Why are these things important?

[domestichippie]

Hi. I’m sure these queastion have been askedsomewhere and I have a lot of queastions…lil. so forgive me if I’m asking too much in one thread.

1.) Why is it important that the Eucharist be literal not symbolic? As long as we wears doing this in remembrance why does it matter? Ive been reading the tracts on Catholic.com and id never read the verse in John from that perspective. Are symbols not valid? My wedding ring represents my marriage but I’m no less married when it is removed?

2.) Marys perpetual virginity. I accept the virgin birth. Why is it important that she remained one throughout her life? Surely that doesn’t effect who Jesus was. It is not sinful for a woman to have sec with her husband?

Please explain?

 

[Tantum_ergo]

Hi. I’m sure these queastion have been askedsomewhere and I have a lot of queastions…lil. so forgive me if I’m asking too much in one thread.

1.) Why is it important that the Eucharist be literal not symbolic? As long as we wears doing this in remembrance why does it matter? Ive been reading the tracts on Catholic.com and id never read the verse in John from that perspective. Are symbols not valid? My wedding ring represents my marriage but I’m no less married when it is removed?

2.) Marys perpetual virginity. I accept the virgin birth. Why is it important that she remained one throughout her life? Surely that doesn’t effect who Jesus was. It is not sinful for a woman to have sec with her husband?

Please explain?

1. It’s important because it’s true. That’s it in a nutshell. Jesus did not say, "This is a SYMBOL of my body, this is a SYMBOL of my blood.’ The truth of the Eucharist as being the literal (not symbolic) body and blood of Christ was taught by all Christendom for the first 1500 years. IOW, Catholic and Orthodox Christians (not to mention the very first Protestants, the Lutherans and Episcopalians) believe in a literal Eucharist to this day. Where then did the idea of its being symbolic come from? Not from Scripture and not from Christian teachings.
2. It’s important because it’s TRUE. It’s not something that was ‘invented’ years or centuries thereafter. It’s a revealed teaching of God that has been consistently taught in Christian teaching and, again as above, even the first Protestants such as Martin Luther believed in, and pointed to implicit Scripture and explicit Christian teaching, to support Mary’s perpetual virginity. Again, where did the idea of her NOT being such come from? Not from the Christian teachings taught for centuries,not from Scripture (unless you’re going to tell me that Jesus Christ, once He has brought all people to Himself, is NOT going to reign over them, because Scripture says, “He shall reign until all people have been brought unto Him”. IOW, you think, ‘until’ means that a condition which has existed up to a certain point completely changes after that point. Again, if that is so, then Michal, the wife of King David, had children after her death. Scripture says so. “And Michal, the wife of King David, had no children until her death.”

It doesn’t matter how we ‘feel’ about a teaching. . .it matters if the teaching is TRUE or not.

If it’s true we should believe, even if we feel uncomfortable about it. Even if people make fun of us, or call us unreasonable, or try to say that the truth is only ‘relative’, or that what is true for somebody isn’t for somebody else, or that things were DIFFERENT ‘back then’ and we don’t have to believe ‘old stuff’ anymore. If you’re a Christian, you believe things that a lot of ‘worldly’ people will call outright WRONG. They’ll sneer at you for saying that marriage is between one man and one woman. They’ll laugh at you for believing that somebody ‘rose from the dead’. They’ll deride and mock you for following ‘words in a book’. But you keep on doing what’s true because it’s true, because Jesus Christ is the Way, the Truth, and the Life, right?

 

[Fr_of_Jazz]

Hi. I’m sure these queastion have been askedsomewhere and I have a lot of queastions…lil. so forgive me if I’m asking too much in one thread.

1.) Why is it important that the Eucharist be literal not symbolic? As long as we wears doing this in remembrance why does it matter? Ive been reading the tracts on Catholic.com and id never read the verse in John from that perspective. Are symbols not valid? My wedding ring represents my marriage but I’m no less married when it is removed?

Please explain?

