Mr. Blackburn's premise is misleading, although it isn't his per se--it is the meme around The Dogma. We wonder, has he really thoroughly researched the history and that of the EENSers' strict understanding of it? Thomas Aquinas said one should be thoroughly familiar with your opponents position. Is the strict understanding the original meaning or the now liberal one? We think he may have used some articles by Fr. Most, and Fr. Sullivan's book on the subject. Thinking that that is enough. It isn't. Fr. Sullivan's book is refuted in a broad sense on this blog here in a 4 part essay "Taking Jesus as Lord and Savior".
Fr. Most has also been refuted here on this blog. Fr. Most was caught in promoting falsehoods, even after corrected. He accused Fr. Feeney of claiming one needs to be a registered member in a parish to be saved, which Fr. Feeney never said or insinuated.
Mr. Blackburn also misunderstands the nature of dogmatic definitions. Definitions by their nature are to define what we believe. Some context is helpful but not necessary. One doesn't interpret a definition, one either accepts it or rejects it.
Pope St. Pius X, Lamentabile, The Errors of the Modernists, July 3, 1907, #22:
“The dogmas which the Church professes as revealed are not truths fallen from heaven, but they are a kind of interpretation of religious facts, which the human mind by a laborious effort prepared for itself.”- Condemned [Denzinger 2022]
Even though Mr. Blackburns position is popular, this does not make it correct.