:dancing-banana:
Why not? If a person is in the state of grace and Catholic, he may receive Holy Communion.  If someone receives unworthily, the sin is on his soul, nobody else's!   Unless the person is a known public sinner, even the priest cannot deny him Communion.  One certainly doesn't need to secure "permission" beforehand!  
Once, in a chapel that I shall not name, a man took it upon himself to "interrogate" me before Mass started in the belief that he was honoring Our Lord!  He loudly whispered questions such as, "Where were you baptized? When did you make your last Confession?  Which bishop Confirmed you?" I didn't respond except to gesture at the Tabernacle and signal him to be quiet.  When he persisted, I got up and moved to the front pew on the Gospel side.  Fortunately, Mass commenced before he could follow me.  I think he was a bit senile or perhaps mentally challenged.  

*sigh* what a classic case. Things like this give Trads a bad name. Unfortunately, cases like like are all too common.

Sure, many Novus Ordo Catholics downplay dogma, give in to emotion, and are sentimental and "happy clappy". But some Trads are just downright rude and obnoxious! And no, that's not pleasing to Our Lord.

I suppose we could give him the benefit of the doubt (as we all lament that he wouldn't do -- let's not become him, shall we!) and say his heart might have been in the right place. Still, it was rude/imprudent at best and sinful against charity at worst.

People tempted to act like him need to remember -- there's a downside and a penalty (sin) for immoderate zeal. Zeal isn't a "accelerator to the floor" proposition. It isn't about unloading your emotions and pulling out all stops to "show Jesus how much I love Him". If you did that, you might shoot an abortion doctor (heck, maybe even some of his employees), and countless other sinful/imprudent actions.

It all comes down to Prudence. That's what the virtue of Prudence was invented for.

Quote from: Frances

:dancing-banana:
Why not? If a person is in the state of grace and Catholic, he may receive Holy Communion.  If someone receives unworthily, the sin is on his soul, nobody else's!   Unless the person is a known public sinner, even the priest cannot deny him Communion.  One certainly doesn't need to secure "permission" beforehand!  
Once, in a chapel that I shall not name, a man took it upon himself to "interrogate" me before Mass started in the belief that he was honoring Our Lord!  He loudly whispered questions such as, "Where were you baptized? When did you make your last Confession?  Which bishop Confirmed you?" I didn't respond except to gesture at the Tabernacle and signal him to be quiet.  When he persisted, I got up and moved to the front pew on the Gospel side.  Fortunately, Mass commenced before he could follow me.  I think he was a bit senile or perhaps mentally challenged.  

*sigh* what a classic case. Things like this give Trads a bad name. Unfortunately, cases like like are all too common.

Sure, many Novus Ordo Catholics downplay dogma, give in to emotion, and are sentimental and "happy clappy". But some Trads are just downright rude and obnoxious! And no, that's not pleasing to Our Lord.

I suppose we could give him the benefit of the doubt (as we all lament that he wouldn't do -- let's not become him, shall we!) and say his heart might have been in the right place. Still, it was rude/imprudent at best and sinful against charity at worst.

People tempted to act like him need to remember -- there's a downside and a penalty (sin) for immoderate zeal. Zeal isn't a "accelerator to the floor" proposition. It isn't about unloading your emotions and pulling out all stops to "show Jesus how much I love Him". If you did that, you might shoot an abortion doctor (heck, maybe even some of his employees), and countless other sinful/imprudent actions.

It all comes down to Prudence. That's what the virtue of Prudence was invented for.

I wish CathInfo had a "LIKE" button (as they do in Facebook), because i would of hit the "Like" button on this posting.  Matthew thank you for those words.  

Bruce Ferguson
trickster

Quote from: trickster

Quote from: Matto

I believe it is generally a sin to attend the Novus Ordo. Therefore I believe that people coming from the Novus Ordo should confess their sins before they receive communion at a traditional Mass. I also have doubts about the validity of the priests so all the Novus Ordo confessions they have made might be invalid. In that case I would suggest a general confession before receiving communion. That is what I did when I came to tradition.

Matto, I see things the way you do as well.  The Traditional Church in our diocese is a SSPX church and they have written to me that they are in full communion with Rome and recognize the Pope and I had the sense from the letter that it is not that much of a barrier...which is a more moderate TC message that I am getting than I am getting from some of the posters on CathoInfo, so there must be degrees of TC expression.

In any case, it makes sense from a TC stand point that if the N.O. Mass is illegitimate then the last Mass I would of legitimately attended or confession would of  been in the mid to late 60's.  That most people would agree is not my fault as I followed in good faith the leadership of our church...

