After I explained the principles in my 'challenge' he went silent on that topic.
Then he posted a fairly good question. Even though I suspected that Gerard was attempting to lay a trap - unlike him - I still provided an answer.
Now since Gerard has sprung his little 'trap', I thought I would dig a little deeper into my understanding of the Mystery of the Eucharist. Specifically, concomitance.
First here's what Ott has to say about the Dogma that states: The Body and the Blood of Christ together with His Soul and His Divinity and therefore the Whole Christ are truly present in the Eucharist. (De fide.)
The body of Christ is present under the form of bread and the blood of Christ under the form of the wine ex vi verborum, that is, by the power of the words of consecration. Per concomitantiam (by concomitance), that is, on account of the real connection between the body and the blood of Christ, His blood and His soul are also present with the body of Christ under the form of bread, as He is a living body (Rom. 6, 9) (Concomitantia naturalis), and on the ground of the Hypostatic Union His Divinity is also present (concomitantia supematuralis). Similarly, under the form of wine besides His blood Christ's body and soul and Divinity are also present by concomitance. Cf. D 876. S. the III 76, I. (Ott)Now, this argument is about the visible form of Christ's Blood as provided to the children at Fatima. This means we're going to have look at the principles involved in the explanation above. The word used to describe the link between the Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity is concomitance.
Here's an explanation of Concomitance from CatholicCulture :
CONCOMITANCE: The doctrine that explains why the whole Christ is present under each Eucharistic species. Christ is indivisible, so that his body cannot be separated from his blood, his human soul, his divine nature, and his divine personality. Consequently he is wholly present in the Eucharist. But only the substance of his body is the specific effect of the first consecration at Mass; his blood, soul, divinity, and personality become present by concomitance, i.e., by the inseparable connection that they have with his body. The Church also says the "substance" of Christ's body because its accidents, though imperceptible, are also present by same concomitance, not precisely because of the words of consecration. In the second consecration, the conversion terminates specifically in the presence of the substance of Christ's blood. But again by concomitance his body and entire self become present as well. (Etym. Latin concomitantia, accompaniment.)Lastly, here's what we find in the Catechism of Trent:
Presence In Virtue Of The Sacrament And In Virtue Of ConcomitanceI'll try to summarize this very rich exposition of the Dogma.
Pastors, however, should not fail to observe that in this Sacrament not all these things are contained after the same manner, or by the same power. Some things, we say, are present in virtue of the consecration; for as the words of consecration effect what they signify, sacred writers usually say that whatever the form expresses, is contained in the Sacrament by virtue of the Sacrament. Hence, could we suppose any one thing to be entirely separated from the rest, the Sacrament, they teach, would be found to contain solely what the form expresses and nothing more.
On the other hand, some things are contained in the Sacrament because they are united to those which are expressed in the form. For instance, the words This is my body, which comprise the form used to consecrate the bread, signify the body of the Lord, and hence the body itself of Christ the Lord is contained in the Eucharist by virtue of the Sacrament. Since, however, to Christ's body are united His blood, His soul, and His Divinity, all of these also must be found to coexist in the Sacrament; not, however, by virtue of the consecration, but by virtue of the union that subsists between them and His body. All these are said to be in the Eucharist by virtue of concomitance. Hence it is clear that Christ, whole and entire, is contained in the Sacrament; for when two things are actually united, where one is, the other must also be.
If the Body of Christ is present, because Our Lord cannot be separated, His Blood, Soul and Divinity are present by "virtue of the union that the union that subsists between them and His body".
The inverse is true, if the Blood Of Christ is present, then His Body, Soul and Divinity are also present.
One other thing to note is that the Accidents are also present, but invisible. Now, knowing Gerard's modus operandi, I dug a little further and found that the Catholic Culture definition is supported in other older texts. One that I will cite is The Teaching of the Catholic Church.
So in answer Gerard's question: Yes, Our Lord's Body, Soul and Divinity are present by concomitance where-ever the Blood is to be found. This is the Catholic Dogma regardless of whether the accidents are visible or invisible.
Now back to the idea that Gerard finds abhorrent concerning consuming Our Lord's Body or Blood in Its visible form. Catholic Dogma as noted above indicate that the 'accidents' of Our Lord's Body or Blood are present by the same commitance - although they are invisible.
Now, while human nature will find the mere idea of consuming Our Lord's Body and Blood under their visible form (accidents) repulsive, that does not prevent us from consuming His Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity, including accidents.
So the question is what is the difference between Jacinta and Francisco consuming the Blood of Christ under its visible form, versus under its sacramental form?
Substantially, nothing. The only thing missing were the accidents of wine. The rest were as they are when we receive Holy Communion and the Priest consumes the Precious Blood.