Doctrine versus Dogma: What’s the difference?

In researching dogmatic errors that arose during the first centuries of the Church it occurred to me that this may be of interest to some readers.  Besides, every time I write I learn something!

Doctrine is an umbrella term that incorporates Dogma.  All Dogma is Doctrine; not all Doctrine is Dogma.  Non-dogmatic doctrines (that’s a mouth full) are considered non-infallible teachings of the Church and, as such, they may change according to the Church’s resolution. Here are three recent examples:

1. Vatican II changed the traditional liturgy (i.e. Latin was replaced by the vernacular of the people served). 
2. Pope Benedict XVI, in 2007, downgraded Limbo from church doctrine to a theological hypothesis.
3. Pope Francis, in 2017, officially revised the Church’s historical stance on capital punishment (CCC 2267) to say the “death penalty is inadmissible” which language was added in 2018.

Dogma, from the Greek, (δ?γμα), was originally understood as an "opinion, belief, or philosophical tenet,” but is used by the Catholic Church to describe an immutable truth revealed by God and as such, considered binding (i.e. a “must” believe).  Dogma is an infallible doctrine and exemplified in the Catholic doctrines of the Holy Trinity, Incarnation of the Word, and Real Presence of Christ in the Holy Eucharist.

Dogma, today, does not bode well in a world that is increasingly relativistic when it comes to truth; especially here in the United States of America.  According to a twenty-five-year-old article by the Barna Group (Barna.com Feb. 12, 2002), a poll reported that 64% of Americans believe truth is always relative to the person and their situation, and 83% of teenagers say moral truth depends on the circumstances.

This is beyond disconcerting; it reflects the increasing darkness in our society. 

Relativism in relation to truth is no longer an intellectual disease but a pandemic of the ordinary heart and mind.  We have allowed our emotions to be our gods and the discerner of moral right and wrong. Spiritually speaking this reminds me of an article from a few years back where Elaine Pagels, a well-known professor of religion at Princeton University and author of The Gnostic Gospels, was interviewed.  In the interview she said she liked the feeling that Gnosticism gave her, rather than what she perceived to be uncomfortable truths of Christianity found in, for example the Gospel of John.   

I guess, if we do not like the idea of God as our eternal Judge, or the idea of hell, we just go by what feels best to us.  That, ladies and gentlemen, is the new opiate of the people; psychological self-medication to the point of stupor.

Eternal reality, according to Jesus Christ through the teachings of his Apostles, is that truth can be unpleasant to the ears.  Jesus experienced this firsthand when he was rejected by his people, the Jews, and when many of his own disciples turned away from him (John 6:52-66) after he gave his “bread of life” discourse. The greatest coup of human reason has been to deny God and the truths he has revealed, and the greatest travesty is that so many people, including Christians, rest more assuredly on the laurels of their “own understanding” rather than “trusting in the Lord.” (Prov. 3:5-6). 

Brothers and Sisters – do not give up on God’s infallibly revealed truth!  He is, and he is One, Holy and Triune.  The Word became incarnate and was born of the virgin Mary.  Jesus Christ was fully human and fully divine, and he suffered, died, and rose again.  His flesh and blood are the bread and wine of eternal life.  And King Jesus will come again to “judge the living and the dead.”  Is it a hard truth?  Obviously, for some the “Good News” is narrow-minded, and Jesus would agree for he described the path to eternal life as a “narrow gate” that “few find.” (Matt. 7:13-14) And yet that same path is free to all who will believe.    

Traveling the “broad way to destruction” may feel so much better, but the temporary succor only leads to eternal pain later.