If a priest offers an illicit Mass is it an objective mortal sin?

Started by Older Salt, May 16, 2013, 07:13:13 AM

Previous topic - Next topic

Gerard

The acknowledgement of the scope of the crisis going all the way from the parishes to the Popes themselves is essential to any real discussion of tradition in the Church. 

Those charged with the duty of protecting traditional practice of the faith have instead betrayed that charge and attacked it and attempted to suppress it. Therefore the faithful are obliged to cling to it and this those who should be the guardians of tradition but refuse to act like it. 


Charlemagne

Quote from: Gerard on May 16, 2013, 01:16:31 PM
The acknowledgement of the scope of the crisis going all the way from the parishes to the Popes themselves is essential to any real discussion of tradition in the Church. 

Those charged with the duty of protecting traditional practice of the faith have instead betrayed that charge and attacked it and attempted to suppress it. Therefore the faithful are obliged to cling to it and this those who should be the guardians of tradition but refuse to act like it.

Don't you know that "obedience" trumps everything, even the Faith? Thus sayeth the "I'd rather be wrong with the pope than right without him" crowd.
O Lord, grant to me the grace that, when I meet my end, it may be as I leave the Confessional.

"They [heretics] want to be treated with oil, soap and caresses. But they should be beaten with fists. In a duel, you don't count or measure the blows, you strike as you can." -- Pope St. Pius X

Teilo and a Half

An answer that I can offer to the question posed at the beginning of this thread is one that Rev. Lovejoy gave to Ned in The Simpsons ("Hurricane Neddy," 29 December 1996; Production code: 4F07): 

QuoteShooh, short answer: "Yes" with an "If," long answer: "No" -- with a "But."

The salvation of souls is the supreme law in the Church. Epikeia may be invoked, yet with utmost prudence and care, in order to preserve this greater principle in the face of legal polity that, even though one may argue that in itself is innocuous, has been proven to be a remote occasion of tepidity or laxity at best, or to a proximate occasion of a defection to errors injurious to faith and morals.

Are the independent clergy who operate without a Canonically given mission and office sinning mortally in offering the Sacraments to the faithful? One ought to answer in the negative, I believe, when it comes to the acephalous Priests whose vocation to Sacred Orders has been of divine origin and proven as such by sanctity and probity of life and fecundity of good works, and yet have been compelled by extraordinary circumstances to operate outside the hierarchical structure of the Church.

The affirmative answer could be posited in cases of laymen who have obtained Sacred Orders without sufficient proof of vocation and fitness, and this is usually concomitant with ulterior motives and agendas (the chase for money, celebrity, or worse...) and who persist in such a fraud knowingly and willingly. The affirmative is definitely to be said for those who have been proven, or betray themselves to be, outright charlatans, racketeers, perverts, &c. (with or without valid Orders).

Are the independent clergy who operate without a Canonically given mission and office sinning mortally in doing more than offering the Sacraments to the faithful? If they arrogate to themselves jurisdiction, mission and office, whether theoretically or in the practical order, in bossing around the faithful (who alone vindicate their existence as "clergymen" and for whose sake alone they will probably be spared eternal reprobation) and setting themselves to be some sort of magisterial or penal authority: one must answer in the affirmative. Such laymen-now-Priests are usually the ones who go about promulgating their own theories as if they were matters pertaining to faith and morals, or who engage in "excommunicating" other independent clergy who do not assent to their pet theories.

In my view, when a layman chooses to take on the burden of Sacred Orders with or without the sanction of the hierarchy, he is then subject to public scrutiny, and this is especially the case with the acephalous Priests who have no system of checks and balances to regulate them and when there is no guarantee that they are truly operating for the sake of the salvation of souls and are spurred on by a vocation of divine origin. The faithful who avail themselves of these clergymen's services have to judge them by the fruits they bear, and that alone is the standard: they cannot be given a "blank check" just because of their sutane, especially when the hierarchy itself is being grossly negligent in these evil times.

No one gets a "blank check" now: especially if one is responsible for a household and the rearing of children in the profession and practice of the Catholic faith. Sometimes going outside the hierarchical structure is the only way in the practical sphere for some, and this is what I'm beginning to see.

Regarding the question of moral culpability of the faithful who avail themselves of the Sacraments from acephalous and vagrant clerics who have been proven to be operating in good faith, together with relative training and absolute moral fitness that manifests a divine vocation that could not be actualized within the constructs of a hierarchy that caters to liberals, feminists, &c.: the question must be answered in the negative. The Catholic faithful cannot be said to sin in these situations, especially with the hierarchical negligence and stupidity that has made the Conciliar emphasis on pastoral ministries an ironic and sickening joke. Those to whom sin shall be imputed are those individuals who have defected to the schismatic Oriental churches, the various Protestant sects, or worse, using the current crises of the Church as an excuse.

