THEOLOGY
582
THEOLOGY
of Gregory of Nyssa. When Pius X, by his Motu
Proprio of 1 Sept., 1910, solemnly obliged all priests to
adhere to these principles, he did more than recall to
our minds the time-hallowed rules of Christian faith;
he freed history and criticism from those baneful ex-
crescences which impeded the growth of true science.
When the dogmatic material with the help of the historical method has been derived from its sources, another momentous task awaits the theologian; the philosophical appreciation, the speculative examina- tion and elucidation of the material brought to light. This is the piu-pose of the "scholastic" method, from which "scholastic theology" takes its name.
The scope of the scholastic method is fourfold: (a) to open up completely the content of dogma and to analyze it by means of dialectics; (b) to establish a logical connexion between the various dogmas and to unite them in a well-knit system; (c) to derive new truths, called "theological conclusions", from the premises by syllogistic reasoning; (d) to find reasons, analogies, congruous arguments for the dogmas, but above all to show that the mysteries of faith, though beyond the reach of reason, are not contrary to its laws, but can be made acceptable to our intellect. It is evident that the ultimate purpose of these phil- osophical speculations cannot be to resolve dogma finaUy into mere natural truths, or to strip the mys- teries of their supernatural character, but to explain the truths of faith, to provide for them a philosophi- cal basis, to bring them nearer to the human mind. Faith must ever remain the sohd rock-bottom on which reason builds up, and faith in its turn strives after understanding (Jides quocrens inlellcctum) . Hence the famous axiom of St. Anselm of Canterbury: Credo id intdlegam. However highly one may es- teem the results of positive theology, one thing is certain: the scientific character of dogmatic theology does not rest so much on the exactness of its exegetical and historical proofs as on the philosophical grasp of the content of dogma. But in attempting this task, the theologian cannot look for aid to modern phi- losophy with its endless confusion, but to the glorious past of his own science. What else are the modern systems of philosophy, sceptical criticism. Positivism, Pantheism, Monism, etc., than ancient errors cast into new moulds? Rightly does CathoUc theology cling to the only true and eternal philosophy of common sense, which was established by Divine Providence in the Socratic School, carried to its highest perfec- tion by Plato and Aristotle, purified from the minutest traces of error by the Scholastics of the thirteenth century.
This is the Aristotelo-scholastic philosophy, which has gained an ever stronger foothold in ecclesiastical institutions of learning. Guided by sound peda- gogical principles, Popes Leo XHI and Pius X offi- cially prescribed this philosophy as a preparation for the study of theology, and recommended it as a model method for the speculative treatment of dogma. While in his famous Encyclical "Pascendi" of 8 Sept., 1907, Pius X praises positive theology and frankly recognizes its necessity, yet he sounds a note of warn- ing not to become so absorbed in it as to neglect scholastic theology, which alone can impart a scien- tific grasp of dogma. These papal rescripts were probably inspired by the sad experience that any other than Scholastic philosophy, instead of eluci- dating and clarifying, only falsifies and destroys dogma, as is clearly shown by the history of Nomi- nalism, the philosophy of the Ri'nai.^saiice, llcrmcsian- ism, Giintherianism, and Modernism. The develop- ment also of Protestant theology, which, entering into close union with modern i)hilosopby, .swayed to and fro between the extremes of faith and unfailh and did not even recoil from Pantheism, is a warning example for the Catliolic theologian. This does not mean that Catholic theology has received no stimu-
lus whatever from modern philosophy since the days
of Kant (d. 1804). As a matter of fact, the critical
tendency has quickened the critico-historical sense of
Catholic 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 "theoretical doubt" as the starting-point
of every scientific investigation. All these advances,
as far as they mark real progress, have exerted a salu-
tary influence on theology also. But they can never
repair the material damages caused to sacred science,
when, abandoning St. Thomas Aquinas, it went hand
in hand with Kant 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 the truths of faith is mysticism, which appeals rather to the heart and the feelings than to the intellect, and sensibly imparts a knowledge of Divine things through pious medita- tion. As long as mysticism keeps in touch with scholasticism and does not exclude the intellect com- pletely, it is entitled to existence for the simple reason that faith lays hold on the whole man, and penetrates his thoughts, desires, and sentiments. The greatest mystics, as Hugh of St. Victor, Bernard of Clairvaux, and Bonaventure, were at the same time distinguished Scholastics. A heart that has preserved the faith and simphcity of its childhood, takes delighi, even now in the writings of Henry Suso (d. 1365). But whenever mysticism emancipates itself from the guid- ance of reason and makes light of the doctrinal authority of the Church, it readily falls a prey to Pantheism and pseudo-mysticism, which are the bane of all true rehgion. Meister Eckhart, whose propositions were condemned by Pope John XXII in 1.329, is a warning example. There is little in the present trend of thought that would be favourable to mysticism. The scepticism which has poisoned the minds of our generation, the uncontrolled greed 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 atmos- phere of Divine contemplation, and play havoc with the interior Ufe, the necessary conditions under which alone the tender flower of mystical piety can blossom. Modernism claims to possess in its imme- diate and immanent sense of God a congenial soil for the growth of mysticism; this soil, however, does not receive its waters from the undefiled fountain-head of Cathohc piety, but from the cisterns of Liberal Prot- estant pseudo-mysticism, which are tainted, either confessedly or secretly, by Pantheism.
(4) Relation of Dogmatic Theology to other Dis- ciplines. — At first, it was a thing altogether unknown to have different theological branches as independent sciences. Dogmatic theology was the only discipline, and comprised apologetics, dogmatic and moral theology, and canon law. This internal unity was also marked externally by the comprehensive name of science of faith (scimtia fidei), or sacred science (sri- entia sacra). First to assert its independence was canon law, which, together w-ith dogmatic theology, was the chief study in the medieval universities. But since the underlying principles of canon law, as the Divine constitution of the Church, the hierarchy, the power of ordinations, etc., were at the same time doc- trines of faith to be ]jroved in dogmatic theology, there was little danger that the internal connexion with and dependence on the principal science would be broken. Far longer did the union between dog- matic and moral theology endure. They were treated in the medieval "Books of Sentences" and theological "Siminiff" as one science. It was not until the seventeenth century, and then only for practical reasons, that moral theology was separated
