Author Topic: Recieivng Communion in Traditional Mass (Read 3279 times)

trickster · « **on:** July 13, 2014, 06:09:45 PM »

Can a Catholic who is a Novus Ordo Catholic receive communion in a traditional mass? Just thought about that question last night....

Bruce Ferguson
Trickster

songbird · « **Reply #1 on:** July 13, 2014, 06:55:47 PM »

If one is in their right mind, they would go to confession first.

Miseremini · « **Reply #2 on:** July 13, 2014, 07:02:41 PM »

If they were born after Vat II might it be possible that it would be their First communion????

Nadir · « **Reply #3 on:** July 13, 2014, 07:40:11 PM »

Novus Ordo people don't wear coloured armbands or necessarily stand out from the crowd, so probably the priest would give them Holy Communion.

So of course they can. But I believe that they should know what they are receiving.

Do they think that the consecrated host is the Body of Our Lord Jesus Christ or do they believe it represents/symbolises it? Most would need catechesis before understanding just what they are receiving.

Besides, would a dyed-in-the-wool novus ordite want to attend the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass unless he was looking for the real thing and therefore converting from novus ordism to the Catholic Faith?

Frances · « **Reply #4 on:** July 13, 2014, 08:20:20 PM »

: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.

trickster · « **Reply #5 on:** July 13, 2014, 08:50:02 PM »

Quote from: songbird

If one is in their right mind, they would go to confession first.

Interesting response songbird. In my case I received my first Holy Communion in the "traditional church" way before the changes (1963). Would you say that those who received their First Communion after Vatican II that there sacrament is valid?

Secondly, for those of us who have the valid sacrament (under the old church) what is it that you are saying; if I go to Confession at a traditional catholic church, then I am good to receive communion.

Trust me, this is not a trick question, I just never thought about it before..

Trickster
Bruce Ferguson

trickster · « **Reply #6 on:** July 13, 2014, 08:52:41 PM »

Quote from: Miseremini

If they were born after Vat II might it be possible that it would be their First communion????

You know Miseremin, the notion of novus order first communion not being valid is something I would not agree with....but you indeed bring up a very interesting point and that is would it not be inconsistent for traditional catholics to reject the Vatican II church yet accept the sacraments it dispense as valid?

Priest who were ordained before 1963 are catholic even if they are novus order, but are priests after vatican II council valid priests?

Very interesting, thanks for sharing that perspective with me.

Bruce Ferguson

songbird · « **Reply #7 on:** July 13, 2014, 09:38:24 PM »

Trickster: If the Precious Blood is valid, true, why would you call Truth, OLD? Is one plus one = 2 old? Confession is between priest and penitent. If the penitent takes the true Precious Blood wrongly, that is sacrilege, then the penitent will be the one to pay the price.
Is the sacrament(Holy Eucharist) valid after Vat. II? We had changes to the Mass before Vat. II. And those who went, participated, knew that it was not the same. Sacrilege, the worst sin ever, against the Precious Blood! I could not think of a worst sin!

Whether your questions be tricky or not, your terminology is New Order.

poche · « **Reply #8 on:** July 13, 2014, 10:26:27 PM »

If it is a Catholic church any Catholic should be able to recieve Holy Communion in any Catholic Mass as long as he is in the state of sanctifying grace.

Nadir · « **Reply #9 on:** July 13, 2014, 10:43:48 PM »

Quote from: trickster

In my case I received my first Holy Communion in the "traditional church" way before the changes (1963). Would you say that those who received their First Communion after Vatican II that there sacrament is valid?

Secondly, for those of us who have the valid sacrament (under the old church) what is it that you are saying; if I go to Confession at a traditional catholic church, then I am good to receive communion.

Trust me, this is not a trick question, I just never thought about it before..

Trickster
Bruce Ferguson

Bruce, you seem to be labouring under a few misconceptions. Firstly you seem to equate novus ordo with vatican 2. These need to be separated in your mind in order to clarify your thoughts and sort a few things out. Although there were some changes made in the Mass before that, the Novus Ordo Mass was introduced in 1969, whereas Vatican 2 was held 1962 - 1965. You can say that the novus ordo was a subsequent outcome of Vat2.

Also not only was the Mass changed, but every other sacrament was changed or tampered with. The most crucial of these changes other than the Mass is that of the ordination of priests and the consecration of bishops. These changes may mean that any priest or bishop ordained after the changes and in the new rite is possibly not a priest or a bishop at all. This could consequently invalidate any sacraments these men would administer.

