What We Have Lost

In The Spirit of Chartres ^ | In The Spirit of Chartres

[GOPmember]

What We have Lost
...and the Road to Restoration
A critical look at the changes in the Catholic Church

This video gives you an intimate, up-close look at the destructive and wide-spread changes that have taken place in the two-thousand-year-old Catholic Church since the close of the Second Vatican Council in 1965.

Much of what you see will surprise you, maybe even shock you, and -- unfortunately -- will sadden you. "What We Have Lost" not ony exposes the external damage that has been done to the Universal Church, but goes deep behind the scenes to reveal the hidden changes; how and when they were made; and who made them.

This video asks the hard questions: Is the Church still Catholic? Has She lost the true faith? Does the clergy still truly "believe?" Can we count on today's Church to lead us to salvation? The answers found in "What We Have Lost" may bring you to anger -- or to tears. But after you see it, you will never look at the "modern" Church in the same way again.

And "What We Have Lost" is about hope. Hope in Jesus Christ and His one true Church on earth. Plus it's about the restoration of the traditional Latin Mass and the "Faith of our Fathers;" and it documents the groundswell of traditionalism within the Church, and how you can be a part of it...on the "Road to Restoration."

[bornacatholic]

But don't you think the Living Magisterium is capable of deficient conduct, being deficient in the disciplines it promulgates, and even formulating doctrine deficiently?

Who are you to judge it is deficient?

I am a member of a very small club. I think we have been Blessed with amazing and brilliant Popes since Pope Pius XII. Since I have been alive, and I was alive during Pope Pius XII's Papacy, I have witnessed the collapse and corruption of virtually every institution. That collapse and corruption has been worldwide, massive and stunning. The ONLY institution which hasn't collapsed or corrupted is Holy Mother Church.

I have a challenge for those who label themselves "traditionalist." Please ping others who call themselves traditionalists. I can't remember all who label themselves such.

Here is my challenge.

Cite TRADITION and illustrate where in TRADITION we are encouraged or admonished to mark ourselves with a distinguishing adjective modifying Catholic

I have read not a few books and I have NEVER seen that in TRADITION So, please tell me, sourcing any justification for identifying yourself in that manner.

I don't think you can find it. In fact, labelling yourselves that is a novelty. It is a modern habit. I consider it prideful.

Now, y'all may be smart (and most of you are that) and y'all may be holy (no doubt much more closer to our Triune God than am I) but I find absolutely no justification for the label which, it appears to me, is meant to distinguish you from your Christian Catholic brothers and sisters as one who is more knowledgeble, thoughtful, and acting in union with all developments of Doctrine except that which has occured since 1958.

I looked at newadvent.com this morning. Traditionalists aren't there. However, Look up Traditionalism You ain't that.

I researched a few books I have in my library.

I don't find "traditionalists" in Scripture by Topic.

I don't find traditionalists in Faith of the Early Fathers

I don't find traditionalists in Catechism of the Catholic Church

I don't find traditionalists in Roman Catechism

I don't find traditionalists in the Catechism of Aquinas

I don't find traditionalists in the Catechism of Pope Pius X

I don't find traditionalists in The Liturgical Year

I don't find traditionalists in Sheed and Ward's Catholic Evidence

I don't find traditionalists in The City of God

I don't find traditionalists in Jungmann's The Mass of the Roman Rite

I don't find traditionalists in Fr. Hardon's Modern Catholic Dictionary

I don't find traditionalists in Fr. Lasance's The New Roman Missal

I don't find traditionalists in Rumble and Carty's Radio Replies

I don't find traditionalists in Ott's Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma

I don't find traditionalists in Scriptual References for the Baltimore Catechism

I don't find traditionalists in Precis of Official Catholic Teaching

I don't find traditionalists in Dom Orchard's A Catholic Commentary on Scripture

I don't find traditionalists in Douay Rheims

I don't find traditionalists in The Navarre Bible

I don't find traditionalists in Neuner and Dupuis' The Christian Faith

I don't find traditionalists in Denziger's The Sources of Catholic Dogma

I don't find tradtionalists in Butler's Lives of the Saint's

I don't find traditionalists in Warren Carroll's A History of Christendom

I don't find traditionalists in Catena Aurea

I don't find traditionalists in The Summa

I dont' find traditionalists in Farrell's Companion to the Suma

I don't find tradtionalists in Dogmatic Canons and Decrees (Trent, Vatican I, Decree on Immaculate Conception, Syllabus of errors)

I don't find traditionalists in ...well, there is no need for me to go through my entire private library. It simply isn't there.

