Obedience to Vatican II

[gorman64]

One would need to be blind not to see that disciplines change.

But that is not what is at issue here. What is your source that teaches that the Church’s disciplines can contain errors in faith and morals. Note that I am not saying “contain heresy”…but “contain errors” in faith and morals.

From Christ’s Church, 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.

1. “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.

1. 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.

 

[bear06]

One would need to be blind not to see that disciplines change.

I could be wrong but I think he’s referring to the negative infallibility attached to disciplines.

 

[cothrige]

I could be wrong but I think he’s referring to the negative infallibility attached to disciplines.

I have to say that I don’t think I have any understanding of the difference supposed to exist between positive and negative infallibility. Just what is “positive infallibility?” I always thought that infallibility referred to the prevention of teaching error, which by definition seems a negative principle. Wouldn’t a positive version be along the lines of how the Muslims view the Koran?

Patrick

 

[bear06]

I have to say that I don’t think I have any understanding of the difference supposed to exist between positive and negative infallibility. Just what is “positive infallibility?” I always thought that infallibility referred to the prevention of teaching error, which by definition seems a negative principle. Wouldn’t a positive version be along the lines of how the Muslims view the Koran?

Patrick

This is an over simplification but I believe a fairly good one. Positive means it’s right for all times and negative means it’s right for the time it was in. The situation could change and it would no longer be as beneficial so a change in the discipline occurs. There is a positive infallibility attached to doctrines and a negative attached to disciplines.

 

[cothrige]

This is an over simplification but I believe a fairly good one. Positive means it’s right for all times and negative means it’s right for the time it was in. The situation could change and it would no longer be as beneficial so a change in the discipline occurs. There is a positive infallibility attached to doctrines and a negative attached to disciplines.

But, it still is a restriction from error rather than a positive influence to say certain truths, i.e. holy dictation, right? I just guess I am being confused by the use of ‘positive’ and ‘negative’ in this context. It certainly has the impression of positive being positive influence, i.e. controlling just what the man says to make it exactly what is right, vs. negative being a prevention from saying what is wrong. As I have always understood things the latter is the only way we have ever used the word, and so I just want to make sure I am not reading into this.

Additionally, haven’t there been many dogmas which, though defined, were later thought less than right for all times? What I mean is, for instance, ‘extra ecclesiam nulla salus’ which seemed to have an element of infallibility and certainly doesn’t seem like a discipline. And yet we ‘reinterpreted’ it for a newer generation which would give a definite impression that it was not a ‘positive’ infallibility. Am I missing something in how this is being seen, or how the whole idea is being seen? (Actually, I know I am, but wonder what it is. )

Patrick

 

[bear06]

But, it still is a restriction from error rather than a positive influence to say certain truths, i.e. holy dictation, right? I just guess I am being confused by the use of ‘positive’ and ‘negative’ in this context. It certainly has the impression of positive being positive influence, i.e. controlling just what the man says to make it exactly what is right, vs. negative being a prevention from saying what is wrong. As I have always understood things the latter is the only way we have ever used the word, and so I just want to make sure I am not reading into this.

Additionally, haven’t there been many dogmas which, though defined, were later thought less than right for all times? What I mean is, for instance, ‘extra ecclesiam nulla salus’ which seemed to have an element of infallibility and certainly doesn’t seem like a discipline. And yet we ‘reinterpreted’ it for a newer generation which would give a definite impression that it was not a ‘positive’ infallibility. Am I missing something in how this is being seen, or how the whole idea is being seen? (Actually, I know I am, but wonder what it is. )

Patrick

Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus is right for all times and does fall under positive infallibility and here’s an article on EENS:
catholicculture.org/docs/doc_view.cfm?recnum=963

The main crux of the ongoing debate is not whether or not there is no salvation outside the Church. The debate circulates about what “outside the Church” means and the debate certainly isn’t being held within the Magisterium.

I also highly suggest reading this article. It explains it much better than I can.

newadvent.org/cathen/05030a.htm

The parts on the mutability and disciplinary infallibility would probably be of most help. I’d cut and paste but there’s too much.

 

[arieh0310]

This is an over simplification but I believe a fairly good one. Positive means it’s right for all times and negative means it’s right for the time it was in. The situation could change and it would no longer be as beneficial so a change in the discipline occurs. There is a positive infallibility attached to doctrines and a negative attached to disciplines.

No, negative infallibility is much more limited. What you describe is similar to what Mormons call “practical infallibility”, it is right in the past but not now (like the absolute, permanent restriction of blacks in the Mormon priesthood…until the 1970s). Negative infallibility simply means that discipline cannot directly contradict the Church’s own doctrine. So, the Church could mandate that all communicants must do 3 jumping jacks prior to receiving our Lord (to signify the Trinity). While this isn’t in direct contradiction to doctrine it would be supremely stupid and subject to reform.

