Quote from: MyrnaM

SJB, it breaks my heart, that I keep her in the pew, when I have her at Mass, once or twice a year.

Are you saying I should allow her to go and receive Communion, when she does not realize she is receiving Our Lord.

No. I'm very uncomfortable with a layman advising anyone when or when not to communicate.

Quote

Then, through no fault of her own, she attends novus ordo and receives bread the rest of the year.

I'm confused. Does she not believe in the Catholic teaching of the real presence? Does she deny transubstantiation?  

Quote

If I took her up to the altar, CMRI, would give her Communion unknowingly, to them.

Why do you have to "take her to the altar"? Have you ever suggested she speak with the CMRI priest?

Let me clarify, this particular granddaughter is 10 years old, she must do as her mother tells her right now.  Her mother takes her to the novus ordo church, that is what I meant when I said, "through no fault of her own"

I have told my granddaughter that at the Mount, we have the True Mass and true presence, but I can not tell her that her novus ordo parish they also have the true pesence, because they don't according to CMRI, and I agree.  Might be that if an older priest, a real priest with proper ordination, is offering the Mass there, and offers it properly, could be that time the true presence is there, but I can't explain that to her, as I said she is only 10 years old.  Hit or miss consecration is not acceptable in the One, Holy, Catholic and  Apostalic Church.

I am allowed to take her to Mass, as I said, perhaps once or twice a year, the rest of the time she is under her Mother's control.  

Quote from: Arborman

Quote

But Mater's point...and Matthew's...and mine...is that no one in Traddieland has ANY authority to say that so-and-so (ensnared in the Novus Ordo) is, in fact, outside Holy Church.

I am so glad to see this!  This has been on my mind a lot the last few days.  

The CMRI or SSPV has no authority to deny Communion to any Catholic who is a state of grace.  They do not have the authority to say the NO is invalid and it is mortally sinful to attend it.   This is their position as I heard it expressed on traditional Catholic radio.  

I have now completely rejected the Sede position.

You rejected it long before this discussion!  

 :applause:

And, if he had not done those things my quest to find a True priest would have carried on.

Spoken like a true protestant.

The CMRI or SSPV has no authority to deny Communion to any Catholic who is a state of grace.  They do not have the authority to say the NO is invalid and it is mortally sinful to attend it.   This is their position as I heard it expressed on traditional Catholic radio.  

I have now completely rejected the Sede position.

This is a difficult problem. If the sedevacantist position is true, then nobody has any authority. Nobody. Not just to deny sacraments, but to do anything from hearing confessions to saying Mass to even preaching. Unless certain priests are given authority in a mystical way directly from God, which is I guess what they claim.

But still, it does make sense to deny communion to NO Catholics if you consider them to be members of a false sect with invalid sacraments. That would seem like the normal course of action for a sedevacantist priest. I mean, if you consider the NO priests to be mostly not real priests, then it would be irresponsible to give someone communion before having them make a general confession and possibly being conditionally baptized.

Quote from: wallflower

Quote from: Dawn

Quote from: MaterDominici

Quote from: MyrnaM

CMRI does not refuse people who come in off the street, people that are properly dressed etc., they do not refuse anyone Communion unless they know for sure they are not Catholic.

It's standard not to refuse Communion to someone that you don't know anything about. But, the question remains, when Joe shows up on Sunday, introduces himself to Father before Mass and says, "I'm a parishioner at St. Anthony's (NO) and I thought I'd check out this Latin Mass you have here," would he then be denied Communion?

And, if so, what would Father expect of him before he would be eligible for Communion?

Absolutely. When we first attended Mass with our priest we were not allowed to go up for Eucharist and he told us that flat out. And, then that week he came over to our home and sat at the kitchen table for over three hourse teaching and making certain that we knew our Faith before we could receive Eucharist. And, yes then he did conditionally Baptize each and every one of us (Me as my mother was not certain of any of the circtumstances in regards to my baptism).
And, if he had not done those things my quest to find a True priest would have carried on.

I think the fact that these are called conditional baptisms say it all. Yes, it allows that perhaps the person was not baptized with the intentions of the Church, but it also allows that perhaps, they were. If all NOs were truly a whole new faith, with no ties to Catholicism, there would be no admission of possibilities with the use of the term "conditional". It would just be a baptism, flat out. To say that a NO is not Catholic but then baptize them conditionally makes no sense to me.

Not really at all. Perfect sense dear Flower. YOu see they formally changed the intention of the  sacrament of Baptism. I would have to get the exact year from my priest who is travelling. And it was long before this recent act. I know for a fact that  my old Novus Ordo parish only baptized to make you a member of the community since the 90's.

I realize this, however if one believes that there is no possibility of a NO being a baptized Catholic, then their entrance to the strict sede world would require an all out baptism, wouldn't it? To term it a "conditional" baptism leaves room for doubt, and that doubt goes two ways. Possibly they were not baptized with the right intentions but possibly they WERE. A conditional baptism means that we don't know for sure, we're doing it just in case. That's the difficulty I'm having understanding why a sede who believes the NO is a whole new religion would bother with a "conditional" baptism over a flat out baptism. If they are definitively NOT Catholic then they should be flat out baptized. But by performing a conditional baptism, it admits the possibility of the person being Catholic, that's why it's only conditional, see what I mean?

I think it's great that he took the time to explore the depths of your Faith and make certain you were on track, that's increasingly important. I don't understand the conditional baptism from the point of view that it admits a NO MAY BE Catholic, unless you aren't as strict a sede as I seem to think. I have the impression that all sedes believe NO is not Catholic in any way shape or form, is that right?

Dear Flower. You are correct.  The Novus Ordo is a man made religion and therefore we do not recognize it. And, I should clarify I received a conditional Baptism. My husband and children all received a complete baptism.
You see I was baptized in 1960, but as I stated my mothe could not remember anything about it. And I know for a fact that error had been taught in the two parishes here since the early 1900's.
I hope that cleared things. :dancing:

Yes, that fits more consistently with my impression of the movement. Thank you!

Error? It is not an "error"  if your intent is  to make someone "A member of our community." They never talk about removing original sin or making one a child of God.
Intention and Form. They do not have correct intention.

Error? It is not an "error"  if your intent is  to make someone "A member of our community." They never talk about removing original sin or making one a child of God.
Intention and Form. They do not have correct intention.

If your true priest had any understanding of Catholic doctrine, he would know that those kinds of errors do not affect the validity of the sacraments.  This is basic doctrine.