|
Post by Clotilde on Aug 30, 2016 9:27:22 GMT -5
The two issues are the Slupski/Ramolla issues but they don't deny Communion to any other groups but I think some still mistrust this situation. I don't know the facts myself and I'm unlikely to go there for other reasons so I've never found out much. The other is the SSPV, who are the only group that thinks others (Thuc lineage) are invalid and yes they do deny Communion. Other than that, between the four factions there isn't much of a problem except for personality/emotional conflicts between some laity and some priests. The people get along way better than they get credit for on the Internet. Slupski's in Cincinnati, too?! No clue, I was just referring to the incident that caused that problem.
|
|
|
Post by Clotilde on Aug 30, 2016 9:33:18 GMT -5
This makes me think of a different question I used to ponder but never really had an answer for: If a trad priest knew that certain chapel members were going to the NO service on some Sundays and receiving communion there can and should he deny them Holy Communion on the Sundays they came to "his" chapel? (If this should be in a different thread please change it.) As far as I know, no, but some will ask you to pick one or the other. I'm not sure it has ever come to denial of Communion.
|
|
|
Post by Damaged Goods on Aug 30, 2016 11:59:22 GMT -5
This makes me think of a different question I used to ponder but never really had an answer for: If a trad priest knew that certain chapel members were going to the NO service on some Sundays and receiving communion there can and should he deny them Holy Communion on the Sundays they came to "his" chapel? (If this should be in a different thread please change it.) They shouldn't refuse Holy Communion or threaten to do so (as the Church has not bound consciences in this matter either), though they would be well within their rights to warn the faithful about the dangers of attending the New Mass and advise them not to go. It would be a different matter if chapel members were attending a manifestly heterodox rite (say, one that included prayers to a 4th divine Person) or a mass celebrated by declared heretics or schismatics. In that case, refusal of Holy Communion would be warranted and even obligatory.
|
|
|
Post by Clotilde on Aug 30, 2016 13:09:43 GMT -5
This makes me think of a different question I used to ponder but never really had an answer for: If a trad priest knew that certain chapel members were going to the NO service on some Sundays and receiving communion there can and should he deny them Holy Communion on the Sundays they came to "his" chapel? (If this should be in a different thread please change it.) They shouldn't refuse Holy Communion or threaten to do so (as the Church has not bound consciences in this matter either), though they would be well within their rights to warn the faithful about the dangers of attending the New Mass and advise them not to go. It would be a different matter if chapel members were attending a manifestly heterodox rite (say, one that included prayers to a 4th divine Person) or a mass celebrated by declared heretics or schismatics. In that case, refusal of Holy Communion would be warranted and even obligatory. That's a great explaination. Thanks.
|
|
|
Post by heinrich on Aug 30, 2016 18:50:54 GMT -5
which is Catholics doing exactly what Jesus commanded us not to do. What'joo talk'n 'bout?
|
|
|
Post by Voxxkowalski on Aug 30, 2016 18:56:53 GMT -5
Lord stuff over each other
|
|
|
Post by michaelwilson on Aug 30, 2016 20:50:32 GMT -5
I would agree with Vox. One thing is to take a stand against the N.O.M. Another is to impose one's views as a dogma of faith that will earn an exco if one disagrees.
|
|