Can a Pope promulgate an invalid sacrament?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Mickey_Jackson
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
SFD said:
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.
Click to expand...
 
There is a little problem with what you posted.
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.”
Click to expand...
This is Fr. Sanborn’s (sedevacantists) unsupported commentary. Where is his source for this statement. Maybe it’s true and maybe it’s not but his statement is unsupported in this article.
 
Just a clarification…the Assyrians are no longer deemed heretics. A common declaration of faith was signed between the Catholic Church and the Assyrian Church of the East in 1994. There is also an agreement of limited inter-communion between the Chaldean Catholic Church (in communion with Rome) and the Assyrian Church of the East. The Insitution narrative does appear in the Assyrian anaphora, but not in a linear fashion…it is interspersed throughout the Eucharistic prayer. Please see this
document: zenit.org/article-2763?l=english

Note that it was the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (then under now Cardinal Ratzinger) which approved the Assyrian anaphora.
 
Mickey_Jackson said:
.
Click to expand...
These questions are inappropriate for a Catholic site. The questions attack the Sacrifice of the Mass and should not be permitted.

You have concerns in recent days? Not, certainly on the Sacrifice of the Mass. You will be attacking the Immaculate Conception next, and the Assumption of Mary.

Enough of these sedevacantists topics, and SSPX ideas, and Feeneyite crumbs.

peace
 
bear06 said:
There is a little problem with what you posted.

This is Fr. Sanborn’s (sedevacantists) unsupported commentary. Where is his source for this statement. Maybe it’s true and maybe it’s not but his statement is unsupported in this article.
Click to expand...
NOTE: SEDEVACANTISTS TOPICS ARE NOT PERMITTED ON CATHOLIC FORUMS.
 
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...
The disciplines of the Church are ‘theologically certain’. That has no bearing. Look how you personally disapprove and disown the disciplines of the Church. If you find an ‘out’ for yourself, then the same ‘out’ is for us.

The Pope is the infallible head of the Church. He can do what the Spirit moves him to do. He can change any ‘theologically certain’ discipline he wants. He is in charge of the Church, he is the lawgiver.

The word ‘sedevacantist’ has been banned for discussion on Catholic Forums.

The Holy Father never approved a “Mass” with no words of consecration. You are mistaken, and just spreading false theories.

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

SFD
Click to expand...
You are spreading falsehoods. There is no such ‘mass’ without matter and form of the eucharist.

The words of consecration were inserted.

peace
 
mgrfin said:
These questions are inappropriate for a Catholic site. The questions attack the Sacrifice of the Mass and should not be permitted.

You have concerns in recent days? Not, certainly on the Sacrifice of the Mass. You will be attacking the Immaculate Conception next, and the Assumption of Mary.

Enough of these sedevacantists topics, and SSPX ideas, and Feeneyite crumbs.

peace
Click to expand...
MGRFIN:

Please do not make such sweeping accusations against me. I attend the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass in the Novus Ordo rite every Sunday. I was merely trying to get some clarification into a question that has been causing me great spiritual angst lately. I am not a theologian, so I can’t answer these questions completely on my own. I asked for your help, and you have absolutely no right to accuse me of such heresy. Try to incorporate a little Christian charity in your posts. After all, as St. Paul says, you can have faith to move mountains, but if you do not have love, you are worthless to the Church.
 
Mickey_Jackson said:
MGRFIN:

Please do not make such sweeping accusations against me. I attend the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass in the Novus Ordo rite every Sunday. I was merely trying to get some clarification into a question that has been causing me great spiritual angst lately. I am not a theologian, so I can’t answer these questions completely on my own. I asked for your help, and you have absolutely no right to accuse me of such heresy. Try to incorporate a little Christian charity in your posts. After all, as St. Paul says, you can have faith to move mountains, but if you do not have love, you are worthless to the Church.
Click to expand...
I try to have my posts ooze Christian charity. I pray for those who disagree with me or with the position of the Church.

