Name change?

[Marybonita]

It was an ecumenical council, non-Catholics are always invited to these and always invited (by doing so) to return to the Catholic Church and faith and practice of the Christian Religion.
There is absolutely no evidence that this was so. The evidence strongly points in the opposite direction. The challenge is not to find support for ecumenical dialogue but to find support for return. The whole purpose of the Council was false dialogue with the world. John XXIII said so in the opening speech.

always invited (by doing so) to return to the Catholic Church
I don't think that you have a real understanding of the antipathy non-Catholics have to our Church. Any invitation - unless laced with bribery as the present protestant leadership claims - would never entice an apostate within the bounds of the Catholic Church. Protestants refuse even to enter Catholic homes because they believe we are subject to superstition. Thus the pictures, candles, holy water and icons in our homes "scare" them away and it's why post-conciliar Catholics have removed them.

the Church is the sole interpreter of Her own words

This statement is as tricky as the phrase "sola scriptura" since the Bible doesn't interpret itself nor is the Church an identifiable entity. Further, the voice of authority for the Bible is the Church and the voice of authority for the Church comes from Revelation and approved Dogma.  It excludes novelties which arise from any source whatsoever including a Pope or a Council. Neither one Pope nor one council speaks for the Church. All must be in harmony. There is the one voice and it is that fact which excludes a Catholic from being bound to novelty.

~In JMJ

[Marybonita]

whether they can prove their case beyond a reasonable doubt,
 
I doubt McMaster that the average Catholic should be held to a rule-of-thumb which is beyond the range of a court of law. The extent is usually not beyond a reasonable doubt but within a reasonable doubt. It has freed many a man from prison - some of them guilty.

Reasonable doubt is what keeps traditional Catholics from the Novus Ordo line-ups for the "eucharist". We rely on our senses to convey information to our intellect and when we see corruption on our altars we can safely assume - with reason - that they should be avoided and we should urge others to do so.

~In JMJ

[Cephas]

Cephas, what you are not understanding is that the Church is the sole interpreter of Her own words and documents so such false interpretations as you give are not allowed and certainly contradict other parts of the same council. That I think is the key point of this whole discussion; the council must is taken as a whole not in bits and pieces. If it was as you say, then Protestants could be right on their interpretation of singular verses of Scripture. But then we know that that's not right. So we must do the same with the council or we are accepting the way of Protestants and heretics who twist 'the Scriptures to their own destruction'. The same twisting can be done to councils but we as Catholics must go by the orthodox and authentic interpretation of everything the Church says.
What exactly would you do with DH? It is here, it was approved and validated by a Pope.

I read the whole document, thank you very much, and the ambiguuous interpretations will not go away, and that's the problem.
That the document does not protect itself very well from it's ambiguity is a problem, even if it is a lawful document, since in all of the previous councils, one can read just a single session and not worry about contradicting Church teaching. One should be able to read both just a mere part of a council and come out without worrying whether it is erroroneous or contradicts the true teachings of the church. Not the case with the Vat II documents, and that's bad, especially for those outside the church and thus ignorant of her teachings.

Also, what you call my "interpretations" were not interpretions per se the document. I was trying to see what are the logical possibility of certain actions when taking into account what is being said and that I was able to come to the implications I mentioned above are in themselves a problem.
 Councils are to make clear what the Church teaches and there should be no ambiguities in the documents themselves at all, Vat II certainly did not do well at this.

How exacly do you think you're going to make it go away?

Of course I don't now and probably never will, , If I had some say, I would tack some anatehmas and caveats into it so the ambiguity that the document allows for is removed.

[McMaster]

whether they can prove their case beyond a reasonable doubt,

I doubt McMaster that the average Catholic should be held to a rule-of-thumb which is beyond the range of a court of law. The extent is usually not beyond a reasonable doubt but within a reasonable doubt.

