Hypothetically, could the Pope promulgate an invalid Mass?

[SFD]

Yes, the Pope is obviously infallible when speaking ex cathedra but that is a rare extraordinary instance.

But that’s not what I’ve stated and that’s not what the authoritative sources I’ve posted here say either.

strugglingalong:

A promulgation of a liturgy is usually not ex cathedra.

Usually? When is it ex cathedra? Or don’t you know?

The promulgation of a liturgy is a object of a secondary or indirect infallibility. It cannot contain errors against faith and morals. This is all explained in the section of Van Noort I posted in several threads. It is also explained by Bp. Gasser in the relatio at Vatican I.

SFD

 

[ProVobis]

But you are the one attempting to defend it. And I have no idea what it means to say it is valid in the context of the Church of the East. That makes absolutely no sense.

Either it is valid or it isn’t. The validity of the Mass does not depend on whether it is celebrated by Catholics or heretics from the East. The same requirements apply.

The other question is whether this rite without consecration allowed to be said elsewhere. Does anyone know? If it doesn’t, does this mean the validity has bounds?

Personally, I think the discussion of validity says little about the quality of the liturgy but it is what the OP questioned so now I’m curious.

 

[SacredHeartFan]

As has already been answered, because a pope who engages in manifest heresy ceases to be pope. Therefore a pope can’t promulgate an invalid Mass.

Actaully there have been hertical popes. They did not cease to be popes though. You saty the pope until you die or if you resign. The Pope has supreme power in the Church you can’t just kick him out of office.

 

[Neil_Anthony]

Here’s the text for the Addai and Mari divine liturgy. It seems to have words of institution:

geocities.com/rik_turner/Anaphora_of_SS_Addai_and_Mari.html

The Anamnesis
WHEN HE, the sinless one, prepared to accept death for us sinners, He took bread into His holy hands and when He had given thanks, He † blessed † and consecrated † and broke it, giving it to His holy apostles, saying:
Sabu, akolu, hanau paghri.
Take, eat, this is My Body; which is broken for you and for the many, given for the remission of sins and for everlasting life.
Amen.
LIKEWISE He also took the cup and when He had given thanks, He † blessed † consecrated † and gave it to His holy apostles, saying:
Sabu, eshthu meneh kolkhon, hanau demi.
Take, drink it all of you, this is My Blood; which is shed for you and for the many, given for the remission of sins and for everlasting life.
Amen.

 

[SFD]

Actaully there have been hertical popes. They did not cease to be popes though. You saty the pope until you die or if you resign. The Pope has supreme power in the Church you can’t just kick him out of office.

St. Robert Bellarmine, Doctor of the Universal Church and greatest theologian on the papacy, teaches differently. Bellarmine taught that there had never been a pope who actually was a heretic. He also teaches that if a pope did fall into heresy (as a private person) he would cease to be a member of the Church. As membership in the Church is a prerequisite for holding office in Her, he would lose all jurisdiction. There is such a thing as tacit resignation.

You are correct in stating that a true pope cannot be removed from office (the first See is judged by no one). He can however, remove himself from office. One who is not a member of a body cannot be it’s head.

SFD

 

[AJV]

Here’s the text for the Addai and Mari divine liturgy. It seems to have words of institution:

geocities.com/rik_turner/Anaphora_of_SS_Addai_and_Mari.html

This is not accurate. It has the anaphora (sort of - only few parts, and rearranged) with the Words of Institution added and some other very curious things like an Epiclesis in the West Syrian style. The “church” itself seems a bit dubious- some sort of *vagante *group.

 

[AJV]

Here’s the text for the Addai and Mari divine liturgy. It seems to have words of institution:

geocities.com/rik_turner/Anaphora_of_SS_Addai_and_Mari.html

This is not accurate. It has the anaphora (sort of - only few parts, and rearranged) with the Words of Institution added and some other very curious things like an Epiclesis and intercessions in the West Syrian style. The “church” itself seems a bit dubious- some sort of *vagante *group.

 

[LilyM]

St. Robert Bellarmine, Doctor of the Universal Church and greatest theologian on the papacy, teaches differently. Bellarmine taught that there had never been a pope who actually was a heretic. He also teaches that if a pope did fall into heresy (as a private person) he would cease to be a member of the Church. As membership in the Church is a prerequisite for holding office in Her, he would lose all jurisdiction. There is such a thing as tacit resignation.

You are correct in stating that a true pope cannot be removed from office (the first See is judged by no one). He can however, remove himself from office. One who is not a member of a body cannot be it’s head.

