The deliberately ambiguous language inserted into various Vatican II documents infects the Church just like malware and viruses infect a computer.

vatbugs

by Doug Lawrence

The ambiguous language inserted into various Vatican II documents provides more than ample room for errant interpretations of divine truth, inducing many to follow the world, the flesh and the devil, rather than Jesus Christ and the authentic teachings of his Catholic Church.

And as is often the case with computer malware, many who are infected have no idea that anything out of the ordinary is actually occurring.

Hence, anything produced  much after 1950 (bibles, catechisms, books, pamphlets, liturgies, school curricula,  religious art … even the design of churches)  should be the subject of intense scrutiny by faithful Catholics … whether such things are accompanied by a bishop/pope’s imprimatur … or not.

Not surprisingly, religious art and architecture produced during the same period typically suffers from a similar lack of beauty and divine truth.

The only sure “cure” for such a faith malady
is a return to the unadulterated truth
of earlier church documents and practices,
which were not subject
to these types of liberal, modernist flaws. 

This is not to say that everything produced by the Catholic Church after 1950 is in error. It’s not. But it’s hard for most people to know what’s true and what’s not. So be careful, give everything it’s due diligence … including the personal opinions of priests and bishops … and don’t forget to worship, receive the sacraments, study and pray.

Otherwise, you may be all too easily deceived.

A reliable “touchstone” that would be very useful for the identification, illumination and verification of authentic Catholic truth would be the documents of the Council of Trent.

Vatican II Documents

Council of Trent Documents

The True Presence of Jesus Christ in the Holy Eucharist – Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity.

The Council of Trent…
Convened on December 4, 1545 and closed on December 4, 1563.

About 25 years after the Protestant reformation, the Catholic Church convened the Council of Trent as a counter to the reformation, and for the refutation of the heresies created by it. Here are the decrees of this council regarding the True Presence of Jesus Christ in the Holy Eucharist…

The Thirteenth Session: Decreed on March 8, 1547.
ON THE MOST HOLY SACRAMENT OF THE EUCHARIST…
CANON I.-If any one denieth, that, in the sacrament of the most holy Eucharist, are contained truly, really, and substantially, the body and blood together with the soul and divinity of our Lord Jesus Christ, and consequently the whole Christ; but saith that He is only therein as in a sign, or in figure, or virtue; let him be anathema*.

* Anathema means, accursed, (let him be) cursed, excluded from the Kingdom of GOD, banned, or excommunicated. The phrase “Let him be Anathema”, is used many times in Church Council decrees, and in so doing, makes that statement in which it is contained an “Infallible Statement”.
See 1Chron 2:7, Judith 16:23, Isa 65:20, Rom 9:3, 1Cor 12:3,16:22, and especially Gal 1:8-9.

CANON II.-If any one saith, that, in the sacred and holy sacrament of the Eucharist, the substance of the bread and wine remains conjointly with the body and blood of our Lord Jesus Christ, and denieth that wonderful and singular conversion of the whole substance of the bread into the Body, and of the whole substance of the wine into the Blood-the species Only of the bread and wine remaining-which conversion indeed the Catholic Church most aptly calls Transubstantiation; let him be anathema.

CANON III.-If any one denieth, that, in the venerable sacrament of the Eucharist, the whole Christ is contained under each species, and under every part of each species, when separated; let him be anathema.

CANON IV.-If any one saith, that, after the consecration is completed, the body and blood of our Lord Jesus Christ are not in the admirable sacrament of the Eucharist, but (are there) only during the use, whilst it is being taken, and not either before or after; and that, in the hosts, or consecrated particles, which are reserved or which remain after communion, the true Body of the Lord remaineth not; let him be anathema.

CANON V.-If any one saith, either that the principal fruit of the most holy Eucharist is the remission of sins, or, that other effects do not result therefrom; let him be anathema.

