (dogmata morum). At times,apologetics or fundamental theology is called "general dogmatic theology", dogmatic theology proper being distinguished from it as "special dogmatic theology". However, according to present-day usage,apologetics is no longer treated as part of dogmatic theology but has attained the rank of an independentscience, being generally regarded as the introduction to and foundation of dogmatic theology. The present article shall deal first with those questions which arefundamental to dogmatic theology and then briefly review its historical development due to the acumen and indefatigable industry with which the theologians of every civilized country and of every century have cultivated and promoted thisscience.

Definition and nature of dogmatic theology

To define dogmatic theology, it will be best to start from the general notion oftheology. Considered etymologically, theology (Gr.Theologia, i.e. peri Theou logos) means objectively thescience treating ofGod, subjectively, the scientificknowledge ofGod and Divine things. If defined as thescience concerningGod (doctrina de Deo), the name oftheology applies as well to thephilosophicalknowledge ofGod, which is cast into scientific form in natural theology ortheodicy. However, unless theodicy is free fromerrors, it cannot lay claim to the name oftheology. For this reason,pagan mythology andpagan doctrines about the gods, must at once be set aside asfalse theology. The theology ofheretics also, so far as it contains graveerrors, must be excluded. In a higher and more perfect sense we call theology thatscience ofGod and Divine things which, objectively, is based onsupernatural revelation, and subjectively, is viewed in the light ofChristianfaith. Theology thus broadens out intoChristian doctrine (doctrina fidei) and embraces not only the particular doctrines of God'sexistence,essence, andtriune personality, but all thetruths revealed byGod. The Patristic era did not, as a rule, take theology in this wide sense. For the earlier Fathers, strictly limiting the termtheology todoctrine aboutGod, distinguished it from thedoctrine of His external activity, especially from theIncarnation and Redemption, which they included under the name of the "Divine economy". Now, ifGod is not only the primary object but also the first principle ofChristian theology, then its ultimate end likewise must beGod; that is to say it must teach, effect, and promote union withGod through religion Consequently, it lies in the very essence oftheology to be thedoctrine not only ofGod and offaith, but also of religion (doctrina religionis). It is this triple function which gave rise to the old adage of the School:Theologia Deum docet, a Deo docetur, ad Deum ducit (Theology teaches ofGod, is taught byGod, and leads toGod).

However, neithersupernatural theology in general nor dogmatic theology in particular is sufficiently specified by its material object or its end, since natural theology also treats ofGod and Divine things and shows that union withGod is a religiousduty. What essentially distinguishes the twosciences is the so-called formal principle or formal object. Supernatural theology considersGod and Divine things solely in thesupernatural light of external revelation and internalfaith, analyzes them scientifically, proves them and penetrates as far as possible into their meaning. From this it follows that theology comprehends all those and only those doctrines which are to be found in the sources offaith, namelyScripture andTradition, and which theinfallible Church proposes to us. Now, among theserevealedtruths there are many which reason, by its own natural power, can discover, comprehend, and demonstrate, especially those that pertain to natural theology and ethics. Thesetruths, however accessible to unaided reason, receive atheological colouring only by being at the same time supernaturally revealed and accepted on the ground ofGod's infallible authority. The act offaith being nothing else than the unconditional surrender ofhumanreason to the sovereign authority of the self-revealingGod, it is plain thatCatholic theology is not a purelyphilosophicalscience like mathematics ormetaphysics; it must rather, of its very nature be an authoritativescience, basing its teachings, especially of the mysteries offaith, on the authority ofDivine revelation and theinfallible Church established by Christ; for it is the Divine mission of theChurch to preserve intact the entire deposit offaith (depositum fidei), to preach and explain it authoritatively. There are, it istrue, many non-Catholics and even someCatholics who are irritated at seeingCatholic theology bow before an external authority. They take offence atconciliar decrees,papal decisionsex cathedra, the censure oftheological opinions, the index of forbidden books, the Syllabus, theoath against Modernism. Yet all theseecclesiastical regulations flow naturally andlogically from the formal principle ofChristian theology: the existence ofDivine revelation and the right of theChurch to demand, in the name ofChrist, an unwaveringbelief in certaintruths concerningfaith andmorals. To reject the authority of theChurch would be equivalent to abandoningsupernatural revelation, and contemningGod himself, who can neither deceive nor be deceived, since He is Truth itself, and who speaks through the mouth of theChurch. Consequently, theology as ascience, if it would avoid the danger oferror, must ever remain under the tutelage and guidance of theChurch. To aCatholic, theology without theChurch is as absurd as theology withoutGod. Dogmatic theology, then, may be defined as the scientific exposition of the entire theoreticaldoctrine concerningGod Himself and His external activity, based on thedogmas of theChurch.

Dogmatic theology as a science

Considering that theology depends essentially on theChurch, a serious difficulty arises at once. How, one may ask, can theology claim to be ascience in the genuine sense of the word? If the aim and result oftheological investigation is settled in advance by an authority that attributes to itselfinfallibility and will brook no contradiction, if the line of march is, as it were, clearly mapped out and strictly prescribed, how can there be any question oftruescience or of scientific freedom? Are not the dogmaticproofs, supposed to demonstrate aninfallibledogma, after all meredialectical play, shamscience, reasoning made to order? Prejudice againstCatholic theology, prevalent in the world at large, is beginning to bear fruit; in many countries thetheological faculties, still existing in the stateuniversities, are looked upon as so much useless ballast, and the demand is being made to relegate them to the episcopalseminaries, where they can no longer injure theintellectual freedom of the people. The downright unfairness of this attitude is obvious when one considers that theuniversities sprang up and developed in the shadow of theChurch and ofCatholic theology; and that, moreover, the exaggeration of scientific freedom may prove fatal to the profanesciences as well. Unless it presuppose certaintruths, which can no more be demonstrated than many mysteries offaith,science can achieve nothing; and unless it recognize the limits that are set to investigation, the boasted freedom will degenerate into lawless and arbitraryanarchy. As thelogician starts from notions, the jurist from legal texts, the historian from facts, the chemist from material substances as things which demand noproof in his case, so the theologian receives his material from the hands of theChurch and deals with it according to the rules which the scientist applies in his own branch.