What IS there are condemnations of Traditionalism. There is the June 1855 Decree of the S.C. against False Traditionalism (against Augustine Bonnety) (souces of Catholic Dogma) and condemnations against Fideism, Traditionalism, Rationalism (The Christian Faith), condemnations against Traditonalism (Catholic Encyclopedia at newadvent.com) and I could go on and on and on.

What does NOT come from Tradition is the novelty of laymen labelling themselves traditionalists and, presumptively, thinking themselves as above or seperated from all us other clowns who are merely Catholic.

As the previous Pope Benedict taught

Pope Benedict XV Ad Beatissimi Apostolorum

22. The success of every society of men, for whatever purpose it is formed, is bound up with the harmony of the members in the interests of the common cause. Hence We must devote Our earnest endeavours to appease dissension and strife, of whatever character, amongst Catholics, and to prevent new dissensions arising, so that there may be unity of ideas and of action amongst all. The enemies of God and of the Church are perfectly well aware that any internal quarrel amongst Catholics is a real victory for them. Hence it is their usual practice when they see Catholics strongly united, to endeavour by cleverly sowing the seeds of discord, to break up that union. And would that the result had not frequently justified their hopes, to the great detriment of the interests of religion! Hence, therefore, whenever legitimate authority has once given a clear command, let no one transgress that command, because it does not happen to commend itself to him; but let each one subject his own opinion to the authority of him who is his superior, and obey him as a matter of conscience. Again, let no private individual, whether in books or in the press, or in public speeches, take upon himself the position of an authoritative teacher in the Church. All know to whom the teaching authority of the Church has been given by God: he, then, possesses a perfect right to speak as he wishes and when he thinks it opportune. The duty of others is to hearken to him reverently when he speaks and to carry out what he says.

23. As regards matters in which without harm to faith or discipline-in the absence of any authoritative intervention of the Apostolic See- there is room for divergent opinions, it is clearly the right of everyone to express and defend his own opinion. But in such discussions no expressions should be used which might constitute serious breaches of charity; let each one freely defend his own opinion, but let it be done with due moderation, so that no one should consider himself entitled to affix on those who merely do not agree with his ideas the stigma of disloyalty to faith or to discipline.

24. It is, moreover, Our will that Catholics should abstain from certain appellations which have recently been brought into use to distinguish one group of Catholics from another. They are to be avoided not only as "profane novelties of words," out of harmony with both truth and justice, but also because they give rise to great trouble and confusion among Catholics. Such is the nature of Catholicism that it does not admit of more or less, but must be held as a whole or as a whole rejected: "This is the Catholic faith, which unless a man believe faithfully and firmly; he cannot be saved" (Athanas. Creed). There is no need of adding any qualifying terms to the profession of Catholicism: it is quite enough for each one to proclaim "Christian is my name and Catholic my surname," only let him endeavour to be in reality what he calls himself.

This is TRADITION

Apostolic Tradition and ecclesial traditions

83 The Tradition here in question comes from the apostles and hands on what they received from Jesus' teaching and example and what they learned from the Holy Spirit. The first generation of Christians did not yet have a written New Testament, and the New Testament itself demonstrates the process of living Tradition.

Tradition is to be distinguished from the various theological, disciplinary, liturgical or devotional traditions, born in the local churches over time. These are the particular forms, adapted to different places and times, in which the great Tradition is expressed. In the light of Tradition, these traditions can be retained, modified or even abandoned under the guidance of the Church's Magisterium.

