Dogmatic Facts

(1) Definition

By a dogmatic fact, in wider sense, is meant any fact connected
with a dogma and on which the application of the dogma to a
particular case depends. The following questions involve dogmatic
facts in the wider sense: Is Pius X, for instance, really and
truly Roman Pontiff, duly elected and recognized by the Universal
Church? This is connected with dogma, for it is a dogma of faith
that every pontiff duly elected and recognized by the universal
Church is a successor of Peter. Again, was this or that council
ecumenical? This, too, is connected with dogma, for every
ecumenical council is endowed with infallibility and jurisdiction
over the Universal Church. The question also whether canonized
saints really die in the odour of sanctity is connected with
dogma, for every one who dies in the odour of sanctity is saved.
In the stricter sense the term dogmatic fact is confined to books
and spoken discourses, and its meaning will be explained by a
reference to the condemnation by Innocent X of five propositions
taken from the posthumous book of Jansenius, entitled
"Augustinus". It might be asked, for example, whether the pope
could define that Jansenius really was the author of the book
entitled "Augustinus". It is conceded that he could not. He may
speak of it as the work of Jansenius, because, in general repute,
at least, it was regarded as the work of Jansenius. The precise
authorship of a book is called a personal fact. The question
turned on the doctrine of the book. The Jansenists admitted that
the doctrine enunciated In the condemned propositions was
heretical; but they maintained that the condemned doctrine was not
taught in the "Augustinus". This brings us to what are called
"particular facts of doctrine". Thus it is a fact that God exists,
and that there are Three Persons in God; here the same thing is
fact and dogma. The Jansenists admitted that the pope is competent
to deal with particular facts of doctrine, but not to determine
the meaning of a book. The controversy was then carried to the
meaning of the book. Now it is conceded that the pope cannot
define the purely internal, subjective, perhaps singular meaning,
which an author might attach to his words. But the pope, in
certain cases, can determine the meaning of a book judged by the
general laws of interpretation. And when a book or propositions
from a book are condemned, "in the sense of the author", they are
condemned in the sense in which the book or propositions would be
understood when interpreted according to the ordinary laws of
language. The same formula may be condemned in one author and not
in another, because, interpreted by the context and general
argument of the author, it may be unorthodox in one case and not
in another. In the strict sense, therefore, a dogmatic fact may be
defined as "the orthodox or heterodox meaning of a book or
proposition"; or as a "fact that is so connected with dogma that a
knowledge of the fact is necessary for teaching and conserving
sound doctrine". When we say that a book contains unorthodox
doctrine, we convey that a certain doctrine is unorthodox; here we
have close connection between fact and dogma.

(2) The Church and Dogmatic Facts

Jansenists distinguished between "fact" and "dogma". They held
that the Church is infallible in defining revealed truth and in
condemning errors opposed to revealed truth; but that the Church
is not infallible in defining facts which are not contained in
Divine revelation, and consequently that the Church was not
infallible in declaring that a particular doctrine, in a
particular sense, was found in the "Augustinus" of Jansenius. This
would confine the infallible teaching of the Church to mere
abstract doctrines, a view that cannot be accepted. Theologians
are unanimous in teaching that the Church, or the pope, is
infallible, not only in defining what is formally contained in
Divine revelation, but also in defining virtually revealed truths,
or generally in all definitions and condemnations which are
necessary for safe-guarding the body of revealed truth. Whether it
is to be regarded as a defined doctrine, as a doctrine de fide,
that the Church is infallible in definitions about dogmatic facts,
is disputed among theologians. The reason of this difference in
opinion will appear below (3). The Church, in all ages, has
exercised the right of pronouncing with authority on dogmatic
facts; and this right is essential to her teaching office. She has
always claimed the right of defining that the doctrine of
heretics, in the sense in which it is contained in their books, or
in their discourses, is heretical; that the doctrine of an
orthodox writer, in the sense in which it is contained in his
writings, is orthodox. We can scarcely imagine a theory like that
of the Jansenists advanced within the sphere of the civil
authority. We can scarcely conceive it to be held that a judge and
a jury may pronounce on an abstract proposition of libel, but
cannot find that a particular paragraph in a book or newspaper is
libellous in the sense in which it is written. If the Church could
not define the orthodox or unorthodox sense of books, sermons,
conferences, and discourses generally, she might still be
infallible in regard to abstract doctrine, but she could not
fulfil her task as practical teacher of humanity, not protect her
children from actual concrete dangers to their faith and morals.

