Dogma, what is the meaning and purpose?

[jimmy]

In another thread someone made a statement about the lack of new dogmas in the Orthodox Church.

and look at the Orthodox now, they dont want to define even one new single dogma, after 1000 years, where is the “feed my sheep” instruction given by the Lord? feed my sheep with old food?

What I see in this post is a dogmatic mentality that sees the definition of dogma as the greatest act of the Church. What is greater than the definition of a new dogma? Through dogma we gain knowledge of God, and as time goes by the dogmas of the Church will increase and develop and the faith will grow.

The purpose of this thread is to get the views of Eastern Catholics and Orthodox on the meaning and purpose of dogma.

My view of it is that dogma in itself is not necessarily a good thing, and often can be a bad thing. The mentality that ‘if it is true then it should be defined’ of those who support the definition of a new dogma of the mediatrix of all graces and of Mary as coredemptrix is nothing other than rationalism and fideism. They have turned what is fitting into what is true. If it sounds good then it must be true, therefore it must be accepted by all. It is fitting that since Christ came through Mary to the world therefore it is also through her that Grace is sent to the world and it is her who distributes the Graces of the Holy Spirit. If it sounds good then it is true. It doesn’t matter whether it is actually supported by the fathers of the Church and the scriptures.

The knowledge that is necessary is not a dogmatic knowledge but rather the knowledge of communion of God. It is an existential knowledge; a knowledge that is gained through the practice of the faith and not through the reading of books. Dogma may aid or guide the Church at times, and it may protect against erroneous interpretations of the faith, but dogma is not the essence of our faith.

What is the meaning of dogma? Why define new dogmas? What is the purpose of dogma in the life of a Christian?

 

[Aramis]

A dogma is a teaching which is required belief of the faithful. They are (normally) defined by councils in defining a particular heresy’s error.

 

[FightingFat]

In another thread someone made a statement about the lack of new dogmas in the Orthodox Church.

What I see in this post is a dogmatic mentality that sees the definition of dogma as the greatest act of the Church. What is greater than the definition of a new dogma? Through dogma we gain knowledge of God, and as time goes by the dogmas of the Church will increase and develop and the faith will grow.

The purpose of this thread is to get the views of Eastern Catholics and Orthodox on the meaning and purpose of dogma.

My view of it is that dogma in itself is not necessarily a good thing, and often can be a bad thing. The mentality that ‘if it is true then it should be defined’ of those who support the definition of a new dogma of the mediatrix of all graces and of Mary as coredemptrix is nothing other than rationalism and fideism. They have turned what is fitting into what is true. If it sounds good then it must be true, therefore it must be accepted by all. It is fitting that since Christ came through Mary to the world therefore it is also through her that Grace is sent to the world and it is her who distributes the Graces of the Holy Spirit. If it sounds good then it is true. It doesn’t matter whether it is actually supported by the fathers of the Church and the scriptures.

The knowledge that is necessary is not a dogmatic knowledge but rather the knowledge of communion of God. It is an existential knowledge; a knowledge that is gained through the practice of the faith and not through the reading of books. Dogma may aid or guide the Church at times, and it may protect against erroneous interpretations of the faith, but dogma is not the essence of our faith.

What is the meaning of dogma? Why define new dogmas? What is the purpose of dogma in the life of a Christian?

I think you might have the term “dogmatic” a little confused. Today it tends to be a term of insult, doesn’t it? For example, people say “don’t be so dogmatic, take other people’s point of view into account!”

But the whole point of Christianity is that there is such a thing as objective reality; a truth we can grasp and understand. This truth has been revealed to us by God.

Dogma, then is the stuff we definitely know, for example Jesus Christ is the Son of God. This is dogma, it is revealed truth.

 

[jimmy]

I think you might have the term “dogmatic” a little confused. Today it tends to be a term of insult, doesn’t it? For example, people say “don’t be so dogmatic, take other people’s point of view into account!”

But the whole point of Christianity is that there is such a thing as objective reality; a truth we can grasp and understand. This truth has been revealed to us by God.

Dogma, then is the stuff we definitely know, for example Jesus Christ is the Son of God. This is dogma, it is revealed truth.

