On Reading (Patreon)

(Here is a little uncompleted and unedited peice on theological education and reading I wrote awhile back)

I do not wish here to provide a guide for increasing the skills of reading and comprehension, rather I wish to provide a guide to which books one should read and to discourse on the order of said books. In it, I will set forth two principles that have helped me in choosing which books to read.

I will speak in categories rather than in specifics (thus, this will be applicable to all and one may substitute books as they wish). For, I am unqualified to give such a treatment of the specifics. I am still a beginner on this journey of learning myself and would be pretentious to give an absolute rule to which books to read. Rather, I hope to give guidance on which types of books to read.

The reader should take most of what I say with a grain of salt. For, I am sure that there are general categories I have looked over, or specific works which will be better substitutes than the ones I recommend. Rather, the value which I do hope to add is that of a general hermeneutic whereby one may cultivate the virtue of prudence in what they decide to read and what they do not decide to read.

First, for the beginner, not acquainted with a solid and systematic foundation in the discipline (which, in all due respect and humility is most of you), one must not read niche or advanced works in that field. This is a central error I see in the practice of other’s reading habits. One cannot critically analyze an advanced work with a restricted scope, without having a general knowledge of that field.

For example, it is imprudent to read and discourse on the presence of Christ in the eucharist (a restricted area of dogmatic theology), without knowing the principles of Christology, Soteriology, the Doctrine of God, and the like. It is a grave temptation for one to chase after the desire to know alot about a single, restricted subject in a certain locus, but this path is a dangerous one which will stunt one’s growth as a theologian. One will not have the faculties and habitus of theological reasoning, along with secondary knowledge that is necessary to think about this and other questions.

This principle shines forth clearly in the doctrine of the Eucharist. First, it is important to have a knowledge of Christology, in order to ask how Christ may be present in the eucharist (or not). Second, outside of systematic theology, it is important to understand the concept of presence as is found in the philosophers. Third, it is important to have a knowledge of the doctrine of God to ask about what God can possibly do. Without a basic knowledge of these disciplines, one will be useless in a Eucharistic analysis.

Second, one must understand the types of sources which are part of a basic and systematic reading of various disciplines. The classical distinction is between primary and secondary sources. It is helpful here to make a second distinction within secondary sources between prolegomena and synthesis. It is further helpful to think of “primary sources” rather in terms of “canonical sources.”

To bring us from abstract to concrete in these categories, let us think of the discipline of patrology. Prolegomena is going to teach us the foundational principles of a certain discipline to give us the theory behind such reading. For Patrology, a great example of such a work is St. John Henry Newman’s On the Development of Christian Doctrine. This work gives us the tools to read and analyze primary sources in the area of Patrology. Without such a foundation before embarking on our literary journey in any discipline, we are liable to misunderstand the efficient and final causes of our endeavor.

Next, after we have been given the basic tools and theory necessary to reading, we ought to read through the “canonical sources” of the discipline. These are the works, established by the tradition, which provide the substance of the material of the discipline. This is the material cause. For Patrology, one should embark on reading the Schaff set. For theology, one should read the Summa or Lombard’s Sentences. For philosophy, one should read the works of Aristotle and Plato.

Especially helpful for the Catholic is the works of Migne, for, he collected the canonical texts of the Greek Fathers, Latin Fathers, Biblical interpretation, Dogmatic theology, and more.

In addition to this task, commentators are helpful here. For example, in the task of learning the basics of philosophy, one should read the Aristotelian commentaries of St. Thomas. These aid in the understanding of the canonical texts and provide a bridge between them and synthesizing texts. Another category is those who have commented on St. Thomas’ Summa, such as Lagrange or Báñez.

Next, one should read the synthesis of the material, i.e. the formal cause. These are systematic treatises which present the whole of the matter in an orderly way. One cannot embark on reading such a work if one does not know the matter synthesized and such a reading can be dangerous. Here, disciplines often overlap. For example, the theological manuals, such as Pohle’s, provide a synthesis of both dogmatic theology and patrology.

Only now is one equipped to read more advanced works. These works are helpful in two regards. First, it gives one an example of the application of the basic and systematic presentation of the discipline one has learned. It allows one to further refine their knowledge of the field and the theological habitus. Second, it allows one to refine the system they have received by asking and thinking through questions which make up the system, deepening their understanding of the parts of the whole. In our example of patrology, this might be reading a work on the debates over St. Augustine’s doctrine of the Eucharist.

These categories provided shouldn’t be taken as hard and fast rules, rather they should be taken as guiding and general principles. For example, the discipline of Dogmatic theology provides the form of scriptural studies, while, in a sense, both patrology and scripture studies provide the matter of Dogmatic theology. More investigation is needed into how the various disciplines and categories of each discipline relate in the ordering of learning. For now, the medieval structure of learning is best suited to this endeavor.

Thirdly, one ought to expand the areas of systematic reading. The cardinal sin of modern academia is its narrowness in this area. For the theologian, here are a few categories which come to mind. First, the study of Sacred Scripture. In the words of Dei Verbum, “the study of the sacred page is, as it were, the soul of sacred theology.” Next, in no particular order, comes the study of the Fathers who act as the authentic and authoritative interpreters of sacred theology. Third, philosophy, which serves as an instrument of the synthesis of the sources of theology. Fourth, history, both secular and ecclesiastical, which provides a knowledge of the working of God in history, and can help contextualize the other sources of theology. Fifth, the literary classics, which form us in the appreciation of beauty and the art of reading in general. Sixth, moral theology, spirituality, and liturgy, which form us towards the use of sacred theology. Lastly, the crown jewel and end for which all other disciplines, both sacred and secular, exist, Dogmatic theology, which provides the synthesis of our knowledge of God and His works.

As one ought to notice, none of these disciplines exist in isolation from the rest. One who is a poor philosopher cannot be a good dogmatic theologian. One who is a poor historian cannot be a good Patrologist. Specialization is certainly a good, but the rudiments of a systematic knowledge of other disciplines is necessary for the specialists.