Another save from a Facebook post….
Another lovely little text to file away in that favorite folder of mine ("Data in contrast to the lies you were told in your youth concerning the pre-conciliar Church, especially concerning scholastic authors").
(Before citing this, bear in mind that the author, though a Thomist, does not assert a kind stupid claim of Thomistic superiority over doctrine. Moreover, he very carefully makes sure to affirm significant conceptual development over the course of dogmatic history [without, however, development in the objective concepts grasped through those formal concepts]. Finally, too, just as one of my addons, he is always cited approvingly by Garrigou-Lagrange, and the latter is cited by him approvingly. I say this not to hold up Garrigou as some end-all-be-all [which I have _never_ said or claimed] but, rather, just to present, yet again, more little proofs that the simplistic anti-scholastic, anti-neo-scholastic narrative is unfair and a kind of bullying. No, I'm not accusing Larry Chapp here. In the end, he is actually willing to pull back any rhetorical excesses. He doesn't prefer neo-Scholastic writers, understandably, because of their clunky and isolated way of talking only to themselves, at least very often. So, my ire here is more at a kind of Zeitgeist, even among a certain kind of Weigelian conservative. [And even Weigel probably deserves kinder treatment than I give him.] Above all, I have in my crosshairs the unfair characterizations of "ahistorical Thomism" by Bishop Robert Barron. Also, before you think I'm falling into the normal traditionalist complaints about Bishop Barron, please see my website where I clarify this under a "thought" that is tagged with his name.)
Okay, the Quote:
"Thirdly, historical knowledge regarding the various ways that Christian doctrine has been formulated, through the course of various eras and in the various writings of particular doctors, theologians, or schools, imposes grave duties upon dogmatic Theology, especially in our era. For the history of dogmas bears witness to a kind of marvelous multiplicity and diversity of formulations in Christian doctrine, a fact that was less well known or at least less fully considered by earlier theologians. Therefore, the proper office of modern theology will be to show: the equivalence of particular formulas; the continuity and identity of doctrine through its changing formulations; and, especially, how defined formulas are equivalent to the successive formulations found through the course of tradition. Such work will bear the greatest of fruits: theological argumentation will gain from it much greater strength and efficacy; dogmas will be considered from various perspectives; many teachings—whether of the Fathers, the doctors, or of the various schools—which at first sight appear to disagree with each other will be shown to be entirely consonant, or at least more easily able to be reconciled with each other; the various teachings of the schools will come to be seen in light of the various (though not opposed) ways of formulating the doctrine of faith, thus preparing the way for the resolution of many controversies."
"In short, I dare to assert: assiduous and subtle consideration concerning the various ways that doctrines have been formulated is the key for a fruitful investigation of the teaching of Sacred Scripture, the Councils, the Fathers, and theologians."
Reginald Schultes, OP, Introductio in historiam dogmatum