This is TRADITION

I. THE CHURCH IS ONE

"The sacred mystery of the Church's unity" (UR 2)

813 The Church is one because of her source: "the highest exemplar and source of this mystery is the unity, in the Trinity of Persons, of one God, the Father and the Son in the Holy Spirit."259 The Church is one because of her founder: for "the Word made flesh, the prince of peace, reconciled all men to God by the cross, . . . restoring the unity of all in one people and one body."260 The Church is one because of her "soul": "It is the Holy Spirit, dwelling in those who believe and pervading and ruling over the entire Church, who brings about that wonderful communion of the faithful and joins them together so intimately in Christ that he is the principle of the Church's unity."261 Unity is of the essence of the Church:

What an astonishing mystery! There is one Father of the universe, one Logos of the universe, and also one Holy Spirit, everywhere one and the same; there is also one virgin become mother, and I should like to call her "Church."262

814 From the beginning, this one Church has been marked by a great diversity which comes from both the variety of God's gifts and the diversity of those who receive them. Within the unity of the People of God, a multiplicity of peoples and cultures is gathered together. Among the Church's members, there are different gifts, offices, conditions, and ways of life. "Holding a rightful place in the communion of the Church there are also particular Churches that retain their own traditions."263 The great richness of such diversity is not opposed to the Church's unity. Yet sin and the burden of its consequences constantly threaten the gift of unity. And so the Apostle has to exhort Christians to "maintain the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace."264

815 What are these bonds of unity? Above all, charity "binds everything together in perfect harmony."265 But the unity of the pilgrim Church is also assured by visible bonds of communion:

- profession of one faith received from the Apostles;

-common celebration of divine worship, especially of the sacraments;

- apostolic succession through the sacrament of Holy Orders, maintaining the fraternal concord of God's family.

end of quote

That is it. Simple. We are Catholics and Catholics must maintain the Bonds of Unity in Worship, Doctrine, Authority. Period. Y'all can't find a single Catechism ever printed which teaches otherwise.

It should be noted that EVERY Christian who maintains these bonds is, axiomatically, a TRADITIONALIST. It is UNNECESSARY to qualify one as such because it is acknowleged, by real Christians, that it is the Living Magisterium which decides what is and isn't Tradition and tradition - not some laymen.

Now, I will grant you that y'll are smarter than me; I will grant y'all are better and more deeply read in Liturgical History, Ecclesiastical History, Ecclesiology, Dogmatic Theology, Speculatiave Theology etc etc but y'all are no better than the simple Catholic who prays, pays and obeys and y'all are, without question, unqualified, materially, spiritually and experientally, to judge the Popes since 1958 nor to judge any decisions taken by the Magisterium.

We are ALL every bit as much the creatures of this age which you say has infected and corrupted the Living Magisterium. So, it appears the, unstated, axiom is Holy Mother Church, established by Jesus, who sent the Holy Spirit upon it to Teach it all truth, has become infected and corrupted by liberalism, modernism and who-the-heck-knows-what-else but those who label themseves traditionalists have escaped the age pristine, pure, holy and whose thoughts are pellucid and perfect and whose apprehension of everything is untainted, if not afflatic.

The Popes since the death of Pius XII have ALL been highly educated, highly intelliigent, and guided by the Holy Spirit.

Whereas I ain't. Now, y'all may think you have the intellect, education, and experience, to oppose Holy Mother Church etc but you, like me, are simple laymen. You have no authority. I have no authority. Thank God.

In my opinion, y'all are rapidly rushing (you're almost there) to catch-up with the 16th century schismatics. Whereas those folks sifted Holy Writ and wrestled with it to their own destruction and used private judgement to oppose the Living Magisterium, y'all sift encyclicals, manuals, catechisms, conciliar texts, and use personal opinion to oppose the Living Magisterium. It is, in my opinion, simply protestantism recast as "tradition.

I want to end by stating, quite seriously, I admire nearly all of you a great deal. There is no doubt that those I pinged (and those I forgot to ping) are very bright and very well read. But there isn't one among you 1/100th as well educated, trained and experienced as any Pope since 1958.

