Infallible Vs. Fallibe

[Aloysius]

[quote]And I haven't really gotten an answer so my question then is this: How do you tell the difference between doctrine and dogma? [/quote]

doctrines are things the Church teaches, the Catechism of the Catholic Church is the greatest collection of doctrines in today's Church. If you wanna know something the Church's doctrine teaches, consult it.

now, infallible doctrines are at a higher degree, if you find that the Church has proclaimed that doctrine with authority and it's a matter of faith or morals, the Catholic Church believes that is Truth that the Holy Spirit wants us to know.

if you find that it has been proclaimed by the Pope by virtue of His ministry of successor to St. Peter or proclaimed by a council ratified by the Pope again in his petrine ministry, it's Dogma. Dogma is something that is an absolutely necessary belief in faith or morals for for you to be Catholic. If you reject a Dogma, you're rejecting a major piece of the Catholic Faith and it'll domino effect you right out of the Church, cuz the Church's dogmas are so intertwined that you can't just take one out and keep the rest standing.

But again, a faithful sheep of the flock of Jesus Christ will simply look to the Apostolic Authority on questions that arise as to what they should believe about faith or morals, and shouldn't be too concerned with trying to label it [i]'doctrine' [/i]or [i]'dogma' [/i]or [i]'infallible' [/i]or what, because in a sense while only certain doctrines are [i]'infallible' [/i]and thus some doctrines might be [i]'fallible' [/i]in the sense of having some error, no doctrine is [i]detrimental [/i]to the faith.

Sincerely,
a simple Sheep of Jesus' flock

[EcceNovaFacioOmni]

Becoming a Satanist because the Catechism took too long to read? I should hope not.

[Brother Adam]

[quote name='dairygirl4u2c' date='Jun 14 2004, 03:54 PM']

[/quote]
[quote]Just want you to note that non-Catholic's faith generally don't require us to read every document made by someone with a similar religion. Perhaps it should require that, but that's beside the point.[/quote]

Right. Typically there are a few weeks of membership classes after a person is saved in a corporate non-Catholic church (I only say corporate to distinguish from liturgical non-Catholic churches).

This is similiar to Catholic Churches. The membership classes (RCIA) in the Catholic Church typically last about 6 months meeting once a week and equip a person with everything they need to know and then some if they want to be a faithfully practicing Catholic. All RCIA members recieve a Bible, catechism, and usually other materials provided by the leader (such as a rosary, upon request). The first 12 classes of RCIA is solely for inquiry. Anyone and everyone is welcome to attend with no strings attached. Ask questions, learn about what Catholics believe, and so on. If after that you decide you want to become Catholic you go into a second set of classes to prepare you to become a member of the Church and ready to defend the faith.

[quote]And I haven't really gotten an answer so my question then is this: How do you tell the difference between doctrine and dogma?[/quote]

You have a really good question there, and while I know, I don't think I can explain it very well so I'm going to leave that to someone more educated then myself. I do know that Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma by Ott is an excellent book on the subject.

Edited June 14, 2004 by Brother Adam

[Apotheoun]

I posted a response to the following question in a thread in the Catholic Apologetics forum, so I hope that this is in some way enlightening:

Here is the original question:
"Hey, just as a follow up . . . could you describe the difference between the Extraordinary Magisterium, the Ordinary and Universal Magisterium, and the Authentic Magisterium?"

My answer:

[quote]First I would point out that both the Extraordinary Magisterium and the Ordinary Universal Magisterium teach dogmas and doctrines of the faith infallibly. They only differ in the manner in which they do this, the Extraordinary Magisterium teaches through solemn [i]defining acts[/i], either of the Pope alone (ex cathedra) or of all the Bishops gathered in an ecumenical council, which must always be held in [i]communion with[/i] or must be [i]confirmed by[/i] the Pope in order to be binding upon the Church. The Ordinary Universal Magisterium teaches dogmas and doctrines through what are called [i]non-defining acts[/i], i.e., through the ordinary daily teaching of the Pope and all the Bishops in communion with him, even though dispersed throughout the world, yet still maintaining the bond of communion among themselves and with the Roman Pontiff. As far as the teachings and disciplinary directives of the Authentic Magisterium are concerned, they are acts to which the Christian faithful must give religious submission of intellect and will, and this is required even though the teachings and norms issued by the Authentic Magisterium do not possess the charism of infallibility. Finally, it should be noted that to publicly dissent from any level of Magisterial teaching is never licit.[/quote]

I hope that this helps, but to get more information on the authority and exercise of the Church's Magisterium, I would recommend looking at the other postings in the "Infallibility" thread in the Catholic Apologetics forum. There are also some really good weblinks in the "Reference Section" of the that forum, so you might want to check them out as well.

