Doctrine.dogma.change.

[TotusTuusMaria]

What is the difference between Doctrine and Dogma? What is a doctrine? What is a dogma?

Is it a sin to desire for the Church to change on issues such as female priesthood and same-sex attractions being disordered and, if acted on, sinful. I am saying it might possibly be, but I don't know. Someone is telling me it isn't. Any thoughts?

Also, we should look at everything by our conscience. I read in a theology text some years back (Fr. Laux) that if a Protestant was to think that their attendance at Mass was sinful and then to go, they would be committing sin because of their conscience. Well, a fellow Catholic insists that if they think the Church is not right on some things that their conscience is telling them that and for them to believe the Church would be a sin. What does one say to that? They say because of this there is many different beliefs in the Church and the Church is not universal in it's beliefs and everyone can believe anything so long as their conscience says it is ok. The Church teaches reliance on conscience, so one can believe anything they want so long as their conscience is ok with it.

Edited June 20, 2008 by TotusTuusMaria

[Paddington]

The Church probably teaches to follow conscience, but not that consciences are correct. St. Paul talked about Jews having "zeal not according to knowledge" as a negative thing. Or something or other. I hope that greases the wheels.

[StColette]

Deposit. These are the teachings left to us by the Apostles. The Deposit includes both Scripture and Sacred Tradition. It is infallible, and it cannot be altered, changed, added to, or subtracted from.


Dogma. This is a formally defined teaching which has been promulgated by an ecumenical council (like Nicaea or Trent) or declared an infallible teaching by a reigning Pontiff. Dogma is also infallible, and also cannot be changed---but it likewise cannot contradict Scripture, Tradition, any previous infallible statement, or another dogma. Examples include the Immaculate Conception and the Holy Trinity.


Doctrine. This is an explanation of some aspect of the Faith. It is not infallible, and can be changed, evolved, condemned, or abandoned. Examplesof this is limbo.


Discipline. This is a rule established by the Church to help the believer walk the straight and narrow path; examples include clerical celibacy, not eating meat on Fridays during Lent, and fasting on Ash Wednesday and Good Friday.


Devotion. The lowest level of Catholic belief; devotions are usually more or less up to the individual believer to practice or not. This category includes 99% of all Marian practices, including the Rosary, First Fridays, and belief in apparitons of Mary such as Lourdes or Fatima.

-- From Ludwig Ott

These were the clearest definitions that I could find.

[quote]Is it a sin to desire for the Church to change on issues such as female priesthood and same-sex attractions being disordered and, if acted on, sinful. I am saying it might possibly be, but I don't know. Someone is telling me it isn't. Any thoughts?[/quote]

I know some Catholics, who I know to be very faithful to the Church, who think that the Church should change it's stance on many things including female priesthood, same sex marriage/relationships, and contraception. They disagree with the Church, but out of faithfulness they humble themselves to the authority of the Church. They may disagree, but they always humble themselves to the Theologians of the Church who have far greater knowledge than themselves.

The simple fact is that the Church cannot, not necessarily will not, but cannot change it's teachings on the priesthood, same-sex marriage/relationships/attractions, nor contraception. The Priesthood is a deposit of the faith, infallible, handed down from Christ to the Apostles, who were all men. Priests are to act in Persona Christi. Last I checked, Christ was a male, and only a male can act in persona of another male. The Church cannot really change that. Same sex marriage/relationships/attractions deal with natural law, which the Church cannot change. Those laws are Divinely written so no messing with those. And the same goes for contraception.

So in the long run, it's not that the Church "will" not change the teachings it's that it cannot. And since it cannot the Church will not change the teachings.

I hope this makes some sense lol

[quote]Also, we should look at everything by our conscience. I read in a theology text some years back (Fr. Laux) that if a Protestant was to think that their attendance at Mass was sinful and then to go, they would be committing sin because of their conscience. Well, a fellow Catholic insists that if they think the Church is not right on some things that their conscience is telling them that and for them to believe the Church would be a sin. What does one say to that? They say because of this there is many different beliefs in the Church and the Church is not universal in it's beliefs and everyone can believe anything so long as their conscience says it is ok. The Church teaches reliance on conscience, so one can believe anything they want so long as their conscience is ok with it.[/quote]

I don't even know who Fr. Laux is so I'm not sure if what he says is a universal teaching of the Church. I know the Church does like us to have a well formed conscience, but that is in matters of knowing what is sinful and what is not, which I guess this could be what Fr. Laux is referring to. Noone's conscience can ever be fully conformed to know what is right and wrong, except you know Mary and Jesus, and probably John the Baptist, while they are here on earth. Just because one's conscience says something is right doesn't make it so. I could believe that killing people is okay, because my conscience says so. That doesn't make it right for me to start going around and killing people. Again, the Church teaches us to have a well formed conscience, not to strictly rely on our conscience. The Church is very universal in Her teachings and beliefs, it is those within the Church that think they know better than the Spotless Bride (the Church) that are not in line with those universal teachings.