CANON VI.-If any one saith, that, in the holy sacrament of the Eucharist, Christ, the only-begotten Son of God, is not to be adored with the worship, even external of latria; and is, consequently, neither to be venerated with a special festive solemnity, nor to be solemnly borne about in processions, according to the laudable and universal rite and custom of holy church; or, is not to be proposed publicly to the people to be adored, and that the adorers thereof are idolators; let him be anathema.

CANON VII.-If any one saith, that it is not lawful for the sacred Eucharist to be reserved in the sacrarium, but that, immediately after consecration, it must necessarily be distributed amongst those present; or, that it is not lawful that it be carried with honour to the sick; let him be anathema.

CANON VIII.-If any one saith, that Christ, given in the Eucharist, is eaten spiritually only, and not also sacramentally and really; let him be anathema.

CANON IX.-If any one denieth, that all and each of Christ’s faithful of both sexes are bound, when they have attained to years of discretion, to communicate every year, at least at Easter, in accordance with the precept of holy Mother Church; let him be anathema.

CANON X.-If any one saith, that it is not lawful for the celebrating priest to communicate himself; let him be anathema.

CANON XI.-lf any one saith, that faith alone is a sufficient preparation for receiving the sacrament of the most holy Eucharist; let him be anathema. And for fear lest so great a sacrament may be received unworthily, and so unto death and condemnation, this holy Synod ordains and declares, that sacramental confession, when a confessor may be had, is of necessity to be made beforehand, by those whose conscience is burthened with mortal sin, how contrite even soever they may think themselves. But if any one shall presume to teach, preach, or obstinately to assert, or even in public disputation to defend the contrary, he shall be thereupon excommunicated.

Read more at The Catholic Treasure Chest

What is the meaning of “Sacrament” according to the Council of Trent?

bishordain

Q: What is the meaning of “Sacrament” according to the Council of Trent?

A: Catholic doctrine:
Against all innovators the Council of Trent declared: “If anyone say that the sacraments of the New Law do not contain the grace which they signify, or that they do not confer grace on those who place no obstacle to the same, let him be anathema” (Sess. viii, can.vi). “If anyone say that grace is not conferred by the sacraments ex opere operato but that faith in God’s promises is alone sufficient for obtaining grace, let him be anathema” (ibid., can. viii; cf. can. iv, v, vii).

The phrase “ex opere operato”, for which there is no equivalent in English, probably was used for the first time by Peter of Poitiers (d. 1205), and afterwards by Innocent III (d. 1216; de myst. missae, III, v), and by St. Thomas (d. 1274; IV Sent., dist. 1, Q.i, a.5). It was happily invented to express a truth that had always been taught and had been introduced without objection. It is not an elegant formula but, as St. Augustine remarks (Enarration on Psalm 138): It is better that grammarians should object than that the people should not understand.

“Ex opere operato”, i.e. by virtue of the action, means that the efficacy of the action of the sacraments does not depend on anything human, but solely on the will of God as expressed by Christ’s institution and promise.

“Ex opere operantis”, i.e. by reason of the agent, would mean that the action of the sacraments depended on the worthiness either of the minister or of the recipient (see Pourrat, “Theology of the Sacraments”, tr. St. Louis, 1910, 162 sqq.).

Protestants cannot in good faith object to the phrase as if it meant that the mere outward ceremony, apart from God’s action, causes grace.

It is well known that Catholics teach that the sacraments are only the instrumental, not the principal, causes of grace. Neither can it be claimed that the phrase adopted by the council does away with all dispositions necessary on the part of the recipient, the sacraments acting like infallible charms causing grace in those who are ill-disposed or in grievous sin.

The fathers of the council were careful to note that there must be no obstacle to grace on the part of the recipients, who must receive them rite, i.e. rightly and worthily; and they declare it a calumny to assert that they require no previous dispositions (Sess. XIV, de poenit., cap.4).

Dispositions are required to prepare the subject, but they are a condition (conditio sine qua non), not the causes, of the grace conferred. In this case the sacraments differ from the sacramentals, which may cause grace ex opere operantis, i.e. by reason of the prayers of the Church or the good, pious sentiments of those who use them.

 http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/13295a.h…