I think the distinction you draw between dogma and theory should also consider the observer. The same proposition might be dogma for one person and a theory for another, then I think you would be quite correct that the person treating it as a theory is the one that must do the hard work.
For example, when I drive across a bridge, it is not only because I have faith the materials and workmanship, but implicitly in the theories of mechanics applied by the engineers who designed it. I do not bother to actively doubt or worry about such theories being tested, I just trust that the bridge is going to hold me as a principle that was proved conclusively and think about other things during my drive to work or what not. On the other hand, one day the theories used may need to be rewritten due to research in the field of bridge mechanics. Thus the same propositions of mechanics that are being held by me as a dogma, are treated by those who do research in bridge mechanics as a theory.
Thus the distinction is not so much with the proposition, but whether or not a particular person is trying to actively test the proposition.
However, even my dogmatic faith in the bridge might be shaken one day if I hear of the bridge collapsing...particularly if I am on it. While I was not looking to test the propositions of its mechanics, events have forced me to...thus even for the dogmatic observer a proposition is sometimes potentially re-written and discarded.
To most people then, all questions of science are dogmatic on this view. Since most of us do not test theories. Moreover even scientists test very few theories personally out of all the theories and fields that could be tested.
That's exactly right. "Dogma" and "theory" are both asbstractions. We made them up. There is no concrete "thing" to test whether a proposition is one or the other. The distinction is only in how we assign it in our own mind.