Difference between dogma and doctrine?

  • Thread starter Thread starter MeInMississippi
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
M

MeInMississippi

Guest
What’s the difference between dogma and doctrine? I’ve read two different articles that said the Church persecuted Galileo because of dogma. I thought dogma was pretty much set in stone and doctrine could change based on what was happening in the world at that particular time. If I’m correct, wouldn’t these articles be misleading?
 
I should have included that the articles stated we persecuted Galileo on his arguing against the thought by the church that the earth was flat. They stated this was Church dogma as opposed to doctrine.
 
A flat earth has never been dogma or doctrine. That was not what Galileo’s problem was.
 
Your sources sound like rubbish.
Please provide links.

The Galileo issue was NOT about a flat earth.

it was about whether or not the sun and planets orbited the earth or not.
That view was certainly disseminated by the Church for 1500 years as it was the assumed science of the day and the Church believed the Dogma of inerrancy of the Bible rested on the geocentric model (as witnessed in the Bible).

That qualifies as a “teaching” in my book.
But Church teachings can be fallible (eg limbo, Mary never died) or undecided in my book also.

However some staunch Catholics, without strong evidence, believe all teachings must also be “doctrines”. That appears an extreme view that is not widely accepted.

Doctrines are considered perennial teachings that will never change even if not formally defined like a dogma.

The meaning of “dogma” is clear enough.
There are very few defined.
 
Last edited:
Dogma is indisputable. Doctrine can be debatable. Doctrine can become Dogma in time if enough reason becomes to make it so. Doctrine can develop. Dogma does not develop further. It is a recognized truth of the church and Catholics are expected to accept it.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top