Cynical Resistors 2f - Next Steps

+
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, 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.

P^3
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.

Update 1:


Re: More Problems with Fatima accounts (Remnant article)
« Reply #414 on: July 01, 2017, 08:19:11 AM »
@Gerard,

Going back to the root of this thread.

If Christ gives you His blood to drink in its natural form, is it a sin to drink it?

I don't know of it being intrinsically a sin to drink anyone's blood.  Cutting your tongue and swallowing the blood would obviously not be a sin, saving someone from a snakebite would not be a sin, Vampirism probably would be.

Re: Your hypothetical, I would doubt that it's Christ giving me His blood to drink.  More likely I would think it a false Christ.

Why have faith if the very Mysterium Fidei itself is missing?

And, since you want to go there….

If someone you thought "Christ" told you to lop off his arm or better yet, his heart and eat "the whole thing"  would you have a doubt about his identity?

If not, would it be a sin to cook it? Would you stew it, grille it, roast it, braise it, pan fry it, put it in the smoker low and slow?

 What aromatics and seasonings do you think would work?

And if it is a sin to cook it, could you at least prepare it like a tartare or a jerky?

I suspected that you would be incapable of answering a simple clear question with a simple clear answer.

You didn't ask a simple question.  You asked a question that is the "Complex Question Fallacy."

"If God can do anything, can He make a boulder too big for Him to pick up?"

Quote
I did not ask if you would think it were Christ etc.  I asked if it would be a sin to drink the blood of Our Lord Jesus Christ in its natural form if He presented it to you to drink.

Yes. Because I would doubt that it's Christ, I would believe drinking it, besides being perverse would be an act of material idolatry. So it would not be of any benefit to me.  The more prudent action would be to refrain. 


Quote
Let's try again:

If Christ gives you His blood to drink in its natural form, is it a sin to drink it?

Yes.  Because it won't happen.  It's a fallacious question.  If you don't think it's fallacious, then YOU should be able to answer the simple question I posed about cooking His flesh prior to consumption.

Quote
PS. As an aside, in the case of extracting the venom from a snake bite, one does not swallow the poison but spit it out. 

I would bet there would be some blood once you cut that "X" into the bite wounds.  And I bet there would be trace amounts that would get swallowed in the process.

Somehow, I suspect you won't answer the simple question about eating His carnal flesh and whether or not it would be sinful to cook His flesh up to make it more palatable.

In other words, when it comes to Christ, what form of cannibalism do you prefer? 

Sorry Gerard, it is a simple question and whether or not you believe it would not happen is irrelevant.

If you believe it to be a fallacy, answer the question if it isn't a fallacy and then attempt to expose the fallacy.

For those who are offended by the question - I have been unable to locate anything in Catholic Theology that would prevent it from happening.  That you are repulsed by the thought is simply consistent with the following:

Quote from: Catechism of Trent
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.

Parcontre, there is no moral reason that I can find that would prevent God from instituting communion under the visible form ...

Quote from: Catechism of Trent
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.

Note the distinction being made - "eating of our Lord under His visible form could not easily be defended" does not mean it is indefensible.

Further, for the cannibals in the group:

When I looked at some theologians arguments - none contained references to theological literature, so this is basically an open topic in speculative theology.  It also appears to be one that isn't discussed very often.

Now why did I pose the question?

Because it is one of the issues that Gerard has with the prelude to the Fatima Apparitions.

That the younger children received Our Lords Blood in its visible form is supported by the text itself as well as by the footnote in which it stated that they did not believe it to have been a sacramental communion, but still communion.

Gerard, see if you can man up and answer the question.

If you can find the intellectual integrity to answer the question, the follow up question is this:

Would you obey Christ and drink his visible blood???
« Last Edit: July 01, 2017, 08:21:22 AM by tradical »



Comments

Popular Posts