 

[bear06]

No, negative infallibility is much more limited. What you describe is similar to what Mormons call “practical infallibility”, it is right in the past but not now (like the absolute, permanent restriction of blacks in the Mormon priesthood…until the 1970s). Negative infallibility simply means that discipline cannot directly contradict the Church’s own doctrine. So, the Church could mandate that all communicants must do 3 jumping jacks prior to receiving our Lord (to signify the Trinity). While this isn’t in direct contradiction to doctrine it would be supremely stupid and subject to reform.

Ahhh the jumping jacks. Can we deal with something a little more realistic? I don’t believe that’s all there is to negative infallibility. The Church cannot promote a discipline that’s harmful to the Faith.

Again, from the CE
newadvent.org/cathen/05030a.htm

The authors of these treatises decide unanimously in favour of a **negative and indirect **rather than a positive and direct infallibility, inasmuch as in her general discipline, i. e. the common laws imposed on all the faithful, the Church can prescribe nothing that would be contrary to the natural or the Divine law, nor prohibit anything that the natural or the Divine law would exact.

It does not seem, therefore, that the Church needs any special privilege of infallibility to prevent her from enacting laws contradictory of her doctrine. To claim that disciplinary infallibility consists in regulating, without possibility of error, the adaptation of a general law to its end, is equivalent to the assertion of a (quite unnecessary) positive infallibility, **which the incessant abrogation of laws would belie and which would be to the Church a burden and a hindrance rather than an advantage, since it would suppose each law to be the best. **Moreover, it would make the application of laws to their end the object of a positive judgment of the Church; **this would not only be useless but would become a perpetual obstacle to disciplinary reform. **
From the disciplinary infallibility of the Church, correctly understood as an indirect consequence of her doctrinal infallibility, it follows that she cannot be rightly accused of introducing into her discipline anything opposed to the Divine law;

 

[Grace_Angel]

Would you mind elaborating?

I agree with you bear I would like some clarification too.
What error is being taught by Vat II documents and Fathers.
I am interested in the response.
It sounds to me like mischief.
GraceAngel.

 

[Semper_Fi_1]

We must follow the living magisterium however…except we can’t follow them because they are teaching error and approving false disciplines…so we must look for an explanation.

V2, for the most part, is an essay in ambiguity. In this regard it is brilliant…inspired by one who is so very intelligent…and who has way too much time on his hands.

I thought that the traditional traditionalist line was that Vatican II taught nothing, therefore it didn’t need to be followed? Yet here you proclaim that it’s teaching error? How is that possible? Vatican II, a “pastoral council”, while not proclaiming anything a dogma is still a council, and needs the full assent of the Catholic Faithful. Its decrees are still being implemented by the Church, which is the case historically as well. Sometimes it took as much as 300 years before a council was fully implemented by the Body.

 

[Loy]

Ahhh the jumping jacks. Can we deal with something a little more realistic? I don’t believe that’s all there is to negative infallibility. The Church cannot promote a discipline that’s harmful to the Faith.

For a more realistic example, how about Sunday worship? It was not error for the Church to require the faithful to worship on Sunday instead of Saturday. It was not error for Church to allow the Sunday obligation to be fulfilled at certain hours on Saturday. It was not error for the Church to permit pastors to grant dispensations to certain people who cannot attend Mass or liturgy on Sunday. I would imagine that the Church could change the general holy day of obligation back to Saturday, or any other day of the week.

I think I understand what is meant by the term “negative infallibility” better now. We know from the Church’s discipline that Christian doctrine does not require the faithful to worship on Saturday. Perhaps in the future the Church might implement discipline that requires the faithful to worship on Saturday, but the Church cannot declare some dogma that defines worship on Saturday as the only valid fulfillment of the commandment, “You shall keep the sabbath”.

It still prefer to use the term “without error” with regard to discipline. Even though “negative infallibility” and “disciplinary infallibility” may technically be correct, they can cause confusion because Catholic thinking has so strongly associated the term “infallible” with “irreformable”.

 

[Loy]

Discipline is reformable. The incidental doctrine that is revealed through discipline is not reformable. But I humbly extend this personal observation: doctrine that is revealed negatively is not as clearly understood as positive declarations.

 

[bear06]

I thought that the traditional traditionalist line was that Vatican II taught nothing, therefore it didn’t need to be followed? Yet here you proclaim that it’s teaching error? How is that possible? Vatican II, a “pastoral council”, while not proclaiming anything a dogma is still a council, and needs the full assent of the Catholic Faithful. Its decrees are still being implemented by the Church, which is the case historically as well. Sometimes it took as much as 300 years before a council was fully implemented by the Body.

This rather cracks me up too.

 

[bear06]

For a more realistic example, how about Sunday worship? It was not error for the Church to require the faithful to worship on Sunday instead of Saturday. It was not error for Church to allow the Sunday obligation to be fulfilled at certain hours on Saturday. It was not error for the Church to permit pastors to grant dispensations to certain people who cannot attend Mass or liturgy on Sunday. I would imagine that the Church could change the general holy day of obligation back to Saturday, or any other day of the week.

