I noticed on this site and a few others there seems to be a great fear of "dogmatic sedevacantism" as if it were the most dangerous of heresies. Yet I cannot find a single reference in any Catholic books about any dangers where someone was accused of being "dogmatic" on any subject (under that term or any similar term).
 
Can anyone provide any pre-Vatican II examples where the Catholic Church warns the faithful of such a danger? From what I can tell, this "dogmatic" accusation appears to be a novelty.
 
Thanks

 

One historical example is the mutual accusations of heresy that blew back and forth between the Thomists and the Molinists.  At one point the Church stepped in and forbade either side from declaring their opposition to be in heresy.

So, for instance, if I were to claim that it's heresy to state that the earth revolves around the sun, I would be a "dogmatic" geocentrist.  That would be in opposition to someone who merely holds the geocentrist position but does not declare those who disagree with him to be heretics.

There's a danger of schism when being a dogmatic anything.  If I take something that is a Catholic truth, but which is taught with a theological note of less than de fide, and declare those who reject it to be heretics, then I become a "dogmatic" proponent of that position.  Danger is that those who deny it are NOT in fact heretics because the truth they deny isn't, strictly speaking, dogma or de fide.  Consequently, by rejecting communion with those who hold that position, I am separating myself from other members of the Catholic Church ... which is schismatic.

The late Michael Davies would not debate with sedevacantists because he considered them to be outside the Catholic Church and therefore non-Catholics. What dogmatic so and so was he? 

I was not aware of this.  While "dogmatic sedevacantism" is feared and condemned in many places, "dogmatic sedeplenism" or "dogmatic anti-sedevacantism" is generally accepted and often embraced in those same places.
Both are schismatic.  Both, therefore, put one outside the Church.
Ladislaus gave a very clear definition above.  Of course, the "dogmatic sedeplenism" is exactly the same.  There are many "dogmatic sedeplenist" who routinely and frequently post here on CathInfo, so some schism is clearly considered more schismatic than other schism.

The late Michael Davies would not debate with sedevacantists because he considered them to be outside the Catholic Church and therefore non-Catholics. What dogmatic so and so was he?

Yes, that would a case of his being a dogmatic sedeplenist.

I had a friendly debate with a dogmatic sede once and they kept harping on the novelties of V2 and the 'trad hypocrites' who are 'una cuм' with the pope but reject V2.  They argued that sedevacantism is held by a 'consensus' of theologians throughout history.  I asked them, "Where the consensus for the 'una cuм' theory?"  They couldn't answer.  I asked them, "Is there one theologian, ever, (besides the untrained and self-proclaimed Fr Cekada) who argued that the "una cuм" prayer made one an accomplice to the pope/clergy's errors?"  They couldn't answer.  My conclusion is that the "una cuм" argument is as much a novelty as is V2 and it is a tool of the devil to further divide the Faith and traditionalism.  

I have no problem with someone exploring the theological possibilities of sedevacantism.  Certainly our times ask for such thinking.  But when these people start 'anathematizing' others, it's proof that their zeal has gone to the extreme and is not catholic.

What's ironic is that even the Dimonds (about the most dogmatic SVs you can find) REJECT "una cuмism" as invalid.

Of course the "obstinacy" marker is in play for any heresy in terms of distinguishing formal from material heresy.  But the fact remains that they consider it OBJECTIVELY heretical to regard the V2 Popes as legitimate.  So, no, what I said was neither misleading nor inaccurate.

Actually, yes, what you wrote was quite misleading and actually flat out false.  It was a misrepresentation.  That is proven by your response here, which represents a retreat from (and a modification of) your previous false statement.  As anyone can see, your previous post declared that the Dimonds believe that all such people are "heretics".  
 
YOU STATED: >>>Most extreme example is the Dimond Brothers.  They consider anyone who believes that the V2 popes are legitimate to be heretics for that reason alone.>>>
 
That’s what you wrote, and it is false.  You didn’t say that they believe all such people are in “material heresy”.  No, you said that they believe all such people are “heretics”.  However, after you were called out for your false statement, now you are dishonestly pretending like you only meant that they believe all such people hold a heretical position but are not necessarily guilty.  Of course that is not at all what your first statement meant and you know it.
 
Deep down you are convicted by your own failure to take the sedevacantist position.  That’s why I believe it makes you feel better to lie about and misrepresent the position of true Catholics who take the sedevacantist position, such as those at MHFM.  You want to make the position seem unreasonable or uncharitable to justify your rejection of it.  But it’s not unreasonable or uncharitable.  It’s the true position.

The Church used different terminology.  Essentially, saying someone is a "dogmatic something" is a neologism.  You might say that someone who is divorced and remarried but thinks this is completely compatible with Catholic doctrine is a "dogmatic adulterer".  Someone who believes that Lutheranism is the true faith is a "dogmatic Lutheran".  

You only find a variety of opinions because there is no standard definition that one could look up in a Catholic Encyclopedia or even Webster's Dictionary. The term, on any given forum, means whatever the particular forum owner says it means.  My understanding is that Ladislaus gave an accurate definition for CathInfo.  If you go to another forum, it may have a slightly different meaning.  If you wish to use it in casual conversation at home, you'll have to assign it precise meaning.  Until a precise meaning becomes more generally accepted, this is the status of the term.  

In any event, don't look to the Church for a definition because the Church never gave one.