The despair you mention is exactly like the despair of the Apostles immediately after the Passion and Crucifixion.

They failed to distinguish between Christ's humanity and His Divinity: "If Christ was truly God, then He would have never died on the cross, but since He did die on the cross, how can He really be God?"

Likewise, you refuse to distinguish between the Ordinary and the Authentic Magisterium. You erroneously believe that the Authentic Magisterium is infallible, so when it does err you believe it cannot be the Authentic Magisterium and you reject it.

The same obstinate mind block, the same resulting error to "throw the baby out with the bathwater".

Do you believe Vatican II should have been infallible? Prove it!

PS : Meanwhile, I'm still interested in hearing your explanation of how we got a Paul VI. Was he orthodox, an occult heretic or a public heretic at the time of his election?

PPS : Your answer, whether true or false, still does not solve the problem of your version of infallibility. It is not a Catholic version.

Absurd argument.  I don't really care what YOU "conclude", all Catholic theologians teach to the contrary.  Nice waste of time.  Every step of the way you're just making something up that sounds good to you.

Dogma is not PROXIMATE.  Otherwise people would never have gotten it wrong about the Immaculate Conception.  Otherwise there would never have been heresies in the Church and myriad heretical sects leaving the Church.

Loss of faith
From what has been said touching the absolutely supernatural character of the gift of faith, it is easy to understand what is meant by the loss of faith. God's gift is simply withdrawn. And this withdrawal must needs be punitive, "Non enim deseret opus suum, si ab opere suo non deseratur" (St. Augustine, Enarration on Psalm 145 — "He will not desert His own work, if He be not deserted by His own work"). And when the light of faith is withdrawn, there inevitably follows a darkening of the mind regarding even the very motives of credibility which before seemed so convincing. This may perhaps explain why those who have had the misfortune to apostatize from the faith are often the most virulent in their attacks upon the grounds of faith; "Vae homini illi", says St. Augustine, "nisi et ipsius fidem Dominus protegat", i.e. "Woe be to a man unless the Lord safeguard his faith" (Enarration on Psalm 120).

The Rule of Faith, is it Dogma or the Magisterium?

Let's start with the definition of the Rule of Faith:

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. (New Advent)

So, we're looking for the proximate and animate or living Rule of Faith. Whatever that rule is, what are it's necessary attributes?

1. It must be Divine and infallible. Private interpretation for example cannot be our Rule of Faith, because it is neither Divine nor infallible.

2. It must be proximate. In other words, we must have access to it, here and now. Whenever a dispute arises we must be able to go to our Rule of Faith to "measure" and settle the dispute.

3. It must be animate or living. What does that mean? Since Scripture and Tradition are called inanimate because they "cannot interpret themselves", we know that animate or living means that it must be able to interpret itself. In other words, if we don't understand what the Rule of Faith means, we must be able to ask that same Rule of Faith to further explain itself.

Let's apply these criteria to our two contenders, Dogma and the Magisterium. We'll start with Dogma.

1. Is Dogma Divine and infallible? Yes.

2. Is Dogma proximate? Yes, we all have access to all the dogmas of our Faith anytime we want to. (Except.. the first Christians..see further down!)

3. Is Dogma animate or living? No, since Dogma cannot interpret itself, for the same reason as Scripture and Tradition cannot interpret themselves.

So, I conclude that Dogma is NOT the proximate and animate Rule of Faith. At best, we can consider Dogma as part of Tradition, i.e part of the proximate and inanimate Rule of Faith.

What about the Magisterium?

1. Is the Magisterium Divine and infallible? Yes, although this is where the distinction must be made between the Extraordinare and Ordinary Magisterium on the one hand, and the Authentic Magisterium on the other. The former is indeed infallible and Divine, while the latter is not infallible and can therefore not be part of our Rule of Faith.

2. Is the Magisterium proximate? Yes, because the Church will always remain with us as Christ promised He will always remain with us. But just as during Christ's passion His humanity was disfigured and his Divinity thereby obscured or hidden, so also is in today's crisis of the Church the Authentic Magisterium so disfigured that it is obscuring or hiding the Ordinary Magisterium. Nevertheless, the Infallible Magisterium remains proximate to those who are willing to see past appearances. We still have Catholic bishops who are willing to remain faithful to Tradition and teach what the Church has always and everywhere taught.

