 |
|
| A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W X Y Z |
The worddogma (Gr.dogma fromdokein) signifies, in the writings of the ancient classical authors, sometimes, an opinion or that which seemstrue to aperson; sometimes, thephilosophical doctrines or tenets, and especially the distinctivephilosophical doctrines, of a particularschool ofphilosophers (cf. Cic. Ac., ii, 9), and sometimes, a publicdecree or ordinance, asdogma poieisthai.
InSacred Scripture it is used, at one time, in the sense of adecree or edict of thecivil authority, as inLuke 2:1: "And it came to pass, that in those days there went out adecree [edictum,dogma] fromCaesar Augustus" (cf.Acts 17:7;Esther 3:3); at another time, in the sense of an ordinance of theMosaic Law as inEphesians 2:15: "Making void thelaw of commandments contained in decrees" (dogmasin), and again, it is applied to the ordinances or decrees of the first Apostolic Council inJerusalem: "And as they passed through the cities, they delivered unto them the decrees [dogmata] for to keep, that were decreed by the apostles and ancients who were atJerusalem" (Acts 16:4).
Among the early Fathers the usage was prevalent of designating as dogmas the doctrines and moralprecepts taught orpromulgated by the Saviour or by theApostles; and a distinction was sometimes made between Divine, Apostolical, andecclesiastical dogmas, according as adoctrine was conceived as having been taught by Christ, by theApostles, or as having been delivered to thefaithful by theChurch.
But according to a long-standing usage a dogma is now understood to be atruth appertaining tofaith ormorals, revealed byGod, transmitted from the Apostles in the Scriptures or by tradition, and proposed by theChurch for the acceptance of thefaithful. It might be described briefly as arevealedtruthdefined by theChurch — butprivate revelations do not constitute dogmas, and sometheologians confine the word defined to doctrines solemnly defined by thepope or by ageneral council, while arevealedtruth becomes a dogma even when proposed by theChurch through her ordinary magisterium or teaching office. A dogma therefore implies a twofold relation: toDivine revelation and to the authoritative teaching of theChurch.
Theologians distinguish three classes ofrevealedtruths:truthsformally andexplicitlyrevealed;truthsrevealedformally, but onlyimplicitly; andtruths onlyvirtuallyrevealed.
Atruth is said to be formally revealed, when the speaker or revealer really means to convey thattruth by his language, to guarantee it by the authority of his word. Therevelation is formal and explicit, when made in clear express terms. It is formal but only implicit, when the language is somewhat obscure, when the rules of interpretation must be carefully employed to determine the meaning of therevelation. And atruth is said to berevealed only virtually, when it is not formally guaranteed by the word of the speaker, but is inferred from something formallyrevealed.
Now,truths formally and explicitly revealed byGod are certainly dogmas in the strict sense when they are proposed ordefined by theChurch. Such are the articles of theApostles' Creed. Similarly,truths revealed byGod formally, but only implicitly, are dogmas in the strict sense when proposed ordefined by theChurch. Such, for example, are the doctrines ofTransubstantiation,papal infallibility, theImmaculate Conception, some of theChurch's teaching about the Saviour, thesacraments, etc. All doctrinesdefined by theChurch as being contained in revelation are understood to be formally revealed, explicitly or implicitly. It is a dogma offaith that theChurch isinfallible in defining these two classes ofrevealedtruths; and the deliberate denial of one of these dogmas certainly involves thesin ofheresy. There is a diversity of opinion about virtuallyrevealedtruths, which has its roots in a diversity of opinion about the material object offaith (seeF). It is enough to say here that, according to sometheologians, virtuallyrevealedtruths belong to the material object offaith and become dogmas in the strict sense when defined or proposed by theChurch; and according to others, they do not belong to the material object offaith prior to their definition, but become strict dogmas when defined; and, according to others, they do not belong to the material object of Divinefaith at all, nor become dogmas in the strict sense when defined, but may be called mediately-Divine orecclesiastical dogmas. In the hypothesis that virtually revealed conclusions do not belong to the material object offaith, it has not beendefined that theChurch isinfallible in defining thesetruths, theinfallibility of theChurch, however, in relation to thesetruths is adoctrine of theChurch theologically certain, which cannot lawfully be denied — and though the denial of anecclesiastical dogma would not beheresy in the strict sense, it could entail the sundering of the bond offaith and expulsion from theChurch by theChurch'sanathema orexcommunication.
