Sect. 53Progress of Theological ScienceProgress of Theological Science
I. The possibility, and indeed the necessity, of progress in Theology result in general from the inexhaustible riches of revealed truths, the perfectibility of the human mind, the wise dispensation of Providence which gradually evolved Revelation, and lastly from the necessity of combating heresy and infidelity.
II. Progress in Theology necessarily differs from progress in human sciences. Theology, for instance, can never desert the standpoint of Faith so as to substitute for it purely rational principles; it cannot give up or alter anything which has once been defined; it cannot discover any new province—except, indeed, in certain auxiliary branches of research—because its limits have already been fixed by the fact that Revelation has been closed. Positive progress is possible in three directions only: (1) what is uncertain, indefinite, or obscure may be made certain, definite, and clear; (2) erroneous opinions held by some may be corrected; and (3) demonstration and defence may be remodelled or improved. Speaking generally, progress is made chiefly in the correction of partially held erroneous opinions.
III. Progress in Theology is not as constant and steady as progress in dogma, because theology depends, much more than dogma, on the abilities of individual members of the Church. Epochs of profound theological learning have been succeeded by epochs of comparative sterility. Mathematics, the natural sciences, and history progress more steadily than Theology, because they deal with fixed formulas and facts. Nevertheless Theology advances more steadily than Philosophy, because the fundamental principles of Theology are fixed, and also because the assistance of the Holy Ghost, working through the Church, preserves it from straying far from the truth.
IV. In recent times the enemies of Theology, and even some of its less prudent friends, have tried to give sacred science a “liberal” basis. Liberalism in Theology consists in questioning its principles either categorically, that is, doubting them until natural science has proved them to be true (as Hermes did); or hypothetically, that is, accepting them, but subject to scientific ratification (Günther). In both cases the principle of the Faith is denied, and progress in Theology is rendered as impossible as progress in a philosophy based on the negation of first principles. The only permissible doubt is Methodic Doubt. A Catholic theologian may treat of the truths which he firmly believes, as though they were still uncertain, for the purpose of discovering for his own benefit or for that of unbelievers the grounds upon which they are based. A third form of liberalism, less serious than the other two, is the rejection of the method and principles of the old scholastic theologians. (See Syllabus, prop. xiii.) To do this would be an insult to reason, to the vital power of the Church and to Divine Providence. Besides, no progress is possible except on the basis of previously acquired results. On the whole, Liberalism is opposed to authority because it looks upon authority as an obstacle to progress. It demands unlimited freedom in its methods, its principles, and its conclusions. But a comparison of the state of Theology in Germany and Spain shows that progress results not from licence but from authority. In Spain, in the sixteenth century, when the Congregation of the Index ruled supreme over theological science, theology attained an unparalleled height of splendour. In Germany, during the eighteenth century, when “freedom of thought” flourished, Theology was in a pitiable state of decay.
The true conditions of a fruitful progress in Theology are: (1) a firm adhesion to the Faith; (2) the acceptance of the progress already made; (3) a willing submission to the authority of the Church; (4) prudence in the use of auxiliary sciences hostile to the Church; and (5) exactness and thoroughness of method.
See Hist. de la Théologie Positive, par J. Turmel; La Théologie Catholique au XIX Siècle, par J. Bellamy.
I. The possibility, and indeed the necessity, of progress in Theology result in general from the inexhaustible riches of revealed truths, the perfectibility of the human mind, the wise dispensation of Providence which gradually evolved Revelation, and lastly from the necessity of combating heresy and infidelity.
II. Progress in Theology necessarily differs from progress in human sciences. Theology, for instance, can never desert the standpoint of Faith so as to substitute for it purely rational principles; it cannot give up or alter anything which has once been defined; it cannot discover any new province—except, indeed, in certain auxiliary branches of research—because its limits have already been fixed by the fact that Revelation has been closed. Positive progress is possible in three directions only: (1) what is uncertain, indefinite, or obscure may be made certain, definite, and clear; (2) erroneous opinions held by some may be corrected; and (3) demonstration and defence may be remodelled or improved. Speaking generally, progress is made chiefly in the correction of partially held erroneous opinions.
III. Progress in Theology is not as constant and steady as progress in dogma, because theology depends, much more than dogma, on the abilities of individual members of the Church. Epochs of profound theological learning have been succeeded by epochs of comparative sterility. Mathematics, the natural sciences, and history progress more steadily than Theology, because they deal with fixed formulas and facts. Nevertheless Theology advances more steadily than Philosophy, because the fundamental principles of Theology are fixed, and also because the assistance of the Holy Ghost, working through the Church, preserves it from straying far from the truth.
IV. In recent times the enemies of Theology, and even some of its less prudent friends, have tried to give sacred science a “liberal” basis. Liberalism in Theology consists in questioning its principles either categorically, that is, doubting them until natural science has proved them to be true (as Hermes did); or hypothetically, that is, accepting them, but subject to scientific ratification (Günther). In both cases the principle of the Faith is denied, and progress in Theology is rendered as impossible as progress in a philosophy based on the negation of first principles. The only permissible doubt is Methodic Doubt. A Catholic theologian may treat of the truths which he firmly believes, as though they were still uncertain, for the purpose of discovering for his own benefit or for that of unbelievers the grounds upon which they are based. A third form of liberalism, less serious than the other two, is the rejection of the method and principles of the old scholastic theologians. (See Syllabus, prop. xiii.) To do this would be an insult to reason, to the vital power of the Church and to Divine Providence. Besides, no progress is possible except on the basis of previously acquired results. On the whole, Liberalism is opposed to authority because it looks upon authority as an obstacle to progress. It demands unlimited freedom in its methods, its principles, and its conclusions. But a comparison of the state of Theology in Germany and Spain shows that progress results not from licence but from authority. In Spain, in the sixteenth century, when the Congregation of the Index ruled supreme over theological science, theology attained an unparalleled height of splendour. In Germany, during the eighteenth century, when “freedom of thought” flourished, Theology was in a pitiable state of decay.
The true conditions of a fruitful progress in Theology are: (1) a firm adhesion to the Faith; (2) the acceptance of the progress already made; (3) a willing submission to the authority of the Church; (4) prudence in the use of auxiliary sciences hostile to the Church; and (5) exactness and thoroughness of method.
See Hist. de la Théologie Positive, par J. Turmel; La Théologie Catholique au XIX Siècle, par J. Bellamy.
Seção 18% da obra, de A Manual of Catholic Theology (Wilhelm & Scannell, sobre a Dogmatik de Scheeben). Ver o original.