Auctorem Fidei and Traditionalism

[Jonathan Culbreath]

I was wondering if the following two canons from Pope Pius VI's Auctorem Fidei are reconcilable with the position of many traditionalists:

Likewise in this which adds that "a change in the form of ecclesiastical government, by which it was brought about that ministers of the Church became forgetful of their rights, which at the same time are their Obligations, has finally led to such a state of affairs as to cause the primitive notions of ecclesiastical ministry and pastoral solicitude to be forgotten"; as if, by a change of government consonant to the discipline established and approved in the Church, there ever could be forgotten and lost the primitive notion of ecclesiastical ministry or pastoral solicitude,--a false proposition, rash, erroneous.

 

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.

I realize of course that the same document has quite a few other canons which explicitly support traditionalist claims, but it seems that these two could pose a problem... 

Jonathan Culbreath

--

Blog: foretasteofwisdom.blogspot.com

"Because philosophy arises from awe, a philosopher is bound in his way to be a lover of myths and poetic fables. Poets and philosophers are alike in being big with wonder."  - St. Thomas Aquinas

"Among all human pursuits, the pursuit of wisdom is more perfect, more noble, more useful, and more full of joy." ~ St. Thomas Aquinas

[Alan Aversa]

it seems that these two could pose a problem... 

Could you please elaborate on why you think "these two could pose a problem"?
thanks

[Jonathan Culbreath]

Well, traditionalists could say that government in the Church has changed such that the true notion of ecclesiastical government has been forgotten... The abuse of ecclesiastical authority, and such like. They also say that the Novus Ordo is dangerous and harmful to the Church. Are these reconcilable with the above canons?

Jonathan Culbreath

--

Blog: foretasteofwisdom.blogspot.com

"Because philosophy arises from awe, a philosopher is bound in his way to be a lover of myths and poetic fables. Poets and philosophers are alike in being big with wonder."  - St. Thomas Aquinas

"Among all human pursuits, the pursuit of wisdom is more perfect, more noble, more useful, and more full of joy." ~ St. Thomas Aquinas

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Quaestiones Disputatae: The Ite ad Thomam Forum" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to quaestionesdispu...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to quaestione...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/quaestionesdisputatae.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
 
 

[Alan Aversa]

Well, traditionalists could say that government in the Church has changed such that the true notion of ecclesiastical government has been forgotten... The abuse of ecclesiastical authority, and such like. They also say that the Novus Ordo is dangerous and harmful to the Church. Are these reconcilable with the above canons?

Pascendi says Modernists think that

[e]cclesiastical government requires to be reformed in all its branches, but especially in its disciplinary and dogmatic parts. Its spirit with the public conscience, which is not wholly for democracy; a share in ecclesiastical government should therefore be given to the lower ranks of the clergy, and even to the laity, and authority should be decentralised. The Roman Congregations, and especially the index and the Holy Office, are to be reformed.

Despite this having really occurred, I don't think traditionalists would say "ecclesiastical ministry or pastoral solicitude" is completely lost, as your first quote claims.

[Ashton]

I don't ordinarily reply to these kinds of inquiries, but I do sometimes follow the discussion. This is a very good question, and I'll add some thoughts with the disclaimer that I am not an expert. I am a lay Catholic man trying to make sense of the crisis of faith we encounter daily and safely navigate through it all. I will say, though, that in an effort of formation I have read all of the works cited below (except the complete work of Franzelin), including the totality of Denzinger's Enchiridion Symbolorum. What I've found is that by reading the older books, the idea that the Church's discipline could ever be harmful is simply unthinkable. Here are some thoughts.

