The Conciliar Church and the "Aggiornamento"

What has always bothered me is the lack of evidence, the lack of "warning," the lack of "guidance" from the Holy Ghost before the "event" - 50 plus years of impostors, frauds, anti-popes on the throne of Peter?

I see the warnings (if not the specific details as to how things will play out) in the words of St Pius v and St. Pius X, the results of which would be dependant on whether or not their words were heeded by successive generations.

If Peter, in his simple person and through Christ, always rules through any given pontiff, then it is logically and theologically incorrect to assert that the direction or “orientation” given to the Church by any Pope can contradict that which is willed by Christ. This of course does not mean that Christ always wills to give us the most sublime gifts through the papacy, or that He may not use the papacy to chastise us - to take away graces, or to substitute lesser gifts for greater ones. Nor does it mean that the Pope may not make decisions and acts of governance which, at least from some immediate and human judgment, appear neither prudent nor wise. Nor does it mean that, within quite strict limits of prudence and charity, we do not have the right to try to show a Pope that he may he wrong in his course of action. It does mean (and we will see this fully substantiated in our examination of the next part of the Council’s teaching) that Christ always wills that we obey the Pope in his direction and governing of the Church.

Dear George,

May Christ the King reign in our minds, hearts, families, and nations! You asked me to provide my thoughts in response to following comment/question which
you received:

"George, I would simply note the interview and that Father Michael said the novus ordo "compromises the Catholic Faith" and ask him, since it was promulgated by a
Supreme Pontiff of the Church, how could that be so and not indicate the Church was defectible rather than indefectible? I suspect he was really referring to the abuses--
sort of like what Mike was getting at in his last post--but he certainly did not say it that way."

Here are my thoughts and I hope you make them available to those who are interested:

I would like to begin by noting that the comments which follow are by no means an exhaustive treatment of the "status of the Novus Ordo." I offer
here some initial points of thought and argument, while recognizing that there is still plenty to discuss and clarify.
(1) As faithful Catholics, we must give full assent of intellect and will to the dogmas of faith, e.g. papal infallibility and Church indefectibility. No question about this.
However, I do think it is necessary to probe more carefully the exact nature of these dogmas and how they actually apply to the promulgation of the Novus Ordo Missae.
(2) I think a strong argument can be made that Pope Paul VI DID NOT make use of papal infallibility when promulgating the Novus Ordo Missae. In promulgating
the Novus Ordo Missae, Pope Paul VI was using legitimate papal authority, but I think a credible argument can be made that he was abusing this authority
(and not following God's Will) in promulgating the Novus Ordo Missae.

One of the serious problems in the Catholic Church today is that the vast majority of churchmen are judging things in the light of the Second Vatican
Council instead of judging the Second Vatican Council in light of the infallible definitions of the Catholic Faith (Catholic Tradition). I think an analagous
problem exists in relation to the Liturgy. Far too many Catholics (laity as well as hierarchy) are judging liturgical matters in light of the Novus Ordo
Missae instead of judging the Novus Ordo Missae in light of the infallible Liturgical Tradition of the Roman Catholic Church.
Aside from the question of Mass validity, I think a very strong argument can be made against the Novus Ordo Missae based on the infallible Liturgical
Tradition of the Catholic Church. I think it can be demonstrated that there are serious theological, liturgical, historical, ascetical, and aesthetical problems
with the Novus Ordo Missae (e.g. please read the Ottaviani Intervention).

I remind all Catholics of some of the words from the Apostolic Constitution, Quo Primum (Pope St. Pius V, July 14, 1570), which pertain to
what is commonly known as the "Traditional Latin Mass":
[bold lettering is mine]

"Furthermore, by these presents (this law), in virtue of our Apostolic Authority, We grant and concede in perpetuity that,
for the chanting or reading of the Mass in any church whatsoever, this Missal is hereafter to be followed absolutely, without
any scruple of conscience . . . We likewise declare and ordain that no one whosoever is to be forced or coerced to alter this
Missal, and that this present document cannot be revoked or modified, but remain always valid and retain its full force . . .
Therefore, no one whosoever is permitted to alter this letter or heedlessly to venture to go contrary to this notice of
Our permission, statute, ordinance, command, precept, grant, indult, declaration, will, decree, and prohibition. Should
anyone, however, presume to commit such an act, he should know that he will incur the wrath of Almighty God and
of the Blessed Apostles Peter and Paul."

I think it's a fair question to ask whether or not, based on the destruction of the Catholic religion and liturgy over the past fifty years,
we have not, in fact, been incurring the wrath of Almighy God and the Blessed Apostles Peter and Paul? Might not the "wrath
of the Blessed Apostle Peter" involve a grave crisis in the exercise of papal authority? Might not the "wrath of the Blessed
Apostle Paul" involve a grave crisis in the ability to evangelize and convert pagans as well as our own?

I think it's also necessary to view the whole issue of the Second Vatican Council and the promulgation of the Novus Ordo
Missae in light of Our Blessed Mother's message at Fatima. Recall also these words of Our Holy Father, Pope Pius XII,
when he was still Cardinal Pacelli, "I am worried by the Blessed Virgin's messages to Lucy of Fatima. This persistence
of Mary about the dangers which menace the Church is a divine warning against the suicide of altering the Faith, in
Her liturgy, Her theology and Her soul . . . "

I think it's a legitimate (and extremely important!) question to ask: Have the reforms following the Second Vatican Council
not, in fact, altered the Faith of the Church, in Her liturgy, Her theology and Her soul? And mind you, no papal infallibility
has been exercised in the promulgation and carrying out of all these so-called "reforms"! Has the Novus Ordo, in fact,
compromised the Catholic Faith?

I don't think it's sufficient to limit the discussion of the Novus Ordo Missae to the question of its validity. We must examine
and evaluate the Novus Ordo Missae in light of the of the infallible Doctrines and Liturgical Tradition of the Roman Catholic Church.
An example of such an exercise would be to examine the Novus Ordo in light of the following defined and infallible dogmas
of the Catholic Faith:

(1) The Holy Mass is a true and proper Sacrifice.
(2) In the Sacrifice of the Mass, Christ's Sacrifice on the Cross is made present.
(3) In the Sacrifice of the Mass and in the Sacrifice of the Cross the Sacrificial Gift and the Primary Sacrificing Priest are identical;
only the nature and mode of the offering are different.
(4) The worship of Adoration (latria) must be given to Christ present in the Eucharist.

