Vatican II changes things?

[aicirt]

My personal opinion is that modern popes have feared schism and have been more than willing to placate people and just give them whatever they want. Communion in the hand (CITH) is a great example. It began by people rebelling against the Church’s laws and illicitly doing the practice. These liberals likely did not even believe in the Real Presence and those who wish to reduce faith in the Real Presence of Christ are always supporters of CITH. After all, why receive on the tongue if it’s just a piece of bread. Wouldn’t it make sense to just pass it around like the protestants do? I used to be baptist, presbyterian, pentecostal, etc… and when these groups did “communion” (which was rare) they would pass around crackers and grape juice to people sitting in the pews. No doubt that is the end goal of liberals to destroy faith in the RP and make the Mass more and more into a common ordinary meal. Rather than punish the dissenters, like popes traditionally have done, Paul VI rewarded them by giving them an indult to receive CITH, and now the practice has become widespread throughout the US and in some places they are trying to forbid reception on the tongue in the name of this silly swine flu. The Church is lying in shambles, and without serious discipline or divine intervention, I don’t think we’re going to see the light of day any time soon.

If they’re against reception on the tongue because of swine flu etc., what about drinking from the same chalice? No chance of flu from that?

Thank you again for helping me understand. Are there any priests who protested against this form of distributing communion and/or the removal of the tabernacle?

 

[una_fides]

If they’re against reception on the tongue because of swine flu etc., what about drinking from the same chalice? No chance of flu from that?

Thank you again for helping me understand. Are there any priests who protested against this form of distributing communion and/or the removal of the tabernacle?

Yes there are priests, bishops, and even cardinals who object to CITH and who oppose the moving of the tabernacles. Why is nothing done? Because those who uphold the Tradition of the Church today seem to be in the minority.

 

[aicirt]

Yes there are priests, bishops, and even cardinals who object to CITH and who oppose the moving of the tabernacles. Why is nothing done? Because those who uphold the Tradition of the Church today seem to be in the minority.

Then they’re not defending the faith. They must know by now that many of the faithful object. I’ve objected for years and could never get a straight answer.

A friend and former altar boy switched parishes because he observed the priest saying Mass and said he was doing it incorrectly. How can a member of the clergy observe the same and not protest?

 

[una_fides]

Then they’re not defending the faith. They must know by now that many of the faithful object. I’ve objected for years and could never get a straight answer.

A friend and former altar boy switched parishes because he observed the priest saying Mass and said he was doing it incorrectly. How can a member of the clergy observe the same and not protest?

Because there are very many members of the clergy who are doing the same things. In my area, there are many Catholic Churches. I visited about a dozen or more of them for daily Mass to try to find one that actually did Mass without any deviations. I found one.

 

[una_fides]

I agree that context is key, and as I pointed out, nothing in the context of the pope’s statements indicate that anyone other than those subject to the pope and in the Church can be saved. I do agree that someone can be subject to the pope in various ways. Nevertheless, the context of the popes infallible declaration at the end of his papal bull is quite clear that it is not just for French Catholics or even just for Catholics in general. No, the pope clearly stays that it is absolutely necessary for salvation for every human creature to be subject to the pope. I don’t think I’m overgeneralizing here. I’m just applying his statement. Granted, those invincibly ignorant who are not guilty of any deliberate sin and with perfect charity toward God can potentially be saved but only though and in the Church as a member through desire.
Since you are fond of the catechism explanation, in my next post, I will show you how the Church has understood this teaching from a very popular catechism. I recently found this text, and I think it will shed a lot of light on our discussion.

 

[una_fides]

**Baltimore Catechism

• 1. Q. Are all bound to belong to the Church?**

  A. All are bound to belong to the Church, and he who knows the Church to be the true Church and remains out of it, cannot be saved.