The divisions of dogma follow the lines of the divisions offaith. Dogmas can be (1) general or special; (2) material or formal; (3) pure or mixed; (4) symbolic or non-symbolic; (5) and they can differ according to their various degrees of necessity.
(1) General dogmas are a part of the revelation meant formankind and transmitted from the Apostles; while special dogmas are thetruths revealed inprivate revelations. Special dogmas, therefore, are not, strictly speaking, dogmas at all; they are notrevealedtruths transmitted from the Apostles; nor are they defined or proposed by theChurch for the acceptance of the faithful generally.
(2) Dogmas are called material (or Divine, or dogmas in themselves,in se) when abstraction is made from their definition by theChurch, when they are considered only as revealed; and they are called formal (orCatholic, or "in relation to us",quoad nos) when they are considered both as revealed and defined. Again, it is evident that material dogmas are not dogmas in the strict sense of the term.
(3) Pure dogmas are those which can be known only from revelation, as theTrinity,Incarnation, etc.; while mixed dogmas aretruths which can be known from revelation or fromphilosophical reasoning as the existence and attributes ofGod. Both classes are dogmas in the strict sense, when considered as revealed and defined.
(4) Dogmas contained in the symbols or creeds of theChurch are called symbolic; the remainder are non-symbolic. Hence all the articles of theApostles' Creed are dogmas — but not all dogmas are called technicallyarticles of faith, though an ordinary dogma is sometimes spoken of as anarticle of faith.
(5) Finally, there are dogmasbelief in which is absolutelynecessary as a means tosalvation, whilefaith in others is renderednecessary only by Divine precept; and some dogmas must be explicitly known and believed, while with regard to others implicitbelief is sufficient.
As a dogma is arevealedtruth, theintellectual character and objective reality of dogma depend on theintellectual character and objectivetruth ofDivine revelation. We will here apply to dogma the conclusions developed at greater length under the heading ofrevelation. Are dogmas considered merely astruths revealed byGod, real objectivetruths addressed to thehumanmind? Are we bound to believe them with the mind? Should we admit the distinction between fundamental and non-fundamental dogmas?
(1)Rationalists deny the existence of Divinesupernatural revelation, and consequently of religious dogmas. A certainschool of mystics has taught that what Christ inaugurated in the world was "a new life". The"Modernist" theory by reason of its recent condemnation calls for fuller treatment. There are different shades of opinion amongModernists. Some of them do not, apparently, deny allintellectual value to dogma (cf. Le Roy, "Dogme et Critique"). Dogma, like revelation, they say, is expressed in terms of action. Thus when the Son of (God is said "to have come down from heaven", according to alltheologians He did not come down, as bodies descend or asangels are conceived to pass from place to place, but thehypostatic union is described in terms of action. So when we profess ourfaith inGod the Father, we mean, according to M. Le Roy, that we have to act towardsGod as sons; but neither the fatherhood ofGod, nor the other dogmas offaith, such as the Trinity, the Incarnation, theResurrection of Christ, etc. imply of necessity any objectiveintellectual conception of fatherhood, Trinity,Resurrection, etc., or convey anyidea to the mind. According to other writers,God has addressed no revelation to thehumanmind. Revelation, they say, began as a consciousness of right and wrong — and the evolution or development of revelation was but the progressive development of the religious sense until it reached its highest level, thus far, in the modern liberal and democratic State. Then, according to these writers, the dogmas offaith, considered as dogmas, have no meaning for the mind, we need not believe them mentally; we may reject them — it is enough if we employ them as guides for our actions. (SeeM.) Over against thisdoctrine theChurch teaches thatGod has made a revelation to thehumanmind. There are, no doubt, relativeDivine attributes, and some of the dogmas offaith may be expressed under the symbolism of action, but they also convey to thehumanmind a meaning distinct from action. The fatherhood ofGod may imply that we should act towards Him as children towards a father — but it also conveys to the mind definite analogical conceptions of ourGod and Creator. And there aretruths, such as the Trinity, theResurrection of Christ, HisAscension, etc. which are absolute objective facts, and which could be believed even if their practical consequences were ignored or were deemed of little value. The dogmas of theChurch, such as theexistence of God, the Trinity, the Incarnation, theResurrection of Christ, thesacraments, a future judgment, etc. have an objective reality and are facts as really and truly as it a fact thatAugustus was Emperor of the Romans, and that George Washington was first President of theUnited States.
