Can a Pope promulgate an invalid sacrament?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Mickey_Jackson
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
M

Mickey_Jackson

Guest
This post actually contains three questions, both of which are related to the words supposedly said by Our Lord to the French mystic Marie-Julie Jahenny (emphases mine):

I give you a warning. The disciples who are not of My Gospel are now working hard to remake according to their ideas, and under the influence of the enemy of souls, a Mass that contains words which are odious in My Sight. When the fatal hour arrives where the faith of my priest is put to the test, it will be these texts that will be celebrated, in this second period. The first period is the one of My Priesthood, existing since Me. The second is the one of the persecution, when the enemies of the Faith and of Holy Religion will impose their formulas in the book of the second celebration. Many of My holy priests will refuse this book, sealed with the words of the abyss. Unfortunately, amongst them are those who will accept it."

Many Traditionalists seem to think that this revelation refers to the Novus Ordo Mass. With that in mind, here are my questions:
  1. What is the authority of Marie-Julie Jahenny? Are these apparitions approved by the Church?
  2. If these words do not refer to the New Mass (after all, given that all of the essential prayers in the Mass are grounded to some extent in ancient and certainly valid rites, it seems unlikely that Our Lord would consider them “odious”), what else could they refer to?
  3. Most importantly, is it even possible for a validly elected Pope to promulgate an invalid Mass? It seems that the Mass would be a matter of faith and morals – after all, it takes quite a bit of faith to believe that that little piece of bread becomes God. If this is true, then wouldn’t the New Mass be protected by papal infallibility? Am I missing something theologically here? Have any of the great Theologians and Doctors of the Church written on the infallibility of the Pope as concerns the form of the sacraments?
These are questions that have caused me much concern in recent days. Any insights would be most welcome.
 
No. The infallibility of the Church in issuing Her disciplines would prevent such a thing from occurring.

Now look at the discipline that John Paul II approved…a “mass” with no consecration:
Anaphora of Addai and Mari:
O Lord, may thy holy Spirit come and rest upon this the offering of thy servants, and bless and sanctify it: in order that it be for us, O Lord, unto the propitiation of trespasses and the remission of sins and unto the great hope of resurrection from the dead and unto a new life in the kingdom of heaven with all who are pleasing in Thy sight.
Click to expand...
SFD
 
SFD said:
No. The infallibility of the Church in issuing Her disciplines would prevent such a thing from occurring.

Now look at the discipline that John Paul II approved…a “mass” with no consecration:

SFD
Click to expand...
I’m confused; your statements seem contradictory. Are you saying that the Pope can approve an invalid sacrament, or that he can’t?
 
SFD said:
No. The infallibility of the Church in issuing Her disciplines would prevent such a thing from occurring.

Now look at the discipline that John Paul II approved…a “mass” with no consecration:

SFD
Click to expand...
Having thrown that incindiary out there might you be willing to explore the reasons for that at all?

It is more accurate to say it is a consecration without the words of institution.

Mickey Jackson: That is no an approved apparition and as such may not be discussed here, per the CAF rules.
 
Mickey_Jackson said:
This post actually contains three questions, both of which are related to the words supposedly said by Our Lord to the French mystic Marie-Julie Jahenny (emphases mine):

I give you a warning. The disciples who are not of My Gospel are now working hard to remake according to their ideas, and under the influence of the enemy of souls, a Mass that contains words which are odious in My Sight. When the fatal hour arrives where the faith of my priest is put to the test, it will be these texts that will be celebrated, in this second period. The first period is the one of My Priesthood, existing since Me. The second is the one of the persecution, when the enemies of the Faith and of Holy Religion will impose their formulas in the book of the second celebration. Many of My holy priests will refuse this book, sealed with the words of the abyss. Unfortunately, amongst them are those who will accept it."

