Cynical Resistors 2b - Core issue, the communion of the seers a the 'hand' of an angel


Now back to the topic of Fatima.

One issue that causes Gerard problems is the highlighted event related by Sister Lucia:
As soon as we arrived there, we knelt down, with our foreheads  touching the ground, and began to repeat the prayer of the Angel: “My God, I believe, I adore, I hope and I love You...”, I don’t know how many times we had repeated this prayer, when an extraordinary light shone upon us. We sprang up to see what was happening, and beheld the Angel. He was holding a chalice in his left hand, with the Host suspended above it, from which some drops of blood fell into the chalice 14. Leaving the chalice suspended in the air, the Angel knelt down beside us and made us repeat three times [The Fatima Prayer of Reparation] Then, rising, he took the chalice and the Host in his hands. He gave the Sacred Host to me, and shared the Blood from the chalice between Jacinta and Francisco 15, saying as he did so: “Take and drink the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ, horribly outraged by ungrateful men! Make reparation for their crimes and console your God.”
In addition, I noted the following footnote in the edition that I have:
15. Francisco and Jacinta had not yet received their First Communion. However, they never regarded this as a sacramental Communion

Before diving into Gerard's list of objections lets consider what is related:
  • The Angel gave the
    • Sacred Host to Lucia
    • Blood from the chalice to Jacinta and Francisco
  • Francisco and Jactina
    • Had not yet receive their First Communion
    • Did not regard the reception of the Blood as a sacramental Communion.
First, I will state that my over-arching starting point and assumptions are:
  1. That the Church did, after its investigation, provide approval for the Marian apparitions. 
  2. That these events were related to the inquisitor assigned by the Church and that they were only made public at a later time.
  3. Although the Church approval makes no specific mention of prelude (visit of the Angel), they have not been condemned and I assume that there is no theological error in this regards.
Now to test my assumptions to the best of my ability:
  1. It is a fact that the local ordinary provided approval in 1930 after a canonical inquiry.  Further the Popes from 1917 onwards have referenced Fatima and integrated it into the liturgy.  These elements are not binding in the normal sense, but with the level of authority we can safely say that we have a strong foundation upon which to stand.  For further reading the article "An Assessment of Fatima" provides a good perspective although the author issues concerns with the post Fatima events.
  2. A Catholic principle is to assume the good-will of people.  This also applies to those in positions of authority.  The canonical inquisitors and Sister Lucy were both regarded to have fulfilled their duties.
  3. The prelude would have been discussed in during the canonical inquiry, but there was no 'message' at this point, just that the children were being prepared for their role.
So we have no reason to doubt the account of Sister Lucia and the children.  What about the provision of the host to Sister Lucia and the Blood to her cousins.

It is important to remember that the Pope is the Vicar of Christ and that he has authority over Church discipline / laws etc. So, here we find a possible explanation for the different modes of communion provided by the Angel.  

Sister Lucy had already received her first Holy Communion and so, following the laws of the Church regarding the Sacraments, the was able to receive from the 'hand' of the Angel.

However, Jacinta and Francisco has not received their first Holy Communion and so they were not able to receive the Sacrament of the Eucharist.  

In my reflections, I have concluded that footnote 15 holds the seed of the answer.  Francisco and Jacinta did not consider the Blood that they received to be Sacramental. What is a sacramental Communion. It is a the receipt of the Body and Blood of Our Lord Jesus Christ under the accidents (appearance) of Bread and / or wine. The account provided above shows that they did not receive Our Lord in this manner, but simply the Blood of Our Lord with the accident and substance united. In other words, it was not a sacramental Communion and therefore not bound by the laws of the Church. (Note: I later found that this is the reception of the Body  / Blood under its visible form - no transubstantiation was required)

Similarly, as the children were not making a sacramental first Communion, I find no issue with their not having first Penance as was decreed as a precursor to sacramental first Communion.

Finally, assuming that truthfulness of Sister Lucy and her cousins, I believe her account that an Angel, a messenger of God, gave them communion (as has been done throughout the history of the Church).  I further find it credible to believe that the God and therefore the Angel would know the state of the souls of the children. Meaning that they were in a state of grace and prepared for receiving Our Lord Body and Blood both sacramentally in the case of Sister Lucy and non-sacramentally in the case of Jacinta and Francisco.

Some may object to the children drinking a few drops of blood, however this belies a lack of either understanding or faith.

Every time we receive the host, we receive the Body and Blood of Christ, it isn't wine and it isn't bread.  I will repeat, we eat the Body and Blood of Christ when we receive, although the accidents (appearances) are different, it is exactly the same substantially.  

This is an important distinction to make.

Even more important if a person want to accuse them of cannibalism or hematophagy (read Gerard).

In my research I came across a number of debates and this would, I think require a much deeper examination. I am reluctant to do so because there is no real 'literature' to search it in order to develop an understanding.  I checked my book on moral theology and these topics are not contained in the tome.



Popular Posts