Finally, I would like to offer two final "initial" observations with resepct to the Novus Ordo Missae.
Number 1: The Second Vatican Council (Sacrosanctum Concilium #23) mandated that before any part of the liturgy be revised,
a thorough investigation was to be made, one which is theological, historical, and pastoral. I will make the argument that to do
this day, this mandate has been egregiously disobeyed. As I stated earlier, I think a strong argument can be made regarding
the existence of serious defects in the Novus Ordo Missae of a theological, liturgical, historical, ascetical, aesthetical, and
pastoral nature.
Number 2: History is very important in our Catholic religion. History, when viewed, studied, and understood in light of the truths revealed by
God, is a great help in discerning the (present) divine action and Will of God. Any discussion of the Novus Ordo Missae must involve
an honest appraisal of the liturgical disaster that has devastated the Catholic Church during the period, 1965 to the present.

Again, these are only some initial thoughts and points of discussion.


Thank you, George, for your continued prayers and support. May God bless your efforts to give Him glory, contribute to
the salvation of souls, and exalt the Catholic religion, outside of which there is no salvation.

Fr. Michael Rodríguez
Santa Teresa de Jesús
Presidio, Texas

Dear George,

Here are my thoughts and I hope you make them available to those who are interested:

(1) As faithful Catholics, we must give full assent of intellect and will to the dogmas of faith, e.g. papal infallibility and Church indefectibility. No question about this.

To him, in blessed Peter, full power has been given by our lord Jesus Christ to tend, rule and govern the universal Church.

All this is to be found in the acts of the ecumenical councils and the sacred canons.

2. Wherefore we teach and declare that, by divine ordinance, the Roman Church possesses a pre-eminence of ordinary power over every other Church, and that this jurisdictional power of the Roman Pontiff is both episcopal and immediate. Both clergy and faithful, of whatever rite and dignity, both singly and collectively, are bound to submit to this power by the duty of hierarchical subordination and true obedience, and this not only in matters concerning faith and morals, but also in those which regard the discipline and government of the Church throughout the world.

3. Therefore whoever succeeds to the chair of Peter obtains by the institution of Christ himself, the primacy of Peter over the whole Church. So what the truth has ordained stands firm, and blessed Peter perseveres in the rock-like strength he was granted, and does not abandon that guidance of the Church which he once received.

However, I do think it is necessary to probe more carefully the exact nature of these dogmas and how they actually apply to the promulgation of the Novus Ordo Missae.

(2) I think a strong argument can be made that Pope Paul VI DID NOT make use of papal infallibility when promulgating the Novus Ordo Missae. In promulgating
the Novus Ordo Missae, Pope Paul VI was using legitimate papal authority, but I think a credible argument can be made that he was abusing this authority
(and not following God's Will) in promulgating the Novus Ordo Missae.

If rejection of the Novus Ordo Missae constitutes an act of schism, then I quite possibly might have unwittingly already fallen off.

Similarly, it is to give proof of a submission which is far from sincere to set up some kind of opposition between one Pontiff and another. Those who, faced with two differing directives, reject the present one to hold to the past, are not giving proof of obedience to the authority which has the right and duty to guide them; and in some ways they resemble those who, on receiving a condemnation, would wish to appeal to a future Council, or to a Pope who is better informed.”

Leo XIII, Epistola tua, June 17, 1885

Fr. Michael Rodríguez has stated (even a cursory look at the state of the Church would confirm what he says) that, "Might not the "wrath of the Blessed Apostle Peter" involve a grave crisis in the exercise of papal authority? Might not the "wrath of the Blessed Apostle Paul" involve a grave crisis in the ability to evangelize and convert pagans as well as our own"?

That someone would think that an ecumenical Council whose decrees have been approved by the Holy Father, no matter how badly phrased, is heretical, and that the Novus Ordo Mass which was established by Pope Paul VI with such a high authority, despite its ugliness, could be invalid, should tell us a priori that such a person could not do good theology. He has cut himself off from the necessary grace, so he is on the outside looking in.

tornpage wrote:
I finally realize it is not about the Latin Mass.

One can become just as holy in a Novus Ordo parish. If you ask me, in a Novus Ordo parish is where all of us would make the most difference.

But I “departed” from Feeneyism a few years ago and have never looked back.

I no longer wonder why Sister Lucy didn’t revolt against the NO. No longer. She was saintly, and “knew."

tornpage wrote:
Columba,

Here's the problem: even assuming the truth of all you said, it doesn't add up to a rejection of the Novus Ordo Missae promulgated by a reigning pope.

If your reading of Pius V's Quo Primum is correct, that it is a decree "binding in perpetuity" (actually standard and pro forma language for disciplinary decrees that are not binding in perpetuity), you are wrongly asserting that decree of a former pope against the decrees or authority of subsequently reigning popes - to the extent you fall back on it to avoid the Mass of the conciliar pontiffs.

As Pope Leo XIII said:

Similarly, it is to give proof of a submission which is far from sincere to set up some kind of opposition between one Pontiff and another. Those who, faced with two differing directives, reject the present one to hold to the past, are not giving proof of obedience to the authority which has the right and duty to guide them; and in some ways they resemble those who, on receiving a condemnation, would wish to appeal to a future Council, or to a Pope who is better informed.”

Leo XIII, Epistola tua, June 17, 1885

You don't escape the problem: either Paul VI (and his successors) are popes whose disciplinary decrees and governance of the Church you are bound to follow (in this instance, to avoid the schism of not going to Mass to worship Our Lord with the rest of the Mystical Body) , or he's not, in which case, no schism, no problem.

There is no in-between.

That's an SSPX crock. An unction for their zealous but misguided souls.
Fr. Michael Rodríguez has stated (even a cursory look at the state of the Church would confirm what he says) that, "Might not the "wrath of the Blessed Apostle Peter" involve a grave crisis in the exercise of papal authority? Might not the "wrath of the Blessed Apostle Paul" involve a grave crisis in the ability to evangelize and convert pagans as well as our own"?


There is a crisis, so? So you take it upon yourself to reject the Primacy?

Again, that is not the solution, and Our Lord doesn't ask for such a response.

Give us precedent for schism in from a successor of Peter.

