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

Well, the western Eucharistic theology is that the bread is still bread when you put it under a microscope, for instance, but the becoming the body of Christ element is a change in the *substance* of the bread, as Aristotle would put it.

Equally though, I've heard some rather fantastical claims about the physical host in the sciences.

@Byzas Rome Eucharist theology is a bunch of rationalized garbage that strays from tradition and scripture

At least Lutheran and EO can agree on that stuff

Wait

This belongs in <#435520935647248414>

Yikes

'You can pretend durrhurr the flesh contains blood'
All flesh contains blood. That's a natural state of flesh in general. When an animal is butchered, they don't drain water from the flesh. All bodies contain blood, it's a natural state of them. To say that they don't is mental gymnastics to justify your own opposition to Western teaching, without bothering to actually supply a real case against it

Your stated disagreement with Western Eucharistic theology in this conversation so far pretty much boils down to 'hurrdurr, the West teaches it so it must be wrong'

So what you're saying is "This is my body, and this is my blood" really says "This is my body and blood, and this is only my blood so don't worry about not having it"

Which is not too dissimilar from the Protestants: 'hurrdurr, Rome teaches it so it must be wrong'

Both species contain both body and blood