So, I await your responses illustrating, from Tradition where we are told to mark ourselves as some brand of special Christian Catholic. I want a source from Tradition which grants us laymen authority to oppose decisions taken by the Living Magisterium. I want citations, not personal opinions; including the personal opinons of Saints whose ideas never were accepted as part of the Living Magisterium.

I expect Documentation from The Bible, from any Document from any Ecumenical Council, from any Papal Encyclical, from any Papal Allocution.

[Gerard.P]

"The Liturgical Movement had in fact been attempting to overcome this reductionism, the product of an abstract sacramental theology, and to teach us to understand the Liturgy as a living network of tradition which had taken concrete form, which cannot be torn apart into little pieces, but has to be seen and experienced as a living whole. Anyone like myself, who was moved by this perception in the time of the Liturgical Movement on the eve of the Second Vatican Council, can only stand, deeply sorrowing, before the ruins of the very things they were concerned for."........

".....Yet since we are looking for the criteria of reform, we do also have to mention the dangers, which unfortunately in the last few decades have by no means remained just the imaginings of those traditionalists opposed to reform." Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger 26th July 2004 (The Organic Development of the Liturgy book review by Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger)

[Gerard.P]

"We earnestly desire that you should take an active part in the organization of society with this objective in mind. And, to this end, whilst your priests will zealously devote efforts to the sanctification of souls, to the defense of the Church, and also to works of charity in the strict sense, you shall select a few of them, level-headed and of active disposition, holders of Doctors’ degrees in philosophy and theology, thoroughly acquainted with the history of ancient and modern civilizations, and you shall set them to the not-so-lofty but more practical study of the social science so that you may place them at the opportune time at the helm of your works of Catholic action. However, let not these priests be misled, in the maze of current opinions, by the miracles of a false Democracy. Let them not borrow from the Rhetoric of the worst enemies of the Church and of the people, the high-flown phrases, full of promises; which are as high-sounding as unattainable. Let them be convinced that the social question and social science did not arise only yesterday; that the Church and the State, at all times and in happy concert, have raised up fruitful organizations to this end; that the Church, which has never betrayed the happiness of the people by consenting to dubious alliances, does not have to free herself from the past; that all that is needed is to take up again, with the help of the true workers for a social restoration, the organisms which the Revolution shattered, and to adapt them, in the same Christian spirit that inspired them, to the new environment arising from the material development of today’s society. Indeed, the true friends of the people are neither revolutionaries, nor innovators: they are traditionalists." (Pope St. Pius X Letter on the Sillon, August 25, 1910

[CouncilofTrent]

Well, first I still ask you, sinkspur, and the like to mention one of the great fruits of Vatican II and/or the New Mass, which has yet to be answered definitively (even after at least 3 months of silence). Secondly, you haven't defined the error of Traditionalism. The Catholic Encyclopedia defines it as such in it's "exposition":

According to traditionalism, human reason is of itself radically unable to know with certainty any truth or, at least, the fundamental truths of the metaphysical, moral, and religious order.

This has nothing to do with the self-proclaimed "traditionalists" you condemn.

You also say that the Church hasn't been corrupted. This is, at best, a show of ignorance or just a naive personality. Liturgical abuse is rampant, as well as modernism.

Benedict XV in the same document you have posted:

Again, let no private individual, whether in books or in the press, or in public speeches, take upon himself the position of an authoritative teacher in the Church. All know to whom the teaching authority of the Church has been given by God: he, then, possesses a perfect right to speak as he wishes and when he thinks it opportune. The duty of others is to hearken to him reverently when he speaks and to carry out what he says.

Maybe you should also follow his advice.

[CouncilofTrent]

In any event, if the Pope mandated that we stand on our heads and become Protestants, would you do it? (Of course, this will never happen, but it is a hypothetical).

[bornacatholic]

Pope St. Pius X: Allocution of May 10, 1909

"Do not allow yourselves to be deceived by the cunning statements of those who persistently claim to wish to be with the Church, to love the Church, to fight so that people do not leave Her...But judge them by their works. If they despise the shepherds of the Church and even the Pope, if they attempt all means of evading their authority in order to elude their directives and judgments..., then about which Church do these men mean to speak? Certainly not about that established on the foundations of the apostles and prophets, with Christ Jesus Himself as the cornerstone

I would do anything the Pope mandated but what you suggested isn't a hypothetical, it is an inanity.

