James02
Member
Gender: 
Posts: 6,882
|
|
« Reply #10 on: January 28, 2011, 12:20:AM » |
|
Very strange, and not theologically sound. You should not receive only if you have mortal sin on your soul. So this priest must believe that the confessions are invalid? Never heard that before. And it is ironic considering the controversy around SSPX confessions. The form and matter for confession are extremely basic. It is hard, even in the N.O. to have an invalid one. And an FSSP confession is always going to be valid.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
"God's Wrath is Glorious, and I have a front row seat"
"We can not guarantee success. We can only deserve it."
"And who do you say that I Am?"
"That one simple question, whether Jesus of Nazareth was God Incarnate, becomes increasingly decisive between people, as history moves forward. .... The answer to this question cuts into human ties and seems to reflect even on the nature of inanimate things. What if: all that is folly in the eyes of the Greeks, and scandal in the eyes of the Jews, ... is Truth?"
And there was no doubt about it -- towards Him we had been running, or from Him we had been running away, but all the time He had been in the center of things.
|
|
|
The_Harlequin_King
Protector of the Internet!
Member
Gender:
Location: The Republic of Texas
Posts: 9,730
|
|
« Reply #11 on: January 28, 2011, 12:54:AM » |
|
Actually, I do not think that is true. I could be wrong but I think officially, they can only deny communion to public sinners like abortionists etc. I've read that on the forum recently. I don't know if it's true, but it makes sense. On the other hand, I think priests should be able to make decisions like "only the bride and groom will receive Communion at this Mass", or "only immediate family members of the deceased", or no people's Communion at all. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
Please read and subscribe to my blog: Modern Medievalism. Applying old-world solutions to new-world problems.  Praying for the dead is important. PM me if you need a cantor for the Requiem Mass of a deceased friend or family member. Have cassock and surplice, will travel. (Will also do weddings for a reasonable price.) |
|
|
ColleenC
Member
Gender: 
Location: Mid-west
Personality type: melancholic
Posts: 52
|
|
« Reply #12 on: January 28, 2011, 09:32:AM » |
|
I actually did not attend this wedding of my cousin and it was a painful decision. But I don't attend weddings where the priest doesn't have faculties. One of my other cousins attended the wedding. Some friends of mine who attend the Novus Ordo were also there. They actually got up and left the church when the priest said this. I can understand that he was worried about some of the congregation being in the state of sin, since many Catholics today are using artificial birth control. It would have been right if he just said that no one should approach the sacrament in the state of mortal sin.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Iolanthe
Member
Gender:
Personality type: broken record
Posts: 5,220
"If one can't be happy one must be amused"
|
|
« Reply #13 on: January 28, 2011, 10:09:AM » |
|
They actually got up and left the church when the priest said this.
It's extremely tiresome when NO people do this at TLMs. If you're that easily offended, stay home instead of making a big fuss in a place where you're a guest. It seems like attention seeking to me. When I (very rarely) find myself at NO ceremony I wouldn't dream of getting up and leaving if something happened I didn't like. It's just rude and distracting...especially at a wedding. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
"Tenthly, one should pour tea into the cup first. This is one of the most controversial points of all; indeed in every family in Britain there are probably two schools of thought on the subject. The milk-first school can bring forward some fairly strong arguments, but I maintain that my own argument is unanswerable. This is that, by putting the tea in first and stirring as one pours, one can exactly regulate the amount of milk, whereas one is liable to put in too much milk if one does it the other way round."
George Orwell
|
|
|
Clare
Dumb Blonde
Member
Gender:
Location: UK
Posts: 2,484
Ask dad; he knows.
|
|
« Reply #14 on: January 28, 2011, 03:55:PM » |
|
Hi, I'm new here. I was wondering if it is common practice for a Society of Pius X priests to tell the congregation at a wedding that if they attend a Diocessan (he said Indult) approved Tridentine Mass (which I attend) or a Novus Ordo Mass, they cannot receive the Blessed Sacrament at this wedding....
No, it's not common practice. At the regular Sunday Masses of the SSPX that I attend, there have been members of the congregation who sometimes attend "approved" Masses, and sometimes even NO Masses, and they're never turned away. There's no announcement. My dad had an SSPX funeral, which was chock-ful of NO Catholics, most of whom received Communion, and the only announcement was that Communion is distributed on the tongue. At most, it might be announced that only practising Catholics in a state of grace may receive, but NO and indult Catholics are not excluded from possibly managing to fall into that category! |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
JayneK
Gold Fish
Gender:
Personality type: INTJ
Posts: 14,360
|
|
« Reply #15 on: January 28, 2011, 04:58:PM » |
|
At the SSPX chapel where I occasionally attend the priest has never suggested that I should not receive Communion there and he knows that I often attend the Novus Ordo Mass. So I suspect that this is something from that priest alone rather than a Society policy.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
ADORABLE Saviour, consider my many wants, and grant me those graces which Thou knowest I stand in need of to do Thy will in all things.
|
|
|
|
aus_cath_2
Member
Posts: 92
|
|
« Reply #16 on: January 30, 2011, 05:01:AM » |
|
People can make wrong decisions, including Priests - I have attended many SSPX weddings in many places - this has never happened. I highly think this is a case of an individual - it does not reflect on the SSPX as a whole. Why don't you notify the closest district superior? Anyway, I think it would be silly to be turned off from something and stop defending the SSPX because of one particular incident, at one particular place by one particular priest. Remember this has never happened to any I have been and known of and theirs a lot! However I do think this certain case ought to be corrected. .. i.e. the priest to be informed of doing the right thing. . .
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Stubborn
Member
Gender:
Posts: 5,017
|
|
« Reply #17 on: January 30, 2011, 06:32:AM » |
|
There is more to this, I think.
Regardless of what anyone thinks, it is the priest who has the right, even the obligation to speak up and say what needs to be said, especially in this day and age, without worrying about turning the whole issue into a diplomatic event.
There are many good reasons as to why trad priests all over the world, are trad priests - and if nothing else, this priest made it clear where he stands. Whoever that disturbs, displeases or otherwise pisses off - he doesn't care.
Many (most?) trad priests believe that the NO is a sacrilege - and with good reason imo. He will answer for it no matter If he was right or wrong - obviously his conviction and his concern to defend and safeguard Our Lord was more important to him than "what folks will think" or if it makes them feel uncomfortable.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
It is the Mass that matters.
But because thou art lukewarm, and neither cold, not hot, I will begin to vomit thee out of my mouth. -Apocalypse 3:16
|
|
|
Master_P
Member
Gender:
Personality type: Pretty laid back
Posts: 768
|
|
« Reply #18 on: January 30, 2011, 06:39:AM » |
|
I actually did not attend this wedding of my cousin and it was a painful decision. But I don't attend weddings where the priest doesn't have faculties. If you weren't there, are you sure your friends aren't exaggerating what he said? |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
Merci, Monseigneur
|
|
|
Tim
Gold Fish
Gender:
Location: chicago
Posts: 12,304
|
|
« Reply #19 on: January 30, 2011, 06:52:AM » |
|
$0.02, only !
When I was in the wilderness, I attended some NO Marriages. I remember on two occasions this happened, where Communion was not offered to all, but to the immediate couple and their group. We, me and friends, attributed it to so many folks at the Mass and so many of them were Prots. Very ecumenical crowd to my eye even then, and I think the priest wasn't taking chances. It was chatted about at the reception a bit and that was many folk's understanding. I can't recall it being announced though. I was in the wilderness and was more worried about the beer, and whiskey. Many just chalked it up to more new stuff !
tim
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