I propose ‘peace’ in all my posts.

Most certainly, I never accused you of heresy - far out, and a disingenous accusation.

I also disapprove of personal attacks on my Cardinal/Archbishop, whom I have said is a good and honorable man. I will not accept anything to the contrary.

So, I love you in all Christian charity, I pray for you daily, and I wish you:

peace
 
mgrfin said:
I try to have my posts ooze Christian charity. I pray for those who disagree with me or with the position of the Church.

I propose ‘peace’ in all my posts.

Most certainly, I never accused you of heresy - far out, and a disingenous accusation.

I also disapprove of personal attacks on my Cardinal/Archbishop, whom I have said is a good and honorable man. I will not accept anything to the contrary.

So, I love you in all Christian charity, I pray for you daily, and I wish you:

peace
Click to expand...
When did I criticize your Cardinal Archbishop?

And when did I say that I disagreed with the position of the Church? It should be clear that I don’t, especially after I informed you that I attend the Mass in the Ordinary Form every week. I asked for a point of clarification on a private revelation that I found confusing and somewhat troubling, and you responded by saying that next I would be questioning the Assumption and the Immaculate Conception.
 
Mickey_Jackson said:
When did I criticize your Cardinal Archbishop?

And when did I say that I disagreed with the position of the Church? It should be clear that I don’t, especially after I informed you that I attend the Mass in the Ordinary Form every week. I asked for a point of clarification on a private revelation that I found confusing and somewhat troubling, and you responded by saying that next I would be questioning the Assumption and the Immaculate Conception.
Click to expand...
And may I ask, when did I accuse you of heresy? And when did my posts not ooze christian charity?

If you believed that the Pope could propose an invalid sacrament, you would be falling into the error of the SV’s which we are not permitted to discuss, for any reason. And I will not discuss.

I am sure you are aware that the Traditional site at Catholic Forums is (are) swarmed by Sedevacantists - and this topic is now banned, and swarmed by Traditionalists (ultra) who are followers of Msgr. Lefebreve, who are schismatics, declared so by JPII in “Ecclesia Dei”, and by Feeneyites who are anti-Semitic, and push to unreasonable extremes EENS, to where they excoriate pronouncements of Vatican II - not that I know you are proponent of any of these stances.

However, in the recent past, topics have been proposed on the Traditional site by individuals espousing some of the above. They invariably use a person who is ‘new’ to CF, and propose these naive questions which are jumping off posts for the above - not that you are guilty of any of this.

Are you a Feenyite by any chance, or a follower of SSPX, or Msgr Lefebreve?

We pray for all of those who are seeking the truth, and hold them dear to our hearts with all charity in our prayers.

peace
 
I also disapprove of personal attacks on my Cardinal/Archbishop, whom I have said is a good and honorable man. I will not accept anything to the contrary.
Click to expand...
Do you honestly not see Cardinal Mahoney disobeying Vatican directives left and right? For starters, let’s just take a look at his religious education congress. There’s a reason he is notorious around the country. Not accepting anything to the contrary is not bothering to do the research. It’s also a support of picking and choosing when you think it’s fine and dandy to be disobedient.
 
mgrfin said:
And may I ask, when did I accuse you of heresy? And when did my posts not ooze christian charity?

If you believed that the Pope could propose an invalid sacrament, you would be falling into the error of the SV’s which we are not permitted to discuss, for any reason. And I will not discuss.

I am sure you are aware that the Traditional site at Catholic Forums is (are) swarmed by Sedevacantists - and this topic is now banned, and swarmed by Traditionalists (ultra) who are followers of Msgr. Lefebreve, who are schismatics, declared so by JPII in “Ecclesia Dei”, and by Feeneyites who are anti-Semitic, and push to unreasonable extremes EENS, to where they excoriate pronouncements of Vatican II - not that I know you are proponent of any of these stances.

However, in the recent past, topics have been proposed on the Traditional site by individuals espousing some of the above. They invariably use a person who is ‘new’ to CF, and propose these naive questions which are jumping off posts for the above - not that you are guilty of any of this.

