I've been pondering this issue for quite some time.  I have long been troubled by this notion of pitting Tradition against the Magisterium.  I think that most of us have been using the term "Traditional" Catholic so long that this problem has flown under the radar.

When we say that we are rejecting some aspects of the Vatican II Magisterium due to Tradition, we are in fact no way different from Protestants.  This came up in the debate between Bishop Sanborn and Doctor Fastiggi.  I could never come up with an answer to this accusation because it rings true.  Bishop Sanborn had no real response to it either.  And the Vatican II reps in the talks with Bishop Fellay ARE IN FACT CORRECT when they raise this accusation against Traditional Catholics.

Protestants claim that their rule of faith is the Bible.  But what this reduces to in reality is that their PROXIMATE RULE OF FAITH turns out to be their private judgment, because they interpret this Bible according to their private judgment.  Yes, Traditional Catholics add a second SOURCE of Revelation in accepting both the Bible and Tradition.  But otherwise it's the same concept.  We uphold "Tradition" as our rule of faith in addition to the Bible.  But in the end it reduces to the same thing, that our PROXIMATE RULE OF FAITH ends up being our private judgment in terms of interpreting Tradition.  This is true whether we're R&R or sedevacantists.

What has always differentiated Catholics from Protestants isn't simply the addition of another source of revelation, but the notion that the MAGISTERIUM serves as our proximate rule of faith, that only the MAGISTERIUM has the authority to interpret, whether it be Scripture or Tradition.  Eastern Orthodox actually DO accept Tradition as a source of revelation.

I think that a much better way to position ourselves and something that a Dr. Fastiggi would have much weaker an argument against is to say that we do indeed accept the Magisterium as the proximate rule of faith and the sole authority for the interpretation of Tradition, but that our problem can be characterized more as an issue of ...

MAGISTERIUM vs. MAGISTERIUM

When we read the past Magisterium condemning the principles behind Ecuмenism, when we read the past Magsiterium condemning the principles behind Religious Liberty, in passages that at times entail word-for-word contradictions between current Magisterium and past Magisterium, then the accusation of being like Protestants no longer sticks.  Unless you have a modernist notion of the Magisterium, where it can evolve and change over time, there's no argument against this.  They can come back with this idea that we have to give the benefit of the doubt that the two can be harmonized, by applying the so-called "hermeneutic of continuity", but then we respond, but harmonized into WHAT?  That itself is an area where the Magisterium would need to intervene.  WHAT CONCEPT here are we supposed to give intellectual assent to?  I give assent to the teaching that Religious Liberty is an error, but then I give assent to the idea that Religious Liberty is true?  I can't give assent to two opposite and contradictory things emanating from the Magisterium.  Is the current Magisterium speaking about a different definition of "Religious Liberty" than the past Magisterium?  If so, then it's incuмbent upon the Magisterium to make the appropriate distinctions and definitions of terms.  It's a grave dereliction of duty on the part of the Magisterium to leave the faithful scandalized by even APPEARING to contradict word for word the previous Magisterium without resolving this problem.  Consequently the Magisterium MUST DEMONSTRATE AND DEFINE the truth that must be assented to and must define and declare the principles involved in any such harmonization.  Until then I cannot give assent because I know now what I am assenting to.  How is it incuмbent upon average Catholics to apply some HERMENEUTIC OF CONTINUITY?  It is the duty of the Magisterium to elaborate upon the hermeneutic.  You're arguing that we're usurping the role of the Magisterium with private judgment but then tell us to apply the hermeneutic of continuity using our private judgment?

At the end of the day, we do have to understand and interpret the Magisterium as well.  In some cases, let's say the dogmatic definition of the Immaculate Conception, there's NO DISPUTE from ANYONE regarding what people THINK that Pope was defining.  And that in fact is the role of the Living Magisterium (to borrow a modernist term used correctly), that whenever questions arise about the interpretation of previous Magisterium, the Magisterium needs to step in to clarify that interpretation.

So if some conservative Catholic types accuse you of being like a Protestant due to private interpretation of Tradition, just answer that it's isn't a question of pitting Tradition against the Magisterium but rather the modern Magisterium appearing to contradict past Magisterium.

Isn't this just semantics?

No, it's not.  It's the difference between being Catholic or some form of Protestant.

Quote from: Ladislaus

the modern Magisterium appearing to contradict past Magisterium.

Can you point to a time in the history of the Church where this has actually happened?  Where you have (supposedly) two "true" teaching authorities contradicting each other?

Not exactly, but there have in fact been times where Catholics differed in the interpretation of previous Magisterium.  I do not want this to turn into a thread about sedevacantism.  That's not my point.

I have a two-fold purpose:

1) to be careful not to fall into a Protestant mentality where we keep pitting Tradition against the Magisterium (just as Protestants reject things in the Catholic Magisterium for being non-Biblical so Traditional Catholics reject things as being non-Traditional)

2) as an apologetics response against conservative Novus Ordites who accuse Traditional Catholics of #1 above

Quote from: 2Vermont

Quote from: Ladislaus

Quote from: 2Vermont

Isn't this just semantics?

No, it's not.  It's the difference between being Catholic or some form of Protestant.

But doesn't Tradition come from the Magisterium?

