CathInfo.com

I agree. When someone says that something is Dogma, I take it very seriously.

As all should. There is an old quote about a "papist" gent wanting fresh dogma for breakfast.

When I saw them saying that Flatearth was Dogma I did quite a bit of research. I looked at the their arguments because I'm very skeptical of all things modern and thought maybe they had a case. After looking at all I was willing to, I realized that there isn't really anything convincing enough to change my position to a Flatearther that can't be refuted by modern science. On the Dogma end, there is absolutely nothing to prove that it is Church teaching.

Even then caution must be exercised. It is possible that there be an honest mistake about the status of a thing as you likely already know.  The really "funny" thing about these sorts of "dogmatists" is that they frequently are the ones who, tacitly or expressly, discard the other communications that bind as well. "Is it 'infallible' (irreformable)?" or even worse, "Did the pope solemnly define it while sitting in a literal chair? (okay, the literal part is a rare occurence, but you get the point) "No? Nyah nyanny boo boo, I don't have to, I'm rubber you're glue."

They isolate texts in Scripture and throw the context out. It's too bad.

"There but by the grace, and more fool you."

I've at least seen posters treat it as if it is Dogma. Whether they say it is or not is beside the point. Although, I'm pretty sure I've seen them at least imply it is Dogma or one may not be Catholic if one does not believe in it.

Yes, I guess that would have been more precise. Claiming that the fathers all or mostly taught it and that it's in Scripture would at least imply that they believe it constitutes divine revelation. While I accept what Meg said as true, maybe they didn't come out and say the word Dogma, they treat it as if it's part of our faith which to deny would make one not Catholic.