DOGMATIC FACTS. - In theology, by f. d. [dogmatic facts] are understood those facts which, although not being the object of an explicit revelation, are nevertheless necessarily connected with a revealed dogma, insofar as they are required by its formulation, defense and concrete application. There are facts linked with dogma ab intrinseco, so to speak, in the sense that they are identified with the dogma and are an integral part of it, for example, that of the original fall and that of the miraculous conversion of St. Paul; and facts indissolubly linked with dogma only ab extrinseco, in the sense that with them are intimately linked the defense and the explanation of that dogma, as for example, the ecumenicity of the Vatican Council, the legitimacy of the election, for example, of Pius IX, the heterodoxy of a writing struck by the Church's magisterium with a definitive judgment. It is to this second category of facts that theologians generally allude when speaking of f. d. The f. d. therefore is more than a purely human fact, even if ecclesiastical, having no relation to dogma, yet less than a fact revealed to be believed by divine faith. It stands, so to speak, between the one and the other, as the theological conclusion stands between revealed doctrine and natural doctrine.
From the time of the Jansenist controversy, by f. d. was understood that of the orthodoxy or otherwise of a text, of a formula and of a book on a religious subject. And this continues to be even today the prevailing meaning in technical language.
Catholic theology deals with f. d. with the intent of proving that they fall within the scope of the Church's infallible magisterium, constituting its secondary and indirect object (v. INFALLIBILITY).
The Jansenists were the first to deny that the Church's infallible magisterium extended also to f. d. The discussion was kindled following the condemnation with which Innocent X struck 5 propositions extracted from the Augustinus of Jansenius. The supporters of the latter in fact, in order to escape the condemnation, affirmed that the five propositions of Jansenius, if deserving of condemnation in themselves, were not at all so in sensu ab auctore intento, that is, considered in the context of the work of which they formed part; that the Augustinus therefore was perfectly orthodox; and that the Church's magisterium, if it is infallible in quaestione iuris, that is, in judgments concerning the orthodoxy or otherwise of a doctrine, is not at all so in quaestione facti, that is, in judgments concerning the orthodoxy or otherwise of a text, of a book, of a writing.
Alexander VII, on 16 Oct. 1656, defined that the 5 propositions extracted from the book of Jansenius had been condemned in sensu ab eodem Cornelio (Iansenio) intento (Denz-U, 1098) and subsequently (15 Feb. 1664) imposed on the Jansenists the strict obligation to subscribe to a formulary of submission expressing an entire adherence to his previous constitution and to that of Innocent X and a formal reprobation, to be sworn, of the 5 propositions of Jansenius (Denz-U, 1099). Since the Jansenists tergiversated, claiming that the two pontifical constitutions implied not the obligation of an internal adherence, but only that of an obsequiosum silentium, that is, of a deferential abstention from any further discussion, Clement XI, with the apostolic constitution Vinum Domini of 16 July 1705, declared that obedience to the two constitutions of the Holy See was not exhausted in a deferential silence, but that the sense condemned in the 5 propositions of the book of Jansenius, naturally emerging from the words used in it, had to be rejected and condemned as heretical by all the faithful non ore solum sed et corde. The Church, therefore, by attributing to itself on the one hand the authority to judge the orthodoxy of a book and on the other that of imposing its judgment on all the faithful, came indirectly to attribute to itself infallibility as regards f. d., since only one who considers himself infallible can seriously claim the right to impose his own judgment on others.
The purpose of the infallibility which, even according to the Jansenist thesis, the Church indisputably enjoys in judgments concerning the orthodoxy of a doctrine is that of effectively preventing the spread of doctrines at variance with orthodoxy. Now such a purpose would remain completely frustrated if the Church were not infallible also regarding f. d.
Even before the controversy with Jansenism, indeed from the first centuries of Christianity, many writings were approved or condemned by the Church with a definitive sentence, that is, with the manifest intention of obliging all the faithful to accept its verdict. Thus the first Council of Nicaea (325) condemned the book of Arius entitled Thalia (PG 67, 78 and 962 ff.), the Council of Ephesus (431) approved the writings of Cyril and condemned those of Nestorius (Denz-U, 113 ff.); the second Council of Constantinople (553) condemned the three chapters, that is, the writings of Theodore, Theodoret and Ibas (Denz-U, 224-228); the Council of Constance (1414-18) decreed that the documents and books of John Wyclif, John Hus and Jerome of Prague be considered as condemned by every Catholic (Denz-U, 659-61); Leo X condemned extracts from the works of Luther (Denz-U, 711 ff.); Pius V the propositions of Baius (Denz-U, 1001 ff.). This means that at all times the Church, in an implicit and equivalent manner, proclaimed itself infallible as regards f. d.
Bibliography3 works
Giuseppe De Rosa