Like the very big facet of needing a "convalidation feedback loop" as Lad calls it when dealing with a pope.
"... the Magisterium then becomes subject to a convalidation feedback loop.  Pope teaches dogma.  Is dogma Traditional?  If yes, then accept.  If not, then reject pope.  Rinse.  Repeat.  Ultimate arbiter of dogma then becomes the individual's private judgment. "

I disagree with your and Ladislaus' over-simplification of the magisterium.  He might be right in his understanding of it, but his explanations on this site are wrong, in my opinion.  Here's why I say that.

When Christ ascended into heaven 40 days after Easter, he left the Apostles with ALL the teachings of the Church.  After the Ascension, the 'revelation' of truth by Christ was over.  So, we can say that after the Ascension ALL of the truths of our Faith were understood by the Apostles.  These were passed on to the future by only 2 means - Scripture (written) or Tradition (oral).

Scripture or Tradition contains ALL Catholic Truth.  As of 33 A.D., the Church had the FULL Truth.  As of 33 A.D., the Magisterium (the teaching authority of the Church) had the FULL Truth.  Ergo, after 33 A.D., the Truths of the Faith are set in stone.

Because of these facts, anytime in the future (i.e. post 33 A.D.) when the Church makes use of Her teaching office (i.e. Magisterium), Her job is to re-teach, or clarify those truths which have existed since 33 A.D.  The Magisterium cannot teach something new, or make new doctrines, or dogma, etc.  All Truths of our Faith were handed down by Christ to the Apostles and the Church's job after the Apostles is to teach "that which has always been taught".  Her job is to clarify and certify the Truth when She faces heretics, schismatics and pagans.  

...So, in answer to the above quoted sentences, I say:
1.  The Magisterium is not subject to a "feedback loop".
2.  If the Pope teaches dogma, then He is certifying, by his Apostolic Authority that such a dogma "always existed" since the time of Christ.
3.  The question of "is the dogma traditional?" is nonsensical.  All dogma is traditional, by definition, because all dogma is Apostolic in origin, as taught by Christ.
4.  The question which is not being asked is this:  "Is all papal teaching dogma or doctrine?"  The answer is "no".  There are different levels of authority to papal teaching, just as there are different levels to the magisterium.  Those papal teachings which are infallible are doctrine/dogma, for the pope uses his apostolic authority to tell us that such a teaching is 1) to be believed with certainty of faith, 2) because it is apostolic in origin, and 3) came from Christ.
5.  All "teachings" which are fallible, are not "of the faith" and not from Christ because they are:
 a.  not taught with 'certainty of faith'
 b.  not taught with apostolic authority
 c.  not taught as binding under pain of sin

Such fallible teachings by the magisterium are not 'dogma' or 'doctrine' and are not part of the Faith.  Ergo, if one compares FALLIBLE teachings with previous INFALLIBLE teachings of the Church, this is not wrong, or prideful, but expected.  Just as current theologians have debated with theologians of the past, so magisteriums can challenge previous magisteriums.

How is this so?  Because the magisterium is not always infallible.  The magisterium is the teaching authority of the church, which is the hierarchy + the pope.  There are 2 ways the magisterium can teach infallibly:  
1.  If the magisterium fulfills the requirements of infallibility as set forth by Vatican 1, then it is solemnly infallible.
2.  If the magisterium teaches "that which has always been taught" and proves it is of Apostolic times, then it is non-solemnly infallible.  

Yet, if a magisterium of the Church, attempts to teach a truth which a) does not fulfill the requirements of Vatican 1, and b) is not apostolic, then we can be sure it is not from Christ.  V2 is an example of a "teaching" which a) did not fulfill the requirements of Vatican 1, and b) has failed to show how its novel ideals are apostolic and Traditional (i.e. from Christ).

So in such a case of contradiction and confusion, how do we know which magisterium is right?  By the language used and the 'certainty of faith' with which things are taught, by the 'apostolic authority' expressed and by the 'binding nature' of the teaching.  If some "teachings" are missing the 3 above attributes, then they are not part of official Church teaching, and are outweighed by previous magisteriums which taught with all 3 attributes.

V2 did not teach with 'certainty of faith' or 'by apostolic authority' or 'under pain of sin' therefore it did not teach infallibly.  Therefore, in any area where V2 contradicts previous dogma, doctrine or infallible statement, then it is overruled, it is superceded, it is anathema.

