Skip to main content

Cynical Resistors

Image
By
+
JMJ


I noticed a post by a person using the pseudonym 'Gerard' on the topic of the Angel giving Lucia communion via  a consecrated host and Francisco and Jacinta via consecrated wine.

Incredibly, 'Gerard' raises some objections to this action:

So, let me get this straight.  The claim here is, the Angel doesn't give Francisco and Jacinta the Holy Eucharist in the form of bread, because they haven't yet received their first Holy Communion.  And this genderless, non-ordained "extraordinary minister of Holy Communion"  then gives these children their First Holy Communion (without first Penance) and he gives it to them in the form of Wine???? And without the consent or knowledge of the parents or Godparents if need be?  And the kids have scruples and doubts a minute after the "Angel" departs?  All to teach a small minority of Catholics a hundred years later that Latin Rite Catholics should not do what Latin Rite Catholics did centuries before and intinction is out the door for Latin Rite Catholics anyway? (what was sacred then is not sacred now?)   Are we also to draw from this that Extraordinaray Ministers of Holy Communion are okay and First Communion without First Penance preceding it is also okay?  And parents and priests are not to be the authorities on when and how the Firsts of Communion and Penance are to be given?   But if the parents and parish are to be involved, you simply override it by giving the kids the same consubstantial God in the form of Wine.  Sorry, it didn't happen, not if the Catholic Church is true.  If this had been Medjugorje, trads would have been all over these problems in the narrative.  But if you put "Fatima" in front of it, the whole Deposit of Faith can be up for grabs and "understood through the lens of Fatima" the way John Paul II viewed the whole deposit of Faith "through Vatican II."   Have the courage to hold onto the unadulterated doctrine of the Church and view Fatima as if you or you parents or grandparents had never heard about it, or if it was a modern apparition and the serious doctrinal problems with it will suddenly sprint into high relief.   I wonder if this time, this post will be allowed to stand and not be marked as spam like my previous posts.  I'm double posting this on Suscipe Domine for safe keeping.  Source
I don't have time to unpack all the issues with this rationalization, but I will strike at three key points.

First of all, I will strike at "Gerard's" unstated assumption that the Catholic Church never examined this event in the 100 years that have passed.  Given that the Church has approved these events as worthy of belief, this assumption shows the height of  pride that is best described by the word hubris.
Given that the Church performed the investigation and officially declared them to be worthy of belief and devoid of theological error - I take the stance of the Church and disregard the opinion of Gerard .

Second point, Gerard leaps from an Angel giving communion to 'Extraordinary Ministers' (I can only assume that he meant 'Extraordinary Eucharistic Ministers' (EEC).  I'm sorry but there is a significant difference between a spotless angel giving Holy Communion and an EEC.  I'm surprised that the difference was lost on Gerard.

Third point, noting the approval of the Church of the apparaitions, we have an Angel of God giving the communion in preparation for the trials that the children are about to undergo.  Assuming that the Angel of God was acting under obedience to God (a very good assumption by the way), then given that God knows the state of the souls of the Children and that He would not command a sacrilege that the children were in a state of grace and had sufficient knowledge / understanding of what they were receiving.  Hence the 'First Penance', under the authority of God can be dispensed. Further, Gerard attempts to make a fuss about the parents permission being sought. I can just see how the conversation would have gone:
Hi, I'm an Angle of God, no please get up and don't worship me, I'm just a creature. Thank you. Yes, I've come to ask your permission to fulfill the order given to me by God to given Holy Communion under the species of wine to your children, Jacinta and Francisco. Why?  Oh, because He desires to call them to a high degree of holiness and prepare them for suffering and death.
Let's be frank about this:

God does not need to ask permission to grant communion, just as He did not need ask permission of Abraham when He commanded him to offer Isaac.  It suffices to say that if God commands it, then it cannot be anything other than correct to obey.