Many Traditionalists seem to think that this revelation refers to the Novus Ordo Mass. With that in mind, here are my questions:
  1. What is the authority of Marie-Julie Jahenny? Are these apparitions approved by the Church?
  2. If these words do not refer to the New Mass (after all, given that all of the essential prayers in the Mass are grounded to some extent in ancient and certainly valid rites, it seems unlikely that Our Lord would consider them “odious”), what else could they refer to?
  3. Most importantly, is it even possible for a validly elected Pope to promulgate an invalid Mass? It seems that the Mass would be a matter of faith and morals – after all, it takes quite a bit of faith to believe that that little piece of bread becomes God. If this is true, then wouldn’t the New Mass be protected by papal infallibility? Am I missing something theologically here? Have any of the great Theologians and Doctors of the Church written on the infallibility of the Pope as concerns the form of the sacraments?
These are questions that have caused me much concern in recent days. Any insights would be most welcome.
Click to expand...
The revelations/messages of Marie-Julie Jahenny are NOT approved by the Church and as such as another poster has pointed out cannot be discussed in these forums.
 
ASimpleSinner said:
Having thrown that incindiary out there might you be willing to explore the reasons for that at all?

It is more accurate to say it is a consecration without the words of institution.
Click to expand...
Yes, of course. Explain it to us then.

SFD
 
SFD said:
Yes, of course. Explain it to us then.

SFD
Click to expand...
However, that anaphora was also approved by Popes before the Assyrian and Nestorian schisms. That is the very reason it was approved again.
 
Mickey_Jackson said:
I’m confused; your statements seem contradictory. Are you saying that the Pope can approve an invalid sacrament, or that he can’t?
Click to expand...
I really think it needs to be explained here that SFD is a sedevacantist. This is why he can agree with the fact that the pope cannot promulgate error but since he sees the Novus Ordo Mass as an error then the pope can’t be the pope. A little clearer now? Really SFD, you’ve got to explain this one because it can lead to a really confusing conversation when you don’t!👍
 
bear06 said:
I really think it needs to be explained here that SFD is a sedevacantist. This is why he can agree with the fact that the pope cannot promulgate error but since he sees the Novus Ordo Mass as an error then the pope can’t be the pope. A little clearer now? Really SFD, you’ve got to explain this one because it can lead to a really confusing conversation when you don’t!👍
Click to expand...
Now things make sense!

As regards the case of Marie-Julie Jahenny, is she really not approved? There are some credible websites (faithful to the Magesterium) that seem to suggest that the apparitions were approved. Where can I find a definitive statement from Church authorities that says whether or not this is true?
 
About a year ago or so, I recall seeing a list of apparitions on the internet with comments on their status. I suspect a little searching would turn it up. Whether it would cover the supposed private revelations of the seers is something I don’t recall.
 
Genesis315 said:
However, that anaphora was also approved by Popes before the Assyrian and Nestorian schisms. That is the very reason it was approved again.
Click to expand...
Are you sure that it was approved by previous Popes?
Mass Without the Consecration? americamagazine.org/content/article.cfm?article_id=2959
"That is the approach taken in this exciting and fully authentic new Vatican decree. Surprisingly, it has been a sleeper, attracting little notice despite its epoch-making boldness. I consider it the most important magisterial teaching since Vatican II."
 
Genesis315 said:
However, that anaphora was also approved by Popes before the Assyrian and Nestorian schisms. That is the very reason it was approved again.
Click to expand...
Sources please.

The Dictionnaire d’Archéologie Chrétienne et de Liturgie says that the Nestorian tradition attributes to the Patriarch Jesuyab III, near the beginning of the seventh century, the final determination of the liturgy which is known to us as the Anaphora of Addai and Mari. [1] It is true to say that Christianity — Catholicism — was implanted in Mesopotamia, now Iraq, at a very early date. If this anaphora, however, dates from the seventh century, it is about two hundred years after this region passed into the heresy of Nestorianism. In addition, it is simply false to say that the validity was not officially contested. When some of the Nestorians wished to return to Rome, they were permitted to retain this anaphora, but were required to insert the words of consecration. The same was done in the case of those returning from the Syro-Malabar sect in India, who had been evangelized by the NestorianChurch, and who used this consecration-free “Mass.”

