/lit/ - Literature

Parsifal - Wagner

>>15094302
How did he show that?

Uh scripture saying it's Jesus's blood and body?????? Sweety is everything ok

>>15094161
Luke 22:
19And He took the bread, gave thanks and broke it, and gave it to them, saying, “This is My body, given for you; do this in remembrance of Me.”

20In the same way, after supper He took the cup, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in My blood, which is poured out for you.

>do this in REMEMBRANCE of me

>>15095099
Also, just imagine it. He picks up the bread and says “this is my body.” Do you think he meant “this is literally a part of my human body” or “treat this bread like my body”

>>15094161
1 Corinthians 11:26
For as often as you eat this bread and drink this cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death until He comes.

>bread
>cup
>NOT “flesh” “blood”

>>15095119
To be fair Catholics and Orthodox understand the Eucharist as being bread AND flesh, I don't know why it's so difficult for protestants to conceptualize this

>>15095129
I know what they believe. I simply don’t agree, or see support for that interpretation in the Bible

>>15095129
Sorry for samefagging here but:

“I am the door: by me if any man enter in, he shall be saved, and shall go in and out, and find pasture.”
Do Catholics believe Jesus was saying he’s literally a door?

On Holy Thursday, Jesus knew that he would “depart out of this world to the Father, having loved his own who were in the world, he loved them to the end” (Jn 13:1). Not wishing to leave us desolate, Jesus gave us the sacrament of love in which he comes to us under the humble species or appearance of bread and wine. The Eucharist is “the source and summit of the Christian life” because it contains “the whole spiritual good of the Church, namely Christ himself.”

Few Christian doctrines are taught in the Bible as plainly and as explicitly as is the Real Presence of Jesus in the Eucharist. The words, “This is my body” and “This is my blood” (Mt 26:26) could not be clearer. Jesus responded to his quarreling disciples with very graphic and clear words:
“Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood, you have no life in you; he who eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day” (Jn 6:53-54).

St. Paul understood that the Eucharist was the body and blood of Jesus when he called a sacrilegious communion “profaning the body and blood of the Lord” (1 Cor 11:27). Then he added: “That is why many of you are weak and ill, and some have died” (1 Cor 11:30).

The Council of Trent summarized the Catholic faith regarding the Real Presence: “Because Christ our Redeemer said that it was truly his body that he was offering under the species (appearance) of bread, it has always been the conviction of the Church of God, and this holy Council now declares again, that by the consecration of the bread and wine there takes place a change of the whole substance of the bread into the substance of the body of Christ our Lord and of the whole substance of the wine into the substance of his blood.”

The early Church overwhelmingly believed in the Real Presence as J.N.D. Kelly affirmed: “In the third century the early Christian identification of the eucharistic bread and wine with the Lord’s body and blood continued unchanged.” Another respected non-Catholic scholar Darwell Stone wrote:
“Throughout the writings of the Fathers there is unbroken agreement that the consecrated bread and wine are the body and blood of Christ, and that the Eucharist is a sacrifice.”

The marvel of Jesus’ love is such that he hid his divinity when he assumed a human nature, but in the Eucharist his love seems to burst all bounds as he hides both his divinity and his humanity to become one with us under the appearance of bread and wine.

The Eucharist is at the center of the Catholic faith. Therefore, denying the biblical basis of the Real Presence is a way of undercutting Catholicism. Below are some of the biblical distortions used to undermine belief in the Eucharist followed by the appropriate Catholic response.

>When Jesus said, “This is my body” (Mt 26:26), he meant, “this bread symbolizes my body.”

The problem with this interpretation begins with the fact that “bread” is not in the text. Secondly, the word is functions like an equal sign in arithmetic. It does not mean symbolize.

>When Jesus said, “the flesh is of no avail,” (Jn 6:63) he was referring to his flesh, thereby explaining that he was speaking symbolically and not literally when he spoke about eating his flesh and drinking his blood.