[CouncilofTrent]

At any rate, you still haven't addressed my other larger post.

[bornacatholic]

In the first place We must take up sharply the pretension of the Sillon to escape the jurisdiction of ecclesiastical authority....yet without being bound in a special manner by the authority of the Church... In view of all this, the Sillonist are deceiving themselves when they believe that they are working in a field that lies outside the limits of Church authority and of its doctrinal and directive power... Even if their doctrines were free from errors, it would still be a very serious breach of Catholic discipline to decline obstinately the direction of those who have received from heaven the mission to guide individuals and communities along the straight path of truth and goodness...Teaching such doctrines, and applying them to its internal organization, the Sillon, therefore, sows erroneous and fatal notions on authority, liberty and obedience, among your Catholic youth...The Sillonist doctrines are not kept within the domain of abstract philosophy; they are taught to Catholic youth and, even worse, efforts are made to apply them in everyday life. The Sillon is regarded as the nucleus of the Future City and, accordingly, it is being made to its image as much as possible. Indeed, the Sillon has no hierarchy. The governing elite has emerged from the rank and file by selection, that is, by imposing itself through its moral authority and its virtues. People join it freely, and freely they may leave it. Studies are carried out without a master, at the very most, with an adviser. The study groups are really intellectual pools in which each member is at once both master and student. The most complete fellowship prevails amongst its members, and draws their souls into close communion: hence the common soul of the Sillon. It has been called a "friendship"... Now then! Distrust of the Church, their Mother, is being instilled into the minds of Catholic youth; they are being taught that after nineteen centuries She has not yet been able to build up in this world a society on true foundations; She has not understood the social notions of authority, liberty, equality, fraternity and human dignity; they are told that the great Bishops and Kings, who have made France what it is and governed it so gloriously, have not been able to give their people true justice and true happiness because they did not possess the Sillonist Ideal!... The breath of the Revolution has passed this way, and We can conclude that, whilst the social doctrines of the Sillon are erroneous, its spirit is dangerous and its education disastrous...But then, what are we to think of its action in the Church? What are we to think of a movement so punctilious in its brand of Catholicism that, unless you embrace its cause, you would almost be regarded as an internal enemy of the Church, and you would understand nothing of the Gospel and of Jesus Christ! We deem it necessary to insist on that point because it is precisely its Catholic ardor which has secured for the Sillon until quite recently, valuable encouragements and the support of distinguished persons. Well now! judging the words and the deeds, We feel compelled to say that in its actions as well as in its doctrine, the Sillon does not give satisfaction to the Church... But this is what the Sillon is doing. For the sake of a particular political form, it compromises the Church, it sows division among Catholics, snatches away young people and even priests and seminarists from purely Catholic action, and is wasting away as a dead loss part of the living forces of the nation... Well, at the sight of the violences thus done to the Church, we are often grieved to see the Sillonists folding their arms except when it is to their advantage to defend her; we see them dictate or maintain a program which nowhere and in no degree can be called Catholic. Yet this does not prevent the same men, when fully engaged in political strife and spurred by provocation, from publicly proclaiming their faith. What are we to say except that there are two different men in the Sillonist; the individual, who is Catholic, and the Sillonist, the man of action...

Substitute "traditionalists" for Sillon. It fits traditionalists to a capital T

It goes without saying, or should, that Pope St. Pius X never encouraged folks to label themselves traditionalists. When he uses "traditionalist" he uses it in the sense I indicated in my post. The entire "sillon" letter, in its essence has to do with those who refuse the Teaching/Authority/Jurisdiction of the Catholic Church. That is the Catholic "action" of far too many who label themselves traditionalists.

[Tantumergo]

You said:

"As a traditionalist, I think it necessary to be humble enough to accept it is the Living Magisterium which defines Tradtion and tradition and to submit to those decisions which modify , and even abandon, traditions because that is the common good for any particular epoch"

I said:

"But don't you think the Living Magisterium is capable of deficient conduct, being deficient in the disciplines it promulgates, and even formulating doctrine deficiently?"