[1] Volume 1, col. 520.
 
bear06 said:
I really think it needs to be explained here that SFD is a sedevacantist. This is why he can agree with the fact that the pope cannot promulgate error but since he sees the Novus Ordo Mass as an error then the pope can’t be the pope. A little clearer now? Really SFD, you’ve got to explain this one because it can lead to a really confusing conversation when you don’t!👍
Click to expand...
bear06,

The infallibility of the disciplines of the Church is Catholic doctrine. It is theologically certain.

John Paul II approved a “Mass” with no words of consecration. Which means it is not a true sacrifice. That appears to be a historical fact.

John Paul II was a true pope. This appears to be a fact also.

Explain how the Pope can approve a mass with no words of consecration. Or explain how a consecration actually occurs. Or argue that it is not a universal discipline. Or something else…

But don’t argue that since John Paul II was pope it must be okay…or that a sedevacantist’s argument is implicitly false…that’s not really all that helpful. If you’re really trying to get at the truth, that is. 🙂 It’s not like this is the only issue out there.

SFD
 
SFD said:
bear06,

The infallibility of the disciplines of the Church is Catholic doctrine. It is theologically certain.

John Paul II approved a “Mass” with no words of consecration. Which means it is not a true sacrifice. That appears to be a historical fact.

John Paul II was a true pope. This appears to be a fact also.

Explain how the Pope can approve a mass with no words of consecration. Or explain how a consecration actually occurs. Or argue that it is not a universal discipline. Or something else…

But don’t argue that since John Paul II was pope it must be okay…or that a sedevacantist’s argument is implicitly false…that’s not really all that helpful. If you’re really trying to get at the truth, that is. 🙂 It’s not like this is the only issue out there.

SFD
Click to expand...
Why do I need to give the explanation when it was already given by him (I thought I also remember Pope Benendict addressing this one too but I could be wrong)?

BTW, this can’t be your whole basis for sedevacantism since you also have issues with Pope Paul VI. What was the argument there?
 
Back to the original post, here are some teachings on the subject.
The prescription of the synod [of Pistoia] … 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 superstituion 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.
Click to expand...
(Pius VI, Auctorem fidei, 78, cited in Denzinger, The Sources of Catholic Dogma, translated by Roy F. Deferari from the 13th ed. Of Henry Denzinger’s Enchiridion Symbolorum, 1954, Loreto Publications, 2nd printing, 2004, pg. 393)]
Click to expand...
“…[they] state categorically that there are many things in the discipline of the Church … [which] are harmful for the growth and prosperity of the Catholic religion… 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). … 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 (Encyclical Quo Graviora, October 4, 1833).
Click to expand...
“If anyone says that the ceremonies, vestments and outward signs, which the Catholic Church uses in the celebration of Masses, are incentives to impiety rather than the services of piety: let him be anathema.” (Session XXII, canon 7, Denz. 954.).
Click to expand...
 
And one more:
“It would beyond any doubt be blameworthy and entirely contrary to the respect with which the laws of the Church should be received by a senseless aberration to find fault with the discipline which she has established, and which includes the administration of holy things, the regulation of morals, and the laws of the Church and her ministers; or to speak of this discipline as opposed to certain principles of the natural law, or to present it as defective, imperfect, and subject to civil authority.” (Mirari Vos, August 15, 1832.)
Click to expand...
 
SFD said:
John Paul II approved a “Mass” with no words of consecration. Which means it is not a true sacrifice. That appears to be a historical fact.
Click to expand...
Probably no amount of imploring will get you to see the error of saying it has “no words of consecration”. That is wrong at a couple of levels. More accurate to say it lacks the traditional words of institution.

But start a new thread if you need to hammer this out.
 
bear06 said:
Why do I need to give the explanation when it was already given by him (I thought I also remember Pope Benendict addressing this one too but I could be wrong)?

BTW, this can’t be your whole basis for sedevacantism since you also have issues with Pope Paul VI. What was the argument there?
Click to expand...
Actually, I just did a little research on this one. I actually don’t think either Holy Father has addressed it. The Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity did. Just a clarification.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top