Can a pope promulgate bad liturgy?

[ProVobis]

Wouldn’t it be better to read and quote some approved and weighty theologians here…instead of coming up with your own analogy. The approved teachers are to be learned from…not ignored. When you try to “figure it out on your own” you tend to get it wrong.

SFD

Sure, should we hire those many “honored” theologians who tried to persuade Pope Paul to relax the ABC rules?

 

[SFD]

This is really stretching it, isn’t it? Or maybe the sun does revolve about the earth.

ProVobis, I’m not saying the Church is infallible in everything…I am trying to discuss the limits of the infallibility. Just because it is not “limitless” does not means it is then “severly limited”.

Here is a "spam-like"extract of the official Relatio in which Bishop Gasser explained to the Fathers of Vatican I what the definition they were about to vote upon actually meant.

1. It is certain that the infallibility promised by God
completely includes the same extent of truths whether that
infallibility resides in the whole Church teaching, when it
defines truths in council, or in the supreme Pontiff considered
in himself. This is so since the purpose of infallibility is
the same in whichever mode it is exercised.

1. In the very word of God by which infallibility, whether
   considered in the Pope “per se” or in the Church teaching, has
   been promised in order to guard the deposit of faith, **there is
   undoubtedly contained the fact that this infallibility extends
   at least to those things which in themselves constitute the
   deposit of faith, namely, which are necessary for defining the
   dogmas of the faith and, what comes to the same thing, for
   condemning heresies. Hence it clearly is believed and must be
   believed as a matter of faith by all the children of holy
   Mother Church that the Church, is infallible in proposing and
   defining dogmas of faith. Now in the same manner, the
   infallibility of the head of the Church is not able to be
   revealed and defined unless, by that very fact, it is revealed
   and defined that the Pontiff is infallible in defining dogmas
   of faith.
2. But, together with revealed truths, there are, as I
   said a little while ago, other truths more or less strictly
   connected. These truths, although they are not revealed “in
   se,” are nevertheless required in order to guard fully, explain
   properly and define efficaciously the very deposit of faith.**
   Truths of this type, therefore, to which dogmatic facts pertain
   “per se,” inasmuch as the deposit of faith is not able to be
   preserved and expounded without them, these truths, I say,
   concern the deposit of faith, not indeed of themselves, but as
   necessary for guarding that deposit of faith. All Catholic
   theologians completely agree that the Church, in her authentic
   proposal and definition of truths of this sort, is infallible,
   such that to deny this infallibility would, be a very grave
   error. A diversity of opinion turns only on the question of the degree of certitude, i.e., on whether the infallibility in
   proposing these truths - and therefore in proscribing errors
   through censures inferior to the note of heresy - should be
   considered a dogma of faith, so that to deny this infallibility
   to the Church would be heretical, or whether it is a truth not
   revealed in itself but one deduced from revealed dogma and as
   such is only theologically certain.

SFD

 

[Pax_et_Caritas]

ProVobis, I’m not saying the Church is infallible in everything…I am trying to discuss the limits of the infallibility. Just because it is not “limitless” does not means it is then “severly limited”.

Here is a "spam-like"extract the official Relatio in which Bishop Gasser explained to the Fathers of Vatican I what the definition they were about to vote upon actually meant.

SFD

Regarding the underlined part at the end of your quote, an example would be many of the errors that were condemned in the syllabus. The truth that these errors contradict are not part of the deposit of faith, but are connected to it in such a way that they can be considered infallible.

An example would be separation of Church and State. I would argue that the teaching that the State has a duty to profess the true religion is an infallible truth, even though it is not part of the deposit of faith. The contrary to this truth was solemnly condemned in the Syllabus of Pius IX, which is considered infallible by many theologians, and the Syllabus of Pius X.

 

[SFD]

Sure, should we hire those many “honored” theologians who tried to persuade Pope Paul to relax the ABC rules?

