Dogma vs. Doctrine

[Sleeper]

Is there a distinction between the two? I'm inclined to say that there is, dogma being what has been definitively revealed and known to be true, whereas doctrine falls into the realm of "theologizing" or thinking about certain ramifications our dogmas hold. But I don't know if that's the case or not, hence the starting of this thread

For example, I would take the Nicene Creed as dogma. But that Symbol of Faith doesn't cover important topics like theosis, hesychasm, original sin, etc. So are those considered to be Orthodox dogma?

Please share your thoughts.

 

[FatherHLL]

A defined doctrine is a dogma.  Not everything that we may discuss doctrinally is dogmatically defined, but usually fundamental aspects are dogmatically defined.  For example, you brought up theosis.  While much of it is not defined, fundamental points are.  We look at the 6th Ecumenical Council and the Palamite Councils for this.  The sixth ecumenical council recognized as dogmatic truth the following from St. Gregory the Theologian:  "For what is divine by nature has no need of being deified; and what is deified is not truly divine by nature."  This is a fundamental dogmatic boundary, and this boundary means that we cannot speak of theosis as meaning becoming God by nature/essence, nor can we deny that theosis happens.     

 

[Luke]

I once read that a dogma tends to be more official.

 

[Sleeper]

A defined doctrine is a dogma.  Not everything that we may discuss doctrinally is dogmatically defined, but usually fundamental aspects are dogmatically defined.  For example, you brought up theosis.  While much of it is not defined, fundamental points are.  We look at the 6th Ecumenical Council and the Palamite Councils for this.  The sixth ecumenical council recognized as dogmatic truth the following from St. Gregory the Theologian:  "For what is divine by nature has no need of being deified; and what is deified is not truly divine by nature."  This is a fundamental dogmatic boundary, and this boundary means that we cannot speak of theosis as meaning becoming God by nature/essence, nor can we deny that theosis happens.     

Fantastic post, thank you. So we could say all dogmas are doctrines, but not all doctrines are dogmas, is that correct? And would there be a further distinction between doctrine and theologumena?

 

[Laird]

What I understand is that a dogma is the Triadology and Christology that have been defined by the Ecumenical Councils, while doctrines like the Resurrection and theosis are the Church's teachings, but were not defined by an Ecumenical Council. A theologumena is a personal theological opinion, like toll houses, that you are free to agree or disagree with. Correct me if I'm wrong.