So, if dogma is the rule of faith, then why wasn't it heresy for people not to believe in it before it was defined by the Church?  Hmmmmm?  This ALONE puts the lie to Drew's invention (or reinvention of Protestant heresy that dogma is the proximate rule of faith.

I'm not arguing that 'dogma is the rule of faith' or whatever.  Both doctrine and pope are necessary.  I don't understand the debate; it's like arguing over which is more important - scripture or tradition?  Who cares?  You need both.

Any doctrine that has EVER been defined by the Church has ALWAYS been an implicit part of our Faith; the defining of the dogma makes it explicit, and the Church does so when needed.  The Immaculate Conception, the Annunciation, Infallibility, etc, etc, etc have ALL been implicit parts of the faith since Apostolic times.  Notice that if you read the debates on the immaculate conception, 99% of those good, catholics who were debating the idea were NOT attributing to Our Lady multiple sins or vices, etc.  All they were debating was the SPECIFIC how and why of the doctrine.  Everyone agreed, for the most part, that She was a special case, spiritually, than a 'normal catholic' they just couldn't decide to what extent.  So, no, there was no denial of the doctrine even before it was defined - it was a debate on the precise specifics.  Essentially, catholics have always believed Our Lady was given a special grace.  The only thing debated for a time were the secondary characteristics of this special grace.

To say that the Church can depose a Pope is Conciliarism.

You can call it whatever you want.  You act like it's a condemned idea (which it's not).  Theologians have debated the idea for DECADES, if not centuries.  It's still a matter the Church has never decided.

from worshiping some bozo wearing white robes and walking around the Vatican gardens.

Isn't it odd that the two main people who are arguing 1) for the inordinate elevation of the magisterium (Ladislaus) and 2) the "never failing faith" of the pope (Cantarella), inadvertently let slip comments similar to the above, where their hatred comes out for the current pope?

They're the ones arguing that 1) he can't teach error in ANY capacity, and 2) his faith will NEVER FAIL.  Yet, they believe, that his SEAT can fail (i.e. it can be vacant).  So, I guess the pope has 3 parts to his papacy - a teaching office, his personal faith and his seat?  Never heard that before.

Secondly, if anyone worships the pope, it's them.  They have him so high up on a pedestal that if he doesn't meet their sanctity requirements, then he's THROW OUT!  What's the reason?  Well, nothing concrete, or factual, or specific, just the use of inductive reasoning.  This is an error for so many reasons, the main one being they are postulating that one can REASON to the status of the pope!  

No, One cannot use HUMAN LOGIC to reason to a SPIRITUAL TRUTH.  One cannot use REASON to judge the SPIRITUAL office of the pope!  This is the error of Rene Decartes, that one can reason to all truth...

So, if dogma is the rule of faith, then why wasn't it heresy for people not to believe in it before it was defined by the Church?  Hmmmmm?  This ALONE puts the lie to Drew's invention (or reinvention of Protestant heresy that dogma is the proximate rule of faith.

For the same reason it wasn't heresy for St. Thomas Aquinas not to believe in the Immaculate Conception. Would he deny it now that the Magisterium has infallible defined the dogma? Would any Catholic, on account of the greatness of St. Thomas? No! That would be heresy.

This is a discussion of the deaf.

Simple questions are "down thumbed" and ignored, in typical sedehypocrisy style.

I have better things to do. I hope to see you all in Heaven one day. Good luck!

PS : Drew, I am still thinking about your position on the Rule of Faith. I am not convinced, but I will let you know via PM if I want to further discuss this with you.

This. Absolutely this.

Also, sedehypocrisy comes and goes with sedesyndrome.

First, Paul VI made absolutely no changes to the actual Tridentine Latin Roman Rite; he simple promulgated a new order of Mass. The Novus Ordo Mass is not an upgrade or modification to the Tridentine Mass. It is a completely brand new rite.

 Yes and no.  It started out as a modification/replacement of the old rite.  But when the sspx kept using the 1962 missal, new-rome said their new missal was just a "different usage of the same rite".  It's a new rite, based off an old one.  It's not brand new, because not everything changed.

Really, your point is irrelevant.  Quo Primum codified the mass and NO ONE is allowed to say a mass using ANY OTHER RITE under pain of sin.  Case closed. 

Second, if Paul VI was indeed Pope, then he was just exercising his proper authority "when introducing and approving a new rite or modifying those he judged to require modification”. Historical evidence proves this fact. There are many rites out there that the Church has used and approved. Pope Pius XII clearly teaches this in Mediator Dei:
"The Sovereign Pontiff alone enjoys the right to recognize and establish any practice touching the worship of God, to introduce and approve new rites, as also to modify those he judges to require modification.”

I've pointed the above error out to others and I will point it out to you, to give you once chance to have integrity and accept correction.

You are quoting point #58 of Mediator Dei out of context and this is deceitful.  You are basically arguing that the pope can change the mass anytime he wants, with no limits.  THIS IS HERESY.  The mass is Christ's; it is Divine.  There are human elements, which can be changed, but the essense of the sacrifice is from God's hands, which cannot be changed EVER, even by the pope.  As Mediator Dei explains in Point#50, which is a mere 8 points before your point 58..

50. The sacred liturgy does, in fact, include divine as well as human elements. The former, instituted as they have been by God, cannot be changed in any way by men. But the human components admit of various modifications, as the needs of the age, circuмstance and the good of souls may require, and as the ecclesiastical hierarchy, under guidance of the Holy Spirit, may have authorized.

Again, your argument is wrong.  To argue that the pope can change the mass essentially, is to argue that the Church is not of Divine origin.

If Paul VI was indeed Pope, he could promulgate a new Latin rite given that no Pope has an authority higher than another Pope.

And if you think otherwise, that is an indication of a fundamental misunderstanding of the nature of Papal authority.

Paul VI could've changed the law of Quo Primum, but he did not.  Yes, he had the authority to issue a revised missal, but he did not.  Pope Benedict XVI confirmed that Quo Primum is still in force.  Ergo, the 1962 missal, which is a legal revision of Pope St Pius V's missal, is THE MISSAL of the latin church.  Paul VI's missal is not allowed to be used without sinning, and is not required to be used.


It's also quite funny (and sad at the same time) that you are comparing authority between popes, yet you've made yourself THE highest authority, by judging the pope himself.  Oh the irony! 

Cantarella,
Why do you keep changing the topic?  Why don't you address your error related to Mediator Dei, pt 50?  Let's stay on topic!