No. We should look to the orthodox pre-Vatican II theologians of great weight…not the formerly censured theolgians who were resurrected at Vatican II.

I find myself offended by the levity you display towards these holy men who were approved by the Church. It does seem rather arrogant to dismiss the teaching of the Church’s greatest theologians and the approved theology manualists in favor of your own personal observations of fact…doesn’t it?

SFD

 

[SFD]

Regarding the underlined part at the end of your quote, an example would be many of the errors that were condemned in the syllabus. The truth that these errors contradict are not part of the deposit of faith, but are connected to it in such a way that they can be considered infallible.

An example would be separation of Church and State. I would argue that the teaching that the State has a duty to profess the true religion is an infallible truth, even though it is not part of the deposit of faith. The contrary to this truth was solemnly condemned in the Syllabus of Pius IX, which is considered infallible by many theologians, and the Syllabus of Pius X.

Precisely.

 

[EasterJoy]

Wouldn’t it be better to read and quote some approved and weighty theologians here…instead of coming up with your own analogy. The approved teachers are to be learned from…not ignored. When you try to “figure it out on your own” you tend to get it wrong.

SFD

The answer to any question depends on what you think the question means.

I was asking if that analogy captured what any given person meant by “bad liturgy”, which, even if it were a term you’d find defined by any the “approved teachers” (which it is not), would not necessarily be the same meaning the OP or later posters had when posting their answers.

Are you smarter than Tanqurey, or Billot, or Franzelin? What about St. Alphonsus and St. Robert Bellarmine (Doctors of the Church, mind you)? Did they not reason out the theology for us? Are they not the theologians approved by the Church?

You and I are nobody…we should be reading and quoting them!

SFD

You have a point. Why are we wasting time on this forum? I could read the works you’re talking about at length and in context, rather than watching another cut-n-paste flame war like this go by.

 

[Brennan_Doherty]

ProVobis, I’m not saying the Church is infallible in everything…I am trying to discuss the limits of the infallibility. Just because it is not “limitless” does not means it is then “severly limited”.

Here is a "spam-like"extract of the official Relatio in which Bishop Gasser explained to the Fathers of Vatican I what the definition they were about to vote upon actually meant.

Originally Posted by Relatio, Bp. Gasser
*1. It is certain that the infallibility promised by God *
*completely includes the same extent of truths whether that *
*infallibility resides in the whole Church teaching, when it *
*defines truths in council, or in the supreme Pontiff considered *
*in himself. This is so since the purpose of infallibility is *
*the same in whichever mode it is exercised. *

*2. In the very word of God by which infallibility, whether *
*considered in the Pope “per se” or in the Church teaching, has *
*been promised in order to guard the deposit of faith, **there is ***
***undoubtedly contained the fact that this infallibility extends ***
***at least to those things which in themselves constitute the ***
***deposit of faith, namely, which are necessary for defining the ***
***dogmas of the faith and, what comes to the same thing, for ***
***condemning heresies. Hence it clearly is believed and must be ***
***believed as a matter of faith by all the children of holy ***
***Mother Church that the Church, is infallible in proposing and ***
***defining dogmas of faith. Now in the same manner, the ***
***infallibility of the head of the Church is not able to be ***
***revealed and defined unless, by that very fact, it is revealed ***
***and defined that the Pontiff is infallible in defining dogmas ***
***of faith. ***

