Sola Traditio?

[SemperFidelis]

I can’t locate the source just now, (I’ll try to find it) but I recall that the “99%” is a literary exaggeration.

It might be, but it’s probably not too far off.

And the letter against St. Athanasius from Pope Liberius is suspect, with many historians doubting its authenticity and all in agreement that, if true, the pope signed under duress. In any event, Pope Liberius did not teach Arianism, so it was not St. Anthanasius’ teachings against the teachings of the pope, as some have attempted to portray the situation.

Whether the Pope signed under duress or not, it doesn’t matter. “Athanasius contra mundum.” Athanasius against the world. That world included the Pope at the time, whether he was under duress or not. It was the Church against St. Athanasius’ private interpretation of Tradition, and in the end, his interpetation was upheld as orthodox.

 

[SemperFidelis]

I wouldn’t say 99%. That is grossly exaggerated. It was mainly the Eastern Churches and various western bishops. Pope Julius, Pope Liberius and Pope Damasus later were both highly orthodox and did preach the truth.

Your argument -

i) Nicea taught X
ii) Decades later, 99% of the Church held Y
iii) Athanasius used private intepretation to deem X as true
iv) Since Athanasius used private intepretation then, the Traditionalist private intepretation is valid now.
v) Implied - Luther’s private judgement theology is valid.

The problem lies in ii which inevitably causes the other points to be flawed as well. You are assuming that the Magisterium in that period has taught Y. You have failed to distinguish the fact that while most of the Bishops did believe in heresy, the Magisterium as a teaching body never once taught Arianism. Members of the Church may have taught Arianism but the Church never did. As a result, Athanasius was merely following and exhorting the teachings of the Popes at that time and the Magisterium teachings. He did not engage in private intepretation. On the other hand, his behavious is strikingly catholic when he chose to constantly communicate with Pope Julius instead of taking actions into his own hand.

The difference with the Traditionalist Movement is that in this time, the members of the Church did not only believe in X, the Magisterium herself taught X via the Ecumenical Council and 4 successive Popes. As a result, most Traditionalist, believeing that their intepretation Y is true, has anointed themselves as their own Popes since their intepretation is now the true mark of orthodoxy.

Since you seem so eager to throw out the term “Traditionalist,” what Dogma of the Church do “Traditionalists” reject?

 

[vadermanu89]

Since you seem so eager to throw out the term “Traditionalist,” what Dogma of the Church do “Traditionalists” reject?

We are in a Traditionalist forum and this thread was meant to discuss the alleged usage of private intepretations by traditionalists. Henceforth, I see no reasons why I cannot use the term traditionalist unless you wish of me to use Ratzinger’s “so-called Traditionalists”?

As to the second question, I will not pass a declaratory statement on which dogmas the traditionalist movements have failed to comply with. This is tantamount as delcaring the Traditionalist Movements as a heretical or schimatic grouping. I will not invest myself in papal powers. Though personally, I cannot understand why Traditionalist Catholics would place their own fallible intepretation of Tradition over the Church? I am waiting for an answer to my very first post. Few sites deal with this issue. Most sites are either too loony/defensive/papalish or too focused on the Pauline Mass.

 

[vadermanu89]

It was the Church against St. Athanasius’ private interpretation of Tradition, and in the end, his interpetation was upheld as orthodox.

This is plainly false and can only be found in protestant site for it espouses private judgement theology. While members of the Church may have taught Arianism, the Church has NEVER taught Arianism nor has any Pope. On the contrary, Pope Julius was the fiercest orthodox bishop at that time and he himself freed St Athanasius from his excommunication and declared the numerous heretic Councils as void since he did not preside it. His Canons in the Council of Sardica clearly attests to it. This means that St Athanasius was not engaging in private intepretation but was rather preaching the CURRENT Magisterium teachings on the deity of Christ. Remember, the Church can never preach heresy.

 

[SemperFidelis]

Though personally, I cannot understand why Traditionalist Catholics would place their own fallible intepretation of Tradition over the Church?

First of all it’s traditional Catholic, not “Traditionalists,” especially when you use it in a derogatory way. There is a reason this forum is not called the “Traditionalist” forum. Think about it, and then abide by it.

Second show me one instance where traditional Catholics have placed their fallible interpretation of Tradition over the Church.

 

[vadermanu89]

There is a reason this forum is not called the “Traditionalist” forum. Think about it, and then abide by it.