(2) Abstracting from theChurch's definition, we are bound to render toGod the homage of our assent torevealedtruth once we are satisfied that He has spoken. Evenatheists admit, hypothetically, that if there be aninfinite Being distinct from the world, we should pay Him the homage ofbelieving His Divine word.
(3) Hence it is not permissible to distinguishrevealedtruths as fundamental and non-fundamental in the sense that sometruths, though known to have been revealed byGod, may be lawfully denied. But while we should believe, at least implicitly, everytruth attested by the word ofGod, we are free to admit that some are in themselves more important than others, morenecessary than others, and that an explicitknowledge of some isnecessary while an implicitfaith in others is sufficient.
Revealedtruths become formally dogmas when defined or proposed by theChurch. There is considerable hostility, in modern times, to dogmatic religion when considered as a body oftruthsdefined by theChurch, and still more when considered as defined by thepope. The theory of dogma which is here expounded depends for its acceptance on thedoctrine of theinfallible teaching office of theChurch and of theRoman pontiff. It will be sufficient to notice the following points, (1) the reasonableness of the definition of dogma; (2) the immutability of dogma; (3) the necessity for Church unity ofbelief in dogma (4) the inconveniences which are alleged to be associated with the definition of dogma.
(1) Against the theory of interpretation of Scripture by private judgement,Catholics regard as absolutely unacceptable the view thatGod revealed a body oftruths to the world and appointed no official teacher ofrevealedtruth, no authoritative judge of controversy; this view is as unreasonable as would be the notion that the civil legislature makeslaws and then commits to individual private judgment the right and theduty of interpreting thelaws and deciding controversies. TheChurch and thesupreme pontiff are endowed byGod with the privilege ofinfallibility in discharge of theduty of universal teacher in the sphere offaith andmorals; hence we have aninfallible testimony that the dogmas defined and delivered to us by theChurch are thetruths contained inDivine revelation.
(2) The dogmas of theChurch are immutable.Modernists hold that religious dogmas, as such, have nointellectual meaning, that we are not bound to believe them mentally, that they may be allfalse, that it is sufficient if we use them a guides to action; and accordingly they teach that dogmas are not immutable, that they should be changed when the spirit of the age is opposed to them, when they lose their value as rules for a liberalreligious life. But in theCatholic doctrine thatDivine revelation is addressed to thehumanmind and expresses real objectivetruth, dogmas are immutable Divinetruths. It is an immutabletruth for all time thatAugustus was Emperor ofRome and George Washington first President of theUnited States. So according toCatholicbelief, these are and will be for all time immutabletruths — that there arethree Persons in God, thatChrist died for us, that He arose from the dead, that He founded theChurch, that He instituted thesacraments. We may distinguish between thetruths themselves and the language in which they are expressed. The full meaning of certainrevealedtruths has been only gradually brought out; thetruths will always remain. Language may change or may receive a new meaning; but we can always learn what meaning was attached to particular words in the past.
