Tradicat

+ JMJ Gerard didn't answer the question in a clear manner, so I reiterated the question as per below.  One other forum member raised a concern and I have added. P^3

+ JMJ In reviewing the back and forth of the Gerard Dialogue on Fatima, he seems to have reserved his most vehement protests for the apparent transgression of Church Law and his revulsion of the reception of Our Lord's blood in its natural as opposed to sacramental form. My question is this: If Christ gives you His blood to drink in its natural form, is it a sin to drink it? Here's the answer: No, it is not a sin to drink Christ's Blood if He gives it to you to drink. A number of people on the forum posted that Our Lord would never do that. I can find no reason to support their assertion.  Even St. Catherine of Siena is reported to have drunk from the side of Christ. Gerard purports that was a vision etc.  I reread the account (well worth it) and found that there is no reason to believe the event did not occur as related. When I asked Gerard to support his assertion that it was simply a 'vision' etc, he went silent. He does that a lot actually, any...

+ JMJ I believe that Gerard's response, if based on cynicism,  is fueled by a lack of understanding of some key Catholic principles. Firstly, cynicism is contrary to Catholic principles on a number of levels, primarily because it is a result of liberalism.  The starting point is a distrust of authority, thereby making an attempt to elevate the holder as an authority. This is why it is important to: KNOW - your faith, so that your perspective will be wide and aligned with the thought of the Church of Christ. This serves as a foundation to LOVE - God. The love of God is the food of the spiritual life. SERVE - God. Do God's will. Baltimore Catechism 6. Q. Why did God make you? A. God made me to know Him, to love Him, and to serve Him in this world, and to be happy with Him for ever in heaven. I've attached some samples of the dialogues with Gerard. P^3 PS. Conclusion In this series we've examined the facts and opinions regarding the prelude as...

+ JMJ For reference here's the section of the Remnant article, that raised the objections. P^3

+ 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.

+ JMJ 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 Chri...

+ JMJ As noted in the original  cynical-resistors  post, a person by the pseudonym of Gerard is finding fault with the Fatima apparitions.  He has a tendency to take the shotgun approach to theology in that he takes aim at a general topic and peppers it with bb's.

+ 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:

+ JMJ Deacon Nick Donnelly has posted a commentary on Bishop Schneider's statement concerning the SSPX here . Here's the key point: We can confidently subject ourselves to the Pope and bishops when they clearly and unambiguously subject themselves to the Word of God, "teaching only what has been handed on, listening to it devoutly, guarding it scrupulously and explaining it faithfully." When these conditions are evident we have a holy obligation to submit with "ready Christian obedience": "The laity should, as all Christians, promptly accept in Christian obedience decisions of their spiritual shepherds, since they are representatives of Christ as well as teachers and rulers in the Church. Let them follow the example of Christ, who by His obedience even unto death, opened to all men the blessed way of the liberty of the children of God. Nor should they omit to pray for those placed over them, for they keep watch as having to render an account ...

+ JMJ Another proxy for the 'no canonical regularization ...' mantra is the following quote from the 1991 interview given by Archbishop Lefebvre. However, one day they will be obliged to recognize that the Society represents a spiritual force and a strength of the Faith which is irreplaceable and which they will have, I hope, the joy and the satisfaction to make use of, but when they have come back to their Traditional Faith. The underlined section is also a favorite proof text of the 'Resistors' and I suspect their fall-back position to my last post on this topic .

+ JMJ I haven't written about the 'Resistance' for sometime as ... well frankly ... I'm 'retired' and sometimes you just need to have a face-to-face discussion in order to make any headway in evaluating the various positions that the 'Resistors' take. But I have some time ... so ...

