a[15]--till the definition came
through Pius IX. in 1854. Here then the frontier of dogma had
unquestionably moved forward. Its conception must become dynamic; there
was need of some theory of development like J. H. Newman's (1845). It
does not happen, however, that the papal definition of 1854 employs the
_word_ "dogma"; that honour was withheld from the word until the Vatican
decrees of 1870 affirmed the personal infallibility of the pope as
_divinitus revelatum dogma_. With this, one line of tendency in Roman
Catholic doctrine reached its climax; the pope and the council use
"dogma" in a distinctive sense for what is definitely formulated by
authority. But there is another line of tendency. The same council
defines not indeed dogma but faith--inseparable from dogma--as[16] (1)
revealed, (a) in Scripture or (b) in unwritten tradition, and (2) taught
by the church, (a) in formulated decrees, or (b) in her ordinary
_magisterium_. This is a correction of Chrismann. Not only does the
correction involve the substitution of papal authority for a universal
consent of "pastors" and "the faithful"; it also deliberately ranks the
unformulated teachings of the church on points of doctrine as no less
_de fide_ than those formulated. This amounts to a serious warning
against trying to draw a definite line round dogma. The modern Roman
Catholic temper must be eager to believe and eager to submit. New dogmas
have been precipitated more than once during the 19th century; there may
still be others held in solution in the church's teaching. If so, these
are likely one day to crystallize into full dogmas; and, even while not
yet "declared," they have the same claim upon faith.

Thus there seems to be a measure of uncertainty as to what the Church of
Rome now calls "dogma"--only in part relieved by the distinction
between "dogmas strictly" and mere "dogmatic truths." Again, the
assertion that the church is infallible upon some questions, not
belonging to the area of revelation (properly so-called in Roman
Catholic theology), destroys the identification of "dogmas" with
"infallible certainties" which we noted both in the Protestant schoolmen
and in Chrismann. The identification of dogma with revelation remains,
with another distinction in support of it, between "material dogmas"
(all scriptural or traditional truth) and "formal" or ecclesiastically
formulated dogmas.[17] On the other hand, there is absolute certainty on
a point long dispu