The view, moreover, that scientific research is absolutely free and independent of all authority is fanciful and distorted. To the freedom ofscience, the authority of the individualconscience, and of humansociety as well, sets an impassable limit. Even thecivil power would have to exercise its authority in the form of punishment if auniversity professor, presuming on the freedom of scientific thought and research, should teach openly that burglary,murder,adultery, revolution, andanarchy are permissible. We may concede that theCatholictheologian, being subject toecclesiastical authority, is more closely bound than the professor of the secularsciences. Yet the difference is one of degree only, inasmuch as everyscience and every investigator is bound by the moral and religiousduty of subordination. SomeScholastics, it istrue, e.g. Durandus and Vasquez, denied toChristian theology a strictly scientific character, on the ground that the content offaith is obscure and incapable of demonstration. But their argument does not carry conviction. At most it proves that dogmaticscience is not of the same kind and order as the profanesciences. What is essential to anyscience is not internal evidence, but merelycertainty of its first principles.

There are many profanesciences which borrow unproved from a superiorscience their highest principles; these are the so-calledlemmata, subsidiary propositions, which serve as premises for further conclusions. The theologian does the same. He, too, borrows the first principles of hisscience from the higherknowledge ofGod without proving them. Every subalternscience supposes of course in the superior discipline the power to give a strict demonstration of the assumed premises. But all scientific axioms rest ultimately onmetaphysics, andmetaphysics itself is unable to prove strictly all its principles all it can do is to defend them against attack. It is plain then that everyscience without exception rests on axioms and postulates which, though certain, yet admit of no demonstration. The mathematician is aware that the existence of geometry, the surest and most palpable of allsciences, depends entirely on the soundness of the postulate of parallels. Nevertheless, this very postulate is far from being demonstrable. In fact, since no convincingproof of it was forthcoming, there has arisen since the time of Gauss a more general, non-Euclidean geometry, of which the Euclidean is only a special case. Why, then, shouldCatholic theology, because of its postulates,lemmata, and mysteries, be denied the name of ascience? Apart from the domain ofdogma proper, the theologian may approach the numerous controversial questions and more intricate problems with the same freedom as is enjoyed by any other scientist. One thing, however, must never be lost sight of. Noscience is at liberty to upset theorems which have been established once and for all; they must be regarded as unshakendogmas upon which the entire structure is based. Similarly, thearticles of faith must not be looked upon by the theologian as troublesome barriers, but as beacon-lights that warn the mariner, show him thetrue course, and preserve him from shipwreck.

Methods of dogmatic theology

Whereas othersciences, as, for instance, theodicy, begin with proving theexistence of God, it lies beyond the scope oftheology to discover dogmatictruths. The subject-matter with which the student oftheology has to deal is offered to him in the deposit offaith and, reduced to its briefest form, is to be found in the Catechism. If the theologian is content with deriving thedogmas from the sources offaith and with explaining them, he is occupied with "positive" theology. Guided by thedoctrinal authority of theChurch, he calls history and criticism to his aid to find inScripture andTradition the genuine unalloyedtruth. If to this positive element is joined a polemic tendency, we have "controversial" theology, which was carried to its highest perfection in the seventeenth century by CardinalBellarmine. Positive theology must prove its theses by conclusive arguments drawn fromScripture andTradition; hence it is closely related toexegesis and history. Asexegete, the theologian must first of all accept the inspiration of theBible as the Word ofGod. But even when elucidating its meaning, he will always bear in mind the unanimous interpretation of the Fathers, the hermeneutical principles of theChurch, and the directions of theHoly See. In his character as historian, the theologian must not lay aside hisbelief in thesupernatural origin ofChristianity and in the Divine institution of theChurch, if he is to give atrue and objective account of tradition, of the history ofdogma, and of patrology. For, just as theBible, being the Word ofGod, was written under the immediate inspiration of the Holy Ghost, so Tradition was, and is, guided in a special manner byGod, Who preserves it from being curtailed, mutilated, or falsified.

Consequently, he who from the outset declares theBible to be an ordinary book,miracles and prophecies impossible and old-fashioned, theChurch a great institution for deadening thought, theFathers of the Churchpious prattlers, is quite incapable, even from a purely scientific standpoint, of understandingGod's momentousdispensations tomankind. From this we may conclude how unecclesiastical and at the same time how unscientific are those historians who prefer to explain the works of the Fathers without due regard forecclesiastical tradition, which was themental environment in which they lived and breathed. For it is only when we discover the living link which bound them to the Apostolic Tradition of which they are witnesses, that we shall understand their writings and establish theheterodoxy of some passages, as for instance, theOrigenisticapocatastasis in the writings ofGregory of Nyssa. WhenPius X, by his Motu Proprio of 1 Sept., 1910, solemnlyobliged allpriests to adhere to these principles, he did more than recall to our minds the time-hallowed rules ofChristianfaith; he freed history and criticism from those baneful excrescences which impeded the growth oftruescience.

When the dogmatic material with the help of the historical method has been derived from its sources, another momentous task awaits the theologian: thephilosophical appreciation, the speculative examination and elucidation of the material brought to light. This is the purpose of the "scholastic" method from which "scholastic theology" takes its name.

