How many Catholics do you know that are guilty of...

private interpretation of Tradition?

We all routinely criticize the Protestants for their "private interpretation of Scripture" but why is it OK for laymen to privately interpret the other source of our Faith, Tradition?

It's not OK.

Priests study the various sources of the Faith and Catholic doctrine. There are the Fathers of the Church, Doctors of the Church, there is philosophy, theology, Canon Law, and Logic to hold it all together.

Reading just one passage, even if it seems crystal-clear to you, doesn't give a layman permission to start a new sect of Catholicism, avoiding communion with all others who disagree.

For example, a layman might read this:
http://www.cathinfo.com/catholic.php/Pope-Pius-VI-Ambiguity-a-Tactic-of-Innovators

And conclude that "Pius VI condemned ambiguity as heretical. Therefore Vatican II was heretical. You have to say Vatican II is heretical, or I'm not going to attend Mass at your chapel."

This is problematic, because there are different theological censures, mirroring the different degrees of Theological Certainty.
http://www.cathinfo.com/catholic.php/Theological-Degrees-of-Certainty

Just because something is "wrong" doesn't mean it's heretical.

Moreover, Vatican II can't be heretical since it was a pastoral council. It declared no new dogmas. Heresy is the denial of a dogma of the Faith.

Now said layman is well within his rights to expect a good priest to OPPOSE ambiguity, to condemn it, as well as oppose Vatican II in general -- the thing needs to be thrown out. All it did was accomplish what the protestant reformation tried to do. But don't ask him to say something that isn't technically accurate or true.

Moreover, Vatican II can't be heretical since it was a pastoral council. It declared no new dogmas. Heresy is the denial of a dogma of the Faith.

That's completely false.  Even if you say that Vatican II didn't meet the notes of infallibility, it doesn't therefore follow that it could not have taught heresy.  Because it declared no new dogmas, it doesn't logically follow that it did not reject previously-defined dogmas and therefore wasn't heretical.  Not defining new heresies doesn't meant that it didn't teach things that were heretical.  It's a logical non-sequitur.  Whether or not it actually taught heresy is a completely separate question.

We all routinely criticize the Protestants for their "private interpretation of Scripture" but why is it OK for laymen to privately interpret the other source of our Faith, Tradition?

It's not OK.

I think that you fall a bit short here, Matthew.  It's not OK for any Catholic, layman or otherwise, to privately interpret dogma; only those who exercise Magisterium can interpret dogma.  That's what separates us from Protestants, the Magisterium; and that's my biggest problem with R&R.  And that's one of my problems with even the TERM Traditional Catholicism.  We are not opposing the V2 Magisterium against Tradition; that's Protestant.  We have issues with the fact that the V2 Magisterium contradicts PREVIOUS Magisterium.  So it's not pitting Magisterium vs. Tradition, but Magisterium vs. Magisterium.

Priests study the various sources of the Faith and Catholic doctrine. There are the Fathers of the Church, Doctors of the Church, there is philosophy, theology, Canon Law, and Logic to hold it all together.

You seem to be implying that, while layman cannot interpret the Deposit of Faith, priests can, by virtue of their training.  That's not true either.  So I'm struggling with what you mean here.

You appear to be pondering or struggling with something here on these last two threads you started, Matthew.

Private interpretation of tradition? All trads do this. Well the only other choice is to follow the Novus Ordo who officially interpret tradition for you. Even the sedevacantists who reject the Novus Ordo sect interpret tradition privately because even they admit that the priests and Bishops they follow are not the true hierarchy with jurisdiction to teach the Church's official interpretation of tradition.

I don't think we do.

I think we follow the Papal encyclicals (Rerum Novarum, Pascendi, etc.), the teachings and morality of the saints, and the advice of many trusted theologians, including St. Thomas Aquinas.

When I want to understand some point of the Faith, and it's not one of those things in Scripture, it must be in Tradition. If I were about to conclude something that would put me in opposition to every Catholic I know, I would stop short. I would assume the problem is with me or my own understanding.

Again, this is not about the Novus Ordo. There are plenty of authorities that convict the Novus Ordo as being a new religion. I'm talking about true, traditional Catholicism.

Say you read an encyclical and it seems to say that a priest has to have faculties to say Mass, and you conclude that no Traditional priest exercises a legitimate apostolate -- you become a home aloner. What would you call that? Shouldn't that person ask a learned priest or bishop in Tradition for the correct interpretation of that encyclical, that particular law in Canon Law, etc.?

From 2001
[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/embed/kaGLel1_uXY[/youtube]

Quote from: Ladislaus

In order to become a heretic, one actually has to embrace HERESY.  And most of the errors they impute to the V2 Popes are actually lower-degree errors.

And, as everyone knows, as long as the heresy is less than 50%, he's not really a heretic.  Right.

No, the point is that very few if any SVs understand the term heresy and just shoot from the hip.  Yes, if there's one heresy, then that's all you need.  But, here's the conundrum; the only charge of heresy that might stick is the denial of EENS.  But most SVs hold the same EENS theology as the V2 Popes, so in calling them heretics on those grounds they merely condemn themselves.

We all look at the same encyclicals but we come to our own conclusions because the Church is no longer there to guide us and make a definitive stand that all must obey. So we get our John Lanes, the SSPX position, the resistance position, the Dimond brothers position, the Ibranyi position, all of which are different even though they are basing their positions on the same tradition.

That's right.  We're all looking at the same encyclicals but interpret them in different ways vis-a-vis the present crisis.  Some people apply a hermeneutic of continuity while others apply a hermeneutic of rupture.

Matthew wrote:
"My point was that a priest, having learned the whole well-rounded package of the Faith, is better equipped for many things than a layman, who just has a couple books and a smattering of philosophy/theology that he picked up here and there.

A little bit of knowledge is a dangerous thing, and I think the various armchair theologians on the Trad Catholic fora provide ample evidence of that fact. "

Well stated.  Your description perfectly describes some sectarian Catholics that I am familiar with: the ones who read bits and pieces from the Archbishop, Bishop Fellay, various priests, Vatican 2, pre-V2 docs, anything on the Internet, whomever's opinions, etc, and then think they know "the Truth" and are better equipped to judge what is "doctrinal" or 'liberal" than their priests and their superiors and their superiors!