(3) Faith and Dogmatic Facts

The more extreme Jansenists, distinguishing between dogma and
fact, taught that the dogma is the proper object of faith but that
to the definition of fact only respectful silence is due. The
refused to subscribe the formula of the condemnation of Jansenism,
or would subscribe only with a qualification, on the ground that
subscription implied internal assent and acquiescence. The less
extreme party, though limiting the Church's infallibility to the
question of dogma, though that the formula might be signed
absolutely and without qualification, on the ground that, by
general usage, subscription implied assent to the dogma, but, in
relation to the fact, only external reverence. But the definitions
of dogmatic facts demand real internal assent; though about the
nature of the assent and its relation to faith theologians are not
unanimous. Some theologians hold that definitions of dogmatic
facts, and especially of dogmatic facts in the wider acceptation
of the term, are believed by Divine faith. For instance, the
proposition, "every pope duly elected is the successor of Peter",
is formally revealed. Then, say these theologians, the
proposition, "Pius X has been duly elected pope", only shows that
Pius X is included in the general revealed proposition that "every
pope duly elected is the successor of Peter". And they conclude
that the proposition, "Pius X is successor to Peter", is a
formally revealed proposition; that it is believed by Divine
faith; that it is a doctrine of faith, de fide; that the Church,
or the pope, is infallible in defining such doctrines. Other
theologians hold that the definitions of dogmatic facts, in the
wider and stricter acceptation, are received, not by Divine faith,
but by ecclesiastical faith, which some call mediate Divine faith.
They hold that in such syllogisms as this: "Every duly elected
pontiff is Peter's successor; but Pius X, for example, is a duly
elected pontiff; therefore he is a successor of Peter", the
conclusion is not formally revealed by God, but is inferred from a
revealed and an unrevealed proposition, and that consequently it
is believed, not by Divine, but by ecclesiastical faith. It would
then also be held that it has not been formally defined de fide
that the Church is infallible in the definition of dogmatic facts.
It would be said technically to be theologically certain that the
Church is infallible in these definitions; and this infallibility
cannot lawfully be questioned. That all are bound to give internal
assent to Church definitions of dogmatic facts is evident from the
correlative duties of teacher and persons taught. As it belongs to
the duty of supreme pastor to define the meaning of a book or
proposition, correlatively it is the duty of the subjects who are
taught to accept this meaning.

DANIEL COGHLAN
Transcribed by Rev. Paul J. McDonald

<Picture: New Advent Catholic Supersite>

From the Catholic Encyclopedia, copyright � 1913 by the
Encyclopedia Press, Inc. Electronic version copyright � 1996 by
New Advent, Inc.

Taken from the New Advent Web Page (www.knight.org/advent).

This article is part of the Catholic Encyclopedia Project, an
effort aimed at placing the  entire Catholic Encyclopedia 1913
edition on the World Wide Web. The coordinator is Kevin Knight,
editor of the New Advent Catholic Website. If you would like to
contribute to this  worthwhile project, you can contact him by e-
mail at (knight.org/advent). For  more information please download
the file cathen.txt/.zip.

-------------------------------------------------------

  Provided courtesy of:

       Eternal Word Television Network
       PO Box 3610
       Manassas, VA 22110
       Voice: 703-791-2576
       Fax: 703-791-4250
       Web: http://www.ewtn.com
       Email address: [email protected]

-------------------------------------------------------

You are viewing proxied material from gopher.ratthing.com. The copyright of proxied material belongs to its original authors. Any comments or complaints in relation to proxied material should be directed to the original authors of the content concerned. Please see the disclaimer for more details.