“We find related problems, differently structured, in the present day theologians Bultmann, Cox, Tillich, Bonhoffer, Robinson, and Buri. These theologians, despite there differences agree in seeing the religious element exclusively in the encounter of man with man, or love for the neighbour – that is, its movement is completely in a horizontal direction. For them, theology is pure anthropology – not in the sweeping sense in which Ludwig Faurbach in his time declared that theology is physiology, but nevertheless in the sense that they conceive man as without conscious movement towards God. (Schmaus. 1968. Pp18-3)
Looking into this in more detail it would assume that there is always a synthesis between divine revelation and the human response. Revelation evokes a response otherwise it would be a call to emptiness. In other words why bother? “Thus response therefore is a part of revelation” (Schmaus.1968.Pp.26-1). If divine. Or it cannot be from God. “In revelation something pertaining to God is to man. (Schmaus.1968 Pp. 26-1). If so then divine revelation needs to be two way conversation as it has to involve an incarnation of God to reveal God in human terms. “In words and in images.” (Schmaus.1968.Pp.26p2). These are recognised by the culture to which they are put and at the time they are put. Although divine revelation is unchangeable it has to be understandable to the people to which it is aimed and conveyed in a way to enable the people to understand. Otherwise it is empty and meaningless. This by definition means exact translation is not always possible. “Yet it will succeed to the extent that the core of the meaning is found unabridged and unfalsified in its new form.” (Schmaus1968. Pp. 26-2).
“Now I want to make it clear to you, brothers, about the Gospel that was preached by me, that it was no human message. It was not from any human being that I received it, and I was not taught it, but it came to me through a revelation of Jesus Christ. (Galatians 1:1).
Whilst we should all consider the way others live in their faith, as Christians, we have to be able to enable others to understand why we live as we do. Part of this would be the explanation of how we view the trinity. “This may not be something that can be rationally approved, apart from Christian revelation.” This doctrinal content, inseparable from Christian faith cannot be subsumed or left behind in some new “world theology”. (Dullis.1992. Pp.182-2). Now is time to consider what Thomas Aquinas saw as the nature of theology in more detail
I have, put the question to people ‘what do you in consider to be the sciences?’ the answers have been mathematics; physics, biochemistry and even philosophy, but none mentioned theology.
Clearly Thomas saw theology as a ‘Subalternate Science’. He states that sciences are of two kinds. There are those which proceed from the principle known by the natural principle of intelligence. These may be arithmetic and geometry. There are those that proceed from by a light of a higher science. In his example ‘music and mathematics’ (Redford, 2002. I.q.1, a.2. P.35).He explains that a musician accepts the principles of what has been handed down based on mathematics. A piece of music without mathematics would have no structure. “Theology is based on the preceding principles of a higher science, the principles revealed by God.” (Redford. 2002. Pp.34). I have a view that it is the peeling away of layers each layer revealing more understanding fuelling the eagerness to precede further. It creates desire to understand Gods divine word and feeds faith.
The view of Thomas to science is something that would not be readily recognised today. Today many subjects are loosely titled a science. Science, in the main, in today’s society would be the methodical and systematic research into a visible and tangible object of nature. (Redford, 2000 P, 43.) A scientist has a base or object to begin to explore, equate and conclude to. Modern scientists are critical of uncertain facts and especially at what they see as mystical factors. An argument would be that through theology scripture, far from being mystical, is an exact science in so much as it is firstly divine revelation and secondly as so is factual. It is from God and is unsurpassed. This again relies very much on the understanding of the matter and the faith to explore. Therefore there is something tangible to methodically equate and head towards conclusion by stripping off the layers. For Thomas sacred doctrine is a valid form of knowledge and as such the exploration of it is a science. This is today perhaps equated to the study of the universe. Outer space we know is there but we cannot see its contents as such. This is not to say that we should not make certain assumptions based on the knowledge we have about it, or indeed not continue to investigate it.
The unity of the theological aim is covered by Thomas. It is explained as being the one science because it has one formal object at its core. That of divine revelation, therefore theology is an in-depth study of the one plan.
“Faith also regardless of the science is to one degree or other a must. At each stage one must put one’s trust in some idea or principle that could conceivably be false. This faith, in a broad and generic sense, may be seen as a bond between science and theology”. (Dullis.1968.Pp.144-2).
Thomas took the view that sacred doctrine is nobler than other sciences. He quotes scripture to substantiate his statement.
