No.  As Stubborn pointed out, the only difference between doctrine and dogma is the "how" it's taught.  Doctrine is handed down, through the ages, based on Tradition.  It is ALL Apostolic teaching, from EVERY truth Christ revealed to the Apostles.  It is the essence of the Faith.  It is what has been believed "everywhere, always and by all."

Dogma is when the Church clarifies, re-teaches, and authoritatively commands that a truth 1) has always been a doctrine, 2) is part of Tradition/Apostolic teaching, 3) and must be believed to be saved.


True.  But this is misleading because 95% of doctrines have not been taught ex-cathedra.  All dogmas are doctrine (Apostolic truths) but not all doctrines have needed to be authoritatively taught as dogma (because they were always understood properly). 
Yes, we absolutely must accept all doctrines of the Faith.  Ex-cathedra statements are very minimal and unique.

The question is:  What are the doctrines of the Faith that we must believe?  Example:  Must we believe that Our Lady is Mediatrix of All Graces?  It's not been "defined" so it's optional, right?

No, this would not be an optional belief because Our Lady's role as Mediatrix of All Grace 1) has always been held, down through the ages, being implied as part of other doctrines about Her, 2) all throughout history, saints have declared repeatedly that Our Lady has a special and important role in our salvation, thus it is part of Tradition, 3) it is also part of Scripture when She is declared "full of grace", etc etc

One could write a book on such a topic.  Such a belief has always been implicitly held through all the centuries so if the Church decides to make it EXPLICIT (i.e. using an ex-cathedra statement to declare a dogma), the Church would do so to 1) re-teach "that which has always been taught", 2) clarify that this Divine Truth is part of Tradition and Scripture, 3) stop an error or heresy from growing, in order to glorify Our Lady and make devotion to Her increase, for the salvation of souls.

No, not true.  95% of our Faith has never, and will never, be declared dogma.  1) It would be impossible to define every truth 2) it's not necessary as most doctrines aren't questioned because they are so basic.
Well, these types of approvals are not really related to doctrine.  An imprimatur means there isn't any MAJOR error in the book.  It doesn't mean the book is perfect.  And a bishop can never be infallible, only the pope.  So an imprimatur can never be infallible.

Sorry if I confused my meaning.  I think I had a few typos and couldn't properly finish and I couldn't look over everything before I posted because the baby woke up and I suddenly had to run. 😅

I wasn't saying we don't have to listen or submit to doctrinal matters.  I was trying to distinguish the difference between dogma, doctrine and discipline and explain that how even if something isn't "ex-cathedra" and isn't completely defined that we still are required to have "religious consent" to what the ordinary magesterium teaches. 

From what I have seen this is the matter where "sedes" and "r&r" seem to disagree the most and really is the issue people should discuss.  😊

R&R agree that all "ex-cathedra" statements must be adhered to but they sometimes seem to toss out the "simple doctrine" and disciplines of the Church as also having to necessarily having to be adhered to by the faithful.

And the sedes believe that all dogma, doctrine, and discipline must be adhered to by the faithful and that the hierarchy as a universal body can not teach or promote anything harmful to the faithful.

I hope that makes sense now as to what I was trying to say?  Sorry for the confusion.  Maybe I should just read more and post less.  😝

Nope.

Yep.

Sean:  Nope.

Ladislaus, DL, others:  Yep.

Both John XXIII and Paul VI explicitly denied its infallibility.

False.  All they said was that it did not engage in any SOLEMN definition that met the notes of infallibility.  This does not mean that it was capable of teaching grave error to the Church.

It's simply basic Catholic teaching that Ecuмenical Councils are protected by the Holy Spirit.  You can quibble about whether every statement in a Council is infallible, but a Council cannot publish a bunch of Modernist garbage as Vatican II did that proceeded to wreck the Church.

It's practically dogma that EC-UMENICAL COUNCILS ARE GUIDED BY THE HOLY SPIRIT.  As I mentioned, even a modern Ukrainian Catholic priest I know taught this from the pulpit.  Holy Spirit does not wreck the Church.

To claim that a legitimate ecuмenical council can wreck the Church and pollute the Church's Magisterium is basically to blaspheme the Holy Spirit.

I wonder where it is that you learned this. Do you understand that all of the conciliar popes and hierarchy are in 100% full agreement with you? - which explains why they are so adamant about the new religion, but pretty much makes you look crazy for being against the whole thing.

According to your reasoning and if this is in fact true, then V2 did not "publish a bunch of Modernist garbage" for the simple reason that it could not have.

Never mind blaspheming the Holy Catholic Church, just to save Bergoglio.

Lad, Lad, Lad. We are not out to save the pope, it's you out to prove he is not the pope.

This argument isn't about infallibility in the strict sense, as defined by Vatican II.  It's about the indefectibility of the Church.

The Church has not been destroyed, nor will it be destroyed. Calm down.

Everything is in the hands of God, everything. Even with as big a mess as we're in and although it keeps getting worse and worse, through it all, there are still people converting to the true faith - that's the Church's indefectibility "in action" if you will, and this will continue until Christ comes again.

