[Meg]

Either the conciliar popes have not lost the Faith or they have not been the true successors of St. Peter.

I believe this to be an either /or proposition.

Your response doesn't have anything to do with my question. 

[Ladislaus]

So you're a Protestant.

Yes., basically these guys are indeed Protestants.  This is terrible.  Except, whereas the Protestants hold that there's on source of dogma/revelation, i.e. Scripture, these guys believe there are two, Scripture and Tradition.  But apart from that this is 100% Protestantism.

[Ladislaus]

That's because you (and many others on this forum) incorrectly believe that the magisterium/Church is the 'rule of faith'.

Uhm, every Catholic theologian I've ever read teaches that the Church/Magisterium are the proximate rule of faith.  I've cited the article in Catholic Encyclopedia.

[Pax Vobis]

Uhm, every Catholic theologian I've ever read teaches that the Church/Magisterium are the proximate rule of faith.  I've cited the article in Catholic Encyclopedia.

Proximate rule does not mean 'only' rule.  If the proximate rule of faith (i.e. hierarchy) loses the faith themselves (as many have done today and many did during arianism and at other times in history), then we have doctrine and ALL the ORTHODOX hierarchy's of the past to fall back on.  The consistent teachings of the faith, i.e. 'what has always been taught'.

If the faith is so depended upon the hierarchy, as you suggest, then how did the japanese keep the faith for almost 100 years, when there were no priests and no church to speak of?  How did the Indians keep the faith, in between missionary activities (some of the periods lasting decades long) during the time of Fr De Smet?  They kept the faith because the faith's foundation is DOCTRINE, not the clergy.

[Ladislaus]

St. Augustine:  "I would not believe the Gospel myself if the authority of the Catholic Church did not move me to do so."

[Pax Vobis]

St. Augustine:  "I would not believe the Gospel myself if the authority of the Catholic Church did not move me to do so."

Has nothing to do with what I'm saying.  The Church has already declared that we must believe in the Gospel, so what's your point?  My point is, the matter is settled.  So if the current hierarchy comes along and argues (non-infallibly) that we don't have to believe in 'part x' of the gospel, does that mean the Church has failed?  No, She hasn't failed because She's already settled the matter.  The correct response is 'the current hierarchy is wrong because the matter is settled.'

If a non-infallible hierarchy contradicts a previous infallible hierarchy, the infallible one wins.

Your approach to the hierarchy ignores history and the constant teaching of the church.  It minimizes the importance of previous hierarchy's by reducing orthodoxy to ONLY what the CURRENT clergy say.  

[Ladislaus]

Has nothing to do with what I'm saying.  

This has everything to do with it.  Fact that you can't see it tells me a lot.

[Ladislaus]

Proximate rule does not mean 'only' rule.

Well, the way you phrased it, you clearly made it sound like an either/or proposition, saying that our PROBLEM is that we take the Church/Magisterium for our rule of faith.

In any case, we CATHOLICS form our judgement about what God did and did not reveal in Scripture and Tradition FROM THE CHURCH.  We do not take a direct line to the remote revelation like Protestants do.

Protestants rejected the teaching of the Church (the Magisterium) by way of appeal to Scripture.  You guys dot he same thing, except you appeal to Scripture and Tradition.  Not a lick of difference between you in principle.

Couldn't you at least rephrase your position to say that the V2 Magisterium contradicts and is irreconcilable with PREVIOUS MAGISTERIUM?  Instead, you push a neo-Protestant paradigm of appealing to Tradition over and above the Magisterium ... when the Magisterium is what presents Tradition to us.  In fact, for that reason alone, the term Traditional Catholics really sucks.

So, when Novus Ordo Catholics accuse me of rejecting the Magisterium, I tell them that in order for me to accept the CURRENT Magisterium, I would have to reject PAST Magisterium.  I pull out the contradictory passages between V2 and previous Magisterium, and I ask them, so WHICH Magisterium am I supposed to accept?  That's a much better apologetic than running around half-cocked appealing to "Tradition" over and above the Magisterium ... as if our private judgment interpretation of Tradition trumps its interpretation by the Magisterium.  It's no wonder that these conservative neocon Catholics have a feast day on junk like that.  It's no wonder that they question whether Traditionalists are even Catholic.

[Ladislaus]

Couldn't you at least rephrase your position to say that the V2 Magisterium contradicts and is irreconcilable with PREVIOUS MAGISTERIUM?  Instead, you push a neo-Protestant paradigm of appealing to Tradition over and above the Magisterium ... when the Magisterium is what presents Tradition to us. 