This interpretation is utterly false because it renders meaningless Jesus statement: “the bread which I shall give for the life of the world is my flesh” (Jn 6:51). It contradicts the book of Hebrews, which proclaims we are “sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all” (Heb 10:10). Similarly, St. Paul states that Jesus breaks down the dividing wall between men and God “by abolishing in his flesh the law of commandments and ordinances [of the old law], that he might create in himself one new man in place of the two, so making peace, and might reconcile us both to God in one body through the cross, thereby bringing hostility to an end” (Eph 2:14-16). Finally, if Jesus’ flesh is of no avail, the statement “the Word became flesh” (Jn 1:14) becomes pointless. Clearly, the expression “the flesh has no avail” (Jn 6:63) refers to human nature, not the body of Jesus.

>If Jesus was truly present in the Eucharist eating his flesh would be cannibalism!

Cannibalism is eating the flesh of a corpse, but in the Eucharist, Jesus is not a corpse. He is the “living bread” (Jn 6:51). Furthermore, his presence in the Eucharist is under a form that makes cannibalism impossible. Jesus is really and substantially present, but not in the natural way his body existed while he lived on earth. His presence in the Eucharist is supernatural. Jesus is present in the Eucharist sacramentally in his glorified body under the appearance of bread and wine. Therefore, what we taste, touch and see are the species (appearance) of the bread and wine.

>>15095099
it can have a real presence and be symbolical at the same time.

>>15095108
god also became incarnate as a man, pharisees had a hard time with this, how is the last supper any more of a stretch?

St. Ignatius of Antioch was a disciple of John the Apostle. He was martyred during the reign of Trajan (A.D. 98-117). On his journey to his death in Rome in the custody of ten soldiers he wrote seven letters, which are a precious witness to the lessons he learned from the author of the fourth Gospel. Of particular interest here is his understanding of the Eucharist. Was he taught that Jesus is truly present in the Eucharist or was the Eucharist merely a symbol? His testimony is unambiguous and right to the point:

In his letter to the Romans he proclaimed: “I take no pleasure in corruptible food or the pleasures of this life. I want the bread of God, which is the flesh of Christ who is of the seed of David; and for drink I want his blood, which is incorruptible love.”

In his letter to the Smyrnaeans he wrote: “Now note well those who hold heretical opinions [the Gnostics] about the grace of Jesus Christ which came to us; note how contrary they are to the mind of God. They have no concern of love, none for the widow, none for the orphan, none for the oppressed, none for the prisoner or the one released, none for the hungry or thirsty. They abstain from the Eucharist and prayer, because they refuse to acknowledge that the Eucharist is the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ.”

A Major Problem with Symbolic Interpretations

Metaphors in one language do not translate directly into another language. For example, the word “cool” literally refers to a cold temperature, but as a symbolic figure of speech can mean an undefined compliment, for example, “That’s cool!” However, that symbolic use of the word “cool” would make no sense if translated literally into another language like French or Spanish.

Therefore, those who claim that Jesus’ words “eat my flesh” and “drink my blood” are figures of speech must first establish if these expressions are used symbolically in the Bible. If they are, the same symbolic meaning must be used if applying a figurative meaning to John 6. Actually, these expressions are used symbolically in many passages in the Bible. However those who attempt to apply a symbolic meaning to the words eat my flesh and drink my blood ignore the meaning of these words when they are used as a figure of speech.

Raymond Brown explained the problem: “This cannot possibly be a metaphor for accepting his revelation [faith]. ‘To eat someone’s flesh’ appears in the Bible as a metaphor for hostile action (Ps 27:2; Zech 11:9). In fact, in the Aramaic tradition transmitted through Syriac, the ‘eater of flesh’ was the title of the devil, the slanderer and adversary par excellence.”

