First, what does "Once a Catholic always a Catholic" mean?
(1) On the theological level, it means that, before the eschaton you can't leave the Church, because the Church will not give up on you. And we do not think of the Catholic Church as a "denomination". We don't think that the whole Church is confined to the Catholic Church of coterminous with it.We DO think that the plene esse the full being of "churchyness" (well mixed with tares, chopped and stirred) is found among those in communion with the Holy See. And that Church won't give up until the end. It's like that book we used to read to our daughter, I think it was "The Runaway Bunny"?
(2) It means that a person who received all those sacraments 'n stuff does not have to be RE-initiated to "come back". On the ground, we usually have a couple of people in RCIA who quit going to Mass and/or started going somewhere else, but they don't HAVE to go to RCIA. They're there because they want to get their head back into it. But if they go to confession and get their accounts current, then they're back receiving Communion.
SORT of related: I was enjoying the idea this AM that I am NOT a member of "the Church of Rome!" If you want to get all technical, I am a member of "the Church of Richmond (VA)," which is in communion with the Church of Rome.
====
As to the bigger questions: I know we come across legalistic and certainly we are thought of as legalistic. But I think your approach to the question of the anathemas is, um, legalistic. So try this:
First, sins have (at least) two aspects, the deed itself and the intention of the sinner. Take artificial birth control (hereinafter ABC). I think that there are objective spiritual, physical, and societal harms which result from the use of ABC. That's about "the sin itself."
But if I, being all smart and things and having thought about the issue, were to use ABC, say because I REALLY wanted to have sex NOW with such and such a person, that would be a very grave matter. My conscience says it's wrong, my teachers say it's wrong, I AGREE that it's wrong, and I'm throwing all that overboard because I'm, uh, riled up. I think that pretty much makes it over the bar for "mortal sin" with inches to spare.
But take some person who is baptized, etc. Catholic and knows the teaching, but is a survivor of modern public edumication and a reader of Time or Newsweek and not much else and whose family were "Christmas and Easter Catholics" or even became, as often happens, Episcopalians because they wanted to use ABC.
Clearly, there are some spiritual matters to be very concerned about. (Can you say "lukewarm?" I thought you could!) I'm kind of thinking if I were the local go-to guy on spiritual stuff, my first concern with such a person would not be ABC but "Why don't you jump up and down because of what IHS has done for you?" That is, my first goal would be more evangelical than anything else. (It's my pet theory that most of our spiritual problems arise from forgetting, or not knowing, that Jesus loves us and failing to consider how earth-shakingly amazing that is.)
So in this second case there are serious spiritual problems but ABC is not one of the first ones.
So with the Marian dogmata. I REALLY think that agreement with those definitions enhances one's understanding of and joy in and 'consolation' derived from the Salvation wrought by Christ. So I think there is objective harm done (or objective good NOT done) when the dogmata are not believed.
But again, the intentional "surround", the context of the will, provides such important and 'qualifying' information that what would be mere (and dreadful) stubborn pride and disobedience "in the first degree" in one person is, while still objectively harmful, not at all as grave in another.
Did I get somewhere close to your question?
Why do so many of your explanations talk about sex???? ;o)
You may have touched on my question at the corners but the central point, not so much. I understand the situation I may have put you in so do not worry about addressing something that would make you uncomfortable to come out and say. You are a kind and gentle man who is gifted with the ability to teach in a non-condemning way. It is appreciated.
I guess what I was looking for is a plausible explanation for why complete obedience to a dogma is mandatory for a Catholic in order to go to heaven when the dogmas are not scriptural nor are they considered even by the Catholic Church to be mandatory beliefs for other Christians for their salvation. In the example I gave of the necessity of belief in the deity of Jesus Christ for salvation, I was not speaking of those who are unable to understand the doctrine - such as mentally disabled or those too young. I was speaking of the person who is able yet refuses to. When Jesus said to the pharisees that unless they believed that he was the "I AM" (the personal name of God/Jehovah) they would "die in their sins", it sure sounds like a nonnegotiable belief. If Jesus is NOT God incarnate, then he could not be the Messiah nor could he be the Lamb of God who takes away the sins of the world.
Let me just say that I understand your points about "mortal" sins vs. venial and I get the idea you are trying to express about a "good" Catholic not being in rebellion against the magesterium so therefore accepting of all their dogmas (dogmata you say???). But I don't believe in levels of sin since even so much as a lie will keep us from seeing God and that is why the sacrifice of Christ is our ONLY hope of heaven. His blood paid the penalty of ALL our sins - minors or biggies. That is why I do not see why the Magesterium saw such an imperative to make unscriptural dogmas about Mary MANDATORY articles of faith under penalty of HELL. If they had made them "pious" beliefs only, I could understand, but I think they went too far, way too far, and this is why we will always disagree on this issue. It's almost like whoever posts such threads is asking for a stiff, unresolvable debate that will be guaranteed to devolve into a flame war, no matter which "side" posts the OP.
Again, thank you for your generous spirit. It would be wonderful if that virtue would rub off on us all.