Does the Catholic Church officially differentiate between "doctrine" and "dogma?"

[DavidFilmer]

Theologians often reserve the term “dogma” to de Fide teachings which have been recognized as infallible, and use the term “doctrine” to refer to teachings which have not been formally recognized as such.

Some theologians (such as Ludwig Ott) subdivide “doctrine” into a wide range of classifications (Sent. Certa, etc). I AM NOT ASKING ABOUT THESE. I know that such classifications (and which doctrines they encompass) are purely the opinion of particular theologians, and I know that the Church does not officially categorize ANY of Her teaching in this manner.

But I have always been of the opinion that the Church uses the terms “dogma” and “doctrine” interchangeably, and does not officially differentiate these two terms.

Am I wrong? Does the Church have official (and different) definitions of “dogma” and “doctrine?”

 

[Joe_5859]

Theologians often reserve the term “dogma” to de Fide teachings which have been recognized as infallible, and use the term “doctrine” to refer to teachings which have not been formally recognized as such.

Some theologians (such as Ludwig Ott) subdivide “doctrine” into a wide range of classifications (Sent. Certa, etc). I AM NOT ASKING ABOUT THESE. I know that such classifications (and which doctrines they encompass) are purely the opinion of particular theologians, and I know that the Church does not officially categorize ANY of Her teaching in this manner.

But I have always been of the opinion that the Church uses the terms “dogma” and “doctrine” interchangeably, and does not officially differentiate these two terms.

Am I wrong? Does the Church have official (and different) definitions of “dogma” and “doctrine?”

I think you’re right about the Church using the terms interchangeably. The CCC Glossary has only one entry for doctrine/dogma. I know the Glossary of the CCC isn’t technically part of the “official” CCC, so that’s not exactly some infallible declaration of the Church’s official position. But it does seem to me indicative of what I generally observe in Church documents.

If someone else knows otherwise, I would be greatly interested to hear about it.

 

[BcuzISaidSo]

I asked the pastor about this once. What is the difference between doctrine and dogma? He responded, “the spelling!”

 

[thistle]

Father Hardon’s Modern Catholic Dictionary:

DOGMA. Doctrine taught by the Church to be believed by all the faithful as part of divine revelation. All dogmas, therefore, are formally revealed truths and promulgated as such by the Church. They are revealed either in Scripture or tradition, either explicitly (as the Incarnation) or implicitly (as the Assumption). Moreover, their acceptance by the faithful must be proposed as necessary for salvation. They may be taught by the Church in a solemn manner, as with the definition of the Immaculate Conception, or in an ordinary way, as with the constant teaching on the malice of taking innocent human life. (Etym. Latin dogma; from Greek dogma, declaration, decree.)

DOCTRINE. Any truth taught by the Church as necessary for acceptance by the faithful. The truth may be either formally revealed (as the Real Presence), or a theological conclusion (as the canonization of a saint), or part of the natural law (as the sinfulness of contraception). In any case, what makes it doctrine is that the Church authority teaches that it is to be believed. This teaching may be done either solemnly in ex cathedra pronouncements or ordinarily in the perennial exercise of the Church’s magisterium or teaching authority. Dogmas are those doctrines which the Church proposes for belief as formally revealed by God. (Etym. Latin doctrina, teaching.)

 

[EricFilmer]

Am I wrong? Does the Church have official (and different) definitions of “dogma” and “doctrine?”

I have not been able to find any (from an official Church source), leading me to believe that the distinction between the terms dogma and doctrine is simply one made by certain theologians. Note that I am referring to the term “doctrine” as an official Church teaching pertaining to faith and morals (there are some Christian sources, even a few Catholic ones, which utilize the term doctrine to describe Church teachings in general, regardless of what they address and how official they are).

On a side note, personally I think that it is best to do exactly what the glossary of the C.C.C. does, and that is to simply use the terms interchangeably. It has been my experience that when someone tries to make a distinction, problems arise. Consider, for example, what was presented in Post #4 concerning something that came up in (name removed by moderator)'s deacon formation class…

Although this sounds like an acceptable idea at first, we soon have to make exceptions to it. According to this definition, the Assumption of Mary is a doctrine, not a dogma, because it is implied in Scripture (as opposed to being directly derived from it) and mostly stems from Sacred Tradition. However, the Church document which officially defined this teaching, Munificentissimus Deus, labels it as a dogma (in the heading as well as in places within the text, such as #6, 8 & 11).

 

[Joe_5859]

I took another look at , and the CDF’s doctrinal commentary on Professio FideiAd Tuendam FidemProfessio Fidei (for some reason, all three documents are on the same page on the Vatican website).