Consider the examples below:

Eat the Flesh:
Ps 27:2 - “When evildoers assail me, to devour my flesh, my adversaries and foes, they shall stumble and fall.”
Zech 11:9 - “and let those that are left devour the flesh of one another.”
Micah 3:3 - “[the unjust leaders of Israel] who eat the flesh of my people.”
Job 19:22 - “Why do you, like God, pursue me? Why are you not satisfied with my flesh?”
Eccl 4:5 - “The fool folds his hands, and eats his own flesh.”
Is 9:20 - “each devours his neighbor’s flesh.”
Rev 17:16 - “they will make her desolate and naked, and devour her flesh and burn her up with fire”

>>15095248
Drink the Blood:
Jer 46:10 - “The sword shall devour and be sated and drink its fill of their blood.”
2 Sam 23:17 - “Shall I drink the blood of the men who went at the risk of their lives?”
Rev 16:6 - “For men have shed the blood of saints and prophets, and thou hast given them blood to drink.”
Rev 17:6 - “And I saw the women, drunk with the blood of the saints and the blood of the martyrs of Jesus.”

Eat the Flesh and Drink the Blood:
Is 49:26 - “I will make your oppressors eat their own flesh, and they shall be drunk with their own blood as with wine.”
Ez 39:17-18 - “Assemble and come, gather from all sides to the sacrificial feast which I am preparing for you, a great sacrificial feast upon the mountains of Israel, and you shall eat flesh and drink blood. You shall eat the flesh of the mighty, and drink the blood of the princes of the earth.”

When interpreting a language, one must use the figures of speech that are common to that language. If someone claims that the expressions eat my flesh and drink my blood have a symbolic meaning, then these passages must be given the same symbolic meanings that is used in the Bible. But in Scripture the symbolic use of these terms always means to harm someone. Therefore, those who claim Jesus spoke symbolically are forced to conclude that Jesus meant: “Very truly, I tell you, unless you persecute (eat my flesh) the son of man and attack him (drink my blood), you have no life in you.” Obviously, this is nonsense!

And the rest of the story? At the last supper, the apostles refused to accept Jesus saying "this is my body, this is my blood." why would they do that if it was clearly only a metaphor to them? Why did Jesus tell them to just accept it without explaining to them that it was just a metaphor? Why in First Corinthians didn't Paul carefully explain that by partaking in the Lord's Supper in a state of sin one was only bringing *metaphorical* judgement upon oneself and not actual judgement? Why did the entire Church fall into heresy in the second century by compounding the above "oversights" in the Didache? And then we get to the Church Fathers... Why oh why? So many questions! Where did it all go so wrong?

>>15094161
"this is my body, my real body. I can't be using literary symbolism or allusion you guys this is my real body and it will definitely turn into my actual flesh when you eat it guys.

Also do this in remembrance of me. Which basically what I'm tryna say is that if you don't do it you definitely can't be christian. You know all that legalism I hate about the Jews? Yeah, we gotta have some of that too lads."

-Jesus.

>>15095099
>>15095108
This isn't really an argument though. It's more of "I can't believe it could mean anything else."

Why didn't Jesus just say it was a symbol?

>>15095469
Apparently he was trying to trick the disciples who assumed he was speaking literally and were outraged.

>>15095535
Unless you eat my flesh and drink my blood, you have no life within you.
Many of His followers left over that. It's a hell of a stretch to call that symbolic.

>>15095151
He was a little more explicit when he instituted the Eucharist, on top of that do you in all honesty believe that for the first 1000 years the entire universal church misinterpreted Christ? The simplest explanation is that Cathodox have it right, and protestants are in error

I really don't understand how it's possible to be a protestant.

>>15095108
>Do you think he meant “this is literally a part of my human body”
Yes
This wasn't even a matter of debate until Luther had to start pulling theology out of his ass

When does the bread stop being the body of christ or do i shit Jesus into the toilet

>>15094161
It wasn't symbolic otherwise Jesus would have told it as a parable.

Don't know if anyone will care but I personally experienced a eucharistic miracle at an orthodox church. Only once though, and I took communion there almost every week for two years.

>>15098000
what happened?