Was not Pope St. Pius V one of those who succeeded to the chair of Peter and, obtained by the institution of Christ himself, the primacy of Peter over the whole Church,
and, while holding that office, issued a decree that was to be observed "in perpetuity," and said, "We grant and concede in perpetuity that, for the chanting or reading of the Mass in any church whatsoever, this Missal is hereafter to be followed absolutely, without any scruple of conscience?"
Did he not conclude with a dire warning to those who would dare to ignore this decree?

Since the introduction of the new Mass in 1969, many traditional Catholics, including some priests, have maintained that the Bull Quo Primum Tempore of Pope St. Pius V precluded anyone, including his successors in the Chair of Peter, from making any change whatsoever in the 1570 edition of the Roman Missal, and that the Missal of Pope Paul VI is therefore illicit. This opinion is not simply wrong; it also makes traditional Catholics appear ridiculous to anyone with a modicum of knowledge about the legal language used in Church documents. Father Fr. Thomas Glover, JCD, formerly professor of canon law at Econe, explains:

Canon law is a very specialized subject: even in the past, most priests received only very limited instruction in it during their seminary courses, and lay people had little cause to concern themselves with it at all. It is not surprising that in the minds of many Catholics there is utter confusion on the legal status of the rites of Mass. There are those who believe that St Pius V's Bull Quo Primum makes any alteration in the rite of Mass unlawful ...No Pope can bind his successors in disciplinary matters, and St. Pius V's Bull was disciplinary. The strong wording and prohibitions against future changes were customary at a time when Church government was far less centralized than it is today, and were not aimed at future Popes.

Pope versus Pope

A fundamental legal principle is that an equal cannot bind an equal: therefore, as Fr. Glover has explained, no pope can bind his successor in disciplinary matters. Each pope is the supreme legislator during his pontificate, and no predecessor can prevent him from using his authority in disciplinary matters. This means that clauses in papal documents stating, for example, that they have the force of law in perpetuity, or that they can never be revoked or modified, that they shall for ever remain valid and have the force of law, apply only to clerics up to and including cardinals.

Such phrases are common to hundreds of bulls, as can be discovered by anyone able to obtain access to a bullarium (a collection of bulls). The word "bull," incidentally, is derived from the leaden seal with which papal and royal documents were authenticated.

A bull can be defined as an apostolic letter with a leaden seal. The Jesuits were suppressed by Pope Clement XIV in 1773 with the Brief Dominus ac Redemptor, which used identical and similar phrases to those found in Quo Primum, including the stipulation that the order could never be restored at any time in the future; but Pope Pius VII saw no incongruity in doing precisely this in 1814.

http://www.unitypublishing.com/NewReligiousMovements/TridentineDavis.html

One can become just as holy in a Novus Ordo parish. If you ask me, in a Novus Ordo parish is where all of us would make the most difference.

Is that a statement of fact or opinion? If it's fact, show some evidence.

The problem is not the Novus Ordo Mass. I have posted repeatedly that the parish I attend celebrates a reverent Novus Ordo Mass.

The all but elimination of the traditional sacred reverent Latin Mass has been a tragedy beyond measure. The Latin Mass will be restored to its level of worship as in previous ages.

One can become just as holy in a Novus Ordo parish....

tornpage wrote:

One can become just as holy in a Novus Ordo parish. If you ask me, in a Novus Ordo parish is where all of us would make the most difference.

Is that a statement of fact or opinion? If it's fact, show some evidence.

Columba,

The second sentence is clearly opinion.

I pray you are not disputing the first sentence.

George Brenner wrote:
It should be obvious that under the Novus Ordo that there have been people born, died and are now Saints.

columba wrote:Mark,

That is very interesting.
The fact that Pope Clement XIV abolished the Jesuits and intended it to remain that way (I take it he used the term "in perpetuity") further goes to show that the ignoring of such a decree -even by a subsequent pope- has negative repercussions on the Church and its members.

The using of the term "in perpetuity" would lead one to believe that at that particular time in history it was the informed opinion of the pope that there would never be a time in the future where his decree could be overturned without serious reulting, consequences for the faithful and the Church at large.

Granting, as I do, the authority of a reigning pope to overturn the disciplinary decrees of a predecessor, that reigning pope would obviously have to admit of a greater benefit to the Church that grossly outwieghed the wisdom of his predecessor when issuing the decree using the strong language he used at the time . The now reigning pope would (according to the prevailing circumstances) either be acting for a real benefit or a real loss for the Church in overturning the decree of his predecessor.

To maintain that a reigning pope acting against the implied wish of a predecessor must always be acting out of some perceived benefit for the Church rather than conceding to presure brought to bear from her enimies, is disputable to say the least.

If it could be ascertained that a pope overturned a decree of an earlier pope, not from some necessity, but for no other reason than for the sake of change for change sake or to curry favor with those who should have no part in Church policy, we could conclude with certainty that this decission of the pope was not based on principles pertaining to the welfare of the Church but in some other considerations unworthy of his office. In such a case (as at present), non-resistance to the new decree would be an act of betrayal on the part of those who did not resist.

I actually agree with the late Michael Davies that a prior, disciplinary, papal decree does not bind a future pope. Regarding the decree of St Pope Pius V concerning the "in perpetuity" clause in his bull on the Mass, it was presumably taken for granted that Pope Pius V understood the limits of such a clause and that this clause did not prevent authentic, organic development , profitable for the Church, taking place in the future.
If that's how the Novus Ordo had been developed there'd be no promblems today. The fact that this development resulted in two distinct and opposing forms means that there are HUGE problems.

If the limits of the "in perpetuity" clause had been considered as they ought to have been considererd, there would be, to this day, one form of the Roman Rite. Thus we have two forms; one of which is the product of overstepping the limits of the binding decree of a successor od St. Peter.

The using of the term "in perpetuity" would lead one to believe that at that particular time in history it was the informed opinion of the pope that there would never be a time in the future where his decree could be overturned without serious resulting, consequences for the faithful and the Church at large.

The fact that Pope Clement XIV abolished the Jesuits and intended it to remain that way (I take it he used the term "in perpetuity") further goes to show that the ignoring of such a decree -even by a subsequent pope- has negative repercussions on the Church and its members.

To maintain that a reigning pope acting against the implied wish of a predecessor must always be acting out of some perceived benefit for the Church rather than conceding to presure brought to bear from her enimies, is disputable to say the least.

