[Mad Dawg]

That may be true but it's not Orthodox core beliefs

Define "Core belief", please. It sure sounds to me from what Kolokotronis says that it's pretty close to quod semper, quod ubique, quod ab omnibus.

Further your contemptuous disagreement with me was with my assertion that it was a doctrine held by many for some 1500 years before it was made de fide. In fact, your first statement was that it was the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception which was made de fide in the 1950's.

If I failed to show that you were mistaken on that I'd like to know how I failed.

Now you claim to have done a great deal of research into how doctrinal statements arise.

So we're looking at the wrong doctrine and a substantial disagreement over how long the doctrine has been held by many on the Church before it was made de fide. Okay, I'm right about the doctrine in question and right about how long it was held by many, but the group of which I am a part is misinformed.

Nice tap dance.

As you suggest, lots of us are misinformed. One of the things I'm misinformed about is whether or how the orthodox make something de fide.

Nice tap dance. I find the Orthodox to be very consistent in their views while the Catholics have slowly migrated to their view.

I think I've met my dance master. This started because you implied that you knew that we were about to make the title co-redemptrix a matter of dogma. I said it took about a millenium and half to get to the Assumption, and you told me to get real. Now you are saying we move slowly, and tell me that I tap dance.

[HarleyD]

Doctrine (Latin: doctrina) means "a code of beliefs", "a body of teachings" or "instructions", taught principles or positions

Dogma (the plural is either dogmata or dogmas, Greek plural) is the established belief or doctrine held by a religion

Doctrine = Dogma

Harley – post # 11,562 One would wonder why the Orthodox hasn't adopted it, if that were the case; or why it took 1500 years to finally agree to it. It's invented. In fact, what you are suggesting is that either the Orthodox or Rome have not been able to correctly decipher doctrine.

Kolo – post #11,757 Harley, personally I don't know a single Orthodox person or hierarch who does not believe in the bodily Assumption of the Theotokos into heaven after her death. We simply haven't made it a dogma while Rome has.

MD - Define "Core belief", please. It sure sounds to me from what Kolokotronis says that it's pretty close to quod semper, quod ubique, quod ab omnibus.

From the definition of doctrine and dogma, and confirmed by the above posts, I believe what I stated is correct; the Orthodox have not yet made the Assumption doctrine (e.g. dogma) while Rome has.

Further your contemptuous disagreement with me was with my assertion that it was a doctrine held by many for some 1500 years before it was made de fide.

If you believe it to be “contemptuous” have at it. I’ll see if I can’t curl my lips and give some kind of snickering laugh. But as evidence above, it WASN’T part of the doctrine (e.g. dogma) of the Church and was never accepted until well after the split.

I think I've met my dance master. This started because you implied that you knew that we were about to make the title co-redemptrix a matter of dogma.

There’s that word again. Yes, I believe the Catholic Church will make the co-redemptrix part of their dogma (e.g. doctrine) within the near future by Catholic standard time. You said it doesn’t matter. I say there is a disconnect between Orthodox and Catholics.

And...no tap dance from me.