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

"Father, Should I Attend That Mass?" Advice on Attending Non-SSPX Latin Masses

By
 + JMJ I see that the 'resistors' are in a tizzy because Fr. Robinson used them as an example instead of the sedevacantists. What is interesting is that you can apply the exact same reasons against going to a sede mass as that of the 'resistors'. Namely: On the other extreme are those situations where an SSPX priest knows that a certain non-SSPX traditionalist venue is a grave danger to the faith . Frankly, most, if not all, of the Resistance Masses would fall into this category. In many cases, the behavior of these priests has been and continues to be scandalous, by their (A) spirit, their (B) preaching, and their indiscriminate conferral of the (C) priesthood and (D) episcopacy. To attend a Mass with such ongoing scandals poses a serious danger to the souls of the faithful. Yep, looking at A,B,C and D the shoe fits. On this basis the "resistors" = "sedevacantists". P^3 Courtesy of SSPX.org   A companion article to a recent "Questions with ...
Post a Comment
Read more

Correcting Caricatures of the SSPX

By
 + JMJ Introduction First, a little background on the FSSP St. John Vianney Chapel in Mission Hill Kansas.  After the 1988 consecrations and the foundation of the FSSP there was a consistent trend of Dioceses allowing the SSPX to run chapels and churches near SSPX locations. As with any 'organizational change' there were those who didn't agree with the change and no longer sought the sacraments from the SSPX. I heard from friends that in that era there was a lot of anger and tension (on both sides) between the St. Mary's SSPX and Mission Hill FSSP.  Second, there have been caricatures of the SSPX position (some are evident below) in which personal opinions of SSPX priests and laity are taken as the official position or conflated with those of sedevacantists or 'resistance'. Recent Perspectives of the SSPX Position In the shadow of the consecrations a fever pitch accusations and opinions how surfaced - many of which include caricatures of the SSPX positions, of w...
Post a Comment
Read more

SSPX: Why Is the SSPX So Criticized?

By
 + JMJ As long as you are ok with what happens in other Catholic Churches, Traditional Catholics will be left 'alone'.  This is a paraphrase of words spoken by an Archbishop to Traditional Catholics (with a sprinkling of SSPX) who had requested the Traditional Latin Mass under Summorum Pontificum. This reflects that attitude of the Church towards anyone who takes issue with some of the ambiguities of Vatican II and the post-conciliar magisterium.  If you reject the papacy but are ok with V2, the New Mass, and what Rome has stated since 1965 - then you are welcome. Question some of the more abiguous statements and ask for Rome to realise that a circle is not a square - then you are in for a world of hurt. This is where the SSPX exists and has existed from almost its very first moments. Pointing out contradictions with previous magisterium is not acceptable - under any condition. Why? Because it will cause the whole V2 house of cards to fall. I guess only when the contradic...
Post a Comment
Read more

Stories: Early Days of Tradition Part 8 - Convention Centre Chapel

By
 + JMJ I came to Tradition a few years after they had bought a chapel. My wife told me of the earlier years when Fr. Normandin would come to town and Mass would be held in a room at the convention centre.  He'd start by blessing the room and then proceed with Mass. This went on for a while before the one of the faithful found a small hall that would suit just fine. They pooled their money and bought the building.  Then came the work as the retiree's refinished the floor, setup the sactuary. Oh, did I mention that I heard that the hall had been used by a motorcycle gang? The floor needed a lot of work.  I remember seeing pictures of the founders working to make the hall into a fitting place for the Sacrifice of the Mass. That little chapel would be a refuge like many others serviced by Fr. Normandin.  From Thunderbay, Ontrario to Nanaimo, British Columbia - the SSPX chapels are all the results of Fr. Normandin's missionary work in those desperate times. Without h...
Post a Comment
Read more

How many more must die for the throne? or How to combat FUD!

By
 + JMJ How many more must die for the throne? (Movie Quote: Prince Caspian) The Spread of Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt I've seen a lot of FUD spreading across the intergnat on various stats etc.   So let's put this in context ... especially the perspective of those people in positions of authority who need to make decisions to protect the lives of their citizens. Yep, this is going to be that type of post.  Like it or not the leaders of our governments have their authority from God.  So, as Catholics should know, you need to have a very good reason to deliberately disobey the orders of their superiors. This is basic St. Thomas Aquinas ... so don't blame me for discussing things from a Catholic perspective. The leaders of our countries have taken action to protect the vulnerable of our countries.   As much as the young and not-so-young may whine and complain - I have to ask how many more of our elderly have to die? What the armchair virologists and ec...
10 comments
Read more