Hypothetically, could the Pope promulgate an invalid Mass?

  • Thread starter Thread starter strugglingalong
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
S

strugglingalong

Guest
I’m genuinely wondering and I am not saying the New Mass is invalid at all, could the Pope promulgate a liturgy that is in fact invalid? Why or why not?

If he could not what would prevent him and ensure him?

The Fathers all agreed that a Pope could be a heretic. Why could a hypothetical heretic Pope promulgate an invalid liturgy?

Pax Christi tecum.
 
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.
 
strugglingalong said:
The Fathers all agreed that a Pope could be a heretic. Why could a hypothetical heretic Pope promulgate an invalid liturgy?
Click to expand...
Are you saying that a pope could be a heretic and still remain a valid pope with full authority? Or that a pope could become a heretic and lose his office? Or something else?
 
AlexV said:
…because a pope who engages in manifest heresy ceases to be pope.
Click to expand...
…where in the world did you get that from? :confused:
If anything, I thought it was supposed to be the other way around: the Pope cannot promulgate heresy, simply because God has chosen to protect the Church from such error. Not “well, if he does, he’s no longer Pope anyway”… that sounds like backward reasoning to me.

Furthermore, I’m not sure if the promulgation of a liturgy falls under the Divine protection of infallibility? But either it does, or, if it doesn’t, it doesn’t matter anyway. I mean, is it even possible to have an invalid liturgy, or does the fact that the Pope has promulgated it automatically make it valid? (I think there still has to be some Divine guidance involved in that process, though, even if it doesn’t strictly fall under the realm of Papal infallibility.)
 
AlexV said:
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.
Click to expand...
Can you give me a basis for this belief? I’m not familiar with the basis for it. I know the Fathers said a Pope could be a heretic. I’ve never heard that he would cease to be Pope.

Here is an interesting quote from St. Robert Bellarmine:

“Just as it is lawful to resist the pope that attacks the body, it is also lawful to resist the one who attacks souls or who disturbs civil order, or, above all, who attempts to destroy the Church. I say that it is lawful to resist him by not doing what he orders and preventing his will from being executed.” (De Romano Pontifice, Lib. II, Ch. 29)

Pax Christi tecum.
 
A pope does not cease to have free will. He could choose to embrace manifest heresy. He would then not be pope any longer.
 
masterjedi747 said:
…where in the world did you get that from? :confused:
If anything, I thought it was supposed to be the other way around: the Pope cannot promulgate heresy, simply because God has chosen to protect the Church from such error. Not “well, if he does, he’s no longer Pope anyway”… that sounds like backward reasoning to me.

Furthermore, I’m not sure if the promulgation of a liturgy falls under the Divine protection of infallibility? But either it does, or, if it doesn’t, it doesn’t matter anyway. I mean, is it even possible to have an invalid liturgy, or does the fact that the Pope has promulgated it automatically make it valid? (I think there still has to be some Divine guidance involved in that process, though, even if it doesn’t strictly fall under the realm of Papal infallibility.)
Click to expand...
No, certain things are required to be in the liturgy in order for it to be valid. For example the priest has to intend to consecrate and that consecration has to be explicit in the prayers of the liturgy (someone can correct me if that isn’t perfectly accurate). The right matter and form are required. A liturgy isn’t valid simply because a Pope has promulgated it.

Pax Christi tecum.
 
Indeed, go read Bellarmine. He’ll keep you busy and happy for a while.
 
Interesting:

“All theologians admit that the pope can make a mistake in matters of faith or morals when so speaking: either by proposing a false opinion in a matter not yet defined, or by innocently differing from some doctrine already defined. Theologians disagree, however, over the question of whether the pope can become a formal heretic by stubbornly clinging to at error in a matter already defined. The more probable and respectful opinion, followed by Suarez, Bellarmine and many others, holds that just as God has not till this day ever permitted such a thing to happen, so too He will never permit a pope to become a formal and public heretic. Still, some competent theologians do concede that the pope when not speaking ex cathedra could fall into formal heresy. They add that should such a case of public papal heresy occur, the pope, either by the very deed itself or at least by a subsequent decision of an ecumenical council, would by divine law forfeit his jurisdiction. Obviously a man could not continue to be the head of the Church if he ceased to be even a member of the Church.(Dogmatic Theology: Christ’s Church by Van Noort (1957))”

I’m just wondering if hypothetically a Pope could be a formal heretic in matters not pertaining to infallibility, why couldn’t he also promulgate an invalid liturgy?

I don’t see it ever happening. I’m just trying to wrap my head around the question.

Pax Christi tecum.
 
