On dogma

[Thomas]

In the discussion of religion, one term that is often grossly misunderstood, and invariably perjoratively deployed, is the simple little term known as 'dogma'.

To quote G.K Chesterton:

"People have fallen into a foolish habit of speaking of orthodoxy as something heavy, humdrum, and safe. There never was anything so perilous or so exciting."

The word dogma derives from the Greek verb dokein — seeming, or believing — and its literal meaning was "that which seems good or proper to someone". So before we go any further, it's worth considering that most of what is expressed here on CR is 'personal opinion', this also qualifies as a 'personal dogma'.

+++

The term, when transposed into the field of philosophy, signified the 'position' or 'knowledge' of any given (philosophical) School. (e.g. Plutarch, Ethica 14B: "the dogmas pertaining to souls" or the Stoic philosophers’ dogmas, etc.) The term was later assimilated into public life (of the state) and it signified decisions or decrees bearing state authority (Plato’s Laws, 644D: "the city dogma", also in Luke, 2:1: "a decree (dogma, in the Greek text) was issued by Caesar Augustus to conduct a census of the population". Thus, the term took on the meaning of something compulsory, something characterized by authority.

Its religious meaning was initially contextual, with regard to the origin of any given ordinance. It is used in the negative by Paul (Colossians, 2:14), where Christ is said to have "erased the manuscript of dogmas that were against you" and in (Ephesians, 2:15), where Christ abolished the enmity in His Body, by "abolishing the dogma of the Law of the Commandments".

Luke uses it affirmatively, and this sense was to prevail from then onwards in Christian usage. Acts, 16:4: "... as they passed through the cities, they delivered unto them the decrees ('dogmas') that were validated by the apostles and the elders... " We thus arrive at the dogmas of the Church, as being the authentic decisions pertaining to faith, that are delivered for compulsory acceptance, and are linked to the presence and the inspiration of the Holy Spirit.

In short, in theology and doctrine, dogmas are held to be true, and thus binding because they are true — remember that Christian theology and philosophy are founded on the idea that objective reality can be known with certitude ... and does not suffer the criticism of the Post-Enlightenment and the current pervading relativism of the West.

+++

The Dogmas of the Church are linked to worship, and thus the essential Christian Mysteries, as opposed to the kerygma — Her public teachings and sermons. Thus St Basil the Great says "... dogmas are hushed, whereas sermons are publicized..." For St Basil, dogmas are those things that the Church (as a worshipping community) confesses, and not those things that it promulgates to others, who are outside the Church. Thus the meaning of 'dogma' has the community of the Church as a prerequisite, along with a participation in its worship, otherwise it bears no authority. Thus it is not dogma that determines what is believed, but rather what is believed that determined dogma.

Here again the Catholic and Orthodox patriarchates can demonstrate an unbroken continuity of belief with the very earliest Christian communities.

Esoterically, the authority of a dogma does not belong to the sphere of logic, nor to a blind obedience to — nor resignation from — logic, but to a new logic, according to the Datum of Revelation, the Fides Quae, from which the Fides Qua derives ... this was why the catechumenate engage in the Discpilina arcana — the rule to which the ecclesial community adhered.

+++

In short then, 'Dogma' is that which an ecclesiastic community embraces as a Revealed and a salvatory truth that applies to all, and requires its members to accept it (through personal experience) as authoritative, because of the specialized relations that it ordains between members, as well as towards the world and God. The kerygma (sermon) on the other hand is whatever is addressed to all persons, publicly, in order that they may become members of the Church, and only then (as members of the Church) confess it as a dogma, having experienced it personally.

The truth does not become a dogma, unless it has been experienced and certified from within the Church. From this, it is obvious that the dogmas of the Church are not limited in number; new dogmas can be formulated in every era, because the Church is a living organism and the Holy Spirit is not associated to certain isolated periods of history. But, for a truth to become a dogma of the Church (and not a personal opinion), it must necessarily go through the community of the Church in its totality, and not only through a few people – be they theologians in the current (academic) sense, or saints.

Contrary to popular and ill-informed opinion then, the dogmas of the Church are not those rules which we demand the outsider acknowledge, but rather the opposite, if you wish to be counted as one among our ecclesial and essentially mystical community, then and only then is adherence to the dogmata of that community is required ... anything else is a nonsense.