  Anyone who knows the Catholic religion to be the true religion and will not embrace it cannot enter into Heaven. If one not a Catholic doubts whether the church to which he belongs is the true Church, he must settle his doubt, seek the true Church, and enter it; for if he continues to live in doubt, he becomes like the one who knows the true Church and is deterred by worldly considerations from entering it.
  In like manner one who, doubting, fears to examine the religion he professes lest he should discover its falsity and be convinced of the truth of the Catholic faith, cannot be saved.
  Suppose, however, that there is a non-Catholic who firmly believes that the church to which he belongs is the true Church, and who has never – even in the past – had the slightest doubt of that fact – what will become of him?
  If he was validly baptized and never committed a mortal sin, he will be saved; because, believing himself a member of the true Church, he was doing all he could to serve God according to his knowledge and the dictates of his conscience. But if ever he committed a mortal sin, his salvation would be very much more difficult. A mortal sin once committed remains on the soul till it is forgiven. Now, how could his mortal sin be forgiven? Not in the Sacrament of Penance, for the Protestant does not go to confession; and if he does, his minister – not being a true priest – has no power to forgive sins. Does he know that without confession it requires an act of perfect contrition to blot out mortal sin, and can he easily make such an act? What we call contrition is often only imperfect contrition – that is, sorrow for our sins because we fear their punishment in Hell or dread the loss of Heaven. If a Catholic – with all the instruction he has received about how to make an act of perfect contrition and all the practice he has had in making such acts – might find it difficult to make an act of perfect contrition after having committed a mortal sin, how much difficulty will not a Protestant have in making an act of perfect contrition, who does not know about this requirement and who has not been taught to make continued acts of perfect contrition all his life. It is to be feared either he would not know of this necessary means of regaining God’s friendship, or he would be unable to elicit the necessary act of perfect contrition, and thus the mortal sin would remain upon his soul and he would die an enemy of God.
  If, then, we found a Protestant who never committed a mortal sin after Baptism, and who never had the slightest doubt about the truth of his religion, that person would be saved; because, being baptized, he is a member of the Church, and being free from mortal sin he is a friend of God and could not in justice be condemned to Hell. Such a person would attend Mass and receive the Sacraments if he knew the Catholic Church to be the only true Church.
  I am giving you an example, however, that is rarely found, except in the case of infants or very small children baptized in Protestant sects. All infants rightly baptized by anyone are really children of the Church, no matter what religion their parents may profess. Indeed, all persons who are baptized are children of the Church; but those among them who deny its teaching, reject its Sacraments, and refuse to submit to its lawful pastors, are rebellious children known as heretics.
  I said I gave you an example that can scarcely be found, namely, of a person not a Catholic, who really never doubted the truth of his religion, and who, moreover, never committed during his whole life a mortal sin. There are so few such persons that we can practically say for all those who are not visibly members of the Catholic Church, believing its doctrines, receiving its Sacraments, and being governed by its visible head, our Holy Father, the Pope, salvation is an *extremely difficult matter. *
  I do not speak here of pagans who have never heard of Our Lord or His holy religion, but of those outside the Church who claim to be good Christians without being members of the Catholic Church. catholicinformationcenteroninternet.org/Catechism/Introduction/bk4ls11.html#RTFToC9

 

[una_fides]

This should also prove helpful:

Baltimore Catechism, Lesson 6: On Sin and Its Kinds:
Heaven is a reward, and we must do something to merit it. Suppose a man employed a boy to do the work of his office, and when he came in the morning found that the boy had neglected the work assigned to him, and when spoken to about it simply answered: “Sir, I did no harm”; do you think he would be entitled to his wages? Of course he did not and should do no harm; but is his employer to pay him wages for that? Certainly not. In like manner, God is not going to reward us for doing no harm; but on the contrary, He will punish us if we do wrong, and give no reward unless we perform the work He has marked out for us. Neither would the office boy deserve any wages if he did only what pleases himself, and not the work assigned by his master. In the same way, God will not accept any worship or religion but the one He has revealed. He tells us Himself how He wishes to be worshipped, and our own invented methods will not please Him. Hence we see the folly of those who say that all religions are equally good, and that we can be saved by practicing any of them. We can be saved only in the one religion which God Himself has instituted, and by which He wishes to be honored. catholicinformationcenteroninternet.org/Catechism/Introduction/bk4ls6.html#RTFToC2

 

[una_fides]

In charity I feel my obligation to point out a few things. Lumen Gentium must be understood in light of all the teachings before it. Have you read and researched the many quotes from the Magisterium on this issue? Here’s a link that will help if you haven’t checked it out already.

