[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.

[Mad Dawg]

Tap Dancer:

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.

Yes, I think saying "Get real," is contemptuous. If I had seaid, say,"Get real! That's the Assumption hyo're talking about not the Immaculate Conception, that would be okay with you?" It wouldn't with me.

I'll cop to using doctrine and dogma carelessly.

The fact remains that you said "Get real," in response to my saying that the Church moved slowly in making the Assumption Dogma, while it was widely, if unofficially held for 1500 years before the definition.

Again you were arguing that you KNEW that the Church would move speedily to make co-redemptrix official. Against that I was saying that the church moved SLOWLY on The Assumption.

Now if you are saying that the church moved quickly in that it wasn't dogma until it was dogma, I'll gladly stipulate the tautology.

But if you are or were arguing something meaningful, I say again the belief was widely but unofficially held for something like 1500 years before it was made dogma, and you have adduced nothing but your contemptuous "Get real," to show that that is not so.

What you are not getting is that a thing can be widely believed without being officially declared doctrine. And the only way your initial "get real" -- which you now seem to be tap dancing away from in a manner to dazzle Ginger Rogers -- can make any sense at all is ... no, wait, it doesn't make sense. A belief which was widely but unofficially held was formalized more than a millenium and a half after its general but not universal acceptance -- and you adduce it as evidence that the Church moves quickly on making Marian doctrine.

I also say again that you do not seem to understand, despite your lengthy researches how dogma or doctrine gets to be defined. The councils were called in response to questions and controversies. There wasn't a rulingon Icons until some yahoos started working against them. The Marian dogmas were defined in response to questions and appeals for their definition. So the absence of a definition is not a matter of slowness in deciphering but of the absence of a perceived need to make a determination.

You seem to think that it isn't believed until the people are told to believe it, while at the same time you think that the Vatican will precipitously give into popular pressure to declare Mary co-redemptrix. So they're slow to decipher but prone to act too quickly? The people who didn't reallybelieve anything about the Assumptionuntil they were told to are now forcing the Vatican to knuckle under on co-redemptrix? I must be missing your argument entirely.SLow and fast, weak and inert AND strong and uncontrollable. Get real?

BTW I think when RC's say "Dogma" they mean it's been defined.

Maybe we'd better start over. What is your worry about the whole co-redemptrix mess? (I mean outside of disagreeing with it?) On what basis did you say that we knew it would be made official soon? and what di the history of the Assumption (or the Immaculate conception) have to do with your knowledge?

[Kolokotronis]

"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."

Generally, Orthodoxy does make a distinction between "dogma" and "doctrine". Dogmas are always officially defined by a council and are the sort of thing that is binding on the whole Church and the failure to ascribe to such a dogma places one outside The Church. Doctrine may well be a sine qua non of membership in The Church but has not been defined as dogma by a council, a belief held "quod semper, quod ubique, quod ab omnibus". In Orthodoxy, Eucharistic theology is an example. The Assumption is technically theologoumennon, a pious belif which may be held, but if one doesn't hold it, one isn't "out" of The Church. The truth is that among the Orthodox it is pretty much a universal belief.

It can be confusing applying the usual Western definitions of dogma and doctrine to Eastern theology. Bottom line, the Latin dogma of the Assumption is a dogmatic expression of an Eastern theologoumennon. I suppose that had the East ever had to confront any doubt about the Assumption on any scale, given its near universal acceptance, it might well have dogmatized it at a council. We just never had that problem, unlike what Rome faced with Protestantism. We generally don't dogmatize things unless there is a widespread heresy to deal with.