In my opinion, you hit the nail on the head by bringing this passage from Pius VI to everyone's attention. I would not personally consider myself a "traditionalist" if by that term is understood a mindset which opposes the conciliar and post-conciliar reforms, or even affirms that these reforms are injurious to souls. (I take that to be the formal principle of "traditionalism," but other people employ different definitions.) In a more mild sense of the term, I would categorize myself as a "traditionalist" if that term is taken to mean someone who regularly assists at Mass in the Extraordinary form, reads the old manuals, patterns one's devotions around the spiritual classics, and so on. But in this post I will use "traditionalist" according to the more narrow meaning previously mentioned: someone is a "traditionalist" if and only if he believes the magisterial reforms issuing from the Second Vatican Council or subsequent to the council are injurious to souls. This definition is broad enough to include those who believe Vatican II was not a true ecumenical council and those who accept its authenticity but still maintain that, say, the prayers of the Novus Ordo mass are objectively harmful to souls, or who blame the crisis of faith today in part or in whole on the liturgical reforms. 

Although my temperament and education I resonate with some traditionalist concerns, as someone who converted to the Catholic faith in 2007, I had to address a lot of issues, one of which you bring up here. What I have found is that for the most part, the traditionalists I encounter fail to take into consideration the traditional notion of "infallible security." According to Franzelin (and his view was adopted by others, e.g., Garrigou-Lagrange and Fenton), the magisterium is not infallible in the doctrinal sense in her pastoral actions, but her pastoral actions do have a quality of infallible security, meaning that one who follows magisterial-endorsed practices can never harm his soul by doing so. In fact, Franzelin defined the concept of infallible security in even broader terms, saying that the mere absence of pastoral action on the part of the magisterium, over a sufficiently long period of time, itself is a reliable indicator of safe devotions and practices. For example, when the Jansenists complained that the universal practice of confessors of giving light penances of simple prayers was injurious to souls, the Holy See replied that this opinion was intolerable since the magisterium could not fail in its duty to prevent harmful practices from becoming universal. It seems to me that many traditionalists--and even men who might not label themselves traditionalists--implicitly deny the infallible security of the Church when (for example) they find fault with the prayers of the Novus Ordo and ascribe declining faith and morality to these prayers. It just seems obvious to me from the older books that this position is opposed to all the manuals--the very manuals the traditionalists take pride in reading and promoting.

I'll add some further thoughts. I am just saying this to help you and not to start a debate. I am sharing the conclusions I reached after a prolonged and serious effort to save my own soul. 

I would myself distinguish between infallible security and "pastoral infallibility." Very often, at least at a popular level (scholars are more careful) dissent from Vatican II is defended on the grounds that its was merely a "pastoral council." In fact, I would point out that the Church has held that its positive pastoral actions are conducive to sanctification and that to deny this--i.e., to say that the discipline of the Church is harmful to souls--is a serious theological error. Infallible security is a weak notion in the sense that the Church, by tolerating something (i.e., absence of disciplinary intervention) for a long time means it is safe to adopt that practice here and now. It is also a weak notion in the sense that the Church's tolerating a devotional practice or set of prayers does not ensure those prayers are good for all times and places, but it does mean here and now they can safely be adopted (the Church could later forbid such prayers, say if a dangerous occasion arose from them). The basic concept is the same as in spiritual direction (which Franzelin expressly invokes): I am infallibly secure in following my spiritual director even if he tells me to do something which is not best suited for the state of my soul. The same principle applies to Holy See: I am safe in following infallibly secure practices even if those practices might later be subject to censure on the part of the Holy See. God will not allow my soul to be lost in following them. Therefore, the safest course is simply to follow Rome and practices approved by the holy pontiffs. 

As I said, I introduce a stronger notion of "pastoral infallibility." I use this term for actions which are not merely infallibly secure, but in addition are positively promulgated by Church authority and therefore cannot be harmful by their nature. For example, there are devotional practices which some Catholics have followed for a long time and which Rome has not prevented. These would be infallibly secure, meaning subjectively they will not harm the devotees. But they may still suffer from objective features which are not good for souls in current historical circumstances or whatever. But when we speak of authentic prayers of the liturgy, and promulgated rites of the Church, these (it seems to me) enjoy an even greater protection in the pastoral order: they are not only guaranteed not to cause harm, but they are positively conducive to sanctification and it is God's positive will that the faithful embrace them and pattern their entire lives around them.