Another issue here is that unless a priest or bishops intends to do what the Church does (and many in their false beliefs do not) there is no sacrament. For example, when one sees that a priest never genuflects as he passes by the tabernacle, then one is forced to doubt whether he actually beilieves in the Real Presence and if he does not believe in the Real Presence then he is unable to bring the Real Presence about in the Sacred Species.

Keep searching.

You really need to do your homework on these questions. I am sure that there are people here who would gladly assist in where you should start if you are sincerely interested in finding the Truth.

trickster · « **Reply #10 on:** July 13, 2014, 11:15:06 PM »

Quote from: Nadir

Novus Ordo people don't wear coloured armbands or necessarily stand out from the crowd, so probably the priest would give them Holy Communion.

So of course they can. But I believe that they should know what they are receiving.

Do they think that the consecrated host is the Body of Our Lord Jesus Christ or do they believe it represents/symbolises it? Most would need catechesis before understanding just what they are receiving.

Besides, would a dyed-in-the-wool novus ordite want to attend the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass unless he was looking for the real thing and therefore converting from novus ordism to the Catholic Faith?

Thank you Nadir. Of course I believe that the communion is the actual blood and body of Christ, how could I not? I was taught about Holy Communion in 1963 and Novus Order or not, this is the real body and blood of our Lord; we are together on that. That is basic Catholicism catechism is it not?

In terms of your second point, I do seek communion with my brothers and sisters who are traditional catholics. In fact I found the SSPX Society website for Canada (we are under the "Province of Canada") and in fact we have a parish just about 10 miles away from me, so I am going to connect with the priest.

The SSPX priest in Calgary was lambasted by Bishop Henry who warned Novus Order Catholics not to attend (which is a good enough reason for me to go :) and the poor SSPX priest was taken off guard as he was trying to foster a good working relationship with the Bishop. Many SSPX people understand that while we do not agree with each other we have an obligation to be brothers and sisters in Jesus. Do we not?

Bruce Ferguson

trickster · « **Reply #11 on:** July 13, 2014, 11:23:30 PM »

Quote from: songbird

Trickster: If the Precious Blood is valid, true, why would you call Truth, OLD? Is one plus one = 2 old? Confession is between priest and penitent. If the penitent takes the true Precious Blood wrongly, that is sacrilege, then the penitent will be the one to pay the price.
Is the sacrament(Holy Eucharist) valid after Vat. II? We had changes to the Mass before Vat. II. And those who went, participated, knew that it was not the same. Sacrilege, the worst sin ever, against the Precious Blood! I could not think of a worst sin!

Whether your questions be tricky or not, your terminology is New Order.

In terms of OLD, come on Songbird, you use the word NEW, so I can reverse the question to you. Unless I believe you are valid and you do not believe I am valid... only in that context your statement makes sense. In any case I respect your opinion, and honor your belief and make no judgements of the relationship you have with Our Lord. I trust it's pretty good :)

We actually did not change the Mass (what happens at the mass) we changed the liturgy around the mass. I believe we are the same church so I believe the Holy Eucharist is the same as it always was and always will be ("as it was in the beginning, is now, and for ever shall be")... and most of the responses I have had from traditional catholics assume that it is the same eucharist.

Now, are you saying that those of us baptized and who recieved communion in the church prior to the council, who in all honestly followed our bishops into the novus order are commiting sacrilege...what sacrilege would you be talking about...what parts of scripture are you looking at or what docuмents from the popes and other teaching authorities are you using tomake such statemetns?

I agree with you committing sacrilege is a very bad sin, but I can think of a worse sin and that is the sin against the Holy Ghost.....anyways for what it was worth...thank you for your points

Bruce

trickster · « **Reply #12 on:** July 13, 2014, 11:25:04 PM »

Quote from: poche

If it is a Catholic church any Catholic should be able to recieve Holy Communion in any Catholic Mass as long as he is in the state of sanctifying grace.

Thank you Poche...your answer makes sense to me too :)

Trickster
Bruce Ferguson

trickster · « **Reply #13 on:** July 13, 2014, 11:32:35 PM »

Quote from: Nadir

Quote from: trickster

In my case I received my first Holy Communion in the "traditional church" way before the changes (1963). Would you say that those who received their First Communion after Vatican II that there sacrament is valid?

Secondly, for those of us who have the valid sacrament (under the old church) what is it that you are saying; if I go to Confession at a traditional catholic church, then I am good to receive communion.

Trust me, this is not a trick question, I just never thought about it before..