3. Is the Magisterium animate or living? Yes, because the Magisterium is able to interpret itself. Whenever a new dispute arises, the Magisterium does not add any new doctrines to Divine revelation (which it can't do), but it explains and settles the disputes that arise. The Magisterium cannot contradict itself, but it can interpret itself.

Therefore, I argue that the Infallible Magisterium (Extraordinary and Ordinary) is the proximate and living Rule of Faith for Catholics.

Further questions and arguments:

1. If you believe Dogma is the Rule of Faith, what about the first Christians then, what was their Rule of Faith? No Dogmas had been promulgated yet. But whenever a dispute arose they brought the matter before the Apostles, and especially before Peter who would settle the matter once and for all. Hence the saying, "Rome locuta, causa finita est".

2. Our Lord told the apostles to "go and teach", not to "go and distribute dogmas", and "whoever believes you believes Me, whoever rejects you rejects Me". So it makes sense that our proximate and living rule of Faith is the living Magisterium, who is the sole legitimate interpreter of Sacred Scripture and Tradition.

3. What about all the truths of our faith which must be believed but which are not explicitly defined in dogmas? For example, "Doctrines of Ecclesiastical Faith" and "Truths of Divine Faith"? (see What are Theological Notes?) They too must be believed with different levels of assent. And those who reject them without a sufficiently grave reason are likewise to be treated as bad Catholics or even "suspect of heresy".

4. As Fr. Berry and Cardinal Billot explain, not everyone who holds a heretical doctrine is a heretic, but rather he is a heretic who rejects the teaching authority of the Church. The former is a Catholic in error, but the latter is properly defined as a heretic, because he rejects the teaching authority of the Church, in other words, the Magisterium.

Important Note:

1. As I mentioned before, the error which leads either to Conciliarism or Sedevecantism is a failure to distinguish between the Extraordinary/Ordinary Magisterium and the Authentic Magisterium.

2. The above is how I understand the teachings of the Church, but since I could be wrong, I subject everything I said to the Infallible Magisterium, who shall have the last word!  :)

St. Thomas (II-II:11:1) defines heresy: "a species of infidelity in men who, having professed the faith of Christ, corrupt its dogmas". The right Christian faith consists in giving one's voluntary assent to Christ in all that truly belongs to His teaching. There are, therefore, two ways of deviating from Christianity: the one by refusing to believe in Christ Himself, which is the way of infidelity, common to Pagans and Jєωs; the other by restricting belief to certain points of Christ's doctrine selected and fashioned at pleasure, which is the way of heretics. The subject-matter of both faith and heresy is, therefore, the deposit of the faith, that is, the sum total of truths revealed in Scripture and Tradition as proposed to our belief by the Church.
 Catholic Encyclopedia, 1907

Samuel,
 
Dogma is the proximate rule of faith. Furthermore, unless traditional Catholics understand this essential principle, there can be no defending of the faith.
 
Your post is a nice review of the Catholic Encyclopedia entry but offers nothing new. This is where Ladislaus began his argument using this article as his authority. This is where Ladislaus got the idea that the Magisterium is "extrinsic" to the faith and therefore, he claimed, that "the Magisterium is NOT part of divine revelation."  Unfortunately for Ladislalus, he cannot get beyond this first error and nothing can profitably be discussed with him.
 
The articles in the Encyclopedia are only as good as the person making the entry. The members of the board assembling the Encyclopedia are not competent in every field and look to other experts to write on specific subjects. Earlier in this thread I commented on the entry, "Tradition and Living Magisterium" by Rev. Jean Bainvel, S.J. who is the author of Is There Salvation Outside of the Catholic Church? This heretical book is still published and referenced by Catholic authors today. It is still passed around though even Fr. Joseph Fenton, since Pope Pius XII declared that the "Holy Ghost is the Soul of the Church," considered Bainvel's radical separation of the soul and body of the Church as untenable. Bainvel posits that anyone untied to the "soul" of the Church is saved including Jєωs, Moslems, Hindus, Protestants, etc., by being good Jєωs, Moslems, Hindus, Protestants, etc. Every single Dogma touching upon what is necessary for salvation is ignored or taken in a merely metaphorical sense. The seed of his doctrine are evident in hindsight in his encyclopedic entry.
 
