Why do some Catholics avoid communion at Novus Ordo masses?

Why do some Catholics avoid communion at Novus Ordo masses?

There is no concession among some traditionalists in the Catholic Church that it is not licit to receive communion at a Novus Ordo mass. Some may believe the Ordinary Form is invalid, but not the vast majority of Catholics associated with the Traditional Form. I have been a tradition Catholic over 40 years and have no problem with receiving communion in either Rite. In fact, I have genuinely notice how as you put ”Novus Ordo” Catholics have many misconceptions of the beauties of the Tridentine Mass. Both sides share in spreading misconceptions to one degree or another.

I am going out on a limb here because I truly believe that there is no consensus to be found.

The reason will vary according to a number of reasons:

I have belong to the Traditional Latin Mass for decades now and see no real problem with receiving communion in either Rite. Most of the faithful I known are like me in their thoughts.

However there are some that feel uncomfortable with the Ordinary Form of the Mass and chose not to receive communion. That’s okay.

I remember the former abbot of the La Barroux once said a second mass after he had concelebrated a mass in the Tridentine Rite because he felt uneasy about it.

The reason for not receiving communion is thus quite diverse.

I started doing this quite frequently at a Traditional Mass because of the Coronavirus-19. Our priest seems to ignore a lot of the safety steps in regards to social distancing which leaves me no chose, but to isolate the best I can at mass. My area has been hit hard with this virus and some of my friends have died due to it. Communion on the tongue is not an issue for me.

Exclusion by canon law from access to Communion is not limited to the cases mentioned in canon 915. Canon 916 excludes from communion all those conscious of mortal sin who have not received sacramental absolution. Canon 842 §1 declares: "A person who has not received baptism cannot be admitted validly to the other sacraments."

I have noticed that some of the faithful will not receive communion:

• Sedevacants will not receive communion at Ordinary Form of the Mass because they believe, that “the Novus Ordo Mass changed the words of the consecration to the point where it is invalid, particularly with the vernacular change of ‘for many’ to ‘for all.’ The Mass has also deformed the intention of the priest rendering it invalid.” For them if it is invalid, there is no consecration,; the communion at these masses are meaningless and are avoided.
• A few other traditionalists may also believe the Ordinary Form of the Mass is invalid and thus will not receive communion in the New Mass.
• Non-Catholics and catechumens may not receive communion, but often receive a blessing at communion time. It is relatively common to have non-Catholics present at Mass, for example, Protestant spouses of Catholics, catechumens, and other visitors.
• Communion on the tongue is not offered.
• Some feel spiritually unprepared (perhaps needs to go to confession beforehand).
• Faithful who are celiac can not freely go to communion in either Rite without first having made special measures beforehand with the priest saying mass on a consistent basis. This goes for either Rite.
• Faithful in the state of mortal sin must not receive communion before first receiving sacramental absolution.
• Faithful under interdict of excommunication are equally not to receive communion prior to being absolved of their offences by the competent ecclesiastical authorities.

Blessings for Non-Communicants

Q: At many Masses these days, non-communicating participants approach the altar at Communion time and receive a blessing when they cannot communicate. However, some priests do not do this, saying it is not "in the rubrics." Is it all right for priests to do this?

A: As far as I have been able to ascertain, this practice arose over the last two decades or so, above all in English-speaking countries, such as Australia and the United States, where Catholics form a significant minority amid a basically Christian population.

Because of this, it is relatively common to have non-Catholics present at Mass, for example, Protestant spouses of Catholics, catechumens, and other visitors. This is especially true of weddings and funerals when the number of non-Catholics is even larger.

Another common situation, which apparently gave rise to this practice, is the increase in non-Catholic students at Catholic schools and colleges. At times, about half the student body is unable to participate in Communion.

Situations such as these probably inspired the practice of inviting those unable to receive Communion to approach the altar to receive a blessing so as not to feel excluded.

Certainly this blessing is not in the rubrics and there is no obligation to make such an invitation. However, neither is there any prohibition and the practice seems to have been tacitly accepted by many bishops who are aware of this nascent custom and have even participated in giving such blessings.

As far as I know, no bishop has issued specific directives on this issue, nor has the Holy See intervened although it is certainly aware of its existence.

The decision as to whether to adopt such a practice depends on the concrete pastoral circumstances involved. As in all similar initiatives, due reflection is required regarding the custom's pastoral utility and as to any possible consequences that it may provoke in the short or long term, for example, changing the way people perceive the act of receiving Communion.