In the end, one must realize that God and His Church do not bow to the selfish wants of people.

[TotusTuusMaria]

It does a lot. thank you!

[CatherineM]

My Ecclesiology prof told us that all dogmas are doctrines, but not all doctrines are dogmas. Dogma is the middle ring on the dart board. It's the "Christ was crucified and risen from the dead" kind of stuff.

[LouisvilleFan]

[quote name='TotusTuusMaria' post='1577292' date='Jun 20 2008, 09:56 AM']What is the difference between Doctrine and Dogma? What is a doctrine? What is a dogma?

Is it a sin to desire for the Church to change on issues such as female priesthood and same-sex attractions being disordered and, if acted on, sinful. I am saying it might possibly be, but I don't know. Someone is telling me it isn't. Any thoughts?[/quote]

Ludwig Ott seems to answer the questions about doctrine and dogma pretty well. To apply it to these questions, matters concerning the sacraments are dogmatic. The sacrament of marriage can only be given to a baptized male-female couple at one time in their lives and holy orders can only be given once for each level (deacon, priest, bishop) to a baptized male (well, I'm pretty sure the Baptism part is necessary in both cases).

Of course, one could privately disagree yet practice humility by submitting to the Church on these matters. This is certainly commendable. Pride is the root of all sin, so humility should be most treasured. And there are certainly those who do believe these truths yet allow their pride to cause schism, such as the SSPX and other Catholics who aren't in communion with the Bishop of Rome.

[quote name='TotusTuusMaria' post='1577292' date='Jun 20 2008, 09:56 AM']Also, we should look at everything by our conscience. I read in a theology text some years back (Fr. Laux) that if a Protestant was to think that their attendance at Mass was sinful and then to go, they would be committing sin because of their conscience.[/quote]

The sin in that situation is in believing that attending Mass is a sin! In fact, to believe that is at least implicitly a mortal sin. Of course, the Protestant is almost definitely lacking full knowledge and consent, and the conscience isn't well formed in regard to this matter. We should desire that their conscience be better formed in light of Truth so that they recognize the Mass for what it truly is and thus choose to attend and receive Christ in the Eucharist.

Fr. Lax-- I mean Laux, wrote a very poor theology textbook. Our consciences are not the arbriter of truth. Would Jesus bless us to go about the world professing whatever we think is true? We might as well say the whole world is Catholic! Can you see how pride would spiral upward and upward, the fulfillment of which is complete anarchy and loneliness?

What you've read is a misrepresentation of the Catholic teaching about conscience that was heavily perpetuated during the 70s and 80s (and still is today). Some Catholics needed some way to reconcile God's will with their own and this is the "loophole" they found. It doesn't work.

A proper situation for using conscience is in determing whether the Iraq invasion is a just war or not. In that case, one applies dogma and doctrine to a specific situation. Clearly, most of our bishops have spoken against it, but a Catholic could believe it is a just war with a clear conscience.

Another situation is when a married couple is deciding whether to plan for children or to abstain from sex in order to avoid lighting up the babymaker. The Church offers dogma (marriage must be open to life) and doctrine (NFP) that apply to this situation, but it's up to the couple to decide if they are prepared to welcome a child.

[quote name='TotusTuusMaria' post='1577292' date='Jun 20 2008, 09:56 AM']Well, a fellow Catholic insists that if they think the Church is not right on some things that their conscience is telling them that and for them to believe the Church would be a sin.[/quote]

They're right about what their conscience is telling them, but to follow your conscience in such a situation is the sin. If such a person isn't even willing to investigate Church teaching in order to find out why they might be wrong, they cannot claim to be intellectually honest.

