Filioque is only one piece of the puzzle

The schism had so many other things that caused it

Politics aside

I need to write something about that but I need to do a fuckton more research in order to think I have anything authoritative to say about it

And energy-essence debate

That is, in conformity with Orthodoxy

There's all sorts of metaphysical ideas roaming around in my head that may not be agreeable with the patristic perspective

If the EO has unity, then there are like 5 prot denoms in total

And then a huge group of apostates

The differences b/w groups like ELCA and PCUSA are large, but both "churches" could care less about theology. They just want to do whatever the world wants them to do.

They could easily merge

Be one big apostate body

Episcopals are apostates

NO GOOD CONVERSATIONS IN THE FILTHPIT REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE

"Filioque caused postmodernism" That can remain here

Kek

<:orthokike:291522285020512256>

>Filioque caused postmodernism

Leavened bread caused postmodernism

You can't even make a theological argument for that

That's the point

or a geographical one

leavened does sound suspiciously like (((levi)))

Wokest take

Leavened bread = soft mushy like actual flesh
unleavened bread = lmao Christ's flesh is a disc

Fite fite fite

Risen Christ, risen bread

Also both elements = necessary

Unleavened bread=the required bread for passover
Passover bread=the bread Our Lord offered when He said 'this is my body'

>wanting to be true to the Passover but taking away the wine from laiety for centuries

The wine is just a species. Both the host and the wine are turned to body and blood, so withholding the wine isn't an issue for people who believe in the real presence of Our Lord in the Eucharist, since you receive both body and blood even if you only receive one element

Also keep in mind that Catholics don't actually opposed leavened bread we just don't use it in our Western tradition it's present in most if not all of our Eastern traditions

*oppose unleavened bread

I would disagree with the notion of wine.

Wine is still Wine, even when used as the blood. And wine has deep significance in old testament practice in celebration and feast and its significance to the indiginous cultures of Europe. The exception to that would probably be the eternal Anglo. But sacramental beer doesn't have the same ring to it.

It has the accidents of wine, but its essence is changed so fundamentally that saying "it is wine" can be misleading

Christ explicitly said the bread was his flesh and the wine his blood
There's no mental gymnastics around that
You can pretend durrhurr the flesh contains blood but Christ said it was the wine that is his blood
Western Eucharistic theology is garbage anyway, trying to rationalize and understand divine mystery

What does that even mean? Is, according to you, someone trying to put God under a microscope?

Does it bother you that smart people are able to see the consequences of what is revealed to us?

kek