Auctorem Fidei

Can the SSPX be right about the Novus Ordo?

Revision: Feb 11, 2013

On another web forum, I was engaged in a rather heated discussion about the documents of Vatican II.



There were three parties to this discussion: Myself, Catholicam and Michael Wilson.

A number of points were brought up, but one put forth by Michael Wilson was new to me and I decided to research it further.

Basically, the SSPX holds that the Novus Ordo, while valid, is a danger to the Faith due to the defects and suppression of various acts and words.

Agreeing with the SSPX, Mr. Wilson held Auctorem Fidei as proof that the Novus Ordo was not an act of the Church as support for his thesis.

Auctorem Fidei

Michael Wilson held:

The Church has the protection from the Holy Ghost,1. preventing Her from teaching error 2.or enacting harmful, 3.or even useless legislation.

This he supported with:  

Denzinger 1578 . Prop. 78 of the Council of Pistoia; “Auctorem Fidei” P. Pius VI:  The prescription of the synod about the order of transacting business in the conferences, in which, after it prefaced "in every article that which pertains to faith and to the essence of religion must be distinuished from that which is proper to discipline," it adds, "in this itself (discipline) there is to be distinguished what is necessary or useful to retain the faithful in spirit, from that which is useless or too burdensome for the liberty of the sons of the new Covenant to endure, but more so, from that which is dangerous or harmful, namely, leading to superstitution and materialism"; in so far as by the generality of the words it includes and submits to a prescribed examination even the discipline established and approved by the Church, as if the Church which is ruled by the Spirit of God could have established discipline which is not only useless and burdensome for Christian liberty to endure, but which is even dangerous and harmful and leading to superstition and materialism,--false, rash, scandalous, dangerous, offensive to pious ears, injurious to the Church and to the Spirit of God by whom it is guided, at least erroneous.

Also, Quo Graviora by Gregory XVI:

 [ par. 168; from “The Church”, Papal teachings]….Once this is laid down, they state without any hesitation that on many points the discipline, the government and the forms of external worship in use in the Church are no longer suitable to the character of our times, and that what is harmful to the progress and prosperity of the Catholic religion must be changed…
Par. 169: they are falling into errors condemned by the Church in the Constitution Auctorem Fidei promulgated by our predecessor of holy memory Pius VI on August 28, 1794, in proposition 78 ….Are they not trying, moreover, to make of the Church something human; are they not openly diminishing her infallible authority and the divine power which guides her, in holding that her present discipline is subject to decay, to weakness, and to other failures of the same nature, and in imagining that it contains many elements which are not only useless, but even prejudicial to the well-being of the Catholic religion?

Further on reading Quo Graviora, I found

... And does it not produce the same effect to think that the present discipline of the Church rests on failures, obscurities, and other inconveniences of this kind? And to feign that this discipline contains many things which are not useless but which are against the safety of the Catholic religion? Why is it that private individuals appropriate for themselves the right which is proper only for the pope?

My Understanding of Mr. Wilson's Understanding of Auctorem Fidei

This is my understanding of Mr. Wilson's interpretation of Auctorem Fidei:

1. The Catholic Church cannot enact harmful or useless legislation.
2. The Second Vatican Council did enact harmful or useless legislation.
3. Therefore
1. Either it was not a Council of the Catholic Church or
2. Since Councils must be ratified by the Pope, then
1. Paul IV was not the Pope.

Considerations

Cardinal Ottaviani

After some thought, I concluded that the obviously Cardinal Ottaviani thought that the Church could enact legislation (liturgy) that would be harmful since he made the intervention and thought that there were issues with both the Novus Ordo as well as the general instructions.

Council of Trent

Further, I remembered that canon 7 of the Council of Trent stated something similar and may shed some light on how to interpret Auctorem Fidei.

Canon 7. If anyone says that the ceremonies, vestments, and outward signs which the Catholic Church uses in the celebration of masses, are incentives to impiety rather than stimulants to piety,[26] let him be anathema.

This looks very similar to Auctorem Fidei 78, and in the past it has been used as an argument against the position of the SSPX concerning the Novus Ordo.  I believe Mr. Pete Vere made such a claim in one of his early articles for Envoy magazine.

My first impression on reading this canon was that it obviously (intuitively) was referring to the liturgy of that time.  Reading further (St. Justin on Ignis Ardens) pointed out that my intuition was correct as Chapter V indicates:

CHAPTER V THE CEREMONIES AND RITES OF THE MASS And since the nature of man is such that he cannot without external means be raised easily to meditation on divine things, holy mother Church has instituted certain rites, namely, that some things in the mass be pronounced in a low tone and others in a louder tone. She has likewise, in accordance with apostolic discipline and tradition, made use of ceremonies,[15] such as mystical blessings, lights, incense, vestments, and many other things of this kind, whereby both the majesty of so great a sacrifice might be emphasized and the minds of the faithful excited by those visible signs of religion and piety to the contemplation of those most sublime things which are hidden in this sacrifice.

This is obviously referring to the rites of the Mass extant at that time, it is not stating that a future liturgy could not be flawed, yet valid.

Back to Auctorem Fidei

Regarding proposition #78 of Auctorem Fidei: 

First in assessing the applicability of the statement it is critical to understand the statement that was being condemned and why.

I have highlighted here what I believe to be the offending aspects of the statement:

"in this itself (discipline) there is to be distinguished what is necessary or useful to retain the faithful in spirit, from that which is useless or too burdensome for the liberty of the sons of the new Covenant to endure, but more so, from that which is dangerous or harmful, namely, leading to superstitution and materialism"

... the condemnation that follows:

...as if the Church which is ruled by the Spirit of God could have established discipline which is not only useless and burdensome for Christian liberty to endure, but dangerous and harmful and leading to superstition and materialism,--...at least erroneous.

and reading further in Quo Graviora we find the following:

to think that the present discipline of the Church rests on failures, obscurities, and other inconveniences of this kind?

So what was condemned as erroneous is the thesis that the present (at that time) liturgy contained useless and burdensome elements as well as elements that lead to superstition and materialism.

The final part is can the following statement, which refers to the past, be applied to the future.

"...as if the Church which is ruled by the Spirit of God could have established discipline which is not only useless and burdensome"

Conclusion

Although not conclusive for myself, at this time, I do not believe that the condemnation of Auctorem Fidei means the Church cannot implement ambiguous or even contradicting discipline/doctrine (as noted here).

First of all it lacks the level of condemnation that I would expect to see for an irreformable statement.

Second, it is referring to the discipline of the Church at that time and referring to how the liturgy/discipline developed.

I will pursue this topic at a later time.

NB: I want to get this off out of the 'draft' list. However, I'm probably going to work through this issue a few more times after I post it so I will update the revision listing.

References

Council of Trent Session 22
What is wrong with the Novus Ordo Missae