[quote name='TotusTuusMaria' post='1577292' date='Jun 20 2008, 09:56 AM']They say because of this there is many different beliefs in the Church and the Church is not universal in it's beliefs and everyone can believe anything so long as their conscience says it is ok. The Church teaches reliance on conscience, so one can believe anything they want so long as their conscience is ok with it.[/quote]

This person is very confused and lost and I pray the Holy Spirit will help them see the folly of this logic along with the ugliness of the pride it promotes. So, the Catholic Church is not universal in its beliefs, eh? The word Catholic [i]means[/i] universal!

If names are meaningless, maybe Jesus should've named Simon the Aramic word for "fluffball" instead of Peter.

I know the path that person is encouraging you to walk down sounds compassionate and merciful, but there is evil down that path. Soon as we start toying with marriage and sexuality, we toy with the very meaning of our lives. The ramifications are far greater than helping homosexuals feel welcomed and loved. Of course, the command to love all people regardless of their state or their sins must be followed by all of us, especially we who follow an orthodox faith.

Edited June 20, 2008 by LouisvilleFan

[Nihil Obstat]

Something I'd like to throw in...
I heard a fun quote somewhere, apparently it came from an old seminary priest. He said that the eighth and most popular sacramen is ignorance. (tounge in cheek, obviously) Nice quote, eh? We're not perfect after all.
You can't really commit a mortal sin if you don't know what you're doing...
This partially relates to conscience.
It's our responsiblity to follow our conscience, but equally important to be sure that it is well informed.
If, within the church, a conflict of conscience arises for someone, first and foremost it is their duty to become well enough informed that they do not act or think out of ignorance.
If all efforts have been made to inform one's conscience, and a conflict still exists... well that's where my knowledge ends. I've heard some say that it would be sinful to not follow what your informed and real conscience tells you if you have done your best to approach the issue, but I've also heard it said that one would be better off trusting in the Church's teachings.
Is what I've said correct?

[StColette]

[quote]I've heard some say that it would be sinful to not follow what your informed and real conscience tells you if you have done your best to approach the issue, but I've also heard it said that one would be better off trusting in the Church's teachings.[/quote]

We must be careful of puting that much trust into our conscience. What might seem as well informed could possibly be incorrect. If your conscience is telling you the opposite of what Church teaching says, it's best to trust and follow the Church. For example, say your conscience tells you that female priesthood is okay, you've researched and still you question the Church's teaching on the matter, since it is a teaching of the Church one must put their trust into the Church, many Theologians have spent centuries on the topic. The Church cannot teach something that is wrong or heretical. So it's safer to follow what the Church says. Let the Church have the final say, if your conscience is giving you trouble. It's all about humility.

Remember no matter how informed we try to be our own conscience and "informedness" can be biased toward our stance on the situation.

[Apotheoun]

Concerning erroneous judgments of conscience (from [url="http://www.vatican.va/edocs/ENG0222/__P6.HTM"][u]Veritatis Splendor[/u][/url]):

[quote][size=3]62. Conscience, as the judgment of an act, is not exempt from the possibility of error. As the Council puts it, "not infrequently conscience can be mistaken as a result of invincible ignorance, although it does not on that account forfeit its dignity; but this cannot be said when a man shows little concern for seeking what is true and good, and conscience gradually becomes almost blind from being accustomed to sin." In these brief words the Council sums up the doctrine which the Church down the centuries has developed with regard to the erroneous conscience.

Certainly, in order to have a "good conscience" (1 Tim 1:5), man must seek the truth and must make judgments in accordance with that same truth. As the Apostle Paul says, the conscience must be "confirmed by the Holy Spirit" (cf. Rom 9:1); it must be "clear" (2 Tim 1:3); it must not "practise cunning and tamper with God's word", but "openly state the truth" (cf. 2 Cor 4:2). On the other hand, the Apostle also warns Christians: "Do not be conformed to this world but be transformed by the renewal of your mind, that you may prove what is the will of God, what is good and acceptable and perfect" (Rom 12:2).

Paul's admonition urges us to be watchful, warning us that in the judgments of our conscience the possibility of error is always present. Conscience is not an infallible judge; it can make mistakes. However, error of conscience can be the result of an invincible ignorance, an ignorance of which the subject is not aware and which he is unable to overcome by himself.