SFD

Not just tacit resignation - but in many cases it would likely constitute self-excommunication. As in all cases of excommunication, the Church’s bishops and cardinals could collectively declare that the Pope had removed himself from membership of the church. Of course this would mean as well that he had removed himself from the papal office, by his heresy, and that therefore the Holy See was vacant, and a fresh election could be held.

Sedevacantist groups believe that that previous Popes have self-excommunicated, hence the Holy See is currently sede vacante (unoccupied), but given no formal declaration of such there’s little justification for taking them at their word.

 

[bpbasilphx]

**Here’s the text for the Addai and Mari divine liturgy. It seems to have words of institution:

geocities.com/rik_turner/…_and_Mari.html**

**This is not an accurate version of A&M.

For the recension used by the Chaldean Catholics, please go to this site:

kaldu.org/14_Reformed_ChaldeanMass/PeopleBook_Eng.html

An excellent English translation of the Liturgy as used by the Assyrian Church of the East could be found at

cired.org

were the site working.**

 

[Pax_et_Caritas]

Here’s the text for the Addai and Mari divine liturgy. It seems to have words of institution:

geocities.com/rik_turner/Anaphora_of_SS_Addai_and_Mari.html

The words of consecration may have been added in that version, but they do not exist in the version approved by Rome. The document issued by Rome explicitly states that the prayer of institution does not exist.

 

[strugglingalong]

But that’s not what I’ve stated and that’s not what the authoritative sources I’ve posted here say either.

Usually? When is it ex cathedra? Or don’t you know?

The promulgation of a liturgy is a object of a secondary or indirect infallibility. It cannot contain errors against faith and morals. This is all explained in the section of Van Noort I posted in several threads. It is also explained by Bp. Gasser in the relatio at Vatican I.

SFD

What do you mean secondary or indirect infallibility? If the Pope is infallible when ex cathedra, then infallible when he does anything indirectly, when isn’t he infallible???

Pax Christi tecum.

 

[strugglingalong]

Sedevacantist groups believe that that previous Popes have self-excommunicated, hence the Holy See is currently sede vacante (unoccupied), but given no formal declaration of such there’s little justification for taking them at their word.

But who would give the formal declaration? The heretic Pope himself? It seems if a Pope was a heretic he’d remain in the See, never dispose himself, and the majority of Catholics would follow obediently (unless it was gross heresy, like teaching Islam officially or something crazy).

Pax Christi tecum.

 

[Neil_Anthony]

**This is not an accurate version of A&M.

For the recension used by the Chaldean Catholics, please go to this site:

kaldu.org/14_Reformed_ChaldeanMass/PeopleBook_Eng.html**
That version has words of institution too:

For when the time came when he would suffer and approach death, on that night on which he was betrayed, he took bread into his holy hands and, raising his eyes to you, his almighty Father, gave thanks and blessed. He broke and gave it to his disciples, saying: take, all of you, and eat of it: this is my Body, which is broken for you, for the forgiveness of sins.

 

[LilyM]

But who would give the formal declaration? The heretic Pope himself? It seems if a Pope was a heretic he’d remain in the See, never dispose himself, and the majority of Catholics would follow obediently (unless it was gross heresy, like teaching Islam officially or something crazy).

Pax Christi tecum.

Ummm, no. As I’ve said, the majority of bishops and cardinals - the majority of whom will NOT be heretics and who do collectively form the Magisterium and are successors of the Apostles, can either formally declare or at least make plain that the so-called Pope is indeed a heretic with teh resulting consequences.

Short answer - Christ WILL NOT allow the leader of His church to lead the body of His followers by a backdoor road into heresy. He is not the author of confusion. He WANTS to protect His church, He WANTS it to teach the truth clearly and unambiguously and to be the light of the world, and has more than sufficient power to keep His promises to protect it and lead it into all truth.

To presume that He is either incapable or not desirous of protecting His church and exposing any heresy held on the part of any Pope heading that Church is to make nonsense of His stated intent to found His Church upon Peter and His promises that the gates of Hell would not prevail.

 

[strugglingalong]

Ummm, no. As I’ve said, the majority of bishops and cardinals - the majority of whom will NOT be heretics and who do collectively form the Magisterium and are successors of the Apostles, can either formally declare or at least make plain that the so-called Pope is indeed a heretic with teh resulting consequences.

Short answer - Christ WILL NOT allow the leader of His church to lead the body of His followers by a backdoor road into heresy. He is not the author of confusion. He WANTS to protect His church, He WANTS it to teach the truth clearly and unambiguously and to be the light of the world, and has more than sufficient power to keep His promises to protect it and lead it into all truth.