And then you said:

"Who are you to judge it is deficient?"

When did I say it was deficient? I was asking YOU if YOU thought that it was capable of these deficiencies.

Instead of cutting and pasting screeds of stuff that has no relevance whatsoever to the question, why can't you just give a straight "Yes" or "No"?

I'll ask the question again:

Do you think the Living Magisterium is capable of deficient conduct, being deficient in the disciplines it promulgates, and even formulating doctrine deficiently?

[TradicalRC]

In any event, if the Pope mandated that we stand on our heads and become Protestants, would you do it? (Of course, this will never happen, but it is a hypothetical).
-CouncilofTrent

I would do anything the Pope mandated but what you suggested isn't a hypothetical, it is an inanity.
-bornacatholic

Here's where it falls apart. Truth is neither Pure Logic nor is it Pure Empiricism. To state that whatever the Magisterium states is automatically, ipso facto tradition falls within the category of Pure Logic, or to borrow a phrase "a miserable tautology".
1Q.What is tradition?
1A. Whatever the Magisterium declares is tradition?

2Q.What does the magisterium say tradition is?
2A. Tradition.(Now return to 1Q).

When someone wants to check if there is ANYTHING that could POSSIBLY be declared by a Pope or Council which would clearly be a refutation of tradition,i.e. Homosexuality is no longer a sin, Belief in transubstantiation is unnecessary, Calvinism is cool, whatever, said person is checking the logic of the belief against a hypothetical empirical situation. "Orthodox" believers (by which I mean those who hold obedience to the Pope as the sole criterium of orthodoxy) say "Impossible" and thus declare the argument null and void because "that situation would never happen". Then they refer to Christ's promise as the backup argument. Except that Christ NEVER said that Satan would not ever affect the Church or even run the show for a while; he said that he merely would not prevail. In the end, God wins. That is different from declaring the church and magisterium incapable of corruption.

[CouncilofTrent]

Reading this brings to mind the French anti-clericals of the end of the 19th Century than the SSPX.

i.e. "sows erroneous and fatal notions on authority, liberty and obedience, among your Catholic youth..."

[TradicalRC]

As a traditionalist, I think it necessary to be humble enough to accept it is the Living Magisterium which defines Tradtion and tradition and to submit to those decisions which modify , and even abandon, traditions because that is the common good for any particular epoch

They are to guard the deposit of faith not "Define tradition" which is really, to be honest, "redefining tradition".

[TradicalRC]

Sorry. No. No Pope can bind future Popes in Liturgical matters. The language used in the Quo Primum Bull was the same language Pope Pius V used to promulagte the breviary in 1568 (look it up. Same language. Same condemenations for anyone who changed the breviary). Yet, Pope St. Pius X , in 1911,revised the breviary and he issued no Bull abrogating, obrogating, derogating, etc the previous decision of Pope Pius V.

I am unfamiliar with any writing in Church tradition that states that, could you please point me in the proper direction?

It ain't necessary. Thinking a Pope can bind all future Popes in a non Dogmatic are would give that particular Pope MORE authority than Jesus gave each Pope beginning with Peter.

FWIW,There is nothing in Scripture to indicate that Jesus' words applied to anyone BUT Peter.

[TradicalRC]

Cite TRADITION and illustrate where in TRADITION we are encouraged or admonished to mark ourselves with a distinguishing adjective modifying Catholic.
I have read not a few books and I have NEVER seen that in TRADITION So, please tell me, sourcing any justification for identifying yourself in that manner.

It was entirely uneccessary to use it as a modifier until the post-conciliar church came into being. Prior to that it would have been considered redundant. There was One Catholic Church, One Liturgy, One tradition, understood by ANY catholic who was properly catechised. What other era would boast pro-abortion Catholics, Feminist Catholics, Progressive Catholics, Birth Control Using Catholics, reincarnation believing Catholics and any other Non-Catholic belief-believing Catholic you could name. Oh, I almost forgot Traditional Catholics who believe in the faith of their fathers and grandfathers, who are "just as bad" as those on the "left".