***3. But, together with revealed truths, there are, as I ***
***said a little while ago, other truths more or less strictly ***
***connected. These truths, although they are not revealed “in ***
***se,” are nevertheless required in order to guard fully, explain ***
properly and define efficaciously the very deposit of faith.
***Truths of this type, therefore, to which dogmatic facts pertain ***
***“per se,” inasmuch as the deposit of faith is not able to be ***
***preserved and expounded without them, these truths, I say, ***
***concern the deposit of faith, not indeed of themselves, but as ***
***necessary for guarding that deposit of faith. All Catholic ***
***theologians completely agree that the Church, in her authentic ***
proposal and definition of truths of this sort, is infallible, ***
such that to deny this infallibility would, be a very grave ***
error. **A diversity of opinion turns only on the question of the degree of certitude, i.e., on whether the infallibility in **
***proposing these truths - and therefore in proscribing errors ***
***through censures inferior to the note of heresy - should be ***
considered a dogma of faith, so that to deny this infallibility ***
to the Church would be heretical, or whether it is a truth not ***
***revealed in itself but one deduced from revealed dogma and as ***
such is only theologically certain.

SFD

How would this apply to the liturgy? (Beyond the Novus Ordo being valid?)

 

[Pax_et_Caritas]

How would this apply to the liturgy? (Beyond the Novus Ordo being valid?)

That’s a good question. I’ll be interested to see what SFD has to say. It appears to me that the quote in question is referring to infallible truths, rather than infallible disciplines (practices).

It is my understanding that infallibility does extend to disciplines that are universal. But the question I would have is whether this infallibility extends to something that is not universal, such as the Novus Ordo Mass. The Novus Ordo only applies to the Western Rite. Does the infallibility of universal disciplines apply when something is sanctioned universally for the entire Church or universally for one particular Rite?

According to the definition of Papal Infallibility given at Vatican I, the Pope is only protected by the special chrism (which prevents him from erring) when he is defining a dogma for the universal Church. As such, if a particular teaching only applies to one Rite (as opposed to the Universal Church), it would not meet the guidelines for infallibility. Does the same hold true for disciplinary infallibility? If so, it would seem to me that the disciplines promulgated by Rome for one Rite would not have that protection.

One final thought that comes to mind is this: How can a discipline be infallible? To my mind, it seems that infallibility would apply to truth or error. But a discipline is either good or bad, not true or false? Maybe I just answered my own question. The difference between infallibility with respect to truths is that the teaching is guaranteed to be true, while infallibility with respect to disciplines guarantees that the practice (discipline) will be good (or at least not bad).

SFD, If you have any authoritative quotes that deal with the points I raised above, I would like to read them.

 

[KitWhite]

But when Cephas was come to Antioch, I withstood him to the face, because he was to be blamed.

 

[I_Believe]

But when Cephas was come to Antioch, I withstood him to the face, because he was to be blamed.

Is this a new trend ?

 

[Brennan_Doherty]

That’s a good question. I’ll be interested to see what SFD has to say. It appears to me that the quote in question is referring to infallible truths, rather than infallible disciplines (practices).

It is my understanding that infallibility does extend to disciplines that are universal. But the question I would have is whether this infallibility extends to something that is not universal, such as the Novus Ordo Mass. The Novus Ordo only applies to the Western Rite. Does the infallibility of universal disciplines apply when something is sanctioned universally for the entire Church or universally for one particular Rite?

According to the definition of Papal Infallibility given at Vatican I, the Pope is only protected by the special chrism (which prevents him from erring) when he is defining a dogma for the universal Church. As such, if a particular teaching only applies to one Rite (as opposed to the Universal Church), it would not meet the guidelines for infallibility. Does the same hold true for disciplinary infallibility? If so, it would seem to me that the disciplines promulgated by Rome for one Rite would not have that protection.

One final thought that comes to mind is this: How can a discipline be infallible? To my mind, it seems that infallibility would apply to truth or error. But a discipline is either good or bad, not true or false? Maybe I just answered my own question. The difference between infallibility with respect to truths is that the teaching is guaranteed to be true, while infallibility with respect to disciplines guarantees that the practice (discipline) will be good (or at least not bad).

SFD, If you have any authoritative quotes that deal with the points I raised above, I would like to read them.