Alright. I am sorry then.

Second show me one instance where traditional Catholics have placed their fallible interpretation of Tradition over the Church.

To quote the late Archbishop Lefebvre:

“Nothing is more dangerous for the Church than **liberal popes **who are in a continual incoherence. We pray for the Pope, but we refuse to follow him in his errors on religious freedom, ecumenism, socialism and the application of reforms destructive for the Church. Our apparent disobedience is true obedience to the Church and to the Pope as successor of Peter in the measure that he continues to maintain holy Tradition…All the members…have one desire, to be submitted in filial obedience to a Rome returned to Tradition.”

i) Lefebvre has intepretated Tradition and Scripture wth regards to dogma such as Ecumenism as X

ii) The CC via Ecumenical Council of V2 and Popes have intepretated Tradition and Scripture with regards to Ecumenism as Y.

iii) Since the Archbishop’s intepretation is the true mark of orthodoxy, the post-Counciliar Church is in heresy since it has refused to adopt Y.

iv) Hence a true traditional Pope is one who follows Lefebvre private judgement. A material heretic Pope is one who condemns Lefebvre intepretation as invalid.

 

[FATIMAisUrgent]

What solemn “Magisterial” teaching do Traditional Catholics reject? Sure we should obey a pope even when he isn’t speaking “ex-cathedra” but what exactly have the last 4 popes told us we have to accept (besides Vatican II in “continuity”)? Do we have to accept sex-education for our Catholic children? I don’t remember a pope saying that we did, but I have heard that certain bishops have. Many bishops teach that the Old Covenant is still valid and saving. Which pope bound us to that? None. For the most part, the problem with our recent popes is not that they are trying to bind us to error but that they don’t stop others below them from doing so.

 

[SemperFidelis]

Alright. I am sorry then.

Thank you very much.

To quote the late Archbishop Lefebvre:

"Nothing is more dangerous for the Church than liberal popes who are in a continual incoherence.

Popes can make questionable statements and act questionably without effecting the Dogma of the Infallibility of the Supreme Pontiff. Archbishop Lefebvre questions Papal actions taken, and rightly so when they perhaps contradict the Faith. Remember that the Archbishop remained in the Church his entire life; 33 years in perfect communion, and 3 years in what amounts to a questionable communion. I personally see no schism, as do many in the hierarchy. Some people see schism, and I can see how that conclusion can come about, so I don’t denigrate someone who comes to this position. It is a complex issue, for a complex time.

We pray for the Pope, but we refuse to follow him in his errors on religious freedom, ecumenism, socialism and the application of reforms destructive for the Church.

Did the Second Vatican Council change anything regarding ecumenism and religious freedom? If it did than this isn’t the Church, and if it didn’t than the Archbishop is teaching the orthodox position, so what is the fuss here?

Our apparent disobedience is true obedience to the Church and to the Pope as successor of Peter in the measure that he continues to maintain holy Tradition…All the members…have one desire, to be submitted in filial obedience to a Rome returned to Tradition."

Do you deny that there are problems in the Church today? If so, then the Archbishop is trying to fight these problems. Popes have allowed heretical practices to take place, and the Archbishop is protesting against this. This doesn’t question the infallibility of the Pope, or the fact that this is the true Church. Once again, Popes can make questionable statements without effecting the Dogma of the Infallibility of the Supreme Pontiff.

i) Lefebvre has intepretated Tradition and Scripture wth regards to Ecumenism as X

What is different from the Societies interpretation of Tradition? What do they reject? What have they added?

ii) The CC via Ecumenical Council of V2 and Popes have intepretated Tradition and Scripture with regards to Ecumenism as Y.

What changes in Dogma did Vatican II make?

iii) Since the Archbishop intepretation is the true mark of orthodoxy, the post-Counciliar Church is in heresy since it has refused to adopt Y.

The Society does not believe the modern Church is heretical itself. It questions, and rightly so, heretical actions and statements made by individuals, who didn’t happen to be infallible, or who weren’t exercising their infallibility. The SSPX still believes the modern Church to be the true Church, and Pope Benedict to be the true Pope, so what’s the issue?

iv) Hence a true traditional Pope is one who follows Lefebvre private judgement. A material heretic Pope is one who condemns Lefebvre intepretation as invalid.

When has the Church ever condemned any teaching by Archbishop Lefebvre?