Take for example this dogma from the 24th Session of the Council of Trent:
If any one saith, that the marriage state is to be placed above the state of virginity, or of celibacy, and that it is not better and more blessed to remain in virginity, or in celibacy, than to be united in matrimony: let him be anathema.
Suppose I break this into two parts:
the marriage state is to be placed above the state of virginity, or of celibacy
and
it is not better and more blessed to remain in virginity, or in celibacy, than to be united in matrimony
Is one only anathematized if he holds both of these statements, or if [is] he also anathematized if he holds either of them individually?
(This is a logic question dealing with "distribution": Does the "Si quis dixerit…anathema sit" distribute across the "et" joining these two clauses, or does it only apply to both clauses taken together?)
In answer to your question, it is not proper to separate this dogma into two different teachings, because it is one teaching, one dogma, with two aspects, both of which are descriptive of the whole. We distinguish but we do not separate.
(Incidentally, the word "saith" is pronounced
SETH, not SAY-ith.)
The first part,
"If any one saith, that the marriage state is to be placed above the state of virginity, or of celibacy," would be easily misunderstood by itself, since it is an incomplete description of the principle being condemned.
In what way would the marriage state be placed above virginity or celibacy? Would it be for purposes of law or of eligibility to govern, like a prince or a king? Could it refer to the validity of a pope, for example, or of sacerdotal ordination? In our age we have pretty much lost the significance of kingship and queenship, but how about eligibility for trade recognition - could it mean that a married person would be more capable of receiving an Oscar than would a virgin or a celibate person?
The first part only had "to be placed above" - but it does not say where this placement occurs. Is it on a shelf? Is it in some kind of hierarchy? Does it refer to job status, like what level of management (office manager vs. regional manager)? Or is it like the authority level of military office (staff sergeant or brigadier general).
Where you ask, "Is one only anathematized if he holds both of these statements, or [is] he also anathematized if he holds either of them individually?" -- as you can probably see now, it makes little sense to wonder which of the two statements could be anathematized, because the first is not clear enough to be comprehensible. It requires the second statement to become understandable.
All manner of questions like this are answered by the second part of the dogma, which says,
"and that it is not better and more blessed to remain in virginity, or in celibacy, than to be united in matrimony: let him be anathema."Here, in addition to "be placed above" we have "better and more blessed."
The words "better and more blessed" are introduced only in this second part, which now makes clear that the meaning of this dogma is in reference to spiritual matters, and not merely temporal ones.
This was written at a time when the Church had much more awareness and attentiveness to spiritual matters, compared to post Vat.II, when a nearly universal agenda is unleashed, one of relegating all manner of recognition to temporal matters to the exclusion of spiritual ones, as if to tacitly deny the existence of the latter.
.