Hi Pax et Caritas,

Your post, particulary what I highlighted in bold, reminds me of this quote from von Hildebrand from an essay entitled: “Belief and Obedience: The Critical Difference.” It is taken from a book called “The Charitable Anathema” published by Roman Catholic Books, pp. 28-32:

"Our belief in the teachings of the Church de fide must be an absolute and unconditional one, but we should not imagine that our fidelity to the Church’s theoretical authority is satisfied merely by acceptance of ex cathedra pronouncements. We also must adhere wholeheartedly to teachings of the Church in matters of morality, even if they are not defined ex cathedra. The teaching of the encyclical Humanae Vitae, for example, is binding because its content has always been part of the teaching of the Church; in it we are confronted with the theoretical authority of the Church embodied in the tradition of the ordinary magisterium. It is not a mere practical commandment of the Church, like the commandment to go to church on Sunday. It is a statement about a moral fact; that is, it states a truth: that birth control is sinful. It is forbidden not because of the Pope’s policy, but because the theoretical authority of the Church declares its sinfulness. Here, as in all cases of a teaching of the theoretical authority, the old maxim applies: Roma locuta: causa finita.

The situation is different when positive commandments of the Church, practical decisions, are at stake. Here we are not faced with the infallible Church. While we must obey such decisions and submit to them in reverence and deep respect, we need not consider them felicitous or prudent. Here the maxim Roma locuta: causa finita does not apply. If we are convinced that any practical change or decision is objectively unfortunate, noxious, compromising, imprudent, or unjust, we are permitted to pray that it may be revoked, to write in a respectful manner about the topic, to direct petitions for a change of it to the Holy Father–to attempt, in a variety of ways, to influence a reversal of the decision.

…The point, of course, is that obedience to the practical disciplinary decisions of the pope does not always imply approval of them. When such a decision has the character of compromise or is the result of pressure or the weakness of the individual person of the pope, we cannot and should not say: Roma locuta: causa finita. That is, we cannot see in it the will of God; we must recognize that God only permits it, just as He has permitted the unworthiness or weakness of several popes in the history of the Church.

…Nor can I conceal–and here we are returning to the point from which we started–the fact that the new Missale Romanum seems to me an incomparably greater mistake than that Concordat [with Hitler’s Germany]. I share the view of the great, venerable Cardinal Ottoviani–a true rock of orthodoxy–and of the group of Roman theologians who authored a critical study of the “new” Mass for Cardinal Ottoviani, that this liturgical innovation implies a contrast, at least by omission, with the de fide canons of the Council of Trent about the Mass. []http://www.latin-mass-society.org/study.htm](http://www.latin-mass-society.org/study.htm]).

On account of my deep love for and devotion to the Church, it is a special cross for me not to be able to welcome every practical decision of the Holy See, particularly in a time like ours, which is witnessing a crumbling of the spirit of obedience and of respect for the Holy Father."

One question would be do we say the Novus Ordo is valid (and I do) because it is guaranteed to be valid, or do we say it is valid because we look at it and it meets the qualifications for being valid?

Also, all the prayers surrounding the consecration prayer are not necessary for validity. Did any type of infallibility extend to Bugnini’s committee as they worked on the liturgy? (I would say no).

 

[ProVobis]

It does seem rather arrogant to dismiss the teaching of the Church’s greatest theologians and the approved theology manualists in favor of your own personal observations of fact…doesn’t it?

SFD

Now I’m not the Pope but isn’t this exactly what Pope Paul did when he wrote HV?

Good thing, I might add.

 

[SFD]

That’s a good question. I’ll be interested to see what SFD has to say. It appears to me that the quote in question is referring to infallible truths, rather than infallible disciplines (practices).

It is my understanding that infallibility does extend to disciplines that are universal. But the question I would have is whether this infallibility extends to something that is not universal, such as the Novus Ordo Mass. The Novus Ordo only applies to the Western Rite. Does the infallibility of universal disciplines apply when something is sanctioned universally for the entire Church or universally for one particular Rite?