What’s important is that we understand the truth about the Eucharist, be it symbolic or literal. Actually, in the RC view, the Eucharist is both–as is any sacrament. The risen Lord whole and entire is present under the appearances of bread and wine which are also symbols. Symbols are valid: it’s just that the bread and wine aren’t merely symbols, and just as pouring the water in Baptism as Jesus taught is not merely a symbol although it is a symbol.

It is the RC view that John intends to relay what Jesus actually taught. I put together a little schema for Jn 6 that you might find interesting.

The discourse of Jesus in Jn 6 has two parts. Both are important:
(A) vv 35-50 – Jesus, the bread of life, nourishing us in His TEACHING and in our personal RELATIONSHIP with Him.
–a transition in v 51 - “and the bread that I will give is my flesh for the life of the world.”
(B) vv 52-58 – Jesus, the bread of life, nourishing us as the true Passover Lamb, who gives His slain body and spilled blood for the life of the world.

In both (A) and (B) as elsewhere in his gospel John uses the protests of “the Jews” as foils to stress Jesus affirmative, literal meaning.

In the case of (A), in 6:41 he narrates that “the Jews” challenge how Jesus can have come down from heaven; and John also recounts Jesus’ affirmative, literal answer (6:43-50, esp. v 46) which comports with His same teaching elsewhere (e.g., Jn 1:18; 3:13,31).

We than transition in 6:51 from the first part to the second part.

Again in (B) the pointed protestations of “the Jews” (6:52) serve as a foil for Jesus’ affirmative, literal answer (6:52-58) that is nothing short of in your face as to its meaning. He says it 6 times in 7 verses–that we must eat his body and drink his blood.

It should be noted that “the Jews” also protest Jesus’ statement that Abraham saw His day and was glad (8:56). The author again narrates Jesus’ affirmative, literal response (8:58-59). Later these are “the Jews” who also want to stone Jesus in protest for saying He and the Father are one (10:30-31). He again goes on to give a literal, affirmative response (10:32-39).

Back to Jn 6, next the evangelist notes that even some of Jesus’ “disciples” were perplexed (6:60) and He responds by asking if this teaching “shocks” them, and then says something else that He will literally do: ascend into heaven. And then the gospel writer comments that because of this teaching many of Jesus’ disciples left (v 66). Even this did not cause Jesus or the evangelist to allegorize or apologize.

 

[Joe_Kelley]

I have never seen it discussed, but I associate Mary’s perpetual virginity with Ezekiel 44:1-2

1 Then he brought me back to the outer gate of the sanctuary, which faces east; and it was shut. 2 And he * said to me, "This gate shall remain shut; it shall not be opened, and no one shall enter by it; for the LORD, the God of Israel, has entered by it; therefore it shall remain shut.

 

[Fr_of_Jazz]

I have never seen it discussed, but I associate Mary’s perpetual virginity with Ezekiel 44:1-2

I haven’t seen it discussed either, but that is interesting.

 

[Trebor135]

Hi!

2.) Marys perpetual virginity. I accept the virgin birth. Why is it important that she remained one throughout her life? Surely that doesn’t effect who Jesus was. It is not sinful for a woman to have sec with her husband?

Please explain?

I’ll answer this question by suggesting this article. Let us know what you think.

 

[VeritasLuxMea]

How can we prove it’s true?

We know that the bread and wine do not actually change, that is, scientifically. But how are we to prove that they change “spiritually”?

 

[stephe1987]

^ Divine revelation. Tradition.

And you can’t “prove” spiritual things unless you invent a time machine and go back to the time at which it was revealed.

History is funny that way in that it’s not repeatable like a science experiment. You can’t go back and test something to see if it’s true or not.

 

[jochoa]

Hi. I’m sure these queastion have been askedsomewhere and I have a lot of queastions…lil. so forgive me if I’m asking too much in one thread.

