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

 +

JMJ

 

Tradical's Rambling Thoughts

I think this comes down to three questions:

1. Is the Novus Ordo Missae (NOM) valid? 
2. Is it licit? 
3. 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:

1. 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.
2. The Pope and Bishops have to make a deliberate act in regard to teaching infallibly and Donum Veritatis is basically restating Church Teaching.
3.  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.