According to the definition of Papal Infallibility given at Vatican I, the Pope is only protected by the special chrism (which prevents him from erring) when he is defining a dogma for the universal Church. As such, if a particular teaching only applies to one Rite (as opposed to the Universal Church), it would not meet the guidelines for infallibility. Does the same hold true for disciplinary infallibility? If so, it would seem to me that the disciplines promulgated by Rome for one Rite would not have that protection.

One final thought that comes to mind is this: How can a discipline be infallible? To my mind, it seems that infallibility would apply to truth or error. But a discipline is either good or bad, not true or false? Maybe I just answered my own question. The difference between infallibility with respect to truths is that the teaching is guaranteed to be true, while infallibility with respect to disciplines guarantees that the practice (discipline) will be good (or at least not bad).

SFD, If you have any authoritative quotes that deal with the points I raised above, I would like to read them.

One of the truths is that the Church cannot give evil disciplines. This is obvoiusly connected with the Church being a guardian of revealed truth and a teacher of that truth. I have quoted several manualists here before who confirm this. I’ve never heard of one that didn’t affirm it…because it’s theologically certain.

Canonicus J.M. HERVE, S. Th. Dr., In majore Seminario Briocensi professor

Manuale Theologiae Dogmaticae
VOL. I De ReveIatione Christiana — De Ecclesia Christi ; De Fontibus Revelationis
EDITIO DECIMA OCTAVA, PARISIIS, APUD BERCHE ET PAGIS, EDITORES 69,via dicta de Rennes, 69
(Omnia jura vindicabuntur)

p.515, 516

OBJECTUM INDIRECTUM INFALLIBILITATIS

Ecclesia suam in rebus disciplinaribus infallibilitatem nonnunquam diserte aut impticite affirmavit (Act. xv, 28; Denzinger, 626, 856, 1578.). Quinimo doctrinam, ipsa Ecclesiae praxi universali consecratam et confirmatam, semper ut veram habuerunt non solum Patres et theologi, sed Pontifices et Concilia [refs given].

translation of above:

The Church has on occasion expressly or implicitly affirmed her own infallibility in disciplinary matters. Indeed it is a doctrine consecrated and confirmed by the universal practice of the Church herself, which not only the Fathers and theologians but also the Popes and Councils have always held to be true.

Btw, if you have Roy J. Deferrari’s translation of Denzinger, look at the systematic index, section II, especially II f and you’ll find what you’re looking for.

SFD

 

[SFD]

SYNOPSIS THEOLOGIIE DOGMATICAE FUNDAMENTALIS
DE RELIGIONE REVELATA IN GENERE
DE CHRISTO DEl LEGATO
DE VERA CHRISTI ECCLESIA
DE CONSTITUTIONE ECCLESIAE CATHOLICAE
DE FONTIBUS REVELATIONIS.

**Auctore AD. TANQUEREY **
EDITIO VICESIMA QUARTA, QUAM PENITUS RECOGNOVIT ET DE NOVO REDEGIT
J. B. BORD, Dogmaticae theologiae Professor.
Typis Societatis Sancti Joannis Evangelistae, DESCLEE ET SOCII, PARISIIS — TORNACI (BELG.) — ROMAE, 1937.

p.625

**DE OBJECTO INFALLIBILITATIS IN ECCLESIA

5 DE LEGIBUS DISCIPLINARIBUS.

[Paragraph] 932. — (i) Leges disciplinares, de quibus agitur, eae sunt quae ad Dei cultum et vitam christianam dirigendam pro universali Ecciesia sunt statutae; differunt ergo a praeceptis, statutis et legibus particularibus.

1. Ecclesia est infallibilis in legibus disciplinaribus universalibus. Certum**.
   EXPLICATUR. Haec infallibilitas consistit in eo quod EccIesia, doctrinali judicio nunquam legem universalem statuet, quae fidei, moribus et saluti animarum adversetur. Ut patet, ejusmodi infallibilitas optime componitur cum mutabilitate disciplinarum legum; et distinguitur ab earumdem apportunitate: nam nullibi Ecciesiae promittitur summus prudentiae gradus ad optimas leges pro omnibus temporum vel locorum circumstantiis ferendas.

