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