In 1773, surrendering at last to a 20 year long campaign of intrigue and calumny, Pope Clement XIV suppressed the famous Society of Jesus, founded 200 years earlier by St. Ignatius of Loyola. Just sixteen years before the French Revolution, Europe's Catholic kings, threatening to take their countries into schism, pressured Pope Clement into destroying the strongest bulwark and the Church's most successful band of missionaries.

What lay behind this apparent act of madness? There was no popular opposition to the Jesuits, and the Kings were mainly dupes. The driving force came from the writers and thinkers of the French Enlightenment, agnostics and atheists that included a number of Europe's leading statesman among it's members. "Once we have destroyed the Jesuits", wrote Voltaire, "we should have easy work with the Church."

Mike said: Our soverign Pontiffs are human, and, while always acting in the best interests of the Church, they can be misled, they can act imprudently and it may take years before well-needed corrections are made to their well-intentioned reform efforts.

Although Pope Paul VI had the strict legal right to revise the Roman Missal, it does not follow that he was right to break with the practice of all his predecessors of never introducing any drastic change in the rite of Mass. This has been the unbroken tradition of all the churches (including the Orthodox) that can trace their origins back to the Apostles. The sixteenth-century Protestant Reformers were the first to break with this tradition and introduce radical liturgical reforms - with the objective, of course, of bringing their public worship into line with their heretical beliefs.

Msgr. Klaus Gamber, in his book The Reform of the Roman Liturgy: Its Problems and Background, raises the question of whether Pope Paul VI exceeded his authority in abolishing the traditional rite and replacing it with a new one, as opposed to simply revising the existing Missal, which is all that the Second Vatican Council mandated. But before discussing whether Pope Paul VI misused his authority in promulgating a new Missal, let us examine the legal status of the Tridentine Mass following that promulgation.

The Legal Status of Quo Primum

Did the Apostolic Constitution Missale Romanum of April 3, 1969, make the use of the Missal promulgated by St. Pius V illegal without a papal indult such as the one obtained by Cardinal Heenan in 1971 permitting the continued use of that Missal England and Wales? (The New Order of Mass {Novus Ordo Missae} was not actually promulgated by Missale Romanum but three days later on April 6, by a Decree of the Sacred Congregation of Rites. There are three ways in which legislation, including liturgical legislation, can cease to apply:

1. It can be abrogated; that is, abolished completely. If a law is abrogated the new legislation must state this specifically and clearly. There is not one word in Missale Romanum or the decree of promulgation abrogating either Quo Primum or the Missal of St. Pius V.

2. It can be derogated. This means that the legislation still remains in force but has been modified in some way. This would mean at the very least that the prohibition against the use of any Missal but that of St. Pius V could not be said to apply to the Missal of Pope Paul VI. It has been argued by the French canonist, Fr. Raymond Dulac, that whatever the extent to which Quo Primum has been derogated, the perpetual privilege permitting every priest to use the Missal of St. Pius V is still valid.

3. It can be obrogated. Obrogation occurs when new legislation by the authorized legislator is evidently intended to replace the existing law, even though it contains no specific words of abrogation. A strong case can be made that the new legislation of Pope Paul VI obrogated Quo Primum, and this could even include the perpetual privilege.

Let us assume for the sake of argument that this is indeed what happened, and then examine the consequences. Would it mean that priests should celebrate the Traditional Mass only under the terms of the current Vatican legislation? By no means.

Customs and Uses

The Bull Quo Primum was the first written legislation in the Roman Rite governing the celebration of Mass. Until 1570 the celebration of Mass was governed by what is known as customary law, ex consuetudine. The method of celebrating Mass in a particular country, district, or even city was protected or regulated by "immemorial custom." There was no rigid uniformity in the Roman Rite apart from the use of the Roman Canon, and clear differences occurred in many places. The way Mass was celebrated either in Rome, Lyons or Salisbury was evidently different, but not different enough to constitute distinct rites of Mass, as is the case with the Ambrosian Rite in Milan or the Mozarabic Rite in Toledo.

The correct name to be given these variations is "use." Thus in England and Wales there were the Uses of Salisbury, Hereford, York and Bangor. Some religious orders such a; the Dominicans had the their own variations of the Roman Missal.

Respect for established customs and traditions has always been a primary characteristic of what Dietrich von Hildebrand termed the sensus catholicus, which might best be translated as "the Catholic instinct." The true Catholic attitude was well expressed by St. Thomas Aquinas when he quoted the dictum: "It is absurd and a detestable shame, that we should suffer those traditions to be changed that we have received from the fathers of old" (Summa Theologica. I-II , Q.96, Art.4). St. Pius V manifested an authentic Catholic respect for tradition in Quo Primum, allowing missals which had been used continuously for a period of 200 or more years to be retained.

The Missal of Si. Pius V did no more than codify the rite of Mass that had been in use in Rome for centuries with very little change. The ordinary of the Mass in the first printed edition of the Roman Missal in 1474 is identical to that found in the Missal of 1570. As with all the other missals in use throughout the Roman Rite, the Roman Missal had been regulated by customary law until the written legislation of Quo Primum, and it certainly constituted an immemorial custom.

This raises the interesting question as to the status of an immemorial custom that becomes regulated by written law. It is the consensus of canonists that if an immemorial custom becomes regulated by written law, the latter does not take the place of custom but is added to it in such a way that the subject matter becomes controlled both by the preceding customary law and by the subsequent written law, but with no abrogation of the customary law which still continues to regulate the matter in question. Thus, at least until 1969, every priest of the Roman Rite was entitled to use the Missal of St. Pius V for two reasons: (1) because it constituted an immemorial custom; (2) in virtue of the perpetual indult contained in the Bull.

This raises a further question as to the status of an immemorial custom if the written law that had come to regulate it should lapse, which is the situation of the traditional Mass if Quo Primum has indeed been obrogated. It is our view that it would revert to its original status of an immemorial custom, and be protected by customary unless the legislator abrogated it by specific mention. Neither Pope Paul VI nor Pope John Paul II has made any such specific mention. We conclude that at least by virtue of established custom all celebrants should be free to use the Missal of St. Pius V, and all the faithful lo take pan in it.

On October 28, 1974, the Sacred Congregation for Divine Worship issued a notice signed by Cardinal Knox and Archbishop Bugnini denying that the Tridentine Mass could be celebrated under "any pretext of custom, even immemorial custom." But if a customary right exists, it continues to exist even in the face of a gratuitous denial of its existence by a Roman Congregation. This must be seen as a deliberate attempt to deceive the faithful on the part of Archbishop Bugnini, as must his denial that Protestant observers took an active part in the composition of the New Mass.