PROBATUR. (a) Ecciesia infallibilitate donata est ad Christi doctrinam tuto conservandam, ut fideles secure ad salutem dirigantur. Sed, si in rebus generalibus disciplinaribus erraret, vera Ecciesia non esset doctrinae revelatae fidelis custos, nec fideles in sanctitatis viam duceret. (b) Quapropter Pius VI, ut ”ad minus erroneam “, judicat hypothesim juxta quam “Ecciesia disciplinam constituere posset periculosam, noxiam… (D.B., 3578.)

Hinc Ecclesia pariter infallibilis est quando definitive et sollemniter approbat constitutiones alicujus Ordinis religiosi, quatenus approbare nequit instituta quae fidei et moribus sunt contraria, propter eamdem rationem ac supra; sed non est infallibilis quoad opportunitatem talis vel talis reguIae pro variis adjunctis loci et temporis. (Cf. Pesch, op. cit. n. 545)

Conclusio. Ex his omnibus merito infertur Ecclesiae infallibilitatem, ex una parte, res mere profanas non attingere; ex alia vero, sese applicare non solum iis quae revelata sunt, sed etiam iis quae ita cum revelatis connectuntur ut, si in eis falleretur, error perniciosus in rebus ad fidem spectantibus induci posset.

 

[SFD]

F.M. de Zulueta, S.J. on Disciplinary Infallibility
The Church was established by Jesus Christ not only to teach and explain unerringly the revealed Law of God, but also to make laws for the spiritual good of her subjects. Thus, Our Lord said to the Apostles in general: ‘Amen I say to you, whatsoever you shall bind on earth shall be bound also in Heaven, and whatsoever you shall loose upon earth shall be loosed also in Heaven.’ (St. Matt. xviii, 18.)

In these words Our Saviour authorizes the rulers of His Church to bind us morally by means of laws, and likewise to release us from obligations imposed by law. The whole end and purpose for which He founded the Church was to forward the spiritual interests of souls in this world, and so to guide them to Heaven hereafter. Such, then, being the duty assigned to the Church by Christ, she must also have received from Him the corresponding right and power to make such laws as she sees to be necessary for securing those interests.

As a complete and independent spiritual kingdom the Church is competent to make such laws. In other words, she is endowed by her Divine Founder with legislative as well as teaching authority. Thus, while she exercises her power to ‘teach all nations‘ when explaining the Ten Commandments of God, and claims our assent to her teaching, she makes use besides of her authority – equally received from Christ – when framing other laws of her own, and lawfully claims our whole-hearted obedience to them.

But our duty towards Church legislation does not end with mere obedience. Since the Church of Christ has the premise of infallibility for her moral guidance as well as for her doctrinal teaching, it forms part of a Catholic’s duty to recognise as good and righteous the laws which the Church makes for the conduct of all her subjects. For if they could be morally bad the Church would be capable of leading her entire flock morally astray, and so her infallibility in morals would cease.

Letters on Christian Doctrine (First Series), The Ten Commandments of God and the Precepts of the Church by F. M. De Zulueta, S.J. Revised in Accordance with the New Codex of Canon Law by H. Davis, S.J. (St. Beuno’s College) Vol. 1, Ninth Edition, London, Burns Oates & Washbourne Ltd., 1922, pp. 323, 324.

 

[SFD]

EasterJoy:

You have a point. Why are we wasting time on this forum? I could read the works you’re talking about at length and in context, rather than watching another cut-n-paste flame war like this go by.

And that’s what I’d prefer to see. It would eliminated a lot of the convoluted and ill informed discussion on this forum. I know that I’m nobody and need to learn from Holy Mother Church’s approved teachers (pre-Vatican II, to be safe). It time that some others here learned this as well.

