Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Free-For-All Archives' started by Ps104_33, Jun 3, 2003.
What is the difference between the two? Can a church change its doctrine but not its dogma?
What is the difference between the two?
A dogma is a doctrine that has been formally defined.
For more info, see
Can a church change its doctrine but not its dogma?
The reason I asked that question was that I heard a Catholic today say that doctrine can be changed by the Church but not Dogma.
Well, then the obvious conclusion we come to is that this particular Catholic is incorrect with regard to this issue.
Just because a Catholic says something doesn't mean it's taught by the Catholic Church. And, to learn what is taught by the Church isn't quite so difficult to ascertain - simply do a web search at http://www.google.com for "Catholic Difference Between Dogma Doctrine" and you'll have your answer in an instant in contrast to waiting for me to spoon feed this simple truth to you.
That's what I did. I went - got a link - and brought it to you. Maybe, next time, you can do this and save me the effort. =)
But then that wouldn't accomplish the goal of:
Trying to convince people that the Church teaches other than what it does
Trying to show that individual Catholics are ignorant of the teachings of the Church
Trying to show disunity among Catholics to prove the falsehood that Catholics are no more united in faith than non-Catholics
I can only conclude that the above are the real goals of 99% of the questions asked on this board about Catholic beliefs given the ready availability of the Catechism on the internet.
Charity, guys. Charity. Let's not lose that, k?
Carson and t2u,
Forgive me for asking. I guess we dont need you guys aroung here anymore to answer any questions. I'll just go to google and get all my questions answered concerning the Catholic church. BTW t2u. Did you check google to find out what Baptists believe about soul liberty?
I heard Bill O'Reilly say on his nationally syndicated radio program on tuesday that the Roman Catholic church can change its doctrine but not its dogma. This goes out to millions of people.
So lets just eliminate the other religions forum. Here are some links for anyone who has any questions about the Catholic Church.
Ok, Carson Weber and Tryingtounderstand, you can leave the board now. We wont be needing you anymore. Dont let the door hit you on your way out.
I'll just go to google and get all my questions answered concerning the Catholic church.
Here are some more sites for you to use:
Well Carson, since you dont work at a real job like most of us do and are a "professional full time student" and probably will be for life, you have much more time to spend with your nose in a book and your face glued to a computer screen.
BTW dont bother sending me anymore Catholic propaganda
Yup. There are about as many definitions as there are Baptists.
No big surprise.
Back to using Bill O'Reilly as some sort of "offical spokesperson" for the Church again.
We've been over this before, Psalm. O'Reilly doesn't speak for the Church. If you want accurate information, stick to accurate sources.
My point is that often you bring up things supposedly said by random Catholics which may or may not be correct and then try to pretend that it is the offical teaching of the Church.
No, you still need us to let you know when you are wrong.
As others have pointed out, Bill O'Reilly is not an official spokesman for the Catholic Church. If he did say what you heard him say, then he was wrong. Is it possible that what he said was that the Catholic Church can change her disciplines but not her dogma? If he said this, he would be correct. A discipline is the way we do something (e.g., the way the churches are built, the vestments that are worn, the language of the Mass, and etc.). Doctrine is a fundamental belief of the church and dogma, as Carson said, is a doctrine that has been formally declared.
I was going to say that would be a silly thing to say...since doctrine and dogma are the description of each other.
Sorry...just had a laugh when I read that. I'll be going now...as Catholic discussions are not my forte'.
No O'Reilly said that the church can change her doctrine.
He said that dogma were things like the trinity, resurrection, etc. Doctrine= abortion, celibacy etc. I realize that O'Reilly is not an official spokesman for the church but he claims he is an expert on Catholicism.
BUt I disagree with the claim by all you RC's that the church doesnt change doctrine. History proves that she does.
Going out to dinner now. Bye
If you label such things as celibacy in the priesthood as doctrine, than they do change. Unfortunately, the Church does not refer to such things as doctrine, but as discipline, as already stated. So, if you wish to speak about the Catholic Church, you must do so using her language and definitions, unless you want needless confusion.
