www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life The Christian East & West Doctrines and Dogmas

Attention all of you erudite scholars out there! I need to better understand the difference between or the relationship between a Dogma and a Doctrine.

Do the Eastern churches and Western churches agree on the terminology?

Are Dogmas a subset of Doctrines, like the same as doctrines but more definite? Are Dogmas the underlying Truths which are expressed as Doctrines?

If there are Doctrines that are not Dogmas, why so? Can Doctrine be redefined/clarified/corrected? Can Dogmas be redefined/clarified/corrected?

Can more than one Doctrine express a Dogma? Are doctrines ways of teaching Dogmas?

How does the Western church use these terms as compared to the Eastern churches? Or vice versa.

I understand that the Eastern church relies on Councils to define Dogmas and the Western church expects the Pope to do it, but are they using the same understanding of what a Dogma is?

I am merely trying to establish the ground rules that so many dialogs are based upon.

In Christ Always,
Michael

Dogmas normally have anathemas attached to them. Doctrines are any sort of beliefs contained in Sacred Tradition.

Not all doctrine is dogma, but all dogma is doctrine.

The problem I have seen on the local level (as an Orthodox) is that certain doctrines are dogmatized by lay people when such doctrines are really only theologoumena. One will hurl accusations of heresy on matters that have not actually been defined (or dogmatized) by the Church. Here the problem is mostly ignorance, not disobedience or an actual spirit of factiousness.

The Orthodox Church is less likely to dogmatize, while the Catholic Church is more likely to do so. I think both paradigms have their advantages. As an Orthodox, the penchant for dogmatization in the Catholic Church seems like a "shutting up of the gates," as Jesus had accused the Pharisees of doing. On the other hand, I do so appreciate the solid foundation that dogmatization has provided in the Catholic Church with regards to doctrines and especially morals.

Blessings,
Marduk (who is not an "expert")

Thank you. That shed some light on it for me too. Is that the main difference - anathema or no anathema? And, is what you outlined, a pretty fair explanation for both OC and RC (not much difference)?

-ray

Yes, the Orthodox and Catholic concepts of doctrine and dogma are basically the same. I do however see two differences.

First, dogmas in the Orthodox Church always have particular anathemas attached to them, because they are the dogmas of the Ecumenical Councils. It seems the Catholic Church has moved away from this practice of explicit anathemas.

Thus, whereas in the past one could always distinguish a dogma by the anathemas attached to it, nowadays, this does not seem to be the case, at least in the Catholic Church. A modern working definition of "dogma" would be "something defined authoritatively for the entire Church to believe." I gather this is more of a diplomatic move than anything else in the Catholic Church, since condemnations against such defined beliefs will still exist, albeit via latae sententiae instead of ferendae sententiae.

Second, Orthodox do not generally accept that dogmas can be clarified or corrected (though doctrines that are not dogmatized certainly can be). This has to do with the Orthodox denial of the principle of development of doctrine. Personally, I think this is a theoretical weakness in official Orthodox theology. I say "theoretical" because even though we won't admit it, such development will and does occur, though we may not call it "development of doctrine." The early Fathers testified to such "development of doctrine," and the Catholic Church has been more patristic in this sense than the Orthodox in its official theology.

I think it would be good to have a thread on the development of doctrine. What do you think?

Blessings,
Marduk

Dear Marduk:

One other telling difference between Catholicism and Orthodoxy is on the "conception" or "definition" of theology, by which the Church explains dogma (or morality in case of moral theology).

The Catholic Church does not equate theology with dogma.

Dogmatic explications in the Catholic Church also recognize God as the ultimate mystery and beyond human comprehension, as the Orthodox do, but are not circumscribed by such an admission. The Catholic pursues theology as a means to understand God's ineffability.

This distinctive Latin definition of theology makes and allows the Catholic Church to be more accepting of the theological perspectives of the Orthodox and of other Christian traditions.

On the other hand, the Orthodox more or less equate theology with dogma.

It seems to me that the Orthodox see theology as experiential, i.e., more synonymous to mysticism: to be lived in contemplation of God's mysteries. Theology is viewed not as a means to explain His revelations. This explains, in part, the Orthodox "declaration" that Catholic theology is "heretical."

The "filioque controversy" best illustrates this Catholic-Orthodox "divide." Both agree and believe in the Triune God. However, in explaining the Mystery of the Holy Trinity, the Orthodox take the dogmatic approach while the Catholics take the theological approach: the Holy Spirit acts in this world as the agent of both the Father and the Son, without necessarily denying the truth that the Holy Spirit originates from the Father alone.

The Catholic way paves for a possible re-union of the East and the West; while the Orthodox way simply prevents it from happening or, at least, stakes it with higher hurdles.

