This Catholic Encyclopedia article is written by Sollier. By coincidence, I'd mentioned his name along with Pohle earlier today in another thread ( "A Question on the Origin of the Soul" in General Discussion ) as one of two Catholic Encyclopeia contributors who are not to be trusted. Sollier wrote like Ratzinger before Ratzinger was born.
One way that certain "theologians" prepared the ground for Vatican II was by muddying up terms and turning brains into mush. You can see the culmination of this with Ratzinger. It's ironic, Ladislaus, that you are covering us all with a blanket condemnation for being unclear, sedes and anti-sedes, and then quoting Sollier to try to help us sharpen up. That ain't the way to do it! We are unclear because we are all fighting our way out of a vast brume, a muddy, foggy morass of theologians who turned the truth into oatmeal.
What struck me right away about Sollier's entry which you cite is that I, for one, don't understand the difference between a "dogma" and an "article of faith." In fact, I don't really understand a lot of the distinctions he's making and I don't think it's just me. Let me go through it piece-by-piece.
"A proposition is branded heretical when it goes directly and immediately against a revealed or defined dogma, or dogma de fide"
Okay, I am with him so far. It is heresy to go against the Solemn Magisterium, which is what he means by a "defined dogma, or dogma de fide."
"...Erroneous when it contradicts only a certain (certa) theological conclusion or truth clearly deduced from two premises, one an article of faith, the other naturally certain."
That doesn't ring true to me; this sounds overly complicated and specious. Here he starts mixing all sorts of concepts. Number one, what is an article of faith and how is this different than a dogma? Number two, who ever spoke of these "two premises" before? Number three, what is "naturally certain," does that mean pertaining to the natural law?
Even though a statement be not obviously a heresy or an error it may yet come near to either. It is styled next, proximate to heresy when its opposition to a revealed and defined dogma is not certain, or chiefly when the truth it contradicts, though commonly accepted as revealed, has yet never been the object of a definition (proxima fidei).
He is talking about the Ordinary and Universal Magisterium here, since a truth "commonly accepted as revealed," that has not "yet been the object of a definition," clearly refers to a dogma of the OAUM.
However, he diverges from most theologians, who do say that going against the OAUM is heresy. Sollier is trying to draw a neat parallel between "proximate to faith" and "proximate to heresy" but dogmas of the OAUM are not proximate to faith, they are actually dogmas.
Tanquerey ( probably another heretic ) on the OUAM --
"1. The Morally Unanimous Preaching (Teaching) of the Bishops
Bishops teach the flock entrusted and subject to them by means of catechisms, by synodal directives, mandates, and in public sermons. If it is evident from these docuмents that some doctrine is being set forth universally as an object of faith, then nothing else is required for this doctrine to be accepted de fide. Bishops spread throughout the world, but with the Roman Pontiff forming one Corporate Body, are infallible when declaring a teaching on faith or morals.
Essentially, what Sollier is doing in the portion I've quoted is divvying up three kinds of heresy qua heresy into heresy, error, and proximate to heresy. He is alchemically breaking down heresies into tolerable, lesser evils, which really was the goal of most of the pre-VII theologians. He's adding distinctions that don't really exist, which of course makes it easier for heretics to push across heresies, since it helps their cause if what they are doing is seen as "proximate to heresy" or mere speculation rather than screaming, red-alert heresy.
Sollier also mashes up three kinds of knowledge that must be accepted by Catholics -- defined dogma, an article of faith, and undefined dogma. He uses these distinctions to sell his other distinctions between what is heresy, proximate to heresy, and error. But contradicting a defined dogma of the Solemn Magisterium OR an undefined dogma of the Ordinary and Universal Magisterium are both simple heresy. As for his "article of faith," this strange noosphere in-between the two, I don't even know what it is in his mind. An article of faith could be either a defined or an undefined dogma. Sollier is using two different terms for the same thing to introduce more false distinctions.
Ladislaus, I recommend you get another theologian to give us the "notes." Sollier cannot help us form a coherent approach to theological censures.