Should Traditional Catholics Fear Donum Veritatis? Part A (Short Answer)

 +

JMJ

 

 Murrax brought up an interesting question in a comment here.

... do you have any advice when talking to conservative Catholics who use the document "Donum Veritatis" to say that the liturgical reform is valid and licit because it has been accepted by post-Vatican 2 popes and bishops. The relevant passage is this: "But it would be contrary to the truth, if, proceeding from some particular cases, one were to conclude that the Church's Magisterium can be habitually mistaken in its prudential judgments, or that it does not enjoy divine assistance in the integral exercise of its mission."

Tradical's Short Answer

If Murrax's opponent believes that the acceptance by post-V2 popes and bishops makes something right,then they should be Arians. During that crisis, the vast majority of bishops were Arian and the pope ... well that's a story for another day. 

But in Donum Veritatis they are invoking a degree of infallibility, so in a way the modern /conservative Catholic's argument is the flip side of that of the Sedevacantists. 

Whereas the Sedevacantists say that the Catholic Church is Infallible and V2 / Novus Ordo Missae is obviously flawed, therefore it wasn't the Catholic Church that promulgated it. 

On the obverse, modern Catholics say the Catholic Church is infallible therefore our interpretation is flawed.

Both are wrong.

First, there are different types of protection provided to the Church by the Holy Ghost. So for example, Ott states that:   

Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma - Ott

 

This however, doesn't mean that the popes and bishops can't make mistakes and big ones.  For example, take the decimation of the Christeros.

 Second, just because something is accepted by popes and bishops doesn't mean it is an infallible truth. It has to be an act of the Magisterium as noted above. A moral unanimity of bishops and pope would have to declare that it is good and licit AND that you have to believe it or else cease being Catholic. Haven't seen this happen yet dude!

Ibid

 

 

Third, the type of infallibility ascribed to these acts (council and NOM) is not what most people think it is. 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.

 

P^3