I would venture to say there are more than that. I think he is defining by broad categories, such as the "sacraments" as one, where I would be more specific and look to the individual sacraments regarding Baptism, the Eucharist, and so forth. Since our dogmatic belief is nearly the same, I would say his categorizing is just different.
I don't know, but I would assume that somewhere along the line a dogmatic belief on the Bible was pronounced by the Roman Catholic Church. Is that right?
Oh boy. It has been the ordinary, constant teaching of the Church (Orthodox and Catholic) that the Bible is the inspired Word of God. Now, whether you would define that as "dogmatic", I don't know. Something doesn't need to be officially defined at a Council to be considered a belief of the "entire Church, everywhere and in all times". However, it is not part of our faith, part of the Creed. The matters of our faith, dogmatic items, include:
The Unity and Trinity of God, God the Creator, God the Redeemer, God the Sanctifier. This theology can be broken down further:
God the Creator to include the work of Creation, the nature of man, the fall of man, and angels.
God the Redeemer to include the two natures of Christ, the work of man's salvation and the mother of the Redeemer.
God the Sanctifier to include teachings on grace, justification, the Church, and the sacraments.
You could add the Doctrine of "God the Consummator" which would discuss the next life.
This is all from the teachings given by the Apostles, the Rule of Faith. Regarding the Bible, we see it as part of the entire revelation given by God to men. Vatican 2 continued the teaching that Sacred Writ is from God and is inerrant. However, it is not PART of our faith, if you understand what I am saying by what I listed as those things that have been revealed by God to us.
I probably muddied the waters.
Somewhere recently I read that the Pope (or a very high Church official) made a public statement warning that pro-abortion politicians potentially face excommunication. I didn't think it likely that opposition to abortion was dogmatic, so I figured it must be doctrine.
The community (Church) is a voluntary organization. As such, its rules should be followed voluntarily to maintain membership. The authority of this organization has the right to cast our voluntary members who refuse to follow the rules. Thus, in 1 Cor 5, Paul saw that he had the right and DUTY to cast out the sexually deviant man out of the community. Throughout the latter books of the NT, the Church has realized a responsibility to guard its teachings and the flock from false teachers or those who are bad examples morally. This is the idea in mind when the Church warns pro-abortionist politicians that they tread on dangerous ground. They can no longer call themselves "Catholic" and flout something diametrically opposed to our beliefs. And the defense of life is very important to us. While it is not a dogmatic belief, it is an ordinary and constant teaching of the Church. As such, it is to be held with religious assent, as the Church is the pillar and foundation of the truth. Obedience to the Church on such matters is obedience to God.
To those who disagree with these Catholic teachings, the question remains "why are you still Catholic"? It ignores the foundation of our faith - that Christ established a Church and has promised to guide it from all falsehood. As such, if we believe that, then we submit our wills when the Church has taught something for 2000 years as truth. Those who prefer a more democratic approach or "to follow my conscience" must look deep down at their committment to God and their dissent. One can hold dissent privately on issues that have not been defined. But politicians can bring scandal to the community. As such, the Church feels that their obstinate public dissent is grounds for excommunication.
Regards
Jo: I would venture to say there are more than that. I think he is defining by broad categories
Dogmas of the Orthodox Church are those issued by the undivided Church of the first millennium. These dogmas were issued in response to emerging heresies and include the Holy Trinity (Three Hypostases, One Essence), Christology (Two Natures, One Person) and Theotokos (Birthgiver of God).
After the Great Schism the Orthodox Church did officially accept hesychastic (Palamite) teaching as offical doctrine in the 14th century regarding uncreated Grace.
This doctrine was established in response to a challenge from a Latin priest who crossed over to Orthodoxy (only to cross over again after he lost) but I am not certain that it can be consdiered "dogma" as it was canonized only in a Pan-Orthodox Synbod instead of the synod of the whole Church.
There was never a dogmatic pronouncement specifically regarding Scriptures, as far as I know.
The Church truths are contained in the Holy Tradition that is not explicitly written down but believed everywhere and always as one faith once delivered. We know of these truths from the writings of Church Fathers, the Scriptures and the litugical life.
No one specifically wrote a dogmatic pornoucement that everything Apostles wrote was scriputre. The Church simply accepted that as something sine qua non. Determining exactly what was actually written by them was another matter.
So, from the start, the Church believed the scriputres as containing God's truth. One must likewise assume that the Church knew the Holy Trinity and Christology, as well as Mary as the Birthgiver of God because otherwise the Church would not be able to know what is heresy and what is orthodoxy.
So, in the undivided Church, the authoirty is not in the dogma; the dogma is simply a statemnt of faith the Church believed everywhere and always, in response to emerging heresies that distort that which the Church knew everywhere and always.
In other woreds, the Church did not "develop" or "discover" dogmas, but simply stated them as something that waas believed everywhere and always.
A heresy is, by definition, an internal distortion of the Holy Tradition. It is not something non-believers say or teach. Heresy is an inter-ecclesial departure from the normative faith regarding absolutely essential elements of that faith. Accepting such heresy means literally changing the faith in its essence and transforming it into something essentially different.
After the Western and Eastern churches stopped communing in 1054, the Latin (aka "Roman Catholic") Church eventually started to issue dogmatic pronoucements that were not in resposne to challenges to doctrinal orthodoxy of the Holy Tradition, but rather as unquestionable affirmations of long-held beliefs. Thus one of the first was the dogma of the Purgatory. The two famous dogmas in the 19th century were the Immaculate Conception (IC) and Papal Infallibility (PI). The the third dogma issued in the 1950's was affirming bodily Assumption of Mary (AM).
