Hypothetically, could the Pope promulgate an invalid Mass?

  • Thread starter Thread starter strugglingalong
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
bpbasilphx said:
** 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.**
Click to expand...
As I said, John Paul II approved - as valid - a mass that contains no words of consecration. If this “mass” is valid, then the Church deceived millions of Catholics for centuries when it taught what is required for the validity of the sacrament. If I am not mistaken, even the new Catechism teaches that the words of consecration are necessary for the consecration to take place.

In the early years, the words of consecration were considered so sacred that they were often not written down. They were said, but not put down in writing. The Nestorian heretics who use this liturgy today are not celebrating a valid mass if they follow precisely what was written and thus omit the words of consecration.
 
Pax_et_Caritas said:
As I said, John Paul II approved - as valid - a mass that contains no words of consecration. If this “mass” is valid, then the Church deceived millions of Catholics for centuries when it taught what is required for the validity of the sacrament. If I am not mistaken, even the new Catechism teaches that the words of consecration are necessary for the consecration to take place.

In the early years, the words of consecration were considered so sacred that they were often not written down. They were said, but not put down in writing. The Nestorian heretics who use this liturgy today are not celebrating a valid mass if they follow precisely what was written and thus omit the words of consecration.
Click to expand...
Most people who know some theology will make the argument that JPII did not officially approve this form. Or they will say that it is not a universal rite, so it is not protected. I don’t give any of those arguments any creedence…but it shows that they know a Pope cannot approve a Mass with no consecration…so they say he didn’t really do it.

SFD
 
Here’s a link to the document signed by John Paul II the Great in which he approved - as valid - a “mass” that has no words of consecration.

vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/chrstuni/documents/rc_pc_chrstuni_doc_20011025_chiesa-caldea-assira_en.html
The principal issue for the Catholic Church in agreeing to this request, related to the question of the validity of the Eucharist celebrated with the Anaphora of Addai and Mari, one of the three Anaphoras traditionally used by the Assyrian Church of the East. The Anaphora of Addai and Mari is notable because, from time immemorial, it has been used without a recitation of the Institution Narrative. [the words of consecration] As the Catholic Church considers the words of the Eucharistic Institution a constitutive and therefore indispensable part of the Anaphora or Eucharistic Prayer, a long and careful study was undertaken of the Anaphora of Addai and Mari, from a historical, liturgical and theological perspective, at the end of which the Congregation for the Doctrine of Faith on January 17th, 2001 concluded that this Anaphora can be considered valid. H.H. Pope John Paul II has approved this decision. This conclusion rests on three major arguments.
Click to expand...
 
bpbasilphx said:
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.
Click to expand...
Your point is?
  1. 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.
Click to expand...
It doesn’t matter if they believe in transubstantiation since that is not what makes a mass valid. What makes a mass a mass is the words of consecration… which they don’t have.
  1. The other two liturgies of the Assyrian Church DO contain the Words of Institution.
Click to expand...
But we’re not talking about the other two liturgies. We’re talking about the one that does not have the words of consecration.
  1. The Chaldean Catholic recension of Addai and Mari DOES contain them, as well. This same decree instructed the Chaldean Catholics NEVER to omit them.
Click to expand...
But we’re not talking about the Chaldean Catholic Mass, we’re talking about the liturgy of the Assyrian Church.
  1. CDF requested that when an Assyrian priest celebrates Addai and Mari for a mixed congregation, he recite the Words of Institution.
Click to expand...
Again, it doesn’t matter. They claimed that a “mass” with no words of consecration is valid and John Paul II approved it.
  1. Even before this, the Patriarch and Synod of the Assyrian Church officially allowed the Words of Institution to be recited at Addai and Mari.
Click to expand...
That’s nice, but it doesn’t change the fact that John Paul II the Great approved - as valid - a “mass” that has no words of consecration.
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.
Click to expand...
Why? According to the Congregation for the Doctrine of Faith, and John Paul II the Great, the words of consecration are not necessary.
 