Yes, that is all true. I am not trying to sound like a modern relativist who believes there is no truth. I am simply using the phrase to refer to what seems to be a distorted approach to the faith. In this approach dogma is an end in itself. It somehow has a positive value of giving us more knowledge of God than was given to the apostles. Somehow the faith of the apostles is insufficient (although they wouldn’t admit it) for those who hold to this possition. There absolutely must be development of dogma because if there isn’t then the Church would be dead. Dogma is the essence of our relationship to God.

My assertion is that the definition of dogmas has no purpose other than to protect the faith of the apostles from the heresies of the times. It doesn’t have the positive value of feeding the Church as was implied in the above quote. There should be no hope for new dogmas as there is with those who want a definition of mediatrix of all Graces. The idea of a petition to the pope for a new dogma sounds like a distorted sense of the Christian faith and is exactly what I am calling a dogmatic mentality.

How central to our faith is dogma? Is dogma an end in itself? Is the definition of a dogma necessarily a good thing? Does dogma just increase the information that we store in our brains, or is there a necessary correlation between dogma and spirituality?

 

[FightingFat]

Yes, that is all true. I am not trying to sound like a modern relativist who believes there is no truth. I am simply using the phrase to refer to what seems to be a distorted approach to the faith. In this approach dogma is an end in itself. It somehow has a positive value of giving us more knowledge of God than was given to the apostles. Somehow the faith of the apostles is insufficient (although they wouldn’t admit it) for those who hold to this possition. There absolutely must be development of dogma because if there isn’t then the Church would be dead. Dogma is the essence of our relationship to God.

My assertion is that the definition of dogmas has no purpose other than to protect the faith of the apostles from the heresies of the times. It doesn’t have the positive value of feeding the Church as was implied in the above quote. There should be no hope for new dogmas as there is with those who want a definition of mediatrix of all Graces. The idea of a petition to the pope for a new dogma sounds like a distorted sense of the Christian faith and is exactly what I am calling a dogmatic mentality.

How central to our faith is dogma? Is dogma an end in itself? Is the definition of a dogma necessarily a good thing? Does dogma just increase the information that we store in our brains, or is there a necessary correlation between dogma and spirituality?

I think differently about it it would seem; to me, dogma is like the mountains. There it is. It’s not something you make up, it’s something you discover! The discovery of dogma leads to new doctrine being asserted.

 

[jimmy]

I think differently about it it would seem; to me, dogma is like the mountains. There it is. It’s not something you make up, it’s something you discover! The discovery of dogma leads to new doctrine being asserted.

I am not saying that dogma is something that you make up. I am simply asking whether dogma is more than a satisfaction of our curiosity. I think this is a major difference between east and west. We have to ask why the east hasn’t fealt the need to define any new dogmas while the west has. The west has a very different approach to theology and doctrine than the east. In the east theology is closely associated with spirituality whereas in the west theology and spirituality are two seperate aspects of Christianity. Evagrius defined theology by saying, ‘he who prays truely is a theologian and he who is a theologian prays truely,’ This approach is still true of eastern theology whether it is Byzantine or Oriental. The west though has a more scholastic approach and seperates theology from spirituality. Theology is associated with the statement of Peter to be prepared to defend the faith when questioned. Spirituality is associated with the living of the faith.

This concept of theology affects their understanding of dogma. The eastern approach has led the east to have a much more conservative approach toward dogma whereas the west has a concept of development of doctrine. The western understanding of doctrine is much more rational whereas the eastern approach is spiritual. Athanasius defended the divinity of Christ based on the fact that he makes us divine. If Christ were not God then He could not make us gods because He can not give what He doesn’t have. It is all a question of our relationship to God and the nature of our worship. This is the character of the eastern approach. The definitions all deal with the question of Christ and our relationship to God. The heresies condemned are a serious undermining of the whole faith and throw into question the whole of our worship. The west is more open to speculation though. This can be seen in the definitions of the Immaculate Conception and of the Assumption. These were more for the edification of the faithful rather than to combat heresies.