>>15097778
>NOOOO YOU CAN'T FLUSH MY SAVIOR

Symbolic in the physical, literal in the spiritual
It isn't his earthly body being eaten, but a spiritual cannibalism

>>15094161
WHY DOES IT MATTER JUST EAT THE BREAD AND DRINK THE CUP AND DO THE WILL OF GOD STOP ARGUING OVER MEANINGLESSNESS THINGS THAT DONT EVEN AFFECF YOUR SALVATION

>>15098009
When I took the Eucharist into my mouth it was immediately clear that it was not bread but something else. It was terrifying, I almost spat it out but managed to call myself enough. I was the reader at the time so I was behind the iconostasis during the liturgy and saw it being prepared. I cut the loaf myself, I know it was bread.

Anyway despite that experience I still ended up an apostate because human beings are stupid. God forgive me.

>>15098183
Should be calm not call

>>15095769
>on top of that do you in all honesty believe that for the first 1000 years the entire universal church misinterpreted Christ?

Why wouldn't I? "People have been doing it that way for a long time" seems like a poor argument to me.

Why do churches give the eucharist, wasnt it just a one time deal. Also why is the wine part uncommon

>"I was once, five or six years ago, taken by some friends to have dinner with Mary McCarthy and her husband, Mr. Broadwater. (She just wrote that book, A Charmed Life.) She departed the Church at the age of 15 and is a Big Intellectual.

We went at eight, and at one, I hadn't opened my mouth once, there being nothing for me in such company to say. The people who took me were Robert Lowell and his now wife, Elizabeth Hardwick. Having me there was like having a dog present who had been trained to say a few words but overcome with inadequacy had forgotten them.

Well, toward morning the conversation had turned on the Eucharist, which I, being the Catholic, was obviously supposed to defend. Mrs. Broadwater said when she was a child and received the Host, she thought of it as the Holy Ghost, He being the "most portable" person of the Trinity; now she thought of it as a symbol and implied that it was a pretty good one.

I then said, in a very shaky voice, "Well, if it's a symbol, to hell with it." That was all the defense I was capable of but I realize now that this is all I will ever be able to say about it, outside of a story, except that it is the center of existence for me; all the rest of life is expendable."

Flannery O'Cnnor

>>15098423
OConnor, even

>>15094161
>What is the best argument for the Christian Eucharist being merely symbolic?

Tear up the New Testament and throw it in the trash. Do likewise with the writings of the early Church Fathers.

>>15099303
>Tear up the New Testament and throw it in the trash

Except Revelations, yes

>Do likewise with the writings of the early Church Fathers

oh no, it's retarded

>>15094161
screenshot source:
Challenging Communion: The Eucharist and Middle English Literature, Jennifer Garrison

Aquinas perfected the ambrosian view of Christ's form in the eucharist but works it through Aristotelian logic to make it simultaenously 'real and unreal', "...the faithful do not chew Christ's bodyl they chew only the accidents underneath which Christ is really present."
-- Summa Theologicae, 3a-77,7

Essentially, the symbolic nature of the host IS THE OFFICIAL LINE OF THE CHURCH and has been since the 14th century. People who make fun of the eucharist as being cannibalistic have had 700 years to catch up or remotely read on the topic. The best argument for the Eucharist beign symbolic IS the church's argument that it is a pseudo-material faith event at the moment of consumption in the mouth of a believer

>>15099548
https://www.jstor.org/stable/j.ctt1wn0r0m

book is freely available on JSTOR if anyone's remotely interested in reading about theology in medieval literature

>>15094161

Jesus is referring to passover. All symbolism is supposed to point to something real. This being in particular that His body will be broken for your sake that the Angel of the LORD will pass over your house and the destruction won't come. You won't spiritually die.

>>15097369
When it's digested and not recognizable as bread- in the stomach. Same as the classic question of when food becomes part of the body or excreta.
>>15098388
As a re-presentation of the sacrifice- making it present again in the offering of bread and wine, that we might follow His command to eat His flesh and drink His blood, commemorating it as at the Last Supper. The wine is often not distributed to the entire mass, but just a small portion drunk by the priest, to make it faster. Jesus is present, body, blood, soul, and divinity, in each part of the bread and wine so it's not technically a loss, though I do think it feels lessened by it.