To presume that He is either incapable or not desirous of protecting His church and exposing any heresy held on the part of any Pope heading that Church is to make nonsense of His promises that the gates of Hell would not prevail.

I definitely agree. Thanks for explaining. That makes sense.

Pax Christi tecum.

 

[AJV]

That version has words of institution too:

That is because it is the Chaldean (in communion with Rome) version, The Words were inserted into it.

To get the anaphora delete “as he taught us…holy and pure altar” and rearrange the “memorial” as follows

Through the Memorial of your Christ, O Lord, make, in your indescribable mercies, a gracious remembrance for all the upright and just fathers who have pleased you, (from after the Institution) which we offer to you, as you have[he has] taught us, upon the holy and pure altar.

Indeed, our Lord and God, grant us your tranquility and peace all the days of the age, that all the dwellers of the earth may know that you alone are God, the true Father, that you have sent your Son and Beloved, our Lord Jesus Christ, and that he, our Lord and God, taught us all purity and holiness in his life-giving Gospel of the apostles, prophets and teachers, the martyrs and confessors, the bishops, priests and deacons, and all the children of the holy catholic Church: those who have been signed with the living sign of holy baptism.

And we also, O Lord, your deficient, feeble…

There are also sections throughout which make an explicit reference to Christ which in the text is confused (instead of him)

The section " Lord God Almighty, accept this Offering…and on behalf of my frailty, my wretchedness, and my humbleness" although it is always recited within the anaphora (similar counterparts are recited among the Assyrians) is technically outside it.

 

[SFD]

Not just tacit resignation - but in many cases it would likely constitute self-excommunication. As in all cases of excommunication, the Church’s bishops and cardinals could collectively declare that the Pope had removed himself from membership of the church. Of course this would mean as well that he had removed himself from the papal office, by his heresy, and that therefore the Holy See was vacant, and a fresh election could be held.

Sedevacantist groups believe that that previous Popes have self-excommunicated, hence the Holy See is currently sede vacante (unoccupied), but given no formal declaration of such there’s little justification for taking them at their word.

Actually, loss of membership can be by heresy, schism, or apostasy OR by a censure of the Church (excommunicated as a vitandus). Excommunication is a punishment imposed by the Church.

Pope Pius XII addresses this very subject in Mystici Corporis:

1. Actually only those are to be included as members of the Church who have been baptized and profess the true faith, and who have not been so unfortunate as to separate themselves from the unity of the Body, or been excluded by legitimate authority for grave faults committed. “For in one spirit” says the Apostle, “were we all baptized into one Body, whether Jews or Gentiles, whether bond or free.” [17] As therefore in the true Christian community there is only one Body, one Spirit, one Lord, and one Baptism, so there can be only one faith. [18] And therefore if a man refuse to hear the Church let him be considered – so the Lord commands – as a heathen and a publican. [19] It follows that those are divided in faith or government cannot be living in the unity of such a Body, nor can they be living the life of its one Divine Spirit.

Also,

Finally, the Holy Fathers teach unanimously not only that heretics are outside of the Church, but also that they are “ipso facto” deprived of all ecclesiastical jurisdiction and dignity. St. Cyprian (lib. 2, epist. 6) says: ‘We affirm that absolutely no heretic or schismatic has any power or right’; and he also teaches (lib. 2, epist. 1) that the heretics who return to the Church must be received as laymen, even though they have been formerly priests or bishops in the Church. St. Optatus (lib. 1 cont. Parmen.) teaches that heretics and schismatics cannot have the keys of the kingdom of heaven, nor bind nor loose. St. Ambrose (lib. 1 de poenit., ca. 2), St. Augustine (in Enchir., cap 65), St. Jerome (lib. cont. Lucifer.) teach the same.

Therefore, the true opinion is the fifth, according to which the Pope who is manifestly a heretic ceases by himself to be Pope and head, in the same way as he ceases to be a Christian and a member of the body of the Church; and for this reason he can be judged and punished by the Church. This is the opinion of all the ancient Fathers, who teach that manifest heretics immediately lose all jurisdiction, and outstandingly that of St. Cyprian (lib. 4, epist. 2) who speaks as follows of Novatian, who was Pope * in the schism which occurred during the pontificate of St. Cornelius: 'He would not be able to retain the episcopate , and, if he was made bishop before, he separated himself from the body of those who were, like him, bishops, and from the unity of the Church.’*

The foundation of the encyclical Mystici Corporis was the teaching of St. Robert Bellarmine which was based on the visibility of the Church.

SFD

 

[KitWhite]

For the truth about what really happened to the Catholic Church, go to www.VaticanCatholic.com