[Tantumergo]

"They are to guard the deposit of faith not "Define tradition" which is really, to be honest, "redefining tradition"."

That sounds a bit like this:

"The power that Christ conferred upon Peter and his Successors is, in an absolute sense, a mandate to serve. The power of teaching in the Church involves a commitment to the service of obedience to the faith. The Pope is not an absolute monarch whose thoughts and desires are law. On the contrary: the Pope's ministry is a guarantee of obedience to Christ and to his Word. He must not proclaim his own ideas, but rather constantly bind himself and the Church to obedience to God's Word, in the face of every attempt to adapt it or water it down, and every form of opportunism."

Pope Benedict XVI, Homily for the Mass of Possession of the Chair of the Bishop of Rome.

[TradicalRC]

Neat. Thank you.

[bornacatholic]

Catena Aurea

According to this promise of the Lord, the Apostolic Church of Peter remains pure and spotless from all leading into error, or heretical fraud, above all Heads and Bishops, and Primates of Churches and people, [p. 586] with its own Pontiffs, with most abundant faith, and the authority of Peter. And while other Churches have to blush for the error of some of their members, this reigns alone immoveably established, enforcing silence, and stopping the mouths of all heretics; and we not drunken with the wine of pride, confess together with it the type of truth, and of the holy apostolic tradition.

Trent Chapter 2. On the permanence of the primacy of blessed Peter in the Roman pontiffs

That which our lord Jesus Christ, the prince of shepherds and great shepherd of the sheep, established in the blessed apostle Peter, for the continual salvation and permanent benefit of the church, must of necessity remain for ever, by Christ's authority, in the church which, founded as it is upon a rock, will stand firm until the end of time [45] . For no one can be in doubt, indeed it was known in every age that the holy and most blessed Peter, prince and head of the apostles, the pillar of faith and the foundation of the catholic church, received the keys of the kingdom from our lord Jesus Christ, the saviour and redeemer of the human race, and that to this day and for ever he lives and presides and exercises judgment in his successors the bishops of the holy Roman see, which he founded and consecrated with his blood [46] . Therefore whoever succeeds to the chair of Peter obtains by the institution of Christ himself, the primacy of Peter over the whole church. So what the truth has ordained stands firm, and blessed Peter perseveres in the rock-like strength he was granted, and does not abandon that guidance of the church which he once received [47]

I could have posted DOZENS of such authoritative Teachings but I know they won't sway you.

Ping me when you have Magisterial Documentation TradicalIRC has been chosen by God to determine whether or not we can trust the Magisterium, of whom Jesus declared

He who hears you, hears me

With all due respect to your intelligence, yours is the protestant tradition dressed-up as " Catholic traditionalism"

[bornacatholic]

I'll ask the question again:

Do you think the Living Magisterium is capable of deficient conduct, being deficient in the disciplines it promulgates, and even formulating doctrine deficiently

* I'll answer again. Who are you to judge it is deficient?

[CouncilofTrent]

It's rude to answer ones question with another question.

[bornacatholic]

The Magisterium has OFTEN Defined Tradition. From Tradition and Living Magisterium (newadvent.com)

I. The existence of Divine traditions not contained in Holy Scripture, and the Divine institution of the living magisterium to defend and transmit revealed truth and the prerogative of this magisterium;

II. The relation of Scripture to the living magisterium, and of the living magisterium to Scripture;

III. The proper mode of existence of revealed truth in the mind of the Church and the way to recognize this truth;

IV. The organization and exercise of the living magisterium; its precise rôle in the defence and transmission of revealed truth; its limits, and modes of action;

V. The identity of revealed truth in the varieties of formulas, systematization, and dogmatic development; the identity of faith in the Church and through the variations of theology.

Good grief. I can't believe what I am reading. What about Definitions acomplished in Ecumenical Councils, for instance.

Modern Catholic Dictionary Fr. John A. Hardon. Entry Doctrinal Definition.

Man oh man. Y'all can't seem to get the simple things right yet you have no hesitation in muscling-up to your bully pulpits to denounce this that and the other thing issuing from the Living Magisterium.