+
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 CatechismI've attached some samples of the dialogues with Gerard.
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.
P^3
PS. Conclusion
In this series we've examined the facts and opinions regarding the prelude as well as some aspects of the apparitions in Fatima.
Some (in this case Gerard) have a hard time understanding the events in the complete light of Church Teaching. That they appear to start from a point of cynicism obviously doesn't help.
What would help would be for the cynics to attempt to argue against their own points. That is why I find arguing with Gerard beneficial. I would never have come up with some of his objections because they're simply outside my reasoning and experience..
Now I'm going to ponder the next steps.
Post by: Gerard on June 17, 2017, 11:21:34 PM
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.
...
Quote
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 .
Yes. The intellectually lazy approach. Do you feel comfortable reading a book by Karl Rahner if it has an imprimatur on it? As far as disregarding my argument, go ahead, that doesn't mean you are capable of rebutting it.
Tradical: Aside from Gerard's simply setting aside the decision of the Church, he does nothing to examine the actual arguments put forth by the authority. It is simply his opinion against the reasoned thorough examination of Church authorities.
Also, I believe that just ignoring the decision of the Church IS an intellectually lazy approach.
Quote
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.
What's lost on you is the Remnant article which uses the events described as Fatima teaching us about the abuses of Vatican II and communion under both kinds. Now THAT'S a leap. I simply pointed out that if the Angel of Fatima is teaching us anything, the Angel is giving a foretaste of several of the abuses in the post Vatican II period. Namely EMHCs (regardless of their imperfections and the purity of the angels, neither of them is ordained. No Angel can confect the Eucharist, nor can our Lady.) and First Holy Communion without prior First Penance.
Tradical: I really never noted this potential conclusion when I read the article (I even posted it on Tradicat).
As shown in the previous post here, the point being made is that there is nothing wrong with communion under both kinds, but the words used by the Angel correctly identify that there is not a necessity (prevalent error circulating in Church now) to receive under both kinds because to receive the Body is to receive the blood and vice-versa.
Quote
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.
Yes. Of course, that's why they didn't believe they received communion since they didn't get the bread. And in the most logical explanations. they didn't get the bread because they had not yet received their first Holy Communion. Naturally. If you haven't received your first Holy Communion, you can't have the bread. You need the Wine!.
The other possibility is that the story is simply not true.
Tradical: When I reviewed the text my conclusion was that the children took the Angel at his word, but were unfamiliar with the dogma / theology. Hence their question to Lucia - who answered correctly.
Quote
Hence the 'First Penance', under the authority of God can be dispensed.
No. That's not First Penance, that is the innocence of Baptism. And it's all speculation since the Angel went to such trouble to explain to Lucia that she would get the bread because she'd already received her First Communion, so again, naturally God doesn't want the Angel to give the same substance to kids in the form of bread if they have not had their First Communion. The only logical thing to do is give them the exact same substance under the form of wine.
This is absurdity at it's most obvious. You have to be pretending to not recognize this insult to any rational person's or angel's intelligence.
Tradical: I've already dealt with the 'First Penance' issue in detail but want to point out something:
When a person starts to place his own thoughts in someone else's mind during an argument it is a warning sign.
We don't "know" what another person is thinking or intending. We can examine the events and propose reasons that support the action. But if the person doesn't actually tell you their intention, it is simply an inference - an assumption.
When a person starts to place his own thoughts in someone else's mind during an argument it is a warning sign.
We don't "know" what another person is thinking or intending. We can examine the events and propose reasons that support the action. But if the person doesn't actually tell you their intention, it is simply an inference - an assumption.
That is another example of pride, the possession of hidden knowledge. i.e. I know what you're thinking.
So if some one in an argument starts with "You want / believe ...", stop them and ask what prompted them to make that statement.
Quote
Further, Gerard attempts to make a fuss about the parents permission being sought. I can just see how the conversation would have gone:
Quote from: AngelHi, 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.
That conversation would be absurd, but it would still be recognizably Catholic compared to the utter nonsense being peddled in the Remnant article about this obviously fraudulent story.