To say that the Church never understood NSOC in a literal sense is to say that the Church does not mean what it says. Here are a few quotes to consider, and please realize that they must be understood in the same sense as they have always been understood. If you can find parts from the context of the same document or by the same pope that explains it in the way you think you understand it, please do point that out; otherwise, you cannot reduce these teachings to a meaningless formula:

Infallible: IV Lateran Council 1215: “One indeed is the universal Church of the Faithful, outside of which no one at all is saved.” Pope Innocent III ex Cathedra. fordham.edu/halsall/basis/lateran4.html

The Council of Florence (A.D. 1438-1445) From Cantate Domino — Papal Bull of Pope Eugene IV: (Infallible General Council & Ex Cathedra papal declaration)
The sacrosanct Roman Church…firmly believes, professes, and proclaims that those not living within the Catholic Church, not only pagans, but also Jews and heretics and schismatics cannot become participants in eternal life, but will depart “into everlasting fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels” [Matt. 25:41], unless before the end of life the same have been added to the flock; and that the unity of the ecclesiastical body is so strong that only to those remaining in it are the sacraments of the Church of benefit for salvation, and do fastings, almsgiving, and other functions of piety and exercises of Christian service produce eternal reward, and that no one, whatever almsgiving he has practiced, even if he has shed blood for the name of Christ, can be saved, unless he has remained in the bosom and unity of the Catholic Church.

Vatican I. Infallible Ecumenical Council:
… This true catholic faith, outside of which none can be saved …
piar.hu/councils/ecum20.htm

From Pope Leo XII’s encyclical Ubi Primum 1823-1829:
14. It is impossible for the most true God…to approve all sects who profess false teachings which are often inconsistent with one another and contradictory, and to confer eternal rewards on their members. … By it we are taught, and by divine faith we hold one Lord, one faith, one baptism, and that no other name under heaven is given to men except the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth in which we must be saved. This is why we profess that there is no salvation outside the Church.
[21] He who hears you, hears me; and he who despises you, despises me; and the Church is the pillar and firmament of truth, as the apostle Paul teaches.[22] In reference to these words St. Augustine says: “Whoever is without the Church will not be reckoned among the sons, and whoever does not want to have the Church as mother will not have God as father.”[23]

Encyclical of Pope Gregory XVI, Summo Iugiter Studio, May 27, 1832:
We shall praise St. Gregory the Great who expressly testifies that this indeed is the teaching of the Catholic Church. He says: “The holy universal Church teaches that it is not possible to worship God truly except in her and asserts that all who are outside of her will not be saved.” Official acts of the Church proclaim* the same* dogma.

Pope Pius XII, Humani Generis, Encyclical Letter Concerning Some False Opinions Which Threaten to Undermine the Foundations of Catholic Doctrine, August 12, 1950:
“Some reduce to a meaningless formula the necessity of belonging to the True Church in order to gain eternal salvation. … These and like errors, it is clear, have crept in among certain of Our sons who are deceived by imprudent zeal for souls or by false science. To them We are compelled with grief to repeat once again truths already well known, and to point out with solicitude clear errors and dangers of error.”

You cannot reduce the teaching of NSOC to a meaningless formula. It means what it says and says what it means. The only question would be how those who are not visibly a part of the Catholic Church can be united to her and joined to her through desire. The answer, as I’ve already pointed out, is that the Church teaches that a desire for baptism (whether explicit as in catechumens or implicit in other cases) suffices to place one IN the Church (as long as it is united with perfect charity). But to say that NSOC does not mean what it says or that it is not a literal teaching of the Church does serious damage to the above solemn Magisterial teachings as well as the abundance of other ones from which I have included on the blog site above. The Church’s teaching is quite clear that only Catholics can enter heaven. The only debated question is how one becomes Catholic and is placed into the Church by desire.

