Celibacy vs. Marriage

[Andyman1517]

Exporter:

A Question for you , Andyman.** Do you believe in the Real Presence?** That is the Doctrine that Jesus is in the Eucharist body, soul and divinity.

I know what the real presence is Exporter and it’s an interesting concept, but no, I do not believe in it. I believe that God is sovereign and can be present everywhere. I am highly suspect, however, of the idea that priests all over the world posess the power to turn wine and wafers into the true physical body and blood of Christ every day at every Mass. The Lord has already sacrificed himself for us. This sacrifice only needed to occur once and does not needs to be recreated.

The idea of eating the real body and blood of Jesus Christ is not something that I take lightly. The way I understand the Bible is the Jesus was speaking metaphorically at the last supper. When I go to church and we have what protestants call the “Lord’s Supper” we do not believe in the real presence but rather that what we are doing is purely a symbolic act. Even after Jesus’ resurrection, early christians did not practice this. Things known as *agape *meals or feasts would take place in which christians would have huge feasts recreating the last supper. They did not believe they were eating their God during these feasts.

I’d love to talk about this more with you. I don’t think this thread on celibacy is the place to do it. You should start a new thread on this topic where everybody can discuss the real presence and it’s implications. God Bless you exporter.

In Christ,

Andrew

 

[Andyman1517]

OhioBob:

True. You would have to profess to be Catholic in order for that view of Mary to make you a heretic. As a protestant, you are merely “invicibly ignorant” of the truth of Marian dogma.

And a “separated brethren”, of course.

I think it’s kinda funny that since I used to be a catholic and became a protestant you could say that I went from enlightenment to “ignorance”. Hehe, ususally I guess it works the other way around. But if I am ignorant like you say, then I enjoy ignorance much more than the alternative.

 

[Greg_McPherran]

Hi Andy,

Andyman1517:

When I go to church and we have what protestants call the “Lord’s Supper” we do not believe in the real presence but rather that what we are doing is purely a symbolic act.

Yes, but by your own theology that would mean your communion profits nothing. The flesh profits nothing. Therefore a piece of earthly bread profits nothing.

Yes, we already have another thread:
forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=162987&postcount=62

Would enjoy discussing further there.

Greg

 

[Andyman1517]

Greg,

I’m willing to tell you what my view is on the Eucharist, but I feel very very strongly about it. I really don’t want to discuss something like this on a discussion board with a bunch of people that feel the complete opposite of me. I acknowledge that they don’t understand what I believe, and I don’t understand what they believe. In the spirit of ecumenism, I don’t think it’s wise to go much deeper into this issue.

Here is a good link that gives equal representation to all sides: christian-truth.org/catholicism/mass1.html

 

[Greg_McPherran]

Hi Andy,

Andyman1517:

I’m willing to tell you what my view is on the Eucharist.

Where can we disucss it?

Thank You,
Greg

 

[OhioBob]

Andyman1517:

I think it’s kinda funny that since I used to be a catholic and became a protestant you could say that I went from enlightenment to “ignorance”. Hehe, ususally I guess it works the other way around. But if I am ignorant like you say, then I enjoy ignorance much more than the alternative.

I didn’t realize you had been Catholic. Oops. My bad.

Perhaps you are a heretic after all.

I suppose time will tell.

 

[OhioBob]

Andyman1517:

Here is a good link that gives equal representation to all sides: christian-truth.org/catholicism/mass1.html

One thing I found interesting on the link is the quote regarding the Catholic belief in the Eucharist: “Protestants deny these teachings as heretical.”

How can Protestants think ANYTHING is heretical. Depending upon who you talk to, they all believe somewhat different things, If there is no consistently taught doctrine, how can there be heresy? Unless maybe to a Protestant, Catholic doctrine is heresy because it’s Catholic doctrine. Who knows?



Anyway, thanks for the link.

Blessings.

 

[Exporter]

Andyman wrote:“I know what the real presence is Exporter and it’s an interesting concept, but no, I do not believe in it. I believe that God is sovereign and can be present everywhere. I am highly suspect, however, of the idea that priests all over the world posess the power to turn wine and wafers into the true physical body and blood of Christ every day at every Mass. The Lord has already sacrificed himself for us. This sacrifice only needed to occur once and does not needs to be recreated.”

Exporter says:
All of you Catholics have now read that the poster called “Andyman” DOES NOT BELIEVE in the Real Presence.

Why does he persist in asking for support for a married priesthood? It is because he is PLAYING A GAME known only to him. I suggest we ignore the anti-Catholics. You are only throwing wood on their fire when you spar with them. They are not looking for answers!