SFD

 

[SFD]

Pax et Caritas:

One final thought that comes to mind is this: How can a discipline be infallible? To my mind, it seems that infallibility would apply to truth or error. But a discipline is either good or bad, not true or false? Maybe I just answered my own question. The difference between infallibility with respect to truths is that the teaching is guaranteed to be true, while infallibility with respect to disciplines guarantees that the practice (discipline) will be good (or at least not bad).

Yes, but this should further clarify it for you, form Dogmatic Theology, Volume II, Christ’s Church, by Monsignor G. Van Noort, S.T.D.:

Assertion 3: The Church’s infallibility extends to the general discipline of the Church. This proposition is theologically certain. By the term “general discipline of the Church” are meant those ecclesiastical laws passed for the universal Church for the direction of Christian worship and Christian living. Note the italicized words: ecclesiastical laws, passed for the universal Church. The imposing of commands belongs not directly to the teaching office but to the ruling office; **disciplinary laws are only indirectly an object of infallibility, i.e., only by reason of the doctrinal decision implicit in them. When the Church’s rulers sanction a law, they implicitly make a twofold judgment:

1. “This law squares with the Church’s doctrine of faith and morals”; that is, it imposes nothing that is at odds with sound belief and good morals. (15) This amounts to a doctrinal decree.
2. “This law, considering all the circumstances, is most opportune.” This is a decree of practical judgment.**

Although it would he rash to cast aspersions on the timeliness of a law, especially at the very moment when the Church imposes or expressly reaffirms it, still the Church does not claim to he infallible in issuing a decree of practical judgment. For the Church’s rulers were never promised the highest degree of prudence for the conduct of affairs. But the Church is infallible in issuing a doctrinal decree as intimated above — and to such an extent that it can never sanction a universal law which would be at odds with faith or morality or would be by its very nature conducive to the injury of souls. The Church’s infallibility in disciplinary matters, when understood in this way, harmonizes beautifully with the mutability of even universal laws. For a law, even though it be thoroughly consonant with revealed truth, can, given a change in circumstances, become less timely or even useless, so that prudence may dictate its abrogation or modification.

Proof:

1. From the purpose of infallibility. The Church was endowed with infallibility that it might safeguard the whole of Christ’s doctrine and be for all men a trustworthy teacher of the Christian way of life. But if the Church could make a mistake in the manner alleged when it legislated for the general discipline, it would no longer be either a loyal guardian of revealed doctrine or a trustworthy teacher of the Christian way of life. It would not be a guardian of revealed doctrine, for the imposition of a vicious law would be, for all practical purposes, tantamount to an erroneous definition of doctrine; everyone would naturally conclude that what the Church had commanded squared with sound doctrine. It would not be a teacher of the Christian way of life, for by its laws it would induce corruption into the practice of religious life.
2. From the official statement of the Church, which stigmatized as “at least erroneous” the hypothesis “that the Church could establish discipline which would be dangerous, harmful, and conducive to superstition and materialism. (16)

Corollary:

The well-known axiom, Lex orandi est lex credendi (The law of prayer is the law of belief), is a special application of the doctrine of the Church’s infallibility in disciplinary matters. This axiom says in effect that formulae of prayer approved for public use in the universal Church cannot contain errors against faith or morals. But it would be quite wrong to conclude from this that all the historical facts which are recorded here and there in the lessons of the Roman Breviary, or all the explanations of scriptural passages which are used in the homilies of the Breviary must be taken as infallibly true.(17) As far as the former are concerned, those particular facts are not an object of infallibility since they have no necessary connection with revelation. As for the latter, the Church orders their recitation not because they are certainly true, but because they are edifying.

 

[KitWhite]

For the truth about what really happened to the Catholic Church, go to www.VaticanCatholic.com