/christian/ - Christian Discussion and Fellowship

>>598505

No! The NO mass is perfectly valid. Go to a MASS, don't take COMMUNION, and afterwards talk to a PRIEST.

Why would you go to a service where you can't understand what's being said?

>>598508

Do people who convert to Catholicism still can't take part in communion?

>>598511

Yes. Those remarried without an annulment eg, those without baptism, and those not received in to the RCC.

>>598505

>Should I just not bother?

Go to your local parish.

>>598511

Or, also, anyone with an unconfessed mortal sin.

>>598510

You only need to follow the mass with a missal. And with time you understand without it.

>Should I just not bother?

Yes

>>598511

Not until you undergo The Confirmation®, without it you cannot partake of Transubstantiated Christ's Body™ "I am loving it"

>>598518

>Not until you undergo The Confirmation®,

False.

>>598505

Ah so you don't want to become Catholic, you want to be tRaDiTiOnAliSt ? Stop virtue signalling. If you think Novus Ordo is invalid or whatever, read Sacrosantum Concilium. Fucking hell with you "muh traditionalist" homofags all the time. Read a document or two and stop putting your personal taste above God.

A Novus Ordo can be magnificent and a TLM can be utter trash, you know.

They're two different liturgies of the Roman rite. Enjoy them both.

>>598520

Wait, you give people communion before they're confirmed?

>>598521

very rude

>>598523

>Wait, you give people communion before they're confirmed?

Yep, generally communed at age 8-12 with confirmation at like 16.

PS, if you like more trad liturgy, look at the Personal Ordinariate, the Sarum Rite is pretty amazing.

>>598546

Oh, so Anglo-Catholic is a tradition in Anglicanism (still in communion with Cantebury/CoE). There are also Catholic Anglicans who are in communion with Rome, under episcopal supervision in an ordinariate of the Pope.

There are a few distinct things about the Sarum Rite, probably the most notable being that the priest blesses the deacon who processes out with the subdeacon, crucifer, thurifer, and acolytes and carries out and reads the gospel in the midst of the congregation, the gospel book generally being held by the subdeacon. Everyone in the congregation naturally turns and faces the gospel, you don't even tell anyone and it just naturally happens. It's kind of amazing. Another thing - the peace immediately follows the confession, which makes a lot of sense, if you think about it, we greet each other in purity, knowing still that we are sinners. It follows the traditional catechumens / faithful structure, with the first half as initial prayers, readings, sermon, creed, penitential rite, peace, and general announcements. The second half is offerings and liturgy of the table, with the Lord's prayer done immediately after the host is consecrated, but before the fraction (in the Lord's presence). I love it very much.

>>598553

Oh, and communion is at the rail, kneeling, of course.

>>598555

In Catholicism, Baptism is seen as the entrance into the church community, while Confirmation is seen as an adult confirming that they know what they're getting into and still want to be a part of the church. In a way, Confirmation is sort of to Catholics what Baptism is to Baptists. As for communion, yeah, I don't really get it either. That's just how it's done, I guess.

>>598555

Baptism is a delegation of power from the bishop to the priest because at some point of the history they weren't able to baptize everyone (mobility problem). And the confirmation is the moment when the bishop recognize the entrance of the baptized in the Church. But this practice of doing the first eucharist before confirmation should be reverse because the eucharist is the center and summit of the christian life. There is no path upper than this. So bishop in my country at least are trying to reverse the practice, putting confirmation to a younger age.

>>598527

Rude but necessary. There can be no tolerance of people thinking like that, because they are literally bringing heresy and borderline schism into the Church. Because the question is: DO YOU LOVE GOD? or do you love shady labels ? Because in the former case, you will go to any valid and licit mass that is near you, because you want to commune with God and be near Him, physically, independent of whether YOU think it's cool or naw. But in the latter case, that is exactly what OP expressed. "Should I just not bother when there's only Novus Ordo?". This is having an agenda. This is wanting to label yourself for the sake of (internet) "coolness", "tRaDiTiOnAliSm" and massive virtue signalling. Worse, types like that tend to call anything liturgical abuse and slander parishes because of that. "I personally don't like it, because it's not my taste" does NOT equal liturgical abuse.

And I will repeat myself. OP hints nothing except that he wants to label himself rather than becoming Catholic for the sake of truth.

>>599378

It's always a painstaking effort to show how you are materially any different than the slightly more blatant larper to your immediate left. But as long as you're prioritizing the physical over the eternal you will always be in the same basic category. Just relying on appeals to the flesh and whatever cheap sayings of the day are circulating around to avoid reading Scripture. Repeating the same untrue slanders without even thinking, like a parrot

>I want to convert to x for aesthetic reasons

Just don't…

>>599378

Not Catholic and I've been to Latin Mass and it's a lot better than NO, imo.

If he's experienced both masses and finds it difficult to get into NO, fair play to him, imo. Otherwise, it's a LARP and I'd advise against LARPing.

That said, I expect all Catholics to push hard for a return to TLM as the norm. At the very least, ad orientam no-guitar NO.

>>598510

Because we don't go to mass for ourselves but for God.