The Council reminds us that in cases where such invincible ignorance is not culpable, conscience does not lose its dignity, because even when it directs us to act in a way not in conformity with the objective moral order, it continues to speak in the name of that truth about the good which the subject is called to seek sincerely.

63. In any event, it is always from the truth that the dignity of conscience derives. In the case of the correct conscience, it is a question of the objective truth received by man; in the case of the erroneous conscience, it is a question of what man, mistakenly, subjectively considers to be true. It is never acceptable to confuse a "subjective" error about moral good with the "objective" truth rationally proposed to man in virtue of his end, or to make the moral value of an act performed with a true and correct conscience equivalent to the moral value of an act performed by following the judgment of an erroneous conscience. It is possible that the evil done as the result of invincible ignorance or a non-culpable error of judgment may not be imputable to the agent; but even in this case it does not cease to be an evil, a disorder in relation to the truth about the good. Furthermore, a good act which is not recognized as such does not contribute to the moral growth of the person who performs it; it does not perfect him and it does not help to dispose him for the supreme good. Thus, before feeling easily justified in the name of our conscience, we should reflect on the words of the Psalm: "Who can discern his errors? Clear me from hidden faults" (Ps 19:12). There are faults which we fail to see but which nevertheless remain faults, because we have refused to walk towards the light (cf. Jn 9:39-41).

Conscience, as the ultimate concrete judgment, compromises its dignity when it is culpably erroneous, that is to say, "when man shows little concern for seeking what is true and good, and conscience gradually becomes almost blind from being accustomed to sin." Jesus alludes to the danger of the conscience being deformed when he warns: "The eye is the lamp of the body. So if your eye is sound, your whole body will be full of light; but if your eye is not sound, your whole body will be full of darkness. If then the light in you is darkness, how great is the darkness!" (Mt 6:22-23).

64. The words of Jesus just quoted also represent a call to form our conscience, to make it the object of a continuous conversion to what is true and to what is good. In the same vein, Saint Paul exhorts us not to be conformed to the mentality of this world, but to be transformed by the renewal of our mind (cf. Rom 12:2). It is the "heart" converted to the Lord and to the love of what is good which is really the source of true judgments of conscience. Indeed, in order to "prove what is the will of God, what is good and acceptable and perfect" (Rom 12:2), knowledge of God's law in general is certainly necessary, but it is not sufficient: what is essential is a sort of "connaturality" between man and the true good. Such a connaturality is rooted in and develops through the virtuous attitudes of the individual himself: prudence and the other cardinal virtues, and even before these the theological virtues of faith, hope and charity. This is the meaning of Jesus' saying: "He who does what is true comes to the light" (Jn 3:21).

Christians have a great help for the formation of conscience in the Church and her Magisterium. As the Council affirms: "In forming their consciences the Christian faithful must give careful attention to the sacred and certain teaching of the Church. For the Catholic Church is by the will of Christ the teacher of truth. Her charge is to announce and teach authentically that truth which is Christ, and at the same time with her authority to declare and confirm the principles of the moral order which derive from human nature itself." It follows that the authority of the Church, when she pronounces on moral questions, in no way undermines the freedom of conscience of Christians. This is so not only because freedom of conscience is never freedom "from" the truth but always and only freedom "in" the truth, but also because the Magisterium does not bring to the Christian conscience truths which are extraneous to it; rather it brings to light the truths which it ought already to possess, developing them from the starting point of the primordial act of faith. The Church puts herself always and only at the service of conscience, helping it to avoid being tossed to and fro by every wind of doctrine proposed by human deceit (cf. Eph 4:14), and helping it not to swerve from the truth about the good of man, but rather, especially in more difficult questions, to attain the truth with certainty and to abide in it.[/size][/quote]

[StColette]

[quote name='Apotheoun' post='1577599' date='Jun 20 2008, 01:37 PM']Concerning erroneous judgments of conscience[/quote]

Thank you, Todd. I was looking for that document a minute ago.

[Aloysius]

for a simple axiom: It is always a sin to disobey your conscience... but sometimes it is also a sin to obey it.

if you have an ill formed conscience and it's your fault that you have an ill formed conscience, you have pretty much entered into the LOSE-LOSE scenario of moral theology. the only solution is to get your conscience informed.

(part of the well-formed conscience is to give religious assent to doctrines/dogmas even when you cannot fully understand them... if you cannot personally come to the belief but choose to trust the Church over your own understanding, you are not disobeying your conscience)