Given that a Pope cannot promulgate an invalid Mass, maybe the question should be whether a translation of the Mass into a particular vernacular is valid or not? After all, Pope Paul VI wasn’t exactly well versed in English but had to trust others to do it and we all know how trustworthy the ICEL was. 🙂
 
ProVobis said:
Given that a Pope cannot promulgate an invalid Mass, maybe the question should be whether a translation of the Mass into a particular vernacular is valid or not? After all, Pope Paul VI wasn’t exactly well versed in English but had to trust others to do it and we all know how trustworthy the ICEL was. 🙂
Click to expand...
I don’t see how it is a given that a Pope cannot promulgate an invalid Mass…? By virtue of infallibility? By virtue that if he were a heretic he’d cease to be Pope (in that case would he just step down politely)?

Pax Christi tecum.
 
Yes and yes.

As for vernacular translations, that’s a whole different mess.
 
strugglingalong said:
I don’t see how it is a given that a Pope cannot promulgate an invalid Mass…? By virtue of infallibility?
Click to expand...
If it’s based on a particular council’s teachings maybe?
By virtue that if he were a heretic he’d cease to be Pope (in that case would he just step down politely)?
Click to expand...
But who would decide if he’s a heretic? Pope John XXIII inserted words into the very canon that could not be touched, borderline heresy, yet do we call the 1962 Missal invalid?
 
My first thought is that if it is a Mass, it is valid. If it is not valid, it is not a Mass. There is no such thing as an invalid Mass.

Of course, this is the same logic we see at work about the Pope: if he is a heretic, he is not the Pope!

Except there is no mechanism provided to do anything about it. The reality is, the church does not admit to that possibility, and instead grants the holder of that office (whomever that happens to be and whatever the state of their soul) universal jurisdiction over the church. There is no provision for testing or removing such a person who might become a heretic or otherwise incompetent. It really doesn’t matter what Bellarmine or Van Noort might think.

So it seems the answer to the question is… 🤷

http://www.ohiocitizen.org/campaigns/isg/shrug.jpg
 
Of course it matters what Bellarmine said (a doctor of the Church). We aren’t lost. We have the sensus fidelium.
 
John Paul II approved, as valid, as mass that had no words of consecration. If a mass - with no words of consecration - is valid, then everything the Church has every taught about the validity of the mass was dead wrong.
 
Pax_et_Caritas said:
John Paul II approved, as valid, as mass that had no words of consecration. If a mass - with no words of consecration - is valid, then everything the Church has every taught about the validity of the mass was dead wrong.
Click to expand...
Ah, yes. The Chaldean-Assyrian rite. Does send out very confusing messages, doesn’t it.
 
** Originally Posted by Pax et Caritas View Post
John Paul II approved, as valid, as mass that had no words of consecration. If a mass - with no words of consecration - is valid, then everything the Church has every taught about the validity of the mass was dead wrong.
Ah, yes. The Chaldean-Assyrian rite. Does send out very confusing messages, doesn’t it.**

**A few things about the Liturgy of Addai and Mari (to give it its proper name) and John Paul II’s “approving a mass without a consecration” as one schismatic group put it:
  1. This was decreed in context of dealing with the pastoral issue of Chaldean Catholic priests and their non-Catholic counterparts, priests of the Assyrian Church of the East when, especially in the diaspora, priests of one Church have to take care of faithful of the other.
  2. CDF issued an opinion that the Assyrian form of the Liturgy of Addai and Mari is the OLDEST Eucharistic Liturgy in continuous use, and clearly speaks of the Eucharist as a sacrifice. The Assyrians have ALWAYS believed that the Bread and Wine become the Body and Blood of Christ at their altars. They have never denied this.
  3. The other two liturgies of the Assyrian Church DO contain the Words of Institution.
  4. The Chaldean Catholic recension of Addai and Mari DOES contain them, as well. This same decree instructed the Chaldean Catholics NEVER to omit them.
  5. CDF requested that when an Assyrian priest celebrates Addai and Mari for a mixed congregation, he recite the Words of Institution.
  6. Even before this, the Patriarch and Synod of the Assyrian Church officially allowed the Words of Institution to be recited at Addai and Mari.
Unfortunately, the site cired.org is not up and running at the present. This matter is THOUROUGHLY discussed there. They also give an excellent modern English translation of A&M. It is obvious to anyone with two wits to clap together that the Assyrians intend to accomplish the Mystery (or as Western terminology put it, confect) the Eucharist, even without the Words of Institution.

The Assyrian Church of the East (which John Paul II called a Church of Martyrs) developed in isolation from the main body of Christians, and was separated from the Roman Empire by warring kingdoms. The theology that emphasized the importance of the Words of Institution never penetrated that far east.

Now, if someone were to step up from behind a lamppost and ask me, I would suggest that they would do well to INCLUDE the Words of Institution in the Liturgy of Addai and Mari, to remove all doubts as to what they were doing. But I’m not on the policy-making level.**
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top