R
RosaryCrusader
Guest
I was wondering if people who attend the Novus Ordo are allowed to receive communion in Catholic Churches?
- Status
P
pnewton
Guest
This post makes no sense at all. In case you are not familiar with the term, Novus Ordo was used when a new order of the Mass came out for Catholic Churches. It is the slang term used for the standard (or ordinary) for (order) of the Mass in the Catholic Church. Therefore, those who are receiving communion are attending the “Novus Ordo.”
R
rpp
Guest
Your parish priest is incorrect. You should ask your priest on what basis he makes that assertion. After all, the SSPX is not in actual schism nor are their sacraments invalid. They are merely illicit until the relationship with the society is regularized.
R
rpp
Guest
I think RosaryCrusader was trying to make a joke because he/she may think the OP’s question is equally absurd. (For my part, I think the OP’s question was not absurd because the OP did not have a proper understanding the status of the SSPX.)
P
ProVobis
Guest
Right. And those who attend ORTHODOX services aren’t?
P
ProVobis
Guest
Not so. The Mass said according to the 1962 Missal of Pope John XXIII is perfectly licit. The SSPX priest, however, is still in suspension and therefore he is not saying it licitly. However since the Mass is licit, then it is perfectly valid and, in itself, does fulfill the Sabbath obligation according to Canon Law.
R
rpp
Guest
I think you are confusing “licit” with “valid”. SSPX Masses are “valid” but not “licit” because they, as priests, celebrate a valid and recognized Mass correctly (making it valid), however because the priests are suspended, they are not supposed to say Mass (making it illicit). Everything else in your post was correct.
P
ProVobis
Guest
You’re reading too much into what I said.
Putting aside who says the Mass, Masses celebrated according to the Missal of 1962 are licit (given matter, etc.) because those were per instruction of the Holy Father, whereas the missal of 1965, for example, would not be licit, though some vernacular readings in the 1962 Mass may be acceptable.
A
Abenadar
Guest
With all due respect your priest is not right. As a baptized Catholic in the state of grace I can receive valid sacraments. The end.
C
Claire_from_DE
Guest
quote:
Poor maurin, you still just don’t get it.
I said if something another poster has written is true, then these other things would logically follow. Then you, who obviously knew that the pope had said a Catholic may fulfill his Sunday obligation at a SSPX mass and could have given the citation, amused yourself by spinning my words into something I didn’t say and attacking. As you say, most people here have read the conversation.
"I don’t know the pope’s position on this.
But if he has said that the SSPX priests’ masses are not licit (this was referring to the previous poster who said, “the Pope himself said for the second time this year that the clergy of SSPX do NOT minister licitly as Catholic clergy”), the laity who persist in attending them knowing they aren’t licit (I should have said, “knowing it isn’t licit for the priests to say them”) show an attitude of '" just don’t give a dern what the pope says, he is wrong, I will do it anyway!". Is this attitude toward the pope’s lawful authority sinful? Should it be confessed before receiving communion in a church in union with the pope?
If they do receive communion in a Catholic church which is in union with the pope, wouldn’t that indicate a unity which they don’t have?"
You not only did not address the three questions I asked, you accused me of saying other things I did not say, which a person of good will would not have done.
Poor maurin, you still just don’t get it.
I said if something another poster has written is true, then these other things would logically follow. Then you, who obviously knew that the pope had said a Catholic may fulfill his Sunday obligation at a SSPX mass and could have given the citation, amused yourself by spinning my words into something I didn’t say and attacking. As you say, most people here have read the conversation.
Yes, maurin, Here is my first post (which you must not have read carefully in your hurry to get your licks in).No Claire, you didn’t. You’re saying it now. But you might have a great carreer ahead of you in politics!
Had you made that distinction 2 or three days ago–which a person of good will would have done, this thread would have been much shorter.
You may get in your last licks. I’m done with you.
"I don’t know the pope’s position on this.
But if he has said that the SSPX priests’ masses are not licit (this was referring to the previous poster who said, “the Pope himself said for the second time this year that the clergy of SSPX do NOT minister licitly as Catholic clergy”), the laity who persist in attending them knowing they aren’t licit (I should have said, “knowing it isn’t licit for the priests to say them”) show an attitude of '" just don’t give a dern what the pope says, he is wrong, I will do it anyway!". Is this attitude toward the pope’s lawful authority sinful? Should it be confessed before receiving communion in a church in union with the pope?
If they do receive communion in a Catholic church which is in union with the pope, wouldn’t that indicate a unity which they don’t have?"
You not only did not address the three questions I asked, you accused me of saying other things I did not say, which a person of good will would not have done.
C
Claire_from_DE
Guest
Possibly your parish priest isn’t aware that the pope has said that Catholics may fulfill their Sunday obligation by attending a SSPX mass. Therefore, as long as those who do so haven’t adopted a schismatic mindset, it is OK and there would be no sin of disobedience. Perhaps your pastor is only acquainted with SSPX members who do have a schismatic mindset and judges that they are objectively in a state of sin.
- Status