Mary and the Eucharist

Columbia Magazine, The Knights of Columbus ^ | November 2010 | Archbishop Sean O'Malley, OFM Cap

[Dr. Eckleburg]

Then if Mary is present so must Mary’s parents and if they are present so must their parents and if......

lol. Great point!

But God tells us that bloodlines no longer matter, only our adoption by God...

"But avoid foolish questions, and genealogies, and contentions, and strivings about the law; for they are unprofitable and vain." -- Titus 3:9

As Paul says two lines earlier...

"being justified by his grace, we should be made heirs according to the hope of eternal life."

The endless contrivances and rationalizations behind Mariolotry cannot hide the fact that it is pagan idol worship. And sadly, it seems to grow every day. Mary as Co-redeemer. Mary as Mediatrix. Mary as Dispensatrix of all grace. Mary on the cross with Christ. And now Mary inhabiting the eucharist.

As Mary grows, Christ recedes. As Mary dominates, Christ relinquishes authority. As Mary becomes god, Christ becomes infantile.

Who's wearing the crown???

[Dr. Eckleburg]

See post 61...

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/religion/2628718/posts?page=61#61

Rome dwells on the inconsequential. The incarnation is a mystery, and as such, we are not to extrapolate heresies from what we do not understand.

What we do understand is that Mary plays no part in our salvation; only in her own. Men are saved by Christ ALONE. Keep your eye on the prize and don’t be distracted by “foolish questions.”

[Claud]

Rome dwells on the inconsequential.

It's only "inconsequential" when Geneva hasn't got the chops to understand it.

Count-your-change's point, if that's what you are referring to, is mistaken in making a mystical connection into an equality of substance. Christ's body is not Mary's body. The two are related in a deep mystical and physical way--a way which I cannot even begin to speculate on--but they are not the same thing. And yes, in the mystical and physical sense as Da-Shrimp already pointed out, Christ's body *does* have a human connection to Anne an Joachim and all the way back to Adam and Eve. That is what "becoming man" is all about--entering a family.

Mary is mystically present in the Eucharist, not SUBSTANTIALLY present in the Eucharist. She is present in the sense that her body gave rise to Christ's. But her soul is not in it. She has no divinity to put in it.

So what you saw as some glaring example of heresy is, in fact, a complete misreading of the idea.

[Claud]

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.

Excellent. Ok, you're swerving into the heart of it here smvoice. I agree with your basic argument.

There's only thing that you are missing though, I think, and that is that Mary can be *in* the Eucharist in different ways. Just like I can be here in body, or just here in spirit.

If we postulate that she is in the Eucharist in a mystical way, while Christ is the Eucharist substantially, fully, and really, then of course there is no contradiction. She is there mystically *because* he is there physically--just as in a certain way, my parents are wherever I am.

Does that make sense?

[count-your-change]

“Mary is mystically present in the Eucharist, not SUBSTANTIALLY present in the Eucharist. She is present in the sense that her body gave rise to Christ's. But her soul is not in it. She has no divinity to put in it.”

Maybe the essence of her nature or the nature of her spirit of essence was mysteriously, incorporeal present but only not in substance but still substantially in the mystical sense of a non-speculative compounded presence. Or not.

[Claud]

Ah, now you see, this is why we don’t go wandering off from established theology and terminology every 500 years.

Words mean things...and 1500 years ago Christianity was nearly ripped apart by a debate over this very concept of substance: is Christ the *same* substance as the Father or just a *similar* substance? But no, we just make fun of all that in this day and age.

If it will help, I’ll use littler words.

Christ ain’t just in the Eucharist, He IS the Eucharist.

And because she’s His mom, Mary’s sorta in it too.

[count-your-change]

Any ancient Egyptian or Babylonian priest would instantly recognize that idol in the picture as a variation on their own.

“As Mary grows, Christ recedes. As Mary dominates, Christ relinquishes authority. As Mary becomes god, Christ becomes infantile.”

Quite so!

[dartuser]

Christ's human soul did not originate in Mary, because it is Catholic dogma that human souls are directly created by God.

So Christ's human soul was created by God?

[count-your-change]

“If it will help, I’ll use littler words.

Christ ain’t just in the Eucharist, He IS the Eucharist.

And because she’s His mom, Mary’s sorta in it too.”

and since the wafer only becomes Christ when the priest gives a blessing then Christ's flesh consists of thousands of pounds of wafer at the word of a human while Christ still sits at the right hand of God.
And Mary is sorta there but then sorta not there but mystically. Anyway it's all a mystery so what words are used are of no significance.

Yes, of course Mary “is sorta in it too” along with her mom and dad which makes that wafer practically a population center.

“Words mean things...and 1500 years ago Christianity was nearly ripped apart by a debate over this very concept of substance: is Christ the *same* substance as the Father or just a *similar* substance? But no, we just make fun of all that in this day and age.”