For the most part, they stick with the word “doctrine”, but this excerpt from the CDF commentary seems to make a distinction:

Moreover, it cannot be excluded that at a certain point in dogmatic development, the understanding of the realities and the words of the deposit of faith can progress in the life of the Church, and the Magisterium may proclaim some of these doctrines as also dogmas of divine and catholic faith.

 

[Cristiano]

Dogma comes from the Greek “δόγμα” and means opinion or belief, while doctrine comes from the Latin “doceo, docere” to teach. As you can see the two meanings are different and they can have overlapping instances. If you look at the book 'Fundamental of Catholic Dogma" by Ludwig Ott, you will see that there are different levels of assent that the Catholics give or should give to the teachings of the Church, some are dogmas some are not but all of those are teachings.

 

[Just_Lurking]

Am I wrong? Does the Church have official (and different) definitions of “dogma” and “doctrine?”

I’m not sure if you are asking about the categorization of Church teachings into different levels or categories (which has been done by canon law since 1998), or if you are asking about the official names for those categories.

As far as names go, another commonly used name for the lowest category instead of “doctrine” is “authentic teaching.” The problem with using the term “doctrine” is that it just means a “teaching”, so that “false doctrine” (or “heretical doctrine”) is a bad thing, not an oxymoron.

 

[DavidFilmer]

I’m not sure if you are asking about the categorization of Church teachings into different levels or categories (which has been done by canon law since 1998), or if you are asking about the official names for those categories.

I know the Church labels some things as dogma and some things as doctrine. I’m asking if the Church officially accepts the common convention among theologians that dogma is pronounced infallibly.

My opinion is that the terms are interchangeable- such as “Supreme Pontiff” and “Pope,” and that we should ascribe no particular difference to something which is called “dogma” and something else which is called “doctrine” (using my brother’s more specific definition of “doctrine” in post #6).

As I said in my original post, I am not interested in how various theologians (such as Ott) subdivide “doctrine” - the Church absolutely does not use these classifications.

 

[Just_Lurking]

Canon law provides three levels of teaching, described in: canon 750 §1, canon 750 §2, and canon 752. Theologians use the term “dogma” or “de fide credenda” to refer to the teachings described in canon 750 §1; the term “dogmatic fact” or “de fide tenenda” to refer to the teachings described in canon 750 §2; and the term “authentic magisterium” to refer to the teachings described in canon 752. The first two levels are infallible, but the third is not.
Canon 750 §1. A person must believe with divine and Catholic faith all those things contained in the word of God, written or handed on, that is, in the one deposit of faith entrusted to the Church, and at the same time proposed as divinely revealed either by the solemn magisterium of the Church or by its ordinary and universal magisterium which is manifested by the common adherence of the Christian faithful under the leadership of the sacred magisterium; therefore all are bound to avoid any doctrines whatsoever contrary to them.

Canon 750 §2. Each and every thing which is proposed definitively by the magisterium of the Church concerning the doctrine of faith and morals, that is, each and every thing which is required to safeguard reverently and to expound faithfully the same deposit of faith, is also to be firmly embraced and retained; therefore, one who rejects those propositions which are to be held definitively is opposed to the doctrine of the Catholic Church.

Canon 752. Although not an assent of faith, a religious submission of the intellect and will must be given to a doctrine which the Supreme Pontiff or the college of bishops declares concerning faith or morals when they exercise the authentic magisterium, even if they do not intend to proclaim it by definitive act; therefore, the Christian faithful are to take care to avoid those things which do not agree with it.

 

[DavidFilmer]

Theologians use the term “dogma” or “de fide credenda”…

Yes, I KNOW that’s what theologians do. I’ve said that several times. I’m not interested in how theologians categorize dogma/doctrine, or what other labels or additional subdivisions they propose.

I am fully aware, and completely accept, the obvious fact that a majority of theologians mean something DIFFERENT when they classify one teaching as dogma and another as doctrine. In theological-speak, all dogma is doctrine, but not all doctrine is dogma.

But I believe that, as far the Catholic Church employs these terms, all dogma is doctrine, and all doctrine is dogma. The Church does not differentiate these terms in any meaningful way, and uses the terms interchangeably (as the definition in the Catechism would suggest).

To a theologian, anything called “dogma” is de Fide. But I am suggesting that the Church might teach something and call it “dogma” without intending to suggest that it is de Fide (or, on the other hand, call something “doctrine” which is de Fide). I’m suggesting that the Church does not employ the same distinction that is commonly used among theologians.

