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, anytime someone refutes his assertion he changes the topic.
If this thread were an exam and I was grading his thesis and non-existent defense of his thesis - he would spend another 7 years as a grad student.
Added Reading from the Catechism of Trent.
This has been at all times the uniform doctrine of the Catholic Church; and it can be easily established by the same authorities which, as we have already proved, make it plain that the substance of the bread and wine ceases to exist in the Eucharist.
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.I quoted the above paragraph earlier, that I read the following paragraph - it obviously is worth including.
There are two further advantages: first, it prevents the calumnious reproaches of the unbeliever, from which the eating of our Lord under His visible form could not easily be defended; secondly, the receiving Him under a form in which He is impervious to the senses avails much for increasing our faith. For faith, as the well known saying of St. Gregory declares, has no merit in those things which fall under the proof of reason.Interesting, nothing about it being sinful etc, just that the practice would not be easily defended.
The doctrines treated above should be explained with great caution, according to the capacity of the hearers and the necessities of the times.
That makes a lot of sense. Unam Sanctam Catholicam has a post on this topic and the lack of references seems to indicate that there isn't a lot in the 'literature' to draw upon.
« Last Edit: July 01, 2017, 08:21:22 AM by tradical »