I disagree with your and Ladislaus' over-simplification of the magisterium. 

...

V2 did not teach with 'certainty of faith' or 'by apostolic authority' or 'under pain of sin' therefore it did not teach infallibly.  Therefore, in any area where V2 contradicts previous dogma, doctrine or infallible statement, then it is overruled, it is superceded, it is anathema.

Oh, on the contrary, it is YOU who oversimplify the Magisterium.  According to you, it's open season anything outside the .5% of dogmatic teachings in the Magisterium.  Since they're not strictly infallible, 99.5% of the Magisterium could be corrupt.  Anything short of that is subject to being examined and rejected by any Catholic.

That is totally contrary to everything ever taught by any Catholic theologian before Vatican II.  Talk about un-Traditional.

According to you, it's open season anything outside the .5% of dogmatic teachings in the Magisterium.

The magisterium's purpose is to teach.  Their job is to re-teach and clarify the truths of the Faith which are to be believed "everywhere, always and by all".  If the non-dogmatic, non-infallible magisterium errs (and they most certainly can), a catholic can only "reject" or question such error by pointing to a previous dogmatic/infallible statement and asking such authorities for clarification and why there seems to be a contradiction.

You purposely sensationalize my argument to make me appear as some anarchist-catholic or a crazed protestant, instead of factually looking at the limits of the magisterium, examining their duties and then accepting the conclusion that if they act outside of their duties, and if they ignore the teaching formulas which they are supposed to use to teach the faithful and to have the utmost clarity, then such teachings are not dogma, are not certain, and not binding on anyone...ESPECIALLY when such fallible, non-dogmatic teachings CONTRADICT previous infallible, dogmatic magisterial decrees, which are WITHOUT A DOUBT binding and necessary for salvation.  

In the past, when the fallible magisterium erred, or appeared to err, there were enough orthodox clergy who recognized such errors and who challenged them.  This is the normal course of action - Church officials are supposed to correct other church officials in order to protect the laity.  Normally, the laity is not involved, they are not educated enough to weigh in.

In our current situation, we still have some church officials who stepped up to challenge errors by the fallible magisterium, most notably Cardinals Ottaviani, Bacci, etc who wrote against the new mass; +ABL and +Castro Meyer and many other priests during the 70s who spoke out against V2 and who helped to start Tradition.  What were these 'TLM founding fathers' doing but what I have suggested above, which my suggestion is not from me but simply a reiteration of their mindset?  They looked at the facts and realized that infallible magisterial teachings are greater than a fallible magisterial teaching (i.e. V2).  So they rejected novelties and stuck with Tradition.  This is exactly what St Athanasius did as well.

This mindset is the foundation of the traditional movement.  The only difference is that currently, most of the 'founding fathers' are dead and their successors have not lived up to the founder's ideals or integrity.  Thus, in this 2nd phase of the fight for tradition, the laity are even more on their own, since most clerics of our day are giving into new-rome and compromise.

If you criticize the idea that a catholic can challenge the fallible magisterium, then you shouldn't be a traditional catholic and should attend the local indult and be part of new-rome.  The fight for tradition was founded on the principals that 1) Truth does not change, and 2) the faith is handed down and cannot be "updated for modern man". 

You ... make me appear as some anarchist-catholic or a crazed protestant, ...

You make YOURSELF appear that way.

If the shoe fits, wear it.

Quote from: Pax Vobis on Today at 12:02:25 PM



Submission is only required if said teaching is proposed as an article of faith, to be believed for salvation, under pain of sin.  All other "teachings" are not from the official Church, but from individual popes, bishops or cardinals who "teach" fallibly as private theologians, or clerics.

Rather believe Vatican I Council than Pax Vobis.

Pastor Aeternus:

2. Wherefore we teach and declare that, by divine ordinance, the Roman Church possesses a pre-eminence of ordinary power over every other Church, and that this jurisdictional power of the Roman Pontiff is both episcopal and immediate. Both clergy and faithful, of whatever rite and dignity, both singly and collectively, are bound to submit to this power by the duty of hierarchical subordination and true obedience, and this not only in matters concerning faith and morals, but also in those which regard the discipline and government of the Church throughout the world.

Submission is only required if said teaching is proposed as an article of faith...

I guess it is fortunate for you that you have the authority to determine which Church teachings are proposed as articles of faith and which Church teachings are proposed to lead souls to hell.