You bring up some good points (validity and the concept that the N.O. Mass itself as a deception would imply that leaving the traditional mass to go to a N.O. Mass would be a sin)...more research points....geesh..

thanks Matto

Bruce Ferguson
trickster

A long time ago, while attending CMRI, and later finding out about SSPX, I asked another lay person about SSPX and they told me then, it was an organization much like CMRI, except it took the people right back into the novus ordo through the back door.  I had no idea, at that time what that meant, but this note here above makes sense of that statement.  

Yeah, and I suppose it is at the roots of the disagreements within the TC community.  By the way, what is CMRI...sounds like a unit in the hospital :)

Bruce

By the way, what is CMRI...sounds like a unit in the hospital :)

Bruce

I'm having trouble believing that you are honest if you can't bother to look up CMRI to answer your own question.  

Have you ever used a search engine?  

I just had two young women come to my front door asking me if I've ever heard of God the Mother in the Bible.   They are from the Assembly of God, a "non-denominational" church.  

I asked them if they believe in Jesus.  They said yes.

I asked them if they believe that Jesus is God.  Yes, again.

I asked them if Jesus had a mother, that is, if he was born.  Likewise, yes.

I asked them if they each have a mother, and they said they do.

Then I asked them, "So how could the mother of Jesus NOT be the mother of God?"

They stared at me with their mouths open.  Then suddenly one of the girls, who appeared slightly older by a year or two, blurted out that "We're not talking about Mary.  We're talking about the Female image of God -- we can show you in the Bible..."  She started to reach for her shoulder bag.

I said, "It's really rather simple.  You believe that Jesus is God, and you believe that Jesus was a man."  They interjected, "Yes, he came down from heaven and took on a human body."  

I said, "That's fine, now, he is both God and man, correct?"  They agreed.  "And he is one person, the man we know as Jesus, correct?"  They agreed.

"Therefore, how many natures does Jesus have?"  

Again, blank stares.  I clarified, "Does Jesus, who is one person, have also one nature, or does he have more than one nature?"  They cast their eyes down indicating that they had never heard this question in their entire lives, let alone during the 'training' that they underwent to go door-to-door.  

Finally they said that Jesus has one nature.  I told them, "That would be incorrect.  Jesus has two natures, one, a divine nature, and two, a human nature, but He is still one person, which is a matter of God's revelation, and if you don't know that or are wont to reject that, then you also reject the infallible authority that Jesus gave to the Church, outside of which there is no salvation."  I was obviously already above their heads and there was no point in mentioning the hypostatic union.  I'm sure they'd think I was just making that up.  

Both of them started talking together, and I had to interrupt them saying that "This is a matter of divine revelation that goes back some seventeen hundred years ago, and comes to us by the authority that you reject."  

They assured me that they would like to share with me the message of the Bible, and I told them that THEY are the ones who should be listening to what I have to teach them with the authority of the Church, since they have already demonstrated their ignorance of same.

They tried to go back to their "God the mother" and "Female image of God in the Bible," but I said to them, "Look, if you reject the Church, then you reject God who gives us the Church."  They asked me if I'm Catholic, and I said, "Yes."  They smirked at each other, and began to turn away.  

As they were leaving, I told them, "If you refuse to learn the most basic things that Jesus has taught us, how can you expect to understand anything at all?"  They repeated that they're not talking about religion.

While they did not mention "The Elohim," I have heard that's another name they go by.


.

.

The ink dried.  

I didn't mean to imply that CMRI has anything to do with "The Elohim" or Assembly of God or non-denominational or non-religious groups.  

The point was that if you type a few letters into a search engine, you can get answers regarding the identity and background of any organization whose name appears on the Internet.  

When you type "CMRI" and press "Enter," the first 10 hits are all about what it is.  This is not difficult.  

And for me, the conversation I had with those two girls at my front door was not difficult, for me.  It was unbearable for them, however.  That's why they left -- they couldn't stand it anymore.  

A friend later told me that those Elohim people are so obnoxious, and they say all manner of catch slogans to get the attention of people.  Anything with shock value qualifies, because it's sound-bytes that hook the listener.  

They said things that were true, and then suddenly off topic to some lunatic fringe rigamarole that you probably never heard of, which they use to engage a conversation.  Well, it only works on the ignorant, as they just found out.

.

Yes, I found it the CMRI right away after I googled it.  So it developed in the 60s.  I  only heard of  Pius X society so this is interesting...SSPX wasn't the umbrella society of what sounds like two or three streams of traditional catholicism.  

I am now a little bit smarter :)

Bruce

Bruce said:

...a Traditional priest or a priest who was ordained before the full implementation of the council.

It would be more correct to say "a priest ordained according to the undoubtedly valid rite." The council was not the cut-off point. The changes to the rite of ordination which introduced doubts as to its validity occurred later than the council.