So I want to know if the Church actually SAYS that a teaching called “dogma” is automatically assumed to be de Fide (subject to the provisions of Canon 750 §1-2), and a teaching that is called “doctrine” is not (subject to Canon 750, §3). That’s how theologians use the terms, but I do not believe the Catholic Church always follows those conventions, or claims to do so in any way.

 

[constantconvert]

This question doesn’t particularly interest me, but I have insomnia, so I’ll give it a go

The teaching of the Magisterium on revealed truth can take different forms, be more or less a full expression, and have a sliding scale in the matter of obligation (*LG *25). In the strict sense (and this approach is a creation that belongs to the modern epoch only), a dogma is a teaching in which the Church proposes a revealed truth definitively, and in a way that is binding for the universal Church, so much so that denial is rejected as heresy and falls under an anathema. **So in dogma understood in this sense there are twin components, one doctrinal, and the other, juridical **or disciplinary Doctrinal statements with sacred obligation have an undeniable foundation in Sacred Scripture, in particular in the power of binding and loosing which Jesus gave his Church, and which is binding also in heaven, that is in Gods eyes (Mt 16:19; 18:18). Even the matter of anathema has New Testament foundations (1 Cor 16:22; Gal l:8f; cf. 1 Cor 5:2-5; 2 Jn 10; etc.).~THE INTERPRETATION OF DOGMA

I’ll be back if I find anything more.

 

[thistle]

Yes, I KNOW that’s what theologians do. I’ve said that several times. I’m not interested in how theologians categorize dogma/doctrine, or what other labels or additional subdivisions they propose.

I am fully aware, and completely accept, the obvious fact that a majority of theologians mean something DIFFERENT when they classify one teaching as dogma and another as doctrine. In theological-speak, **all dogma is doctrine, but not all doctrine is dogma.
**
But I believe that, as far the Catholic Church employs these terms, all dogma is doctrine, and all doctrine is dogma. The Church does not differentiate these terms in any meaningful way, and uses the terms interchangeably (as the definition in the Catechism would suggest).

To a theologian, anything called “dogma” is de Fide. But I am suggesting that the Church might teach something and call it “dogma” without intending to suggest that it is de Fide (or, on the other hand, call something “doctrine” which is de Fide). I’m suggesting that the Church does not employ the same distinction that is commonly used among theologians.

So I want to know if the Church actually SAYS that a teaching called “dogma” is automatically assumed to be de Fide (subject to the provisions of Canon 750 §1-2), and a teaching that is called “doctrine” is not (subject to Canon 750, §3). That’s how theologians use the terms, but I do not believe the Catholic Church always follows those conventions, or claims to do so in any way.

 

[Just_Lurking]

The categorization of Church teachings into “infallible” and “non-infallible” teachings dates back at least to Vatican I. The restriction of the term “dogma” to those infallible teachings which are essential to the faith also dates to this period.

The 1983 code of canon law described those two categories, infallible and non-infallible, and the Catechism was written by those who held the position that those were the only two categories. The first (1992) edition of the Catechism (paragraph 88) held to such an extreme presentation of this view that it was actually incorrect; however, the second (1997) edition corrected the error by making the paragraph overly vague rather than giving up ground in the fight. But in 1998, the two category side lost, and the Church went with the three category model, “officially”, in canon law.

The pre-Vatican II view of dozens of categories of teaching, e.g., Ott’s categories, was never official, as far as I know, but it did mirror the disciplinary usage of the Holy Office.

 

[masterjedi747]

As I said in my original post, I am not interested in how various theologians (such as Ott) subdivide “doctrine” - the Church absolutely does not use these classifications.

Yes, I KNOW that’s what theologians do. I’ve said that several times. I’m not interested in how theologians categorize dogma/doctrine, or what other labels or additional subdivisions they propose.

I am fully aware, and completely accept, the obvious fact that a majority of theologians mean something DIFFERENT when they classify one teaching as dogma and another as doctrine. In theological-speak, all dogma is doctrine, but not all doctrine is dogma.

I’m suggesting that the Church does not employ the same distinction that is commonly used among theologians.

That’s how theologians use the terms, but I do not believe the Catholic Church always follows those conventions, or claims to do so in any way.

David, I don’t understand what’s driving your question. As far as I can see you’ve been given several helpful answers, but - for some reason, I’m not sure WHY - you seem extremely intent on setting up a wall of separation between “theologians” and the Magisterium. Do you not realize that the Vatican is full of theologians, and even if they do not DEFINE and TEACH all of these distinctions in a crystal clear manner, they nevertheless often ASSUME and MAKE USE of these distinctions? Sure, sometimes they might not make a clear distinction, perhaps because the context does not demand it. But that does not mean that these distinctions - developed by theologians - are not true, good, and useful, simply because they were not established by the Magisterum proper.