Dogma, doctrine, discipline

[PJM]

=janeway529;11287844]What’s the difference between these terms?

from Father John A Hardons catholic Dictionary:
forums.catholic-questions.org/newreply.php?do=newreply&p=11287844

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.)

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.)

DISCIPLINE. Systematic mental, moral, or physical training under someone in authority. The term also applies to the order maintained by persons under control, whether self-determined or imposed by others. It is likewise a private means of penance, in use among ascetics since the early Church, e.g., a whip or scourge. It is the exercise by the Church of her right to administer spiritual penalty, and it may finally refer to any of the laws and directions set down by Church authority for the guidance of the faithful. (Etym. Latin disciplina, instruction, knowledge.)

 

[1AugustSon7]

And then there is the apostolic discipline {apostolica disciplina) as described in the document from Trent Session 22 on Doctrine of the Sacrifice of the Mass (DOCTRINA DE SACRIFICIO MISSÆ):

If this discipline (low tones, etc.) is something that can be changed, then do we have a changing doctrine as well? What else would a casual reader of this “doctrine” conclude? The rite was instituted so that parts indeed be pronounced in low and high tones.

This is an ecclesiastical ordinance or discipline. Holy Mother Church instituted these things. That HMC makes her disciplinary and practical decisions in light of man’s nature goes without saying.

As for the BVM,
She certainly would not have suffered any bodily corruption. To what extent, then, “death” claimed dominion over her is an open question. The Jews did not think that death really took hold until the third day after death - and this is perhaps the reason for the Apostles’ insistence that our Lord was raised “on the third day”: i.e., before death’s power began to corrupt the Lord’s body, probably following the Psalm :

16:9 Glad and merry am I, heart and soul of me; my body, too, shall rest in confidence 10 that thou wilt not leave my soul in the place of death, or allow thy faithful servant to see corruption.

So in one sense I could see someone insisting that she didn’t “die” in the fullest sense, being preserved from death by God - in a certain sense. This is certainly something for theologians and linguists to work out, however

 

[frjohnmorris]

This is an ecclesiastical ordinance or discipline. Holy Mother Church instituted these things. That HMC makes her disciplinary and practical decisions in light of man’s nature goes without saying.

As for the BVM,
She certainly would not have suffered any bodily corruption. To what extent, then, “death” claimed dominion over her is an open question. The Jews did not think that death really took hold until the third day after death - and this is perhaps the reason for the Apostles’ insistence that our Lord was raised “on the third day”: i.e., before death’s power began to corrupt the Lord’s body, probably following the Psalm :

16:9 Glad and merry am I, heart and soul of me; my body, too, shall rest in confidence 10 that thou wilt not leave my soul in the place of death, or allow thy faithful servant to see corruption.

So in one sense I could see someone insisting that she didn’t “die” in the fullest sense, being preserved from death by God - in a certain sense. This is certainly something for theologians and linguists to work out, however

The Jews always opened the tombs of the newly buried after the third day to see if they were really dead. They did not have modern medical instruments and the possibility that someone was buried while they were still alive existed. Thus the Jews did not really consider someone dead until after the 3rd day. That is why it is important that Christ rose on the third day, to show that he really died on the Cross. Likewise Our Lady the Blessed ever-virgin Mary rose from the third day after her death and ascended into Heaven to join her divine Son. Thus the Assumption of the Theotokos is a parallel to the resurrection and ascension of Christ.

Archpriest John W. Morris

 

[ProVobis]

from Father John A Hardons catholic Dictionary:
forums.catholic-questions.org/newreply.php?do=newreply&p=11287844

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.)

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.)

DISCIPLINE. Systematic mental, moral, or physical training under someone in authority. The term also applies to the order maintained by persons under control, whether self-determined or imposed by others. It is likewise a private means of penance, in use among ascetics since the early Church, e.g., a whip or scourge. It is the exercise by the Church of her right to administer spiritual penalty, and it may finally refer to any of the laws and directions set down by Church authority for the guidance of the faithful. (Etym. Latin disciplina, instruction, knowledge.)

Thanks for this. Good explanation of discipline especially IMO.

Examples of Dogmatic Decrees: Vatican II: Dei Verbum, Lumen Gentium
Trent: Sessions 3,4,5,6,7,13,25

Examples of Doctrinal Statements: Trent: Sessions 21,22,23,24

 

[thistle]

Then how does one know what’s doctrine then? As I showed earlier it seems the “doctrines” of Trent have maybe not been changed but severely undermined. Low tones in Mass, for example.

The form of the Mass is a discipline (not a doctrine) and can change (apart from the consecration and priest receiving Communion). Basically everything else in the Mass could be changed.