The Nestorian heretics who use this liturgy today are not celebrating a valid mass if they follow precisely what was written and thus omit the words of consecration.

**CDF said it was valid in the context of the Church of the East.

Go argue with CDF.**
 
The pope cannot promulgate an invalid mass. The Church is indefectible.
 
But when Cephas was come to Antioch, I withstood him to the face, because he was to be blamed.
 
bpbasilphx said:
The Nestorian heretics who use this liturgy today are not celebrating a valid mass if they follow precisely what was written and thus omit the words of consecration.

**CDF said it was valid in the context of the Church of the East.

Go argue with CDF.**
Click to expand...
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 question of the thread is whether or not a Pope can promulgate an invalid Mass. Since we know that John Paul II approved - as valid - a Mass that does not meet the qualification for validity that the Church has always taught, we could ask what the precise definition of “promulgating” is; and if, when a Pope “approves” a Mass (or approves a translation of a Mass), whether or not it qualifies as a “promulgation” of the Mass? If anyone knows the answer to that question, please respond.
 
The legal way out of this is the pope didn’t actually “promulgate” the liturgy in question.

And you’re right, saying something is valid “in a certain context” is meaningless sophistry.
 
**
Either it is valid or it isn’t.**

CDF said it’s valid. Deal with it.
 
Pax_et_Caritas said:
As I said, John Paul II approved - as valid - a mass that contains no words of consecration. If this “mass” is valid, then the Church deceived millions of Catholics for centuries when it taught what is required for the validity of the sacrament…
Click to expand...
Well, there is always new light in the morning. 🙂

Wasn’t that a Scholastic era definition?

What I mean is, was it always believed everywhere and by all? Clearly the Church of the East has never needed the words of institution to be expressed plainly and yet the Liturgy of Addai and Mari is very ancient.
 
AlexV said:
The legal way out of this is the pope didn’t actually “promulgate” the liturgy in question.

And you’re right, saying something is valid “in a certain context” is meaningless sophistry.
Click to expand...
It sounds to me like you are contesting the idea that the two lungs of the church can learn from one another.
 
Yeah, because it’s not as if the East has any theological defects. I mean, we all know the real problem is the Western Middle Ages.
 
strugglingalong said:
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.
Click to expand...
Yes it is…if it is promulgated by a true pope. The form would be necessarily valid. You are forgetting that there is matter, form, and intention. If a valid priest uses the proper form then the intention is there. Noboby is required to read the mind of the priest (nor can anyone do this)…if he uses the proper form the intention is either there or it is supplied by the Church.

SFD
 
strugglingalong said:
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.
Click to expand...
You need to make some distinctions here. No Church Father, pope, or theologian holds that a pope can teach heresy to the Church in his official capacity as pope. The question is whether a pope can fall into heresy as a private individual.
St. Robert Bellarmine:
It is probable, and can be piously believed, not only that the Supreme Pontiff cannot err as Pontiff, but also, as an individual person cannot be a heretic, by pertinaciously believing against the Faith anything false. (De. Rom. Pont., lib. iv, cap vi.).
Click to expand...
SFD
 
bpbasilphx said:
Strugglingalong, I think you’re reading too many sites like

traditio.org

who clearly have an axe to grind.
Click to expand...
No, I am not actually. I’m just wondering. I’m not saying it has happened or will happened but trying to understand. In my mind I can’t see why it couldn’t happen since not every decree or promulgation of the Pope is protected by the charism of infallibility. That’s all.

I stay away from sedevacantist sites and the like.

Pax Christi tecum.
 
SFD said:
You need to make some distinctions here. No Church Father, pope, or theologian holds that a pope can teach heresy to the Church in his official capacity as pope. The question is whether a pope can fall into heresy as a private individual.

SFD
Click to expand...
Yes, the Pope is obviously infallible when speaking ex cathedra but that is a rare extraordinary instance. A promulgation of a liturgy is usually not ex cathedra.

Pax Christi tecum.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top