Justice and Church Law

This brings us to a final question. Would the right to celebrate the traditional Mass deriving from immemorial custom definitely be lost if a pope should abrogate it specifically? A very good case can be made for saying that it would not, based on the extent to which such an act would be unjust. Every ruler, the pope included - one might say especially the pope, is bound to rule justly. Justice is the cardinal virtue which prompts us to give each man his right or due. When a ruler does not legislate justly, his subjects are not bound to obey as the binding force of a law depends upon its justice. The consensus of Catholic theologians and canonists is that a law is unjust if:

1. it is not conducive to the public good

2. it is too burdensome for those subject to it, which means that it is impossible to carry out, or is too difficult or distressing.

All the objective evidence makes it clear that the post-Vatican II liturgical reform has not been conducive to the public good. The pastoral benefits that were supposed to flow from it have failed to appear. This is stated unequivocally by Msgr. Gamber: "The pastoral benefits that so many idealists had hoped the new liturgy would bring did not materialize. Our churches emptied in spite of the new liturgy (or because of it?), and the faithful continue to fall away from the Church in droves." And again: "In the end, we will all have to recognize that the new liturgical forms, well-intentioned as they may have been at the beginning, did not provide the people with bread, but with stones."

It can hardly be claimed that enforcing changes that constitute the pastoral equivalent of providing stones in place of bread is conducive to the public good. The subjects for whom the law has been enacted have every right to resist it for this reason alone. Countless faithful Catholics who would normally be the last to question any decision of the Sovereign Pontiff most certainly find the new liturgy not simply distressing and difficult but impossible to accept, and it is consequently unjust.

Canon 214 of the 1983 Code of Canon Law states that the faithful have a right to worship according to the prescriptions of their own rite. Many of the faithful of the Roman Rite find it impossible to recognize what takes place in their parish churches each Sunday as their own rite. Cardinal Ratzinger has remarked: "Today we might ask: is there a Latin Rite any more? Certainly there is no awareness of it. To most people the liturgy appears to be something for the individual congregation to arrange."

The Cardinal's observation that the traditional Latin (or Roman) rite no longer exists does no more than confirm the brutally frank acceptance of this fact in 1976 by Fr. Joseph Gelineau, one of the most influential members of the commission which composed the new Mass:

The Roman Rite as we knew it no longer exists. It has been destroyed." Msgr. Gamber testifies to the destruction of the Roman Rite several times in his book: "The real destruction of the traditional Mass, of the traditional Roman rite with a history of more than one thousand years, is the wholesale destruction of the faith on which it was based, a faith that had been the source of our piety and our courage to bear witness to Christ and his Church, the inspiration of countless Catholics over many centuries.

Did this constitute just treatment of his subjects by Pope Paul VI, who was not simply their ruler but their shepherd? What would one say of a shepherd who drove his flock away from lush green pastures where sheep had fed in peace and flourished for a thousand years to the barren rocky slopes of hills where wolves lurked?

The New Mass and the Council

Msgr. Gamber also insists in his book that the abolition of the traditional Order of Mass by what constitutes a New Order, a Novus Ordo Missae, is a flagrant contravention of what the Liturgy Constitution of the Council actually ordered:

Unfortunately, and in summary, the Council's urging in Article 23 that "there must be no innovations unless the good of the Church genuinely and certainly requires them" has been widely ignored... Although the argument is used over and over again by the people responsible for creating the new Mass, they cannot claim that what they have done is what the Council actually wanted. The instructions given by the Liturgy Commission were general in nature, and they opened up many possible ways for implementing what the Commission had stipulated, but one statement we can make with certainty is that the new Ordo of the Mass that has now emerged would not have been endorsed by the majority of the Council Fathers (emphasis added).

The stipulation of Article 23 of the Liturgy Constitution reflects very closely the principle laid down by St. Thomas Aquinas for changing any law: "Don't!" His explanation could have been based on witnessing the effects of the contemporary liturgical revolution:

Human law is rightly changed, in so far as such change is conducive to the common weal. But, to a certain extent, the mere change of law is of itself prejudicial to the common good: because custom avails seeing that what is done contrary to general custom, even in slight matters, is looked upon as grave. Consequently, when a law is changed the binding power of the law is diminished, in so far as custom is abolished. Wherefore human law should never be changed, unless, in some way or other the common weal be compensated according to the extent of the harm done in this respect. Such compensation may arise either from some very great and very evident benefit conferred by the new enactment; or from the extreme urgency of the case, due to the fact that either the existing law is clearly harmful. Wherefore the jurist says that "in establishing new laws. there should be evidence of the benefit to be derived before departing from a law which has long been considered just." (Summa Theologica, I-II, Q. 97, Art. 2)

Every priest of the Roman Rite should, to quote Quo Primum, feel free to offer the traditional Mass "without any scruple of conscience or fear of incurring any penalty, judgment or censure." At least by virtue of established custom, all celebrants should be free to use the Missal of St. Pius V, and all the faithful to take part in it.

I was temporarilly side-tracked by the current discussion and I want to begin reading James Larson's book tonight, but please don't take my initial lack of response as an avoidance tactic.

George Brenner wrote:
It should be obvious that under the Novus Ordo that there have been people born, died and are now Saints.


George,

I believe that to be true also.
There are many who have lived and died through the Novus Ordo regime with their faith still in tact; among them I would include my own parents and many of my older relatives. I believe there are still many who plod the minefield of post-conciliarism without denying doctrines of the faith and hold fast to their devotions and novenas despite the temptations to cave in to the now common ridicule associated with such practices. Unfortunately the young, having come through the present educatuion system and having been subject to pastors who themselves have lost the faith are much more vulnerable to losing (or not even gaining in the first place) the faith.

There are signs of hope however in that many of the younger generation (who never knew anything of the traditional Church) are miraculously discovering it for themselves even despite the incredulity of their post-modernist parents. It seems the young are beginning to lead the old. They are seeing and experiencing the spiritual bankruptcy of the current secilarized church and know intuitively that this can't be the real deal.

columba wrote:Mike,

I must admit that yes, the post you responded to is full of my opinions. Likewise, your reply is crammed to the neck with your opinions. Don't get me wrong; I like reading your opinions but you really shouldn't object to others having theirs.

columba wrote:The humorous part of your reply (which you are oblivious to) was when you used the word "bloviating." Talk about the kettle calling the frying pan etc etc..

columba wrote:You take issue with my "opinion" that a pope may not always have the good of the Church at heart when overturning the decrees of a predecessor; then you go on to prove (from the real-life consequences) that always have the good of the Church at heart when overturning the decrees of a predecessor -at that time and in that particular instance- acted contrary to the good of the Church when issuing a decree against the Jesuits. Thus, you prove my opinion correct, that a pope may not always act in accord with right reason when either issuing or overturning a decree.
(If you are going to use examples, at least use ones which support your opinions).