The Bainvel article in the Encyclopedia is important because it demonstrates the heresy of Neo-Modernism and how it works.
 
The first thing that needs to be understood it is the heresy of Neo-modernism and how does it differ from Modernism? This link offers a good introduction and is worth reading for those who do not know this essential difference:
http://iteadthomam.blogspot.com/2010/09/modernism-vs-neo-modernism-what-is.html
 
Basically, Modernism and Neo-modernism have the same subject, divine revelation, and the same object, the destruction of dogma, but differ in methodology.  Modernism denies dogma in its very nature. St. Pius X in Pascendi, in Lamentabili, and the Oath Against Modernism, uses the word "dogma" and its cognates over 50 times in his effort to defend dogma in its very nature. After St Pius X the Modernists simply changed their methods but not their ends. Neo-modernism attacks dogma indirectly by 1) changing the definition of words, 2) by altering categorical propositions to conditional ones, and 3) (most importantly) by moving dogmatic definitions from the category of truth/falsehood to the category of authority/obedience and then applying all the moral qualifications that excuse from obedience to excuse from submitting to divinely revealed truth. Neo-modernist posit a fundamental disjunction between the truth of dogma and its linguistic formulation. They consider the language as only an approximation of truth, therefore, dogma must go through a never ending process of reformulations to progressively distill the truth from the human accretions.
 
Bainvel does this in his article on "Tradition and Living Magisterium" in the Catholic Encyclopedia by firstly redefining the meaning of "living magisterium." The Magisterium is living only in the sense that a living pope holds the Magisterial keys to access the Attributes of Authority and Infallibility of the Church, and it is living in the sense that divine revelation is the subject of dogma which is the revelation of a "living God." For Bainvel and all Neo-modernists, the "living" refers primarily to the content of divine revelation that progresses through an organic development of constant changes within a form. For Neo-modernists, dogma cannot be the rule of faith because dogma must constantly progress. For Neo-modernists, the "Magisterium" is the rule of faith because it must constantly update dogmatic definitions that never reach their term.
 

This is what Ladislaus really believes. He has posted that no Catholic has any right to interpret Dogma. He calls a Catholic who takes Dogma literally a "Protestant" because he is engaging in "private interpretation."  A Catholic therefore must always return to the Magisterium to find out what the current meaning of any Catholic teaching happens to be. It is axiomatic for all Neo-modernists that Dogma must be interpreted by the Magisterium. For Ladislaus he must necessarily be either a sedeprivationist/sedevacantist or return to the Novus Ordo religion to work his way through the hermeneutics of continuity.    
 
Vatican II was Neo-modernist council from the opening bell where Pope John XXIII announce that truths of our faith were one thing and how they are expressed another. The purpose of the Council was to update these expressions. This fundamental principle has been repeated by every single conciliar pope. Fr. Thomas Rosica said that it is the overarching principle uniting all conciliar popes. They are all Neo-modernists.
 
Unfortunately for traditional Catholics the SSPX has followed this Neo-modernist axiom that Dogma must be constantly interpreted by the Magisterium. Bishop Felly believes that dogma does not have to be taken literally. His belief regarding what is necessary for salvation is like the Neo-modernist Bainvel. Consequently, dogma is not his rule of faith because it is never a determined thing; Dogma never reaches its term. But without dogma as the rule of faith there is no possible opposition to Neo-modernism. Take for example, Fr. Karl Rahner's thesis of nearly universal salvation excepting only those who make a fundamental option for evil. On what possible grounds can anyone object to this theory if striped of dogma as the rule of faith? Or Vatican II's Hans Küng, a periti, who denies the physical resurrection of Jesus Christ. He affirms that Christ rose from the dead metaphorically. If dogma is not the rule of faith, if dogma is in a state of progressive development, who can object and on what grounds? This explains what has transpired in the doctrinal discussions between Bishop Fellay and the Vatican going back over twenty years with GREC. Both sides deny dogma as the rule of faith. Both sides deny that dogma needs to be taken literally. All they can discuss is theological opinions. If dogma were their rule of faith, the discussions would have been over in a few hours at best.
 