Are you a Feenyite by any chance, or a follower of SSPX, or Msgr Lefebreve?

We pray for all of those who are seeking the truth, and hold them dear to our hearts with all charity in our prayers.

peace
Click to expand...
Sigh! The OP asked a question. What’s the big deal? He is free to do so and that’s what the forums are for. This question has been asked before and the people asking are not Feeneyites, SSPXers, etc. The OP has a question. It might be more helpful if you posted Church teaching on matter rather than toss speculations and accusations at him.
 
bear06 said:
Do you honestly not see Cardinal Mahoney disobeying Vatican directives left and right? For starters, let’s just take a look at his religious education congress. There’s a reason he is notorious around the country. Not accepting anything to the contrary is not bothering to do the research. It’s also a support of picking and choosing when you think it’s fine and dandy to be disobedient.
Click to expand...
It is totally inappropriate to attack a member of the Catholic hierarchy. Cardinal Mahoney is the Bishop of the largest Catholic diocese in the U.S. He is also my Bishop.

It is against Rule 1. “Messages posted to this board must be polite and free of personal attacks, threats, and crude or sexually-explicit language, rude comments and innuendo.”

We aim to treat everyone with charity, and pray for one another

peace
 
mgrfin said:
It is totally inappropriate to attack a member of the Catholic hierarchy. Cardinal Mahoney is the Bishop of the largest Catholic diocese in the U.S. He is also my Bishop.

It is against Rule 1. “Messages posted to this board must be polite and free of personal attacks, threats, and crude or sexually-explicit language, rude comments and innuendo.”

We aim to treat everyone with charity, and pray for one another

peace
Click to expand...
Cardinal Mahoney is your Bishop? That explains a lot mgrfin, thanks.
BTW are you one of the liturgical dancers in this video of Cardinal Mahoney using a glass chalice?
youtube.com/watch?v=exeJwY1FD4Q&mode=related&search
 
mgrfin said:
It is totally inappropriate to attack a member of the Catholic hierarchy. Cardinal Mahoney is the Bishop of the largest Catholic diocese in the U.S. He is also my Bishop.

It is against Rule 1. “Messages posted to this board must be polite and free of personal attacks, threats, and crude or sexually-explicit language, rude comments and innuendo.”

We aim to treat everyone with charity, and pray for one another

peace
Click to expand...
I’m not sure where I made a made a personal attack. I attacked Cardinal Mahoney’s acts of disobedience to the Holy See. Read Redemptionis Sacramentum and see how many of the corrections there applied to him and how many he’s ignored. BTW, if you read other thread you’d notice I defended Mahoney agaist the word apostate being aimed at him. While he’s made many mistakes, he’s not yet reached the apostate state.
 
bear06 said:
I’m not sure where I made a made a personal attack. I attacked Cardinal Mahoney’s acts of disobedience to the Holy See. Read Redemptionis Sacramentum and see how many of the corrections there applied to him and how many he’s ignored. BTW, if you read other thread you’d notice I defended Mahoney agaist the word apostate being aimed at him. While he’s made many mistakes, he’s not yet reached the apostate state.
Click to expand...
Please dont critize until you have walked a mile in somebody else’s sandals.

Cardinal Mahoney has problems, but they are not personal. He has 5 million souls to care for, and very narrow means to do so. I came from the East Coast and the Los Angeles diocese was always understood to be a very conservative place. It still is. Cardinal Mahoney guides it as he wills, as he sees the pace that is appropriate.

Pray for all the souls of us in Los Angeles (and Long Beach).

peace
 
mgrfin said:
40.png
SFD:
The infallibility of the disciplines of the Church is Catholic doctrine. It
Click to expand...
(the infallibility of the disciplines) is theologically certain.The disciplines of the Church are ‘theologically certain’. That has no bearing.
Click to expand...
Of course it has no bearing on what I said…it doesn’t even address what I said.

SFD
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top