 

[AlwaysAsking]

And I just want to emphasize, (name removed by moderator), that however charitable/ strictly accurate/ obedient your position is,

to stridently emphasize salvation outside the church doesn’t actually benefit anyone, but leads many to serious misunderstanding.

 

[una_fides]

If by “literal” you mean “visible,” then we agree. But it still is absolutely literally true. You can only be saved through being inside the Catholic Church. I personally believe that the very few who are invincibly ignorant of the Church, have perfect charity for God, and are not guilty of any deliberate sins, will be given a special revelation by God at some point before death so that they can knowingly join the Church through their implicit and conscious desire. Regarding those who have been baptized, have perfect charity for God, and are not guilty of any deliberate sins, will be given a special revelation before death or will be given the chance to join the Church before death.

Here’s the thing, these cases are so few that the Church for 2000 years has almost exclusively proclaimed that if you are not in the Church you will not be saved. There were no exceptions for ignorance mentioned until recently in the Church’s history. It makes sense that since so incredibly few will be saved who are not visible members of the Church receiving the sacraments that to emphasize otherwise is to do them a disservice.

We should be emphasizing the absolute necessity of receiving the sacraments to grow in holiness and be saved, rather than the possibility that someone who is not part of the visible structure could potentially somehow be saved. The sacraments are the means God gave us to communicate grace to people. Bringing people into the Church so that they can have a real chance to grow in holiness and be saved should be our primary focus and emphasis.

 

[una_fides]

(name removed by moderator),

I did not make the “rules.” I am merely reiterating divine revelation and the teachings of the Church. Christ explicitly taught that few will be saved, and his Church has been reiterating that message throughout her history.

Luk 13:23-28 And a certain man said to him: Lord, are they few that are saved? But he said to them: Strive to enter by the narrow gate: for many, I say to you, shall seek to enter and shall not be able. But when the master of the house shall be gone in and shall shut the door, you shall begin to stand without; and knock at the door, saying: Lord, open to us. And he answering, shall say to you: I know you not, whence you are. Then you shall begin to say: We have eaten and drunk in thy presence: and thou hast taught in our streets. And he shall say to you: I know you not, whence you are. Depart from me, all ye workers of iniquity. There shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth; when you shall see Abraham and Isaac and Jacob and all the prophets, in the kingdom of God: and you yourselves thrust out.

Mat 7:13-27 Enter ye in at the narrow gate: for wide is the gate, and broad is the way that leadeth to destruction, and many there are who go in thereat. How narrow is the gate, and strait is the way that leadeth to life: and few there are that find it! … Not every one that saith to me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven: but he that doth the will of my Father who is in heaven, he shall enter into the kingdom of heaven. Many will say to me in that day: Lord, Lord, have not we prophesied in thy name, and cast out devils in thy name, and done many miracles in thy name? And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, you that work iniquity.

Mat 20:16b many are called but few are chosen.

1Pet 4:17-19 For it is time for the judgment to begin with the household of God; if it begins with us, how will it end for those who fail to obey the gospel of God? And if the righteous one is barely saved, where will the godless and the sinner appear? As a result, those who suffer in accord with God’s will hand their souls over to a faithful creator as they do good.

Since their eternal happiness, consisting in the vision of God, exceeds the common state of nature, and especially in so far as this is deprived of grace through the corruption of original sin, those who are saved are in the minority (St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica, 1, 23, 7).

Pope Saint Gregory the Great, 40 Gospel Homilies:
“Only the good are in heaven, and only the bad are in hell” (p. 344)
… there are many in the Church who are bad and few who are good…(p. 346)

Here’s an online compilation of many more: gospa.org/pl/pages/evangelization/catholic_truth/few_saved.html?ra=1

 

[una_fides]

(name removed by moderator),

Regarding those needing to have perfect charity and perfect contrition, again, that is not my teaching but that of the Church.