The scope of the scholastic method is fourfold:

But above all to show that the mysteries offaith, though beyond the reach of reason, are not contrary to itslaws but can be made acceptable to ourintellect. It is evident that the ultimate purpose of thesephilosophical speculations cannot be to resolvedogma finally into mere naturaltruths, or to strip the mysteries of theirsupernatural character, but to explain thetruths offaith, to provide for them aphilosophical basis, to bring them nearer to thehumanmind. Faith must ever remain the solid rock-bottom on which reason builds up, andfaith in its turn strives after understanding (fides quoerens intellectum). Hence the famous axiom ofSt. Anselm of Canterbury:Credo ut intellegam. However highly one may esteem the results of positive theology, one thing is certain: the scientific character of dogmatic theology does not rest so much on the exactness of itsexegetical and historicalproofs as on thephilosophical grasp of the content ofdogma. But in attempting this task, the theologian cannot look for aid to modern philosophy with its endless confusion, but to the glorious past of his ownscience. What else are the modern systems ofphilosophy, sceptical criticism, Positivism,Pantheism, Monism, etc., than ancienterrors cast into new moulds? Rightly doesCatholic theology cling to the onlytrue and eternal philosophy of common sense, which was established byDivine Providence in theSocratic School, carried to its highest perfection byPlato andAristotle, purified from the minutest traces oferror by theScholastics of the thirteenth century.

This is the Aristotelo-scholastic philosophy, which has gained an ever stronger foothold inecclesiastical institutions of learning. Guided by sound pedagogical principles, PopesLeo XIII andPius X officially prescribed this philosophy as a preparation for the study oftheology, and recommended it as a model method for the speculative treatment ofdogma. While in his famousEncyclical "Pascendi" of 8 Sept., 1907,Pius X praises positive theology and frankly recognizes its necessity, yet he sounds a note of warning not to become so absorbed in it as to neglectscholastic theology, which alone can impart a scientific grasp ofdogma. Thesepapal rescripts were probably inspired by the sad experience that any other thanScholastic philosophy, instead of elucidating and clarifying, only falsifies and destroysdogma, as is clearly shown by the history ofNominalism, the philosophy of theRenaissance,Hermesianism, Güntherianism, andModernism. The development also ofProtestant theology, which, entering into close union with modern philosophy, swayed to and fro between the extremes offaith and unfaith and did not even recoil fromPantheism, is a warning example for theCatholic theologian. This does not mean thatCatholic theology has received no stimulus whatever from modern philosophy since the days ofKant (d. 1804). As a matter of fact, the critical tendency has quickened the critico-historical sense ofCatholic theologians in regard to method and demonstration, has given more breadth and depth to their statement of problems, and has shown fully the value of the "theoreticaldoubt" as the starting-point of every scientific investigation. All these advances, as far as they mark real progress, have exerted a salutary influence on theology also. But they can never repair the material damages caused tosacred science, when, abandoningSt. Thomas Aquinas, it went hand in hand withKant and other champions of our age. But since the Aristotelo-scholastic philosophy also is capable of continual development, there is reason to expect for the future a progressive improvement of speculative theology.

Another method of arriving at thetruths offaith ismysticism, which appeals rather to the heart and the feelings than to theintellect, and sensibly imparts aknowledge of Divine things throughpious meditation. As long asmysticism keeps in touch with scholasticism and does not exclude theintellect completely, it is entitled to existence for the simple reason thatfaith lays hold on the whole man, and penetrates his thoughts, desires, and sentiments. The greatest mystics, asHugh of St. Victor,Bernard of Clairvaux, and Bonaventure, were at the same time distinguishedScholastics. A heart that has preserved thefaith and simplicity of its childhood, takes delight even now in the writings ofHenry Suso (d. 1365). But whenevermysticism emancipates itself from the guidance of reason and makes light of thedoctrinal authority of theChurch, it readily falls a prey toPantheism and pseudo-mysticism, which are the bane of alltrue religion.Meister Eckhart, whose propositions were condemned byPope John XXII in 1329, is a warning example. There is little in the present trend of thought that would be favourable tomysticism. The scepticism which has poisoned the minds of our generation, the uncontrolledgreed for wealth, the feverish haste in commercial enterprises, even the dulling habit of reading the daily papers — all these are only too apt to disturb the serene atmosphere of Divine contemplation, and play havoc with the interior life, thenecessary conditions under which alone the tender flower of mysticalpiety can blossom.Modernism claims to possess in its immediate and immanent sense ofGod a congenial soil for the growth ofmysticism; this soil, however, does not receive its waters from the undefiled fountain-head ofCatholicpiety, but from the cisterns of LiberalProtestant pseudo-mysticism, which are tainted, either confessedly or secretly, byPantheism.

Relation of dogmatic theology to other disciplines

At first, it was a thing altogether unknown to have differenttheological branches as independentsciences. Dogmatic theology was the only discipline, and comprisedapologetics, dogmatic andmoral theology, and canon law. This internal unity was also marked externally by the comprehensive name ofscience offaith (scientia fidei), orsacred science (scientia sacra). First to assert its independence was canon law, which, together with dogmatic theology, was the chief study in themedievaluniversities. But since the underlying principles of canon law, as the Divine constitution of theChurch, thehierarchy, the power of ordinations, etc., were at the same time doctrines offaith to beproved in dogmatic theology, there was little danger that the internal connection with and dependence on the principalscience would be broken. Far longer did the union between dogmatic andmoral theology endure. They were treated in themedieval "Books of Sentences" andtheological "Summæ" as onescience. It was not until the seventeenth century, and then only for practical reasons, thatmoral theology was separated from the main body ofCatholicdogma. Nor did this division degenerate into a formal separation of two strictly co-ordinated disciplines. Moral theology has always been conscious that the revealedlaws of morality are as mucharticles of faith as the theoreticaldogmas, and that the entireChristian life is based on the threetheological virtues, which are part of the dogmaticdoctrine on justification. Hence the superior rank of dogmatic theology, which is not only the centre around which the other disciplines are grouped, but also the main stem from which they branch out. But the necessity of a further division of labour as well as the example of non-Catholic methods led to the independent development of other disciplines:apologetics,exegesis,church history.