The expression "proof beyond a reasonable doubt" is the one commonly used in American courts of law to mean proof that leaves no real reason to doubt the guilt of a defendant charged with a crime. I use it here because, in every case I have yet seen, the claim that Catholics should stay away from daily Communion rather than receive it at "NO" Masses arises from a view that Catholics are  participating in some kind of wrongdoing merely by attending those Masses and receiving Communion at them. Those who wish to accuse their fellow Catholics of participation in wrongdoing should be prepared to prove the accusation beyond a reasonable doubt, or else to withdraw it. Which will you have? (Hint: the better course would be simply to acknowledge that Catholic parents can attend daily "NO" Masses, take their children to them, and receive Holy Communion at them, without participating in any wrongdoing.)

It has freed many a man from prison - some of them guilty.

Yes, I know. In this case, though, it would serve only to free innocent Catholics from false accusations.

Reasonable doubt is what keeps traditional Catholics from the Novus Ordo line-ups for the "eucharist".

Reasonable doubt about what? About whether the consecration of the Host is valid, as suggested by your quotation marks around "eucharist," spelled with a small "e" and not preceded by "Holy"?

If so, please (1) state one or more supposed reasons for doubting its validity, and (2) say whether you think it might be all right for traditional Catholics to receive Communion at "NO" Masses if there is no reasonable doubt that they are receiving a validly consecrated Host and they do not receive from the chalice. And, of course, explain why you say so or don't say so.

If not, please say what the reasonable doubt is supposed to be about.

We rely on our senses to convey information to our intellect [...]

We do not rely only on our senses to convey information to our intellect; if we did, our Catholic faith would be doomed from the start. Ironically, it was the Modernists who insisted that we did, and indeed that we must:

Modernists place the foundation of religious philosophy in that doctrine which is usually called Agnosticism. According to this teaching human reason is confined entirely within the field of phenomena, that is to say, to things that are perceptible to the senses, and in the manner in which they are perceptible; it has no right and no power to transgress these limits. Hence it is incapable of lifting itself up to God, and of recognising His existence, even by means of visible things [St. Pius X, Pascendi Dominici Gregis, 6].

[...] and when we see corruption on our altars we can safely assume - with reason - that they should be avoided [...]

And when we see, with the eyes of faith and not the senses, that Our Lord is really present in the Holy Eucharist on the Church's altars even at "NO" Masses, we can safely adore Him and receive Him there. Yes or no?

Please note (again) that anyone who has a real doubt whether it is lawful to receive Communion at "NO" Masses could actually sin by doing so, whether the doubt is objectively a reasonable one or not. If you see what you suppose to be corruption instead of the Holy Eucharist on the altar, you would sin by receiving the supposed corruption, even if it's really the Holy Eucharist. This is because even an erring conscience binds, though it does not excuse [see St. Thomas Aquinas, S.T. I-II, Q. 19, Art. 5-6].

On the other hand ...

and we should urge others to do so.

No, that would be true only if you were right--and no one should believe you're right in making such an astounding claim without proof. But far be it from me to rely merely on a high standard of proof (i.e., beyond a reasonable doubt). By what standard do you think it would be fair to require you to prove that Catholics should stay away from daily Communion rather than receive it at "NO" Masses--and are you prepared to prove it by that standard?

Blessings,

Don McMaster

[Marybonita]

Modernists place the foundation of religious philosophy in that doctrine which is usually called Agnosticism. According to this teaching human reason is confined entirely within the field of phenomena,

Because the idea is warped in Phenomenology or Agnosticism doesn't mean that it is not applicable to certain situations. The Church has taught that we exist on a material plane and therefore we have senses to validate our reason.  As St. Thomas the Apostle might say "seeing is believing". Because of this material aspect God allows miracles - the miracle of the host at Lanciano is a good example.

Catholics usually leave the pews because of what they witness - not some catechetical or theological consideration although that may come later.

Catholics are participating in some kind of wrongdoing merely by attending those Masses
 
Well, I witnessed an obviously drunk woman receive Holy Communion before leaving the NO pews. I also witnessed every person in the building rise and receive with absolutely no line-ups for the one-hour confession beforehand. Some lived in public sin. Others were not Catholic.

and no one should believe you're right in making such an astounding claim without proof.
 
What I witnessed is my proof.

And when we see, with the eyes of faith and not the senses, that Our Lord is really present in the Holy Eucharist on the Church's altars even at "NO" Masses, we can safely adore Him and receive Him there. Yes or no?