Tradical: This is pretty strong language that when unpacked includes a bunch of nasty assumptions. Such as Lucia et al were liars and that the Canonical Inquiry was incompetent. These assumptions need to be validated in order to come to a good conclusion and my approach is to assume that these assumptions are false based on the facts surrounding the accounts.
Tradical: This is pretty strong language that when unpacked includes a bunch of nasty assumptions. Such as Lucia et al were liars and that the Canonical Inquiry was incompetent. These assumptions need to be validated in order to come to a good conclusion and my approach is to assume that these assumptions are false based on the facts surrounding the accounts.
Quote
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.
You seem to forget that God didn't personally appear in any of this. It's all hearsay. Had a precocious child come up to Abraham to say that an Angel was about to sacrifice Isaac, I doubt Abraham would have blithely said, "Oh…Okay."
Tradical: This caught me off guard, it's almost as if God should have appeared in a burning bush instead of the Angel and the Blessed Virgin Mary.
If the Blessed Virgin Mary, a Saint or Angel appears to provide a message from God, then they are speaking as His agent.
The events related are an account of witnesses who were repeatedly cross examined.
If the Blessed Virgin Mary, a Saint or Angel appears to provide a message from God, then they are speaking as His agent.
The events related are an account of witnesses who were repeatedly cross examined.
Nor, if you are a traditionalist, does "God need consolation." This is modernism, to go from an impassible God to a passible God that suffers and has emotional ups and downs is completely of the new theology of the modernists.
Tradical: This also caused me to pause.
First, let's correctly identify the statement made by the Angel to which Gerard is referring:
...Repair their crimes and console your God.
Now without referencing a Theology text I know a couple of items that will help us to shine a little light on the topic.
- Our Lord Jesus Christ's (OLJC) body, prior to the resurrection, was passible. In other words He could and did suffer.
- During the agony in the garden, I understand that it is held that OLJC used His Divinity to see the entire history of the human race, every sinful and virtuous act. In fact, He is seeing us now as He suffers in the Garden.
- OLJC is God.
So if we make a virtuous act and offer up our sufferings for Our Lord to console Him in the agony of the garden, it is not incorrect to state that we seek to 'console' our God.
These are just my reasonings based upon my knowledge of the faith and founded upon my life as a Catholic.
Now onto opening a Theology Text!
First, it is a Dogma that God is immutable.
God is absolutely immutable. (De fide.) The 4th Lateran and the Vatican Council teach that God is immutable (incommutabilis). Holy Scripture excludes·all change from God and positively ascribes to Him absolute immutability.
What is not commonly known is that our prayers do not change God. They change us. God has known from eternity the particular moment in time when He will grant our requests. It is in us that He 'awaits' the change.
Second, my understanding has been confirmed:
Christ's human nature was passible. (Defide.) ... the Church, in its symbols of faith, teaches that Christ (really) suffered and died. The Fourth Lateran council, and the Union Council of Florence expressly stress, not merely the fact of the Passion, but also the passibility of Christ. D 429: secundum humanitatem factus est passibilis et nlortalis (in [His] humanity He was made capable of suffering and mortal) D 708: passibilis ex conditione assumptae humanitatis (passible [i.e., capable of suffering] by reason of the humanity [He] as sumed).From this comes the sent-certa teaching that :
According to the testimony of Holy Writ, Christ possessed a truly human soul with the corresponding emotions, for example, sadness (Mt. 26, 37: He began to grow sorrowful and to be sad "), fear (Mk. 14, 33 : He began to fear and to be heavy"), anger (Mk. 3, 5: "He looked round about on them with anger "), love (Mk. 10, 21: He (Jesus) loved Him "; John II, 36; 19, 26), Joy (John II, 15 : And I am glad for your sakes U). He wept with emotion at the sight ofthe City of Jerusalem doomed to destruction because of its unbelief (Luke 19, 41), and at the grave of His friend Lazarus (John II, 35) and rejoiced in the Holy Ghost at the thought of the efficacy of the grace of God (Luke 10, 21). Cf. Hebr. 2, 17; 4, IS; 5, 2So, before His resurrection, Our Lord Jesus Christ could suffer, He could be sad. In this manner He could be consoled by us today, in the present moment.
