Fun times,
As I have explained, the Mass is blasphemous not because one believes that there is some sort of "mystical" connection with God through communion. It is blasphemous because the bread and wine are changed by an unauthorized priesthood in order to provide salvation to the masses at their hands.
Unauthorized presthood? Care to explain? You do realize that this "unauthorized priesthood" is in fact an unbroken chain of transfer of authority and responsibility going back all the way to the Apostles? If they are unauthorized, then who is authorized?
Receiving the Eucharist is, has been, and always will be the focus of the mass. To receive Jesus, Body Blood Soul and Divinity, as instituted
by Jesus himself at the Last Supper. All the Martyrs of the early Church were Catholic, and they died for their firm and unwavering belief in the Eucharist.
Mother Theresa's horrible anguish of soul is the perfect example of what this kind of teaching brings to a practicing Catholic - and pleas don't tell me that she need to talk to real Catholics about their beliefs because she had it wrong.
I think I would be a complete idiot to believe that Mother Theresa had it wrong. Study any of the Saints, any person that becomes extremely close to God. They all carry heavy, heavy crosses. They all experience doubt, self doubt, and inner darkness. The closer we get towards God, the harder life becomes, not easier. Jesus, the Son of the Father, was scourged and nailed to a cross. If that is anything to go by, it only signifies how holy and closer to God she was.
However, none of this shows any error in regards towards the teachings and beliefs of the Catholic Church. You are reaching for self-invented proof here.
I clearly said that Roman Catholic dogma requires celibacy for their priests. I did not in any way indicate that the priesthood was forced on anyone or that not was not entered into by choice.
And I clearly showed you that you were wrong, that celibacy for priests is for the Latin Rite of the Catholic Church, and that it can change. Celibacy for priests is actually not dogma, as it is not binding for salvation. It is a standard for priests to help them better focus on God and their Catholic community. I also stated that there are plenty of married priests in eastern Catholicism, or married priests who converted to the faith from a religion that allows married priests such as Orthodoxy, Anglican, or Episcopalian.
You reach to show that, the Catholic Church having priests stay celibate, is a mark of a false church as stated in the Bible, tells me that you do believe it is forced, and not a conscious choice with full understanding of the agreements and standards held with that choice. If a church forbids sex, or forces celibacy, then it is wrong. The Church forces nobody to celibacy, as it is entirely voluntary.
Because it opens you and your children up to the unscriptural practices of the Roman church which have kept so many millions in bondage through the church age.
How has anything the Catholic Church done kept "millions in bondage"? Are you refering to the dark ages? Do you not know that roughly 90% of the population was illiterate? As in they could not read? Do you also know that, prior to the printing press, it took over a year to make a single copy of the Bible, and that the cost of that book cost more than many made in their entire lifetime?
The Church never hid the scriptures. These Bible, the Sacred Scriptures, were so valuable that they HAD to be chained down, not to prevent the lay from the scriptures, but to prevent them from being stolen by thieves. If you could read, and wished to read the Bible, you ALWAYS knew where to go; to the Church.
Did you also know that, against popular opinion, it was actually the Catholic Church who published the first Bible via printing press, and NOT Martin Luther? Martin Luther did not print his Bible until the 1500s, where as the Gutenberg Bible was printed in the 1450s, before Luther was even born.
The issue with transubstantiation in general is that it is not biblical.
