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...

SSPX and the Resistance - A Comparison Of Ecclesiology

Shining the light of Church Teaching on the doctrinal positions of the SSPX and the Resistance. Principles are guides used to aid in decision making. It stands to reason that bad principles will lead to bad decisions. The recent interactions between Rome and the SSPX has challenged a number of closely held cultural assumptions of people in both sides of the disagreement. This has resulted in cultural skirmishes in both Rome and the SSPX. Since it is the smaller of the two, the skirmishes have been more evident within the SSPX. The cultural fault-line that Bishop Fellay crossed appears to be linked to two points of Catholic Doctrine: Ecclesiology and Obedience. The cultural difference of view points is strong enough that it has resulted in the expulsion of a number of members. It should also be noted that some other priests expelled since the beginning of the latest interactions (starting in 2000) held the same view points and have joined with the l...

If Pope Francis is bad - what about Pope St. John Paul II et al?

+ JMJ So here we are on the apparent cusp of yet another post conciliar Papal canonization. This time we have Pope's John-Paul I and Paul VI canonizations to 'look forward' to. This follows, obviously, on the heels of Pope St. John Paul II's canonization? So the first question that I usually encounter is: How is it possible, keeping in mind the doctrine on infallibility of canonizations (note doctrine not dogma), that Pope St. John Paul II is a Saint? First, what does it mean??? According to the doctrine of dogmatic facts - it is the universal opinion of Theologians that canonizations are infallible. It means that they enjoy the beatific vision. ... that's it. That is the doctrine and it is at the level of universal opinion of theologians. It is called a 'dogmatic fact'. That they made mistakes is obvious. That the miracles seem to not be very miraculous is also a bit of an issue. Here's something to consider: The rush that surrou...

Spiritual Journey Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre - Extracts

+ JMJ I have posted these two chapters to provide context for the quote of: It is, therefore, a strict duty for every priest wanting to remain Catholic to separate himself from this Conciliar Church for as long as it does not rediscover the Tradition of the Church and of the Catholic Faith. P^3 Courtesy of SSPX.ca Chapter II The Perfections of God We ought to remember during this entire contemplation of God that we must apply all that is said of God to Our Lord Jesus Christ, Who is God. We cannot separate Jesus Christ from God. We cannot separate the Christian religion from Jesus Christ, Who is God, and we must affirm and believe that only the Catholic religion is the Christian religion. These affirmations have, as a result, inescapable conclusions that no ecclesiastic authority can contest: outside of Jesus Christ and the Catholic religion, that is, outsi...

Dogmas of the Catholic Faith (de fide) - Expanded Listing: Answer for Reader

+ JMJ A reader asked the following question in the 2015 version of the article on the Dogmas of the Catholic Faith (link) : 117: "In the state of fallen nature it is morally impossible for man without Supernatural Revelation, to know easily, with absolute certainty and without admixture of error, all religious and moral truths of the natural order." Where can you find this in the documents of the Church? ( Link to comment ) Here's the reference from Ott: The citation that Ott provided was Denzinger 1786 and the source document is Dogmatic Consitution Concerning the Faith from the First Vatican Council (Papal Encyclicals - link) : Chapter 2 On Revelation, Article 3: It is indeed thanks to this divine revelation , that those matters concerning God, which are not of themselves beyond the scope of human reason, can, even in the present state of the human race, be known by everyone, without difficulty, with firm certitude and with no intermingling of error. Here's ...

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