‘On the contrary, other sciences are called the handmaidens of this one: wisdom sent her maids to invite to the tower’ (Prov.9:3).
Theology does not only use the material it goes beyond. Thomas states that as God is the subject matter of Theology and as such is “the One of Supreme Worth and as such theology must be Queen of Science”. (Redford, 2002.P.16). Given acceptance of God as the Supreme Being there can really be no argument to this statement. If God exists what greater importance can be given to a subject?
Science, it would be agreed by most, depends on the level of certainty. God’s word is the certainty. Here I quote point (e) of the course book, and an extract from (Neuner-Dupuis, 2001.P.46- 133,).
“There can be no discrepancy between reason and the dogmas of faith. The mysteries of faith are beyond reason; but, Vatican 1 argues, if they are true, then they must in some way or other square with the truth gained from other disciplines ‘since the same God cannot deny Himself, nor can truth ever contradict truth”.
Wisdom comes with experience and experience is gained by knowledge and time
As stated in the coarse book Thomas firstly saw the Summa as high form of catecheses and not something to defend the faith. (Redford, 2000 P.25) “For St Thomas theology is properly wisdom since things get their order from the end they are for, the wise person will consider the end of things, and this will lead to considering the end of things, of the universe.” (Selman, 1994. P.33).
Wisdom is a requirement or compliments science it is necessary to use the knowledge we have or gain to the good. To have wisdom is one thing to use it wisely is another.
Thomas states that divine science does indeed deal with individual facts to give guidance on moral and other issues. How could it not? ‘To achieve the object of defining those whom divine revelation was handed down to us.’ Also to discover the detail of. As covered previously to look into the writings of scripture and how they were written.
“There is a wisdom, you see residing in humanity, the breath of God conferring intelligence. Great age does not give wisdom nor seniority fair judgement. (Jb 32:8-9.) “I shall utter words of wisdom from the heart; my lips will speak with all sincerity” (Jb 33:3.) “Thus, for Aquinas, in one sense, sacra doctrina is even more Wisdom than it is a science.” (Redford, 2002. P.43).
Thomas speaks of wisdom as being a gift of God in article six. In article one he would imply that learning is wisdom or that Philosophy is ‘love of wisdom’. In whatever way that philosophical sciences depend on human reason.
The gift of God becomes the theme in article six. He puts forward the view ‘Hierotheus is taught not by mere learning, but by experience of divine things’.
Having said this he also explains in article one ‘such truths could be known by Philosophy; but they now come under the study of theology or sacred doctrine also, precisely because God has revealed them’. (I.q.1, a.6.) If scripture is revelation to us it has to be correctly interpreted by us. This is where the wisdom is derived.
When looking at what Thomas means by Theology being argumentative we have to assess his bases for ‘argument’. That is to say that the argument is not with the bases of what the Church agrees but with those who disagree with the basis that we may start with. That God exists and scripture is divine in its revelation. The principles of the Churches teaching and belief is not the bases of argument unless the other party has come from the same starting point. God. “This is what you should say, encouraging or arguing with full authority; no one should despise you.” (Tit 2: 15.)
This is explained well in the accompanying notes for article eight. (Redford, 2002.P.47). The views of a Catholic and scripture can be argued with Jehovah’s Witnesses as they have an acceptance of scripture. We would disagree greatly with their interpretation of it in many cases. It would still be based from both sides with fundamental beliefs, that of the existence of God. It would be futile to argue with, for example the atheist who does not have the fundamental start point, that of belief in Gods existence. “…and he must have a firm grasp of unchanging message of the tradition, so that he can be counted on both for giving encouragement in sound doctrine and for refuting those who argue against it” (Tit. 1: 9)
Thomas had a methodology in his writings. A sound structure of argument and counter argument leading to a conclusion.
Thomas was a student of Aristotle, a good roll model, an Aristotelian. Thomas used a format similar to that of Peter Lombard and from a book containing his opinions and judgements on theological opinions called ‘Sententiae’. Thomas used a format that demonstrated his immense depth of knowledge. It was his methodology.
