I have to disagree.  Dogma is not the proximate rule of faith.  Neither is the pope himself personally.  Proximate rule of faith is the Magisterium.

Dogma is in fact the OBJECT of our faith.  We have the remote rule of faith in Scripture/Tradition, and the proximate role of faith in the Magisterium.

Truth of the matter is actually in between the two sides debating in the OP.

The Magisterium is the teaching office that engages the Church’s attribute of infallibilty.  Dogma is the result of the exercise of that office.  Dogma is the proximate rule of faith delivered by the Magisterium.  The Magisterium is the means, Dogma is the end and it is the end that constitutes the formal object of divine and Catholic Faith.  It is this "formal object" that is our proximate rule of faith.

Drew

The Magisterium is the teaching office that engages the Church’s attribute of infallibilty.  Dogma is the result of the exercise of that office.  Dogma is the proximate rule of faith delivered by the Magisterium.  The Magisterium is the means, Dogma is the end and it is the end that constitutes the formal object of divine and Catholic Faith.  It is this "formal object" that is our proximate rule of faith.

I agree with all of this.  Why did Christ send the Apostles to the end of the earth?  To preach the Truth/doctrine.  Why did Christ create the Church?  To preach the Truth/doctrine and protect it from error.  What is the job of the hierarchy (i.e. the ordinary magisterium) in the Church?  To preach the Truth and protect it from error and clarify it when necessary.  What is the sum total of the CONSISTENT Truths of the Church over the period of 2,000 years?  This is called the 'ordinary and UNIVERSAL' magisterium.  Everything relates back to Truth/doctrine, of which Christ is the author.  This is why Catholicism does not change.

from Catholic Encyclopedia:

The word rule (Latin regula, Gr. kanon) means a standard by which something can be tested, and the rule of faith means something extrinsic to our faith, and serving as its norm or measure. Since faith is Divine and infallible, the rule of faith must be also Divine and infallible; and since faith is supernatural assent to Divine truths upon Divine authority, the ultimate or remote rule of faith must be the truthfulness of God in revealing Himself. But since Divine revelation is contained in the written books and unwritten traditions (Vatican Council, I, ii), the Bible and Divine tradition must be the rule of our faith; since, however, these are only silent witnesses and cannot interpret themselves, they are commonly termed "proximate but inanimate rules of faith". Unless, then, the Bible and tradition are to be profitless, we must look for some proximate rule which shall be animate or living. [Goes on to demonstrate that this proximate animate/living rule is the Church/Magisterium]

rule = something extrinsic to the faith and serving as its norm or measure

I have never seen a quote from the Magisterium itself which says that it is not infallible. There are many quotes that describe itself in different ways (authentic, living, ordinary, supreme etc...) and they all say it is infallible. Maybe there are theologians that say the Magisterium can err, I haven't seen any, but there is nothing from the Popes that say this.
The Magisterium is the teaching office of the Church, how could it err in anything?

What you are alluding to is correct, the magisterium is always infallible.

Pope Paul VI is one who helped confuse what the magisterium is by introducing an "ecclesiastical magisterium" into the mix and then added theologians, college of bishops, individual bishops, pastors - probably has NO eucharistic ministers and acolytes in there somewhere.These things were not entirely his inventions though, he was merely preaching the same errors that had already by then,  "permeated all the manifestations of the Church" as +ABL put it.

What you are alluding to is correct, the magisterium is always infallible.

Except that you decide when it's Magisterium after the fact based on your private judgment, so you are NOT in agreement with AeS.

http://www.sspxasia.com/Docuмents/SiSiNoNo/2002_January/Popes_Infallible_Magisterium.htm

cites pre-Vatican II theological sources

http://www.sspxasia.com/Docuмents/SiSiNoNo/2002_January/Popes_Infallible_Magisterium.htm

cites pre-Vatican II theological sources

The link looks to be spot on and agrees with what I said - that the magisterium is always infallible. Thanks for the link!

In conclusion we shall excerpt the text of a theologian, whose passing is much to be regretted, who had a very clear grasp of the doctrine we are recalling here, and who knew well that it had been brought into confusion by the New Theologians. In arguing against Joseph KIeiner on the manifest contradiction between Pope Pius VI's Auctorem Fidei, which condemns concelebration, and Pope Paul VI's Instructio, which encourages it, Fr. Joseph de SainteMarie, O.C.D., wrote:

Has it ever been known for the Magisterium to intervene against a declaration of the Magisterium? In his mind [i.e., ofJoseph Kleiner - Ed.] the reply must be in the negative: No, for the sake of the infallibility of the Magisterium. This infallibility does imply, of course, that the Church cannot contradict herself, but only under a condition which our author has forgotten, namely, that she engages the fullness of her infallibility in such an act; or, in the case of the Ordinary Magisterium (and we must take great care not to minimize the latter's authority), provided that it conforms to what the Infallible Magisterium teaches, either in its solemn acts or in its constant teaching. If these conditions are not respected, there is nothing impossible about one "intervention" of the Magisterium being in contradiction with another. There is nothing to trouble one's faith here, for infallibility is not involved; but people's Catholic sensibilities are right to be scandalized at it, for such facts reveal a profound disorder in the exercise of the Magisterium. To deny the existence of these facts in the name of an erroneous understanding of the Church's infallibility, and to deny it a priori, is to fly in the face of the demands of theology, of history, and of the most elementary common sense.