LETTER OF THE HOLY OFFICE
From the Headquarters of the Holy Office, Aug. 8, 1949. The Supreme Pontiff, His Holiness, Pope Pius XII, has given full approval to this decision:
“But it must not be thought that any kind of desire of entering the Church suffices that one may be saved. It is necessary that the desire by which one is related to the Church be animated by perfect charity. Nor can an implicit desire produce its effect, unless a person has supernatural faith: “For he who comes to God must believe that God exists and is a rewarder of those who seek Him” (Heb. 11:6). The Council of Trent declares (Session VI, chap. 8): “Faith is the beginning of man’s salvation, the foundation and root of all justification, without which it is impossible to please God and attain to the fellowship of His children”” (Denzinger, n. 801).
ewtn.com/library/CURIA/CDFFEENY.HTM

Pope Pius IX (1846-1878), Encyclical Quanto Conficiamur Moerore, August 10, 1863:
7. Here, too, our beloved sons and venerable brothers, it is again necessary to mention and censure a very grave error entrapping some Catholics who believe that it is possible to arrive at eternal salvation although living in error and alienated from the true faith and Catholic unity. Such belief is certainly opposed to Catholic teaching. There are, of course, those who are struggling with invincible ignorance about our most holy religion. Sincerely observing the natural law and its precepts inscribed by God on all hearts and ready to obey God, they live honest lives and are able to attain eternal life by the efficacious virtue of divine light and grace. Because God knows, searches and clearly understands the minds, hearts, thoughts, and nature of all, his supreme kindness and clemency do not permit anyone at all who is not guilty of deliberate sin to suffer eternal punishments.

**Baltimore Catechism

• 1. Q. Are all bound to belong to the Church?..**

It is to be feared either he [a baptized protestant] would not know of this necessary means of regaining God’s friendship, or he would be unable to elicit the necessary act of perfect contrition, and thus the mortal sin would remain upon his soul and he would die an enemy of God.
…
I said I gave you an example that can scarcely be found, namely, of a person not a Catholic, who really never doubted the truth of his religion, and who, moreover, never committed during his whole life a mortal sin. There are so few such persons that we can practically say for all those who are not visibly members of the Catholic Church, believing its doctrines, receiving its Sacraments, and being governed by its visible head, our Holy Father, the Pope, salvation is an extremely difficult matter.
catholicinformationcenteroninternet.org/Catechism/Introduction/bk4ls11.html#RTFToC9

I’m not making this stuff up. I’m just reiterating Christ’s teachings. He determines who is and is not saved, and he has given us revelation to know that it is not easy to get to heaven and few actually make it there.

All that said, I do agree that charity is the best way to lead people to Christ. When others can see our sincere love for them and for their souls, they will open up to the message of the gospel. At the same time, it is also quite important for people to realize they are lost on account of their sins in order that they can repent and be saved.

 

[AlwaysAsking]

Hi (name removed by moderator),

“Fascinating” is one word for it. I feel called to convert; have for some time now. I’m at the stage of wanting to be obedient but not really intellectually agreeing to everything.

So, do I personally agree at this time that there is no salvation outside the catholic church? No. But here’s my point: When catholics teach that there is (or may be) salvation outside of the catholic church, even in non-christian faiths or non-faiths, it is the opposite of the Great Commission. We are talking about the Great Obfuscation. What are the fruits, I am entitled to ask.

I think the fruits have been confusion, and a greater unwillingness to witness to others (it’s hard enough as it is, without wondering whether there’s any point to it).

If you have been called to the catholic faith, you must teach that. Protestants are more than happy to take responsibility for working out their own salvation to the best of their understanding. I assure you we haven’t been waiting for the Pope’s blessing.

