Dogma and Doctrine

Recent preparations for the RCIA have led to an attempt to articulate the meaning of and the distinction between dogma and doctrine. Hence a series of blog posts on the topic.

 

This from the online Catholic Encyclopedia:

The dogmas of the Church, such as the existence of God, the Trinity, the Incarnation, the Resurrection of Christ, the sacraments, a future judgment, etc. have an objective reality and are facts as really and truly as it a fact that Augustus was Emperor of the Romans, and that George Washington was first President of the United States.

As a dogma is a revealed truth, the intellectual character and objective reality of dogma depend on the intellectual character and objective truth of Divine revelation. ... Are dogmas considered merely as truths revealed by God, real objective truths addressed to the human mind? Are we bound to believe them with the mind? Should we admit the distinction between fundamental and non-fundamental dogmas?

Abstracting from the Church's definition, we are bound to render to God the homage of our assent to revealed truth once we are satisfied that He has spoken.
 

Hence it is not permissible to distinguish revealed truths as fundamental and non-fundamental in the sense that some truths, though known to have been revealed by God, may be lawfully denied. But while we should believe, at least implicitly, every truth attested by the word of God, we are free to admit that some are in themselves more important than others, more necessary than others, and that an explicit knowledge of some is necessary while an implicit faith in others is sufficient.

The lines in bold are my emphasis and they express a concept that has been fuzzily harbored in my mind but until now unarticulated. Having been read, however, I'm not quite sure of their exact meaning. Asking questions leads to answers, also, more questions. Stay posted for more of both.