Skip to main content

Cynical Resistors 2g - Next Steps Repeated Question to Gerard

+
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





Re: More Problems with Fatima accounts (Remnant article)
« Reply #471 on: Today at 03:56:31 PM »

I originally had a much longer post, but I realized that I was just following Gerard down a bunch of rabbit holes.

...back to the question that Gerard was incapable of answering.

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

A number of people have answered the question by stating that "He wouldn't do that!".

That's the correct answer.  Just because you set up the question as a fallacy doesn't mean you get to dictate the answers. 

Gerard, you're not God, in your case saying it doesn't make it so.  

You need to prove it.

Quote from: Tradical
So, if anyone can provide a Catholic reference in which it states explicitly that reception of communion under the visible forms of flesh and blood is sinful - I will concede Gerard's point.

Applying Gerard's logic in reverse.  

He wrote that if the prelude apparitions of the Angel were false then all of Fatima is false.  Well, given that the canonical inquiry presumably took these events into account, then if Fatima is approved then there is nothing objectionable in the prelude.

Gerard, if you can't produce this reference, then ... it is simply your opinion against the Church that approved Fatima.  

At this point in time, I hold your opinion significantly below that of the Church of Christ.



Re: More Problems with Fatima accounts (Remnant article)
« Reply #473 on: Today at 06:45:48 PM »


Applying Gerard's logic in reverse.

He wrote that if the prelude apparitions of the Angel were false then all of Fatima is false.  Well, given that the canonical inquiry presumably took these events into account, then if Fatima is approved then there is nothing objectionable in the prelude.

But the canonical inquiry couldn't have taken the prelude apparitions of the angel into account.

Because  the 1917 Fatima apparitions were approved in 1930. And Sr Lucy didn't write her account of the angel apparitions until 1941, in her memoirs.

If you insist that the prelude angel apparitions are approved, then you need to provide explicit proof of this.

At any rate, as Gerald has demonstrated convincingly, Sr Lucy's angel apparition account contains theological errors. This is enough to render the angel apparition unbelievable, IMO.

Hi Awkward,

Sorry, but I don't agree with Gerard because of the faulty assumptions upon which his emotional appeal rests.

The first assumption is that the canonical inquiry didn't delve into all the events surrounding the apparitions because the prelude visitations didn't become public knowledge in the memoirs until later.  

There is nothing to indicate that they hid these events from the canonical inquiry and after the memoirs were published there was not even a blip about the prelude visitations.  Just because we didn't read about it until the memoirs were published is not proof that Lucia, Jacinta and Francisco hit these events from the Church authorities.  

The second assumption is that somehow these events usurped the authority of the Church.  The key element is that the communion of Jacinta and Francisco was not a sacramental communion - meaning under the appearances of wine.  The Church has authority over the administration of the sacraments,but this wasn't a sacrament (the reception of a grace under a symbolic form) and therefore was outside the sphere of authority of the Church.  Gerard's thesis is also dubunked because there is a history of Angels providing Holy Communion to Saints and this leads us to a third assumption.

The third assumption is that Our Lord would never have someone drink His blood.  I am always wary of someone claiming to know what someone is thinking or intending. This is yet another case.  It was statement emphatically that "He wouldn't do that ...".  Well I did one search and found that Our Lord did invite someone to drink the blood from His side: St. Catherine of Siena, Doctor of the Church.

There are many events in the Church that seem scandalous at first glance, but it is necessary to review the events carefully and not just chuck out the authority of the Church because some event doesn't pass the smell test.  

That's why the authors of the Catechism of Trent wrote:

Quote
The doctrines treated above should be explained with great caution, according to the capacity of the hearers and the necessities of the times.

Because these things are deep and require a calm examination, not the thoughts of an overworked imagination of a scrupulous soul.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Morning and Evening and other sundry Prayers

+ JMJ Along the theme of P^3 (Prayer, Penance, Patience), and for my own reference ... here is a collection of Morning and Evening prayers from the Ideal Daily Missal along with some additional prayers. In this crisis of the Church, I do not think it is possible to do too much prayer, penance and have patience. P^3

Is it sinful to attend the Novus Ordo (New Mass) - Is it Sinful to Not Attend the Novus Ordo on Sunday?

+ JMJ A non-SSPX Catholic is upset over the SSPX statements on not attending the Novus Ordo Missae. Ladies and gentlemen, what the SSPX, or at least its website editor, is advocating is a mortal sin against the Third Commandment.  Unless the priest deviates from the language of the Sacramentary, the consecration, and thus the rest of Mass is to be considered valid.  No one may elect not to attend Mass simply because abuses are occurring therein.  Might I suggest that such absenteeism is its own abuse?  The Third Commandment binds under mortal sin.  Father So-And-So from the SSPX has no authority whatsoever to excuse attendance at Mass, be that Mass ever so unpalatable. Source:Restore DC Catholicism Well, this is interesting. First why does the SSPX issue this statement? Because it is sinful to put your faith in danger by attending a protestant service.  It is likewise dangerous to put your faith in danger by attending a protestantized mass (ie the Novus Ordo Missae

Remember this day March 25, 1991 - The Death of Archbishop Lefebvre

+ JMJ This is the day, 25 years ago, that Archbishop Lefebvre passed on to his eternal reward. I know that he has as many (perhaps even more) critics than admirers.  For example I still remember Fr. Paul Nicholson's screed in which he shouted from the top of his webpage: "To die excommunicated - how horrible". I'll leave aside Fr. Nicholson's ignorance on the matter as in the grand scheme of things, his impact on the life of the Mystical Body of Christ, which IS the Roman Catholic Church is no greater than that of Michael Voris etc. Archbishop Lefebvre and the work he founded (ie Fraternal Society of St. Pius X ) have had a significant impact. Let us list of few from greatest to smallest: Consistent and constant Catholic perspective on the crisis of the Church from the halls of the Second Vatican Council to the Synod on the Family (and beyond!) Summorum Pontificum and Universae Ecclesiae : By which the restoration of the sacramental life of the