An ever-recurring and almost solitary grievance against the Society was that the Fathers disturbed the peace wherever they were firmly established. The accusation is not unfounded: the Jesuits did indeed disturb the peace of the enemies of the Church, for, in the words of d’Alembert to Frederick II, they were "the grenadiers of the pope's guard".

At the death of Clement XIII the Church was in dire distress. Gallicanism and Jansenism, Febronianism and Rationalism were up in rebellion against the authority of the Roman pontiff; the rulers of France, Spain, Naples, Portugal, Parma were on the side of the sectarians who flattered their dynastic prejudices and, at least in appearance, worked for the strengthening of the temporal power against the spiritual. The new pope would have to face a coalition of moral and political forces which Clement XIII had indeed manfully resisted, but failed to put down, or even materially to check. The great question between Rome and the Bourbon princes was the suppression of the Society of Jesus. In France, Spain, and Portugal the suppression had taken place de facto; the accession of a new pope was made the occasion for insisting on the abolition of the order root and branch, de facto and de jure, in Europe and all over the world.

The one and only motive for the suppression of the Society set forth in this Brief is to restore the peace of the Church by removing one of the contending parties from the battlefield. No blame is laid by the pope on the rules of the order, or the personal conduct of its members, or the orthodoxy of their teaching. Moreover, Father Sydney Smith, S.J. (in "The Month", CII, 62, July 1903), observes: "The fact remains that the condemnation is not pronounced in the straightforward language of direct statement, but is merely insinuated with the aid of dexterous phrasing"; and he contrasts this method of stating grounds for the suppression of the Society with the vigorous and direct language used by former popes in suppressing the Humiliati and other orders. If Clement XIV hoped to stop the storm of unbelief raging against the Bark of Peter by throwing its best oarsmen overboard, he was sorely mistaken. But is unlikely that he entertained such a fallacy. He loved the Jesuits, who had been his first teachers, his trusty advisers, the best defenders of the Church over which he ruled.

No personal animosity guided his action; the Jesuits themselves, in agreement with all serious historians, attribute their suppression to Clement's weakness of character, unskilled diplomacy, and that kind of goodness of heart which is more bent on doing what is pleasing than what is right. He was not built to hold his head above the tempest; his hesitations and his struggles were of no avail against the enemies of the order, and his friends found no better excuse for him than that of St. Alphonsus: What could the poor pope do when all the Courts insisted on the suppression? The Jesuit Cordara expresses the same mind: "I think we should not condemn the pontiff who, after so many hesitations, has judged it his duty to suppress the Society of Jesus. I love my order as much as any man, yet, had I been in the pope's place I should probably have acted as he did. The Xompany, founded and maintained for the good of the Church, perished for the same good; it could not have ended more gloriously."

It should be noted that the Brief was not promulgated in the form customary for papal Constitutions intended as laws of the Church. It was not a Bull, but a Brief, i.e. a decree of less binding force and easier of revocation; it was not affixed to the gates of St. Peter's or in the Campo di Fiore; it was not even communicated in legal form to the Jesuits in Rome; the general and his assistants alone received the notification of their suppression….

columba wrote:
It was Mark who brought up the example of the Jesuits.. My original concern was that of the overturning of the decree of St. Pope Pius V. I based my opinion (that a pope is capable of acting against the good of the Church) on observable reality. (Although I have my opinions I do base them on evidence that agrees with them).
The overturning of the Bull of St. Pope Pius V has had disastrous consequences for the Church;.. opinion based on eveidence or not?

columba wrote:
Mike, I know you are ever-so theologically briliant and light years above most of us dodo's who post here; but despite this handicap there is still hope that by combining theology with actual reality, you will be able to see those things which are normally reserved only for the simple-minded.

columba wrote:
I do intend to get back to Gaudium et Spes. I was temporarilly side-tracked by the current discussion and I want to begin reading James Larson's book tonight, but please don't take my initial lack of response as an avoidance tactic.

MRyan wrote:
The Church’s understanding of “in perpetuity” is not my “opinion”, it is the truth, and, unlike your “opinion”, I can back it up.

MRyan wrote:
No, I am not “oblivious” to the fact that I can bloviate with the best of them, but I usually try to have something constructive to say (of course, you are free to disagree).

MRyan wrote:
..yet nothing you say subsequent to this demonstrates that this or that particular pope did not “have the good of the Church at heart when overturning the decrees of a predecessor”.

MRyan wrote:
Neither does it follow that Pope Clement XIV acted contrary to the good of the Church when issuing his decree against the Jesuits “in the name of peace of the Church and to avoid a secession in Europe",

From New Advent:
It should be noted that the Brief was not promulgated in the form customary for papal Constitutions intended as laws of the Church. It was not a Bull, but a Brief, i.e. a decree of less binding force and easier of revocation; it was not affixed to the gates of St. Peter's or in the Campo di Fiore; it was not even communicated in legal form to the Jesuits in Rome; the general and his assistants alone received the notification of their suppression….

MRyan wrote:
In all such matters the pope alone determines what’s good for the Church, and if history suggests that he may have acted imprudently, that does NOT mean that he harmed the Church, even if it appears that an injustice has occurred; and even if the suppression had some negative repercussions,

Our Lord allowed His Vicar to suppress the Jesuits for a reason (that a greater good might come of it), and 41 years later they came back stronger than ever, “as evidenced by the large number of Jesuit colleges and universities established in the 19th century. In the United States, 22 of the Society's 28 universities were founded or taken over by the Jesuits during this time.”

MRyan wrote:
The “observable reality” of a poorly planned implementation, an almost overnight suppression of the ancient rite, as well as egregious abuses do NOT mean that the reformed Mass “goes against [the] right reason” of the pope, or that it is in any way displeasing to God. You can criticize the implementation and the abuses all you want, but do not confuse imprudent actions with the intention [will] of the pope or his sovereign authority, or with the holiness of the Mass itself.