That said, let me now throw out some considerations for you in assessing the cumulative case for infallible security and pastoral infallibility. These data are what convinced me that the magisterium is infallible secure and therefore I ought unreservedly--for fear of serious sin--to trust the conciliar and post-conciliar reforms of the Church and even to be willing to die for them. I'll present these in no particular order. I believe that the only fully adequate explanatory hypothesis which makes sense of these data is the doctrine that the Church is infallibly secure. 

(1) Infallible security is expressly taught by authors whom many traditionalists trust (so this is an argument from theological authority making the doctrine very probable, if not theological certain). I instance three trustworthy authors: 

(i) Franzelin (I don't have the original Latin reference but the English translation of this part can be found at Google Books in the Dubline Review, vol. 69, p. 60: http://books.google.com/books?id=UGcVAQAAIAAJ&lpg=PA260&ots=pqqmsgX5ay&dq=%22franzelin%20on%20infallibility%22&pg=PA260#v=onepage&q=%22franzelin%20on%20infallibility%22&f=false). 

(ii) Garrigou-Lagrange, "The Church cannot neglect truth; nor can it impugn truth. Neither can it tolerate the obscuring of the graver truths of faith and morals. It is equally impossible for the Church to inaugurate injurious discipline" (The Theological Virtues: On Faith, p. 211). The last sentence is the most important; notice the concern you raised in your post is directly addressed by Garrigou-Lagrange here. 

(iii) Joseph Fenton: "The entire teaching activity of the universal Church of God on earth is covered by what theologians, after Franzelin, call the guarantee of 'infallible security' as distinct from that of 'infallible truth.'" Then he adds, "The government of the universal Church by the Holy Father has a kind of practical infallibility attached to it, in the sense that it would be quite impossible for a man to lose his soul through obedience to the legislation of the universal Church militant of the New Testament." (The Catholic Church and Salvation, pp. 90-94). Note that Fenton here is saying that after Franzelin, the notion of infallible security was generally accepted by theologians. I have no idea, historically speaking, how traditionalists justified rejecting this doctrine, apparently without argument.

(2) Magisterial documents endorsing infallible security and pastoral infallibility. I mention the following, but this is not an exhaustive list:

"The prescription of the [erroneous] 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." (Denz. 1578) – This is the passage you cited. You will be pleased to know no less an authrority than Garrigou-Lagrange cites it as proof of infallible security. 

"Nothing is more opposed to the spirit of God and to the doctrine of Jesus Christ than to swear common oaths in Church, because this is to multiply occasions of perjury, to lay snares for the weak and inexperienced, and to cause the name and truth of God to serve sometimes the plan of the wicked.

Declared and condemned as false, captious, evil-sounding, offensive to pious ears, scandalous, pernicious, rash, injurious to the Church and her practice, insulting not only to the Church but also the secular powers, seditious, impious, blasphemous, suspected of heresy, and smacking of heresy itself, and, besides, favoring heretics and heresies, and also schisms, erroneous, close to heresy, many times condemned, and finally heretical, clearly renewing many heresies respectively and most especially those which are contained in the infamous propositions of Jansen, and indeed accepted in that sense in which these have been condemned." (Denz 1451) Note that the statements are condemned in part on the grounds that they are "injurious to the Church and her practice," a statement which presupposes a kind of pastoral infallibility. 

"But since discipline is the rampart of faith, the Apostolic See needed to restore discipline. It has certainly never abandoned this most serious duty even in adverse times when it could attend only to transitory needs while it awaited more the favorable times." (Pius IX, Quartus Supra, 20) As I read it, this is saying the Holy See has never failed in restoring discipline when there was a serious need to do so. Traditionalists who think the Novus Ordo is injurious to souls seem to adopt the very opposite principle: that the Church not only has failed to restore discipline, but has promulgated harmful disciplines. 

