?Distinction between doctrine and dogma?

  • Thread starter Thread starter atassina
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
A

atassina

Guest
What is the distinction between doctrine and dogma? Please define using concrete examples.
For example:
Doctrine: There is only one God.
Dogma: The one God is a Trinity

I’m having a difficult time intellectually holding onto the distinction between these two terms because I perceive them as being used interchangeably.
 
Some people use the terms interchangeably. As I understand it, any “teaching” can be called a doctrine. The highest certainty of a teaching is recognized as a dogma. A dogma is the highest certitude of doctrine.
 
does mean we don’t have to believe the doctrine because it isn’t the highest certitude and subject to interpretation?
 
In essence all teachings of Church on all matters of faith and morals…are Doctrine…Dogma is a specifically defined Doctrine…making it in the highest order of required assent/belief by the faithful.

Pax Christi
**Catechism of the Catholic Church
**
11 This catechism aims at presenting an organic synthesis of the essential and fundamental contents of Catholic doctrine, as regards both **faith and morals, **in the light of the Second Vatican Council and the whole of the Church’s Tradition. Its principal sources are the Sacred Scriptures, the Fathers of the Church, the liturgy, and the Church’s Magisterium. It is intended to serve “as a point of reference for the catechisms or compendia that are composed in the various countries”.15
Click to expand...
The dogmas of the faith
Click to expand...
88 The Church’s Magisterium exercises the **authority **it holds from Christ to the **fullest extent **when it defines dogmas, that is, when it proposes, in a form obliging the Christian people to an irrevocable adherence of faith, truths contained in divine Revelation or also when it proposes, in a definitive way, truths having a necessary connection with these.
Click to expand...
89 There is an organic connection between our spiritual life and the dogmas. Dogmas are lights along the path of faith; they illuminate it and make it secure. Conversely, if our life is upright, our intellect and heart will be open to welcome the light shed by the dogmas of faith.50
Click to expand...
90 The mutual connections between dogmas, and their coherence, can be found in the whole of the Revelation of the mystery of Christ.51 "In Catholic doctrine there exists an order or hierarchy of truths, since they vary in their relation to the foundation of the Christian faith."52
Click to expand...
98 “The Church**, in her doctrine**, life and worship, perpetuates and transmits to every generation all that she herself is, all that she believes” (DV 8 § 1).
Click to expand...
 
Good question, I’ve only understood it as a difference of who speaks it and how thoroughly is it defined.

I don’t know if your example is one of an actual difference - the example I’d use would be:

Doctrine: Mary is co-Redemptrix, Mediatrix, Advocatrix
Dogma: Mary was Assumed bodily into Heaven

The difference is that the dogma has been investigated and defined ex cathedra by the Pope, while the doctrine has been repeatedly described, even in Papal encyclicals, but has not received as thorough of an investigation or definition, and has not been pronounced ex cathedra.

That said, there are dogma that existed as such prior to the first Vatican council’s ruling on papal infallibility, so I can’t claim that issuing a statement ex cathedra is the sole defining line between doctrine and dogma.

And there’s a related point:
atassina said:
does mean we don’t have to believe the doctrine because it isn’t the highest certitude and subject to interpretation?
Click to expand...
Technically you’re not supposed to dissent from either doctrine or dogma. I believe both are considered to be infallible teachings - relying upon the infallibility of the Magisterium, not necessarily deriving from the office of the Pope, so that Ecumenical councils and the CFD can declare or define them.

If I were cynical, I’d take the view I’ve found elsewhere:
“The difference between doctrine and dogma is this: if you have a problem with doctrine, shut your mouth. If you have a problem with dogma, go to Hell, because you’re on your way already.”

I wish I could find that page … would be helpful.
 
