Author Topic: Approaches to the Crisis: a Logical Analysis (Part I: the New Mass) (Read 3582 times)

Ladislaus · « **on:** December 17, 2014, 09:58:39 AM »

In this thread, I want to attempt a logical analysis of all the major approaches and responses to the Church crisis. There's so much confusion and muddled thinking that a symbolic logic type of approach will help. What I hope will come out of this is that this crisis is much more complex than a lot of people would like to oversimplify it into, and hopefully it'll aid in a mutual understanding and increased charity among the different camps.

I want to start with the New Mass since it's a little more straightforward than the Magisterium. Please bear with me and not comment on this thread until I say it's OK and have finished the analysis.

Ladislaus · « **Reply #1 on:** December 17, 2014, 10:21:12 AM »

CORE PROPOSITION

A = a legitimate Pope
B = imposes a Rite of Mass on the Church
C = that Rite of Mass cannot be harmful or defective

A + B = C

this proposition represents (part of) what's referred to as the Disciplinary Infallibility of the Church

Ladislaus · « **Reply #2 on:** December 17, 2014, 10:39:07 AM »

Quote from: Pope Gregory XVI, Quo Graviora

The Church is the pillar and foundation of truth, all of which truth is taught by the Holy Spirit. Should the church be able to order, yield to, or permit those things which tend toward the destruction of souls and the disgrace and detriment of the sacrament instituted by Christ?

Quote from: Van Noort

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.

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. This amounts to a doctrinal decree.

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.’

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.

Ladislaus · « **Reply #3 on:** December 17, 2014, 11:27:44 AM »

Theological Note of the Core Proposition

I am not aware of any theologian who considers the Disciplinary Infallibility of the Church to be de fide in the strict sense. So, technically, what this means is that even if someone were to OUTRIGHT deny the core proposition, the person would not, strictly speaking, be a heretic, a non-Catholic, and outside the Church. Of course, what the theologians probably had in mind were relatively-minor things such as forbidding Holy Communion under both species. To say, however, that the Church could impose (or, according to Gregory XVI, even permit) a Rite of Mass that would be Protestant, "bastardized", offensive to God, and something which cannot in good conscience be offered by Catholic priests or assisted at by the Catholic faithful would be to state that the Church could essentially defect in her public worship and to implicitly reject the Church's indefectibility, so a case could be made for calling that proposition proximate to heresy; but, since it has never been explicitly defined, it still falls short of heresy in the strict sense. This does NOT mean that it would not constitute objectively a grave sin against the Faith to deny the proposition or that the proposition is not certain.

confederate catholic · « **Reply #4 on:** December 17, 2014, 11:38:26 AM »

Quote

A = a legitimate Pope
B = imposes a Rite of Mass on the Church
C = that Rite of Mass cannot be harmful or defective

just a thought:
the rite imposed was not on the whole church because the rite was not extended to the varying eastern rites

this might circuмvent the infallibility since discipline in this area is not universal

what do you think?

confederate catholic · « **Reply #5 on:** December 17, 2014, 11:40:17 AM »

that would allow you to say it is harmful without running afoul of the discipline

Ladislaus · « **Reply #6 on:** December 17, 2014, 11:42:44 AM »

Distinctions

Very few Traditional Catholics or conservative Novus Ordo Catholics would explicitly reject this proposition. Usually the position involves DISTINCTIONS made against the proposition. And the purpose of this thread is to analyze these distinctions. Dogmatic Sedevacantists, as well as conservative Novus Ordo Catholics, often accuse R&R Traditional Catholics of at least implicitly rejecting this proposition, and it is true that their language very often implies this. So the purpose of this thread is also to urge various parties to be careful in their choice of words. When R&R proponents use language carelessly so as to imply a rejection of this proposition, it only creates further unnecessary contention with the Sedevacantists and conservative Novus Ordo Catholics. When BOTH sides use language carelessly, it creates needless division and animosity. So, for instance, Sedevacantists might carelessly throw the word "heresy" around, whereas proponents of R&R might use language that does in fact at least implicitly reject this proposition.

NB -- I use the term "Sedevacantists" here loosely (to include, for instance, also the "Sedeprivationists" and advocates of the Siri hypothesis); the term conservative Novus Ordo Catholics broadly to include those in some form of submission to the Vatican II hierarchy but excluding the "liberal Catholics" (i.e. non-Catholics) who do not actually care about what the Church teaches on any particular subject; and the term R&R to include those who while considering the Vatican II popes legitimate occupants of the Holy See refuse to submit to them in terms of considering the Novus Ordo Mass acceptable in conscience.

Ladislaus · « **Reply #7 on:** December 17, 2014, 11:54:20 AM »

Quote from: confederate catholic

Quote
A = a legitimate Pope
B = imposes a Rite of Mass on the Church
C = that Rite of Mass cannot be harmful or defective

just a thought:
the rite imposed was not on the whole church because the rite was not extended to the varying eastern rites

this might circuмvent the infallibility since discipline in this area is not universal

what do you think?

Indeed, that is ONE of the many "distinctions" that I am going to elaborate upon.

Just be patient. There are many of these.

Ladislaus · « **Reply #8 on:** December 17, 2014, 12:00:18 PM »

Let us make the Core Proposition more Concrete now so that we can analyze the current crisis.