I’m glad you are participating in this discussion; you have a lot to offer. My only concern is that you (and like minded-posters, of course) might be contributing to the already considerable confusion among less-learned catholics as to whether people of other faiths are saved.

I’m going out now-- you may ask me anything else you like (by Private Message, too) and I’ll respond later.

 

[Earnest_Bunbury]

. Here are a few quotes to consider, and please realize that they must be understood in the same sense as they have always been understood.
.

This is the whole problem in a nutshell, understanding and growth in that understanding. If we don’t increase our understanding of God’s revelation, how did we grow out of the Jewish law that was the basis for Christianity? It was understanding through the Holy Spirit. Works of the law bring death and the spirit brings life, isn’t it?

I agree there is a continuity in the teaching and liberalizing beyond a certain point is analogous to nullifying it, but if the understanding of Jesus didn’t grow, then we would not have a doctrine on the Trinity, assumption, dietary restrictions, preaching to the gentiles, etc, etc, etc. The Church is the arbitrator of that increase in understanding, the Church that gave us Vat II via the Holy Spirit.

 

[una_fides]

This is the whole problem in a nutshell, understanding and growth in that understanding. If we don’t increase our understanding of God’s revelation, how did we grow out of the Jewish law that was the basis for Christianity? It was understanding through the Holy Spirit. Works of the law bring death and the spirit brings life, isn’t it?

I agree there is a continuity in the teaching and liberalizing beyond a certain point is analogous to nullifying it, but if the understanding of Jesus didn’t grow, then we would not have a doctrine on the Trinity, assumption, dietary restrictions, preaching to the gentiles, etc, etc, etc. The Church is the arbitrator of that increase in understanding, the Church that gave us Vat II via the Holy Spirit.

Vatican I, infallible & irreformable:
“Hence, too,that meaning of the sacred dogmas is ever to be maintained which has once been declared by* holy mother church*, and there must never be any abandonment of this sense under the pretext or in the name of a more profound understanding.
May understanding, knowledge and wisdom increase as ages and centuries roll along, and greatly and vigorously flourish, in each and all, in the individual and the whole church: but this only in its own proper kind, that is to say, in the same doctrine, the same sense, and the same understanding”
3. If anyone says that it is possible that at some time, given the advancement of knowledge, a sense may be assigned to the dogmas propounded by the church which is different from that which the church has understood and understands: let him be anathema.
piar.hu/councils/ecum20.htm

 

[diggerdomer]

You said earlier that the ordinary Magisterium can be infallible.

Yes. Of course. That’s what Vatican II taught (Lumen Gentium) and the Catechism repeats. This does NOT mean that every exercise of the Ordinary Magisterium is taught infallibly…far from it…but it clearly DOES mean that the Ordinary Magisterium can teach infallibly.

Your last line demonstrates that you are avoiding my question entirely because most of this thread has been dedicated to figuring out exactly what the Church taught and meant in its current catechism. I was asking you how you understood it, and what you believed about it, and your only response is that you go by it. Quite evasive to say the least.

I apologize if anything I said came across as evasive. That was certainly not my intent. This is a long thread, I sense that some things have been said repeatedly. Please let me know what specifically you thought I evaded and how I can clarify, I would be happy to. Thanks.

 

[diggerdomer]

My personal opinion is that modern popes have feared schism and have been more than willing to placate people and just give them whatever they want. Communion in the hand (CITH) is a great example. It began by people rebelling against the Church’s laws and illicitly doing the practice. These liberals likely did not even believe in the Real Presence and those who wish to reduce faith in the Real Presence of Christ are always supporters of CITH. After all, why receive on the tongue if it’s just a piece of bread. Wouldn’t it make sense to just pass it around like the protestants do? I used to be baptist, presbyterian, pentecostal, etc… and when these groups did “communion” (which was rare) they would pass around crackers and grape juice to people sitting in the pews. No doubt that is the end goal of liberals to destroy faith in the RP and make the Mass more and more into a common ordinary meal. Rather than punish the dissenters, like popes traditionally have done, Paul VI rewarded them by giving them an indult to receive CITH, and now the practice has become widespread throughout the US and in some places they are trying to forbid reception on the tongue in the name of this silly swine flu. The Church is lying in shambles, and without serious discipline or divine intervention, I don’t think we’re going to see the light of day any time soon.