God allows this crisis for the same reason He permits us to be tempted, namely, for the sake of our purification, for the sake of our proving to Almighty God that we are worthy of Him as he permits our enemies to rule the Church on earth on earth for a little while, dividing out the faithful more and more.

This is a misleading generalization.  A council isn't infallible, but the POPE WHO TEACHES at a council, is.  The pope is the only person on earth who is *potentially* infallible. 

Well, obviously we're talking about a legitimate Ecuмenical Council which was approved by a pope (I think they don't always have to be convened by the pope, but approved by him at least).

There's nothing misleading about the statement that the Holy Spirit guides Ecuмenical Councils.  This does not mean every sentence is infallible, but you're fixated on infallibility.  What it does mean is that it prevents an Ecuмenical Council from being a garbage bin of bad doctrine.

You'd be forced to accept +Fellay's and +Schneider's characterization of V2 as being mostly Catholic ... and requiring a few amendments.

But this isn't just about the Council.  Had there been no New Mass and all the other garbage that has come out of the Vatican, there would likely be no Traditional movement.  You have new (non-Catholic) doctrine with new (non-Catholic) worship and new bogus canonizations that together form a completely new religion.  It is not possible for a new religion to come from the authority of a legitimate pope.  That would be tantamount to a defection of the Church.

It really is that simple.

There's nothing misleading about the statement that the Holy Spirit guides Ecuмenical Councils.  This does not mean every sentence is infallible, but you're fixated on infallibility.  What it does mean is that it prevents an Ecuмenical Council from being a garbage bin of bad doctrine.

Again, this is a generalization without outlining the specifics, which leads to a faulty conclusion.


1.  Can there be an ecuмenical council without the pope?  No.
2.  Can anyone besides a pope be infallible?  No.
3.  Can an ecuмenical council be infallible without the pope?  No.
Conclusion - For a council to be ecuмenical, the pope has to be involved and approve it.

4.  How does the Holy Ghost guide the church?  By the pope's infallibility and Apostolic truths from Tradition and Scripture.
5.  Is there any other way that the Holy Ghost can guide the Church?  No, this is the only power the pope has for teaching.
6.  Apart from Infaillibility, is there any other way for the pope to be protected from error?  No.
Conclusion - A council cannot be infallible unless the pope uses infallibility.

7.  Does a pope need an ecuмenical council to proclaim an infallible teaching?  No, he can teach authoritatively apart from a council.
8.  Can an ecuмenical council proclaim an infallible teaching without the pope?  No, only the pope is infallible.
9.  If all the bishops of the world agree on something, but the pope does not teach authoritatively, is such a thing infallible?  Depends.  Yes, if such a thing can be proven to be part of Scripture/Tradition (i.e. it has always been true).
Conclusion - Something is infallible if a) the pope teaches authoritatively or b) a non-authoritative truth is proven to be "always held" from Tradition/Scripture.

10.  How does the Church teach authoritatively and error-free?  The pope uses infallibility, either solemn or ordinary/universal.
11.  What is ordinary/universal teaching?  When the Church (bishops, cardinals, etc) reiterates a teaching from the past, which has been shown to be of Tradition/Scripture.
12.  Outside of solemn/infallible teachings and Tradition/Scripture, is the Church protected from error?  No because only these tools are from Christ.
Conclusion - If the Church does not teach using infallibility or Tradition/Scripture, then She isn't teaching authoritatively, thus She can err.

13.  Can an ecuмenical council, without the pope engaging infallibility, be guided by the Holy Ghost?  No.
14.  Can an ecuмenical council, without the pope engaging infallibility, err?  Yes.
15.  Does indefectibility protect the Church from error?  Indefectibility is an attribute, not a power.  Infallibility is the power/means the pope uses to keep teachings indefectible.
Conclusion - The pope can err if he speaks non-authoritatively and on non-Tradition/Scripture ideas because such aren't protected by the Holy Ghost.

16.  If the pope speaks non-authoritatively, is this part of Church teaching, doctrine, law?  No.
17.  If the pope speaks on matters non-Traditional or non-Scriptural, is this part of Church teaching, doctrine, law?  No.
18.  If the pope errs, because he does not teach authoritatively nor infallibly, does this affect the Church's indefectibility?  No.
19.  Do papal non-authoritative comments, homilies, writings, change Church doctrine?  No.
Conclusion A - If the pope errs, this does not affect perennial Church doctrine, nor does it stain the purity of Church Teachings.
Conclusion B - A pope's error has no authority, therefore it is not official teaching, therefore it does not affect or negate the Church's indefectible nature.

20.  Did the pope teach authoritatively and infallibly at V2?  No.
21.  Did the pope use V2 to re-teach previous defined doctrine or did he prove V2 is infallibly based on Tradition/Scripture?  No.
22.  Is V2 binding under pain of sin and taught as a necessity to be saved?  No.
Conclusion A - V2 isn't official church teaching, therefore the pope can err, because he isn't protected by the Holy Ghost.
Conclusion B - Non-official, non-binding, non-salvific councils aren't required to be followed.  They are purely optional and speculative theology. 
Conclusion C - V2 is speculative theology and isn't protected from error, therefore the Church's indefectibility is not tarnished.