 

[Andyman1517]

Exporter:

All of you Catholics have now read that the poster called “Andyman” DOES NOT BELIEVE in the Real Presence.

Why does he persist in asking for support for a married priesthood? It is because he is PLAYING A GAME known only to him. I suggest we ignore the anti-Catholics. You are only throwing wood on their fire when you spar with them. They are not looking for answers!

Since when does not believing in the real presence qualify me as “anti-Catholic”? It simply means that I’m not catholic.

I went through catholic schools my whole life. Many of my friends are catholic. Just because I don’t adhere to catholicism doen’t mean that I hate them or their faith. If a person is different than you it doesn’t give you the right to bash them. I’m here searching for answers, Catholic Answers. You had to make this nice forum into a childish little hate-filled arena to spread you vile speech.

Exporter: YOU SHOULD BE ASHAMED OF YOURSELF!!!

 

[Andyman1517]

OhioBob:

I didn’t realize you had been Catholic. Oops. My bad.

Perhaps you are a heretic after all.

I suppose time will tell.

Hehe, no time is required Bob. You can call me a heretic. I really don’t mind. The church teaches that if you know the truth about catholicism and still reject it, to Hell you go. If that’s true, then I guess I’m going to Hell.

 

[Beaver]

Andyman1517:

Hehe, no time is required Bob. You can call me a heretic. I really don’t mind. The church teaches that if you know the truth about catholicism and still reject it, to Hell you go. If that’s true, then I guess I’m going to Hell.

You do not want to go to Hell. The Eucharist is the flesh of the Lamb of God. This flesh must be eaten for the lamb must be slaughtered, it’s blood sprinkled and it’s flesh eaten else the first born son will be killed. The priest is the first-born son of the family. The avenging angel took the entire priesthood of the nation of Egypt. The Hebrew save them by the above described ritual. We save ourselves by the same ritual but the lamb is the Son of God our Lord.

 

[Carl]

Andyman

I know what the real presence is Exporter and it’s an interesting concept, but no, I do not believe in it. I believe that God is sovereign and can be present everywhere.

An interesting admission. If God can be present everywhere, why not in the Eucharist?

What I hear you saying is that you dispute the words of Jesus at the Last Supper. He did not say, This bread and this wine are symbols of my Body and Blood. He said They are my Body and Blood.
Yes, a miracle he instituted. Why is this so unbelievable? Did Christ perform no other miracles either because you find them also unbelievable?

Was Christ simultaneously God-Man? This must be as hard for you to believe as the Eucharist. Do you think Jesus was just a symbol for God, as some Protestant through history have believed?

 

[Andyman1517]

Beaver:

You do not want to go to Hell.

I was being facetious. I’m confident that I’m not going to Hell.

Carl:

An interesting admission. If God can be present everywhere, why not in the Eucharist?

For me, the arguement doesn’t lie in the fact that Jesus is spiritually present but rather bodily present. Like you, I believe in miracles. But by nature, miracles are spontaneous. They can’t be planned or reenacted except in a strictly memorial sense. For me it is preposterous that a priest can turn bread and wine into body and blood on cue, let alone the body and blood of Jesus Christ.

I also don’t agree that Christ’s blood needs to be continually shed for us in thousands of places everyday; once on the cross was enough for our sins.

Carl:

What I hear you saying is that you dispute the words of Jesus at the Last Supper. He did not say, This bread and this wine are symbols of my Body and Blood. He said They are my Body and Blood.
Yes, a miracle he instituted. Why is this so unbelievable? Did Christ perform no other miracles either because you find them also unbelievable?

Wow! That sounds awfully fundamental for a Catholic! Why is it that the church enjoys interpreting everything in the Bible except this? And to be precise, he said that the bread and the cup are his Body and Blood, not the bread and wine.

It’s not so much that the catholic Eucharist is unbelievable; I think it boils down to more of a misinterpretation of scriptures.

Carl:

Was Christ simultaneously God-Man? This must be as hard for you to believe as the Eucharist. Do you think Jesus was just a symbol for God, as some Protestant through history have believed?

Why is it so hard to believe that Christ was both fully God and fully man? This is scriptural. Anyone who reads the Bible can see that Jesus is “simulataneously God-Man” It doesn’t need to be written down precisely this way to be scriptural.

By nature, Protestants are Christians. For me the word Christian entails believeing Jesus is fully human and God. I would love for you to show me which protestant groups don’t believe this. And choose wisely who you pick as your protestant groups.

