Obeying the rubrics

[CrossofChrist]

Do priests have to follow the GIRM under pain of mortal sin? I read on newadvent that it could be either venial or mortal, so I’m thinking that’s still how it is.

Just curious and double checking.

 

[1ke]

The phrase “binding under pain of mortal sin” is not found in the new code of canon law (1983), nor is that concept anywhere in the GIRM.

The Church no longer frames matters of ecclesial law in this way.

 

[sw85]

The phrase “binding under pain of mortal sin” is not found in the new code of canon law (1983), nor is that concept anywhere in the GIRM.

The Church no longer frames matters of ecclesial law in this way.

Right; the old Missal explicitly stated that priests were forbidden to derogate from the rubrics on their own authority under pain of mortal sin. Such a statement is lacking in the new. One may, then, reasonably assume that the degree of sin attached to such a derogation depends on the degree to which it impacts Mass. Inserting a “Good morning!” at the start of Mass after the sign of the cross might be a venial sin at most, but composing and using your own anaphora might be mortal, etc.

 

[surritter]

However, this doesn’t mean that the mortal / venial sin idea doesn’t apply to the situation. Remember that the Church is our mother, and for a priest to disobey his mother, especially after vows of obedience, can be a sinful thing if other conditions apply.

Perhaps a priest purposely omits or alters something because he thinks the Church is wrong on that item, and he knows better. We shouldn’t be afraid to say that that could be a venial sin, and even mortal if he has a defective theology that he’s trying to foist on his congregation.

 

[Cat]

However, this doesn’t mean that the mortal / venial sin idea doesn’t apply to the situation. Remember that the Church is our mother, and for a priest to disobey his mother, especially after vows of obedience, can be a sinful thing if other conditions apply.

Perhaps a priest purposely omits or alters something because he thinks the Church is wrong on that item, and he knows better. We shouldn’t be afraid to say that that could be a venial sin, and even mortal if he has a defective theology that he’s trying to foist on his congregation.

I don’t understand how it can be a mortal sin. One of the requirements for mortal sin is that the Christian must KNOW that it is a sin. A priest who is teaching error is not aware that his teaching is error; he believes it to be the truth and that everyone ELSE is teaching error.

OTOH, there is that extremely condemning passage in Jeremiah 23:1 “Woe to the shepherds who are destroying and scattering the sheep of my pasture!” declares the Lord. This doesn’t sound like the Lord God tolerates clerics who lead people astray. But is the passage talking about teaching wrong theology, or is it talking about clerics who lead people into sin such as idolatry, sex sins, criminality, etc.?

Perhaps the mortal sin happens when the priest first makes the decision to go against what the Church teaches. However, many people, including priests, have a difficult time understanding exactly what the Church teaches.

Again, I’m not seeing how this can be a mortal sin because of the lack of understanding.

Perhaps someone could explain this? Thanks.

 

[Joan_M]

I don’t understand how it can be a mortal sin. One of the requirements for mortal sin is that the Christian must KNOW that it is a sin. **A priest who is teaching error is not aware that his teaching is error; he believes it to be the truth and that everyone ELSE is teaching error. **…

Perhaps the mortal sin happens when the priest first makes the decision to go against what the Church teaches. However, many people, including priests, have a difficult time understanding exactly what the Church teaches.

Again, I’m not seeing how this can be a mortal sin because of the lack of understanding.

Perhaps someone could explain this? Thanks.

What on earth makes you think that a priest who is teaching error is not aware that his teaching is error? So long as he knows that what he is teaching is contrary to what the church teaches, he knows he is going against the Church. It is as simple as that.

If anyone has a difficult time understanding what the Church teaches, they must still obey. We do not have to understand, however, if we do not, then we should do whatever we can to learn more so that we will have better understanding.

In the case of a priest, he has an obligation to teach only what the Church teaches, and it is even more important that he seeks further understanding - after all, he must teach his parishioners. His guilt will be even greater that that of a lay person…

 

[surritter]

I don’t understand how it can be a mortal sin. One of the requirements for mortal sin is that the Christian must KNOW that it is a sin. A priest who is teaching error is not aware that his teaching is error; he believes it to be the truth and that everyone ELSE is teaching error.

OTOH, there is that extremely condemning passage in Jeremiah 23:1 “Woe to the shepherds who are destroying and scattering the sheep of my pasture!” declares the Lord. This doesn’t sound like the Lord God tolerates clerics who lead people astray. But is the passage talking about teaching wrong theology, or is it talking about clerics who lead people into sin such as idolatry, sex sins, criminality, etc.?

Perhaps the mortal sin happens when the priest first makes the decision to go against what the Church teaches. However, many people, including priests, have a difficult time understanding exactly what the Church teaches.

Again, I’m not seeing how this can be a mortal sin because of the lack of understanding.

Perhaps someone could explain this? Thanks.

Sadly, there are indeed priests out there who despise certain Church teachings, and slant their homilies to such beliefs. Yes, they might think they are correct, but they know they are defying the authority of the Church.

The objective matter involved in the sin isn’t necessarily the theological point they dissent about, but rather the very act of placing oneself above the authority established by Christ. So your second point is more along the lines of what I was thinking.

 

[Tigg]

What on earth makes you think that a priest who is teaching error is not aware that his teaching is error? So long as he knows that what he is teaching is contrary to what the church teaches, he knows he is going against the Church. It is as simple as that.

If anyone has a difficult time understanding what the Church teaches, they must still obey. We do not have to understand, however, if we do not, then we should do whatever we can to learn more so that we will have better understanding.

In the case of a priest, he has an obligation to teach only what the Church teaches, and it is even more important that he seeks further understanding - after all, he must teach his parishioners. His guilt will be even greater that that of a lay person…

Spot on! In addition, there’s that little matter of Redemptionis Sacramentum. What priest could possibly be unaware of this document?

[11]** The Mystery of the Eucharist “is too great for anyone to permit himself to treat it according to his own whim,** so that its sacredness and its universal ordering would be obscured”.[27] On the contrary, anyone who acts thus by giving free reign to his own inclinations, even if he is a Priest, injures the substantial unity of the Roman Rite, which ought to be vigorously preserved,[28] and becomes responsible for actions that are in no way consistent with the hunger and thirst for the living God that is experienced by the people today.

vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/ccdds/documents/rc_con_ccdds_doc_20040423_redemptionis-sacramentum_en.html