>catholics actually believe that the bread and grape juice LITERALLY turn into actual biological flesh and blood once you swallow it
>and if you happen to throw up afterwards to examine the contents it magically turns back into regular bread and grape juice
defend this
Other urls found in this thread:
miracolieucaristici.org
twitter.com
This guy doesn't understand symbolism.
0/100 shit troll m8
>LITERALLY turn into actual biological flesh and blood
You gotta understand the aristotelic concept of form and substance of an object. Catholics believe that the substance of bread and wine turn into the substance of the flesh and blood of Christ, while staying in the form of bread and wine.
Catholics are stupid.
Tons of the stuff they believe in isn't found in the Bible.
John 6
Will ausbros with actual shitposting ability please find this idiot and lynch him, he’s embarrassing you
>once you swallow it
This is false, it transubstantiates before you eat it.
>it transubstantiates before you eat it.
So why doesn't it look or feel any different?
Why would this be the thing one would use against a religion? It seems like an archaic interpretation that only very orthodox people would consider physically true. Do you mean to seem clever and biting in your noting of this?
if you actually push them to get an answer they will say some bullshit like its form remains bread but its essence becomes God which is silly because it implies not only that essence can change but that God is immediately immanent in creation and not simply immanent in his will, which is their doctrine.
John 6. Bread of life discourse.
Pagan nonsense, none of them will see Heaven anyway...
its symbolic you utter mongoloid retard
or do you actually think catholics are cannibals because they eat the "body of christ"?
meanwhile...
This food we call the Eucharist, of which no one is allowed to partake except one who believes that the things we teach are true, and has received the washing for forgiveness of sins and for rebirth, and who lives as Christ handed down to us. For we do not receive these things as common bread or common drink; but as Jesus Christ our Savior being incarnate by God's Word took flesh and blood for our salvation, so also we have been taught that the food consecrated by the Word of prayer which comes from him, from which our flesh and blood are nourished by transformation, is the flesh and blood of that incarnate Jesus."
"First Apology", Ch. 66, inter A.D. 148-155.
>symbolism
What is transubstantiation for 500 Alex
Christianity is a human sacrifice cult like all other Abrahamic faiths, their holiest ritual is consuming what they believe to be flesh and blood for Christ sake, pun not intended
No it is just one of the many forms of heresy they practice.
Heresy, it is not symbolism. Christ is physically present in the Eucharist.
>"Unless you eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood, you have no life in you;"
Learn the difference between accident and substance
tetelestai
It's true... 3 bottles of red and I chunder up everything i ate that day.. true technicolour yawn... driving the porcelain bus
Not what transubstantiation means.
Catholics believe that, in addition to physical properties, all things have a "substance" which exists on a Heavenly plane. For most things, the physical and the Substance are the same. For a human, the Substance is the soul. For consecrated bread and wine, the Substance is the Body and Blood of Christ. Carholic dogma states that the physical properties of the bread and wine remain the same, while the Substance changes. Hence, transubstantiation.
True but this isn't one of them
>Protestants are biblical literalist
>except this one thing
Hahahaha
so it's bread and wine in every sense except it is not and this is not explained in the bible. Really deep doctrine you have there.
The Catholics don't believe the Eucharist is symbolic retard.
This food we call the Eucharist, of which no one is allowed to partake except one who believes that the things we teach are true, and has received the washing for forgiveness of sins and for rebirth, and who lives as Christ handed down to us. For we do not receive these things as common bread or common drink; but as Jesus Christ our Savior being incarnate by God's Word took flesh and blood for our salvation, so also we have been taught that the food consecrated by the Word of prayer which comes from him, from which our flesh and blood are nourished by transformation, is the flesh and blood of that incarnate Jesus."
"First Apology", Ch. 66, inter A.D. 148-155.
>not explained in the bible
I am starting to believe this is one of the many "turn your brain off lmao come to church pls" gimmicks that catholicism has.
explain why the early christians believe it.
protestants baptize and eucharist bro
because they had no clearly defined bible or set of doctrines yet
we don't you faggot
Then where did the bible come from?
What is a metaphor?
"Unless you fully commit, you niggas won't get it."
>Protestants are biblical literalist
And that's where you fucked up
are you suggesting all early christian belief is perfectly valid and sound with regard to scripture?
you said there was no clearly defined bible or even sets of belief even at the 2nd cent. So this means whatever doctrine is true and the Bible in its full form comes AFTER ages and ages, because we know that there was no single set closed canon at all.
I'm just going to believe they are too assblasted to respond to my one word tetelestai post.
which is NOT an argument at all
That means nothing because it is not found in the beliefs and canon that they established as authoritative.
It is the only argument but keep trying to deceive everyone.
Even worse is the Jewish concept of "anamesis" which is what Jesus used at the Supper entails the view that doing that action would enable one to participate in the death and resurrection of Christ just as Jews participate in the reality of Exodus at the Passover. So we do know bread and wine are in some way the body and blood of Christ
Read John 6 again, why did some of Christ's disciples walk out on him after he repeatedly told them to do so? "Protestant Jesus: "G-guys come back it was just a metaphor!"
And why would Paul condemn anyone unworthily doing in his letters? If it was just bread and wine, why such severity and seriousness?
The Church is and was guided by the holy spirit.
Maybe if you had something constructive to contribute mate.
>The Church is and was guided by the holy spirit.
then they were guided to not include it in the bible, and also guided to branch off into protestantism?
except it is. The word "memory" used in the Supper narratives is practically used in the same way as Jews use "memory" for the Passover where they are actually participating in the Exodus event.
So this argument is a failure and shows ignorance of Jewish context and Greek linguistics as "anamesis" can also mean "to make present".
you believe there was no bible at one point and false heretics assembled it
How does this
>its essence becomes God
imply this
>God is immediately immanent in creation
Are you really arguing treating Christ like some thing you call on a whim whenever you want as legitimate?
Dont catholics pray to a bunch of saints and graven images of mary which is, i'm pretty sure a huge no-no?
>why such severity and seriousness?
Because symbolism is serious business.
that is the context of "memorial" in the Last Supper. Whining wont change that fact
When you hit that 4th bottle you get the cold shakes, that is truly the ticket and the highest most enjoyable state of inebriation. Y'all niggas don't know how to appreciate alcohol.
The thumbnail looks like it says "communism"
The Bible isn't supposed to be a comprehensive instruction book, it also tells a story. The tradition also informs us on spiritual matters. Protestantism is a great tragedy, but the Catholic Church remains true.
It's not a whim, it's during the mass by a priest. Joe Schmo can't just do it when he feels like it.
But why would it only be OK for the *worthy* (not in a state of mortal sin) to eat it? Why would you need to be "worthy" to eat a symbol?
>But why would it only be OK for the *worthy* (not in a state of mortal sin) to eat it? Why would you need to be "worthy" to eat a symbol?
To prove you fully bought into the club/cult.
except the Eucharistic memorial is to make present the reality of Jesus' sacrifice given Jewish concept of anamesis. So this is a failure
>nonsense
-you
Might want to try
See Ferguson: Early church at work and worship vol 3, chapter 4
Ferguson is a Protestant scholar
>read more bullshit and maybe you will be convinced of my bullshit
Catholics are idiots
Sure what do you expect from a Jew and a D&C thread.
>not an argument