This ^^^ I can accept as Catholic, and we can move on in the debate.  But so long as you continue this non-Catholic Protestant crap of appealing to "Tradition" over and against the Magisterium, then I have nothing else to say to you.

[Cantarella]

As Christ said "I came not to destroy but to fulfill." which shows us that Catholicism is truly the perfection of the Jєωιѕн religion.  Christ founded the Church on St Peter, as the human GUARDIAN of the Faith, but the faith was not based on the papacy - it is based on the natural law and Divine Truth, which existed LONG before St Peter and the Apostles were even born.  Therefore, to say that the 'rule of faith' is the pope, or the magisterium, or the hierarchy is to ignore history, to ignore God's plan for salvation over ALL of time, and to ignore the eternal aspect of the Church's truths/doctrines, which existed before time even was.

The disdainful dismissal of the pope is of protestant and schismatic nature, not Roman Catholic. Truth is that there is supernatural assistance promised to St. Peter and his legitimate successors. Our Lord built His Church upon St. Peter and to him alone were the keys of Heaven delivered. This is not a small matter to be taken slightly. It is the entire foundation of Roman Catholicism. Protestants and schismatics know where the Roman Pontiff is, yet they refuse submission to him. They recognize who and where the successor of St. Peter is, yet they stubbornly persist in severing communion from him. How are you any different? The open hostility and plain subversion to the pope has been the constant mark of all groups separating from the Church throughout history .

[Pax Vobis]

Couldn't you at least rephrase your position to say that the V2 Magisterium contradicts and is irreconcilable with PREVIOUS MAGISTERIUM?

Yes, I will definitely accept this.

However, I will further distinguish and say:  The V2 'ordinary and fallible' magisterium is irreconcilable with the previous magisteriums' infallible statements of 2,000 years.

I don't know why you can't admit (at least partially) that V2, as an ecuмenical council, was different from all other ecuмenical councils, in its docuмent statement's form, its voting rules and process, and even its purpose.  To say that they are apples-apples similar, and thus should be viewed similar, is a gross generalization.

[Ladislaus]

The disdainful dismissal of the pope is of protestant and schismatic nature, not Roman Catholic.

Absolutely.  They appeal to Tradition over and against the Magisterium, just as Protestants appealed to Scripture over the Magisterium.  Only difference is that Protestants had only one source of Revelation, but these so-called Trad Catholics have two.  Otherwise, there's no difference whatsoever.

THIS kind of thinking is what created sedevacantism ... and the most bitter and dogmatic sedevacantists.

[Pax Vobis]

Absolutely.  They appeal to Tradition over and against the Magisterium, just as Protestants appealed to Scripture over the Magisterium.  Only difference is that Protestants had only one source of Revelation, but these so-called Trad Catholics have two.  Otherwise, there's no difference whatsoever.

THIS kind of thinking is what created sedevacantism ... and the most bitter and dogmatic sedevacantists.

Yes, I appeal to Tradition over the CURRENT, post-conciliar magisterium, because I define Tradition as

1) that which was handed down by Christ to the Apostles and not written in Scripture
2) All infallible and consistent teachings from the Apostles up to our current hierarchy

This is why we call ourselves 'traditional' catholics because we follow ALL the church teachings from 33AD til the 1960s.

[Pax Vobis]

Therefore, to say that the 'rule of faith' is the CURRENT pope, or the CURRENT magisterium, or the CURRENT hierarchy is to ignore history, to ignore God's plan for salvation over ALL of time, and to ignore the eternal aspect of the Church's truths/doctrines, which existed before time even was.

I corrected this statement above and added the word 'current'.  I see what i wrote was confusing.

[Cantarella]

Absolutely.  They appeal to Tradition over and against the Magisterium, just as Protestants appealed to Scripture over the Magisterium.  Only difference is that Protestants had only one source of Revelation, but these so-called Trad Catholics have two.  Otherwise, there's no difference whatsoever.

THIS kind of thinking is what created sedevacantism ... and the most bitter and dogmatic sedevacantists.

This.

And frankly, it is precisely this dismissive attitude towards the pope which is behind the inordinate attempts of the likes of Siscoe and Salza to defend the proposition that popes have been heretical in the past. It is just a futile attempt to undermine Papal authority and demonstrate that popes can fall into error judicially. The Protestants have attempted this also many times in order to prove that St. Peter (and successors) is not who the Church says he is.