The Dogmatic Fact
Its Nature and Its Relation to the Infallibility
of the Magisterium of the Catholic Church
Table of Contents
Introduction
- Definition of the dogmatic fact
- Distinctions between the various categories of facts connected with infallibility
2.1. The purely historical dogmatic fact
2.1.1. The teaching of Cardinal Franzelin
2.1.2. The doctrine of Cardinal Cajetan
2.2. The doctrinal fact
2.3. Canonization
2.4. The universal approval of a rite
2.5. The legitimacy of a council
- The dogmatic fact in relation to the infallibility of the Magisterium
- The dogmatic fact as fruit of infallibility and not as its source
- Illustrative historical examples
5.1. The five propositions of Jansenius
5.2. The condemnation of the Three Chapters
5.3. The fact that a particular person is truly Pope
5.3.1. The teaching of Cardinal Billot
5.3.2. The reflected dogmatic fact according to Cardinal Journet
- Doctrinal and pastoral implications
Conclusion
Principal References
Introduction
The dogmatic fact occupies an eminent place in Catholic theology, for it unites the contingent historical with the eternal revealed truth. It designates a fact or a judgment not revealed in itself, but so closely connected to Revelation that the Church must be able to know it with certainty in order to preserve the deposit of the faith intact. Its relation with the infallibility of the Magisterium is therefore intrinsic: the dogmatic fact does not constitute an autonomous source of infallibility, but receives its certainty from the divine assistance promised to the Church.
This doctrine flows from the very principles of Catholic ecclesiology. If the Church could err in facts necessary for the preservation or application of the faith, the visible unity of the Church would disappear and the proximate rule of faith would become uncertain. As the classical theologians teach, infallibility bears not only on revealed truths taken materially, but also on connected objects without which the revealed deposit could not be kept, explained or applied with safety.
One must therefore hold the infallibility and indefectibility of the Church. Saint Thomas Aquinas provides the fundamental principles which will later serve to elaborate this doctrine systematically, notably when he teaches that the universal Church, assisted by the Holy Ghost, cannot err in what belongs to the faith: “Ecclesia universalis errare non potest.” Summa Theologica, IIa-IIae, q. 1, a. 10.
Indeed, the Church cannot fail in the visible signs of her unity (unity of faith, of worship and of government). In the present crisis, the absence of a legitimately and universally recognized pope illustrates that the Church remains indefectible in her faith, even without a visible supreme pastor, at least temporarily.
By logical consequence, the present sedevacantism constitutes a necessary conclusion of the unity of the Church. Indeed, to recognize as pope a man who publicly teaches heresy amounts to uniting oneself in a certain way with a heretic and thus attacking the unity of the Church, which is infallible and one in the orthodox faith.
This position flows directly from Catholic doctrine: the Church cannot have for visible head a man who has broken with the Catholic faith, for that would destroy the visible unity of the Mystical Body of Christ. Since the public heresy of Paul VI in 1964, the Apostolic See is therefore vacant, in conformity with the principles taught by the classical theologians such as Saint Robert Bellarmine (De Romano Pontifice, book IV): a manifestly heretical pope ceases to be pope ipso facto.
We shall therefore proceed in logical order: definition of the dogmatic fact, necessary distinctions between the various categories of facts connected to infallibility, relation between these facts and the Magisterium, historical examples, then doctrinal implications.
- Definition of the dogmatic fact
The dogmatic fact is a historical fact or a contingent judgment which, without formally belonging to divine Revelation, is so closely linked to it that the Church must be able to determine it infallibly in order to preserve and apply the revealed deposit correctly.
The Dominican theologian Charles René Billuart exposes this doctrine in his Cursus Theologiae, De Fide, dissertation 5, article 3: “Factum dogmaticum est factum historicum vel doctrinale cum revelatione ita connexum ut circa illud Ecclesia infallibiliter judicare possit.”
The dogmatic fact therefore remains contingent, historical or doctrinal, not directly revealed. But it becomes the object of an infallible judgment because of its necessary connection with the faith. Thus the identity of the true pope, the authenticity of an ecumenical council, the real presence of heretical propositions in a work or the doctrinal conformity of a text can pertain to the dogmatic fact.
Pius IX also teaches this principle in the apostolic letter Tuas Libenter of 21 December 1863, DS 2879: “Non solum ea sunt tenenda quae solemni Ecclesiae judicio definita sunt, sed etiam quae ordinario universalis Ecclesiae magisterio tanquam divinitus revelata traduntur.”
The theological foundation of the dogmatic fact therefore resides in the necessity of preserving the integrity of the revealed deposit.
- Essential distinctions between the various categories of facts connected to infallibility
Classical theologians often group under the general name of “dogmatic fact” several distinct categories. These categories, however, are not entirely homogeneous. They must be distinguished with precision in order to avoid confusion in theological notes.
2.1. The purely historical dogmatic fact
The purely historical dogmatic fact concerns a contingent event of history, not revealed in itself, but necessary for the preservation of the faith. Examples: the identity of the true pope, the validity of an ecumenical council, the authentic attribution of a condemned text.
