No CrossRef data available.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Trying to describe to newcomers what theology is can be an instructive exercise. This article sums up what was said in a series of introductory talks on Catholic theology given to first-year students at the Angelicum University, Rome.
I will begin by mentioning three possible definitions of the theological task that I cannot accept, on the principle that many good definitions are arrived at by ruling out what things are not. Each of these ‘negative definitions’ will be to some extent a caricature, yet all caricatures have some relation to reality. Moreover, each of the rejected definitions will prove to have incorporated in it an element of value. This element is capable of being disengaged and used afresh in a positive definition of the theological task to be offered in the second part of the article.
Three negative definitions
1. A first account of the theological task that one might meet has it that theology is the misguided attempt to turn into a science something which is strictly mysterious: the dogmas, or as we say (precisely) the mysteries of the Christian religion. Since these mysteries by definition transcend the scope of the human mind, what is the point of trying to work them out intellectually? As Lord Dacre of Granton has put it, theology is ‘sophisticated ninnery’. If we have accepted a revealed religion, we must take the consequences. The consequences are that we cannot theorise about a revelation. We can only reform our own attitudes and feelings on the basis of it.
1 Cited in Williams, H.A., Some Day I'll Find You: An Autobiography (London 1982; 1984), p. 90Google Scholar.
2 Maritain, R., Les Grandes Amitiés (Paris 1948), p. 272Google Scholar.
3 See IIa IIae, qq. 1–4, Compendium Theologiae 1,1. For Thomas’ account of faith and its intellectuality, see O'Brien, T.C. (ed.), St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologiae. Volume 31: Faith (London 1974)Google Scholar, passim.
4 Ia q.1, a.2, corpus.
5 For a splendid example of such spiritual theology, fully conscious of its task and limitations, see Bernard, C.A., Théologie affective (Paris 1984)Google Scholar, and notably p. 10.
6 The value of a spiritual culture vis‐à‐vis theological activity is evoked in Leclerq, J. O.S.B., The Love of learning and the Desire for God. A study of monastic culture (New York 19742)Google Scholar. Needless to say, monastic culture provides a paradigm for a Christian culture here, rather than being its exclusive content.
7 In Vorgrimler, H. (ed.), Commentary on the Documents of Vatican II, III (New York 1969), p. 197Google Scholar.
8 For the mutual aid which should mark the relations of episcopate and theologians, see the International Theological Commission's ‘Theses on the interrelationship betwen the ecclesiastical magisterium and theology’, which can be consulted, with a commentary, in Sullivan, F.A. S.J, Magisterium. Teaching Authority in the Catholic Church (Dublin 1983), pp. 174–218Google Scholar. For the concept of the ‘signs of the times’, see Chenu, M.‐D. O.P., ‘Les signes du temps’, Nouvelle Revue Théologique 90 (1965), pp. 29–39Google Scholar.
9 F.A. Sullivan S.J., Magisterium op. cit. p. 172.
10 Mascall, E.L., Theology and the Gospel of Christ. An essay in reorientation (London 1984 2), p. iviGoogle Scholar. The difficulties such ‘positivism’ can create for an entire ecclesial tradition are charted in Sykes, S.W., The Integrity of Anglicanism (London 1978), pp. 79ff.Google Scholar
11 This must surely have had its effect in their reading of Augustine's achievement as ‘Jansenism’.
12 Ia q.1, a.2, ad i.
13 Well brought out in Chenu, M.‐D. O.P., Toward Understanding Saint Thomas (Chicago 1964), pp. 150–155Google Scholar.
14 An introduction to the work of M.J. Scheeben can be found in Fritz, G., ‘Scheeben, Matthias Josef, Dictionnaire de Théologie Catholique XIV/i (Paris 1939), cols. 1270–1274Google Scholar. A full study is Paul, E., Denweg und Denkform der Theologie von Matthias Joseph Scheeben (Munich 1970)Google Scholar. A useful introduction to Von Balthasar is the prefatory essay by MacKinnon, D. in HBalthasar, .U. von, Elucidations (London 1972)Google Scholar. A well‐nigh exhaustive account is found in Moda, A., Hans Urs von Balthasar (Bari 1976)Google Scholar. See also Nichols, A. O.P., ‘Balthasar and his Chr0istology’, New Blackfriars LXVI. 781–2 (1985), pp. 317–324CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
15 See R. Latourelle S.J., ‘From revelation to theology’ in Theology: science of salvation (New York 1969), pp. 3–10. This section can be regarded as a bridge to the subject of theology from his earlier study of revelation, Theology of Revelation (New York 1966).
16 See for a fuller account of this idea, Nichols, A. O.P., ‘Unity and plurality in Theology. Lonergan's Method and the counter‐claims of a theory of paradigms’, Angelicum LXII (1985), pp. 30–52Google Scholar.
17 Ratzinger, J., ‘Le pluralisme: problème posé a l'Eglise et è la théologie’, Studia Moralia 24 (1986), pp. 298–318Google Scholar.
18 See Congar, Y. O.P., ‘St Thomas and the Spirit of Ecumenism’, New Blackfriars LV. 644 (1974), pp. 206–207Google Scholar.
You have
Access