Posted on 11/17/2010 11:38:55 AM PST by Alex Murphy
I don't really understand the point of your cross-examination.
Would it be fair to say that your mother is responsible for you, but she is not present in you?
The more you layers one peels back [sic] from Protestantism, the more atheist it becomes.
What did the Cardinal Archbishop of Boston say? And when do all the sayings of all the different leaders of all the different churches come together and come up with a single saying? This happens time after time, with each question regarding Catholic doctrine. One says one thing, another claims something else, some just laugh at the questions, and eventually someone comes forward with official Catholic doctrine. So I’m asking you, is Cardinal Archbishop of Boston’s opinion the doctrine of the Catholic Church? Or has this particular question not be officially settled yet?
I’m sorry, let me make it a little clearer. Mary is responsible for carrying in her womb the body of Christ who is the Eucharist, but she herself is not present in the Eucharist?
“It’s not the accuracy of the evidence, but the seriousness of the charge” :-)
I wish this analogy had been brought to light a gazillion threads ago.
It's at the top of the thread.
What he didn't say was that we receive Mary in the Eucharist. He did said that Mary was present at the Eucharistic liturgy in the early church (well obviously: she was alive). He did say that Mary gave the body of Christ (not her own body) to Simeon. (I believe that's in your Bible.)
So I’m asking you, is Cardinal Archbishop of Boston’s opinion the doctrine of the Catholic Church?
One bishop does not determine doctrine any more than one layman does. But, as I said, I would trust his opinion more than that of a supposed priest I have never heard of supposedly recorded in a book I have never heard of.
Or has this particular question not be officially settled yet?
The church generally teaches something definitively only when there is a disagreement about it. I don't see much disagreement about this, therefore, no need for any infallible teaching.
If you look at perhaps the greatest Marian theologian the Catholic church has produced, St. Louis Marie de Montfort, he says nothing about us receiving Mary in the Eucharist, and lots about us receiving the Eucharist with Mary -- that is, Mary is not the One being received, Mary is the one doing the receiving with us. His point is that communion is our participation in the Annunciation; just as "Mary received the Word of God in her heart and her body" we are to do the same.
In case you think that doesn't do much to advance the (false) notion that Mary is a goddess or her son's equal, you're right. I expect it will be ignored.
It's in my Bible, is it in yours?
but she herself is not present in the Eucharist?
I don't think that's a particularly helpful way of understanding things, no. See my preceding post for something that makes more sense, IMO.
There is very much to learn about Catholicsm, obviously. And depending on the person you ask, the answers probably will differ. Why I don't understand. And I mean from one Catholic to another. Not a rude statement, just an observation, from the outside looking in.
Yes, I did a search on this and Catholics now believe that Mary is part of the Eucharist. I find in reading the early church fathers that you have to have a perspective of where they were coming from. Many of the Greek fathers like Augustine came from pagan cultures with multiple gods. It wasn't surprising that many of them held an unnatural high regards for Mary. However, the sacred scriptures does not attribute any special level to Mary except that she was looked upon by God and blessed.
As Gamecock said, this infatuation and devotion to Mary is simply pagan-nothing else can describe it.
Let’s compare and contrast:
Catholics pray to dead people.
Prods pray to God.
Catholics pray to Mary.
Prods pray to God.
Yup, Catholicism is sounds more and more pagan.
Dr. E, please reread my conversation above with smvoice.
Mary’s mystical presence in the host is obvious for exactly the same reasons you saw laid out in the quote. Christ’s body came from the body of Mary. It was literally pieced together cell by cell, organelle by organelle, molecule by molecule in her womb.
So her body is present, mystically, in a certain way wherever His is. But mystically, NOT substantially. It is an entirely different mode of presence.
The Eucharist is not only body and blood but also SOUL and DIVINITY of our Lord. Our Lady does not share her son’s soul. She does not share His divinity. There are not two persons in the Eucharist, not two souls. We adore the Eucharist because it is God. Mary is not God.
You are taking what is described as a mystical presence and assuming that the authors mean a literal presence. Very very bad idea—and it’s no wonder that you think the concept ridiculous.
Ha! Yeah, yeah, Augustine, well, he just didn't know what he was saying, poor dimwitted pagan holdover. Thank goodness Luther and Calvin corrected him on that score. Oh no, wait a second, no they didn't: they had unnaturally high regard for her too. Hm....they must be dimwitted too!
Let me paint you a different picture. And that is that devotion to the Blessed Virgin was *there from the very beginning* as is attested in Augustine and the Greek and Syriac Fathers the martyrs and the murals in the catacombs and everywhere else. It's the modern squeamishness about it that needs explaining.
Then if Mary is present so must Mary’s parents and if they are present so must their parents and if......
I think it’s all clear now.
Your fundamental error here is that you think "pray to" is some kind of unmistakeable marker for adoration. Where did you get that idea?
"I pray thee..." Remember that from Shakespeare? Does that mean "I adore thee"..."I worship thee as God"?
Nope. Just means "I ASK you."
Prayer is not adoration.
Adoration involves *offering sacrifice* to deities, which, if you'll remember, was what the Romans tried to do to the early Christians.They tried to get them to *offer a pinch of incense* to Minerva or the emperor or whoever.
You know enough of Catholicism, I think, to know that we hold the highest form of prayer to be the Mass--which we hold to be a real and true sacrifice. Now go look through any Missal you can get your hands on. Show me where it says anything about offering that sacrifice to anyone else besides God.
But that sounds eminently reasonable from the logic of Judeao-Christian belief. You lot believe Jesus was human in body, yet fully God also, yes? So it would be natural that the DNA would be human DNA stretching right back to Adam and Eve.
“You lot believe Jesus was human in body, yet fully God also, yes?”
No. Jesus is always spoken of as subordinate to the Father in the Scriptures.
Or so it seems to me.
Thanks - I don’t know much Christian theology, so I’m trying to follow the arguments here.
OK, thanks - that’s interesting. I thought if the Host literally became a body, then that would contain human DNA which would link it to every other human in existence, let alone just one woman.
Yes, but the problem with that in the RCC is that if anyone else is present in the Eucharist but Christ, then it becomes idolatry. If no man can be worshipped, and Mary is in the Eucharist, and the Eucharist is worshipped (and it is), then Mary is worshipped. A real catch-22. If Mary is not in the Eucharist, then Christ is not fully in the Eucharist, and the Catholic doctrine that the Real Presence of Christ, the true body of Christ, that was born of Mary, in the Eucharist becomes a lie.
Yes, and its worse if Mary's Mom and relatives, all the way back to Eve (made from Adams rib) are also mystically present then hold the phone!
Wow, So Adam/Eve and Noah would also mystically present in my body too!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.