Well, since “CITH” preceded communion on the tongue, who is placating whom?

Personally, prefer communion in the hand, but I hold that both are equally valid, reverential, etc., methods. Which is what the Church teaches. Both are “traditional.” Both are valid. Both are (or at least can be) reverential.

 

[una_fides]

Well, since “CITH” preceded communion on the tongue, who is placating whom?

Personally, prefer communion in the hand, but I hold that both are equally valid, reverential, etc., methods. Which is what the Church teaches. Both are “traditional.” Both are valid. Both are (or at least can be) reverential.

Can you please prove that CITH preceded Communion on the tongue. Do you have access to some historical data that everyone else does not? From what I’ve studied there is one early Church father who references CITH and that is St. Cyril of Jerusalem. That is one isolated instance and no evidence whatsoever that it was practiced prior or that it was practiced in any other areas other than where he lived. I suggest reading more on this subject and the historical evidence available before making such blanket statements. Even if it did precede Communion on the tongue, the Church did away with the practice for over 1000 years for a reason. It even forbade the practice altogether for a very long time.

Furthermore, CITH is not the universal practice of the Church; it is only an indult, a special permission in certain areas where they are being permitted to deviate from the universal norm of the Catholic Church, which is to receive on the tongue, which is also referred to by the Church as the “traditional practice.”

Here are some articles to read:
catholicnews.com/data/stories/cns/0800606.htm
catholic-pages.com/mass/inhand.asp
ewtn.com/expert/answers/communion_in_hand.htm

We can save further discussion for another thread, but make no mistake, CITH has produced many abuses and is a tool of the liberals to try to decrease faith in the Real Presence of Christ. That does not mean that people do not receive CITH reverently, but it does mean that abuses become more easily facilitated (not to mention the crumbs), and it helps further the cause of those who wish to reduce the Eucharist to mere common bread. The Church only permitted this indult with the condition that proper catechesis be given to avoid any potential irreverence, etc. Such catechesis has been particularly lacking especially given that a very large number of priests today do not even themselves believe in the Real Presence!

Do yourself a favor. Go to the TLM. I just got back from one. It’s like being in heaven. The reverence and awe and mystery of the Mass become so readily apparent as we worship our Lord who comes to us under the appearance of bread and wine.

 

[una_fides]

Yes. Of course. That’s what Vatican II taught (Lumen Gentium) and the Catechism repeats. This does NOT mean that every exercise of the Ordinary Magisterium is taught infallibly…far from it…but it clearly DOES mean that the Ordinary Magisterium can teach infallibly.

Can you please cite V2 and the Catechism where it says that the ordinary Magisterium teaches infallibly?

I apologize if anything I said came across as evasive. That was certainly not my intent. This is a long thread, I sense that some things have been said repeatedly. Please let me know what specifically you thought I evaded and how I can clarify, I would be happy to. Thanks.

Here were the questions I had asked you to which you responded that you hold to the V2 and Catechism explanation without providing any explanation of how you interpret those passages:

…What happens when the prior ordinary Magisterium said something contrary to the current? or at least seemed to be? And what happens if the infallible Magisterium defined a dogma and the ordinary Magisterium seems to be teaching contrary to that dogma? That is what we are trying to figure out right now and how the statements fit together.

Since you said your approach is to take V2 with the same as preV2 teachings, what do you make of the Church’s teaching on NSOC? How do you understand it? Do you believe that there is salvation outside the Church or that outside the Church certain people can be saved?

I look forward to your answer.

 

[diggerdomer]

Can you please prove that CITH preceded Communion on the tongue.

Read the Gospels: take and eat, not stick out your tongue and let me place the bread on it.

Where do you get the idea that St. Cyril’s reference is an isolated instance?