Neither theology is perfect, for sure. But I, as a Roman, prefers the Latin conception.

Amado

Dear Brother Amado,

I need to go so this will be short. I do agree with you that Catholic theology offers more avenues for reunion than Orthodox theology. This is a great advantage of the Catholic Church in her response to Christ's prayer for unity.

Some of your language confuses me, though. Orthodoxy does not tend to dogmatize, so I think it is more appropriate to say that Orthodoxy does NOT equate theology with dogma. However, I can glean where you are coming from. I gather that you say that Orthodoxy equates theology with dogma because existing dogma circumscribes or limits theology (i.e., dogma defines theology), whereas for Catholics, existing dogma is the springboard for theology (i.e., theology defines dogma).

Blessings,
Marduk

Michael,

My understanding is that dogmas are a species of doctrine (which simply means "teaching.") Dogma usually refers to something which has been given definition by the Church, rather than simply being a truth left to local formulations.

As for agreement on terminology, that depends. If the matter is a dogma, what was articulated by the Ecumenical Councils is binding upon all Catholics, irregardless of their local Church. This would include the "post-schism" (post 1054) Ecumenical Councils which are not recognized by the still separated Eastern Orthodox Churches. Thus, strictly speaking, Eastern Catholics are obliged to the definitions of the Council of Trent (for example.)

As for other matters, there is a lot of liberty in how subjects are discussed, so long as one is staying within what might be called the "mind of the Church". What many people do not understand, is that this is not simply a matter which cuts "between" Eastern and Western Catholics - within each of these basic groups themselves there are different "schools", different approaches, and on some tertiary matters, outright different opinions.

For example, for centuries within the Roman Church there were long standing differences between those who would be called "Scotists" and those who were known as "Thomists." There are also what one may call "different spiritualities", the distinctives of which I think are almost as pronounced as the distinctives you'd find seperating generic so called "Latin spirituality" from that of the Christian East. Simply put, even the west itself is not the "monolith" some try to portray it as.

The same could be said of Eastern Christendom. Historically, Antiochian Christology and Scriptural exegesis placed more of an emphasis upon the concrete, historical realities of revelation and the Person of Christ (including His Humanity), where as what one may call the "Alexandrian school" was more interested in allegorical interpretations and a view more focused on the eternal, "Divine Christ." If balanced and not indulging in extremes, neither view is inappropriate within the fullness which is the Catholic Church...however both have their own distinct "feel", so to speak.

Well, this might be an over simplification. While within the practical life of the Latin Church understood is a local (if quite large) Church, yes the Pope of Rome has a place which is not paralleled in the Eastern Churches (though this is not 100% true - if anything the Coptic/Alexandrian Oriental Orthodox Church, not in communion with Rome, was/is as administratively centralized as the Latins are... their Patriarch even called "Pope" as well.)

However, I think the councils still hold a pride of place in the west as well, as vehicles for articulating dogmas and resolving wide spread practical matters - for the simple reason that the Pope's "infallibility" is a negative guarantee, basically assuring (as court of last appeal on issues juristiction, faith and morals) that he will not (being visible head of the Church) destroy the Church. It is not a guarantee of powers of prophecy, or special wisdom - thus when a sacred council gathers, we are hearing the Holy Spirit through them in a way which does not necessarily occur if the Pope speaks alone (unless he happens to be an extrarodrinary holy man, with great gifts of wisdom or maybe even prophecy...but that would be a charism given to him as a living saint, not simply because he is Pope.)

Thus, while things are obviously more "Papal-centric" in the west, I don't think it's good to push such tendencies too far or exaggerate their significance.

Augustine

Wow! Great answers.

Since the point was made that dogmas will have anathemas attached to them (I am a bit fuzzy on this), is an anathema the same in the East as in the West? Anathema Sit is something like a curse in the west, a sure condemnation. Do the Eastern Churches condemn heretics to perdition or is there some other sense to this?

The reason I ask is that the subject came up once before somewhere and the idea was put forth that the anathema was not a condemnation, but a setting adrift or release to the mercy of God.

This term is Greek, isn't it? I wish I knew Greek.

Thanks all,
Michael

In general, an anathema is not a condemnation, but a disciplinary measure intended to bring the sinner back into the Church.

What you are referring to when you speak of being released to the mercy of God is a form of anathema invoked with the terms "ANATHEMA! MARANATHA!" In such a case, a sinner is regarded as so intransigent and unrepentant that the Church leaves the final decision up to God at the Final Judgment. Thus, the sinner has no hope of repentance in this lifetime. Theoretically, however, the Church, having the power of the keys, can still revoke the Anathema Maranatha upon repentance of the sinner.

I believe the Anathema Maranatha was used in one or two of the Ecumenical councils.

Blessings,
Marduk