Mispost.

Yeah, yeah, I know, you have redefined Magisterium into a tautology, where the "false" teachings of the papal claimants are not actually Magisterium.  If it's true, then it's Magisterium; if it's false, then it's not.

The definition of circular reasoning.

I just read through some of Drews posts.  He affirms one truth but denies another.  Dogmas are the material rule of faith - since they are the material object of faith - but the infallible authority of the Church is the formal rule, or at least the proximate formal rule.

The formal object of the remote rule of faith is God the Revealer; the material object of the remote rule are all the truths God has publicly revealed, as contained in Scripture and Tradition.

God the Revealer is who we believe by faith; dogmas are what we believe by faith; and the infallible authority of the Divinely instituted Teacher of revealed truths is why we believe them by faith.

Agree 100%, as long as it is understood that here, it is the Church that is the Divinely instituted Teacher, not the pope. The pope(s) is the authority whose duty it is to defend, preserve and promulge all those teachings revealed from God the Revealer and not the originator of the revealed truths.

What is most often denied or forgotten in all of this is that Christ and the Church are one, they are one and the same. I believe this is one of the sticking points to the idea that the pope is the rule of faith as it does not differentiate between the pope and the Church, or the pope and God (the Revealer). If it could actually be that the pope and the Church are one and the same, then the idea  that the pope is the rule of faith might have some merit.  

My edit of your second paragraph above....
"The formal object of the remote rule of faith is God the Revealer; the material object of the remote rule are all the truths God has publicly revealed through the Church, as contained in Scripture and Tradition".

Agree 100%, as long as it is understood that here, it is the Church that is the Divinely instituted Teacher, not the pope.

Vatican I teaches otherwise.

So NOW you "agree", after rejecting my having said the very same thing.  Of course, then you slap on that non-Catholic (aka heretical) qualifier.

Vatican I: Pastor Aeternus

And so, supported by the clear witness of Holy Scripture, and adhering to the manifest and explicit decrees both of our predecessors the Roman Pontiffs and of general councils, we promulgate anew the definition of the ecuмenical Council of Florence, which must be believed by all faithful Christians, namely that the "holy Apostolic See and the Roman Pontiff hold a world-wide primacy, and that the Roman Pontiff is the successor of blessed Peter, the prince of the apostles, true vicar of Christ, head of the whole Church and father and teacher of all Christian people. To him, in blessed Peter, full power has been given by our lord Jesus Christ to tend, rule and govern the universal Church. All this is to be found in the acts of the ecuмenical councils and the sacred canons."
...
That apostolic primacy which the Roman Pontiff possesses as successor of Peter, the prince of the apostles, includes also the supreme power of teaching.
...
Then there is the definition of the Council of Florence: "The Roman Pontiff is the true vicar of Christ, the head of the whole Church and the father and teacher of all Christians; and to him was committed in blessed Peter, by our lord Jesus Christ, the full power of tending, ruling and governing the whole Church."
...
[T]heir [the Popes'] apostolic teaching was embraced by all the venerable fathers and reverenced and followed by all the holy orthodox doctors, for they knew very well that this See of St. Peter always remains unblemished by any error, in accordance with the divine promise of our Lord and Savior to the prince of his disciples: "I have prayed for you that your faith may not fail; and when you have turned again, strengthen your brethren."

So your opinion is heretical, the assertion that the Pope is not "the Divinely Instituted Teacher".

Note also the last part which states that the See of Peter remains "unblemished by any error".  Good luck with that one, Stubborn.

This further backs up my repeated assertion that your ecclesiology is nothing short of heretical.

Vatican I teaches otherwise.

So NOW you "agree", after rejecting my having said the very same thing.  Of course, then you slap on that non-Catholic (aka heretical) qualifier.

Vatican I: Pastor Aeternus
So your opinion is heretical, the assertion that the Pope is not "the Divinely Instituted Teacher".

Note also the last part which states that the See of Peter remains "unblemished by any error".  Good luck with that one, Stubborn.

This further backs up my repeated assertion that your ecclesiology is nothing short of heretical.

No one has ever denied the pope is the teacher, your problem is that you believe him to be the originator of teachings. Sorry for snuffing out your "ah ha" moment.

No one has ever denied the pope is the teacher, your problem is that you believe him to be the originator of teachings. Sorry for snuffing out your "ah ha" moment.

quote from Stubborn:

it is the Church that is the Divinely instituted Teacher, not the pope.

With this sentence you are saying:  "the pope is not the Divinely Instituted Teacher".

You make a bigger fool of yourself with every post.  Your ecclesiology is heretical.

You are ridiculous. I mean honestly, you confound your own belief by being a sede. Talk about confused.

The pope, being your rule of faith, is according to you always infallibly safe to follow, except when he errs, then he is not pope at all. But it is my ecclesiology that is heretical.   

You are ridiculous. I mean honestly, you confound your own belief by being a sede. Talk about confused.

I'm ridiculous?  

You clearly post that the Pope is not the Divinely instituted teacher and then two posts later deny having said that.  You're crossing into the Twilight Zone with your cognitive dissonance.