What is the Magisterium?  It is the "teaching authority" of the Church grounded upon the Church's Attributes of Infallibility and Authority which are firstly Attributes of God and secondarily Attributes of the Church because the Church is a divine institution. The key to the Magisterium is help by the pope alone. Without him, there is no accessing the Magisterium.
 
What is Dogma?  Dogma is divine revelation formally defined by the Church and offered to the faithful as a "formal object of divine and Catholic faith."  The formal cause and the final cause of Dogma is God. The material cause and instrumental cause of Dogma is the Magisterium. The Magisterium is the necessary but insufficient cause of Dogma. The Magisterium is the necessary but insufficient means by which Dogma is created. Dogma is the end of the Magisterial act. Dogma, as divine revelation and the work of God, is irreformable in both its form (divine truth) and its matter (words of expression). Over the history of the Church, Dogma has developed in its construction as a categorical proposition that can only be universally true or false. That is, Dogma is a JUDGMENT on divine revelation relating two concepts. The necessary tools for understanding Dogma are definition and grammar, not theological competency. Dogma is formulated as accessible for all the faithful. Dogma is the Magisterium offering definitive clarification of divine revelation. The Neo-modernist axiom that Dogma must be interpreted by the Magisterium is really a rejection of the Magisterium. It is as if saying, "I will not accept your judgment, go back and give me another."  

 
Addressing your objections:
1) Dogma has been the rule of faith from Apostolic times and scripture gives evidence of this. The Council of Jerusalem was really the first ecuмenical council estimated to have occurred around 50 A.D. The "Apostles and ancients," including St. Paul returned to Jerusalem "assembled to consider the matter." The heresy addressed was that of the Judaizers. "There arose some of the sect of the Pharisees that believed, saying: They must be circuмcised, and be commanded to observe the law of Moses" (Acts 15:5). The judgment of the Magisterium was dogmatic for they declared that, "It seemed good to the Holy Ghost and us" (Acts 15:28). The judgment was not a matter of mere discipline.  It is directly related to worship and doctrine.
 
When St. Peter accommodated the Judaizers he was confronted by St. Paul in Galatians 2:11-15. St. Paul did not say St. Peter, who held the keys to the Magisterium, 'whatever you say goes.' He confronted St. Peter for he "was to be blamed" because he "walked not uprightly unto the truth of the gospel," and because of "his dissimulation the rest of the Jєωs consented, so that Barnabas also was led by them into that dissimulation." How did St. Paul know this? He knew because the "Holy Ghost" said so at the Council of Jerusalem. St. Paul, grounded upon a "formal article of divine and Catholic faith," corrected St. Peter and "withstood him to the face," who was the holder of the keys to the Magisterium.
 
2) The Magisterium is the means not the end.  Once the dogma is established, it become the proximate rule of faith.  No one has to go back to the Magisterium to know whether or not the Blessed Virgin Mary was assumed into heaven. The Magisterium has judged and defined the matter and the Dogma is declared. The Dogma is the rule every faithful Catholic must believe with divine and Catholic faith or become a heretic by definition.  It is grave error to claim that Catholic faithful must return to the Magisterium to find out what the Assumption of the Blessed Virgin Mary means today.
 
3) Dogma is the proximate rule of faith.  The remote rule of faith is Scripture and Tradition. Note that both the remote rule of faith and the proximate rule of faith are of the exact same nature, that is, divine revelation. The greater part of divine revelation has not been dogmatically defined but remains a formal object of divine faith. Dogma is the formal object of divine and Catholic faith. Doctrines of mere "ecclesiastical faith" do not exist. This has been discussed in detail in another thread and has been briefly mentioned in this thread. Suffice to say, there is an excellent article by Fr. Joseph Fenton in AER that concludes with the opinion that mere ecclesiastical faith is a myth.
 
4) This explanation offered will lead to confusion. It is true that not everyone who "holds a heretical doctrine is a heretic," such as St. Thomas in his denial of the Immaculate Conception. Once the divine revelation of the Immaculate Conception (a formal object of divine faith) was defined by the Magisterium, the Immaculate Conception became a Dogma, that is, a "formal object of divine and Catholic faith." Anyone holding St. Thomas' opinion of the Immaculate Conception today would now be a formal heretic. It is the denial of Dogma that makes the heresy. If someone denies the "teaching authority" of the Church, that is just another heresy because the Magisterium itself is a Dogma.
 