Now it is obvious, at least to myself, that via the Communion of Saints, we can help each other and make reparation. Further, as the Church is the Mystical Body of Christ, we can
One other thing is that the concept of consoling Our Lord is not unique to this event. The approved Devotion to the Holy Face includes it and a quick search will show that numerous Saints (ie canonized) also incorporated consolation of Our Lord in their spirituality. So there is more here than meets the eye. Perhaps this is the topic for another article (note self).
Based on this, I believe Gerard's objection is to be rejected. We can and should seek to console Our Lord Jesus Christ and to make reparation for the sins committed against Him!
Post by: Gerard on June 19, 2017, 08:57:51 PM
Just reread the memoirs. Jacinta and Francisco did not receive sacramentally. They received the blood directly - not as wine. In other words, they did not received the Blood of Christ under the form of wine.
That's an inference you are drawing from the narrative which is even more unhinged. The Catechism of the Council of Trent calls eating human flesh and drinking human blood "revolting" and God in His infinite wisdom made the administration of His body and blood in the form or bread and wine.
Tradical: I found this very interesting.
First, I didn't have to make an inference, that Jacinta and Francisco drank the drops of Blood that fell from the Host is explicitly in the text. The footnote was what drew me back to the text.
Second, Gerard has misquoted an authority by writing: "Catechism of the Council of Trent calls eating human flesh and drinking human blood "revolting". Trent said that it was revolting to human nature so God ... here's the quote instead:
Nothing more becomes the piety of the faithful than, omitting all curious questionings, to revere and adore the majesty of this august Sacrament, and to recognise the wisdom of God in commanding that these holy mysteries should be administered under the species of bread and wine. For since it is most revolting to human nature to eat human flesh or drink human blood, therefore God in His infinite wisdom has established the administration of the body and blood of Christ under the forms of bread and wine, which are the ordinary and agreeable food of man. Catechism of the Council of TrentSo there is a difference between Gerard's claim of "the Catechism of the Council of Trent calls eating human flesh and drinking human blood revolting" and that it is "revolting to human nature". Further, there is nothing to say that we couldn't receive visible flesh and blood, but it would be hard to defend against critics of Catholicism.
So, the Angels has the kids engage in hematophagy. And the kids are deprived of the essential mystery of faith and the fittingness of every theological reasoning supporting transubstantiation.
Tradical: At this point, please recall that the substance of the bread and wine are completely replaced by the Body and Blood of Our Lord. We are truly eating and drinking His blood. If that is hemtophagy, then so be it as I am simply obeying the command of Our Lord to eat His flesh and to drink His blood.
I'll say again, I immediately thought that Gerard really has missed a point of doctrine.
In a quick search I found an article by a Fr. William Wagner ORC.
http://www.opusangelorum.org/English/Fatimaeucharist.html
Interesting how Fatima is interpreted by different people. It's almost like a Rorschach test.
He writes:
Communion Under Both Species
It is further noteworthy that the Angel offered the Eucharist to the children under the species of the bread and wine, that is to say, he offered Lucy the Host, the Body of Christ, and the chalice of the Precious Blood to Jacinta and Francisco. Hence, we may say that it was the Angel of Fatima who 'reintroduced' Communion under both species back into the Western Church. The Eastern Rites of the Catholic Church have always maintained Communion under both species, perhaps in part, because they have almost always suffered persecutions, whereas this is not the case in the Latin rite. It is, of course, true that we receive the whole of Christ, body, blood, soul and divinity under each species, as the Church has always taught. Beyond this, if we may seek a symbolic reason, it would be this: The bread is a symbol of life, the staff of love, and therefore a communion in the life of Christ; while the Blood, "which has been poured out for you" better symbolizes the sacrifice and death of Jesus.
"
Tradical: That Fr. Wagner is wrong is obvious. First the children actually didn't receive under both species (meaning that both received a host and both received the wine). One received a host, the others blood.
So the Angel is teaching us according to the Remnant to avoid Communion under both kinds and according to Fr. Wagner the Angel reintroduced Communion under both kinds to the Western Church.
Tradical: As noted earlier, the Remnant's point is logical and consistent. Fr. Wagners is not.