2.1.1. The teaching of Cardinal Franzelin
Cardinal Johann Baptist Franzelin teaches: “Adhaesio Ecclesiae universalis erit semper signum infallibile legitimitatis personae Pontificis.” (De Ecclesia Christi, Rome, Typographia Polyglotta S. C. de Propaganda Fide, 1887, thesis 15).
And he adds: “Nam adhaesio ad falsum Pontificem esset adhaesio ad falsam regulam fidei.” Thus, if the universal Church could err concerning the identity of the pope, the visible rule of faith would become false, the visible unity of the Church would be destroyed and the promises of Christ would be rendered vain.
2.1.2. The doctrine of Cardinal Cajetan
Cardinal Cajetan develops implicitly this necessity when he treats of the visibility of ecclesiastical authority and the obedience due to the Roman pontiff. The Church is not a purely invisible or interior society; she is a visible, hierarchical and juridically constituted society. The pope being the proximate rule of ecclesiastical communion and the visible principle of unity, it is necessary that the Church be able to recognize with certainty the person who truly possesses the pontificate. Otherwise obedience to the pope would become impossible, ecclesiastical jurisdiction would become uncertain, the visible unity of the Church would be destroyed and the faithful would be abandoned to a confusion incompatible with the promises of Christ.
The Church is indeed visible. If the Church could not infallibly recognize her visible head, or the absence of such, she would no longer be a perfect visible society, which contradicts her divine constitution.
This doctrine will be developed more explicitly later by Franzelin, Billot and Journet, but its foundation is already virtually present in Cajetan.
2.2. The doctrinal fact
The doctrinal fact does not bear principally on a historical event, but on the doctrinal relation of a proposition with Revelation. Examples: condemnation of a proposition as heretical, determination of the objective sense contained in a text, theological qualification of a doctrine.
In the Jansenist controversy, the question whether the propositions were really found in the Augustinus pertained to the historical fact; the question whether these propositions were heretical pertained to the doctrinal fact.
Francisco Suarez teaches: “Ecclesia est infallibilis non solum in doctrinis revelatis sed etiam in iis quae ad doctrinam revelatam necessario pertinent.” (Defensio Fidei Catholicae, Coimbra, 1613, book 4, chapter 2).
2.3. Canonization
Canonization possesses a particular nature. It comprises a historical element (the person lived holily) and a doctrinal element (the person enjoys the beatific vision and can be proposed for universal cult). Canonization therefore does not constitute a simple historical fact.
Pope Benedict XIV explains this doctrine in Prospero Lambertini, De Servorum Dei Beatificatione et Beatorum Canonizatione, Rome, 1734-1738. The theological principle is the following: the universal Church cannot impose for universal public cult a person who is damned or morally perverse, for that would be incompatible with the holiness and the divine assistance promised to the Church.
2.4. The universal approval of a rite
The universal approval of a rite also belongs to the secondary objects of infallibility. Here the object is not a particular historical fact, but a liturgical or sacramental law imposed upon the universal Church.
The principle taught by the classical theologians is that the universal Church cannot impose an intrinsically evil rite, a rite destructive of the faith or an invalid rite. Cardinal Robert Bellarmine teaches this doctrine in De Romano Pontifice, book 4. Dom Prosper Guéranger also develops it in his Institutions liturgiques. This category does not constitute a historical dogmatic fact in the strict sense, but a secondary object of infallibility linked to the universal discipline of the Church.
The Church cannot canonize a heretic nor impose a rite destructive of the faith. This has an evident pastoral bearing today.
2.5. The legitimacy of a council
The recognition of an ecumenical council comprises several elements: validity of convocation, pontifical approbation, universal recognition, doctrinal authority. It is therefore a complex ecclesiological-dogmatic fact.
Cardinal Cajetan treats this question at length in De Comparatione Auctoritatis Papae et Concilii. If the universal Church could be mistaken concerning the legitimacy of an ecumenical council, the doctrinal unity of the Church would disappear and the universal rule of faith would become uncertain.
- The dogmatic fact in relation with the infallibility of the Magisterium
Infallibility is a divine privilege granted to the Church so that she may teach without error the truths necessary for salvation. This infallibility extends to dogmatic facts because these are necessary for the preservation, explanation or application of the revealed deposit.
The Magisterium does not receive its infallibility from the dogmatic fact. On the contrary, it is the divine assistance promised to the Magisterium which renders the judgment infallible; the dogmatic fact receives its certainty from the judgment of the Church. Infallibility can be exercised by the extraordinary Magisterium, by the ordinary and universal Magisterium, or in judgments bearing on facts connected to Revelation.
Cardinal Franzelin explains that if the Church could err in these connected matters, infallibility itself would become useless in practice.
- The dogmatic fact as fruit of infallibility and not as source
The dogmatic fact is not an autonomous source of infallibility. It is on the contrary an effect of the divine assistance granted to the Church. Without this assistance, the fact would remain contingent and human judgment would remain fallible. With divine assistance, the ecclesiastical judgment becomes infallible and the fact acquires an objective and universal certainty.
