I don't see any word of the logos saying that the blood and the flesh are disjoint

I must have missed that part of "scripture"

Don't project your rephrasing on me

kek

scholasticism, not even once

It's just common sense, brainlets

I'm not projecting shit, you illiterate fuckwit

I'm listening to the arguments presented by the cat side, and literally putting the argument being made *into* the relevant scripture if that was what the scripture actually said

What you call "putting the argument bla bla bla" is your over-rationalization and mental gymnastics seeing things where there are not 😃

Perfectly intuitive, since blood and flesh are inseparable in nature

They're literally not

Not my fault that you over analyze a simple mystery 😗 )

That's the richest thing I've ever heard

You only need overanalysis if you're justifying the seperation of the bread and the wine

It's pretty easy to drain blood out of meat and that doesn't sound inseparable to me

I mean, here you are, trying to come up with complex reasons why flesh and blood would not be related and joined with a thousand attempts to quote and analyze semantics

and aaron already confirmed that the seperation of the bread or the wine is inconsequential for the eucharist because the bread is both the body and blood, and the wine is also both the body and blood

While catholics have a simple, intuitive understanding of a mystery instead of your endless scholastic

Fucking address this

Shut the fuck up, troll

A bloo bloo bloo I am going to report you to the admin

That argument, saying that thigns can't be that way because there would be some kind of redoundancy or whatever, is like saying that there is no reason why God would reveal things through prophets instead of making a voice sound in our heads

You're changing the subject

@Daniil you started this 😂

I have zero faith in your ability to hold a legitimate discussion, without derailing it into irrelevant minutae

not even minutae

just irrelevancy

and mischaracterisation

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