CathInfo.com

No, WHAT we believe remains the same.  As Drew did, you conflate the object of faith with the rule of faith.  This term was clearly defined with citations from theologians that debunked Drew's fake definitions.

Dogmas/Doctrines are the WHAT of faith, whereas the authority of the Magisterium is the WHY.  Rule of Faith refers to the WHY, not the WHAT.

As St. Augustine wrote, "I would not accept the Scriptures themselves had the Church not proposed them to me."

No, his rule of faith, which are not only dogmas, but is also comprised of all the truths the Church has always taught, and will always teach, and will always remain the same forever. To reject any of them is to reject the rule of faith. It is the message that binds us, not the messenger. St. Augustine is correct, you are the one who has it wrong, popes are not the Church.
 

No, WHAT we believe remains the same.  As Drew did, you conflate the object of faith with the rule of faith.  This term was clearly defined with citations from theologians that debunked Drew's fake definitions.

Dogmas/Doctrines are the WHAT of faith, whereas the authority of the Magisterium is the WHY.  Rule of Faith refers to the WHY, not the WHAT.

As St. Augustine wrote, "I would not accept the Scriptures themselves had the Church not proposed them to me."

I'm not defending Drew but theologians do call dogmas/doctrines the rule of faith.  However, they distinguish between the living proximate rule of faith and the inanimate proximate rule of faith.

see https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05766b.htm

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.

But I don't see where they are making any explicit distinction between dogmas/doctrines and the actual living possessors of ordinary jurisdiction.  It appears that the combination of the written dogmas and the living pope and bishops is all contained within the rule of faith.  It is unthinkable that they could be opposed to each other.  Therefore St Robert Bellarmine's explanation of the automatic loss of office in case of heresy/schism appears to be strengthened.  That's where Drew goes off the road.  He thinks that the living magisterium can be opposed to the dogmas and that when that happens it is his obligation to resist the living authorities.  But the SV position would say that they are no longer authorities and therefore there is no opposition between the living magisterium and the dogmas.  St Athanasius wasn't resisting the living magisterium, he was resisting heretics who left the Church.  If Drew was transported back to the 4th century, he'd be scolding the saint for not recognizing the heretic bishops as bishops of the Catholic Church.  John Salza claims that Joe Biden is still a Catholic in good standing while all sedes are ipso facto excommunicated from the Church.  That's how screwed up you get when you put the importance of maintaining a political/diplomatic position (e.g. SSPX position) over and above truth.

Yes, but on the very long thread with Drew, I cited theological texts which explained these these are the material objects of the faith, but what's actually mean is the authority of God revealing.  CE was speaking loosely and routinely drifted back and forth between the authority and the content.  Theologians actually distinguish the two.  Now, as St. Augustine famously said, even this authority of God revealing is known to us only because of the authority of the Church proposing it as having been revealed by God.

What R&R claim, in effect, is that dogmas are their proximate rule of faith, in that they can bypass the Magisterium and have a direct line to them ... no different than what Protestants do with Scripture, except they also add Tradition as a second source of Revelation.

No, R&R do not claim we that we can bypass the very magisterium (teachings) that is our rule of faith.