Doctrine Versus Dogma Re: Infallibility

[Nihil Obstat]

The doctrine of infalliblity is just that, doctrine, right?
However, dogma are things that are decided to be infallible, while doctrine can, in theory, be changed. Right?
So how come it's not "dogma of infallibility', since it almost seems that a 'weaker' belief is creating 'stronger' beliefs.
Sounds really irreverent when I say it that way. I'm sure you know what I mean though.

Basically, how come infalliblity is not defined as dogma?

[StColette]

[quote name='Nihil Obstat' post='1634975' date='Aug 22 2008, 05:36 PM']The doctrine of infalliblity is just that, doctrine, right?
However, dogma are things that are decided to be infallible, while doctrine can, in theory, be changed. Right?
So how come it's not "dogma of infallibility', since it almost seems that a 'weaker' belief is creating 'stronger' beliefs.
Sounds really irreverent when I say it that way. I'm sure you know what I mean though.

Basically, how come infalliblity is not defined as dogma?[/quote]

Papal infallibility is a dogma Proclaimed dogma at the First Vatican Council.

Doctrines of the Church must be believed and practiced by the Catholic faithful. Because something moves from doctrine to dogma does not make it "stronger". Dogmatic proclamation generally comes about because there is a need for a complete definition of a Church teaching. The dogma of the Immaculate Conception when it was merely doctrine was still held to be infallibly the truth. It was brought to the level of dogma because the need for a complete/full definition of what the Immaculate Conception means. Whether something is doctrine or dogma of the Church, they are both to be believed and practiced by the Church faithful.