I am sure one could add to this list, but would have to start a poll to do so. I know some who will not receive communion from a particular priest for very personal reasons. So be it.

Grave sin, or mortal sin, “results in the loss of charity and the privation of sanctifying grace, that is, of the state of grace. If it is not redeemed by repentance and God's forgiveness, it causes exclusion from Christ's kingdom and the eternal death of hell, for our freedom has the power to make choices for ever, with no turning back,” the Catechism of the Catholic Church says.

“Anyone who is aware of having committed a mortal sin must not receive Holy Communion, even if he experiences deep contrition, without having first received sacramental absolution, unless he has a grave reason for receiving Communion and there is no possibility of going to confession,” the Catechism adds.

St. Paul explains in 1 Corinthians that “whoever...eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of profaning the body and blood of the Lord. Let a man examine himself, and so eat of the bread and drink of the cup. For any one who eats and drinks without discerning the body eats and drinks judgment upon himself."

The 1983 Code of Canon Law says that “those who have been excommunicated or interdicted after the imposition or declaration of the penalty and others obstinately persevering in manifest grave sin are not to be admitted to holy communion.”

Who can receive Holy Communion?

In full disclosure, I am not a Catholic, though I have formally studied world religions. I also have family who are traditional Catholics and good friends who are sedevacantists. You mentioned that you wanted to hear from that perspective and so far there has been no answer forthcoming, so I can at least answer this question with input from them on their behalf for what it’s worth.

I have no problem with Novus Ordo to the extent that it makes the Gospel more accessible to the common people. I see no reason why a Mass should not be conducted in the vernacular of the faithful, or why the priest should not face the congregants. I think more widespread participation in the service is a positive.

What I do have a problem with is the increasing universalization of the Gospel which was initiated by Vatican II. I think people reject Novus Ordo due to its association with these changes that they rightly fear.

The chapter on the “People of God” in the “Dogmatic Constitution of the Church” basically considers everyone to be in the People of God camp and embodies Karl Rahner’s concept of Universal Salvation. It removes the line of separation between Catholicism and other religions.

The current Pope has been providing plenty of examples of a disturbing trend in this direction, and I could present many examples of his overtures to Islam and Hinduism, for example, but I will limit myself to this quote from his October 3, 2020 Encyclical Letter, Fratelli Tutti of the Holy Father Francis on Fraternity and Social Friendship.

277. The Church esteems the ways in which God works in other religions, and “rejects nothing of what is true and holy in these religions. She has a high regard for their manner of life and conduct, their precepts and doctrines which… often reflect a ray of that truth which enlightens all men and women”….
278. We Christians ask that, in those countries where we are a minority, we be guaranteed freedom, even as we ourselves promote that freedom for non-Christians in places where they are a minority. One fundamental human right must not be forgotten in the journey towards fraternity and peace. It is religious freedom for believers of all religions. That freedom proclaims that we can “build harmony and understanding between different cultures and religions. It also testifies to the fact that, since the important things we share are so many, it is possible to find a means of serene, ordered and peaceful coexistence, accepting our differences and rejoicing that, as children of the one God, we are all brothers and sisters”.

Cardinal Manning saw this coming as far back as 1861 when he wrote a pamphlet entitled, "The Present Crisis of the Holy See Tested by Prophecy." He draws from respected luminaries in the Catholic tradition, men of great virtue and science like Lessius, Viegas, and Cornelius a Lapide.

The writers of the Church tell us that in the latter days the city of Rome will probably be come apostate from the Church and Vicar of Jesus Christ; and that Rome will again be punished, for he will depart from it; and the judgment of God will fall on the place from which he once reigned over the nations of the world. For what is it that makes Rome sacred , but the presence of the Vicar of Jesus Christ? What has it that should be dear in the sight of God, save only the presence of the Vicar of His Son? Let the Church of Christ depart from Rome, and Rome will be no more in the eyes of God than Jerusalem of old Jerusalem, the Holy City, chosen by God, was cast down and consumed by fire, because it crucified the Lord of Glory; and the city of Rome, which has been the seat of the Vicar of Jesus Christ for eighteen hundred years, if it become apostate, like Jerusalem of old, will suffer a like condemnation . And, therefore, the writers of the Church tell us that the city of Rome has no prerogative except only that the Vicar of Christ is there; and if it be come unfaithful, the same judgments which fell on Jerusalem, hallowed though it was by the presence of the Son of God, of the Master, and not the disciple only, shall >fall likewise upon Rome (pp. 87-88).