Thus, again, the Church has not changed doctrine. Not once. And this has not been shown here or elsewhere.
Disciplines change. Doctrines do not. And doctrines that are formally and fully defined are called dogmas.
I was not doubting you. I did not hear the show and was just making sure he was not being accused of saying something he did not, in fact, say. I take your word that he said this.
His own words prove that he is not an expert on Catholicism.
Please show me one doctrine that the Church has changed. It must be something that the Church considers doctrine. You cannot give your definitions to the words or actions of another and they say that that person or group is violating what they say they are doing. So please show me one doctrine that the Church has changed. (Celibacy and not eating meat on Friday are and always have been disciplines.)
I watch and like Bill O'Reilly who is a Catholic and have never heard him claim to be an expert on Catholicism. I don't know of any one who claims to be an expert, not even my parish priest.
Perhaps change is not the best word to use. I like to use the word "invent." But "add to" at least is accurate. The assumption of Mary is totally unbiblical, cannot be supported by Scriture, and yet was accepted as dogma as recent as 1950. The acceptance of this as doctrine or dogma is as good as a change in doctrine. Before 1950 you did not believe in it. After 1950 you did. That is a change. It is just a matter of semantics.
The Catholic Church defined the belief that was there. The Orthodox Church which has not defined this belief as dogma at any council shared the basic belief. Of course you know that we were both the same One, Holy, Catholic, Apostolic Church before the Schism.
Are you really this ignorant or are you just being obstinate? I'm sorry if that sounds harsh. I don't mean to be harsh or unchristian but your statements sound to me like you are either ignorant or obstinate. "Change", "invent", and "add to" are three totally different things. If you cannot distinguish between them, I fear there is not hope for any meaningful discussion. You should pick one and stick to it until your either prove that the church has done that or that you are mistaken. Just like an acorn can develop into an oak tree without anything being "invented", doctrine can develop without being invented. And the acorn becoming an oak tree does not mean the acorn became something it wasn't. The acorn was from the beginning, the kernal of an oak tree. So if there is going to be meaningful discussion, you will need to pick a word and state what you mean by that word and then we can discuss on that basis.
In terms of the doctrine of the assumption. you mentioned it not being "bibical". I could also say that "Wednesday night prayer meetings" and "Altar calls" are not bibical because they are also not mentioned explicitly in the Bible. Whether the assumption is bibical or not (I believe it is) is really another topic. The topic of your post is the Catholic Church changing her doctrine, not whether or not it is bibical. So let's look at the assumption in terms of the Church changing it. I hope your really don't believe that this doctrine was "invented" in 1950. In 1950 it was declared as dogma. The Church declares doctrine to be dogma when there is a need to clear up misconceptions about the doctrine. When it is declared as dogma, it confirms the long-standing belief of the Church, it does not invent a new doctrine. The belief in the assumption was very much a part of the belief of the Church prior to 1950.
If you are going to make statements like you did above, you should at least do a little bit of a search of the history of the topic beyond Lorraine Boatner's book (not sure if I spelled that name correctly but I think you know who I am referring to). A quick check at either of these sites: http://www.pitt.edu/~eflst4/assumption.html or http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/02006b.htm would show that the Feast of the Asumption was celebrated in the early centuries of the church, well before 1950.
These were the first two sites that showed up on a very quick web search. Please have the courtesy to at least do a little bit of research before making false claims against Christ's church.
Please put brain in gear before mouth in action.
This is totally a Catholic invention. The only so-called Scriptural support given was that if it was possible for Elijah to be translated, then it ought to be possible for Mary to be bodily assumed into Heaven. Nonsense!! And yet this doctrine was added to the Catholic Church's canon of dogma. This was a change. The fact that one more doctrine had been added meant that the body of Catholic doctrine has now been changed. There is no Biblical evidence for it. Can you prove that there is?
[ June 04, 2003, 10:52 PM: Message edited by: DHK ]