The question of the meaning and purpose of dogma seems to be at the heart of the difference between east and west. The question of the place of the Pope in the Church can be brought into the discussion along with every other difference between east and west. I don’t see why no one wants to discuss it.

 

[jimmy]

I just want to add that I can see mardukm’s high petrine view fitting in with an eastern approach to doctrine and dogma, but not with a western approach. The west seems to need an absolute petrine position due to its more speculative and rational approach to theology and its concept of development of doctrine.

 

[malphono]

FWIW, Jimmy, I agree in general with what you’ve posted so far in this thread.

I just want to add that I can see mardukm’s high petrine view fitting in with an eastern approach to doctrine and dogma, but not with a western approach. The west seems to need an absolute petrine position due to its more speculative and rational approach to theology and its concept of development of doctrine.

Yes, that would seem to be true. It’s interesting to note that in the first millennium, the “High Petrine” view was a fact of ecclesiastical life. It’s no coincidence that the rise of Scholasticism (starting in the 12th century, I think) was followed by the rise of the “Absolute Petrine” position in the West.

As I mentioned in another thread, strong arguments can be made from the Vatican Councils (I & II) themselves to support the “High Petrine” view, but (a) it will not happen anytime soon and (b) it may or may not be possible to reconcile that with Western theology as it has developed (and continues to develop). IMO, without the explicit abandonment of the “Absolute Petrine” view and the simultaneous reinvigoration in fact of the “High Petrine” view, any talk of “unity” is just that: talk.

It seems to me that the “dogmatic aspect” is overemphasized by the West to the near total exclusion of the “mystical aspect” that we in the Orient and East know. Since the rise of Scholasticism in particular, the West has tended to try to “demystify” the Faith by its system of “explanations” etc. That may not be a bad thing in the West, but OTOH imposing Western theological principles on the East and Orient is not a good thing for us. Again, as I said in another thread, I do not see that a constant stream of “dogmatic definitions” is necessary unless, as Aramis mentioned earlier in this thread, there is a need for a Council to do so in order to combat a heresy.

It all reminds me of a line from Mor Ephrem (I don’t remember exactly which of his works it’s from) that says something like “woe to him who is tainted with the poison of Greek philosophy.”

 

[Vico]

I am not saying that dogma is something that you make up. I am simply asking whether dogma is more than a satisfaction of our curiosity. …

From the Latin Catechism (CCC) # 88, the dogma are:

“…truths contained in divine Revelation or … truths having a necessary connection with these.”

And it is not merely a satisfaction of our curiosity per CCC # 89:

“…Dogmas are lights along the path of faith; they illuminate it and make it secure. Conversely, if our life is upright, our intellect and heart will be open to welcome the light shed by the dogmas of faith.”

 

[Contarini]

Fr. Louis Bouyer said something to this effect: “Doctrinal definitions are the scars left on the body of the truth by the errors over which it has been victorious.”

Edwin

 

[Allyson]

in reply to Post 1:

Dogma, simply speaking, is a formalization of doctrine. There can be no knew doctrine since Christ completed His self revelation. We may grow in our understanding of doctrine, and we may formalize it as dogma, but it is never really new.

In the East there is no idea of development of doctrine as it is understood in the West. Doctrines have always been complete, it is our understanding of them that grows.

That’s a short and horribly undeveloped version of my answer. I am not sure if it repeats any other responses.

As for the quote in the opening post. It is nonsensical. Teaching the faith as it has been handed down through the Apostles is “feeding His sheep.” Not developing novel doctrines. We call those heresies!

God Bless,
R.

 

[Vico]

in reply to Post 1:

Dogma, simply speaking, is a formalization of doctrine. There can be no knew doctrine since Christ completed His self revelation. We may grow in our understanding of doctrine, and we may formalize it as dogma, but it is never really new.

In the East there is no idea of development of doctrine as it is understood in the West. Doctrines have always been complete, it is our understanding of them that grows.

…

I have a different understanding of the Catholic teaching, with the difference based upon use of the the word doctrines in place of revealed truth.