The Dictionnaire de Théologie Catholique teaches this doctrine in the article “Église” written by Émile Dublanchy, volume 4, column 2175 and following. The faithful are therefore obliged to adhere to the infallible judgments bearing on dogmatic facts, for the refusal of these judgments would call into question the authority of the Teaching Church itself.
- Illustrative historical examples
5.1. The five propositions of Jansenius
Innocent X condemned the five Jansenist propositions in the bull Cum Occasione of 31 May 1653, DS 2001-2005. Later Alexander VII and the anti-Jansenist formula confirmed that these propositions were really found in the Augustinus in the condemned sense. Here clearly appear the doctrinal fact (the propositions are heretical) and the historical fact (they are really present in the work of Jansenius).
5.2. The condemnation of the Three Chapters
The Second Council of Constantinople of 553 condemned the Three Chapters. Despite the historical difficulties and the initial hesitations of Pope Vigilius, the universal Church finally recognized this council as ecumenical. This case illustrates the infallibility of the Church in the recognition of councils and the divine protection despite historical complications.
5.3. The fact that a certain person is truly pope
The fact that Pius X was truly pope constitutes a classical example of a historical dogmatic fact. The peaceful and universal acceptance by the Church constitutes an infallible sign of legitimacy.
5.3.1. The teaching of Cardinal Billot
Cardinal Billot teaches: “Adhaesio universalis Ecclesiae erit semper signum infallibile legitimitatis personae Pontificis.” (De Ecclesia Christi, Rome, Gregorian University Press, 1909, volume 1, thesis 29).
5.3.2. The reflected dogmatic fact according to Cardinal Journet
Cardinal Charles Journet deepens this doctrine by explaining that the peaceful and universal acceptance of the Roman pontiff by the Church does not constitute a simple sociological or historical fact, but a true “reflected dogmatic fact”. The brute fact of universal adherence is certainly historical and contingent; however, when it is considered in the light of the indefectibility and infallibility of the Church, it becomes a theologically certain sign.
Journet teaches: “L’acceptation paisible et unanime du Pontife par l’Église universelle est un acte en soi infaillible.” (L’Église du Verbe Incarné, Bruges, Desclée de Brouwer, 1941, vol. 1).
This certainty does not come from a human majority nor from a simple moral consensus, but from the divine assistance promised to the Church. Indeed, if the universal Church could peacefully adhere to a false pope, she would adhere to a false proximate rule of faith, the visible unity of the Church would be destroyed and the promises of Christ concerning ecclesiastical indefectibility would become illusory. Thus the historical fact of universal acceptance becomes, by theological reflection on the nature of the Church, a certain dogmatic fact.
- Doctrinal and pastoral implications
The doctrine of the dogmatic fact manifests the divine wisdom in the visible government of the Church. Without this doctrine doctrinal authority would become unusable, the visible unity of the Church would be compromised and the faithful could never possess a sufficient practical certainty concerning the rule of faith.
In the modern ecclesiastical crises, this doctrine remains fundamental for discerning true authority, the limits of obedience and the continuity of the Catholic faith. Infallibility does not transform historical facts into formally revealed truths, but it infallibly guarantees the judgments necessary for the preservation of the revealed deposit.
The doctrine of the dogmatic fact allows one to discern that the occupants of the See since 1964 cannot be true popes, because their public teaching contradicts the revealed deposit, and the adhesion is not peaceful and universal in the traditional sense (manifest public heresies).
Conclusion
The dogmatic fact constitutes one of the deepest points of Catholic ecclesiology, for it shows how divine assistance protects not only the revealed truths themselves, but also the connected realities indispensable for their preservation and application. This doctrine manifests the visible indefectibility of the Church, the continuity of the rule of faith and the doctrinal unity of the Mystical Body.
The dogmatic fact does not produce infallibility; it is its visible effect in the historical and doctrinal order. Thus are safeguarded the unity of the Church, the certainty of the faith and the authority of the Magisterium instituted by Christ.
Principal References
Johann Baptist Franzelin, De Ecclesia Christi, Rome, Typographia Polyglotta S. C. de Propaganda Fide, 1887.
Louis Billot, De Ecclesia Christi, Rome, Gregorian University Press, 1909.
Francisco Suarez, Defensio Fidei Catholicae, Coimbra, 1613.
Charles Journet, L’Église du Verbe Incarné, Bruges, Desclée de Brouwer, 1941.
Dictionnaire de Théologie Catholique, Paris, Letouzey et Ané.
Prospero Lambertini (Benedict XIV), De Servorum Dei Beatificatione et Beatorum Canonizatione, Rome, 1734-1738.
Robert Bellarmine, De Romano Pontifice.
Thomas de Vio Cajetan, De Comparatione Auctoritatis Papae et Concilii.
Denzinger-Schönmetzer, Enchiridion Symbolorum.