MRyan wrote:
It does not require “theological brilliance” (I’m far from it) to make proper distinctions and to think with the mind of the sovereign Pontiff, who will tell you what he’s thinking (for the good of the Church) if you will just listen.

Yes, you made the accusation, and you have yet to demonstrate where in Gaudium et Spes can be found an “error on a matter of faith and morals”.

I don’t take your lack of a coherent response as an “avoidance tactic”, I take it for what it is, a refusal to acknowledge that you can’t produce the so-called error on a matter of faith or morals.

Some things never change.

Monday, May 18, 2009

On Rupture Theology


The Prudential Order

Prudence is the habit of intellectual discernment regarding what should be done or left undone. The prudential order, therefore, involves practical reason or the application of reason to action. While speculative reason deals with universals and principles of a general order, practical reason, on the other hand, deals with the particular order or the application of general principles to individual cases. How do we identify magisterial acts that involve aspects belonging to the prudential order? Cardinal Journet provides a general description as follows:

Thus then, God has not left us without guidance in the immense accumulation of ideas bearing on the speculative life, on private, economic and political morality, on artistic activity, in the spheres into which the full light of revelation has not yet descended and in which nevertheless convictions are formed, syntheses elaborated and decisive choices taken which may either open or obstruct the road to the fullness of the faith. He helps us through His Church to whom He entrusts a new mission, no longer that of irrevocably defining the data of the faith, but that of prudentially marking the truths which point towards the things of faith or the errors that turn men away from it, that of ratifying or rejecting certain suggestions of the theologians and the philosophers and certain beliefs of popular piety. In this sphere the Church acts no longer in virtue of her declaratory power, as a simple messenger or mandatory for utterances of divine origin. She acts now in virtue of her canonical power, as promulgator of what can fittingly be taught and believed if the minds of the faithful are to be kept from the dangers that threaten their faith.

We can think here of various teachings that form part of the social doctrine of the Church. The social teachings will often involve prudential aspects where the weight of a given teaching may vary to the extent that it teaches principles of a general order or whether it addresses matters that relate to the particular order (i.e., the prudential application of general principles to particular circumstances). Doctrines of a general order will carry more weight and demand a higher degree of assent to the extent that it is “independent from contingent and variable elements”. In the area of liturgical discipline there are also many pastoral decisions that involve prudential judgement. We can consider here, for example, questions regarding liturgical orientation, the manner of distributing Holy Communion or the use of female altar servers. Many of these questions involve prudential judgement including the possibility of errors that lead to unintended results or harmful effects related to the spiritual life and the salvation of souls. Other examples involving the prudential order could include the practical guidelines for initiatives such as ecumenism or interreligious dialogue. The prudential judgement in such cases involves weighing the desired good effects against unintended yet possible harmful effects (e.g., scandal, indifferentism, etc.). Yet even such examples of pastoral and prudential error should not be confused with the teaching of heresy or defection from faith or morals, per se.

Therefore, some magisterial acts while resting on immutable principles or linked to infallible truths of faith yet commingled with certain “contingent” or “conjectural” elements may be subject to review and are “reformable” in light of changed circumstances or even subsequent correction on account of new research or some other prudential error. The CDF explains as follows:

Finally, in order to serve the People of God as well as possible, in particular, by warning them of dangerous opinions which could lead to error, the Magisterium can intervene in questions under discussion which involve, in addition to solid principles, certain contingent and conjectural elements. It often only becomes possible with the passage of time to distinguish between what is necessary and what is contingent...When it comes to the question of interventions in the prudential order, it could happen that some Magisterial documents might not be free from all deficiencies. Bishops and their advisors have not always taken into immediate consideration every aspect or the entire complexity of a question.

Therefore, it is important to distinguish these various aspects when considering Vatican II and its subsequent reforms. While we should never entertain the thought that the Magisterium, as such, has taught heresy, it is possible to consider deficiencies within doctrines of the third degree that involve matters related to the prudential order. The CDF instruction continues: “…some judgments of the Magisterium could be justified at the time in which they were made, because while the pronouncements contained true assertions and others which were not sure, both types were inextricably connected. Only time has permitted discernment and, after deeper study, the attainment of true doctrinal progress.”

In addition to the possibility of prudential error, one has to consider non-definitive and reformable magisterial teaching in light of a contingent order that is subject to changing circumstances. Pope Benedict XVI highlighted this aspect in his famous address to the Roman Curia on the “Hermeneutic of Reform” in continuity with Tradition:

It is precisely in this combination of continuity and discontinuity at different levels that the very nature of true reform consists. In this process of innovation in continuity we must learn to understand more practically than before that the Church's decisions on contingent matters…should necessarily be contingent themselves, precisely because they refer to a specific reality that is changeable in itself. It was necessary to learn to recognize that in these decisions it is only the principles that express the permanent aspect, since they remain as an undercurrent, motivating decisions from within. On the other hand, not so permanent are the practical forms that depend on the historical situation and are therefore subject to change…Basic decisions, therefore,continue to be well-grounded, whereas the way they are applied to new contexts can change.

Doctrines of the third degree are reformable to the extent that they relate to the contingent order or to particulars related to a given time and place framework. This necessarily involves the use of practical reason (prudential order) that is not immune to error in every instance. Therefore, there is an inverse relationship between the immutable truth of a doctrine and the degree that practical reason is employed. In other words, if a given doctrine is free from contingent and variable aspects then it does not involve practical reason or the prudential order. In such cases we can be virtually certain that the doctrine expresses immutable truth.

In light of this we may now explore the question of dissent from teachings of the Magisterium. While serious reservations or doubt may prevent one from giving assent in the internal forum, there is no so-called right to openly dissent from the Magisterium in the external forum. Neither does the rupture theologian have a legitimate appeal to “conscience” as a pretext to dissent from Church teaching because Catholics are obliged to form their conscience in conformity with the Magisterium. Opposed to the example of rupture theologians we may contrast the example of Archbishop Lefebvre at the time of the close of the Second Vatican Council. After having argued against various aspects of some hotly-debated schemas that were put to vote by the Council Fathers, it was upon the dictates of his duly formed conscience that Archbishop Lefebvre felt morally obliged to sign each of the 16 Vatican II documents.