The relation existing betweenapologetics, or fundamental theology as it has been called of late, and dogmatic theology is not that of a general to a particularscience; it is rather the relation of thevestibule to the temple or of the foundation to its superstructure. For both the method and the purpose of demonstration differ totally in the two branches. Whereasapologetics, intent upon laying the foundation of theChristian orCatholic religion, uses historical andphilosophical arguments, dogmatic theology on the other hand makes use ofScripture andTradition to prove the Divine character of the differentdogmas.Doubt could only exist as to whether the discussion of the sources offaith, therule of faith, theChurch, the primacy,faith and reason, belongs toapologetics or to dogmatic theology. While a dogmatic treatment of these important questions has its advantages, yet from the practical standpoint and for reasons peculiar to the subject, they should be separated from dogmatic theology and referred toapologetics. The practical reason is that the existing denominational differences demand a more thorough apologetic treatment of these problems; and again, the subject-matter itself contains nothing else than the preliminary and fundamental questions of dogmatic theology properly so called. A branch of the greatest importance, ever since theReformation, isexegesis with its allied disciplines, because thatscience establishes the meaning of the textsnecessary for the Scriptural argument. As the Biblicalsciences necessarily suppose thedogma of the inspiration of theBible and the Divine institution of theChurch, which alone, through the assistance of the Holy Ghost, is the rightful owner and authoritative interpreter of theBible, it is manifest thatexegesis, though enjoying full liberty in all other respects, must never lose its connection with dogmatic theology. Not evenchurch history, though using the same critical methods as profane history, is altogether independent of dogmatic theology. As its object is to set forth the history ofGod's kingdom upon earth, it cannot repudiate or slight either the Divinity of Christ or the Divine foundation of theChurch without forfeiting its claim to be regarded as atheological science. The same applies to other historicsciences, as the history ofdogma, of councils, ofheresies, patrology, symbolics, andChristian archæology. Pastoral theology, which embraces liturgy, homiletics, and catechetics, proceeded from, and bears close relationship to,moral theology; its dependence on dogmatic theology needs, therefore, no furtherproof.

The relation between dogmatic theology and philosophy deserves special attention. To begin with, even when they treat the same subject, asGod and thesoul, there is a fundamental difference between the twosciences. For, as was said above, the formal principles of the two are totally different. But, this fundamental difference must not be exaggerated to the point of asserting, with theRenaissancephilosophers and theModernists, that somethingfalse inphilosophy may betrue intheology, and vice versa, The theory of the "twofoldtruth" in theology and history, which is only a variant of the samefalse principle, is therefore expresslyabjured in the anti-Modernistoath. But no less fatal would be the other extreme of identifying theology with philosophy, as was attempted by theGnostics, later byScotus Eriugena (d. about 877), Raymond Lullus (d. 1315), Pico della Mirandola (d. 1463), and by the modernRationalists. To counteract this bold scheme, theVatican Council (Sess. III, cap. iv) solemnly declared that the twosciences differ essentially not only in their cognitive principle (faith, reason) and their object (dogma, rationaltruth), but also in their motive (Divine authority, evidence) and their ultimate end (beatific vision, naturalknowledge ofGod). But what is the precise relation between thesesciences? The origin and dignity of revealed theology forbid us to assign to philosophy a superior or even a co-ordinate rank. AlreadyAristotle andPhilo of Alexandria, in determining the relation ofphilosophy to that part ofmetaphysics which is directly concerned withGod, pronounced philosophy to be the "handmaid" of natural theology. When philosophy came into contact with revelation, this subordination was still more emphasized and was finally crystallized in the principle:Philosophia est ancilla theologiae. But neither theChurch nor the theologians who insisted on this axiom, ever intended thereby to encroach on the freedom, independence, and dignity ofphilosophy, to curtail itsrights, or to lower it to the position of a mere slave oftheology. Their mutual relations are far more honourable. Theology may be conceived as a queen, philosophy as a noble lady of the court who performs for her mistress the most worthy and valuable services, and without whose assistance the queen would be left in a very helpless and embarrassing position. That theChurch, in examining the various systems, should select the philosophy which harmonized with her own revealeddoctrine andproved itself to be the onlytrue philosophy by acknowledging a personalGod, theimmortality of thesoul, and the moral law, was so natural and obvious that it required no apology. Such a philosophy, however, existed among thepagans of old, and was carried to an eminent degree of perfection byAristotle.

Division and content of dogmatic theology

Not only for non-Catholics, but also forCatholiclaymen it may be of interest to take a brief survey of the questions and problems generally discussed in dogmatic theology.

God (de Deo uno et trino)

AsGod is the centralidea around which all theology turns, dogmatic theology must begin with thedoctrine ofGod, essentially one, Whose existence, essence, and attributes are to be investigated, While the arguments, strictly so called, for theexistence of God are given inphilosophy or inapologetics, dogmatic theology insists upon the revealeddoctrine thatGod may be known from creation by reason alone, that is, without external revelation or internal illumination by grace. From this it follows at once thatAtheism must be branded asheresy and thatAgnosticism may not plead mitigating circumstances. Nor canTraditionalism andOntologism be reconciled with thedogma of the natural knowableness ofGod. For if, as theTraditionalists assert, the consciousness ofGod's existence, found in all races and ages, is due solely to the oral tradition of our forefathers and ultimately to the revelation granted inParadise, theknowledge ofGod derived from the visible creation is at once discounted. The same must be said of theOntologists, who fancy that our mind enjoys anintuitive vision ofGod's essence, and is thus made certain of His existence. Likewise, to assume withDescartes an inbornidea ofGod (idea Dei innata) is out of the question; consequently, the knowableness ofGod by mere reason, means in the last analysis that His existence can be demonstrated, as the anti-Modernistoath prescribed byPius X expressly affirms. But this method of arriving at aknowledge ofGod is toilsome; for it must proceed by way of denying imperfection inGod and of ascribing to Him in higher excellence (eminenter) whatever perfections are found in creatures; nor does the light of revelation and offaith elevate ourknowledge to an essentially higher plane. Hence all ourknowledge ofGod on this earth implies painful deficiencies which will not be filled except by thebeatific vision.