Here's a conundrum: it would be better for these people if there was no valid consecration than if there were. In fact, God in His Mercy may have allowed this situation to develop in order to save them from His Divine Wrath.

By what standard do you think it would be fair to require you to prove that Catholics should stay away from daily Communion

By both reasonable proof and reasonable doubt. Reasonable proof relies on the senses; reasonable doubt on Church teaching.

Daily Communion in the Novus Ordo? LOL The local pastor has Tuesdays and Thursdays off. There is no Saturday communion service since Sunday Mass is said on Saturday evening. Don't want to confuse the Catholics by labelling it a Saturday service when it's a Sunday service.

~In JMJ

 

[StrictCatholicGirl]

What I witnessed is my proof.

 

And what I witness is my proof. Never have I seen a drunk person at Mass, and I know of no one in our parish living in "public sin" or receiving communion as a non-Catholic. We do have EEMs, the occasional pair of blue jeans, and the lines for confession are indeed too short, but these items are not enough to keep me away from the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass. 

 

Daily Communion in the Novus Ordo? LOL The local pastor has Tuesdays and Thursdays off. There is no Saturday communion service since Sunday Mass is said on Saturday evening. Don't want to confuse the Catholics by labelling it a Saturday service when it's a Sunday service.

Our parish has 3 daily (weekday) Masses, 2 on Saturdays (not counting the Saturday evening Mass which counts for Sunday), and 4 Masses on Sundays. Our pastor has Mondays off, but he's still there to offer the Mass. No priest gets a "day off" from celebrating the Mass or reading the Office.

 

Here's a conundrum: it would be better for these people if there was no valid consecration than if there were. In fact, God in His Mercy may have allowed this situation to develop in order to save them from His Divine Wrath.

 

So if there are no valid consecrations at our Masses, it's mere bread and we're not desecrating anything, right? Stay home and make your spiritual communion and let us make ours. 

 

- Lisa

[JoeVoxxPop]

Much less does it make the council erroneous, unless you deny that the Holy Ghost always protects the Church in Her official preceedings. As unprecedented as this whole crisis has been we still should first have faith that the Holy Ghost protects the Church, no?

My understanding was the Holy Ghost was not invoked at the start of the council as was previous councils.

[PeteC]

Much less does it make the council erroneous, unless you deny that the Holy Ghost always protects the Church in Her official preceedings. As unprecedented as this whole crisis has been we still should first have faith that the Holy Ghost protects the Church, no?

My understanding was the Holy Ghost was not invoked at the start of the council as was previous councils.

That is not true. Not only was the Holy Spirit invoked as in previous Councils (Veni, Mass, etc.), but Pope John XXIII also indulgenced a prayer for all priests to say when reciting the Divine Office and the ad libitum Collect, Secret and Postcommunion at Masses when they were permitted by the rubrics were to be for the grace of the Holy Spirit.

The Divine Office prayer was:

Acceptum tibi sit, Domine Deussacrificium laudis quod divinae majesti tuae offero pro felici exitu Concili Oecumenici Vaticanii Secundi et praesta, quod simul cum ontifice Nostro Iohannae supplicter a te petimus per misericordiam tuam efficaciter consequamur. Amen

All rosaries in the May preceding the Council were offerd for it.

[StevusMagnus]

If you think you should stay away from "NO" Masses when you have no strict duty to attend them, you're entitled, although it's a bad idea if you're then needlessly hindering yourself from receiving daily Communion. If you keep your children away from them too, when they're not old enough to make their own decisions, any blame in hindering them from receiving Communion when they could otherwise receive it is yours, not theirs.

So attend your local clown mass with pride! St. Pius X would have wanted you to!

[StevusMagnus]

I think it's time for a name change of this sub-forum, now that the indult is no longer needed.

How bout
Motu vs SSPX?
Summorum vs SSPX?
Parish TLM vs SSPX?

Anyway, just a thought...

Just call the Forum "Issues re: Abp. Lefebvre & the SSPX". It doesn't have to be the SSPX vs. anything.