Tradition and Doctrinal Development

Characteristics that divide “progressive” and “reactionary” rupture theologians can also be noted in their understanding and approach to sacred Tradition and the development of doctrine. The former tendency seeks “progress” by creating artificial novelties that more or less deliberately and explicitly reject the past (i.e., sacred Tradition and doctrinal development admit substantial change according to this view). In this sense, progressive rupture theologians “need to be reminded that Vatican II embraces the entire doctrinal history of the Church. Anyone who wishes to be obedient to the Council has to accept the faith professed over the centuries…”

The tendency for reactionary rupture theologians, on the other hand, is to seek a past state while rejecting a present state that has not been recognized or appreciated as an organic development of the same substantial reality. Tradition, according to this view, is understood in a limited or narrow sense that corresponds to an “inert” conception of the deposit of faith rather than a living and organic deposit.[29] Therefore, the risk inherent in this view is to confuse accidental change with substantial change.

[29] Cardinal Journet puts it as follows: “The handing on of the deposit involves its explanation. For there are two kinds of deposits, lifeless deposits, such as a gold ingot, which is kept just as it is, and living deposits, such as a plant, or a child, which are preserved by being allowed to grow. The evangelical deposit is of this kind” (Cf. Journet, What is Dogma?, Hawthorn, 1964, p. 53). Congar develops other aspects of the question as follows: “The conservative reflex is also shared at times by the most careful and best-informed men in history. Dedicated to the study of documents, they are apt to refuse to recognize the existence of definite ideas, albeit subconscious and unexpressed, beyond the explicit statement of a document. Since the advent of the historical and documentary sciences, that is, since the sixteenth century, there have been periodic protests against innovation, protests made in the name of textual authority, and against “living tradition”, in the name of the monuments of tradition. It is no coincidence that the expression “living tradition” was first used during the Jansenist debate. The Jansenists were followers of the sacred Text, men of the past and of the literal words of St. Augustine, who, according to them, condemned the practice of the time. Their conception of tradition was documentary, historical and static.” (Cf. Congar, The Meaning of Tradition, Ignatius, 2004, p. 118)

Each variety of rupture theology, therefore, carries its own risks and dangers. The progressive, for example, will seek progress by cutting down and uprooting the oak tree in order to pave the way for new designs and the man-made structures of the future. The reactionary, on the other hand, not recognizing the oak tree for what it really is, will cut it down and uproot it while searching for the acorn of the past. In either case the result is practically the same insofar as each will “sever the roots from which the tree draws its life.”

Conclusion

In order to avoid the pitfalls of the theology of rupture one must retain simultaneously the Catholic doctrine on both Papal Infallibility and Indefectibility that rests on Peter’s unfailing faith. In addition, one must strive to maintain a “hermeneutic of continuity” where magisterial documents are understood within the full context of sacred Tradition and according to the mind of the Church guided by the living magisterium. In some cases one may find apparent discontinuities that are reconciled only by giving due consideration to contingent aspect as well as those aspects that relate to the prudential order. Some of the Vatican II documents, such as Dignitatis Humanae on Religious Freedom, for example, require a careful consideration of contingent and historical aspects. These resulted, for example, in some immutable principles being especially highlighted or newly applied in light of modern history and circumstances. Other Vatican II documents have either a pastoral goal or attempt to position the Church anew in her relations with society and other religions based on considerations of the requirements of circumstances in the modern era. While resting on immutable principles that remain sound, many aspects relate to the contingent and practical prudential orders. In this respect, and certainly without taking extremely rigid or “one-sided positions”, Catholics in good standing ought to be free to discuss in charity the prudential aspects of a question and the degree to which certain reforms, pastoral initiatives and disciplinary practices remain capable of meeting their stated goals for the good of the Church and the salvation of souls. This involves staying far away from rupture theology or the “hermeneutic of discontinuity” and pursuing a “hermeneutic of reform” in various areas that are in real need of reform.

ROMAN LOGIC

MAJOR PREMISE: The teaching authority or Magisterium of the Church enjoys the "certain charism of truth" in matters of faith. All authentic acts of the Magisterium enjoy the divine assistance necessary for the indefectible transmission of the Faith. The doctrine proposed by the authentic Magisterium is binding on the faithful to the degree that it demands our assent.

MINOR PREMISE: The documents of Vatican II promulgated by the Pope are authentic acts of the Magisterium.

CONCLUSION: The teachings of the Second Vatican Council demand an appropriate level of assent by the faithful and are guaranteed to be free from doctrinal errors against the faith.

http://opuscula.blogspot.com/2012/02/tale-of-two-syllogisms.html

MRyan wrote:
Columba,

You remain very confused about the immutable concept of “cannot give harm” as it is properly understood, for you are using it in a false sense when you attempt to demonstrate its failure when applied to reformable disciplines and to the reformable contingent elements that often form a part of doctrinal explications.

In 2006, Pope Benedict XVI met with leaders of various ecclesial movements. He clearly has noticed new outpourings of the Holy Spirit and the tremendous fruit they are bearing. In the above-mentioned speeches, compiled in New Outpourings of The Spirit, he points out that the Holy Spirit is “at it again” when he says: “For me personally it was a marvelous event when at the beginning of the ’70s I first came into close contact with the movements like the Neo-Catechumens, Communione e Liberazione and the Focolarini and thus experienced the enthusiasm and verve with which they lived out their faith, what had been vouchsafed to them … Suddenly here was something nobody had planned on. The Holy Spirit had, so to say, spoken up for himself again ... In young people especially, the faith was surging up in its entirety, with no ifs and buts, with no excuses or way out, experienced as a favor and as a precious life-giving gift.” (Source: Today's Catholic)

From their own website:
The Focolare Movement is an international movement, inspired by the gospel, working for unity in all spheres of life.
For over sixty years it has drawn together people of all Christian traditions and from many of the world's religions, alongside people with no formal faith, who share the aim of building a united world.

The Neocatechumens

The Neocatechumenals typically celebrate the Mass in the form of a banquet, around a large square table, taking communion seated. Moreover, together with the homily, they give a great deal of latitude for the spontaneous comments of those present.
At least, this is what they did until a short time ago. And as, in part, they continue to do.
On December 1, 2005, Cardinal Francis Arinze, prefect of the congregation for divine worship, sent them a letter, in the name of the pope, to call them back to faithful observance of the liturgical regulations. And the following January 12, Benedict XVI in person urged them to obey. But in practice, this twofold reminder fell on deaf ears almost everywhere.