I have a website myself (that is still under construction) that examines this topic and which gives a basic outline on the Magisterium. You can look at it by clicking the link below:
[url="http://www.geocities.com/apotheoun"]http://www.geocities.com/apotheoun[/url]

Edited June 14, 2004 by Apotheoun

[Guest JeffCR07]

Also, just to tag-team with what Apotheoun said, I'm pretty sure that there is also the following teaching on doctrine vs. dogma.

In the case of Dogma, it is the absolute truth, inerrant, and infallible. The church teaches that to deny dogma is a sin.

In the case of Doctrine, however, it isnt quite as clear cut. All members of the faithful should follow the teachings outlined in doctrine unless they meet the following requirements: 1.) They are fully formed. 2.) They have prayed and meditated over the issue for an appropriate amount of time. 3.) They truly believe that the doctrine is in error and that it would be a [i]sin[/i] (ie, would lead them away from god) to follow the doctrine.

If that criteria is met, I believe that it would be a sin for the person to continue to follow the doctrine, however, I should note two things: First, its pretty hard to meet all that, and second, I might be wrong about it all

Apotheoun, I'd really appreciate it if you could verify the stuff I just said, I dont wanna be saying something thats wrong!

- Your Brother in Christ, Jeff

[Apotheoun]

[quote]Also, just to tag-team with what Apotheoun said, I'm pretty sure that there is also the following teaching on doctrine vs. dogma.

In the case of Dogma, it is the absolute truth, inerrant, and infallible. The church teaches that to deny dogma is a sin.

In the case of Doctrine, however, it isnt quite as clear cut. All members of the faithful should follow the teachings outlined in doctrine unless they meet the following requirements: 1.) They are fully formed. 2.) They have prayed and meditated over the issue for an appropriate amount of time. 3.) They truly believe that the doctrine is in error and that it would be a sin (ie, would lead them away from god) to follow the doctrine.

If that criteria is met, I believe that it would be a sin for the person to continue to follow the doctrine, however, I should note two things: First, its pretty hard to meet all that, and second, I might be wrong about it all

Apotheoun, I'd really appreciate it if you could verify the stuff I just said, I dont wanna be saying something thats wrong![/quote]

Dogmas are by definition infallibly taught, and the Magisterium teaches dogmas by either an extraordinary act (i.e., a defining act), or by and ordinary act (i.e., a non-defining act). A dogma is something that the Church's Magisterium has declared to be divinely revealed. So to deny a dogma of the faith is to fall into heresy.

As far as it concerns truths of Catholic doctrine, these can be infallibly taught by either the Extraordinary Magisterium or by the Ordinary and Universal Magisterium, and when they are taught infallibly, then they are called doctrines [i]de fide tenenda[/i], that is, doctrines to be held definitively, because they are either revealed directly by God or are intimately connected with divine revelation, or they are a truth of the natural moral law. To deny a doctrine which has been taught as [i]definitive tenenda[/i], is to fall into error, or error proximate to heresy.

Additionally, some doctrines are taught by the Authentic Magisterium, and although things taught by the Authentic Magisterium are not protected by the Church's charism of infallibility, they are to be accepted by the faithful with docility, and as Cardinal Ratzinger has pointed out, the adherence required ". . . cannot be simply exterior or disciplinary but must be understood within the logic of faith and under the impulse of obedience to the faith." [CDF Instruction [u]Donum Veritatis[/u], no. 23]

As I indicated in an earlier post, no Catholic has any right to dissent from the teachings of the Magisterium, even in matters that are not taught with the charism of infallibility. Because to dissent from a teaching of the Church that has been defined as something to be accepted as either [i]de fide credenda[/i] or [i]de fide tenenda[/i], by that very act of dissent, separates a person from full communion with the Catholic Church. If the dissent concerns a dogma of the faith, then the person in question has fallen into a state of heresy; if the dissent involves a truth of Catholic doctrine, i.e., something which must be accepted as [i]definitive tenenda[/i], then the person has fallen into error, or error proximate to heresy, depending upon the specifics of the case.

Let me give an example of a doctrine that is infallibly taught. The male only priesthood is not a dogma of the faith, at least it is not a dogma at the present time, but it is a doctrine that has been infallibly taught by the Ordinary Universal Magisterium. Thus, the male only priesthood is a [i]de fide tenenda[/i] doctrine and to dissent from this teaching is to fall into error. Any person who denies this doctrine is no longer in full communion with the Catholic Church.

