Ok. But I agree with Sean (and +ABL, +BF, +BW) on Trent's teaching and its applicability. Grace always passes when a valid Holy Communion is dispensed to well-disposed Catholics. Btw, an individual cannot be "improperly disposed Ex opere operato"; which means "improperly disposed by the work worked". It is only Sacraments, not persons, who can produce effects or confer grace "by the work worked". Perhaps you meant to say, he would be poorly disposed by the work of the working one, which would be "ex opere operantis".
No XS, I meant what I said. The work worked, is the desecration, it is the act of CITH itself. CITH itself is the act, CITH is the work worked.
In the Catholic Church, non-consecrated fingers (or palms/hands) under pain of sacrilege are not permitted to touch the consecrated host except in an extreme emergency. In the conciliar church, CITH is the norm, CITH (minus a very few) is the universally accepted method of receiving communion.
The presumed well disposed lay person desecrates the host, that is, commits a sacrilege during CITH when he touches the host, which means that the supposedly well disposed person, by touching the host, receives the host while in mortal sin, which makes reception of the host another sacrilege.
This means the universally accepted method of receiving communion in the conciliar church does not confer grace at all but instead is a sacrilege.
This of course presumes that the host was validly consecrated, which we can safely say that it's validity itself is doubtful because we *must* see this issue *in the context* of the total redefinition and reconstitution of the Church as was set in motion at V2. We must not isolate this issue so as to view it as if Trent would have approved the new "mass" itself.
There is absolutely zero issue whatsoever *when it is taken out of context*, when it is removed from it's origins and surroundings.
We must not confuse two separate items. Yes, if valid, the sacrament confers grace to one properly disposed, no one denies that so I don't know why that keeps being brought up. NO consecration is one thing, CITH is a sacrilege and is another and has nothing to do with the validity of the sacrament.
When one attends the newchurch service and convinces themself of a valid consecration, how is it that one presumes the proper disposition for communion while seeing others receiving CITH, are they not also guilty by their participation in the sin? Even if they want to receive communion on their tongue, is not their participation alone also a mortal sin? Is not their silence to be understood as consent to everyone else taking CITH?
Topic: "No honest Catholic should attend an SSPX Mass" (Read 16082 times)