(3) We are bound to believerevealedtruths irrespective of their definition by theChurch, if we are satisfied thatGod has revealed them. When they are proposed ordefined by theChurch, and thus become dogmas, we are bound to believe them in order to maintain the bond offaith. (SeeH).
(4) Finally,Catholics do not admit that, as is sometimes alleged, dogmas are the arbitrary creations ofecclesiastical authority, that they are multiplied at will, that they are devices for keeping theignorant in subjection, that they are obstacles to conversions. Some of these are points of controversy which cannot be settled without reference to more fundamental questions. Dogmatic definitions would be arbitrary if there were no Divinely institutedinfallible teaching office in theChurch; but if, asCatholics maintain,God has established in HisChurch aninfallible office, dogmatic definitions cannot be considered arbitrary. The sameDivine Providence which preserves theChurch fromerror will preserve her from inordinate multiplication of dogmas. She cannot define arbitrarily. We need only observe the life of theChurch or of theRoman pontiffs to see that dogmas are not multiplied inordinately. And as dogmatic definitions are but the authentic interpretation and declaration of the meaning ofDivine revelation, they cannot be considered devices for keeping theignorant in subjection, or reasonable obstacles to conversions, on the contrary, the authoritative definition oftruth and condemnation oferror, are powerful arguments leading to theChurch those who seek thetruth earnestly.
It is sometimes charged that in theCatholicChurch, in consequence of its dogmas,religious life consists merely in speculativebeliefs and external sacramental formalities. It is a strange charge, arising from prejudice or from lack of acquaintance withCatholic life. Religious life in conventual and monastic establishments is surely not a merely external formality. The external religious exercises of the ordinaryCatholiclayman, such as publicprayer, confession,Holy Communion, etc. suppose careful and serious internal self-examination and self-regulation, and various other acts of internal religion. We need only to observe the public civic life ofCatholics, their philanthropic works, theirschools,hospitals,orphanages, charitable organizations, to be convinced that dogmatic religion does not degenerate into mere external formalities. On the contrary, in non-CatholicChristian bodies a general decay ofsupernaturalChristian life follows the dissolution of dogmatic religion. Were the dogmatic system of theCatholicChurch, with its authoritativeinfalliblehead, done away with, the various systems of private judgment would not save the world from relapsing into and followingpagan ideals. Dogmaticbelief is not the be-all and end-all ofCatholic life; but theCatholic servesGod, honours the Trinity, loves Christ, obeys theChurch, frequents thesacraments, assists at Mass, observes the Commandments, because he believes mentally inGod, in the Trinity, in the Divinity ofChrist, in theChurch, in thesacraments and theSacrifice of the Mass, in theduty of keeping the Commandments, and he believes in them as objective immutabletruths.
But, it is objected, dogma checks investigation, antagonizes independence of thought, and makes scientifictheology impossible. This difficulty may be supposed to be put byProtestants or by unbelievers. We will consider it from both points of view.