The difference might be somewhere in paragraph 90 as cited above - that of the hierarchy of truths. The nature of differences that makes it a hierarchy might be:
  • one of certainty (ex: several, but not all, views of predestination are tolerated)
  • one of investigation (Opinions on GMOs are still under debate)
  • importance to salvation (the legend of St. George is good and pious but not necessarily central to a life of faith)
  • implication upon Christians (as much Grace as is promised to those who say the Rosary, it is not likely to receive a dogmatic definition because it is a personal devotion, while the Eucharist, being essential for salvation, is more likely to be dogmatically defined, if it hasn’t already)
  • level of debate (a more hotly-debated issue will require a more thorough definition)
 
atassina said:
What is the distinction between doctrine and dogma? Please define using concrete examples.
For example:
Doctrine: There is only one God.
Dogma: The one God is a Trinity

I’m having a difficult time intellectually holding onto the distinction between these two terms because I perceive them as being used interchangeably.
Click to expand...
Dogma is something held unchangeably.
Doctrine is something held with authority, but may be changed.

The Dogma of the Virgin Birth.
The Doctrine of the Immaculate Conception.
 
Qoeleth said:
Dogma is something held unchangeably.
Doctrine is something held with authority, but may be changed.

The Dogma of the Virgin Birth.
The Doctrine of the Immaculate Conception.
Click to expand...
I do not understand. If doctrine may be changed, may the Church teach that Mary was conceived with sin? What is this and where is your source?
 
atassina said:
I do not understand. If doctrine may be changed, may the Church teach that Mary was conceived with sin? What is this and where is your source?
Click to expand...
Yes. The Church, at some time in the future, change the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception. Dogma, though (e.g. the Virgin Birth), may not be changed.

My source is that it is common knowledge. I suppose you could find it out anywhere.
 
atassina said:
I do not understand. If doctrine may be changed, may the Church teach that Mary was conceived with sin? What is this and where is your source?
Click to expand...
The Immaculate Conception is a dogma, not a doctrine. It was solemnly defined by Pope Pius XI in 1854.

Also, doctrine cannot change although our understanding of it can develop more fully over time.

Did you read the link I posted?
 
1Ke:
It is now 11:20pm in California. I read Qoeleth’s 2:50pm post about 5:57pm California time. I was suspicious of his assertion; common knowledge is not an academic assertion. Thanks for your later clarification.
 
atassina said:
It is now 11:20pm in California. I read Qoeleth’s 2:50pm post about 5:57pm California time. I was suspicious of his assertion; common knowledge is not an academic assertion.
Click to expand...
The Church recognizes something in the hierarchy of authority called “sensus fidelium” (the Sense of the Faithful) - teachings that have always been known (sensed) by the Faithful but have never been officially defined. These would be flippin’ obvious things - such as the “teaching” that Jesus was not conceived because Mary was raped by a Roman soldier. We know such an idea is false and absurd - not because the Church has ever specifically taught against it - but because the sense of the Faithful has always rejected any such idea. I suppose you could categorize such “teaching” as “common knowledge.”

That aside, Qoeleth’s example of the Immaculate Conception as a fungible teaching is absolutely not correct. As 1ke pointed out, this was infallibly defined by the Pope in 1854, although it was by Pope Pius-9 (1ke transposed the Roman numerals to make it Pope Pius-11 - this is why I never use Roman numerals - they’re too easy to mess up, and they are a numbering system that is best forgotten, being inferior in every way to Arabic numerals except in the phony sense of antiquity they suggest). You may read the complete text of the Apostolic Constitution INEFFABILIS DEUS here. The dogmatically significant passage is thus:
We declare, pronounce, and define that the doctrine which holds that the most Blessed Virgin Mary, in the first instance of her conception, by a singular grace and privilege granted by Almighty God, in view of the merits of Jesus Christ, the Savior of the human race, was preserved free from all stain of original sin, is a doctrine revealed by God and therefore to be believed firmly and constantly by all the faithful.
Click to expand...
 