The question in the form of a proposal is put in what were called Articles. I.e. Article Eight. Whether Sacred Doctrine is a matter of Argument. This is then answered with material that initially agrees with the proposal put forward. These are called objections. He is playing devils advocate. He then goes on to state his alternative the reply to the objections. Firstly giving his authority, and then thesis, to argue against the initial statements and objections to drive home the points. The initial statement may have lead the proposer believing in the initial statement. Thomas then goes on to counter this with another answer that clearly proves the initial statement to be incorrect. It is very difficult to argue against his final judgement as he demonstrates such in depth knowledge and it is presented in a full and structured way.
The teaching of Vatican I relies heavily on Aquinas in respect of its views on revelation and faith. In answer to (I. q.1.a.1) revelation by definition allows us to see “what the eye has not seen” (Cor1. 2-9) It is enlightenment. The knowledge of divine things is not within human reason. They only become apparent when God reveals them to us.
“ The First Vatican Council (1870) sought to steer a way between the twin errors of fideism and rationalism in Roman Catholic theologians, but is better remembered for anathematising those who hold that the one, true God, our creator and lord, cannot be known with certainty from the things that have been made, by the natural light of human reason”. (Kerr, 2000, P.38.)
Vatican I goes on to explain the relevant necessity of revelation. Both Vatican I and Thomas agree that revelation is necessary even when philosophy has explained such truth that it could acquire by human knowledge (Redford, 2002. P32-b) these truths include for instance the nature of God and the laws of the Ten Commandments.
Although these may been seen as the knowledge of philosophy that could be learnt, providing that those taught, have “facility, with firm certitude, and with no admixture of error. (Redford, 2002. Pp32-6). They are also sacred doctrine as God revealed them. They therefore are theology through divine revelation. A subalternate science.
And so Vatican I sees revelation, as does Aquinas, in theology terms “in the mind of judges by a light superior to the ordinary lights that the mind normally works by in this world” (Niccols, 1998. Pp.23.2)
The points I attempt to make covering the science aspect of Aquinas’s thoughts and relevance to revelation and Vatican I are summed up as “ so whatever the raw material of prophetic knowledge – whatever its material character – formally speaking, when considered, as a distinctive kind of understanding, its all the same” (Nichols, Pp25-1)
With regard to scripture and theology, again we see the correlation between Vatican I and Thomas. Although with Thomas the interpretation of scripture as being
“A simple identification between revelation and scripture” (Redford, 2002.P.33-b and cf.1.q.1, a.10) he goes into no great detail. He dose however sum up more fully “….that to extract from Holy Scripture the truth of the faith much study and appreciation are required…. Nonetheless, it is not a question of things added to the Holy Scriptures but of things drawn out of them. ” (IIa. IIae., 1, 9, ad.i.) Both see the scriptures as having more than one meaning (I.q.1, a.10 and Neuner-Dupuis, 2001.Pp.104-216). Those of scripture and tradition. That whilst the scriptures “were composed by mere human industry” (Neuner-Dupuis, 2001.Pp.104-216). They were approved as they were written with the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, with God as the author.
The church would insist that a key role in the interpretation of scripture lay in the magisterium of the church (Neuner-Dupuis, 2001.P.26-217). And that divine scriptures
“contain revelation with no admixture off error” (Neuner-Dupuis, 2001.216).
Vatican I would agree with Aquinas that theology is a subalternate science. As previously noted, Gods divine plan for us is only known t himself. This would appear to be a good point to start theology as a science! Therefore as with other sciences which have something seen and tangible to start the enquiry with theology we have something through faith that is there, shown to us through divine revelation and love. God. It is the layers of His revelation that we take away to come to meaning and truth. Therefore sacred doctrine is a unique science. Only God as the revealer “Knows the principles underlying this science” (Redford, 2002.commentary, I.q.I, a.2.) These are divine facts. Faith is based on the gifts of God. In more detail, and by definition, these are supernatural gifts. They are supported through revelation as miracles prophecies and signs and “are the most certain signs of the divine revelation, adapted to the intelligence of all men.” (Redford, 2002. Pp.35-2). Again this presupposes the use of systematic investigation based on sound principles. Therefore sacred doctrine is knowledge from God.
“The Word of God is something alive and active…..No created thing is hidden from him; everything is uncovered and stretched fully open to the eyes of the one to whom we must give account of ourselves.” (Heb 4:12-13).
It follows that theology is viewed also by Vatican 1 as a supreme wisdom and as so a subalternate science. It is inspired by God.
