Cynical Resistors

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

SSPX and the Resistance - A Comparison Of Ecclesiology

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...

Morning and Evening and other sundry Prayers

+ JMJ Along the theme of P^3 (Prayer, Penance, Patience), and for my own reference ... here is a collection of Morning and Evening prayers from the Ideal Daily Missal along with some additional prayers. In this crisis of the Church, I do not think it is possible to do too much prayer, penance and have patience. P^3

Comparision of the Tridentine, Cranmer and Novus Ordo Masses

+ 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...

Church Militant TV and the SSPX - Again

+ JMJ The old narrative used to be that the SSPX was 'schismatic' and 'excommunicated'. Now the excommunication has been lifted for a number of years and the only ones who think it still has effect are the 'resistors'. That leaves the other opponents of the SSPX with the label 'schismatic'. Make it clear, the conservative Catholics have issues with the SSPX probably because they violate some of their assumptions about the Faith and this crisis of the Church. Church Militant TV is one of these the exists along the Catholic thought spectrum. They like the Traditional Mass but must ensure that they don't get tarred with the same 'schismatic' brush that the liberals use against the SSPX. So what do they do, they use the same brush against the SSPX. The funny thing is that even when the Church does speak, they don't want to listen and persist in calling the SSPX 'schismatic'. Here's a transcript of the latest s...

The Position of the SSPX on Canonizations by the Saint Factory

+ JMJ I have sometimes been criticized for including 'St' as a title for Pope John Paul II et al. I've given my reasons here in a discussion with Alex Long. The question is one of prudence in discussions with ntCatholics and in some cases with tCatholics. In discussions with: ntCatholics, I will use the title in order to continue the discussion and help them arrive at a realistic understanding of the crisis of the Church. tCatholics, I will use the title in order to broaden their perspective on the doctrine of dogmatic facts. This broader perspective is, in my opinion, essential maintaining a realistic understanding of the crisis of the Church. So from a doctrinal position, I have written the article Dogmatic Fact of Fancy and includes a reference on canonizations. Now, I know the position of the SSPX is that the canonizations are doubtful (see references below) and I also know of at least one non-SSPX theologian who agrees with the level of doubt du...

Tradicat

Search This Blog