Thomas

[wil]

From the free dictionary, I especially like the Linconl quote.

dog·ma play_w("D0323500") (dôgm, dg-) n. pl. dog·mas or dog·ma·ta (-m-t) 1. A doctrine or a corpus of doctrines relating to matters such as morality and faith, set forth in an authoritative manner by a church.
2. An authoritative principle, belief, or statement of ideas or opinion, especially one considered to be absolutely true. See Synonyms at doctrine.
3. A principle or belief or a group of them: "The dogmas of the quiet past are inadequate to the stormy present" Abraham Lincoln.

Originally Posted by Thomas

In the discussion of religion, one term that is often grossly misunderstood, and invariably perjoratively deployed, is the simple little term known as 'dogma'... So before we go any further, it's worth considering that most of what is expressed here on CR is 'personal opinion', this also qualifies as a 'personal dogma'....In short, in theology and doctrine, dogmas are held to be true, and thus binding because they are true....Thus it is not dogma that determines what is believed, but rather what is believed that determined dogma....The truth does not become a dogma, unless it has been experienced and certified from within the Church.

Namaste Thomas,

As I read it: our opinions are our dogma; what is dogma is what we believe; but truth doesn't become dogma until some authority says it is.

So dogma is truth sanctified by authority. Our opinions then are our truth sanctified by us. Until we no longer believe them.

And if your dogma (sanctified either by yourself of your religious authority) conflicts with your dogma (ditto), it is not an issue, it is simply what we believe to be truth, and it is.

[Thomas]

Originally Posted by wil

As I read it: our opinions are our dogma; what is dogma is what we believe;

Yes, I think we can say that. Can we agree that we can hold opinions that are not dogmatic however, in the sense that we hold them as hypotheses, yet to be figured out ...

Originally Posted by wil

but truth doesn't become dogma until some authority says it is.

I would more accurately say that a truth is not affirmed as a truth until there is some order of colletive agreement.

It seemed to Newton that some force was working on apples, that caused them to fall to the ground when the tree let go of the fruit. His hypothetical name for this forces was gravity ... Am I right? Can it be so? He presents his findings to his peers, who agree ... we can then say 'gravity makes things fall down' is a true statement.

The Ancient Greeks thought that sight was a ray beamed from the eye that illuminated the object it beheld ... that was 'true' for them ...

... the 'value' of truth is irt provide a mean to which all can agree and on which some fabric of reality can be woven ...

When the artist Kasimir Malevich painted a white square on a white background and inaugurated the Suprematist Movement, the note in his diary is quite moving ... he questioned his own sanity ...

... I would ay nothing is true until is receives recognition outside of the one who posits it as a truth ...

Originally Posted by wil

So dogma is truth sanctified by authority.

Depends what you mean by sanctified.

Another way of treating 'dogma' is as a rule — so a rule is not binding unless and until everyone agrees to it.

Originally Posted by wil

Our opinions then are our truth sanctified by us.

Yes, but we are expert at sactifiying our own wants and apetites ... like the guys that tell me thay can drink 7 pints and drive a car ... or that the voice of God told me to kill prostitutes ... or that my football team is better than yours ... or that democracy is the only viable political system ... or that folk music is crap ... etc ... etc ....

Originally Posted by wil

And if your dogma (sanctified either by yourself of your religious authority) conflicts with your dogma (ditto), it is not an issue, it is simply what we believe to be truth, and it is.

Don't understand ...

Thomas

[wil]

Originally Posted by Thomas

Depends what you mean by sanctified.
Quote:
Originally Posted by wil
And if your dogma (sanctified either by yourself of your religious authority) conflicts with your dogma (ditto), it is not an issue, it is simply what we believe to be truth, and it is.

Don't understand ...

You say experience and certify, I said sanctify, I meant what you said.

On the last part, what I am implying is their exists Catholic dogma, Protestant Dogma, Hindu dogma, Buddhist dogma, Pagan dogma, Jewish dogma, Islamic dogma, and then amongst them all dogma specific to the various denominations, sects, places of worship and as you said individual.

Yet all by definition is what is believed to be truth as experienced and certified by some authority and agreed to by some group. Therefor the fact that your dogma (truth) differs from mine is not only acceptable, but is to be expected.

[Thomas]

Originally Posted by wil

You say experience and certify, I said sanctify, I meant what you said.

I hold sanctify to mean smething different ... exoterically 'sanctify' means 'to set aside' ... esoterically something is sanctified when what is set aside is accepted by the gods.

Originally Posted by wil

Therefor the fact that your dogma (truth) differs from mine is not only acceptable, but is to be expected.

Yes ... of course ...

Thomas