The
term is derived from the (Greek) verb “dokein”
(=
seeming, believing) and originally, its literal
meaning was “that which seems good or proper to
someone”; it also pertains to
belief, ideology, principle, opinion, faith, and
other related meanings. (Plato’s Soph.256C: «by
making use of the many dogmas and words…»).
From
its original meaning of a personal opinion, the term
was transposed to the field of philosophical
positions; in other words, it became a knowledge
belonging to a (philosophical) School. (e.g.
Plutarch, Ethica 14B: “the dogmas pertaining
to souls” or the Stoic philosophers’ dogmas,
etc.) The transposing over to this meaning is
justified, by the fact that ancient thought demanded
eclecticism in philosophy.
Later
on, this term was transposed to public life (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 and prestige.
It
afterwards took on a religious meaning, through
the Old Testament and Judaism, with a
legal-compulsory character. This is why it had a
rather negative inference in Apostle 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”).
In
Luke, however, they specifically adopted the initial, affirmative meaning that 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’
in Greek text) 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.
A classical
example is in
Acts,
15:28:
“…it seemed proper (refer above, to the
origin of the word ‘dogma’) to the Holy Spirit
and to us (=us the Apostles)”
The
usage of the term with its contemporary, technical
meaning is rare, in the Fathers of the Church.
Whenever it appears, it has the following
characteristics:
A)
For the original, Apostolic Fathers, the term is
most likely linked to practice rather than
theory (ref. Ignatius, Megnesians 13:1, Barnabas,
etc.)
B)
It is equally used in instances pertaining to the
Church and heretics (Vasilios the Great, To
Esychasts: “…possible to destroy the heterodox
dogmas…” ; also, in John The Chrysostom: the
devil “has sown these deceitful dogmas of
irreverence; in the Menaion of January “as for the
dogmas of the infidel, they are justly
drowned…”
C)
Very important: the dogma is linked to worship, contradistinguishing it to kerygma
(teaching, sermon). This is expressed in a
monumental proposal by Vasilios the Great, in his
work on the Holy Spirit: “…..for, dogmas
are hushed, whereas sermons are publicized...”.
This passage gave rise to younger patrologists to
interpret Vasilios’ hushing as pertaining to the
divinity of the Holy Spirit. But for our present
topic of discussion, this phrase of Vasilios has the
following significance: 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. The deeper meaning of this viewpoint will
preoccupy us again later on, but for the time being,
we can just make a note that according to Vasilios
the Great, 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.
This
basic position of the Fathers - which we often
forget – is also expressed by Gregory the
Theologian, in the familiar phrase of his Address to
Eunomians: “let us philosophize, within our own
boundaries”. As testified by these words, the
meaning inferred is: “within the holy territory”
(and not in Egypt and Assyria), in other words, within the Church.
From
this, we surmise that the authority of a dogma does
not belong to the sphere of logic, nor to a blind
obedience to -and resignation from- logic, but to a
new logic, which is generated from the
relations between the people of the ecclesiastic
community. But we shall talk more about this later
on.
Summary:
‘Dogma’ is that which an ecclesiastic community
embraces as an (existentially) salvatory truth that
applies to every man, 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. This point needs clarifications, because
two important issues are posed:
1st:
How the dogma is linked to the Holy Bible
and
2nd:
The authority of a dogma in general and in respect
to Dogmatics itself.