I do not share this as a means to stir up denominational controversy but as a way of upholding the truth that is clearly stated in the Gospel that there is only one way to salvation, and that is through Jesus Christ. I stand in solidarity with any of my Catholic brothers who would refuse communion at Novus Ordo masses to protest the dangerous deception of universalism.

John 10 7 So Jesus said to them again, “Truly, truly, I say to you, I am the door of the sheep. 8“All who came before Me are thieves and robbers, but the sheep did not hear them. 9“I am the door; if anyone enters through Me, he will be saved, and will go in and out and find pasture. 10“The thief comes only to steal and kill and destroy; I came that they may have life, and have it abundantly. NASB

Why do some Catholics avoid communion at Novus Order Mass?

It is for the same reasons that all members of the Catholic Church wouldn't receive Mass at the Anglican Church.

... under a pretext of returning to the primitive form, they [Anglican] corrupted the Liturgical Order in many ways to suit the errors of the reformers. For this reason, in the whole Ordinal not only is there no clear mention of the sacrifice, of consecration, of the priesthood (sacerdotium), and of the power of consecrating and offering sacrifice but, as we have just stated, every trace of these things which had been in such prayers of the Catholic rite as they had not entirely rejected, was deliberately removed and struck out. ... 36. Wherefore, strictly adhering, in this matter, to the decrees of the pontiffs, our predecessors, and confirming them most fully, and, as it were, renewing them by our authority, of our own initiative and certain knowledge, we pronounce and declare that ordinations carried out according to the Anglican rite have been, and are, absolutely null and utterly void. enter link description here

For some Catholics, the changes of Vatican II that led to this change in 1969, make the New Order Mass at best heterodox. Here are some principles that were changed.

11. The Mass is not essentially a meal

If anyone says that in the Mass a true and real sacrifice is not offered to God, or that the act of offering is nothing else than Christ being given to us to eat, let him be anathema. (Council of Trent, Dz 948.).

12. THE MASS IS THE RE-ENACTMENT OF CALVARY (and not just a narrative of the Last Supper, which was itself but a pre-enactment of Calvary)

He, therefore, our God and Lord, though He was about to offer Himself once to God the Father upon the altar of the Cross...nevertheless, that His sacerdotal office might not come to an end with His death, at the Last Supper, on the night He was betrayed, so that He might leave to His beloved spouse the Church a visible sacrifice (as the nature of man demands), whereby that bloody sacrifice once to be completed on the Cross might be represented, and the memory of it remain even to the end of the world... offered to God the Father His own body and blood under the species of bread and wine.... (Council of Trent, Dz 950).

13. The Mass is not a community gathering

If anyone says that Masses in which the priest alone communicates sacramentally, are illicit and are therefore to be abrogated, let him be anathema. (Council of Trent, Dz 955, cf., principle 14)

14. The prayers of the Mass are not directed to the people but to God

If anyone says that the rite of the Roman Church, according to which a part of the canon and the words of consecration are pronounced in a low tone, is to be condemned..., let him be anathema. (Council of Trent, Dz 956)

15. Holy Communion under both species is not necessary for the laity

If anyone denies that the whole Christ is contained in the venerable sacrament of the Eucharist under each species and under every part of each species, when the separation has been made, let him be anathema. (Council of Trent, Dz 885)

If anyone says that the holy Catholic Church has not been influenced by just causes and reasons to give communion under the form of bread only to laymen and even to clerics when not consecrating, or that she has erred in this, let him be anathema. (Council of Trent, Dz 935)

16. The Blessed Sacrament is Our Lord and must be worshipped

If anyone says that in the holy sacrament of the Eucharist the only-begotten Son of God is not to be adored even outwardly with the worship of latria... let him be anathema. (Council of Trent, Dz 888).

17. The Blessed Sacrament contains the whole Christ under the species of bread and wine

If anyone denies that in the sacrament of the most holy Eucharist there are truly, really, and substantially contained the body and blood together with the soul and divinity of our Lord Jesus Christ, and therefore the whole Christ, but shall say that He is in it as by a sign or figure, or force, let him be anathema. (Council of Trent, Dz 883).

18. The Catholic priesthood is of divine origin

If anyone says that by these words: “Do this for a commemoration of me,” (Lk. 22:19; I Cor. 11:24), Christ did not make the Apostles priests, or did not ordain that they and other priests might offer His own body and blood: let him be anathema. (Council of Trent, Dz 949). -source-

So, the end result is that for some Catholics, the changes from the old ways to the new order is invalid as to form, intent, and offerer.