1.) Why is it important that the Eucharist be literal not symbolic? As long as we wears doing this in remembrance why does it matter? Ive been reading the tracts on Catholic.com and id never read the verse in John from that perspective. Are symbols not valid? My wedding ring represents my marriage but I’m no less married when it is removed?

2.) Marys perpetual virginity. I accept the virgin birth. Why is it important that she remained one throughout her life? Surely that doesn’t effect who Jesus was. It is not sinful for a woman to have sec with her husband?

Please explain?

Excellent questions, my friend! Please consider the following concepts:

Regarding His Body
We are called to be one with His Holy Spirit. Since the spirit is united with the thoughts, body, and will, we must strive to become one with His thoughts, body, and will. In order to become one with His Body, we must place His Body inside our body.

Regarding Perpetual Virginity
Mary’s spouse is the Holy Spirit. If she were to have relations with Joseph, she would be breaking her vow to the Holy Spirit.

Thoughts?

 

[domestichippie]

Hi!

I’ll answer this question by suggesting this article. Let us know what you think.

So the article is saying that God was Mary’s. Husband. So in that case Mary and Joseph would have Been adulterous in order to have sexx? Correct?

So why did Mary have to be sinless? (And how was this achieved?)

 

[Birdpreacher]

LOL Because who wants to believe in a Mother of God who sinned! That would ruin the whole thing. Honestly I could probably believe in a Son fo God who came from a woman who happened to sin every now and then. (But of course I do not as I am in full agreement w/ how the RCC tells me how to interprete scripture)

 

[domestichippie]

^ Divine revelation. Tradition.

And you can’t “prove” spiritual things unless you invent a time machine and go back to the time at which it was revealed.

History is funny that way in that it’s not repeatable like a science experiment. You can’t go back and test something to see if it’s true or not.

I’m nit really asking for proof. Just wondering why it matters that ut but the actual body/blood instead of bread and wine. Is the latter not just as good fir communion with the body of Christ and our Lord?

I’m sure this sounds silly if you already understand it.

 

[LilyM]

Hi. I’m sure these queastion have been askedsomewhere and I have a lot of queastions…lil. so forgive me if I’m asking too much in one thread.

1.) Why is it important that the Eucharist be literal not symbolic? As long as we wears doing this in remembrance why does it matter? Ive been reading the tracts on Catholic.com and id never read the verse in John from that perspective. Are symbols not valid? My wedding ring represents my marriage but I’m no less married when it is removed?

2.) Marys perpetual virginity. I accept the virgin birth. Why is it important that she remained one throughout her life? Surely that doesn’t effect who Jesus was. It is not sinful for a woman to have sec with her husband?

Please explain?

Correct belief about the Eucharist is important because St Paul said those who receive it
without discernment (understanding) eat and drink their own condemnation. So knowing the truth about the Eucharist is essential to worthy reception.

Now making more of the Eucharist than you should (believing it is literal when if is symbolic only) would be a hideous form of the sin idolatry - we who believe in
transubstantiation literally do adore and worship that bread and wine!

And making less of it than you should (believing that it is only symbolic when it is actual and literal) would be like you believing that those vows you made to your wife were a mere sham and a performance. That nothing in your relationship changed when those words were said and that you are not actually married in that ceremony.

In which case, frankly, why bother? A lot of people don’t attach any significance to
marriage and so don’t bother with a ceremony at all. I respect those people a lot more than those who put on a show of it when they don’t really believe.

And think about the implications - would it not be as much a sacrilegious lie to say ‘This is my body’ over a piece of bread when you believe it to be no such thing at all as to say ‘before God I vow to take you as my wife, forsaking all others, til death do us part’ when you really don’t believe in God, believe cheating is fine, or that a civil divorce really ends the marriage.

 

[Trebor135]

So the article is saying that God was Mary’s. Husband. So in that case Mary and Joseph would have Been adulterous in order to have sexx? Correct?

That seems to be what the author was saying, yes.

So why did Mary have to be sinless? (And how was this achieved?)