 

[PJM]

=ProVobis;11305814]Then how does one know what’s doctrine then? As I showed earlier it seems the “doctrines” of Trent have maybe not been changed but severely undermined. Low tones in Mass, for example.

Here’s friend is where you [and most Protestants] get confused.

One cannot confuse wht is simply a matter of “practice” [Low tones in this example] and what is a DEFINED FAITH BELIEF susch as the 'Real presence" actually and really BEING Jesus Christ.

There is a frequent misunderstanding due to this highly signifiant; critical difference.

 

[ProVobis]

The form of the Mass is a discipline (not a doctrine) and can change (apart from the consecration and priest receiving Communion). Basically everything else in the Mass could be changed.

That, I believe, falls under De Defectibus, which I also believe, to be doctrinal in scope. With a possible exception of the Chaldean Syrian Rite.

 

[ProVobis]

Here’s friend is where you [and most Protestants] get confused.

One cannot confuse wht is simply a matter of “practice” [Low tones in this example] and what is a DEFINED FAITH BELIEF susch as the 'Real presence" actually and really BEING Jesus Christ.

There is a frequent misunderstanding due to this highly signifiant; critical difference.

Am I being lumped into Protestantism now?

I hope by difference you’re not suggesting that I said or implied low tones make or break the Real Presence or anything to that effect. I don’t believe De Defectibus, which I believe is doctrinal in itself, makes low tones a condition of validity.

 

[PJM]

=ProVobis;11306754]Am I being lumped into Protestantism now?

I hope by difference you’re not suggesting that I said or implied low tones make or break the Real Presence or anything to that effect. I don’t believe De Defectibus, which I believe is doctrinal in itself, makes low tones a condition of validity.

NO Not my intent.

I aimed to bring to the fore, the common error of many who eiher do not know, do not accept ot deny that difference in Catholic -“pracice” [CHANGABLE] and Doctrine/ Dogma and Sacred Tradition UNCHANGABLE}

Nicely done; your reply

 

[ProVobis]

I aimed to bring to the fore, the common error of many who eiher do not know, do not accept ot deny that difference in Catholic -“pracice” [CHANGABLE] and Doctrine/ Dogma and Sacred Tradition [UNCHANGABLE}

And you’ve done that with your Hardon’s explanation and I complimented you for it. But I don’t see any errors in Trent’s Doctrines either. However, I did question whether they’ve changed or not. And you (and others) have stated that doctrine is unchangeable, or something to that effect. Therefore, I’m concluding that Trent’s Doctrines have not changed and the following are still in effect:

DOCTRINE CONCERNING THE COMMUNION UNDER BOTH SPECIES, AND OF LITTLE CHILDREN.

DOCTRINE ON THE SACRIFICE OF THE MASS

THE TRUE AND CATHOLIC DOCTRINE CONCERNING THE SACRAMENT OF ORDER

DOCTRINE ON THE SACRAMENT OF MATRIMONY

Now if one wants to argue that perhaps the anathemas are disciplinary, I’ll concede they may have a good case there but not the underlying doctrine.

Since I don’t have anything more to add, I am done with the thread.
[/quote]

 

[thistle]

That, I believe, falls under De Defectibus, which I also believe, to be doctrinal in scope. With a possible exception of the Chaldean Syrian Rite.

The form of the Mass falls under disciplinary law. The form of the Mass is NOT a doctrine.

 

[PJM]

=ProVobis;11307259]And you’ve done that with your Hardon’s explanation and I complimented you for it. But I don’t see any errors in Trent’s Doctrines either. However, I did question whether they’ve changed or not. And you (and others) have stated that doctrine is unchangeable, or something to that effect. Therefore, I’m concluding that Trent’s Doctrines have not changed and the following are still in effect:

DOCTRINE CONCERNING THE COMMUNION UNDER BOTH SPECIES, AND OF LITTLE CHILDREN.

DOCTRINE ON THE SACRIFICE OF THE MASS

THE TRUE AND CATHOLIC DOCTRINE CONCERNING THE SACRAMENT OF ORDER

DOCTRINE ON THE SACRAMENT OF MATRIMONY

Now if one wants to argue that perhaps the anathemas are disciplinary, I’ll concede they may have a good case there but not the underlying doctrine.

Since I don’t have anything more to add, I am done with the thread.

Once again I hasten to point out that there is a difference between a Doctrine, a Dogam and CHURCH PRACTICES.

I’ve studied TRENT.

Please be specific it what you think is Doctrine or DOGMA that has been changed or denied. I’m not aware of any.

God Bless you,
patrick