Cyncial Resistors 2c - Examination of objections

+

JMJ

After that exposition, I think we're ready to have a look at some of Gerard's original objections, prior to diving into his responses to my 'unpacking' of his thoughts.

Gerard's original objections can be summarized as:

1. 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.
1. Tradical: This is consistent with the Church Law on sacramental communion.
2. 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????
1. Tradical: As noted Angels have given communion before, this is documented in the lives of the Saints.  First penance is related to the Church Law on reception of the sacraments.  This was not a sacramental communion.
3. without the consent or knowledge of the parents or Godparents if need be?
1. Tradical: I find this absurd.  God has chosen these children to see the Blessed Virigin Mary and He should ask permission of their parents? Me thinks he doth protest too much!
4. kids have scruples and doubts a minute after the "Angel" departs?  
1. Tradical: In the account that I read it seemed to be confusion or lack of understanding rather than scruples.
5. 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?)  
1. Tradical: I think this is a huge jump or inference.  Looking at the highlighted section in the next post, I really can't see why he made the jump from the article to the rant about Eastern Rites etc.
6. Are we also to draw from this that Extraordinaray Ministers of Holy Communion are okay
1. Tradical: I likewise find this absurd since it is already established that an Angel can and has given Holy Communion.  The link to the modern abuse is a non sequitor.
7. First Communion without First Penance preceding it is also okay?
1. Tradical: Discussed earlier.
8. parents and priests are not to be the authorities on when and how the Firsts of Communion 
1. Tradical: Already addressed this issue of sacramental law in my hypothesis.
9. [first] Penance are [not] to be given?  
1. Tradical: Ditto above.
10. 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.
1. Tradical: First, according to the account, it wasn't under the form of wine. The accidents and substance were consistent. It looked like blood and it was substantially blood.  To be exact: Christ's Blood.  
11. If this had been Medjugorje, trads would have been all over these problems in the narrative.
1. Tradical: This isn't Medjugorje, this is Fatima that has been declared by the appropriate authorities to be worthy of belief. Further, if one stops and thinks about it rationally, one can arrive at a number of possible legitimate explanations that are consistent with the theology of the Catholic Church.
12. 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."  
1. Tradical: Not certain if this is a valid objection.
13. 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.  
1. Tradical: Gerard himself wrote that if this event was wrong then its all wrong.  That logic works both ways. I would counter that if the Church Authority has not found any issues with what followed, then what preceded is equally devoid of error.  

What I would like to note is the vehemence and type of language with which Gerard is writing.  He appears to be emotionally charged.

That does bring up an important aspect of arguing with people.

Many people hold a strong set of beliefs, (as does Gerard) and this is not necessarily a bad thing. It only becomes a problem when these beliefs are contradicted by equally or stronger arguments (or reality). At that point it evokes an emotional / irrational response. In order to hold on to their beliefs in the face of an inconsistency, they continually seeks to protect their beliefs by raising a long series of objections.  In short, they will imagine a variety of different elements that support their belief, while setting aside previous beliefs.

The degree to which some will go to protect a strongly held belief is quite amazing and requires much patience to help them to change their belief to align with what the Church actually teaches.

P^3