This is in reply to your last two posts. First of all, I do not at all claim to be a "theologian" as you do. I made it clear that I was merely expressing my fallible understanding of what the Church teaches. Now to my knowledge, there are no official Magisterial documents explicitly and clearly explaining the distinctions between dogma and doctrine in detail. So, therefore, I am left to my personal understanding of what the distinctions are based on certain vaguely worded Magisterial documents and the authoritative opinions of theologians. Theologians themselves do not exactly divorce their personal opinions from their theology, at times the Church's teachings are not at all clear, and therefore they are free to express their personal opinion on the matter.
Now, I believe that my personal opinion on this matter are not without foundation. I did my research with the help of the references cited in Fr. Brian W. Harrison S.T.D's article titled "The Infallibility of Humanae Vitae." According to him, the Angelic Doctor St. Thomas Aquinas clearly said in more than one occassion: "Now a thing may be of the faith in two ways, as stated above (I, 32, 4; I-II, 1, 6, ad 1; I-II, 2, 5), in one way, directly and principally, e.g. the articles of faith; in another way, indirectly and secondarily, e.g. those matters, the denial of which leads to the corruption of some article of faith; and there may be heresy in either way, even as there can be faith. ** " (Summa Theologica II, 11:2). **
From this we see that there are doctrines that are articles of faith (e.g. the dogmas) and there are doctrines that are not articles of faith, but are indirectly and secondarily connected with the articles of faith in order to safeguard or expound them. This is Fr. Harrison's reasoning and also that of the majority of theologians. To explain this St. Thomas gave the example of the dogma of Biblical Inerrancy. It is an article of faith that the Bible is inerrant in all matters, however it is not an article of faith that Samuel was the son of Elcana (Cf. Summa Theologica I, 32:4). The latter is a secondary indirect teaching. If we denied the doctrinal fact that Samuel was the son of Elcana, then eventually we will find ourselves denying the very dogma of total inerrancy of scripture which is an article of faith. Now, this was vigorously debated at the First Vatican Council concerning the dilemma of precisely when the Pope spoke infallibly. Those who were in the minority argued that the Pope was infallible only in the realm of those direct and principle doctrines in the articles of faith (e.g. dogmas), but that he was not infallible in the secondary doctrines necessary to defending and expounding those articles of faith (e.g. Immorality of Contraception). This view was rejected in favor of including the secondary doctrines as infallible as well, which is why we see in the council: "The Roman pontiffs, too, as the circumstances of the time or the state of affairs suggested,...defined as doctrines to be held those things which, by God's help, they knew to be in keeping with Sacred Scripture and the apostolic traditions. ...For the Holy Spirit was promised to the successors of Peter not so that they might, by his revelation, make known some new doctrine, but that, by his assistance, they might ** religiously guard and faithfully expound** the revelation or deposit of faith transmitted by the apostles*..." (Vatican I, Session 4, Chapter 4, Nos. 5-6 [Emphasis added]). **This means that not only do those solemn dogmas in the deposit of faith that he pronounces ex cathedra are infallible, but also those secondary doctrines that are necessary to religiously guard and faithfully expound the dogmas found int he deposit of faith. The Second Vatican Council also included the phrase "religiously guard and faithfully expound" in its formulation of papal infallibility and referenced Bishop Gasser's relatio explaining the meaning of the word "define" as including those secondary doctrines. Pope John Paul II said in one of his audiences: *"In this regard the First Vatican Council said that the object of the infallible Magisterium is the 'doctrine on faith and morals to be held by the whole Church' (DS 3074). In the new formula of the profession of faith recently approved (cf. AAS 81 : 105, 1169), a distinction was made between divinely revealed truths and truths **definitively taught but not as divinely revealed, which therefore require a definitive assent that nevertheless is not an assent of faith*," (Cf. The Holy Spirit Assists the Roman Pontif)*. Pope John Paul II is referring to the most recent version of the Oath of Fidelity published by the CDF that all college professors and clergy have to recite and also the change in the Code of Canon Law (cf. Motu Propio: "Ad Tuendam Fidem") to reflect the new understanding of the distinctions made to certain Papal teachings. Pope John Paul II and the CDF further clarified the vague wording of the Councils and introduced the new "definitive assent" which is different from "assent of faith" and "religious assent."
I hope this helps to understand my position.
May God bless you.