In Christ,

Andrew

P.S. There were early Catholics who didn’t believe in the divinity of Christ either.

 

[Carl]

For me the word Christian entails believeing Jesus is fully human and God.

Based on what document? The Catholic Nicene Creed?

I would love for you to show me which protestant groups don’t believe this. And choose wisely who you pick as your protestant groups.

Choose wisely? Unitarian Universalists? Many of them admire Christ and live by his teachings but do not believe he was God. By the way, the definition of Protestant is not what you say it is, but what Protestants agree among themselves that it is. So far as I know, all Protestant groups acknowledge Unitarian Universalism as a Protestant denomination for the simple fact that it joins them in protesting the true Catholic faith.

There were early Catholics who didn’t believe in the divinity of Christ either.

Such as? Justin Martyr? Ambrose? Jerome? Augustine?

Please be specific, and be careful whom you choose.

My recollection of early Church history is that all those Christians who denied the divinity of Christ were condemned as heretics by the true Church of Christ whenever the bishops convened to deal with these early “protestants.”

Pax te cum,
Carl

 

[jmm08]

Fulton Sheen’s autobiography “Treasure in Clay” includes a full chapter (Ch 13, “Reflections on Celibacy”) that very fully addresses the issues of this thread. I suppose the book is widely available in public libraries.

“The assumption behind the question is that marriage is less holy in the divine plan than celibacy…”

“Both are good…celibacy is not higher; marriage is not lower.”

Please read the chapter because I think it is an excellent answer to all the questions raised in this thread.

 

[Beaver]

Andyman1517:

I was being facetious. I’m confident that I’m not going to Hell.

I am not, you have not crossed the finnish line yet. You are only in the race.

Andyman1517:

For me, the arguement doesn’t lie in the fact that Jesus is spiritually present but rather bodily present. Like you, I believe in miracles. But by nature, miracles are spontaneous. They can’t be planned or reenacted except in a strictly memorial sense. For me it is preposterous that a priest can turn bread and wine into body and blood on cue, let alone the body and blood of Jesus Christ.

God is the creator and miracles are acts of creation. God creates at any time He wants. In fact, if He was not creating at this moment you or I would not exist.

Andyman1517:

I also don’t agree that Christ’s blood needs to be continually shed for us in thousands of places everyday; once on the cross was enough for our sins.

No one has said His blood is continually shed.

Andyman1517:

Wow! That sounds awfully fundamental for a Catholic! Why is it that the church enjoys interpreting everything in the Bible except this? And to be precise, he said that the bread and the cup are his Body and Blood, not the bread and wine.

Andyman1517:

It’s not so much that the catholic Eucharist is unbelievable; I think it boils down to more of a misinterpretation of scriptures.

Why is it so hard to believe that Christ was both fully God and fully man? This is scriptural. Anyone who reads the Bible can see that Jesus is “simulataneously God-Man” It doesn’t need to be written down precisely this way to be scriptural.

The Eucharist is the flesh of the Lamb of God. This flesh must be eaten for the lamb must be slaughtered, it’s blood sprinkled and it’s flesh eaten else the first born son will be killed. The priest is the first-born son of the family. The avenging angel took the entire priesthood of the nation of Egypt. The Hebrew save themselves by the above described ritual. We save ourselves by the same ritual but the lamb is the Son of God our Lord. Sounds scriptual to me.

By the way Protestant are Catholic.

 

[Andyman1517]

Carl:

Based on what document? The Catholic Nicene Creed?

Yes, the “Catholic” Nicene Creed. Do you have a problem with this reasoning? For the most part, protestants and catholics use this Creed as a basis for judging one a christian or not.

Carl:

Choose wisely? Unitarian Universalists? Many of them admire Christ and live by his teachings but do not believe he was god.

No no no no. Unitarian Universalits? A Unitarian Universalist respects Buddha in the same way they respect Jesus. By definition a Universalist is one who believes in a god, some god, but can’t articulate which God. They are essentially Agnostics. They spend most of their time defining what they don’t believe rather than what they do (which is essentially nothing).

www.uua.org

Carl:

By the way, the definition of Protestant is not what you say it is, but what Protestants agree among themselves that it is.
So far as I know, all Protestant groups acknowledge Unitarian Universalism as a Protestant denomination for the simple fact that it joins them in protesting the true Catholic faith.

They do? This is news to me. Besides,you’re a catholic, since when did protestants have the authority dictate definitions to you? I didn’t even realize any protestant group spent the time trying to recognize who and who isn’t protestant. Perhaps we should revise your vocabulary.