In the end, though one may believe that the reformed Roman Rite and the new Codex may not contain in themselves anything that could be said to be formally heretical, the Priests and Bishops pick and choose what rubrics, what canons, they wish to follow. This is what I have been seeing now. If you are in a situation where your Priest is a man of moral probity, spiritual depth and consistency in principle for the greater glory of God and salvation of souls, then consider yourself to be exceedingly fortunate. Most others have not had such a grace and must go elsewhere to preserve the deposit of the [Catholic] faith and the practice thereof.

In the end, what 24's Jack Bauer told Larry Moss in Day 7 (3:00 PM - 4:00 PM; 9 February 2009; Production code 7AFF08) is something that hits home at the ecclesial level (at least for me):

QuoteWhen are you people gonna stop thinking everyone else is following your rules? They're not! Dubaku is gonna kill Henry Taylor in less than 45 minutes unless we find him. You've got one of two choices. Now you can either phone the President and explain to her that your conscience won't allow you to do what is necessary to save him, or you can simply do what is necessary. Pick one!

The faithful did not chose to be in this situation. Now that I'm quoting 24, here is another quote that also hits home (Day 7, 7:00 AM - 8:00 AM; 18 May 2009; Production code 7AFF24):

Quote
Jack Bauer: I can't tell you what to do. I've been wrestling with this one my whole life. I see fifteen people held hostage on a bus, and everything else goes out the window. I will do whatever it takes to save them – and I mean whatever it takes. I guess maybe I thought if I save them I could save myself...

Renee Walker: Do you regret anything that you did today?

Jack Bauer: No. But then again, I don't work for the F.B.I.

Renee Walker: I don't understand.

Jack Bauer: You took an oath. You made a promise to uphold the law. When you cross that line, it always starts off with a small step. Before you know it, you're running as fast as you can in the wrong direction just to justify what you started in the first place. These laws were written by much smarter men than me. And in the end, I know that these laws have to be more important than the fifteen people on the bus. I know that's right. In my mind I know that's right. I – I just don't think my heart could ever have lived with that. (Renee is close to tears) I guess the only advice I can give you is try to make choices that you can live with.

Ultimately, this is why this forum came to be and why it shall yet remain.

Older Salt

Quote from: Charlemagne on May 16, 2013, 09:32:35 AM
Quote from: Older Salt on May 16, 2013, 09:21:51 AM
Quote from: Gerard on May 16, 2013, 08:39:38 AM
It might not be a sin at all but rather an act of charity.
How can breaking the Churches law be an act of charity?

For instance, if a priest purposely wanders from the text of the missal to express some point of the Mass "in his own words"?

The "president of the assembly" in the NO is allowed to do that very thing.
Sorry, I was referring to a non-optional part of the ordinary of the Mass.
Stay away from the near occasion of sin

Unless one is deeply attached to the Blessed Virgin Mary, now in time, it impossible to attain salvation.

Older Salt

I was also referring to an SSPX priest I know of who consistently omits two of the rubrics of the Mass.

Is this a sin?
Stay away from the near occasion of sin

Unless one is deeply attached to the Blessed Virgin Mary, now in time, it impossible to attain salvation.

Gottmitunsalex

Quote from: Older Salt on May 17, 2013, 06:43:51 AM
Quote from: Charlemagne on May 16, 2013, 09:32:35 AM
Quote from: Older Salt on May 16, 2013, 09:21:51 AM
Quote from: Gerard on May 16, 2013, 08:39:38 AM
It might not be a sin at all but rather an act of charity.
How can breaking the Churches law be an act of charity?

For instance, if a priest purposely wanders from the text of the missal to express some point of the Mass "in his own words"?

The "president of the assembly" in the NO is allowed to do that very thing.
Sorry, I was referring to a non-optional part of the ordinary of the Mass.
Like this?
http://www.suscipedomine.com/forum/index.php?topic=2373.0
"Nothing is more miserable than those people who never failed to attack their own salvation. When there was need to observe the Law, they trampled it under foot. Now that the Law has ceased to bind, they obstinately strive to observe it. What could be more pitiable that those who provoke God not only by transgressing the Law but also by keeping it? But at any rate the Jews say that they, too, adore God. God forbid that I say that. No Jew adores God! Who say so? The Son of God say so. For he said: "If you were to know my Father, you would also know me. But you neither know me nor do you know my Father". Could I produce a witness more trustworthy than the Son of God?"  St. John Chrysostom  Sunday Homily

"The two goals of the Jews: The universal domination of the world and the destruction of Catholicism, out of hatred for Christ" --Mgr. Jouin

Older Salt

Quote from: Gottmitunsalex on May 17, 2013, 09:09:21 AM
Quote from: Older Salt on May 17, 2013, 06:43:51 AM
Quote from: Charlemagne on May 16, 2013, 09:32:35 AM
Quote from: Older Salt on May 16, 2013, 09:21:51 AM
Quote from: Gerard on May 16, 2013, 08:39:38 AM
It might not be a sin at all but rather an act of charity.
How can breaking the Churches law be an act of charity?