If we add in Extraordinary Ministers of Holy Communion and First Communion without First Penance. Fatima is virtually the pre-cursor and the herald of Vatican II's innovations.
Tradical: These points have already been answered but it bears repeating. There is a long history of Angels bringing Communion to Saints. Following Gerard's logic, these events would all support the use of EMHC's. But they do not because the difference between an Angel and human is obvious.
Post by: tradical on June 26, 2017, 08:38:26 AM
Gerard,
It is not a question of 'adherents'. It is a question of what was related by the witnesses to the event Lucia, Jacinta and Francisco.
From the memoirs:
QuoteThen, 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 Christ, horribly outraged by ungrateful men! Make reparation for their crimes and console your God.”
Based on this, the thesis is supported that it was the '... Blood of Jesus Christ' as Our Lord shed on the cross. Following the theology of the Church, it contains both the "Body and Blood of Jesus Christ".
That is simply taking the words for their actual meaning and not attempting to add any inferences.
Further, I had not previously noted the footnote for this event:
QuoteFrancisco and Jacinta had not yet received their First Communion. However,they never regarded this as a sacramental Communion.
Following Trent we have:
That a sacrament is "... a visible sign of an invisible grace, instituted for our justification."
Quote from: Catechism of TrentBesides the different significations already mentioned, a Sacrament also not infrequently indicates and marks the presence of more than one thing. This we readily perceive when we reflect that the Holy Eucharist at once signifies the presence of the real body and blood of Christ and the grace which it imparts to the worthy receiver of the sacred mysteries.
So the understanding of Francisco and Jacinta is consistent with the thesis that they did not receive the Blood of Our Lord under the species of wine, they received the Blood of Our Lord as such and did not make a sacramental communion but a "direct" communion.I get everything you are stating. You are drawing completely rational inferences from the implications presented in the details.I asked how many Fatima adherents also understand these implications and believe the children were literally drinking plasma/gore.
Tradical: I found Gerard's use of language in referring to the Blood of Christ disturbing and inappropriate when dealing with this topic.
The writer of the Remnant article obviously does not because he states the "lesson" being taught is about "Communion under both kinds." I doubt he means bread and gore and more likely means the Holy Eucharist under the accidents of bread and wine.Perhaps we should be talking about each combination of four kinds, bread, wine, cardiac muscle and gore.I'm not sure I buy into your concept of "direct communion" can you cite something for it? That would necessitate that sacramental communion as you referred to it is "indirect."Do we know of any other incidents of people consuming plasma/gore or eating cardiac muscle as a valid Holy Communion? Also how would consuming the actual biological material form not also be sacramental? The actual flesh and blood of Christ "signifies" the passion, death and resurrection of Christ as an atoning sacrifice for mankind.
Tradical: Gerard's comments have been dealt with elsewhere in the series. The following are my original comments.
That you have doubts is your opinion, the question is whether or not the events are consistent with Church Teaching, even if unprecedented.
The emhc inference to today's abuse is your own and is unsupported. That Saints have received communion in extraordinary ways is common in the life of the Church. There is no theological reason why an angel could not bring communion to someone.
Fundamentally, following Catholic Teaching, Catholics are eating flesh / drinking blood every time they go to communion as the substance is the same. That you are repulsed by the thought is simply an example of why God determined it would normally be better for catholics to receive under the accidents of bread and wine.
First penance is the rule to ensure proper reception of the body and blood of Christ. In other words that the recipient is in a state of grace. God knows when a person is in this state and therefore, as the angel is the obedient messenger of God, it is assumed he knew that Francisco and Jacinta were in the state of grace.
As noted, the opinion of the remnant writer is that by receiving the blood of Christ we receive both the body and blood. This is their point and is theologically correct.
The use of the word "direct" is my own as I do not know the correct theological term for receiving communion when both accidents and substance are consistent.
The bread and wine signify the presence of the body and blood of Christ, as the blood Jacinta and Francisco received was not under the appearance of wine, it was not sacramental.
That the events as related are theologically consistent with Church Teaching is demonstrated.
That they are extraordinary is not contested.
Post by: Gerard on June 26, 2017, 10:53:28 AM
That you have doubts is your opinion, the question is whether or not the events are consistent with Church Teaching, even if unprecedented.