Contrary to what Ladislaus believes, the Magisterium is part of divine revelation.  It is also the object itself of Dogma. The definition of a heretic is the rejection of Dogma. According to Vatican I, the "teaching authority" of the Church is part of the primacy of St. Peter continued by his "perpetual" successors in the Chair of Peter. The primacy of the pope refers to his universal jurisdiction. The rejection of the primacy of the pope is firstly an act of schism (by definition) and a secondly, a heresy because this divine revelation has been itself dogmatized.
 
The definition of heresy is the rejection of Dogma. Most who reject Dogma also reject the Magisterium which is the necessary but insufficient material cause of Dogma.  
 
In conclusion, I have provided  expert opinions from theologians (Rev. Pohle, St. Thomas, and Scheeben's) who regard dogma as the proximate rule of faith, three magisterial references that directly refer to dogma as the rule of faith.  But ever stronger than this is the fundamental fact of the definition of heresy.  I am re-posting what was previously offered to Cantarella with minor changes for clarification.
 
A strong proof that dogma is the proximate rule of faith is the definition of heresy. I did not explain it any further in previous posts because this is not an argument but rather a definition. I think if you look from the perspective of heresy it may be easier to see. An excerpt taken from the 1907 edition of the Catholic Encyclopedia under the heading of "heresy":
 


 Heresy is "the corruption of dogmas" while "the right Christian faith consists in giving one's voluntary assent to Christ in all that truly belongs to His teaching." These "teachings" are found in "the sum total of truths revealed in Scripture and Tradition as proposed to our belief by the Church." What the Church, by her "teaching authority" (i.e.: Magisterium) "proposes to our belief" is called Dogma. Those who keep Dogmas and do not corrupt them are called  the faithful, those who do corrupt them are called heretics.  
  
 This difference represents a clear division in the "Tree of Porphyry." It is this division that establishes a species from a genus which is called an "essential definition" and is regarded as the best definition because it is the most intelligible. As the article points out, "The subject-matter of both faith and heresy is, therefore, the deposit of the faith." Heresy and faith have the same subject, that is, "the sum total of truths revealed in Scripture and Tradition as proposed to our belief by the Church" which is the total of divine revelation.  They differ in their object. The heretic breaks the rule of faith, the faithful keep it. This establishes that Dogma is the rule of faith not by argument but by fact of an essential definition. The definition of heresy necessarily makes Dogma the rule of faith. The Magisterium is necessary but insufficient means by which we know Dogma, but it is the Dogma itself which is known. It is the what that we know and therefore the rule of faith.  If you exchange "Magisterium" for Dogma, even though the Magisterium has the same subject-matter, there cannot be a clear distinctive division because there exists no species in the genus of Magisterium, the "teaching authority" of the Church, excepting only in the case where the Magisterium itself is treated as a dogma like every other dogma, then those who reject the "teaching authority" constituted by God in His Church are just another kind of heretic.
 
The only weapon to combat Neo-modernism is to hold dogma as the proximate rule of faith. It is also the only weapon to combat sedevacantism and sedeprivationism which necessarily end in the overturning of Dogma. You are correct that these two errors are due to an improper understanding of the Magisterium but that improper understanding rests in the belief that Dogma can be reinterpreted by the Magisterium.
 
Drew

It is also Catholic dogma that the Extraordinary Magisterium and universal Ordinary Magisterium cannot teach in error. And while the rest of the Ordinary Magisterium may sometimes be in error, we are still obliged to give religious assent to it. While yes, we may read and interpret dogma, we cannot as Catholics contradict or reject the Magisterium. Your fear of the Magisterium is unfounded. The Church will not and cannot revise the Magisterium to contradict existing dogma.
If you are really so afraid of the Magisterium, it suggests you are rejecting its teachings. You are separating yourself from the Church. If you believe that it is the true Catholic Church with a valid Pope at its head, why are you doing that?

I have absolutely no idea what made you think that I am "afraid of the Magisterium"!?

Yes, I am aware of and agree with the distinctions between and the limitations of the Extraordinary, the Ordinary and the Authentic Magisterium. That is why believe in R&R and reject SV.

Was you reply maybe meant for someone else?