I think I understand what is meant by the term “negative infallibility” better now. We know from the Church’s discipline that Christian doctrine does not require the faithful to worship on Saturday. Perhaps in the future the Church might implement discipline that requires the faithful to worship on Saturday, but the Church cannot declare some dogma that defines worship on Saturday as the only valid fulfillment of the commandment, “You shall keep the sabbath”.

It still prefer to use the term “without error” with regard to discipline. Even though “negative infallibility” and “disciplinary infallibility” may technically be correct, they can cause confusion because Catholic thinking has so strongly associated the term “infallible” with “irreformable”.

I somehow thought the CE would explain it better than I could.

 

[AlexV]

Christ’s Resurrection was on Sunday, and that’s why Christians worship on Sunday.

No, a pope can’t suddenly say Monday is a better idea, or Friday, or Wednesday.

Again, popes aren’t free to change whatever they please on their whim. They are the guardians of a tradition - not the reinventors of the wheel. It’s positively frightening to see how weak catechesis is in some people: a poster above actually thinks a pope could decree Thursday is the new day of precept.

 

[arieh0310]

Christ’s Resurrection was on Sunday, and that’s why Christians worship on Sunday.

No, a pope can’t suddenly say Monday is a better idea, or Friday, or Wednesday.

Again, popes aren’t free to change whatever they please on their whim. They are the guardians of a tradition - not the reinventors of the wheel. It’s positively frightening to see how weak catechesis is in some people: a poster above actually thinks a pope could decree Thursday is the new day of precept.

That is very true. The Catholic Church claims less authority than any Protestant church. The Protestant churches claim the authority to edit God’s mail, the Catholic Church only claims to be the mail carrier.

 

[bear06]

Christ’s Resurrection was on Sunday, and that’s why Christians worship on Sunday.

No, a pope can’t suddenly say Monday is a better idea, or Friday, or Wednesday.

Again, popes aren’t free to change whatever they please on their whim. They are the guardians of a tradition - not the reinventors of the wheel. It’s positively frightening to see how weak catechesis is in some people: a poster above actually thinks a pope could decree Thursday is the new day of precept.

Alex, your comments are actually proving the argument. We can safely know that the addition of the Saturday night vigil is OK because he could have never made the change if it weren’t!

 

[AlexV]

More ignorance of liturgical history is running amok here.

Saturday night IS Sunday. The Church has ALWAYS acknowledged that…hence the existence of special Vesper texts for First Vespers of Sundays. Lengthy vigils were celebrated with Vespers, Matins, Lauds, and then Mass to celebrate Saturday-into-Sunday. Relics of this abound in the Tridentine liturgy.

Saturday night is Sunday.

The Church didn’t change anything in 1967. They just extended already existing permissions for evening Mass…since at one point, centuries ago, evening Mass fell into disuse.

Could a pope suddenly decree Thursday is the new day of precept?

Nope.

And that’s crucial to acknowledge. A pope can’t change the Sunday precept, which commemorates the Resurrection.

 

[bear06]

More ignorance of liturgical history is running amok here.

Saturday night IS Sunday. The Church has ALWAYS acknowledged that…hence the existence of special Vesper texts for First Vespers of Sundays. Lengthy vigils were celebrated with Vespers, Matins, Lauds, and then Mass to celebrate Saturday-into-Sunday. Relics of this abound in the Tridentine liturgy.

Saturday night is Sunday.

The Church didn’t change anything in 1967. They just extended already existing permissions for evening Mass…since at one point, centuries ago, evening Mass fell into disuse.

Could a pope suddenly decree Thursday is the new day of precept?

Nope.

And that’s crucial to acknowledge. A pope can’t change the Sunday precept, which commemorates the Resurrection.

I’m agreeing here with you, Alex. You’re just not understanding why. The question is really, why can’t he change it?

 

[Loy]

Christ’s Resurrection was on Sunday, and that’s why Christians worship on Sunday.

That is a good reason, but it is not dogma that Catholics must worship on Sunday. We could worship on Saturday because that is what is prescribed in the 10 commandments. We could worship on Friday because every Mass is a re-presentation of the original sacrifice on Calvary. We could worship on Thursday because Christ instituted Eucharistic worship on Thursday.

What if computers conclusively determined that the day we now call Sunday was actually a Wednesday back in Jesus’ time?

No, a pope can’t suddenly say Monday is a better idea, or Friday, or Wednesday.

Again, popes aren’t free to change whatever they please on their whim.

With all due respect, you confuse prudence with authority. It wouldn’t be prudent for a pope to suddenly change things without reason, but Christ has given our pastors much leeway to prudently govern His Church.

They are the guardians of a tradition - not the reinventors of the wheel.

If that were true, then the Catholic Church would be in error about the date of Easter, and the Orthodox Church would be correct. The Orthodox have preserved tradition concerning the date of Easter and many other disciplinary matters.

Human experience has taught that it is more prudent for our pastors to change traditions (with a small “t”) very slowly, but human experience is not doctrine.

It’s positively frightening to see how weak catechesis is in some people: a poster above actually thinks a pope could decree Thursday is the new day of precept.

Then please, provide me with citation to the magisterial documents which explain that the Church has no authority to change the weekly day of worship.