Do we really have to accept the Council of Trent since Vatican 2
The title is question many will feel it is a stab in the heart. I have read with great pleasure the words of Bishop Athanasius Schneider by which he fraternally admonished his brothers in the college of bishops. Those of you who perhaps have followed this blog knows well my views on the state of grace these fellows are not in. The catechism tells us of the complicity in sin and the behavior that is complicit. by which we share in the sins of others. I make this claim concerning the lack of Charity needed to be proper shepherds and it does cause me snide comments and looks locally. So what I hate sin with I hope the Psalmist's perfect hate. I get wrathful to an extreme. Not hating unfortunate souls, not judging, that is wishing for more punishment for the errors of sin than what God's will decides. I hope He decides the prelates and hierarchs the punishment of having to humble themselves and apologize in this world for them to be happy with Truth in the next.
I have also written privately to some, and added comments on blogs that the motto for some of our prelates is certainly either, "Go along with to get along with", or' "Different strokes for different folks". Phrases that are much more apt to their dogmas than the Church's Teachings.
There are of course snide comments and shots across one's bows, affirmative action by some priests who leave when they see me, all actions from the demands I make of them for the sake of their souls. Don't give communion to those who are strangers to the Church and her sacraments, promote confessions, you miss mass if you come after the gospel and leave before the last blessing. What snorts like squealing from stuck pigs, I hear at those times. E mails that say I am from the dark side are received. Here is the basis of my beliefs, taken from Canons on the Eucharist by the Council of Trent. Do this before you dismiss me, ask your local parish priest or local ordinary what was the date of the Council of Trent? I asked one holy joe who constantly told me I was/am wrong, "Where was Trent? "In England in the Midlands", was the answer.
For those who wish to keep the record straight here are three of the Canons on the Eucharist passed I believe in Oct 1551
Canon 5. If anyone says that the principal fruit of the most Holy Eucharist is the remission of sins, or that other effects do not result from it, let him be anathema.
The Church has maintained the Eucharist does not forgive mortal sins. It used to say that venial sins were forgiven at the Indulgentionen Absolutam. Not sure if it was the first or the one just before receiving Him. Now a priest I tackled about it said now in the Novus Ordo it is the Body It self. The Norvus Ordo is against canon 5 since it has the new fangled penitential rite and others believe the sign of peace forgives sins. One can say and make a good argument from Canon 5 the writers of, and the Novus Ordo is anathema.
Canon 7. If anyone says that it is not lawful that the Holy Eucharist be reserved in a sacred place, but immediately after consecration must necessarily be distributed among those present, or that it is not lawful that it be carried with honor to the sick, let him be anathema.
The Neocatechumens devoured or used to, but if they finally followed the Pope's instructions on the reserved Host they don't commit this sacrilege any more. But they always did finish of the Sacrament. Watching children and teenagers tearing apart the bread and sloshing back the wine made me in such a state of compunction I felt dreadful for quite awhile. Are they anathema and have they confessed their blasphemy and disobedience to the Church's canon?
Canon 11. If anyone says that faith alone is a sufficient preparation for receiving the sacrament of the most Holy Eucharist, let him be anathema. And lest so great a sacrament be received unworthily and hence unto death and condemnation, this holy council ordains and declares that sacramental confession, when a confessor can be had, must necessarily be made beforehand by those whose conscience is burdened with mortal sin, however contrite they may consider themselves. Moreover, if anyone shall presume to teach, preach or obstinately assert, or in public disputation defend the contrary, he shall be excommunicated.
This by any stretch of anyone's imagination tells me it is not enough to confess our sins to God. We must use the confessional, use the mystical sacrament of reconciliation. I met a woman who claimed to be catholic and never missed communion had not been to confession in 30 years her own admission. Another proudly told me as do many others I confess my sins to directly to God. Another a Charismatic Elder told me she was in a state of grace as she had the Gift of the Holy Spirit and spoke in tongues. Heard her once sounded like the clicking of a witch doctors rattle. No one understood her ever but she still defied scriptures and kept using her """prayers"". Is it a sin to defy scriptures or just a small misdemeanor? Can I ask according to Canon 11 are these kind of people excommunicated?
Why not send a copy of this blog to the local ordinary or ask your parish priest to read this blog and help you to receive peace in your heart as you know and it is your opinion I am wrong and this blog is very sinful? Can you face your priest and ask him? I did not think so. Happy with yourself and your behavior are you?
Off course I believe that when those indisposed to receive the sacrament never receive as God withdraws from a sinful man or woman. I also believe that The Sacrament of Holy Communion is only the pinnacle of our week if it is really received sinless. Why does Vatican 2 and the Prelates no longer teach us this?
Labels: Bishop Priest Confession Fatherhood Eucharist, Trent, Vatican 2