CathInfo.com

So, if dogma is the rule of faith, then why wasn't it heresy for people not to believe in it before it was defined by the Church?  Hmmmmm?  This ALONE puts the lie to Drew's invention (or reinvention of Protestant heresy that dogma is the proximate rule of faith.

I'm not arguing that 'dogma is the rule of faith' or whatever.  Both doctrine and pope are necessary.  I don't understand the debate; it's like arguing over which is more important - scripture or tradition?  Who cares?  You need both.

Any doctrine that has EVER been defined by the Church has ALWAYS been an implicit part of our Faith; the defining of the dogma makes it explicit, and the Church does so when needed.  The Immaculate Conception, the Annunciation, Infallibility, etc, etc, etc have ALL been implicit parts of the faith since Apostolic times.  Notice that if you read the debates on the immaculate conception, 99% of those good, catholics who were debating the idea were NOT attributing to Our Lady multiple sins or vices, etc.  All they were debating was the SPECIFIC how and why of the doctrine.  Everyone agreed, for the most part, that She was a special case, spiritually, than a 'normal catholic' they just couldn't decide to what extent.  So, no, there was no denial of the doctrine even before it was defined - it was a debate on the precise specifics.  Essentially, catholics have always believed Our Lady was given a special grace.  The only thing debated for a time were the secondary characteristics of this special grace.

To say that the Church can depose a Pope is Conciliarism.

You can call it whatever you want.  You act like it's a condemned idea (which it's not).  Theologians have debated the idea for DECADES, if not centuries.  It's still a matter the Church has never decided.