Skip to main content

Auctorem Fidei

Image
By

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
Labels:

Comments

  1. UnknownOctober 25, 2019 at 11:51 AM

    Pius Vl said such is "at least erroneous". Fr. Hesse (STD & JD) belives this proves Vll was not of the Church

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. TradicalOctober 25, 2019 at 8:28 PM

      First "... Fr. Hesse believed ..." is more appropriate.

      Second ... it is his opinion and there's a little problem: The council was called by a Pope, attended by Catholic Bishops and affirmed by a Pope. Nor did they issue decrees at the level of infallibility.

      Ultimately, this is above our pay grade and taking the 'easy out' of saying it wasn't a council of the Catholic Church simply creates more problems - - - such as why was V1 a council of the Catholic Church?

      P^3

      Delete
    2. UnknownJanuary 3, 2021 at 10:25 AM

      Tradical,
      your reasoning is defective; the Popes in the above statements condemn as erroneous that the discipline of the Church could be harmful to souls. Stating that the Popes only meant "the Church discipline of their time" is incorrect, since other Popes post Pius VI and Gregory have cited these documents as evidence of the "negative infallibility" of Church discipline.
      Also, per Dr. L. Ott in "Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma" pg. 296; stated that the Church "would remain the Institution of Salvation...until the end of the World". If the Church could ever teach harmful error or decree discipline that is harmful for souls, she would by that very fact, cease to be the "Institution of salvation", she claims to be.

      Delete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Comparision of the Tridentine, Cranmer and Novus Ordo Masses

By
+ 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
Post a Comment
Read more

Is it sinful to attend the Novus Ordo (New Mass) - Is it Sinful to Not Attend the Novus Ordo on Sunday?

By
+ JMJ A non-SSPX Catholic is upset over the SSPX statements on not attending the Novus Ordo Missae. Ladies and gentlemen, what the SSPX, or at least its website editor, is advocating is a mortal sin against the Third Commandment.  Unless the priest deviates from the language of the Sacramentary, the consecration, and thus the rest of Mass is to be considered valid.  No one may elect not to attend Mass simply because abuses are occurring therein.  Might I suggest that such absenteeism is its own abuse?  The Third Commandment binds under mortal sin.  Father So-And-So from the SSPX has no authority whatsoever to excuse attendance at Mass, be that Mass ever so unpalatable. Source:Restore DC Catholicism Well, this is interesting. First why does the SSPX issue this statement? Because it is sinful to put your faith in danger by attending a protestant service.  It is likewise dangerous to put your faith in danger by attending a protestantized mass (ie the Novus Ordo Missae
Post a Comment
Read more

What the heck is a congregation of "Pontifical Right"

By
+ JMJ In a discussion with a friend the question occurred to me that I didn't actually know was is involved in being a religious order of 'pontifical right'. I had a vague notion that this meant they reported to Rome as opposed to the local diocese. I'm also aware that, according to the accounts I have heard, the Archbishop received 'praise' and the written direction to incardinate priests directly into the SSPX.  This is interesting because it implies that the SSPX priests were no longer required to incardinate in the local diocese but in the SSPX. This is something that belongs to an order of 'pontifical right'. Anyway here's some definitions: Di diritto pontificio is the Italian term for “of pontifical right” . It is given to the ecclesiastical institutions (the religious and secular institutes, societies of apostolic life) either created by the Holy See or approved by it with the formal decree, known by its Latin name, Decretu
Post a Comment
Read more

Can I attend SSPX Mass? Is it sinful to go to SSPX for Mass? Does it fulfill my Sunday obligation?

By
 + JMJ   As the 'roll out' of Traditiones Custodes continues, I think more Catholics will be asking this question. Here are some answers. P^3 Attached below is the more recent of the two statements, see link for the earlier contradicting one :-) Letter by Msgr. Camille Perl Regarding Society of St. Pius X Masses Una Voce America has received a communication from the Pontifical Ecclesia Dei Commission, concerning an article which appeared in The Remnant newspaper and various websites. At the request of the Commission, we are publishing it below. Pontificia Commissio "Ecclesia Dei" January 18, 2003 Greetings in the Hearts of Jesus & Mary! There have been several inquiries about our letter of 27 September 2002. In order to clarify things, Msgr. Perl has made the following response. Oremus pro invicem. In cordibus Jesu et Mariæ, Msgr. Arthur B. Calkins Msgr. Camille Perl’s response: Unfortunately, as you will understand, we have no way of controlling what
Post a Comment
Read more

"Catholic" Charismatic Renewal - Protestantism within the bosum of the Catholic Church (Part 2)

By
+ JMJ When confronted with the fact that the CCR is not Catholic, modern Catholics attempt to deflect by stating that there are good people who have fervent BIG families who adhere to it. This is a red herring. There are fervent big protestant families as well. They are both equally wrong. It is a Catholic principle that you cannot do evil in order to achieve good. Participating in a protestant practice by Catholic people, even when approved by Catholic bishops, does not make it right or any less evil.   Many Modern Catholics have lost the ability to discern what is Catholic and what is protestant.   Case in point, when I showed a modern Catholic enamored with the CCR, a passage indicating that speaking in tongues reduced over time and is associated with diabolical possession, he reacted both vocally and physically.  He spun away from the text and rejected the fact explicitly (his exact words escape my memory). His mind was unable to accept the possib
Post a Comment
Read more