I do not have time to gather them, but the condemnations of Trent against the Protestants, if you consult them, presuppose pastoral infallibility (it seems to me) when they fault the Protestants on the grounds that Protestants held the approved rites of the Mass could be injurious to souls. 

(3) The testimony of the saints. Here are some general observations:

(i) I simply cannot bring myself to believe that someone who seriously reads the great spiritual masters—e.g., Francis de Sales, John of the Cross, Teresa of Avila, Faustina, Hildegaard of Bingen, Bonaventure, Catherine of Siena, St. Thomas Aquinas, and especially Alphonsus de Liguouri—could ever call into question the infallible security of the Church. I gently and charitably challenge anyone who doubts this claim to spend about 5 years of his life carefully and meditatively reading their works. 

(ii) St. Thomas Aquinas states that the practice of the Church has more force in settling disputed questions than the opinions of all the holy Doctors and Fathers. "I answer that, The custom of the Church has very great authority and ought to be jealously observed in all things, since the very doctrine of catholic doctors derives its authority from the Church. Hence we ought to abide by the authority of the Church rather than by that of an Augustine or a Jerome or of any doctor whatever." (ST II-II, q. 10, a.12) He appeals to the practice of the Church here to settle a question about baptism. His express statement and his methodology make no sense at all unless he believed in the infallible security of the Church.

(iii) St. Theresa of Avila said she would give her life for the smallest rite practice by the Church: "for I knew well enough that in matters of faith I would not break the least ceremony of the Church, that I would expose myself to die a thousand times rather than that any one should see me go against it or against any truth of Holy Writ." (Life) Notice she says she would rather die than see someone oppose "the least ceremony of the Church." If she were on earth today, she would die in defense of the Novus Ordo; I have no doubt about it.

(iv) All the saints say that to disobey any pastoral authority on the specious grounds that what they command is injurious is a dangerous stance to take (how much more the Holy See!). See especially Alphonsus, True Spouse of Jesus Christ, where he speaks at length about obedience. Catherine of Siena's Dialogue is also relevant. 

I apologize for not having time to track down all the sources, but this is at least enough to encourage you to continue your investigation. My experience has been that if you do your part to follow God's will, he will make things clear to you. Traditionalism pulls the rug out from under its own feet when it denies the infallible security of the Church. Anyone who has read the manuals knows that all their conclusions--on which traditionalists base themselves--presuppose infallible security. The way the manuals rely on the slightest judgment of the Holy See is not followed by tradtionalists today. One might say traditionlists are at best materially aligned with tradition, but certainly not formally aligned with it.

Sincerely,

Ashton Wilkins

Albany, NY

[Jonathan Culbreath]

That is all extremely interesting to me, if somewhat unsettling, thanks very much. I think I will indeed continue to research about this...

I wonder if Don Paco might like to weigh in here? 

Jonathan Culbreath

--

Blog: foretasteofwisdom.blogspot.com

"Because philosophy arises from awe, a philosopher is bound in his way to be a lover of myths and poetic fables. Poets and philosophers are alike in being big with wonder."  - St. Thomas Aquinas

"Among all human pursuits, the pursuit of wisdom is more perfect, more noble, more useful, and more full of joy." ~ St. Thomas Aquinas

[Jonathan Culbreath]

I found a passage from Pope Gregory XVI in Quo Graviora, in which he mentions this passage from Auctorem Fidei. But I think his interpretation is in fact quite compatible with traditionalism... He seems to just assume that there is an inherent connection between ecclesiastical disciplines and tradition. Here's the passage:

A false idea has for a long time grown stronger and spread widely through these regions. This idea is spread by an impious and absurd system of indifference toward religious matters which claims that the Christian religion can become perfect in time. While the patrons of such a false idea are afraid to adapt the shaky possibility of perfection to the truths of faith, they establish it in the external administration and discipline of the Church. Moreover, in order to bring about faith in their error, they wrongfully and deceitfully usurp the authority of Catholic theologians. These theologians propound here and there a distinction between the teaching and the discipline of the Church which underlies this change, that it will always stand firm and never be harmed by any alteration. Once this is established, they state categorically that there are many things in the discipline of the Church in the present day, in its government, and in the form of its external worship which are not suited to the character of our time. These things, they say, should be changed, as they are harmful for the growth and prosperity of the Catholic religion, before the teaching of faith ant morals suffers any harm from it. Therefore, showing a zeal for religion and showing themselves as an example of piety, they force reforms, conceive of changes, and pretend to renew the Church. 

 

5. Truly such reformers use these principles. In addition, they disclose and propose them in many pamphlets, which they distribute especially in Germany. This is now very clear from the booklet printed in Offenburg. It is especially clear from those things which the aforementioned F. L. Mersy, head of the seditious meeting held there, imprudently compiled in his republication of the same book. While these men were shamefully straying in their thoughts, they proposed to fall upon the errors condemned by the Church in proposition 78 of the constitution Auctorem fidei (published by Our predecessor, Pius VI on August 28, 1794). They also attacked the pure doctrine which they say they want to keep safe and sound; either they do not understand the situation or craftily pretend not to understand it. While they contend that the entire exterior form of the Church can be changed indiscriminately, do they not subject to change even those items of discipline which have their basis in divine law and which are linked with the doctrine of faith in a close bond? Does not the law of the believer thus produce the law of the doer? Moreover, do they not try to make the Church human by taking away from the infallible and divine authority, by which divine will it is governed? 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. 

 

6. We will now discuss those sections of discipline which are in effect for the whole Church. Because they are free from ecclesiastical instruction, they can undergo change, but only by the pope, whom Christ placed over the entire Church to judge concerning the necessity of change for various reasons of circumstance. Thus, as St. Gelasius wrote: "Balance the decrees of the canons and consider the precepts of your predecessors, so that those things which the demands of the times require to be relaxed for the rebuilding of the churches may be moderated through careful consideration." It is tedious to detain you with a long speech, venerable brothers, about the false principles which the reformers depend on. They add rashness to error with the usual verbal license of such men, since they attack this Holy See as if it were too persistent in outdated customs and did not look deeply inside the character of our time. They accuse this See of becoming blind amid the light of new knowledge, and of hardly distinguishing those things which deal with the substance of religion from those which regard only the external form. They say that it feeds superstition, fosters abuses, and finally behaves as if it never looks after the interests of the Catholic Church in changing times.

Of course, he does distinguish between the Pope and other private individuals, thus implying that only the Pope may introduce changes in ecclesiastical disciplines. And this by itself could be interpreted in a way that does not permit dangerous or harmful disciplines. However, it seems to me there's something more here... Always in his tone there seems to be a respect for tradition, for the immutability (to an extent) of even the disciplines of the Church. I don't know...

This is getting interesting.

Jonathan Culbreath

--

Blog: foretasteofwisdom.blogspot.com

"Because philosophy arises from awe, a philosopher is bound in his way to be a lover of myths and poetic fables. Poets and philosophers are alike in being big with wonder."  - St. Thomas Aquinas

"Among all human pursuits, the pursuit of wisdom is more perfect, more noble, more useful, and more full of joy." ~ St. Thomas Aquinas

[Alan Aversa]

Joseph Fenton: "The entire teaching activity of the universal Church of God on earth is covered by what theologians, after Franzelin, call the guarantee of 'infallible security' as distinct from that of 'infallible truth.'" Then he adds, "The government of the universal Church by the Holy Father has a kind of practical infallibility attached to it, in the sense that it would be quite impossible for a man to lose his soul through obedience to the legislation of the universal Church militant of the New Testament." (The Catholic Church and Salvation, pp. 90-94).

