Apologeticae sive Theologiae Fundamentalis, Tomus I: Demonstratio Christiana

Although theology is one science on account of the unity of its formal object.¹ It is nevertheless divided by reason of matter and method.

a) By reason of its matter, theology is divided into principal and subsidiary disciplines. For theology is likened to a spiritual edifice, for the building of which materials are first collected and prepared in their place, that they may afterwards be fitted together and united from the foundation of the building even to its summit. Now indeed: the subsidiary disciplines, as it were, work the sources or seats (loci) of revelation and supply the materials collected and prepared from them for the spiritual house to be built. Since there are two seats of revelation (holy Scripture and divine Tradition), there are also two subsidiary disciplines of theology, namely: biblical study, which is directed to understanding holy Scripture by handing on an introduction to the inspired books and an exposition (exegesis) of them, and historical study, which is ordered to understanding the divine Tradition, which is unfolded in the history of the Church and is contained especially in the writings of the Fathers (whence patrology).

The principal disciplines, by arranging and joining together the materials thus supplied, build the theological edifice from the lowest to the highest. And indeed theology: apologetic (fundamental) theology lays the principles or foundations upon which the whole theological house rests; dogmatic theology treats of the truths to be believed and of what follows from them; moral theology (moral theology simply, and also ascetical and mystical) teaches the virtues to be practiced and the life to be instituted after the Christian manner;² hierarchical theology vindicates the rights and offices of ecclesiastical governance and therefore is subdivided into canon law, which embraces the rights and laws of the Church, and pastoral theology, which sets forth the duties of pastors and the offices to be duly performed. To pastoral theology, therefore, liturgical and homiletic theology are also added.

b) By reason of method, theology is divided into positive and speculative or scholastic.

Positive theology draws and proves the several truths from the sources of revelation (holy Scripture and Tradition); speculative (scholastic) theology explains and illustrates more deeply the nature and causes of the truths, shows their mutual connection among themselves and their agreement with reason, and also deduces from them the consequences and conclusions. The former teaches that something is true; the latter, how something is true.

That positive theology is always to be associated with scholastic, S. Thomas thus admonishes: "Disputation can be ordered to a twofold end. For one kind of disputation is ordered to removing the doubt whether a thing is so, and in such disputation one must chiefly use the authorities [of holy Scripture and divine Tradition] which are received by those with whom one disputes. Another kind of disputation, however, is the magisterial one in the schools, not for removing error but for instructing the hearers, that they may be led to the understanding of the truth which the [master] intends; and then one must rely upon reasons that search out the root of the truth and make one know how that which is said is true. Otherwise, if the master determines the question by bare authorities, the hearer will indeed be certified that it is so, but will acquire nothing of science or of understanding, but will depart empty."³

Although both, however, are to be joined, nevertheless either one can prevail. And indeed in the Middle Ages, when the truth of the faith was impugned by almost no one, speculative theology prevailed in the Catholic schools, which on that account also received the name of "scholastic." But with heresy growing more serious, from the sixteenth century positive theology began to be cultivated with greater diligence. For the authors and champions of the pseudo-Reformation, imbued with the greatest hatred against scholasticism, using only holy Scripture, attempted to restore the primitive Christian religion and to subvert the Church. To refute these, Catholics gave themselves indefatigably to the study of positive theology. Nay more, in the eighteenth century and in the first half of the nineteenth century many of our own, favoring liberalism, held scholasticism in hatred, as though it were swollen with curiosities and futilities. But although certain of the scholastics, especially of later times, indulged too much in subtle and idle questions, scholastic theology itself has greatly deserved and deserves well of the faith. Its princes — Alexander of Hales, Albert the Great, Thomas, Bonaventure, Duns Scotus, and many others — like lights of heaven illuminate the Church of all times. Whence the councils and the Roman pontiffs have often extolled scholasticism with the highest praises and have earnestly commended its study to both the masters and the disciples of sacred science.

In our days both methods are equally necessary, namely positive and scholastic. Positive theology is needed for refuting theological liberalism and modernism, which prate that the Catholic dogmas were born gradually by historical evolution, and also for preparing the minds of our beginners, that they may be able to cultivate scholastic theology perfectly. Scholastic theology, however, is necessary, both because the study of holy Scripture and of the Fathers destitute of the scholastic method led many into error, since they did not understand the terms, were ignorant of the state of the questions, falsely explained the opinions, and deduced insipid conclusions; and because in our "scientific" age a fuller and deeper understanding of sacred doctrine is urged. Whence Pius X: "Indeed greater account is to be taken than before of positive theology; yet let this be done in such a way that scholastic theology suffers no detriment, and let those be reproved, as those who carry on the business of the modernists, whoever so extol positive theology as to seem to despise scholastic theology."⁴