But of course it does.
... if, more generally, it is a case of teachings in which the Church intends fully to engage the prudential authority she has to feed Christ's sheep, to determine what is apt to bring minds nearer to or turn them away from the faith, we shall not hesitate to say that the magisterium proposes them in virtue of a practical prudential assistance which is truly and properly infallible, so that we can be sure of the prudence of each of these teachings, and in consequence practically sure of their intrinsic and speculative truth. To adopt a phrase of Franzelin's, if there is as yet no infallible irrevocable truth, "veritas infallibilis", there is nevertheless an infallible assurance, "infallibilis securitas". Such, for example, are the prescriptions recalling that Sacred Scripture should be interpreted in the light of the Fathers and Doctors; the law of the Code ordering professors in seminaries to teach philosophy and theology conformably with the method, doctrine and principles of the Angelic Doctor; the judgment by which a servant of God is declared blessed, etc.[800]If, on the contrary, there is question of teachings proposed without this universality and this constancy, of solutions of recent problems not yet generalized by the Church, in which she does not intend fully to engage her prudential authority, then we shall say that the magisterium proposes them only in a fallible manner.[801] If there is infallible assistance here, it is infallible only in the improper sense, and that means that the magisterium is assisted, not for each determinate case, singillatim, divisive, but for the generality of cases, in commune, collective. It is certain, for example, that the decisions of the Biblical Commission, taken as a whole, defend the authentic meaning of the Bible and its divine character, with assured prudence. (Charles Cardinal Journet, Church of the Word Incarnate Vol. I: The Apostolic Hierarchy, London: Sheed and Ward, 1955, Ch. VII, II, B, 4)
It's possible there could be a few minor errors in the Council, but taken as a whole it safeguards the deposit of faith "with assured prudence".
Consecrated hosts are mixed with the so-called consecrated hosts of the Novus Ordo mass. You never know if you are getting a true consecrated host.
Care to explain how a host consecrated with "this is my body which will be given up for you" by a properly ordained priest is a false consecrated host?
In the climate of today's apostasy, Traditionalists would rather "err" on the safe side and refuse to intermingle Indult hosts with Traditional Hosts.
Although they may be "consecrated" by a fully ordained priest does not mean that priest had the intention of consecrating those hosts. For that matter, no one knows if any priest has the intent of Transubstantion. One must have faith that their priest is doing the right thing. Since many of the Novus Ordo priests regard themselves as entertainers, rather than acting in the person of Christ at Calvary, I would rather not take those chances.
"It is certain, for example, that the decisions of the Biblical Commission, taken as a whole, defend the authentic meaning of the Bible and its divine character, with assured prudence. (Charles Cardinal Journet, Church of the Word Incarnate Vol. I: The Apostolic Hierarchy, London: Sheed and Ward, 1955, Ch. VII, II, B, 4)"
This may have been the case prior to Vatican II, but since Vatican II, the Biblical Commission has been moved outside the authority of the Roman Curia (in other words, their findings are not part of the magisterium, Deo Gratias!)and Cardinal Ratzinger has even called into question the authoritative nature (meaning, he doubts they are authoritative) of the Biblical commissions in the late 1800s and early 1900s. This Journet book, while perhaps helpful, is not "up-to-date," which is a good thing for traditional Biblical scholarship.