For instance, if a priest purposely wanders from the text of the missal to express some point of the Mass "in his own words"?

The "president of the assembly" in the NO is allowed to do that very thing.
Sorry, I was referring to a non-optional part of the ordinary of the Mass.
Like this?
http://www.suscipedomine.com/forum/index.php?topic=2373.0
Nope,
Like the Credo at Sunday Mass.
Stay away from the near occasion of sin

Unless one is deeply attached to the Blessed Virgin Mary, now in time, it impossible to attain salvation.

Gerard

Quote from: Older Salt on May 17, 2013, 11:31:29 AM
Nope, Like the Credo at Sunday Mass.

What's the priest's name? Sounds like he may need some correction.

poche

Quote from: Charlemagne on May 16, 2013, 09:32:35 AM
Quote from: Older Salt on May 16, 2013, 09:21:51 AM
Quote from: Gerard on May 16, 2013, 08:39:38 AM
It might not be a sin at all but rather an act of charity.
How can breaking the Churches law be an act of charity?

For instance, if a priest purposely wanders from the text of the missal to express some point of the Mass "in his own words"?

The "president of the assembly" in the NO is allowed to do that very thing.
not true

poche

Quote from: Older Salt on May 16, 2013, 07:13:13 AM
If a priest, for whatever reason, offers a Mass illicitly is it an objective mortal or venial sin?
Objectively it would be a mortal sin.

Charlemagne

Quote from: poche on May 17, 2013, 09:58:01 PM
Quote from: Charlemagne on May 16, 2013, 09:32:35 AM
Quote from: Older Salt on May 16, 2013, 09:21:51 AM
Quote from: Gerard on May 16, 2013, 08:39:38 AM
It might not be a sin at all but rather an act of charity.
How can breaking the Churches law be an act of charity?

For instance, if a priest purposely wanders from the text of the missal to express some point of the Mass "in his own words"?

The "president of the assembly" in the NO is allowed to do that very thing.
not true

poche, I will find the exact reference from the GIRM, and then I will expect an apology from you for calling me a liar.
O Lord, grant to me the grace that, when I meet my end, it may be as I leave the Confessional.

"They [heretics] want to be treated with oil, soap and caresses. But they should be beaten with fists. In a duel, you don't count or measure the blows, you strike as you can." -- Pope St. Pius X

Charlemagne

Straight from the GIRM:

31. Likewise it is also for the Priest, in the exercise of his office of presiding over the gathered assembly, to offer certain explanations that are foreseen in the rite itself. Where this is laid down by the rubrics, the celebrant is permitted to adapt them somewhat so that they correspond to the capacity for understanding of those participating. However, the Priest should always take care to keep to the sense of the explanatory text given in the Missal and to express it in just a few words. It is also for the presiding Priest to regulate the Word of God and to impart the final blessing. He is permitted, furthermore, in a very few words, to give the faithful an introduction to the Mass of the day (after the initial Greeting and before the Penitential Act), to the Liturgy of the Word (before the readings), and to the Eucharistic Prayer (before the Preface), though never during the Eucharistic Prayer itself; he may also make concluding comments regarding the entire sacred action before the Dismissal.

So, the "president of the assembly," often with his extremely poor seminary training, can "in a very few words" expound upon what is supposedly the holiest action on the face of the earth. Get your head out of the sand, poche.
O Lord, grant to me the grace that, when I meet my end, it may be as I leave the Confessional.

