Catholic's, at what point does it become the body?

[Uphill Battle]

Being part of the Church = being in communion with the Church. Communion is closely related to the sacrament of communion / Eucharist. If someone rejects the reality of the Eucharist then they would not be allowed to participate in communion. Why would they want to if they didn't even believe in it though?

perhaps they are talking about the universal church, in which not all believe is contained within the EO (or the RC, or any of the ancient churches.)

 

[nephilimiyr]

Except that's not what I've found to be true.
They've said to me, "you dont want to believe it then you're not
a part of the church".
Simple and straightforward though
Although wrong and PROBABLY not too pleasing to the one who
REALLY sits upon the throne.

True but what "Church" are they telling you that you are not apart of? Because I'm more than sure the Orthodox person you were speaking to believed you were a christian and loves Jesus Christ, hard not to knowing you Sunlover, but the EOC catogorizes the Church into different branches. There's a Church Militant, so on a so forth....

 

[Thaeoles]

Well of course you won't believe it your a Calvinist. If a Jehovah witness were here they would not believe in the Trinity. But the early church all believed in both the Trinity and transubstantiation.

Irrelevant. Evidence for the Trinity can be found in the Scriptures, but there is no evidence for transubstantiation in the Scriptures. Transubstantiation comes from speculation and assumption.

 

[Athanasias]

Oh good grief!

Charlie Brown is that you?

 

[Athanasias]

Irrelevant. Evidence for the Trinity can be found in the Scriptures, but there is no evidence for transubstantiation in the Scriptures. Transubstantiation comes from speculation and assumption.

So you say! But alot of other people, including the early Church say otherwise.

 

[Thaeoles]

So you say! But alot of other people, including the early Church say otherwise.

Argumentum ad populum.

Regardless, my point was to debunk your comparison of the Trinity to transubstantiation as a mystery.

 

[nephilimiyr]

So you say! But alot of other people, including the early Church say otherwise.

I think it's good that we learn from the early Church but the "Church", all believers in Christ, has been an evolution up till now, our modern era. Is there things the early Church got wrong, yes there is; is there things the early Church got right, yes there is.

 

[OpenDoor]

On how this thread started out I can see why Catholics for the most part have avoided this thread.

Being an ex-Catholic this question of transubstantiation was a minor point of my whole disagreements with the RCC. I was always told this was something that we were to believe in faith, that the waffer didn't actually change it's composition but we were none-the-less supposed to believe that it had changed into the actual body and blood of Jesus Christ. The actual change though has never been the priority of mine but the reason why we were supposed to believe this was a priority of mine.

The main given reasons why I was to believe this was so that Jesus' life would remain in me. But after reading the NT for myself I see that the Holy Spirit acts as a seal within us so that his life never leaves us. When the Holy Spirit comes in He seals himself within us so that we don't have to go through rituals to keep him inside of us. We don't have to partake of rituals inorder for this to happen because he has done the work inside us to keep himself there.

So I don't know. My mother used to scare me about missing Mass, and it worked for a long time. Until I asked myself, would I rather go through these rituals Sunday after Sunday in order to be filled with Jesus or simply have the peace in knowing that the Holy Spirit resides in me forever because He wills it?

Wait.
Catholics believe if you don't take communion Jesus leaves you?

 

[Athanasias]

Argumentum ad populum.

Regardless, my point was to debunk your comparison of the Trinity to transubstantiation as a mystery.

Has 'nt really worked yet though for ya considering all the early Church and the majority of Christendom world wide(Catholics and Orthodox and some anglicans) today do consider it a central mystery like the Trinity.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

Has 'nt really worked yet though for ya considering all the early Church and the majority of Christendom world wide(Catholics and Orthodox and some anglicans) today do consider it a central mystery like the Trinity.

Well, when ya'll figure it out, then look me up ...g'night

YouTube - Roy Orbison - She's A Mystery To Me

 

[Thaeoles]

Has 'nt really worked yet though for ya considering all the early Church and the majority of Christendom world wide(Catholics and Orthodox and some anglicans) today do consider it a central mystery like the Trinity.

Argumentum ad populum is not a logical argument. Just because a large collection of people believe something to be true, does not make it so. The majority of Christians at one time believed the world to be flat.

 

[nephilimiyr]

Wait.
Catholics believe if you don't take communion Jesus leaves you?

I never had it said to me that way so no I don't think so. The way I always had it explained to me was that it was a sort of maintaining type of thing. Perhaps it doesn't sound like much of a difference but communion is the partaking of Jesus, if you don't partake of Jesus, well then, you figure it out for yourself. I always had a hard time figureing out most of what I was taught, one of the reasons I suppose I am no longer a Catholic.

 

[sunlover1]

Being part of the Church = being in communion with the Church. Communion is closely related to the sacrament of communion / Eucharist. If someone rejects the reality of the Eucharist then they would not be allowed to participate in communion. Why would they want to if they didn't even believe in it though?

Unity.
For the sake of unity, oneness.
Same reason that even though i disagree with my husband
on everything you can name.. i still do some things for
the sake of oneness.
K, i exaggerated for effect, but hopefully it helps you to understand
where I'm coming from.
Besides, I don't reject that it's "really" His flesh.

 

[Athanasias]

Well, when ya'll figure it out, then look me up ...g'night

YouTube - Roy Orbison - She's A Mystery To Me

Good video. I like this one:

YouTube - Roy Orbison - Crying (HQ)

 

[Uphill Battle]

Argumentum ad populum is not a logical argument. Just because a large collection of people believe something to be true, does not make it so. The majority of Christians at one time believed the world to be flat.

or that slavery was cool.

hand in hand with Argumentum ad populum is argumentum ad verecundiam...

 

[Uphill Battle]

trying again:

Originally Posted by Athanasias

I hope for your souls sake that you were ignorant of what you were doing and they were not the consecrated ones.
​

Originally Posted by Athanasias

You committed no crime. You were a innocent Child who did not know better. You took Jesus and ate him.
​

did you want to address the two attitudes to the same issue?

 

[Athanasias]

or that slavery was cool.

hand in hand with Argumentum ad populum is argumentum ad verecundiam...

Or that Jesus was risen from the dead! Touche

 

[sunlover1]

Good video. I like this one:

YouTube - Roy Orbison - Crying (HQ)

Way cool
Check it out:

YouTube - Traveling Wilburys - Handle With Care

 

[Uphill Battle]

Or that Jesus was risen from the dead! Touche

false dilemma.

there is nobody arguing against that fact.

 

[Athanasias]

Way cool
Check it out:

YouTube - Traveling Wilburys - Handle With Care

absolutely love the Traveling Willburys. Great choice!