Whilst considering the various definitions of theology one is drawn to the notes in the course book regarding Keith Wards view of theology. (Redford 2002.P.10). At first glance, and it should be stated a somewhat conservatively, his views would seem reasonable if somewhat modern. It is true that there is a need to listen to the views of others. To appraise ones own views one has to be open in considering the views of others. By considering all aspects gives greater insight into ones own views. Does not Aquinas do so in the articles when he offers alternate answers to the objections? The consideration of diverse views is paramount to the theologian as it relates to God as its subject. The unseen God.
What is clearly missing with Ward is that given theology is a science and as it relates to God as its subject, there seems too little emphasis on faith. As God is the only one that knows his plan for us, to understand him and look at in more depth, through his revelation is dependent on faith.
As Catholics we have to come from or have a start point with God. To pull away the layers we must base our enquiries on sound principles. These principles are handed down to us in his teaching. To nourish our faith he has given us signs that as humans we can see, not necessary understand at first view fully, for example miracles and prophecy. These are supernatural in sense. It is faith that enables us to understand. Without faith the methodology of the subject becomes blurred and the conclusion unsure.
To conclude I have attempted, in a very short time, to understand the meaning of theology put forward by what are clearly eminent theologians. I feel somewhat embarrassed and humbled that I should do so after four weeks of study.
There are clearly some common strands between the views of Aquinas and the later day theologians. When trying to compare the views I have currently investigated I have had to try to equate the writings to the knowledge of the time in history to which they were written. Given this premise it could be argued that Thomas is as modern now as he would be considered not to be by others now.
It would seem there are two views. That of the past, and what has gone before and that of the path to the future. The continual revelation of God or that his revelation was complete with the arrival of Christ.
The second option would imply that Gods revelation is through man. This again implies a forward or outward motion. The first is based more on Greek teaching in that it is on the timeless universal view. This is like a circle with no movement forward but in depth.
Thomas would appear initially from this school of thought but he adds to it the human historical element. God is not in particular time He is time therefore, He communicates or reveals with those of a particular historical situation. God then can enter humanity at any time to any group. The way Thomas argues clarifies thought through what has been revealed by God in history for them to act on in the present and the future whilst considering the past.
The present view of the church would seem to say that neither science or religion should consider itself better than the other. That in fact they should listen to the views of each for the good of each. This is not to say that in any way that they loose their identity or integrity on the road to discovery. They must leave themselves open to the insights of others in openness to enhance their own perspective. This is in my opinion in effect what Thomas did in the extracts from the Summa. His considerations always look at the alternate view. They are expressed openly in his method for conclusion.
Is there a right or wrong view to theology? My view is that there is in as much that we ‘take a view’. There is not in as much as we have not concluded on the subject and as God is infinite probably never will. So it can only be the methodology that we take a view on.
At this stage and with very limited knowledge I would lean towards Thomas. Why? Because he uses and explains his views in a supported way of explanation. That is not to say that by any means his writings are infallible it is that I cannot dispute by fact or faith with him. With time and exploration this currant view of mine may change or not as my understanding and knowledge evolves. Maybe this is what ‘doing theology’ is all about. As Thomas explains I am receiving baby food, I am not on solids yet.
Word Total. 4473.
Bibliography.
The New Jerusalem Bible, Darton, Longman & Todd. 1994.
Catechism of the Catholic Church, London, Geoffrey Chapman, 1994.
NEUNER, J. & DUPUIS, J. The Christian Faith in The Doctrinal Documents of the Catholic Church, Revised edition. London 2001.
FLANNERY, a, Editor, Vatican II: the Conciliar and Post conciliar Documents, Volume 1, New York. Dominican Publications, 1978
KREEFT, P, Editor, Summa of the Summa, San Francisco, Ignatius Press. 1990.
DULLES, A. Editor, The Craft of Theology. From Symbol to System. Dublin, Gill & Macmillan 1992.
SELMAN, F. Editor. St Thomas Aquinas, Teacher of Truth. London. 1994.
SCHMAUS, M. Editor, Dogma 1, God in Revelation, Sheed & Ward, London, 1979.
THOMAS, J. H. Editor. Paul Tillich, Continuum, New York. 2000.
KERR, F. Editor. After Aquinas, Versions of Thomism. Blackwell Publishing, Oxford, 2002.
KENNY, A. Editor. Aquinas. Oxford University Press, Oxford, 1980.
REDWOOD, J. Editor. Introduction to Theology. Revised, Maryvale Institute, 2002.