The metaphysical essence ofGod is generally said to be self-existence, which means, however, the fullness of being (Gr.autousia), and not merely the negation of origin (ens a se--ens non ab alio). The so-called positiveaseity of Prof. Schell, meaning thatGod realizes and produces Himself must be as uncompromisingly rejected as thePantheistic confusion ofens a se with the impersonalens universale. The relation existing betweenGod's essence and His attributes may not be called a real distinction (theoretical Realism, Gilbert de La Porrée), nor yet a purelylogical distinction of the mind (Nominalism). Intermediary between these two objectionable extremes is the formal distinction of theScotists. But the virtual distinction of theThomists deserves preference in every regard, because it alone does not jeopardize the simplicity of the Divine Being. If self-existence is the fundamental attribute ofGod, both the attributes of being and of operation must proceed from it as from their root. The first class includesinfinity, simplicity, substantiality,omnipotence, immutability,eternity, and immensity; to the second category belong omniscience and the Divine will. Besides, many theologians distinguish from both these categories the so-called moral attributes:veracity, fidelity, wisdom,sanctity, bounty, beauty, mercy, andjustice.Monotheism is best treated in connection withGod's simplicity and unity. The most difficult problems are those which concernGod'sknowledge, especially His foreknowledge of free future actions. For it is here that bothThomists andMolinists throw out their anchors to gain a secure hold for their respective systems of grace, the former for theirproemotio physica, the latter for theirscientia media. In treating of the Divine will, theologians insist onGod's freedom in His external activity, and when discussing the problem ofevil, they prove thatGod can intendsin neither as an end nor as a means to an end, but merely permits it for reasons both holy and wise. while some theologians use this chapter to treat ofGod's salvific will and the allied questions ofpredestination and reprobation, others refer these subjects to the chapter on grace.

Being the cornerstone of theChristian religion, thedoctrine of the Trinity is thoroughly and extensively discussed, all the more because the Liberal theology of theProtestants has relapsed into the ancienterror of the Antitrinitarians. Thedogma ofGod's threefold personality, traces of which may be found in theOld Testament, can be conclusivelyproved from theNew Testament and Tradition. The combat which the Fathers waged againstMonarchianism,Sabellianism, and Subordinationism (Arius, Macedonius) aids considerably in shedding light on the mystery. Great importance attaches to the logos-doctrine of St. John; but as to its relation to the logos of theStoic Neoplatonists, the Jewish Philonians, and the early Fathers, many points are still in an unsettled condition. The reason why there are three Persons is the twofold procession immanent in theGodhead: the procession of the Son from the Father by generation, and the procession of the Holy Ghost from both the Father and the Son by spiration. In view of theGreek schism, the dogmatic justification of the addition of theFilioque in the Creed must be scientifically established. Aphilosophical understanding of thedogma of the Trinity was attempted by the Fathers, especially bySt. Augustine. The most important result was the cognition that the Divine generation must be conceived as a spiritual procession from theintellect, and the Divine spiration as a procession from the will or fromlove. Active and passive generation, together with active and passive spiration, lead to thedoctrine of the four relations, of which, however, only three constitutepersons, to wit, active and passive generation (Father, Son), and passive spiration (Holy Ghost). The reason why active spiration does not result in a distinct (fourth)person, is because it is one and the same common function of the Father and the Son. The philosophy of this mystery includes also thedoctrine of the Divine properties, notions, appropriations, and missions. Finally, with thedoctrine of circuminsession which summarizes the whole theology of the Trinity, the treatment of thisdogma is brought to a fitting conclusion.

Creation (de Deo creante)

The first act ofGod's external activity is creation. The theologian investigates both the activity itself and the work produced. With regard to the former, the interest centres in creation out of nothing, around which, as along the circumference of a circle, are grouped a number of secondarytruths:God's plan of theuniverse, the relation between the Trinity and creation, the freedom of the Creator, the creation in time, the impossibility of communicating the creative power to any creature. These momentoustruths not only perfect and purify the theisticidea ofGod, they also give the death-blow tohereticalDualism (God, matter) and to the Protean variations ofPantheism. As the beginning of the world supposes creation out of nothing, so its continuation supposes Divine conservation, which is nothing less than a continued creation. However,God's creative activity is not thereby exhausted. It enters into every action of the creature, whethernecessary or free. What is the nature ofGod's universal co-operation with free rational beings? On this questionThomists andMolinists differ widely. The former regard the Divine activity as a previous, the latter as a simultaneous, concursus. According toMolinism, it is only by conceiving the concursus as simultaneous thattrue freedom in the creature can be secured, and that the essentialholiness of the Creator can be maintained, the fact ofsin notwithstanding. The crowning achievement ofGod's creative activity is His providence and universal government which aims at the realization of the ultimate end of theuniverse,God's glory through His creatures.

The work produced by creation is divided into three kingdoms, rising in tiers one above another: world; man;angel. To this triad correspond dogmaticcosmology, anthropology, angelology. In discussing the first of these, the theologian must be satisfied with general outlines, e.g. of the Creator's activity described in the hexaemeron. Anthropology is more thoroughly treated, because man, the microcosm, is the centre of creation. Revelation tells us many things about man's nature, his origin and the unity of thehuman race, the spirituality andimmortality of thesoul, the relation ofsoul and body, the origin of individualsouls. Above all, it tells us ofsupernatural grace with which man was adorned and which was intended to be a permanent possession of thehuman race. The discussion of man's original state must be preceded by a theory of thesupernatural order without which the nature oforiginal sin could not be understood. Butoriginal sin, the willful repudiation of thesupernatural state, is one of the most important chapters. Its existence must be carefullyproved from the sources offaith; its nature, the mode of its transmission, its effects, must be subjected to a thorough discussion. The fate of theangels runs in many respects parallel to that ofmankind: theangels also were endowed with bothsanctifying grace and high natural excellences; some of them rose in rebellion againstGod, and were thrust intohell asdemons. While thedevil and hisangels are inimical to thehuman race, the faithfulangels have been appointed to exercise the office of guardians overmankind.

