Should Traditional Catholics Fear Donum Veritatis? Part B (Long Rambling Answer)

JMJ

Tradical's Rambling Thoughts

I think this comes down to three questions:

Is the Novus Ordo Missae (NOM) valid?
Is it licit?
What does Donum Veritatis have to do with it?

The first question is easy to answer: With the usual conditions the NOM is valid. (See this link)

The second question is a little trickier: Is the NOM licit?

Does it mean that it is a duly promulgated law of the Catholic Church? Short answer - probably in the formal / knowable sense. There's was a lot of arguments about this, focusing on whether or not it was a good law, but none of them really seemed to provide a definitive answer. The definitive answer will probably be given in a hundred years or so.😎

Does it mean that it doesn't contradict Church Teaching? Short answer - as promulgated it doesn't. Likewise there's been a lot of argument about this as well. I have yet to see someone identify a passage from the promulgated copy of the NOM that EXPLICITLY contradicts the Catholic Faith. Every argument that I've seen requires an interpretation / inference. So the contradictions are a result of either the absence or ambiguity of some element ergo not explicit.

Does it mean it is a good expression of the Catholic Faith and Doctrines concerning the Sacrifice of the Mass, Original Sin, Salvation etc. Objectively compared with the Tridentine Mass, we KNOW the answer is a resounding NOPE.

Now about Donum Veritatis

First, this document is directed to the Theologians and their obligation of adherence to Catholic Truth. In other words, they were doing what they've been doing for decades, calling into question Infallible Church Teaching.

27. Even if the doctrine of the faith is not in question, the theologian will not present his own opinions or divergent hypotheses as though they were non-arguable conclusions. Respect for the truth as well as for the People of God requires this discretion (cf. Rom 14:1-15; 1 Cor 8; 10: 23-33 ) . For the same reasons, the theologian will refrain from giving untimely public expression to them.

Second, concerning the Infallibility of the Church etc, they are 'basically' re-iterating the Teaching of the Church of Infallibility. Which will be uncomfortable for some, but not for me. The key point is that when it comes to a positive infallible statement, there needs to be a definitive requirement to believe something. Since V2 there's been a lot of "let's not and say we did" going on, especially about the Mass. For example after the promulgation of the NOM, it was said that the Tridentine Mass was abrogated. We finally know from Summorum Pontificum ... that we were right ... the TLM was NEVER abrogated. Yay Us!

So does the acceptance of the NOM by the majority of bishops mean it is valid law, licit etc. Nope.

First, the validity of a law is independent of the will of the governed. There are criteria that can be assessed and if they are met, objectively, the law was promulgated.

Second, the 'goodness' of a particular law is likewise independent of the perception of the governed. There are again objective criteria for judging whether the NOM as promulgated Good, Indifferent, or Evil. The answer objectively is meh. The NOM is a banal on the spot fabrication (guess who I'm paraphrasing) the doesn't explicitly contradict the Teaching of the Catholic Church, nor does it reinforce the central Teachings. It is an ambiguous rite. In this it is dangerous as it does not reinforce Church Teaching putting the weight on the shoulders of the Faithful. If the faithful don't know their faith then it would be a catastrophe ... oh wait where have I been for the last 50 years?

The same criteria can be applied to the NOM as PRACTICED. I've attended many NOMs the would objectively be deemed irreverent and sacrilegious. In other words - bad and this behaviour tolerated or encouraged.

Now, I've heard converts say that the NOM is so Catholic ... when compared with the protestant rites.

That is the wrong comparison.

You need to put it in context. Horrible Protestant vs NOM and vs the Tridentine Mass.

Objectively, only one of these is explicit about the Teachings of the Catholic Church and it isn't the NOM :-)

Lastly, the argument seems to be a restatement that the Church's infallibility extends to Disciplinary Laws (ie. Liturgy). I posted an article by Fr. Scott on this topic here (link). As noted, the discipline can't be contrary but it sure can be inadequate.

Inasmuch as in her general discipline, i.e., the common laws imposed on all the faithful, the Church can prescribe nothing that would be contrary to the natural or the Divine law, nor prohibit anything that the natural or Divine law would exact.…It is quite permissible, however, to inquire how far this infallibility extends, and to what extent, in her disciplinary activity, the Church makes use of the privilege of inerrancy granted her by Jesus Christ when she defines matters of faith or morals.

Nota Bene: "... prescribe nothing that would be contrary ..." Something ambiguous is not contrary but could be interpreted as such. Hence the NOM and the excising of the filioque from the Ukrainian Catholic Creed.

To sum up:

The habitual error of the Bishops et al does not invoke the infallibility of the Catholic Church. If it did, we would all be Arian.
The Pope and Bishops have to make a deliberate act in regard to teaching infallibly and Donum Veritatis is basically restating Church Teaching.
The NOM is a valid, ambiguous rite of the Catholic Church but we don't have to 'accept' is as something that it isn't, meaning a 'good' expression of the Catholic Faith.