Edited June 15, 2004 by Apotheoun

[dairygirl4u2c]

[quote]Let me give an example of a doctrine that is infallibly taught. The male only priesthood is not a dogma of the faith, at least it is not a dogma at the present time, but it is a doctrine that has been infallibly taught by the Ordinary Universal Magisterium. Thus, the male only priesthood is a de fide tenenda doctrine and to dissent from this teaching is to fall into error. Any person who denies this doctrine is no longer in full communion with the Catholic Church. [/quote]

But this doctrine could theoretically become not taught and considered evil in the future. (I might argue this is how the Catholic Church sustains its claim to not changing) You are arguing that disobeying a truth is a lesser evil than disobeying the current doctrines. So a Catholic could be living in the truth, but not following the doctrines, and still be in heresy. Unless you are suggesting that whatever the Catholic Church teaches as doctrine is the truth regardless of whether or not it changes. But that just seems so arbitary.

Something definitly doesn't seem right; I'll have to think about this a bit to be clearer.

[Aloysius]

what it teaches as doctrine does not change. the male-only priesthood cannot change.

ppl have tried to proove changes or what not to no avail for a long time. they just don't exist.

more in depth understanding happens, the developement of doctrine. but nothing is ever reversed or taught against that was previously taught.

PAX

[dairygirl4u2c]

I'm not sure about that. When I was a Catholic I heard about things that were taught but were later changed and it didn't count as a change because it wasn't an official dogma. Maybe it was because it wasn't an official doctrine at the lowest end of the spectrum.

Why isn't all doctrines then dogma?

I'd also be curious to know how to tell the difference between dogma and doctrine when I see it.

[Aloysius]

discipline is the way we present doctrine. like the way the mass looks and feels, that can change. example: Latin Mass

doctrine is the Church's teachings on faith and morals. They cannot be blatant heresy, God cannot allow that. Perhaps they do not explain something to the fullest extent, but they are always true about what they teach. example: Mary was sinless

dogma is the fullest extent of the truth, it is something about the faith which pertains to the Gospel. example: Mary was sinless from her very conception preserved from all original sin and reversing Eve who was created sinless's decision to sin she did not sin her entire life.

Notice that pertains to the Gospel, because she is a reversing of what lost us grace with God by the power of Her Son and thus knowing about her is clearly knowing about the Gospel. Notice that more fully describes the doctrine that Mary was sinless, saying she was sinless from her conception. No one could have ever taught contrary to that doctrine even before the fuller version came out in dogma.

PAX

[Apotheoun]

[quote]But this doctrine could theoretically become not taught and considered evil in the future. (I might argue this is how the Catholic Church sustains its claim to not changing) You are arguing that disobeying a truth is a lesser evil than disobeying the current doctrines. So a Catholic could be living in the truth, but not following the doctrines, and still be in heresy. Unless you are suggesting that whatever the Catholic Church teaches as doctrine is the truth regardless of whether or not it changes. But that just seems so arbitary.

Something definitly doesn't seem right; I'll have to think about this a bit to be clearer. [/quote]

I agree, something definitely doesn't seem right, and it is your view of what I said. The doctrines of the Church do not change, but it is true to say that what is implicitly believed, can be explicitly defined by the Magisterium in order to exclude erroneous opinions that may arise over the centuries. But once something is taught as [i]de fide credenda[/i] or [i]de fide tenenda[/i] it is by definition irreformable, thus in the example I gave, i.e., of the [i]definitive[/i] doctrine of the male only priesthood, the Pope has confirmed that it is impossible now, or at any time in the future, for a woman to be ordained a priest. Any further definitions can only clarify the nature of the doctrine in question, they cannot effect its substance. In the case of an infallible teaching [i]de fide tenenda[/i], the only other type of change that can occur, is that the Magisterium could determine that it is not only a truth of Catholic doctrine to be accepted as [i]definitive tenenda[/i], but is in fact a dogma of divine revelation. Thus, there can never be women priests in the Catholic Church, it is impossible, that is the whole point of the Pope's letter [u]Ordinatio Sacerdotalis[/u], for as he said, "Wherefore, in order that [i]all doubt may be removed[/i] regarding a matter of great importance, [i]a matter which pertains to the Church's divine constitution itself[/i], in virtue of my ministry of confirming the brethren (cf. Lk 22:32), [i]I declare that the Church has no authority whatsoever to confer priestly ordination on women and that this judgment is to be [b]definitively held[/b] by all the Church's faithful[/i]." [Pope John Paul II, Apostolic Letter [u]Ordinatio Sacerdotalis[/u], no. 4] Let me reiterate my point for the sake of clarity, any doctrine that is taught as [i]definitive[/i] by the Magisterium, is by definition [i]infallibly[/i] proposed and [i]irreformable[/i], no one, not even a future Pope or an ecumenical council, can contravene a doctrine so taught. A future Pontiff or an ecumenical council can elevate a [i]definitive[/i] doctrine to the level of a dogma, but neither a Pope nor a council can make that which is already defined doctrine 'undefined.'