Redemption (de Deo Redemptore)

As the fall of man was followed byredemption, so the chapter on creation is immediately followed by that onredemption. Its three main divisions:Christology, Soteriology, Mariology, must ever remain in the closest connection. [For the first of these three (Christology) see the separate article.]

1. Soteriology

Soteriology is thedoctrine of the work of the Redeemer. As inChristology the leadingidea is theHypostatic Union, so here the mainidea is the natural mediatorship of Christ. After having disposed of the preliminary questions concerning the possibility, opportuneness, and necessity ofredemption, as well as of those regarding thepredestination ofChrist, the next subject to occupy our attention is the work ofredemption itself. This work reaches its climax in the vicarious satisfaction of Christ on the cross, and iscrowned by His descent into limbo and Hisascension into heaven. From a speculative standpoint, a thorough and comprehensive theory of satisfaction remains still apious desideratum, though promising attempts have often been made from the days of Anselm down to the present time. It will benecessary to blend into one noble whole the hidden elements oftruth contained in the old patristic theory of ransom, the juridical conception ofSt. Anselm, and theethical theory of atonement. The Redeemer's activity as Mediator stands out most prominently in His triple office ofhigh priest,prophet, and king, which is continued, after theascension of Christ, in thepriesthood and the teaching and pastoral office of theChurch. The central position is occupied by thehigh-priesthood ofChrist, which manifests the death on the cross as thetrue sacrifice of propitiation, and proves the Redeemer to be atruepriest.

2. Mariology

Mariology, thedoctrine of theMother of God, cannot be separated either from theperson or from the work of the Redeemer and therefore has the deepest connection with bothChristology and Soteriology. Here the centralidea is the Divine Maternity, since this is at once the source of Mary's unspeakable dignity and of her surpassing fullness of grace. Just as theHypostatic Union of the Divinity and humanity ofChrist stands or falls with thetruth of the Divine Maternity, so too is this same maternity the foundation of all special privileges which were accorded to Mary on account ofChrist's dignity. These singular privileges are four: her Immaculate Conception, personal freedom fromsin, perpetual virginity, and her bodily Assumption intoheaven. For the three former we havedoctrinal decisions of theChurch, which are final. However, though Mary's bodily Assumption has not yet been solemnly declared anarticle of faith, nevertheless theChurch has practically demonstrated such to be herbelief by celebrating from the earliest times the feast of the Assumption of theMother of God. Two more privileges are connected with Mary's dignity: her special mediatorship between the Redeemer and the redeemed and her exclusive right to hyperdulia. Of course, it is clear that the mediatorship of Mary is entirely subordinate to that of Her Divine Son and derives its whole efficacy and power therefrom. In order the better to understand the value and importance of Mary's peculiar right to such veneration, it will be well to consider, by way of contrast, the dulia paid to thesaints and, again, thedoctrine concerning the veneration paid torelics and images. For the most part, dogmatic theologians prefer to treat these latter subjects undereschatology, together with theCommunion of Saints.

3. Grace (De gratia)

TheChristianidea of grace is based entirely upon thesupernatural order. A distinction is made between actual andsanctifying grace, according as there is question of asupernatural activity or merely the state of sanctification. But the crucial point in the wholedoctrine of grace lies in the justification of the sinner, because, after all, the aim and object ofactual grace is either to lay the foundation for the grace of justification when the latter is absent, or to preserve the grace of justification in thesoul that already possesses it. The three qualities ofactual grace are of the utmost importance: its necessity, its gratuitousness, and its universality. Although on the one hand we must avoid the exaggeration of theReformers, and of the followers ofBaius andJansenius, who denied the capability of unaided nature altogether in moral action, yet, on the other hand, theologians agree that fallen man is quite incapable, without the help ofGod's grace, of either fulfilling the wholenatural law or of resisting all strongtemptations. Butactual grace is absolutelynecessary for each and every salutary act, since all such acts bear a causal relation towards thesupernatural end of man. Theheretical doctrines ofPelagianism and Semipelagianism are refuted by theChurch'sdoctrinal decisions based uponHoly Scripture and Tradition. From thesupernatural character of grace flows its second quality: gratuitousness. So entirely gratuitous is grace that no natural merit, no positive capability or preparation for it on the part of nature, nor even any purely natural petition, is able to moveGod to give usactual grace. The universality of grace rests fundamentally upon the absolute universality ofGod's salvific will, which, in regard to adults, simply means His antecedent will to distribute sufficient grace to each and everyperson, whether he be already justified or in the state ofsin, whether he beChristian orheathen, believer or infidel. But the salvific will, in as far as it is consequent and deals out just retribution, is no longer universal, but particular, for the reason that only those who persevere injustice, enterheaven, whereas the wicked are condemned tohell. The question of thepredestination of the blessed and the reprobation of the damned is admittedly one of the most difficult problems with which theology has to deal, and its solution is wrapped in impenetrable mystery. The same may be said of the relation existing between grace and the liberty of the human will. It would be cutting the Gordian knot rather than loosing it, were one to deny the efficacy of grace, as didPelagianism, or again, following theerror ofJansenism, deny the liberty of the will. The difficulty is rather in determining just how the acknowledged efficacy of grace is to be reconciled with human freedom. For centuriesThomists andMolinists, Augustinians and Congruists have been toiling to clear up the matter. And while the system of grace known assyncretic has endeavoured to harmonize the principles ofThomism andMolinism, it has served but to double the difficulties instead of eliminating them.

