[smvoice]

You are right, Avalon. Even when shown, it is still rejected. Notice that Judith Anne has still not answered my question to her: "Is Mary present in the Eucharist"? They think it is a trick question. It is not. If they believe she was immaculately conceived herself so she could be the "ark" of Christ, then she would necessarily HAVE to be present in the Eucharist. Which turns the Mass of Christ into the Mass of Mary and Christ. If they believe she is NOT present in the Eucharist, then she becomes responsible for the HUMAN Jesus and not the GOD Jesus Christ. It is not a trick question. It is a question designed to make a Catholic THINK logically without just accepting something because someone declared themselves "infallible" in order to declare "infallible" doctrines and traditions as truth.

A real conundrum.

[Judith Anne]

You are right, Avalon. Even when shown, it is still rejected. Notice that Judith Anne has still not answered my question to her: "Is Mary present in the Eucharist"?

Please accept my apology, I didn't see your question. Where was it?

The Eucharist is the body and blood, soul and divinity of Christ. Is Mary a part of that? You can answer your own question.

[Mad Dawg]

And notice I did answer it the minute I saw it.

I think you don’t think of these “co-” words the way we do.

[Jvette]

‘If they believe she was immaculately conceived herself so she could be the “ark” of Christ, then she would necessarily HAVE to be present in the Eucharist. Which turns the Mass of Christ into the Mass of Mary and Christ. If they believe she is NOT present in the Eucharist, then she becomes responsible for the HUMAN Jesus and not the GOD Jesus Christ.”

The only thing this makes me think is that there sure is some convoluted logic here.

Mary would be “present” only in the sense that it was from her that Jesus received His Human form. No mother is responsible for the soul of her offspring, that is our gift from God, but a mother is a mother to the whole of her child not just the flesh and bone.

There was a heresy rejected by the Church on the very nature of your post. I think it was called Arianism, but it could be Nestorianism or a combination of the two. Or something else entirely, I get them confused.

It was not her body on the cross, but the flesh of her flesh, bone of her bone, blood of her blood that was crucified and shed for our redemption.

That makes her a little more than just another tool in God’s belt.

[Mad Dawg]

It is a question designed to make a Catholic THINK logically without just accepting something because someone declared themselves "infallible" in order to declare "infallible" doctrines and traditions as truth.

I have rarely felt so patronized. And it is remarkable because there is no reason that Mary's immaculate conception would require her to be present in the Eucharist.

The Eucharist is, we hold, the body of Christ. You are a member of that body. So is Mary. So am I. We are in the Eucharist as I said, because we are in Christ.

Could you explain why you think that Immaculate conception necesarily means that one would be in the Eucharist?