Again, the IC and the AM were long held beliefs in the Church is, but neither is scriputral. So, not only were these dogmas issued sans any threat of heresy within the Church, but they are not even biblical. The IC is based on +Auigustine's (4th century) doctrine of the original sin. The assumption of BEV Mary is apparently something both Catholic and Orthodox Churches always believed on their own.
The AM was not dogmatized in the first millennium or ever in the East simply because it was never challenegd within the Church and because the scriputre is silent on it.
Now, dogma may not be questioned. Those who question either the Holy Trinity, the Christology or that Mary is the Birthgiver of our Lord and God, Jesus Chirst, are anathematized because by belieeing those errors they have exocmmunicated themsleves form the Church.
Doctrine is a theological statement based on the Holy Tradition and must be in harmony with Holy Tradition (and that includes Scriputre). In the undivided Church and in the Eastern Orthodox Churches today, doctrine is based on consensus patrum, teachings of the Church Fathers based on Holy Tradition and consensually accepted by the whole Church as such. Doctrine is not what any individual Church Father/Doctor writes as theologoumennna or theological hypothesis.
Disagreeing with any individual Father is not heresy. being critical of someone else's interpretation that has not been dogmatized is permitted.
Thus, individual Fathers could challenge papacy (as +Cyrpian did at one time), but one must always be ready to defer to the consensus patrium and Church dogma as the final truth and one's disagreements as inability to see the truth.
Echoing what Kolo once said regarding +Paul, I don't particularly like him but the Church tells me he is important for my salvation, so I defer to the Church and hope that, I too will one day come to see it correctly.
Oh boy. It has been the ordinary, constant teaching of the Church (Orthodox and Catholic) that the Bible is the inspired Word of God. Now, whether you would define that as "dogmatic", I don't know. Something doesn't need to be officially defined at a Council to be considered a belief of the "entire Church, everywhere and in all times". However, it is not part of our faith [dogmatic items], part of the Creed.
OK good, this is what I'm trying to get at. From the Luther thread, I have a specific memory (which could be faulty :) of there being three specific main "layers" of Church holdings (perhaps this only applies to Latins): dogma, doctrine, and discipline. I was under the impression that each was distinct and very defined in terms of authority. I had the idea that these were measures of accountability for you, i.e. you have to agree with this because it's dogma, but you are allowed to disagree with this because it's discipline, etc. But now we have an idea that something can be a "belief of the 'entire Church, everywhere and in all times'", YET, "it is not part of our faith".
SO, :) the next time I meet a Roman Catholic or an Orthodox at a cocktail party, and I start debating theology with them, to what standard should I hold them to for faithfully representing the faith?
I'll even play along. You could legitimately ask me how I can call myself a Calvinist when I don't follow infant baptism, as Calvin did follow it, and the majority of Reformers do. I would say that I am fine with the description of Calvinist, but that I am more properly called a Reformed Baptist. In any case, there is no governing body who has the power to decide who may call himself what as to Calvinism. Therefore, to find out what the terms mean, it would be a good idea to --- ALWAYS CONSULT FIRST WITH THE BIBLE :) --- consult with several who call themselves these terms (which you already have) and then read the literature by the Protestant Fathers, and others (which you have already been showed). That is just the way that God has set us up. Although we hate to see kooks fly off in other directions, overall, it has worked well for us Bible believing Protestants.
THEREFORE, :) after all that, I would want anyone to hold me accountable; as a Southern Baptist, as a Reformer, as a Reformed Baptist, or as a Calvinist to scripture FIRST and ONLY. That doesn't mean I won't find myself in a pickle or two, but THAT'S the only standard for me. :) The standard for interpretation is as the Holy Spirit leads me, which has included some of what could be called Reformed tradition.
The matters of our faith, dogmatic items, include:
From what you listed I probably agree with you 90%. That's not too bad. :)
Vatican 2 continued the teaching that Sacred Writ is from God and is inerrant. However, it is not PART of our faith, if you understand what I am saying by what I listed as those things that have been revealed by God to us.
I probably muddied the waters.
PERHAPS! :) I can understand how you're supposed to follow it, but how can God's admittedly inerrant word NOT be "part of your faith"? I didn't even see Tradition on the list. Maybe it's just one of those things again. :)
The community (Church) is a voluntary organization. As such, its rules should be followed voluntarily to maintain membership. The authority of this organization has the right to cast our voluntary members who refuse to follow the rules.
I would generally agree, but in this case being "kicked out of the club" means being damned for all eternity, as I understand it. This is why I was curious as to the level of accountability.
This is the idea in mind when the Church warns pro-abortionist politicians that they tread on dangerous ground. They can no longer call themselves "Catholic" and flout something diametrically opposed to our beliefs.
And let there be no mistake, I fully support and agree with the policy. :) While my opinion doesn't matter, I would think that if some of the pols WERE actually kicked out, the Church might lose some dead wood, but there would also be a heightened level of credibility for the hierarchy among the laity.
To those who disagree with these Catholic teachings [e.g. sanctity of life], the question remains "why are you still Catholic"?
Simple question, simple answer. VOTES! (as I'm sure you know). I sincerely doubt that if the Kerry's and the Kennedy's of the world were in any other line of work that they would ever darken the door of a church. Same with the Clintons.