P^3




Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Comparision of the Tridentine, Cranmer and Novus Ordo Masses

By
+ JMJ I downloaded the comparison that was linked in the previous article on the mass (here) . ... a very good reference! P^3 From: Whispers of Restoration (available at this link) . CHARTING LITURGICAL CHANGE Comparing the 1962 Ordinary of the Roman Mass to changes made during the Anglican Schism; Compared in turn to changes adopted in the creation of Pope Paul VI’s Mass in 1969 The chart on the reverse is a concise comparison of certain ritual differences between three historical rites for the celebration of the Catholic Mass Vetus Ordo: “Old Order,” the Roman Rite of Mass as contained in the 1962 Missal, often referred to as the “Traditional Latin Mass.”The Ordinary of this Mass is that of Pope St. Pius V (1570) following the Council of Trent (1545-63), hence the occasional moniker “Tridentine Mass.” However, Trent only consolidated and codified the Roman Rite already in use at that time; its essential form dates to Pope St. Gregory the Great (+604), in whose time the R...
Post a Comment
Read more

SSPX and the Resistance - A Comparison Of Ecclesiology

By
Shining the light of Church Teaching on the doctrinal positions of the SSPX and the Resistance. Principles are guides used to aid in decision making.  It stands to reason that bad principles will lead to bad decisions. The recent interactions between Rome and the SSPX has challenged a number of closely held cultural assumptions of people in both sides of the disagreement. This has resulted in cultural skirmishes in both Rome and the SSPX. Since it is the smaller of the two, the skirmishes have been more evident within the SSPX.  The cultural fault-line that Bishop Fellay crossed appears to be linked to two points of Catholic Doctrine: Ecclesiology and Obedience.  The cultural difference of view points is strong enough that it has resulted in the expulsion of a number of members.  It should also be noted that some other priests expelled since the beginning of the latest interactions (starting in 2000) held the same view points and have joined with the l...
8 comments
Read more

If Pope Francis is bad - what about Pope St. John Paul II et al?

By
+ JMJ So here we are on the apparent cusp of yet another post conciliar Papal canonization. This time we have Pope's John-Paul I and Paul VI canonizations to 'look forward' to. This follows, obviously, on the heels of Pope St. John Paul II's canonization? So the first question that I usually encounter is: How is it possible, keeping in mind the doctrine on infallibility of canonizations (note doctrine not dogma), that Pope St. John Paul II is a Saint? First, what does it mean???  According to the doctrine of dogmatic facts - it is the universal opinion of Theologians that canonizations are infallible.  It means that they enjoy the beatific vision.  ... that's it.  That is the doctrine and it is at the level of universal opinion of theologians.  It is called a 'dogmatic fact'. That they made mistakes is obvious.  That the miracles seem to not be very miraculous is also a bit of an issue. Here's something to consider: The rush that surrou...
16 comments
Read more

Spiritual Journey Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre - Extracts

By
+ JMJ I have posted these two chapters to provide context for the quote of: It is, therefore, a strict duty for every priest wanting to remain Catholic to separate himself from this Conciliar Church for as long as it does not rediscover the Tradition of the Church and of the Catholic Faith. P^3 Courtesy of SSPX.ca Chapter II The Perfections of God We ought to remember during this entire contemplation of God that we must apply all that is said of God to Our Lord Jesus Christ, Who is God. We cannot separate Jesus Christ from God. We cannot separate the Christian religion from Jesus Christ, Who is God, and we must affirm and believe that only the Catholic religion is the Christian religion. These affirmations have, as a result, inescapable conclusions that no ecclesiastic authority can contest: outside of Jesus Christ and the Catholic religion, that is, outsi...
Post a Comment
Read more

Dogmas of the Catholic Faith (de fide) - Expanded Listing: Answer for Reader

By
 + JMJ  A reader asked the following question in the 2015 version of the article on the Dogmas of the Catholic Faith (link) : 117: "In the state of fallen nature it is morally impossible for man without Supernatural Revelation, to know easily, with absolute certainty and without admixture of error, all religious and moral truths of the natural order." Where can you find this in the documents of the Church? ( Link to comment )  Here's the reference from Ott: The citation that Ott provided was Denzinger 1786 and the source document is Dogmatic Consitution Concerning the Faith from the First Vatican Council (Papal Encyclicals - link) : Chapter 2 On Revelation, Article 3: It is indeed thanks to this divine revelation , that those matters concerning God, which are not of themselves beyond the scope of human reason, can, even in the present state of the human race, be known by everyone, without difficulty, with firm certitude and with no intermingling of error. Here's ...
Post a Comment
Read more