It is that:

1. revealed truth was completed with Christ and the Apostles, and
2. the revealed truth is contained in scripture and tradition, and
3. doctrines are proposed from the revealed truth,
4. proposed doctrine may become formal dogmas of the faith.

Therefore there is progress in the knowledge and proposal of revealed truth, and so in the faith of the Church, i.e., progress in doctrines and dogma, rather than in the revealed truth itself.

We see this in at least the seven ecumenical councils.

 

[Allyson]

I have a different understanding of the Catholic teaching, with the difference based upon use of the the word doctrines in place of revealed truth.

It is that:

1. revealed truth was completed with Christ and the Apostles, and
2. the revealed truth is contained in scripture and tradition, and
3. doctrines are proposed from the revealed truth,
4. proposed doctrine may become formal dogmas of the faith.

Therefore there is progress in the knowledge and proposal of revealed truth, and so in the faith of the Church, i.e., progress in doctrines and dogma, rather than in the revealed truth itself.

We see this in at least the seven ecumenical councils.

That seems to me to sum up well the Western view.

The differences between East and West are very subtle. You have defined doctrine as a proposition based on the tradition of teaching handed down form the Apostles. I would say that all doctrine (meaning teaching) is what the Apostles already taught, although we still needed to develop/grom our understanding of the doctrines. This is what the councils did.

In either the Western view of the development of doctrine or in the Eastern view that all doctrines have been revealed in their completeness but our understanding is what grows, the quote within the first post does not make sense. It may help to see the quote in context, but I can fairly say that neither side recognizes any necessity of regular formalization of doctrine into Dogma. This is reserved for times of great crisis in the faith, not as a normal course of business. This is why I found the quoted line to be nonsensical.

FYI for all:
*It would also help I think to point out that part of why the Orthodox Church has not defined any other doctrine into Dogma in that last 1000 years, is that there has been a Schism for that long. That is what I understand form some of my reading on the subject. *

 

[Allyson]

in reply to Post 1:

Dogma, simply speaking, is a formalization of doctrine. There can be no knew .

Can we say, needs an editor?

 

[Aramis]

Every dogma has a heretic behind it.

Every dogma is defined in order to point out that some person who thinks they have a “innovative explanation” of the extant beliefs has gotten it wrong, and to defend the orthodox beliefs handed down from this (usually) well meaning error that leads others to build upon that error to greater errors.

Arius. Pelagius. Luther. Henry VIII. Nestorius. Marcion. Eutyches. Apollinaris. Aëtius.

And many more. Every dogma is a means of defending the faith from deformation.

 

[mardukm]

I believe another criteria for dogma is that it must be Christological.

It can be easily argued that the dogma of the IC is Christological.

As for the Assumption, one can understand the dogma of the Assumption as a necessary corollary to the dogma of the Resurrection inasmuch as the dogma on sacred images is a necessary corollary to the dogma of the Incarnation.

But there’s really no Christological focus in dogmatizing the doctrine of Mary Mediatrix or Co-Redemptrix. The dogma of the Theotokos is sufficient in that respect.

Blessings

 

[Allyson]

I believe another criteria for dogma is that it must be Christological.

It can be easily argued that the dogma of the IC is Christological.

As for the Assumption, one can understand the dogma of the Assumption as a necessary corollary to the dogma of the Resurrection inasmuch as the dogma on sacred images is a necessary corollary to the dogma of the Incarnation.

But there’s really no Christological focus in dogmatizing the doctrine of Mary Mediatrix or Co-Redemptrix. The dogma of the Theotokos is sufficient in that respect.

Blessings

Yes, this is what I learned as a Theology student taking a class on Mariology. Each dogma and doctrine can only be understood in the light of the Truth about Christ which it affirms.

Who Christ is is exactly what the Church seeks to understand throughout history.

 

[Vico]

That seems to me to sum up well the Western view.

The differences between East and West are very subtle. You have defined doctrine as a proposition based on the tradition of teaching handed down form the Apostles. I would say that all doctrine (meaning teaching) is what the Apostles already taught, although we still needed to develop/grom our understanding of the doctrines. This is what the councils did.

