Dogma vs. Doctrine how binding are they?

[derekohachey]

Hello,

I am reviewing the hierarchy of truths right now and I am looking for clarification on Dogmas and Doctrines.

To my knowledge Dogmas are morally binding such that a Catholic must accept these teachings to be in a state of grace if they are aware of them.

How morally binding are doctrines taught in church council documents and popes?

Please provide CCC or church document references if possible.

God Bless,
Derek

 

[Linusthe2nd]

Hello,

I am reviewing the hierarchy of truths right now and I am looking for clarification on Dogmas and Doctrines.

To my knowledge Dogmas are morally binding such that a Catholic must accept these teachings to be in a state of grace if they are aware of them.

How morally binding are doctrines taught in church council documents and popes?

Please provide CCC or church document references if possible.

God Bless,
Derek

Paragraphs 84-95 are the important ones. The obligation of belief in the whole doctrine of the faith is treated in non-condemnatory terms. It simply says that the faithful adhere to whatever is proposed for belief by the Magisterium of the Church. The key here is the term " faithful. " This would mean that we cannot be Catholics in good standing unless we accept as true and believe as true all that the Magisterium proposes. An example of this would be the contents of the Catechism.

In other words you cannot receive the sacraments validly unless you believe the Truths proposed by the Magisterium. I don’t think the Catechism necessarily contains the entire content of Catholic Truth. So one must always be open to accept those other truths as well, wherever they may be found. And perhaps one does not learn the entire content of Doctrine in ones lifetime. It is not something to worry over. If one learns the Catechism and keeps up with the Encyclicals, etc. one will get most of it. A good effort is required to keep abrest of things. I think this applies in areas of morality especially. Certainly the Catechism of today contains more here than did the Catechism of the Council of Trent.

 

[mardukm]

From my understanding, there are two senses we can differentiate dogma and doctrine:

(a) All dogma is doctrine, but not all doctrine is dogma. In other words, there are some doctrines or beliefs that have not been proposed as definitely binding on the conscience for the sake of salvation, and remains in the realm of theologoumena. Examples of doctrinal theologoumena would be the Essence and Energy distinction and certain specific beliefs about the afterlife (purgatorial fire, toll houses, etc.).

(b) Intimately related to the first sense is the idea that doctrine is the Church’s human expression of the eternal Truths of God (or dogma). According to each Church’s particular theological perspective and terminology, a dogma can be expressed differently. In other words, the same dogma can have different doctrinal expressions. I’ll give you three examples:
(1) That God is totally other from His creation is a dogma of all the Churches. The Eastern and Oriental Churches particularly express this dogma according to the doctrine of Essence and Energy. While the Latins do not have this doctrine, they nevertheless teach the essence of that doctrine - namely, the total otherness of God from His creation.

(2) That Mary was not spiritually separated from God during her entire existence is a dogma of the Catholic Churches. Eastern and Oriental Catholic Churches affirm this liturgically with lofty expressions for the Theotokos (e.g., “all-holy,” ever-pure," “without stain,” etc.), while Latin Catholics particularly express it in terms of being preserved from “the stain of original sin” (Easterns in particular do not and really cannot express the dogma in this way because “original sin” has a different meaning to Easterns than to Latins).

(3) That the natures of Christ are united without confusion, without commingling, without separation, etc. is a dogma of all the Churches. However, Chalcedonian Christians express this immutable Truth of God differently than non-Chalcedonian Christians. Concisely, Chalcedonian Christians emphasize the existence of the two natures of Christ united in the one hypostasis, while non-Chalcedonians emphasize the unity of the two natures of Christ in the one hypostasis. Of course, both doctrines teach the same one dogma.

I hope that helps.

Blessings,
Marduk

Hello,

I am reviewing the hierarchy of truths right now and I am looking for clarification on Dogmas and Doctrines.

To my knowledge Dogmas are morally binding such that a Catholic must accept these teachings to be in a state of grace if they are aware of them.

How morally binding are doctrines taught in church council documents and popes?

Please provide CCC or church document references if possible.

God Bless,
Derek

 

[thinkandmull]

Well, if the Pope or the offices in Rome teach something which we faithful can clearly see is against the Faith, we are not bound to violate Faith reason and the “'law of contradiction”, especially since the doctrine of “religious submission of mind” has never been taught infallibly: that is, that alleged level of authority is founded on nothing other than that very authority. This fact is important in discussions with Protestants, who are fearful of hierarchial tyranny. Pius XII tried to justify “religious submission of mind” by the passage in Luke in which Jesus said “He who hears you, hears me”, even though this has usually been used by Catholics to prove Church infallibility! Nonetheless, it seems very reasonable from the Bible (“chair of Moses” analogies, ect) and from natural law that we should keep an open ear to all that those blessed with leadership have to say