"They [heretics] want to be treated with oil, soap and caresses. But they should be beaten with fists. In a duel, you don't count or measure the blows, you strike as you can." -- Pope St. Pius X

poche

Quote from: Charlemagne on May 17, 2013, 10:30:39 PM
Straight from the GIRM:

31. Likewise it is also for the Priest, in the exercise of his office of presiding over the gathered assembly, to offer certain explanations that are foreseen in the rite itself. Where this is laid down by the rubrics, the celebrant is permitted to adapt them somewhat so that they correspond to the capacity for understanding of those participating. However, the Priest should always take care to keep to the sense of the explanatory text given in the Missal and to express it in just a few words. It is also for the presiding Priest to regulate the Word of God and to impart the final blessing. He is permitted, furthermore, in a very few words, to give the faithful an introduction to the Mass of the day (after the initial Greeting and before the Penitential Act), to the Liturgy of the Word (before the readings), and to the Eucharistic Prayer (before the Preface), though never during the Eucharistic Prayer itself; he may also make concluding comments regarding the entire sacred action before the Dismissal.

So, the "president of the assembly," often with his extremely poor seminary training, can "in a very few words" expound upon what is supposedly the holiest action on the face of the earth. Get your head out of the sand, poche.
I thought you were referring to something else. It would not be considered illicit for the priest to give a brief explanation as to what is going on during the mass. This would be in instances where there are a considerable number of noncatholics in attendance. This could be their one and only opportunity to see what happens during a Catholic mass. Here is an opportunity for the priest to explain the mass and give an introduction to Cahtolic dogma. Then hopefully they will return. Hopefully this could be the beginning of someone's conversion.
:) :) :)

poche

Quote from: Charlemagne on May 17, 2013, 10:30:39 PM
Straight from the GIRM:

31. Likewise it is also for the Priest, in the exercise of his office of presiding over the gathered assembly, to offer certain explanations that are foreseen in the rite itself. Where this is laid down by the rubrics, the celebrant is permitted to adapt them somewhat so that they correspond to the capacity for understanding of those participating. However, the Priest should always take care to keep to the sense of the explanatory text given in the Missal and to express it in just a few words. It is also for the presiding Priest to regulate the Word of God and to impart the final blessing. He is permitted, furthermore, in a very few words, to give the faithful an introduction to the Mass of the day (after the initial Greeting and before the Penitential Act), to the Liturgy of the Word (before the readings), and to the Eucharistic Prayer (before the Preface), though never during the Eucharistic Prayer itself; he may also make concluding comments regarding the entire sacred action before the Dismissal.

So, the "president of the assembly," often with his extremely poor seminary training, can "in a very few words" expound upon what is supposedly the holiest action on the face of the earth. Get your head out of the sand, poche.
Sacrosanctum Concilium also says this:

3. Therefore no other person, even if he be a priest, may add, remove, or change anything in the liturgy on his own authority.



Mithrandylan

Quote from: poche on May 17, 2013, 11:36:15 PM
Quote from: Charlemagne on May 17, 2013, 10:30:39 PM
Straight from the GIRM:

31. Likewise it is also for the Priest, in the exercise of his office of presiding over the gathered assembly, to offer certain explanations that are foreseen in the rite itself. Where this is laid down by the rubrics, the celebrant is permitted to adapt them somewhat so that they correspond to the capacity for understanding of those participating. However, the Priest should always take care to keep to the sense of the explanatory text given in the Missal and to express it in just a few words. It is also for the presiding Priest to regulate the Word of God and to impart the final blessing. He is permitted, furthermore, in a very few words, to give the faithful an introduction to the Mass of the day (after the initial Greeting and before the Penitential Act), to the Liturgy of the Word (before the readings), and to the Eucharistic Prayer (before the Preface), though never during the Eucharistic Prayer itself; he may also make concluding comments regarding the entire sacred action before the Dismissal.

So, the "president of the assembly," often with his extremely poor seminary training, can "in a very few words" expound upon what is supposedly the holiest action on the face of the earth. Get your head out of the sand, poche.
Sacrosanctum Concilium also says this:

3. Therefore no other person, even if he be a priest, may add, remove, or change anything in the liturgy on his own authority.

But the GIRM is not of his own authority, is it?

Ps 135

Quia in humilitáte nostra memor fuit nostri: * quóniam in ætérnum misericórdia eius.
Et redémit nos ab inimícis nostris: * quóniam in ætérnum misericórdia eius.
Qui dat escam omni carni: * quóniam in ætérnum misericórdia eius.
Confitémini Deo cæli: * quóniam in ætérnum misericórdia eius.
Confitémini Dómino dominórum: * quóniam in ætérnum misericórdia eius.

For he was mindful of us in our affliction: * for his mercy endureth for ever.
And he redeemed us from our enemies: * for his mercy endureth for ever.
Who giveth food to all flesh: * for his mercy endureth for ever.
Give glory to the God of heaven: * for his mercy endureth for ever.
Give glory to the Lord of lords: * for his mercy endureth for ever.

-I retract any and all statements I have made that are incongruent with the True Faith, and apologize for ever having made them-