>>15098183
God bless you.

>finally go to confession right before lent
>first time in about a decade I can actually receive the Eucharist in a state of grace
>masses get cancelled

>>15095193
>>15095205
>>15095235
>>15095248
>>15095253
nice
Are you a priest?

>>15094161
If he meant it symbolically, it is hardly a "hard saying". But it is, and he is willing to have people leave Him over this teaching. Certainly there must be something more here than "I am metaphorical bread".

>>15100041
Pray the rosary dawg, keep praying it

>>15095193
>>15095205
>>15095235
>>15095248
>>15095253
>>15095256
Someone screencap this. Absolutely irrefutable.

>>15100611
maurras was an atheist

>>15098183
Why did you end up apostasizing? That sounds like it would be a life-changing experience.

>>15098105
>>>15095535
Iron sharpening iron. I love when the prots come hear to argue and question my Catholicism. Some posts irritate me because I don't have the answer or correct response and it pushes to study my faith to be ready to defend. Its like a sparing match for the fight with the real opponent.

>>15094161
Read the "Eucharist" by Alexandar Schmemann if you have any familiarity with the Divine Liturgy by St. John Chrystostom. Even if you don't it is not required. He makes the argument that symbolism is not opposed to "reality", and that reality is perceived only through symbolism.

For example when you hear more ambiguous language like Christ' body is the Temple that was destroyed and raised in 3 days, or Christ is the head of the Church and we are the body of the Church. This language is "symbolic" but the reality of it cannot be denied. If Christ is only "symbolically" and not really the head of the Church then Christians have a problem.

>>15100041
>>15100284
Amen, brothers.

>>15101036
what are you talking about. There isn’t a literal neck connecting Jesus and the church. It’s not physical, so it’s not literal. It’s only symbolic of the spiritual truth, which IS “literal” or real

>>15101064
Can something be both "spiritual truth" and "physical truth"? Is there something that excludes one from the other?

>Amen, Amen, I say to you, unless you eat the Flesh of the Son of Man, and drink His Blood, you shall not have life within you. For My Flesh is true food, and My Blood is true drink.

>>15101122
there are physical and spiritual truths, and there are symbols of each. Saying that Jesus is the head of a the church is a physical symbol representing a spiritual truth, not a physical truth. Of course, when we eat the bread, this is a physical symbol representing a spiritual truth, or it is no symbol at all, for the truth in this case would be physical, needing no symbol. So we are literally eating the body of Jesus, or the bread is merely a physical symbol of the spirit.

But I don’t really care. You can disregard what I’ve said because I haven’t put thought into it. To me it doesn’t matter if it’s a symbol or spiritual or physical or whatever. Jesus told us to do it so we should do it without asking unnecessary questions and creating strife

>>15100999
Nice trips. I suppose because I found it easier to doubt my senses than have faith. It was not the only time I experienced the supernatural in that church but no matter what happened it was never enough. I often thought that I just needed some sort of undeniable sign but as I've gotten older I understand better the truth of it - the heavens could have opened and God could have spoken to me directly and I still would not have believed. Perhaps the protestants are right about reprobation

>>15101143
This shit actually happens. My grandpa seen the bleeding Eucharist

>>15095099
Laughs in John 6

>>15097234
Luther wasn't a proponent of memorialism, retard.
He formulated that the sacrament creates a real union to the body of Christ in the bread and blood of Christ in the wine. This union constitutes the real presence of Christ, to which Luther subscribed. This sacramental union is one of the many important unions to Christ which the church embodies.

>>15102601
Furthermore, Luther waged a prolong battle not only on the Catholics but on more radical protestant reformers, precisely on the matter of the Eucharist. He called his opponents Sacrementarians, and vehemently denied the positions of Calvinists and memorialists.

>>15102342
So where are you currently in your faith? It seems that you recognize that you do not faith, but is there any desire at all to return to the Orthodox Church?

>>15103949
I have none, and I don't think I ever will. Of course I miss the church and I would like to return but I can't devote myself to something I don't believe in. I tried for over two years and while it profoundly changed my life, and I believe made me a better person, it did not convince me.