+ JMJ Fr. Pierre Roy has left the SSPX, breaking his engagement and Fr. Couture has written a letter considering the departure. 'Resistors' will respond exposing their blind spot. The first aspect will be the understanding of the phrase 'conciliar Church' - for the truth of how the SSPX has understood the phrase click on this link. The second will be proof-texts from Archbishop Lefebvre to 'prove' their point. This a blind spot of the 'resistors' - the exclusion of context from their proof texts. Also known as confirmation bias. For example, one of the favorite 'resistor' proof-texts is found in the 'One Year After the Consecrations' interview given by the Archbishop.  I have highlighted in Green the section that is quoted - as you will notice the entire context changes the implied meaning from a general rejection of any offer from Rome  to an example of the compromises of those who accepted the offer from Rome.

+ JMJ It appears that Fr. Girouard is still in business, but he's just occupying himself in the real world as opposed to the MO of Fr. Pfeiffer et al.

+ JMJ I have a confession to make ... I'm a lurker. Periodically, I will do searches to see what's happening in reference to the SSPX as what affects them ultimately affects myself and those dear to me. Recently I came across the following exchange on a 'resistance' forum: knish said: If it's unilateral, I couldn't see why anyone would oppose it. I know MANY here disagree, but I really don't get the argument. To be honest, I believe this is a schismatic attitude.

+ JMJ One of the fall back positions taken by the 'resistance' is to say "what about GREC?". Up to now I've always said: What the heck was GREC? First let's start with my perspective and early assumptions. Perspective: The SSPX exists for the Catholic Church to help in the recovery from this crisis.  In that view I have seen a number of 'modern' priests visit the SSPX priories.  Some for discussion, others for training in saying the Tridentine Mass. Assumptions based on this perspective when I became aware of the involvement of the SSPX in theological debates at GREC: This is a 'none' item as it is simply the extension of the work of the SSPX to help other Catholics understand: Their position is based on accepted common pre-conciliar doctrine , Help others to see and understand the core issues of the crisis of the Church. The SSPX did not compromise on the core items Four points of the Second Vatican Council New Mass...

+ JMJ Resistance without Catholic principles (ie obedience) is nothing short of rebellion. P^3 Courtesy of SSPX.ca: Avoiding a false spirit of resistance

+ JMJ Louie Verrecchio has a good article (reproduced below) and I encourage my readers to follow the link and support him. P^3 Courtesy of Louie Verrecchio

+ JMJ Bishop Williamson has opined on Fr. Schmidberger's letter. Three points became apparent as I read his 'reply' such as it may be. It is clear that in the face of principles H.E. has no appropriate and cogent response and resorts to opinions and FUD . For example the requirement of distinguishing the person of the Pope from the office he holds (in other words - the Pope can issue a lawful/legitimate command that meets the conditions for Catholic obedience).  Bishop Williamson does not answer this point instead offers a helping of  FUD  :" This is a relatively superficial view of the utterly radical attack launched against the Faith and Truth itself by Freemasonic churchmen during and after Vatican II " . Nothing like the fear of Freemason lurking in the shadows of the Church to devour helpless little traditionalists.  Bishop Williamson's response misses the actual points of principle. Why?  Because Fr. Schmidberger's position is based on pr...

+ JMJ Mr. Verrecchio points out a number of key problems with the position of Bishop Williamson et al. Specifically, what is the deviation in doctrine of which he alludes to but never reveals in concrete objective terms? I believe it comes down to two elements: The Church Obedience P^3 Courtesy of Louie Verrecchio

+ JMJ Periodically, I lurk around the 'resistance' websites to observe their inevitable bickering and splintering. It didn't take long as the first cracks appeared in 2013 and the chasms keep on growing. The latest is a rambling letter written by Fr. Chazal complaining that some people in Australia have kicked them out because of Bishop Williamson, that they've been having problems with entry visas etc. Oh well, if they turn on the Superior General of the SSPX with a 'non-serviam' based on their own judgement, casting the principle of obedience along with the Doctrine of the Church onto the trash heap, what is to stop the laity from doing the same to them? Nothing. P^3