I would be surprised, though, if your leavened bread was only one half : ^)

for someone who prides himself so much in the disdain towards reasoning and theological analysis, you sure love to have endless arguments about how you can separate whatever taking this or that into account

Do you want me to go full autism in reasoning and theological analysis?

Because I can do it if you'd like

Leaven is symbolic of sin

Hence why Christ's body is unleavened.

This is why God commanded the Israelites to remove leavening from their houses during the Pascha

Because it's symbolic of sin.

Now I will break a little the filth and say that your argument (which you shouldn't try to defend should you be the proud, simple mystery lover that ignores the ebil scholastic) is pretty much that they can't both be full communion because there is some kind of redoundancy and there is no point in having both. But that seems to me a very weak argument, because it is a variant of "why would God do things this way, wouldn't it be more simple to do that?", which can be applied to every aspect of life. As it have been said, some things are described as the flesh and blood of Christ. Flesh and blood are by nature together. This relationship, where one depends on the other, conveys the idea that communion with one is full.

And you can, if you want, go full autism in reasoning an theological analysis, but then I will call you a hypocrite, since you dismiss the deep theological analysis of catholic doctors and saints as silly scholastic and rationalization

😐

Have a rethink of what your last sentence said and what affect it has

You are literally telling me that if I put effort into something in a discussion, you will call me a hypocrite and declare victory

I have no reason to talk with you, now.

Not because you put effort into it

You have given me no possible entry.

Leaven=sin

Now does it make sense

But because you critiqued theologians putting effort into their theolody

It's independent of the discussion at hand

I'm pro effort when it's leading to a deeper understanding of a cohesive picture that's simple to understand.

And what do you think that theology and scholastic is?

I have a *lot* of experience with writing extensively overcomplicated and technically correct things.

Tfw make a rational point and get ignored

I know how flawed it is.

I'm shitposting now

And what you call "rationalization", which doesn't try to infer what has been revealed to make it "rational", but to infer things from them

FILTHPIT FILTHPIT

<:cathokike:291522267890974721>

<:orthokike:291522285020512256>

<:orthokike:291522285020512256> <:orthokike:291522285020512256> <:orthokike:291522285020512256> <:orthokike:291522285020512256> <:orthokike:291522285020512256> <:rubbetirub:492691976081375242>

<:stormfag:509490796203081729> <:stormfag:509490796203081729> <:stormfag:509490796203081729> <:stormfag:509490796203081729> <:stormfag:509490796203081729> <:stormfag:509490796203081729> <:stormfag:509490796203081729> <:stormfag:509490796203081729>

Nice

2 corinthians 5:21

**2 Corinthians 5:21 - New Revised Standard Version (NRSV)**

```Dust


<21> For our sake he made him to be sin who knew no sin, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God. ```

The reason I didn't respond is because I would need to draft an appropriate response to the notion that leaven is sin and that's why it's not in the eucharist

Except the eucharist is meant to bring spiritual perfection and thus must contain no sin symbolic or otherwise

Also fair

I'm not sorry for what I've done