(1) Beyond scientific investigation and freedom of thoughtCatholics recognize the guiding influence of dogmaticbeliefs. ButProtestants also profess to adhere to certain great dogmatictruths which are supposed to impede scientific investigation and to conflict with the findings of modernscience. Old difficulties against theexistence of God or its demonstrability, against the dogma of Creation,miracles, the humansoul, andsupernatural religion have been dressed in a new garb and urged by a modernschool of scientists principally from the discoveries in geology, paleontology, biology,astronomy, comparativeanatomy, and physiology. ButProtestants, no less thanCatholics, profess tobelieve inGod, in the Creation, in thesoul, in the Incarnation, in the possibility ofmiracles; they too, maintain that there can be no discord between thetrue conclusions ofscience and the dogmas of theChristian religion rightly understood.Protestants, therefore, cannot consistently complain thatCatholic dogmas impede scientific investigation. But it is urged that in theCatholic systembeliefs are not determined by private judgment, behind the dogmas of theChurch there is the living bulwark of her episcopate. True, behind dogmaticbeliefsCatholics recognizeecclesiastical authority; but this puts no further restraint onintellectual freedom — it only raises the question as to the constitution of theChurch.Catholics do not believe thatGod revealed a body oftruths tomankind and appointed no living authority to unfold, to teach, to safeguard that body of Divinetruths, to decide controversies; but the authority of the episcopate under thesupreme pontiff to controlintellectual activity is correlative with, and arises from their authority to teachsupernaturaltruth. The existence of judges and magistrates does not extend the range of our civillaws — they are rather a living authority to interpret and apply thelaws. Similarly, episcopal authority has for its range thetruth of revelation, and it prohibits only what is inconsistent with the full scope of thattruth.
(2) In discussing the question with unbelievers we note thatscience is "the observation and classification, or co-ordination, of the individual facts or phenomena of nature". Now aCatholic is absolutely free in the prosecution of scientific research according to the terms of this definition. There is no prohibition or restriction onCatholics in regard to the observation and co-ordination of the phenomena of Nature. But some scientists do not confine themselves toscience as defined by themselves. They propound theories often unwarranted by experimental observation. One will maintain as a "scientific"truth that there is noGod, or that His existence is unknowable — another that the world has not been created; another will deny in the name of "science" the existence of thesoul; another, the possibility ofsupernatural revelation. Surely these denials are not warranted by scientific methods.Catholic dogma andecclesiastical authority limitintellectual activity only so far as may benecessary for safeguarding thetruths of revelation. If non-believing scientists in their study ofCatholicism would apply the scientific method, which consists in observing, comparing, making hypotheses, and perhaps formulating scientific conclusions, they would readily see that dogmaticbelief in no way interferes with the legitimate freedom of theCatholic in scientific research, the discharge of civicduty, or any other form of activity that makes fortrue enlightenment and progress. The service rendered byCatholics in every department of learning and of social endeavour, is a fact which no amount of theorizing against dogma can set aside. (SeeF,I,R,S,T.)
Acta et Decreta Concilii Vaticani inColl. Lac. (Freiburg im Br., 1870-90), VII; SUAREZ,Opera Omnia: De Fide Theologicâ; DE LUGO,Pera: De fide; VACANT,Etudes théologiques sur les constitutions du concile du Vatican (Paris, 1895); GRANDERATH,Constitutiones dogmaticae Sacrosancti Ecumenici Concilii Vaticani ex ipsis ejus actis explicatae atque illustratae (Freiburg im Br., 1892); SCHEEBEN,Handbuch der katholischen Dogmatik (Freiburg im Br., 1873); SCHWANE,Dogmengeschichte (2nd ed., Freiburg, 1895); MAZZELLA,De Virtutibus Infusis (Rome, 1884); BILLOT,Tractatus de Ecclesiâ Christi (Rome, 1903); IDEM,De Virtutibus Infusis (Rome, 1905); NEWMAN,Idea of a University (London, 1899).
APA citation.Coghlan, D.(1909).Dogma. InThe Catholic Encyclopedia.New York: Robert Appleton Company.http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05089a.htm
MLA citation.Coghlan, Daniel."Dogma."The Catholic Encyclopedia.Vol. 5.New York: Robert Appleton Company,1909.<http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05089a.htm>.
Transcription.This article was transcribed for New Advent by Gerard Haffner.
Ecclesiastical approbation.Nihil Obstat. May 1, 1909. Remy Lafort, Censor.Imprimatur. +John M. Farley, Archbishop of New York.
Contact information. The editor of New Advent is Kevin Knight. My email address is webmasterat newadvent.org. Regrettably, I can't reply to every letter, but I greatly appreciate your feedback — especially notifications about typographical errors and inappropriate ads.