"Infallible security" appears to be nothing more than the trust that that gates of hell will never prevail over the Church. This is true, but it doesn't prove that the Church's members or even entire councils can't err.

Your argument appears to be the following:

1. The Magisterium is always "infallibly secure" (can't make a Catholic lose his soul).
2. Members of the Ecclesia Docens sometime teach error.
   
3. ∴, a Catholic cannot lose his soul even when adhering to these errors.

But when has the Church ever said that one can be saved even while adhering to error? Erring in one iota of the faith leads to a complete loss of faith, as Leo XIII wrote in Satis cognitum.

We all know Vatican II "ha evitato di pronunciare in modo straordinario dogmi dotati della nota di infallibilità [avoided pronouncing in an extraordinary way dogmas endowed with the note of infallibility]" (Pope Paul VI audience, 12 January 1966), so it is not infallible. Trusting in non-infallible doctrine is roulette, not security.

[Jonathan Culbreath]

I'm beginning to think that this particular canon from Auctorem Fidei has certain assumptions behind it which might give a better understanding of what it means. Perhaps we should interpret it in light of the following, also from Auctorem Fidei: 

The proposition of the synod by which it shows itself eager to remove the cause through which, in part, there has been induced a forgetfulness of the principles relating to the order of the liturgy, "by recalling it (the liturgy) to a greater simplicity of rites, by expressing it in the vernacular language, by uttering it in a loud voice"; as if the present order of the liturgy, received and approved by the Church, had emanated in some part from the forgetfulness of the principles by which it should be regulated,--rash, offensive to pious ears, insulting to the Church, favorable to the charges of heretics against it.

I think the basic point here is given in the words "received and approved." What the Church gives us is a tradition. And I think this is simply assumed in the other canon about ecclesiastical disciplines. In her tradition, the Church cannot establish something which is positively dangerous. Granted, this isn't explicitly mentioned in the other canon, but as far as I can tell right now, it is the only reasonable explanation.

I think this interpretation can be gathered from the words of Pope Gregory XVI, whom I quoted earlier. He connected this very same canon from Auctorem Fidei to the erroneous tendency to change the disciplines of the Church, accusing people of this tendency of going against this canon (no. 78). So again, I think it assumes the notion of tradition. 

 

Jonathan Culbreath

--

Blog: foretasteofwisdom.blogspot.com

"Because philosophy arises from awe, a philosopher is bound in his way to be a lover of myths and poetic fables. Poets and philosophers are alike in being big with wonder."  - St. Thomas Aquinas

"Among all human pursuits, the pursuit of wisdom is more perfect, more noble, more useful, and more full of joy." ~ St. Thomas Aquinas

--

[Jonathan Culbreath]

I've been thinking quite a bit about this still (and I will be for a long time now...)

How is infallible security reconcilable with cases like that of St. Peter (when Paul corrected him), who by his acts actually "endangered the faith" (in St. Thomas' words)? Or a case like that of Pope John XXII, who taught Magisterially (though not under the conditions of doctrinal infallibility, obviously) that the souls of the just did not attain the Beatific Vision until after the final judgment? These and other like cases (I've heard of a few) are instances in which the Pope did not engage his doctrinal infallibility; and yet it would seem he should have been protected by this "infallible security." So either I am missing something, or infallible security means something else than has been proposed here.

Jonathan Culbreath

--

Blog: foretasteofwisdom.blogspot.com

"Because philosophy arises from awe, a philosopher is bound in his way to be a lover of myths and poetic fables. Poets and philosophers are alike in being big with wonder."  - St. Thomas Aquinas

"Among all human pursuits, the pursuit of wisdom is more perfect, more noble, more useful, and more full of joy." ~ St. Thomas Aquinas