>>15095151
He is a door yea,not nesseseary an earthy door. The same way he is logic and reason as well.

>>15095253
Interesting argument I see for the first time. And a good one

>>15100041
Mass is probably not cancelled it's probably just closed doors one. Just as the priest to still attend it.

>>15094161
Jesus always spoke with symbolism.

>>15102480
Explain this joke

>>15095193
(pbuh)

unironically though, all larping aside, how in the fuck can bread by the flesh of some jew from 2000 years ago.
It's literally bread bro. Can you do eucharist with wholemeal? or wholegrain? or white?
Put it under a microscope right before you eat it, and it's still bread. Oh but let me guess, thats just the limited scope of physical reality.
Shut the fuck up you fat sweaty larping neckbeards. You don't actually believe this fantasy roleplay

that bread looking like a snack

>>15106560
not larping but that's the part of the mystery of transubstantion in their theology

>>15107380
I know that. My point is that unless you were raised Christian from birth to believe things like that, there is no way that any of these larpers genuinely believe it.
Do you really think that people born in the 1990s who were raised agnostic or atheist can actually trick themselves into believing in literal transubstantiation, or even literal resurrection?
That's how you know it's pure larp.

>>15107697
>how could anyone POSSIBLY believe something different than me! you MUST be brainwashed it's not possible, I know EVERYTHING!

>>15107840
This is exactly the type of larping I'm talking about.
If you were born in the 90s or later, and raised in a first world country, then to believe in literal transubstantiation or resurrection, you were either raised in a genuinely religious household, have self-induced some bizarre cognitive dissonance because you really wish you believed in it, or you're just plain larping.
I'm Greek, and was baptised in an Orthodox church as an infant. Everyone that 100% genuinely believes in literal miracles like transubstantiation and resurrection are ignorant old people, and people who never gave it a second thought with a critical approach.
I'm sorry that you feel the need to larp as Christian to form some sort of identity, I wouldn't blame you for participating and going along with the rituals, but don't sit here and tell me that you sincerely believe that the loaf of bread literally becomes the flesh of a man who died in the middle east 2000 years ago, or that that same man literally rose from the dead. Don't be a disingenuous liar, and don't be a cringeworthy larper.

>>15107925
>I-I was born into it so I know EVERYTHING about EVERYONE and EVERYTHING, you're a LIAR!
lmao if you say so dude.

>>15107968
>I-I read about how BASED it is on an anime forum so I know EVERYTHING about GOD and JESUS, I really believe in it, for real, stop calling me a LIAR!
larpers of anything are perhaps the most cringeworthy class of humanity.

>>15108017
>heh, that's right, I posted a smug soijak, nice try kiddo but you're a larper now and I know because I said so

>>15107925
If what you say is true Anon it doesn't matter if you whether you were baptized into the Orthodox Church or not. If you deny the Resurrection you are no longer a Christian. Just because you don't sincerely believe those things doesn't mean that everyone who does hold those beliefs are LARPing.

>>15108062
I'm copying your infantile reddit greentext strawmen.
I'm not going to continue "arguing" with some identity-less retard trying to convince himself that he believes in literal miracles to make up for the fact that he lives in a soulless postmodern wasteland. Go ahead and larp, what else can a midwit in your position do?

>>15108108
I never was a Christian. My point is that I have been surrounded by actual Orthodox Christians, and not dumbass American larpers. I know there are people who sincerely believe it, and I've explained the reasons why that occurs. But once again let me reiterate: unless you were raised in an environment in which you could organically come to hold those beliefs, it is impossible to convince yourself of their truth. You cannot tell me with full sincerity that a young person raised atheistically in the 21st century can truly make themselves believe in literal transubstantiation and resurrection.
If you were raised a Christian and were instilled with a genuine belief in those things, then good for you. Otherwise, it's glaringly obvious larping.