I don’t know for sure if you mean “revealed truth” as I wrote it, when you wrote “tradition of teaching”, but I do mean that the proposition is an expression of the revealed truth which is both scripture and tradition. The way the Magesterium expressed the relationship between scripture and tradition in Dei Verbum item 9 is: “Hence there exists a close connection and communication between sacred tradition and Sacred Scripture. For both of them, flowing from the same divine wellspring, in a certain way merge into a unity and tend toward the same end.”

Ref: vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_const_19651118_dei-verbum_en.html

In either the Western view of the development of doctrine or in the Eastern view that all doctrines have been revealed in their completeness but our understanding is what grows, the quote within the first post does not make sense. It may help to see the quote in context, but I can fairly say that neither side recognizes any necessity of regular formalization of doctrine into Dogma. This is reserved for times of great crisis in the faith, not as a normal course of business. This is why I found the quoted line to be nonsensical.

FYI for all:
*It would also help I think to point out that part of why the Orthodox Church has not defined any other doctrine into Dogma in that last 1000 years, is that there has been a Schism for that long. That is what I understand form some of my reading on the subject. *

Perhaps it is not necessary to make regular formal dogma. But interestingly the most recent dogmas of the Immaculate Conception and Assumption were prompted by the petitioning by the bishops and others:

“Accordingly, from ancient times the bishops of the Church, ecclesiastics, religious orders, and even emperors and kings, have earnestly petitioned this Apostolic See to define a dogma of the Catholic Faith the Immaculate Conception of the most holy Mother of God. These petitions were renewed in these our own times; they were especially brought to the attention of Gregory XVI, our predecessor of happy memory, and to ourselves, not only by bishops, but by the secular clergy and religious orders, by sovereign rulers and by the faithful.” – Ineffabilis Deus, 1854 (Immaculate Conception)

“41. Since the universal Church, within which dwells the Spirit of Truth who infallibly directs it toward an ever more perfect knowledge of the revealed truths, has expressed its own belief many times over the course of the centuries, and since the bishops of the entire world are almost unanimously petitioning that the truth of the bodily Assumption of the Blessed Virgin Mary into heaven should be defined as a dogma of divine and Catholic faith … we believe that the moment appointed in the plan of divine providence for the solemn proclamation of this outstanding privilege of the Virgin Mary has already arrived.” – Munificentissimus Deus, 1950 (Assumption)

 

[Lapell]

What I see in this post is a dogmatic mentality that sees the definition of dogma as the greatest act of the Church. What is greater than the definition of a new dogma? Through dogma we gain knowledge of God, and as time goes by the dogmas of the Church will increase and develop and the faith will grow.

Why define new dogmas? What is the purpose of dogma in the life of a Christian?

First, dogmas are teachings, not only of theChurch but of Jesus Christ Himself! . You can’t do without them, at least since they would confirm that you’re on the good path or that you’re not.
Then, as to define “new dogmas”, it often rather is like defining further existing ones because some situation may call for a clarification.

 

[jimmy]

I believe another criteria for dogma is that it must be Christological.

It can be easily argued that the dogma of the IC is Christological.

As for the Assumption, one can understand the dogma of the Assumption as a necessary corollary to the dogma of the Resurrection inasmuch as the dogma on sacred images is a necessary corollary to the dogma of the Incarnation.

But there’s really no Christological focus in dogmatizing the doctrine of Mary Mediatrix or Co-Redemptrix. The dogma of the Theotokos is sufficient in that respect.

Blessings

mardukm I agree with you that all dogma must be Christological, and that has been a base for many of my objections to modern western dogma. That is why I object to the two proposed new dogmas. But the question is, are these dogmas true because they reflect upon the Incarnation, or is it the other way around? Do these dogmas speak about the Incarnation, or does the Incarnation speak about these dogmas?

I have always approached it as the Incarnation speaking about the other dogmas. For example Iconography which was affirmed by the seventh council. The Incarnation affirms the goodness of matter, and the uniting of divinity to the material world. God inscribed Himself through the Incarnation, so it seems that the material world is redeemed and can be a sign of the presence of God. Considering all this you can see a base for iconography. Iconography takes the material world and makes it into a sign of the presence of the divine.