Prot·es·tant (prhttp://cache.lexico.com/dictionary/graphics/AHD4/GIF/obreve.gifthttp://cache.lexico.com/dictionary/graphics/AHD4/GIF/prime.gifhttp://cache.lexico.com/dictionary/graphics/AHD4/GIF/ibreve.gif-sthttp://cache.lexico.com/dictionary/graphics/AHD4/GIF/schwa.gifnt)
n.

1. 
   *]A member of a Western Christian church whose faith and practice are founded on the principles of the Reformation, especially in the acceptance of the Bible as the sole source of revelation, in justification by faith alone, and in the universal priesthood of all the believers.
   *]A member of a Western Christian church adhering to the theologies of Luther, Calvin, or Zwingli.
   *]One of the German princes and cities that supported the doctrines of Luther and protested against the decision of the second Diet of Speyer (1529) to enforce the Edict of Worms (1521) and deny toleration to Lutherans.
   
   Chris·tian (krhttp://cache.lexico.com/dictionary/graphics/AHD4/GIF/ibreve.gifshttp://cache.lexico.com/dictionary/graphics/AHD4/GIF/prime.gifchhttp://cache.lexico.com/dictionary/graphics/AHD4/GIF/schwa.gifn)
   adj.
   Professing belief in Jesus as Christ or following the religion based on the life and teachings of Jesus.
   
   Sorry, you lose. Unitarians are not Christians therefore they are not Protestants. Do you understand the logic? All Protestants are Christians, but not all Christians are Protestants. I really hope this helps. Besides, I seriously doubt if the Catholic church recognizes Unitarians as “seperated brethern”. But if they do as you say, what does this say about the Catholic Church?
   
   
   Carl:
   

   Such as? Justin Martyr? Ambrose? Jerome? Augustine?
   
   Please be specific, and be careful whom you choose.
   
   My recollection of early Church history is that all those Christians who denied the divinity of Christ were condemned as heretics by the true Church of Christ whenever the bishops convened to deal with these early “protestants.”
   Carl

   Did somebody wake up on the wrongside of the bed this morning? Wow, you sure are hostile! Anyway, If memory serves me correctly, Arianism invaded the church for years, and although the church did eventually condemn it, a fair amount of people practiced it. The same is true with albigensianism and a host of other heresies.
   
   Calm down Carl. Go take a deep breath and relax a little bit. You act as though you’re deathly affraid to hear the truth.

 

[Andyman1517]

Beaver:

I am not, you have not crossed the finnish line yet. You are only in the race.

Neither have you, beaver. You testify to your own faith in God, and I’ll testify to mine.

Beaver:

God is the creator and miracles are acts of creation. God creates at any time He wants. In fact, if He was not creating at this moment you or I would not exist.
No one has said His blood is continually shed.

But does he create miracles on cue? That’s is the question. Who are we to command God?

Beaver:

The Eucharist is the flesh of the Lamb of God. This flesh must be eaten for the lamb must be slaughtered, it’s blood sprinkled and it’s flesh eaten else the first born son will be killed. The priest is the first-born son of the family. The avenging angel took the entire priesthood of the nation of Egypt. The Hebrew save themselves by the above described ritual. We save ourselves by the same ritual but the lamb is the Son of God our Lord. Sounds scriptual to me.

Isn’t eating the flesh of a man canabalism? Doesn’t God think of this as an abomination? In Acts Peter testifies that he has never broken Jewish dietary law. If he had drank blood, wouldn’t he have broken the law? (here he is not refering to the new covenant, but Levitical Dietary Law)

 

[Carl]

All Protestants are Christians, but not all Christians are Protestants.

Why do you labor the obvious?

In essence, your post agrees with mine. The early Christians who did not believe in the divinity of Christ were thrown out of the Catholic Church. Therefore it is false to say that they were Catholics, since they did not believe what the Catholic Church has always taught. Calling yourself a Catholic and being one is not the same. This was the error of the Arians. You seem to have bought their error, hook, line and sinker.

The last I looked, the Unitarian Universalists are classified as a Protestant denomination. Your refusal to classify them as such means nothing to anyone except you … another case of private judgment gone off the deep end.

Get a hold of yourself and stop pontificating. You sound to much like a wannabe Pope whose every sentence is nonsense.

 

[Carl]

But does he create miracles on cue? That’s is the question. Who are we to command God?

We don’t command God. God commands us.

Do this in memory of me.