>>15108121
>>15108160
>you're strawmanning ME, just ignore the strawman I made of an entire group of people
>obsessed with Americans
>more buzzwords
>you just convinced yourself, there's no other possible reason
Why should anyone take you seriously?

>>15108202
So you 100% genuinely, sincerely, truly honestly believe that the bread you eat in church (if you even do) literally transubstantiates into the flesh of a man named Jesus Christ who lived in the middle east 2000 years ago, who literally rose from the dead, and is supposedly the saviour of humanity, according to the one true religion of Christianity, and are not just a disillusioned young white man looking for some semblance of spirituality in the soullessness of modernity, who feels he has to pretend to be fully commited to every belief of his arbitrarily chosen religious belief system?
Can you tell me that with absolute, true sincerity?

>>15108259
>Why should anyone take you seriously?

>>15108305
Thanks for implicitly answering my question. All you had to say was "yes", but you couldn't even bring yourself to do that.
Goodbye faggot.

>>15108318
lmao dude you were going to go on believing what you did regardless, completely unserious person.

>>15108335
Probably, but I gave you a legitimate opportunity to at least provide some statement of genuine sincerity in your supposed beliefs, which I would have accepted, regardless of what I believe are the reasons for what you could have demonstrated to be sincere belief, but you refused even that. I have absolutely zero reason to consider you anything other than a disingenuous larper. Nice greentexts though sweety.

>>15108383
No one owes you anything. Make shitposts, get shitpost responses.

>>15108412

>>15108457
oh no, you sure got me.

>>15108531
No one owes you anything. Make shitposts, get shitpost responses.

>>15108538
Absolutely SEETHING

>>15108555

>>15094161
>Eucharist being merely symbolic
As opposed to what? Am i missing something here?

>>15099548
>a pseudo-material faith event
Best line i've heard since quarantine began

>>15108624
>>15108555

>>15108160
>unless you were raised in an environment in which you could organically come to hold those beliefs, it is impossible to convince yourself of their truth
i did, so you are wrong on the basis of me

>>15107925
Granted, I was raised Catholic, but I do 100% genuinely believe in transubstantiation and the resurrection (At least intellectually, though I am by no means a holy man). I know converts who believe the same.
If these things are not true, and obviously not true, then the entire Church is a lie, a malicious lie, and the existence of converts very much invalidates your perception of those ideas.

>>15106560
>Put it under a microscope right before you eat it, and it's still bread.

>>15107925
>I'm Greek, and was baptised in an Orthodox church as an infant.
>I'm Judaic and was circumcised into the Mosaic covenant as an infant, trust me Im telling the truth Im infallible!

>>15108259
>So you 100% genuinely, sincerely, truly honestly believe that the bread you eat in church (if you even do) literally transubstantiates into the flesh of a man named Jesus Christ who lived in the middle east 2000 years ago, who literally rose from the dead, and is supposedly the saviour of humanity, according to the one true religion of Christianity, and are not just a disillusioned young white man looking for some semblance of spirituality in the soullessness of modernity, who feels he has to pretend to be fully commited to every belief of his arbitrarily chosen religious belief system?
>Can you tell me that with absolute, true sincerity?
Yes.

>>15102480
Laughs in John was written the latest and is almost definitely fan fiction

>I'm Greek
yeah, we already know that most greeks are essentially subhuman modernists, we didn't need further confirmation.

>>15110080
>>15110097
>>15110107
>the same person
>hurrr durrrr I go around greentexting what other people say

>>15110155
>>the same person
>>hurrr durrrr I go around greentexting what other people say

>>15107925
>I'm Greek, and was baptised in an Orthodox church as an infant. Everyone that 100% genuinely believes in literal miracles like transubstantiation and resurrection are ignorant old people, and people who never gave it a second thought with a critical approach.

>>15110080
>>15110155
>>15110159
>>15110163
I wish you dumb bastards would stop spamming the board with these kind of posts.

>>15095459
Argument from incredulity

>>15095129
Bread AND body is Lutheran doctorine

bread transforms into body is Catholic doctorine

Bread is a symbol of the body is Orthodox doctorine

Retard