I have doubts about the whole event. I am positive that specific elements attributed to the event are inconsistent with Catholic teaching. If they are authentically part of the event, the whole event is false.
Quote
The emhc inference to today's abuse is your own and is unsupported.
It's every bit as supported as the Remnant article's claim of Fatima "teaching" us about Communion under both kinds.
Quote
That Saints have received communion in extraordinary ways is common in the life of the Church.
There are also a lot of dubious stories about extraordinary events concerning Holy Communion.
Tradical: Gerard's comment does not disprove the testimony of Lucia, Jacinta and Francisco. The fact that there are other events that were examined as parts of the process of canonization is the point indicating that the event is common in the life of the Church.
Quote
There is no theological reason why an angel could not bring communion to someone.
Sure there are. The Pope is the ultimate authority on earth concerning the sacraments and their protection and the governance of the Church. God Himself gave the Pope that authority. That is a theological truth. God is not going to double cross the Pope when a sainted Pope not yet 5 years before laid down in binding law the theological reasons why children were not to be denied First Penance before First Communion and the necessity of the age of reason, as well as the authority concerning First Holy Communinon belonging to the parents and the parish priest.
Tradical: This has been addressed in two ways. First, the Church examined this and did not find it erroneous theologically. Second we have my own reasoning, which has just as much authority as Gerards - mine just happens to be logical and consistent. There is a third element to consider, the Pope's authority on earth is not without limits. As one theologian mentioned the limits are defined by 'Law', which is more than just Canon Law. In the case of the Pope his authority was defined in Vatican I.
Tradical: This has been addressed in two ways. First, the Church examined this and did not find it erroneous theologically. Second we have my own reasoning, which has just as much authority as Gerards - mine just happens to be logical and consistent. There is a third element to consider, the Pope's authority on earth is not without limits. As one theologian mentioned the limits are defined by 'Law', which is more than just Canon Law. In the case of the Pope his authority was defined in Vatican I.
Quote
Fundamentally, following Catholic Teaching, Catholics are eating flesh / drinking blood every time they go to communion as the substance is the same. That you are repulsed by the thought is simply an example of why God determined it would normally be better for catholics to receive under the accidents of bread and wine.
Not "normally" but "always." Christ said, "the bread that I will give is my flesh…" Jesus never intended direct cannibalism of Him. It's perverse to think otherwise.
Tradical: I do believe that this is an assumption.
Tradical: I do believe that this is an assumption.
Quote
First penance is the rule to ensure proper reception of the body and blood of Christ. In other words that the recipient is in a state of grace. God knows when a person is in this state and therefore, as the angel is the obedient messenger of God, it is assumed he knew that Francisco and Jacinta were in the state of grace.
Doesn't matter. If Mary had to go through purification rituals and Jesus had to be circumcised, following the law by itself is a fulfillment of justice. In justice, the Pope's laws are to be followed. What he has bound on earth is bound in Heaven. That includes First Penance and the sanctifying graces that that sacrament gives. As a priest told me one time, "Confession isn't a washing machine. It gives grace and strength."
Tradical: This objection has also been dealt with. Also what Gerard appears to have missed is that they didn't need to go through the rituals - that is Catholic Teaching. They submitted themselves to them for a variety of reasons - one of which was public perception.
As noted earlier, if one actually reads the document of St. Pius X we find the reason for first penance established. Futher, we know that this was not a sacramental communion.
Quote
As noted, the opinion of the remnant writer is that by receiving the blood of Christ we receive both the body and blood. This is their point and is theologically correct.
That's not the opinion of the writer, that's the fact of it. The opinion of the writer is that the "Angel" was actually "teaching" us a lesson in foresight of the practice of Communion under both kinds.
That's nonsense. I simply pointed out that if that were truly the case, the Angel is "teaching" us the value of EHMCs and First Communion with no First Penance. So, the "Angel" jettisons tradition in foresight of Vatican II and its abuses.
Tradical: Now this is, in my opinion, a bunch of nonsense. These events all have explanation that don't require such huge assumptions.