[dairygirl4u2c]

How do you tell the difference between dogma and doctrine when you see it? I mean even if you have to follow the doctrine, just out of curiosity. Are Catholics suppose to be able to distinguish faith and moral and the Gosple? I'm actually confused as to how to tell the faith/morals from the Gospel stuff you were talking about.

[quote]doctrine is the Church's teachings on faith and morals. They cannot be blatant heresy, God cannot allow that. Perhaps they do not explain something to the fullest extent, but they are always true about what they teach. example: Mary was sinless

dogma is the fullest extent of the truth, it is something about the faith which pertains to the Gospel. example: Mary was sinless from her very conception preserved from all original sin and reversing Eve who was created sinless's decision to sin she did not sin her entire life.[/quote]
So would you agree that doctrine is what makes up dogma? I'm trying to reconcile what you said. This sounds like you just said that Mary being sinless is doctrine. And then that Mary being sinless is dogma. But you did elaborate more on the dogma and explain that its the fullest extent of the truth.


And why then isn't all doctrines dogma if they can later be elevated as such and are infallible? Is it because a simple doctrine would need to grow into something elaborate in order to warrant it?

Apo,
I am sorry because I did read your post wrong. But how do you tell if something is taught by the Authentic Magisterium or not? Is this when the clergy teaches something not infallibly but as a quote unquote person?

Edited June 15, 2004 by dairygirl4u2c

[Apotheoun]

dairygirl4u2c

The quotation you put into your post gives a good summary of the differences between dogmas and doctrines, but let me try to simplify matters by just addressing the differences between a dogma and a doctrine:

(1) A dogma is something that the Church has infallibly declared to be divinely revealed.

(2) A [i]definitive tenenda[/i] doctrine is something that the Church has infallibly declared to be true, because in some way it is connected to divine revelation or is a part of the natural moral law. Of course this does not exclude the possibility 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." [CDF [u]Official Doctrinal Commentary on the Professio Fidei[/u], no. 7] In other words, some of the doctrines in this category may be divinely revealed, but the Church has not yet declared that to be the case.

(3) A doctrine taught by the Authentic Magisterium is not proposed infallibly, but the Christian faithful must still give a religious submission of intellect and will to the teachings proposed in this way. Now, because doctrines of this type are not proposed by the Magisterium with the charism of infallibility, they are open to later revision. Although it should be borne in mind that doctrines in this category may eventually be defined as either doctrines [i]de fide tenenda[/i] or even as dogmas [i]de fide credenda[/i]. Disciplinary norms and judgments of the prudential order also make up a part of the teachings of the Authentic Magisterium, and these decisions and norms should be respectfully accepted and adhered to by the Christian faithful.

Now that I have briefly defined the three levels of Magisterial authority, I will give a partial list of where various teachings of the Church fit in relation to these categories:

(1) [i]Some of the dogmas infallibly taught by the Church are[/i]: That God is three persons in one nature, that Christ is one divine person in two natures, that Mary was immaculately conceived, that Mary has been assumed bodily into heaven, that Mary is the Theotokos, that the Mass is a true sacrifice, that the Pope has a primacy of jurisdiction in the Church, that the Pope is infallible in the exercise of his Extraordinary Magisterium, that the Church is infallible, that Christ is really present in the Eucharist, that men are born in a state of original sin, that murder is immoral, that the Church was founded by Jesus Christ, that scripture is inerrant, that Christ instituted the sacraments, etc.

(2) [i]Some of the doctrines infallibly taught by the Church are[/i]: That the marriage of two baptized Christians is sacramental, that fornication is immoral, that God desires the salvation of all men, that grace is a participation in the divine nature, that the Church is the Body of Christ, that God can communicate grace outside the sacramental order, that Mary is Co-Redemptrix, that Mary is Mediatrix of all graces, that prostitution is immoral, that homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered and gravely immoral, that Christ could not sin, etc.

(3) [i]Some of the authentic teachings proposed by the Church are[/i]: That the Holy Spirit is the soul of the Church, that Mary was free from all motions of concupiscence, that the moral virtues are infused with sanctifying grace, that confirmation perfects baptismal grace, etc. In addition to the various doctrines taught at this level, there are also disciplinary norms and practices that are promoted or given canonical sanction by the Church, things like: the norms for fasting and abstinence, various devotions approved by the Church, i.e., the rosary, the chaplet of divine mercy, etc.

I hope this helps to clarify things for you.