Holy grail, why is it holy?

[Derleth]

Don’t forget the Holy Foreskin also known as the Holy Prepuce.

National Geographic TV had a special called “The Quest for the Holy Foreskin” which is preserved online. The special, not the foreskin, because that was preserved in oil of spikenard.

Interestingly, a nun apparently claimed that she ate a Holy Vision of the Divine Foreskin “about a hundred times”:

Agnes Blannbekin (ca. 1244-1315), Austrian mystic, may be little-known today because she was once briefly notorious. Like her more famous contemporary, Angela of Foligno, she dictated her revelations to an anonymous Franciscan confessor. One of those revelations, which the beguine herself was reluctant to disclose, involved the relic of Christ’s circumcision. On the feast commemorating that event, Agnes felt the Lord’s foreskin on her tongue, thin asthe membrane of an egg, and swallowed it with great sweetness “about a hundred times” (p. 35). Christ then revealed to her that his foreskin had been resurrected with him on Easter—although several churches claimed to possess the relic. When the first edition of Agnes’s Revelations was published by Bernard Pez in 1731, it was attacked as blasphemous and promptly disappeared from view. Nor does any complete manuscript survive. The present abridged translation is based on Peter Dinzelbacher’s edition of 1994, Leben und Offenbarungen der Wiener Begine Agnes Blannbekin, which relies on a rare copy ofPez.

[WhyNot]

@Saint_Cad

It touched the Blood of Christ (if you’re Catholic). That’s what makes it holy similar to the Holy Lance.

Last time I was at church, the Priest assured me in sonorous tones that the cup he was holding contained The Blood of Christ, too. I doubt the Holy Grail is in Wilmette, IL.

[sich_hinaufwinden]

@Nava

Notice that those articles don’t even agree on what the foot is made of.

Notice that none of them say that the base is made from the same thing as the top.

Notice that the second quote specifically says that the base is “different from the vessel”.

Notice that the third one says that the cup part is the “original” relic.

Notice that none of them says anything remotely like the cup and the base are a matched set.

Notice that I have provided three cites that refute your contention that they are a matched set.

Notice that you have not provided even a single cite that claims they are a matched set.

[md2000]

“There’s twelve of us here. Can’t we use more than one cup? Hey, send Judas out to get some more, I see he’s got plenty of silver…”

[sich_hinaufwinden]

@md2000

“There’s twelve of us here. Can’t we use more than one cup? Hey, send Judas out to get some more, I see he’s got plenty of silver…”

Always complaining about something. You want some bread to go with that whine?

[Your_Great_Darsh_Face]

@WhyNot

Last time I was at church, the Priest assured me in sonorous tones that the cup he was holding contained The Blood of Christ, too. I doubt the Holy Grail is in Wilmette, IL.

I’d guess the one the Priest had was not, however, the actual one used by Jesus at the Last Supper nor was physically present at the Crucifixion, which many people might consider made a non-trivial difference.

[WhyNot]

@Your_Great_Darsh_Face

I’d guess the one the Priest had was not, however, the actual one used by Jesus at the Last Supper nor was physically present at the Crucifixion, which many people might consider made a non-trivial difference.

Okay, but I was responding to Saint Cad’s assertion that holding the Blood of Christ was key to its holiness. But if one holds transubstantiation to be true, then every chalice used for Communion in every Catholic church should be considered its equal. And they’re clearly not.

[rowrrbazzle]

The Master speaks: What is the Holy Grail?