Quote
The use of the word "direct" is my own as I do not know the correct theological term for receiving communion when both accidents and substance are consistent.
It's called cannibalism.
http://www.ewtn.com/v/experts/showmessage.asp?number=358785&Pg=&Pgnu=&recnu=
Answer by Fr. Robert J. Levis on 2/12/2001:
Dear Michael, All this is wonderful and true and I accept it all. But the question is one of cannibalism, do we eat the flesh of Christ. The only answer is the one I gave - Jesus' whole substance is present but not his accidents. If His accidents were present, we could see Jesus, hear His voice, see his black hair, His carpenter's large fingers. We don't have these things, we have His essence, whole and entire, the whole of Jesus substantially, essentially. Berengarius in 1088, the Protestants 500 years later, and even some Catholics today all deny His substantial presence, His REal Presence. But that does not include His external features. Otherwise, we would all be guilty of cannibalism. God bless. Fr.Bob Levis
Dear Michael, All this is wonderful and true and I accept it all. But the question is one of cannibalism, do we eat the flesh of Christ. The only answer is the one I gave - Jesus' whole substance is present but not his accidents. If His accidents were present, we could see Jesus, hear His voice, see his black hair, His carpenter's large fingers. We don't have these things, we have His essence, whole and entire, the whole of Jesus substantially, essentially. Berengarius in 1088, the Protestants 500 years later, and even some Catholics today all deny His substantial presence, His REal Presence. But that does not include His external features. Otherwise, we would all be guilty of cannibalism. God bless. Fr.Bob Levis
Tradical: So, if I were to eat human flesh that had its substance changed to that of mutton, it would not be cannibalism eh? Cannibalism is a larger more delicate topic.
Quote
The bread and wine signify the presence of the body and blood of Christ, as the blood Jacinta and Francisco received was not under the appearance of wine, it was not sacramental.That the events as related are theologically consistent with Church Teaching is demonstrated.That they are extreaordinary is not contested.
No. What you are describing raises more questions than it answers.
Are you claiming that Jacinta and Francisco because they drank gore did not receive the sacrament of the Holy Eucharist?
Tradical: I am again taken aback at his label for the Precious Blood.
I wonder, if the Priest at the Eucharistic Miracles where the host and wine turned into flesh and blood, consumed the flesh and blood - what would Gerard say? I also wonder if they had to have a dispensation for not consummating the sacrifice by consuming the Flesh and Blood.
Tradical: I am again taken aback at his label for the Precious Blood.
I wonder, if the Priest at the Eucharistic Miracles where the host and wine turned into flesh and blood, consumed the flesh and blood - what would Gerard say? I also wonder if they had to have a dispensation for not consummating the sacrifice by consuming the Flesh and Blood.
Bread and wine signify the presence of body and blood, but if there's no wine, you have an incomplete confection of the Holy Species.
You've got bread and biological blood. Where was the wine that was consecrated with the Host? Did the Angel simply swipe it from a Mass somewhere?
You've got bread and biological blood. Where was the wine that was consecrated with the Host? Did the Angel simply swipe it from a Mass somewhere?
Tradical: This is off base. The Angel obviously obtained the Host from an obliging tabernacle. There really is no substance to this objection.
Or did God suddenly rewrite His truths regarding consecration?
It would make more sense if both a cardiac muscle and blood were present, but the narrative starts to become less plausible.
It would also make sense if God wanted the children to have their First Communion he would have a sainted priest appear like St. Louis de Montfort as a herald to Mary.
It would also make sense if God wanted the children to have their First Communion he would have a sainted priest appear like St. Louis de Montfort as a herald to Mary.
But even that would still not justify the double crossing of the Pope's authority.
And in all of that, the rational for the children being given the Precious Blood in the form of either wine or gore is completely incoherent.
Tradical: Addressed earlier.
It's that incoherence which makes the Remnant author take such a stretch to explain it as some bizarre teaching about communion under both kinds. But he can't because it opens to the door to justifying modern abuses.
Tradical: I hope this has been rather interesting for you. I'm going to place my conclusion at the top of this rather long post.
Tradical: I hope this has been rather interesting for you. I'm going to place my conclusion at the top of this rather long post.
Comments
Post a Comment