Yes, words do mean things and the apostate ramblings of councils and the willingness of these “Christians” to murder and otherwise persecute any who didn't accept their words show where words can lead.

[MHGinTN]

AND the Bible states that His ‘seed’ remained within Him thus He could nto sin in the flesh. However, His seed must have left at death else Jesus would not have died for you and for me.

[dartuser]

“Fr. Manelli is not a real Catholic” in 4 ... 3 ... 2 ... 1 ...

[smvoice]

This is the point I was working toward. When a belief such as the Eucharist is peeled back, layer by layer to the core, it cannot be sustained without changing the original meaning or intent. If the bread and wine become the real body and blood of Christ, the intent of the Eucharist, then He is not the only person present in the bread and wine, the result of human conception. Which automatically changes the original meaning and intent.

It can't be both ways without twisting inside out words and meanings. ANd changing those meanings in order to sustain a belief. It is impossible to connect these two points. The only meaning that would make sense and could be sustained without argument or changing definitions and words would be that the bread and wine are symbols of the body and blood of Christ.

[count-your-change]

Exactly so! In one simple understanding of the Scriptures, consistent with all the Scriptures, the whole mystical, magical wafer is flesh/wine is blood but not really but becomes flesh/blood but no one can tell it business is washed away by the fresh water of truth.

“The only meaning that would make sense and could be sustained without argument or changing definitions and words would be that the bread and wine are symbols of the body and blood of Christ.”

But then no mystery to be administered only by a priest.

[MHGinTN]

Because Jesus started this new covenant ritual BEFORE the Cross (’do this in remembrance of me’ Luke 22:19), it may be understood as the ritual directed at reminding US of the covenant He made and sealed WITH the Cross. IMHO, that precludes the bread and wine being transmogrified into actual body and blood, but as by faith the ritual does the work of reminding US why the promise of our Salvation is absolutely secure ... because He sealed His promises with His own Body and Blood.

[MHGinTN]

Reading through Paul’s letters, it would appear that the ritual was to be observed when believers/faithers in Jesus Christ gathered together in fellowship (’forsake not the gathering together of yourselves’) and it is not likely that that early body of believers had ‘a priest’ to offer the ritual remembrance at their gatherings so early on. ... I agree with you.

[HarleyD]

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.

Excuse me, but Augustine is a great example of how someone grows in grace. Starting from a pagan culture, towards the end of his life he understood the nature of God so well that he provided the groundwork for the Reformation. Today, many Catholics seem to have this reverse. They start out as Christians but end up with all this mumbo-gumbo hoo-ha; going from Christianity to paganism.

As far as paintings on the cave walls go, you can find lots of those in all sorts of pagan cults. Am I suppose to be impressed that a bunch of Greeks Christians misguidedly decided to make Mary the new Aphrodite? They should have spent more time reading the scriptures rather than paint pictures.

[Claud]

The idea that Christ is at the right hand of God has often been used as an argument against His Presence in the Host. I don’t think it’s terribly compelling, partly because the Eucharistic miracle is a supernatural one, not a natural one. And a supernatural body has properties that are not found in a natural one—else why was Christ able to move through walls and locked doors after His Resurrection?

God certainly could do such a thing if He wanted to. The only question is, did He? And to that both Scripture and the constant teaching of the Church since day one offer a resounding “yes”.

[Claud]

Well, no I wouldn’t say that at all.

Look, take your same argument against transubstantiation and transfer it from the Host to the cross. That was Christ’s body on the cross, right? So was it Mary’s body as well? Was it St. Anne’s and Joachim’s bodies? Could someone destroy the whole idea of atonement because it was not only Christ who suffered but Mary and everyone in her lineage as well?

No of course not. Christ suffered on the cross. His body performed the atonement. But it would be insane to say that His mother did not, somehow, mystically, suffer along with Him.

That’s the point I’m making. We are dealing with two separate individuals with two separate souls—and the added distinction that one is divine and one is not. BUT because His body was literally pieced together in her womb, there is an intimate closeness there that is shared by no other creature.

[Claud]

Whatever the early Church thought about Mary it got from the Scriptures directly, from Old Testament prophecy and from New Testament typology, particularly Revelation 12 and the implications of what it meant to be the “New Ark” and the “New Eve”. Read the Church Fathers on this.

The idea that it was merely lifted from paganism is pure poppycock and historical revisionism.

And I don’t think the Reformation understood Augustine quite as well as it thought it did...else it would not have embraced errors he roundly condemned, such as the denial of free will.

[smvoice]

OK, this, too is a very interesting topic, with layers to be peeled back, I think.

My first question would be, which of these doctrines did the RCC claim first? The Eucharist; that Mary was immaculately conceived and without a sin nature; that Mary was bodily assumed into heaven when she died; or that she is the co-redemptor of mankind?