The second part of thedoctrine on grace has to do withsanctifying grace, which produces the state of habitualholiness andjustice. Preparatory to receiving this grace, thesoul undergoes a certain preliminary process, which is begun bytheologicalfaith, the "beginning, root and foundation of all justification", and is completed and perfected by othersupernatural dispositions, such as contrition, hope,love. TheProtestant conception of justifyingfaith as a mere fiducialfaith is quite as much at variance with revelation as is thesola fidesdoctrine.Catholics also differ fromProtestants in explaining the essence of justification itself. whileCatholicdogma declares that justification consists in atrue blotting-out ofsin and in an interior sanctification of thesoul,Protestantism would have it to be merely an external cloaking ofsins which still remain, and a mere imputation to the sinner ofGod's orChrist'sjustice. According toCatholic teaching, the forgiveness ofsin and the sanctification of thesoul are but two moments of one and the same act of justification, since the blotting-out of original and mortalsin is accomplished by the very fact of the infusion ofsanctifying grace. Although we may, to a certain extent, understand the nature of grace in itself, and may define it philosophically as a permanent quality of thesoul, an infused habit, an accidental and analogous participation of the Divine nature, yet itstrue nature may be more easily understood from a consideration of its so-called formal effects produced in thesoul. These are:sanctity, purity, beauty, friendship withGod, adopted sonship.Sanctifying grace is accompanied by additional gifts, viz., the threetheological virtues, the infused moral virtues, the seven gifts of the Holy Ghost, and the personal indwelling of the Holy Ghost in thesoul of the justified. This latter it is that crowns and completes the whole process of justification. We must also mention three qualities special to justification orsanctifying grace: its uncertainty, its inequality, and the possibility of its being lost. All of them are diametrically opposed to theProtestant conception, which asserts the absolutecertainty of justification, its complete equality, and the impossibility of its being lost. Finally, the fruits of justification are treated. These ripen under the beneficent influence ofsanctifying grace, which enables man to acquire merit through hisgoodworks, that is to say,supernatural merit forheaven. Thedoctrine on grace is concluded with theproof of the existence, the conditions, and the objects of merit.

4. Sacraments (De sacramentis)

This section is divided into two parts: the treatise on thesacraments in general and that on thesacraments in particular. After having defined exactly what is meant by theChristian sacraments, and what is meant by the sacrament of nature and the Jewish rite ofcircumcision as it prevailed in pre-Christian times, the next important step is to prove the existence of the sevensacraments as instituted byChrist. The essence of a sacrament requires three things: an outward, visible sign, i.e. thematter and form of the sacrament; interior grace; and institution byChrist. In the difficult problem as to whetherChrist himself determined thematter and form of each sacrament specifically or only generically the solution must be sought through dogmatic and historical investigations. Special importance attaches to thecausality of thesacraments, and an efficacyex opere operato is attributed to them. Theologians dispute as to the nature of thiscausality, i.e. whether it is physical or merely moral. In the case of each sacrament, regard must be had to twopersons, the recipient and the minister. The objective efficacy of a sacrament is wholly independent of the personalsanctity or the individualfaith of the minister. The only requisite is that he who confers the sacrament intend to do what theChurch does. As regards the recipient of a sacrament, a distinction must be made between valid and worthy reception; the conditions differ with the varioussacraments. But since thefree will is required for validity, it is evident that no one can be forced to receive a sacrament.

Furthermore, as regards thesacraments in particular, the conclusions reached with reference to thesacraments in general of course hold good. Thus in the case of the first twosacraments,baptism and confirmation, we must prove in detail the existence of the three requisites mentioned above, as well as the disposition of both the minister and the recipient. The question whether their reception is absolutelynecessary or only of precept must also be examined. More than ordinary care is called for in the discussion of the Eucharist, which is not only a sacrament, but also theHoly Sacrifice of the Mass. Everything centres of course around thedogma of theReal Presence of Christ under the appearances ofbread andwine. His presence there is effected by means of thetransubstantiation of the Eucharistic elements and lasts as long as the accidents ofbread andwine remain incorrupt. Thedogma of the totality of theReal Presence means that in each individual species the whole Christ, flesh and blood, body andsoul Divinity and humanity, isreally present. TheHoly Eucharist is, of course, a great mystery, one that rivals that of theHoly Trinity and of theHypostatic Union. It presents to us atruth utterly variance with the testimony of our senses, asking us, as it does, to assent to the continued existence of the Eucharistic species without their subject, a sort of spiritual existence, unconfined by space, yet of a human body, and, again, the simultaneous presence of Christ in many different places. Thesacramental character of the Eucharist is established by the presence of the three essential elements. The outward sign consists in the Eucharistic forms ofbread andwine and the words ofconsecration. Its institution by Christ is guaranteed both by the promise of Christ and by the words of institution at theLast Supper. Finally, the interior effects of grace are produced by the worthy reception ofHoly Communion. As Christ is wholly present in each species, the reception of the Eucharist under one species is sufficient to obtain fully all the fruits of the sacrament. Hence thechalice need not be communicated to thelaity, though at times theChurch has so allowed it to be, but not in any sense as though such werenecessary. Not everyone is capable of pronouncing the words ofconsecration with sacramental effect, but only dulyordainedbishops and priests; for to them alone did Christ communicate the power oftransubstantiation in theHoly Sacrifice of the Mass. A distinct phase of the Eucharist is its sacrificial character. This isproved not only from the oldest Fathers and theliturgical practice of the earlyChristian Church, but also from certain prophecies of theOld Testament and from the Gospel narrative of theLast Supper. To find the physical essence of theSacrifice of the Mass, we must consider its essential dependence on, and relation to, the bloody sacrifice of the Cross; for the Mass is a commemoration of the latter, its representation, its renewal, and its application. This intrinsically relative character of thesacrifice of the Mass does not in the least destroy or lessen the universality and oneness of the sacrifice on the Cross, but rather presupposes it; likewise the intrinsic propriety of the Mass is shown precisely in this, that it neither effects nor claims to effect anything else than the application of the fruits of the sacrifice of the Cross to the individual, and this in a sacrificial manner. The essence of the sacrifice is generally thought to consist neither in theOffertory nor in the Communion of the celebrant, but in the doubleconsecration. Widely divergent are the views of the theologians as to the metaphysical essence of thesacrifice of the Mass, that is to say, as to the question how far theidea of a real sacrifice is verified in the doubleconsecration. A concurrence of opinion on this point is all the more difficult owing to the fact that the veryidea of sacrifice is involved in no little obscurity. As regards thecausality of thesacrifice of the Mass, it has all the effects of atrue sacrifice: adoration, thanksgiving, impetration, atonement. Most of its effects areex opere operato, while some depend on the co-operation of the participants.