In the Old Testament, we see that God required the Israelites to put a lot of effort into building a box, the vessel to carry sacred objects: the Ark of the (Old) Covenant. It’s easy to imagine, then, that God would want to put a lot of effort in creating St. Mary, the vessel to carry baby Jesus: the Ark of the New Covenant.

 

[WesleyM]

Hi!

I’ll answer this question by suggesting this article. Let us know what you think.

“Copyright (c) 1995 by the Association of Hebrew Catholics”

I would first question what the “Association of Hewbrew Catholics” was.

Next, I would ask what relationship they have with the Church.

Then I would ask what Imprimatur or Nihil Obstat this article has.

Then I would compare the claims made with the teaching of the Church.

 

[WesleyM]

So the article is saying that God was Mary’s. Husband. So in that case Mary and Joseph would have Been adulterous in order to have sexx? Correct?

So why did Mary have to be sinless? (And how was this achieved?)

The Church has always taught that St. Joseph was (and is) Mary’s husband.

Mary was sinless because she was the Immaculate Conception (born without original sin).

Why - because does it make sense that God would be born of a woman stained with sin? It was prophecied in the Old Testament.

There are many good books on this subject. Make sure they have an Impramatur and a Nihil Obstat so you know it is more likely to be Catholic teaching.

 

[domestichippie]

LOL Because who wants to believe in a Mother of God who sinned! That would ruin the whole thing. Honestly I could probably believe in a Son fo God who came from a woman who happened to sin every now and then. (But of course I do not as I am in full agreement w/ how the RCC tells me how to interprete scripture)

To some extent knowing people who sinned can still be used by God is comforting. Think of all the things David did and was still called a man after Gods own heart.

 

[domestichippie]

The Church has always taught that St. Joseph was (and is) Mary’s husband.

Mary was sinless because she was the Immaculate Conception (born without original sin).

Why - because does it make sense that God would be born of a woman stained with sin? It was prophecied in the Old Testament.

There are many good books on this subject. Make sure they have an Impramatur and a Nihil Obstat so you know it is more likely to be Catholic teaching.

But how would Marys sin stain God? I mean…well…hes God.

 

[joshua_b]

I’m nit really asking for proof. Just wondering why it matters that ut but the actual body/blood instead of bread and wine. Is the latter not just as good fir communion with the body of Christ and our Lord?

I’m sure this sounds silly if you already understand it.

It matters because Jesus was the fulfillment of the Old Covenant between God and the Israelites. In the old covenant, the firstborn of the Israelites were saved by the blood, and the EATING of their sacrifice. If you went to bed on the night of the Passover without smearing the blood on your doorpost, or without eating the sacrifice, you would have woken up to find your firstborn son dead.

Jesus is the sacrificial lamb that perfectly fulfills the new covenant, and He tells us very explicitly His flesh is REAL food and His blood is REAL drink. In the context of ancient Judaism, and the sacrificial system (and especially in light of the Passover), it makes perfect sense that it would have to be His actual body and blood. Making His body and blood present in the consecrated Eucharist is the means by which we can participate in His sacrifice.

He says it three times. When people deny it and walk away, He doesn’t call them back. He doesn’t “clarify” or tell the apostles afterwards that He was actually speaking in a different sense and was misinterpreted by those people. He merely says to let them go, and then turns and asks the apostles if they want to leave to.

 

[LilyM]

To some extent knowing people who sinned can still be used by God is comforting. Think of all the things David did and was still called a man after Gods own heart.

It’s not at all comforting to think that God would be either so powerless or so oblivious to the horror of sin that He would choose to be contained in a sinful vessel, and take on sinful flesh of Mary, when He could choose a perfect vessel and sinless flesh instead.

Besides which, I kinda sorta think raising the Son of God would be more than a fulltime job for both Mary and Joseph. Sex would have likely led to other children anyway - and do you think any child would not suffer horribly by being unfairly compared to a literally perfect older half-brother? Not to mention a potential distraction from their central task.