CONCRETE CORE PROPOSITION

A = Paul VI was a legitimate Pope
B = Paul VI imposed the Novus Ordo Rite of Mass on the Church
C = Novus Ordo Rite of Mass is not harmful or defective

A + B = C

I will copy this also into subsequent posts just for reference.

Ladislaus · « **Reply #9 on:** December 17, 2014, 02:04:20 PM »

LAY OF THE LAND

A = Paul VI was a legitimate Pope
B = Paul VI imposed the Novus Ordo Rite of Mass on the Church
C = Novus Ordo Rite of Mass is not harmful or defective

A + B = C

What distinguishes conservative Novus Ordo Catholics from Traditional Catholics in general is the rejection or acceptance of C.

Novus Ordo Catholics: accept C or else make distinctions on C so that they have no need to reject either A or B.

Traditional Catholics: reject C and therefore must reject/distinguish A and/or reject/distinguish B in order to avoid rejecting the entire Core Proposition A+B=C. That is just simple formal logic. In order to uphold the validity of A+B=C, then, if NOT C, then NOT A and/or NOT B. One can do this by directly denying A and/or B or else by distinguishing A and/or B. In formal logic, this is known as a modus tollens argument. R&R typically reject and/or distinguish B while upholding A. Sedevacantists reject/distinguish A while upholding B.

modus tollens: (A+B)->C ~C->~(A+B) [~C->~A and/or ~B]

Ladislaus · « **Reply #10 on:** December 17, 2014, 02:25:32 PM »

Novus Ordo Position #1: Accept C Without Distinction

A = Paul VI was a legitimate Pope
B = Paul VI imposed the Novus Ordo Rite of Mass on the Church
C = Novus Ordo Rite of Mass is not harmful or defective

A + B = C

According to some Novus Ordo Catholics, there's nothing at all wrong with the Novus Ordo Mass. In fact, some would even argue that it's better than or superior to the Tridentine Mass. In that case, there's no need to even look at A or B.

Ladislaus · « **Reply #11 on:** December 17, 2014, 03:16:45 PM »

Novus Ordo Position #2: Distinguish C (Positively vs. Negatively)

A = Paul VI was a legitimate Pope
B = Paul VI imposed the Novus Ordo Rite of Mass on the Church
C = Novus Ordo Rite of Mass is not harmful or defective

A + B = C

C1 = Novus Ordo Rite of Mass is not POSITIVELY harmful or defective
C2 = Novus Ordo Rite of Mass is not NEGATIVELY harmful or defective

A + B = C1 concedo (="I grant")
A + B = C2 nego (="I deny")

Some Novus Ordo Catholics will grant that a legitimate pope cannot impose a Rite of Mass on the Church that's POSITIVELY harmful or defective but that there's nothing to prevent him from imposing a Rite of Mass that's NEGATIVELY harmful. They would grant the the Novus Ordo Mass is LESS PERFECT or NOT AS GOOD AS or NOT AS PERFECT AN EXPRESSION OF THE FAITH AS the Tridentine Mass and so it's defective or harmful in a negative sense, by contrast with and relative to the Tridentine Mass. Among these you'll find those who attend the Motu Mass or the Mass offered by groups like the FSSP, etc.

Ladislaus · « **Reply #12 on:** December 17, 2014, 03:51:50 PM »

Novus Ordo Position #3: Distinguish C (Substantially vs. Accidentally)

A = Paul VI was a legitimate Pope
B = Paul VI imposed the Novus Ordo Rite of Mass on the Church
C = Novus Ordo Rite of Mass is not harmful or defective

A + B = C

C1 = Novus Ordo Rite of Mass is not SUBSTANTIALLY harmful or defective
C2 = Novus Ordo Rite of Mass is not ACCIDENTALLY harmful or defective

A + B = C1 concedo (="I grant")
A + B = C2 nego (="I deny")

Some Novus Ordo Catholics hold that the perceived defects of the Novus Ordo Mass are due not to the Mass itself but to the bad implementations of the Mass; they believe that if the Novus Ordo Mass were offered in Latin, or else in a very good vernacular translation, with proper vestments, with the priest facing the altar, with people receiving Holy Communion on the tongue at the communion rail, with incense, with bells, with altar boys (not girls), and with Gregorian Chant, it would be perfectly fine, not at all harmful to faith or in any way defective. So the perception that the Novus Ordo Mass is harmful or defective comes entirely from the accidents of how it's commonly implemented and not due to the nature of the Mass itself. I myself have seen such Masses on EWTN, and there's little from the standpoint of perception that would make it appear (on the surface) to be harmful to faith.

Viva Cristo Rey · « **Reply #13 on:** December 17, 2014, 04:21:20 PM »

Quote from: Ladislaus

In this thread, I want to attempt a logical analysis of all the major approaches and responses to the Church crisis. There's so much confusion and muddled thinking that a symbolic logic type of approach will help. What I hope will come out of this is that this crisis is much more complex than a lot of people would like to oversimplify it into, and hopefully it'll aid in a mutual understanding and increased charity among the different camps.

I want to start with the New Mass since it's a little more straightforward than the Magisterium. Please bear with me and not comment on this thread until I say it's OK and have finished the analysis.

Sorry for thumb down. I hit it somehow by accident.

Ladislaus · « **Reply #14 on:** December 17, 2014, 04:38:59 PM »

Quote from: Viva Cristo Rey

Sorry for thumb down. I hit it somehow by accident.

I'm not bothered by down-thumbs. I get lots of those on a daily basis here.