Trickster
Bruce Ferguson

Bruce, you seem to be labouring under a few misconceptions. Firstly you seem to equate novus ordo with vatican 2. These need to be separated in your mind in order to clarify your thoughts and sort a few things out. Although there were some changes made in the Mass before that, the Novus Ordo Mass was introduced in 1969, whereas Vatican 2 was held 1962 - 1965. You can say that the novus ordo was a subsequent outcome of Vat2.

Also not only was the Mass changed, but every other sacrament was changed or tampered with. The most crucial of these changes other than the Mass is that of the ordination of priests and the consecration of bishops. These changes may mean that any priest or bishop ordained after the changes and in the new rite is possibly not a priest or a bishop at all. This could consequently invalidate any sacraments these men would administer.

Another issue here is that unless a priest or bishops intends to do what the Church does (and many in their false beliefs do not) there is no sacrament. For example, when one sees that a priest never genuflects as he passes by the tabernacle, then one is forced to doubt whether he actually beilieves in the Real Presence and if he does not believe in the Real Presence then he is unable to bring the Real Presence about in the Sacred Species.

Keep searching.

You really need to do your homework on these questions. I am sure that there are people here who would gladly assist in where you should start if you are sincerely interested in finding the Truth.

Nadir, thank you so much for a most respectful answer that addresses what I am asking. I should mention that I located a SSPX parish just a few miles from me, so I will be engaging the priest there.

Your separation of the elements make a lot of sense since we moved from Victoria, BC (which at the time was all "old order" church) and then in Vancouver, we were introduced to new things like the communion in the hand, so your time frame makes sense in terms of my own life experience...thank you on that clarification.

In terms of the validity of priests, bishops and sacraments, that is something way above my head right now.. .but I hear you clearly in understanding they need to be examined. I remember bits and pieces from Archbishop Lefebvres concerns...however, you can agree this will take a bit of time on my part.. .but I think connecting with an SSPX priest will be a good first step and since I am doing a degree in philosophy I am sure there can find a way to connect my studies to these questions....

I hope to hear a lot more from you Nadir...and thanks again for the kindness you showed in your responses to me....

Bruce Ferguson

MaterDominici · « **Reply #14 on:** July 13, 2014, 11:55:32 PM »

Quote from: trickster

Quote from: Nadir
Novus Ordo people don't wear coloured armbands or necessarily stand out from the crowd, so probably the priest would give them Holy Communion.

So of course they can. But I believe that they should know what they are receiving.

Do they think that the consecrated host is the Body of Our Lord Jesus Christ or do they believe it represents/symbolises it? Most would need catechesis before understanding just what they are receiving.

Besides, would a dyed-in-the-wool novus ordite want to attend the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass unless he was looking for the real thing and therefore converting from novus ordism to the Catholic Faith?

Thank you Nadir. Of course I believe that the communion is the actual blood and body of Christ, how could I not? I was taught about Holy Communion in 1963 and Novus Order or not, this is the real body and blood of our Lord; we are together on that. That is basic Catholicism catechism is it not?

In terms of your second point, I do seek communion with my brothers and sisters who are traditional catholics. In fact I found the SSPX Society website for Canada (we are under the "Province of Canada") and in fact we have a parish just about 10 miles away from me, so I am going to connect with the priest.

The SSPX priest in Calgary was lambasted by Bishop Henry who warned Novus Order Catholics not to attend (which is a good enough reason for me to go :) and the poor SSPX priest was taken off guard as he was trying to foster a good working relationship with the Bishop. Many SSPX people understand that while we do not agree with each other we have an obligation to be brothers and sisters in Jesus. Do we not?

Bruce Ferguson

I'd be interested to know if Nadir's impressions come from first-hand experience or statistics / internet postings.

If I believed only what I read online, I'd believe the NO to be a complete wasteland where anyone wishing to attend a TLM would be as good as having never attended any Mass at all, but my own experience says otherwise.

I was properly taught about the Real Presence in 1987. I taught First Communion to NO children as recently as 2005 (without any Trad background ... I just picked up the materials passed down to me and followed the lessons). Now, my own children are being taught First Communion preparation from the SSPX. I can say certainly that my NO students were expected to know way more basic Catholicism than my own children are required to know.

Any NO parish of decent size in this area offers perpetual adoration. That's not exactly the practice of people who don't believe they're actually spending time with Our Lord.

BUT! That's not to say a NO person is likely to be prepared to receive Communion (Trad or otherwise), only that understanding the nature of the Sacrament isn't what I'd believe to be the biggest obstacle.

My concern for someone coming from the NO and wishing to receive Communion would be (1) have they been to Confession recently and (2) are they aware of the many things NO Catholicism ignores which are in fact mortal sins (marriage outside the Church, birth control, participation in non-Catholic services, etc, etc, etc).