The problem with this argument is that they assume the Magisterium ceased after 1963. Either the current Magisterium is the same Magisterium, guided by the Spirit, or else the Catholic Church have no Magisterium at all.
If the current Magisterium is the continuation of previous Magisterium, then the current Magisterium is the final place of appeal and has the authority to bind and loose, to interpret all previous Magisterial pronouncements and Tradition authentically, supremely and authoritatively.
Saying “we appeal to the Magisterium of 1963” is basically what the Old Catholic did. They appeal to the Magisterium up to before Vatican I. Simply because they believe that Magisterium of the Church was losing its power, deluded, ceased or become heretic at Vatican I.
But I believe this saying “appealing to Magisterium of 1963” is not possible.
You can appeal basing on documents and pronouncements of the Church up to 1963.
But the documents are not the Magisterium. All the pronouncement, writings, formulation, laws are not the Magisterium. They are fruits, works, results of the Magisterium.
The Magisterium is the Pope with the Bishops united with him. They the one who can authoritatively, supremely and authentically interprets those documents. That is firmly establish as deposit of faith.
Thus, you can’t appeal to Magisterium of 1963 by excluding the current Magisterium of the Church. Because appealing to Magisterium of 1963 is precisely appealing and hearing what the current Magisterium has to say.
It is exactly Protestant way of proceeding by using text, documents and Scripture but not acknowledging the living Magisterium as authentic interpreter.
Let us be honest traditionalists cannot be accused of being worse than the great majority of bishops in the world during th 60’s -90’s, who in their speeches and statements of bishops conferences denigrated the historical church, denied the divinity of Christ, the reality of the ressurection or the ascension, the authority of the Pope, the real presence etc… Statements which have never been retracted and it is reasonable to presume that some of the bishops remain. The fact is the view of the majority of at least several prominent bishops, cardinals and bishops conferences after Vatican II was that the old church was wrong and a new one had become. All of this is painstakingly catalogued in ‘Iota Unum’ with reference to the Osservatoro Romanoe, the official papers of conferences, the catechisms prepared by them, interviews etc… Lets be aware of that for the sake of honesty and fairness before painting everyone who has problems with Vatican II into a corner. And before anyone thinks ‘Thats all in the past’, in the 2000’s I believe the bishops conference of North America published a paper saying Jews could be saved by virtue of being Jewish and that the old covenant had never been revoked, this despite the fact that this explicitly contradicts the Council of Florence and all previous teaching on the subject. Do you intend to call all these bishops and clergy protestant too?
Your accusation that those who have problems with, a qualified acceptance of or an outright rejection of Vatican II (a rare thing) believe the magisterium ceased in 1963 is simply not true. That would require everyone who though like this to reject every single piece of teaching post 1963, something that they don’t do. What they do is simply measure all the modern teachings by the previous teachings of the church and if there is a clear contradiction follow the earlier teaching.
To clear up some misconceptions about the magisterium, prior to Vatican II and indeed post V2 to some extent it was split into two main groups:
1)The Ordinary Magisterium
2)The Extraordinary magisterium (Entirely infallible)
The Ordinary Magsterium was further split into:
i)The ordinary and authentic magisterium, not infallible
ii)The ordinary and universal magisterium, infallible
The Extraordinary Magisterium was further split into:
i)Ex Cathedra teaching by the Pope
ii)Teaching of an ecumenical council in accordance with the Pope
Now if the ordinary and authentic magisterium was to contradict itself, it would require an act of a higher magisterium to clarify the situation. The reasons for this are two fold:
i)Firstly because new does not automatically mean better or more true, the ordinary and authentic magisterium is of equal weight, there is as far as I know no doctrine of implied repeal i.e if a later law contradicts an earlier, the earlier is revoked insofar as the later contradicts it. A living pope has no more a share of St Peters power than a dead pope had when he was alive.
ii)Secondly according to the principles of equity and fairness, as Catholics could never be certain that one Pope wouldn’t simply revoke what an earlier pope had said and his successor bring it back and so on and so forth, there needs to be a settlement to the issue. A settlement that can only be provided by an infallible teaching.
It should be noted that generally popes do not overturn the ordinary and authentic magisterium, in the past decrees of the holy office could last for centuries not merely a few years or at best decades as they do today.
Lastly, to play devils advocate you state that '*Either the current Magisterium is the same Magisterium, guided by the Spirit, or else the Catholic Church have no Magisterium at all *, those who have issues with the Council would most likely point out that the magisterium does not magically disappear merely because it is old and that IF some current teachings are wrong they will not be part of the magisterium at all. Simply put, there is no such thing as the ‘old’ and the ‘new’ magisterium, especially as many parts explicitly date from the age of the apostles, there is simply The Magisterium, full stop.
