One who has faith that a physical change - which cannot be discerned in a physical way - has in fact taken place is a believer . One who believes that he is spiritually partaking of the Body and Blood of Christ, but not necessarily an invisible, odorless, tasteless transubstantiation of physical matter, is not a believer.
As far as I know, the only question you haven't now answered is the cannibalism question. But I know that's a hard one.
I don't see where there is any absrudity.
One who has faith that a physical change - which cannot be discerned in a physical way - has in fact taken place is a believer . One who believes that he is spiritually partaking of the Body and Blood of Christ, but not necessarily an invisible, odorless, tasteless transubstantiation of physical matter, is not a believer.
Yes, that is how the belief in my Church is defined. And it is exactly the opposite in most Protestant Churches. If I were to insist that the Eucharist is a physical change, I would be told that that is wrong.
what is so difficult to understand about people having different views and recognizing this? We dont' pretend that we all agree on thei very important subject. Only thoise who agree with us are invited.
If I choose to believe Jesus was not God, was only a man, and His Resurrection is nto true, it was only spiritual, am I invited to commune with you?
As far as I know, the only question you haven't now answered is the cannibalism question.
Only because it is absurd. Christ's Body is made present in the appearance of Bread and Wine precisely because the idea of gnawing on human flesh is repulsive. So while it is substantially the Body of Christ it's apearances are not so.
SD