You aren't doing a very good job of presenting it. Therefore, are you now stating that in the over 30 years your wife says she was a Catholic that she did indeed hear of and publicly proclaim that the Blessed Virgin Mary was a perpetual virgin but she didn't believe it?
However, she no longer believes in “the Eucharist” or a lot of other stuff that is unique to Catholicism,
The purpose of the communion, as described in the bible, is clearly symbolism of the most basic and foundational tenet of Christianity. To suggest that the wine and bread LITERALLY become the body and blood of Christ in your body is ludicrous. Communion is a symbol and reminder of what Christ did for us.
Then you both reject John 6 and 1 Corinthians 11 based on your own personal interpretation of Scripture.
>>You aren’t doing a very good job of presenting it. <<
My wife was in Chicago yesterday. I queried her this morning on the subject. I clarified in a post a few minutes ago.
>>Then you both reject John 6 and 1 Corinthians 11 based on your own personal interpretation of Scripture.<<
Listen to yourself. That sentence makes no sense. Let me make a slight change: “Then you both reject the Catholic church’s interpretation of John 6 and 1 Corinthians 11 based on your own personal interpretation of Scripture.”
The answer to that is, yes, absolutely.
I wrote about two paragraphs in response to your simple inclusion of those two chapters in the NT but decided it would be easier to just link to a few people with whom I agree. It is not necessary to argue the same thing over and over:
My favorite, but a long read:
http://bible.org/seriespage/corrections-communion-1-cor-1117-34
Also
http://www.auburn.edu/~allenkc/openhse/communion.html
And this is good information which helps explain the challenge both of us are having with each other’s views.
http://www.fact-index.com/e/eu/eucharist.html