No, Tradition refers to the non-Biblical Deposit of Revelation.  Magisterium does not add to the Deposit of Revelation but merely interprets it and acts as our proximate rule for the correct understanding of what is and what is not in it.

I think that Traditional Catholics use the term as equivalent of "past Magisterium" but that's technically not correct.  It's also a takeoff on Archbishop Lefebvre's maxim tradidi quod et accepi.  But due to the long-standing use of this term we make ourselves open to the criticism that, like Protestants do with the Bible, so we do with Tradition, subjecting it to our personal interpretation.

That's a common attack from Novus Ordo types against Traditional Catholics, and I basically have the answer for it in the OP here, based on making sure we use the terms properly.

Yes, I tend to say "Tradition" when I think "pre-VII Magisterium".  I do know the technical difference.  So you are just suggesting that we merely use a different term?  I still think that when it comes down to it, neo-Catholics won't see our stance any differently.

Quote from: 2Vermont

Yes, I tend to say "Tradition" when I think "pre-VII Magisterium".  I do know the technical difference.  So you are just suggesting that we merely use a different term?  I still think that when it comes down to it, neo-Catholics won't see our stance any differently.

But it's not just a different term; it's a defense against the attack that we apply private interpretation to Tradition in order to reject the V2 Magisterium.  For any thinking Catholic, this should definitely cause them to re-evaluate.  Obviously it depends on the person; some just don't want to hear the truth and have their minds made up.

I'll try it next time and report back.

Have you heard of the term para-magisterium?

"The infallible magisterium of the Catholic Church is limited in its exercise, clearly recognizable when invoked, and serious in its expression. But these marks of Catholicity are all but lost in our day when a “paramagisterium” operates seemingly to supplant the authentic magisterium of the Church".

This is an article exposing an example of how this phenomenon works:

http://catholicism.org/ad-rem-no-238.html

There cannot be two Magisteriums....this is impossible.

By this I mean one statement of the Magisterium vs. another statement of the Magisterium.

You cannot reconcile tradition with modernism, all the great Popes have spoken (written at least) at length on this.  We have been warned time and time again, since the earliest of times about false teachers and false doctrine corrupting the faithful.

I'll come back to this one later.  As I said, it's a tool of apologetics that squarely puts the burden back on them.

Nonetheless, another one of those irreformable Magisterial teachings, also a part of divine revelation, is the perpetuity of the Magisterium itself until the end of time in the Church. Thus, we cannot admit the thesis that the Magisterium, the ecclesia docens, has disappeared either.

And the apologetics I outlined is not limited to either R&R or SV.  It's simply there to answer the objection brought against Traditonal Catholics that we are "rejecting" the Magisterium.  Firstly, it overcomes the comparison with Protestantism.  No, we are not applying private judgment interpretation to Tradition as Protestants do with the Bible.  Secondly, the answer is to WHICH statement of the Magisterium do we owe our assent.  You can find in particular word-for-word contradictions between prior Magisterium and Vatican II Magisterium on the topics of Ecuмenism (statements in Mortalium Animos vs. Unitatis Redintegratio) and Religious Liberty (Syllabus of Errors vs. Dignitatis Humanae).  So we turn this around on the Novus Ordo critics and say, I grant that we owe assent to the Magisterium in principle, but to which of the following do I owe intellectual assent?

1) Religious Liberty is an error (Syllabus)

OR

2) Religious Liberty is true (Dignitatis Humanae)

Obviously bring the exact quotes.

We cannot intellectually assent to two contradictory truths at the same time.

Theologians admit there can be apparent discrepancies with prior Magisterial teaching in docuмents of the "authentic" Magisterium. In this case, the burden of proof falls squarely back on the authorities to either resolve the contradiction or correct the confusion.

And this is the second step in the approach I outlined.  In response to what I wrote above, the reply will be that we must accept the fact that the two are reconcilable and apply a hermeneutic of continuity.

But the response to this argument is that (turning their private judgment argument right back against them) our private judgment does not suffice to reconcile the two and that the onus is on those who exercise Magisterium to CLARIFY the principles of reconciliation, to teach the appropriate distinctions.

To just lob something out there that WORD FOR WORD contradicts previous Magisterium is a grave scandal and sin on their part, and a dereliction of their duty.  THAT is what has caused the current crisis of faith, and Traditional Catholics are not to blame but those who have exercised "Magisterium" since Vatican II.  THEY are the ones who have created this crisis and dilemma of conscience whereby Catholics seemingly need to choose between prior Magisterium and V2 Magisterium.  Simple Catholics cannot be expected to apply some sophisticated heremeneutic to these things.

The faithful in general, and theologians in particular, have the right and duty to point out these discrepancies to the Magisterium and ask for a resolution.

Precisely.

For many decades, liberals had maintained that Catholic teaching was "changed" and that there now truly was a right to error, something traditional Catholics know is impossible.

Correct.  Why doesn't the Vatican excoriate those among the liberals who do not apply this same hermeneutic of continuity?  These liberals are allowed to insist on their hermeneutic of rupture and are not disciplined as the Traditonal Catholics are.  Liberals discard the PRIOR Magisterium and that's considered OK, but it's a horror of horrors to do the corollary, to discard the present "Magisterium" in favor of the prior.  Point out the double-standard here.