Comparision of the Tridentine, Cranmer and Novus Ordo Masses

+ JMJ I downloaded the comparison that was linked in the previous article on the mass (here) . ... a very good reference! P^3 From: Whispers of Restoration (available at this link) . CHARTING LITURGICAL CHANGE Comparing the 1962 Ordinary of the Roman Mass to changes made during the Anglican Schism; Compared in turn to changes adopted in the creation of Pope Paul VI’s Mass in 1969 The chart on the reverse is a concise comparison of certain ritual differences between three historical rites for the celebration of the Catholic Mass Vetus Ordo: “Old Order,” the Roman Rite of Mass as contained in the 1962 Missal, often referred to as the “Traditional Latin Mass.”The Ordinary of this Mass is that of Pope St. Pius V (1570) following the Council of Trent (1545-63), hence the occasional moniker “Tridentine Mass.” However, Trent only consolidated and codified the Roman Rite already in use at that time; its essential form dates to Pope St. Gregory the Great (+604), in whose time the R

Is it sinful to attend the Novus Ordo (New Mass) - Is it Sinful to Not Attend the Novus Ordo on Sunday?

+ JMJ A non-SSPX Catholic is upset over the SSPX statements on not attending the Novus Ordo Missae. Ladies and gentlemen, what the SSPX, or at least its website editor, is advocating is a mortal sin against the Third Commandment. Unless the priest deviates from the language of the Sacramentary, the consecration, and thus the rest of Mass is to be considered valid. No one may elect not to attend Mass simply because abuses are occurring therein. Might I suggest that such absenteeism is its own abuse? The Third Commandment binds under mortal sin. Father So-And-So from the SSPX has no authority whatsoever to excuse attendance at Mass, be that Mass ever so unpalatable. Source:Restore DC Catholicism Well, this is interesting. First why does the SSPX issue this statement? Because it is sinful to put your faith in danger by attending a protestant service. It is likewise dangerous to put your faith in danger by attending a protestantized mass (ie the Novus Ordo Missae

What the heck is a congregation of "Pontifical Right"

+ JMJ In a discussion with a friend the question occurred to me that I didn't actually know was is involved in being a religious order of 'pontifical right'. I had a vague notion that this meant they reported to Rome as opposed to the local diocese. I'm also aware that, according to the accounts I have heard, the Archbishop received 'praise' and the written direction to incardinate priests directly into the SSPX. This is interesting because it implies that the SSPX priests were no longer required to incardinate in the local diocese but in the SSPX. This is something that belongs to an order of 'pontifical right'. Anyway here's some definitions: Di diritto pontificio is the Italian term for “of pontifical right” . It is given to the ecclesiastical institutions (the religious and secular institutes, societies of apostolic life) either created by the Holy See or approved by it with the formal decree, known by its Latin name, Decretu

Morning and Evening and other sundry Prayers

+ JMJ Along the theme of P^3 (Prayer, Penance, Patience), and for my own reference ... here is a collection of Morning and Evening prayers from the Ideal Daily Missal along with some additional prayers. In this crisis of the Church, I do not think it is possible to do too much prayer, penance and have patience. P^3

"Catholic" Charismatic Renewal - Protestantism within the bosum of the Catholic Church (Part 2)

+ JMJ When confronted with the fact that the CCR is not Catholic, modern Catholics attempt to deflect by stating that there are good people who have fervent BIG families who adhere to it. This is a red herring. There are fervent big protestant families as well. They are both equally wrong. It is a Catholic principle that you cannot do evil in order to achieve good. Participating in a protestant practice by Catholic people, even when approved by Catholic bishops, does not make it right or any less evil. Many Modern Catholics have lost the ability to discern what is Catholic and what is protestant. Case in point, when I showed a modern Catholic enamored with the CCR, a passage indicating that speaking in tongues reduced over time and is associated with diabolical possession, he reacted both vocally and physically. He spun away from the text and rejected the fact explicitly (his exact words escape my memory). His mind was unable to accept the possib

MurraxJune 16, 2021 at 1:08 PM
What a treat! I deleted my comment as I thought I would derail the discussion and I come back to this! Thank you so much!
MurraxAugust 9, 2021 at 4:39 PM
Tradical,

I posted a question (which is still unapproved as I am writing this) on another thing about Donum Veritatis. You can disregard this as I realize that I was misled. I was under the impression that the document said that the *pope* couldn't err on matters of prudence habitually. But indeed, the conservative I saw online seems to have been gravely mistaken. The document does not say that, but rather says that the Church's Magisterium cannot be habitually mistaken. This served as an important lesson for me to always read and re-read the document the debate is focused on. I think this is an example of conservatives reading something into a document. The document says nothing about the Pope's personal infallibility applying to habitual prudential decisions, but they want it to say that to ease their consciences. Indeed your post here still stands firm.

Tradicat

Search This Blog