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

So now 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 my body and blood". So a wine-only communion is just as valid as a bread-only communion?

You receive the fullness of Christs body and blood by receiving the 'bread' or the 'wine' or both

I'll explain more later, back at work

Sounds like an overcomplicated mess

mental gymnastics: the school of thought

It is not him that tries to come up with obscure ways to present objections. It seems that what you call "mental gymnastics" is just answering to autism.

Today I learned that scripture is obscure.

Today I learned that scripture is mental gymnastics and an overcomplicated mess

uh

Are you trying to make a serious point or are you just shitposting?

Today I learned that we can rephrase what Jesus said because my own logic comes before the verbatim word of the Logos

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