David:
Thanks for the clarification. I’m still uncertain about the distinction between doctrine and dogma. I’m beginning to wonder whether or not we are making a distinction without a difference. Both are revealed truth. Both must be believed. Both are unchangeable. Both can be developed to a deeper a wider understanding.

It seems to me that we believe all doctrine and dogma is simply a formal declaration of a doctrine that people are challenging.
 
atassina said:
What is the distinction between doctrine and dogma? Please define using concrete examples.
For example:
Doctrine: There is only one God.
Dogma: The one God is a Trinity

I’m having a difficult time intellectually holding onto the distinction between these two terms because I perceive them as being used interchangeably.
Click to expand...
Any teaching is a doctrine, even if it might not be infallibly defined. This doesn’t mean they are wrong; any doctrine is true. I think an example would be the Dormition of Mary.

A Dogma is a doctrine that is defined. An example would be the Assumption of Mary.
 
atassina said:
what is a GMO?
Click to expand...
Genetically-Modified Organism. It’s a hot topic locally (Missouri) because of St. Louis having such a Catholic culture so we tend to see more theological discussions hit mainstream news, but also because of Monsanto’s GMO production, and the use of GMO seeds for fuel corn and fuel soy here and in Illinois.

The controversy was about three years ago when two of the state’s bishops came out on opposite sides - one stating that GMOs were “playing God” and the other that GMO crops, if they could boost production of food or otherwise grow in inhospitable environments, were good because they could feed the poor and keep food prices low. There’s no dogmatic definition, nor even a doctrinal one I think, as this is a relatively new discussion and the implications are not yet fully studied. That’s why I used the example.
atassina said:
I’m still uncertain about the distinction between doctrine and dogma…Both are revealed truth. Both must be believed. Both are unchangeable. Both can be developed to a deeper a wider understanding.
Click to expand...
Changeability is I think a good distinction, but development would only be further definition and clarification rather than change.

One example to explore here might be that of Limbo, which I don’t think has ever been considered a doctrine in the technical sense (despite wiki), but more of a tradition, and what steps would need to be taken for limbo to be defined as a doctrine, or even if that is necessary.

It seems to me that we believe all doctrine and dogma is simply a formal declaration of a doctrine that people are challenging.

Probably. Though when the Immaculate Conception was declared dogmatically, I don’t think there was a controversy within the Church, rather Pius was riding a wave of sensus fidei. By the same token the ever-present movement to declare the so-called Fifth Marian Dogma (Co-Redemptrix, Mediatrix, Advocatrix) has a lot of support within the Church and I know of few dissenters.
 
atassina said:
I’m still uncertain about the distinction between doctrine and dogma.
Click to expand...
The Catholic Church has never officially made any distinction between the two terms.

Many modern Catholic theologians use the term “dogma” to refer to teachings which have been clearly promulgated de Fide. In very modern times you will occasionally see the terms used in this manner (without explanation) in official Church documents. I suspect that in the centuries to come, this form of usage will increase.

The distinction is completely irrelevant to the average Catholic layperson. We are expected to accept ALL teachings of the Magesterium, regardless of whether they have been promulgated de Fide. This would even include, for example, daily Papal addresses from the Pope’s balcony - you will sometimes see such addresses cited on this forum to establish the authority of a particular teaching, even though no Pope would ever officially promulgate ex Cathedra teaching in this manner.
 
. . . . Though when the Immaculate Conception was declared dogmatically, I don’t think there was a controversy within the Church, rather Pius was riding a wave of sensus fidei. By the same token the ever-present movement to declare the so-called Fifth Marian Dogma (Co-Redemptrix, Mediatrix, Advocatrix) has a lot of support within the Church and I know of few dissenters.

Our holy Mother deserves all the recognition she has merited. Have we always and everywhere called her Co-Redemptrix, Mediatrix, Advocatrix? Therefore is this the sense of some faithful and not all the faithful? Is it earnest and pious desire in the joy of love for our Mother and not a doctrine?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top