TheSacrament of Penance presupposes theChurch's power to forgivesins, a power clearly indicated in theBible in the words with which Christ instituted this sacrament (John 20:23). Moreover, this power is abundantly attested both by the patristicbelief in theChurch's power of the Keys and by the history of the ancient penitential system. As at the time ofMontanism andNovatianism it was a question of vindicating the universality of this power, so nowadays it is a matter of defending its absolute necessity and its judicial form against the attacks ofProtestantism. These three qualities manifest at the same time the intrinsic nature and the essence of theSacrament of Penance. The universality of the power to forgivesins means that allsins without exception, supposing, of course, contrition for the same, can be remitted in this sacrament. Owing to its absolute necessity and its judicial form, however, the sacrament really becomes a tribunal of penance in which the penitent is at once plaintiff, defendant, and witness, while thepriest acts as judge. The matter of the sacrament consists in the three acts of the penitent: contrition, confession, and satisfaction while thepriestlyabsolution is its form. To act as judge in theSacrament of Penance, the confessor needs more thanpriestlyordination: he must also havejurisdiction which may be restricted more or less by theecclesiastical superiors. As the validity of this sacrament, unlike that of the others, depends essentially on the worthiness of its reception, great attention must be paid to the acts of the penitent. Most important of all is contrition with the purpose of amendment, containing, as it does, the virtue of penance. The opinion, held by many of the earlyScholastics, that perfect contrition is required for the validity of theabsolution, is quite irreconcilable with theex opere operato efficacy of the sacrament; for sorrow, springing from the motive of perfectlove, suffices of itself to free the sinner from all guilt, quite antecedent to, and apart from, the sacrament, though not indeed without a certain relation to it. According to the mind of theCouncil of Trent, imperfect contrition (attrition), even when actuated by the fear ofhell, is sufficient for the validity of the sacrament, though we should, of course, strive to call in nobler motives. Therefore the addition of a formalcaritas initialis to attrition, as the Contritionists of today demand for the validity ofabsolution, is superfluous, at least so far as validity is concerned. The contrite confession, which is the second act of the penitent, manifests the interior sorrow and the readiness to do penance by a visible, outward sign, the matter of the sacrament. Since theReformers rejected theSacrament of Penance great care must be bestowed upon the Biblical and patristicproof of its existence and its necessity. The required satisfaction, the third act of the penitent, is fulfilled in the penances (prayers,fasting,alms) which, according to the present custom of theChurch, are imposed by the confessor immediately before theabsolution. The actual fulfillment of such penances is not essential to the validity of the sacrament, but belongs rather to its integrity. TheChurch's extra-sacramental remission of punishment due tosin is calledindulgence. This power of grantingindulgences, both for the living and the dead, is included in the power of the Keys committed to theChurch byChrist.

Extreme Unction may be considered as the complement of theSacrament of Penance, inasmuch as it can take the place of the latter in case sacramental confession is impossible to one who is unconscious and dangerously ill.

While the fivesacraments of which we have treated so far were instituted for the welfare of the individual, the last twoHoly Orders and Matrimony, aim rather at the well-being of humansociety in general. TheSacrament of Holy Orders is composed of various grades, of which those ofbishop,priest, anddeacon are certainly of a sacramental nature, whereas that ofsubdeacon and the fourminor orders are most probably due toecclesiastical institution. The decision depends on whether or not the presentation of the instruments is essential for the validity ofordination. In the case of thesubdiaconate and theminor orders this presentation indeed occurs, but without the simultaneousimposition of hands. The common opinion prevalent today holds that theimposition of hands, together with the invocation of the Holy Ghost, is the solematter and form of this sacrament. And since this latter obtains only in the case of theconsecration of abishop,priest, ordeacon, the conclusion is drawn that only the three hierarchical grades or orders conferex opere operato the sacramental grace, thesacramental character, and the corresponding powers. The ordinary minister of all orders, even those of a non-sacramental character, is thebishop. But thepope may delegate an ordinarypriest to ordain asubdeacon,lector,exorcist,acolyte, or ostiarius. Beginning with thesubdiaconate, which was not raised to the rank of a major order until theMiddle Ages,celibacy and the recitation of theBreviary are ofobligation.

Three disciplines treat the Sacrament of Matrimony: dogmatic theology,moral theology, and canon law. Dogmatic theology leads the way, and proves from the sources offaith not merely the sacramental nature ofChristian marriage, but also its essential unity and indissolubility. In the case of a consummated marriage betweenChristians the marriage bond is absolutely indissoluble; but where there is question of a consummated marriage betweenpagans the bond may be dissolved if one of the parties is converted to the Faith, and if the other conditions of what is known as the "Pauline Privilege" are fulfilled. The bond of a non-consummated marriage betweenChristians may be dissolved in two cases: when one of the parties concerned makes the solemn profession of religiousvows, or when thepope, for weighty reasons, dissolves such a marriage. Finally, the grounds of theChurch's power to establish diriment impediments are discussed and thoroughlyproved.

5. Eschatology (De novissimis)

The final treatise of dogmatic theology has to do with thefour last things. According as we consider either the individual ormankind in general, there is seen to be a double consummation of all things. For the individual thelast things are death and the particular judgment, to which corresponds, as his final state and condition, eitherheaven orhell. The consummation of thehuman race on doomsday will be preceded by certain indications of the impending disaster, right after which will occur theresurrection of the dead and the general judgment. As for the opinion that there will be a glorious reign of Christ upon earth for a thousand years previous to the final end of all things, suffice it to remark that there is not the slightest foundation for it in revelation, and even a moderate form of Chiliasm must be rejected as untenable.

CONTACT US |ADVERTISE WITH NEW ADVENT