Another day where millions of Christians reject the doctrine of real presence. Im gonna be sick.

Another day where millions of “Christians” reject the doctrine of real presence. I’m gonna be sick.

Schizophrenic Conspiracy Theorist Shirt $21.68

Homeless People Are Sexy Shirt $21.68

Schizophrenic Conspiracy Theorist Shirt $21.68

  1. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    Bread and wine is bread and wine, idolatry is cringe.

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      If its just bread and wine then why can nobody eat if it except the pious?

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        I can walk my ass right up to that pedestal and your fricking crackers and drink your juice no problem.

        • 1 year ago
          Anonymous

          You call yourself a Christian and use such profane language regarding holy things? What’s next, you’re going to make crude comments about Mary’s butt?

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            No, i don't call myself a christian.

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      >we been taught that the food which is blessed by the prayer of His word, and from which our blood and flesh by transmutation are nourished, is the flesh and blood of that Jesus who was made flesh.

  2. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    He is real, but you have the babbys version of it
    It’s ok, you’re not the first heretic

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      The catholic version is the baby version?

  3. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    I accept the Reformed understanding of the real presence but I reject transubstantiation.

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      So what’s your point?

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        I am simply stating my belief. Hopefully to dissuade the notion that "real presence" = "transubstantiation." Transubstantiation is illogical on its own terms and contradicts Christ's words "the bread that I shall give is my flesh".

        • 1 year ago
          Anonymous

          (cont.)
          >illogical on its own terms
          Transubstantiation is the doctrine that the substance of the bread/wine changes into flesh/blood, but the physical properties, or accidents, remain that of bread and wine. Now the physical properties do not transfer to the new substance. For example bread is made of wheat, but when the substance changes to Christ's flesh, it is incorrect to say that Christ's flesh is made of wheat. So the properties remain proper to the original substance. Now location is a physical property, the location of mass in space, and so location remains proper to the bread/wine. So there is not a way within the concept of transubstantiation to transfer the physical property of location to the new substance of flesh/blood. There is no logical device whereby the flesh/blood may be located upon the altar. The only way is to hold that Christ's real presence in the sacrament is distinct from the change of substance, which overthrows the notion that transubstantiation is necessary for Christ to be present.
          >contradicts Christ's words "the bread that I shall give is my flesh".
          Christ says that the bread "is" his flesh. Now in transubstantiation, the bread ceases to be bread and becomes only flesh, as it no longer retains the substance of bread. He does not say that the bread "becomes" flesh or that the bread "is now" flesh, which could signify a change of substance, but simply that it "is" flesh. So there is no way to say that bread "is" something else, if there no bread present.

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      What's that, explain pls.

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        Westminster Confession of Faith
        29.7 Worthy receivers, outwardly partaking of the visible elements, in this sacrament, do then also, inwardly by faith, really and indeed, yet not carnally and corporally but spiritually, receive, and feed upon, Christ crucified, and all benefits of his death: the body and blood of Christ being then, not corporally or carnally, in, with, or under the bread and wine; yet, as really, but spiritually, present to the faith of believers in that ordinance, as the elements themselves are to their outward senses.

        The Reformed understanding of real presence is a rejection of real presence.

        It isn't.

        • 1 year ago
          Anonymous

          Not a christian, but wouldn't one reform something because they reject a premise therein?
          But what do I know?

        • 1 year ago
          Anonymous

          It is, real presence = physical presence.

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            False. See

            (cont.)
            >illogical on its own terms
            Transubstantiation is the doctrine that the substance of the bread/wine changes into flesh/blood, but the physical properties, or accidents, remain that of bread and wine. Now the physical properties do not transfer to the new substance. For example bread is made of wheat, but when the substance changes to Christ's flesh, it is incorrect to say that Christ's flesh is made of wheat. So the properties remain proper to the original substance. Now location is a physical property, the location of mass in space, and so location remains proper to the bread/wine. So there is not a way within the concept of transubstantiation to transfer the physical property of location to the new substance of flesh/blood. There is no logical device whereby the flesh/blood may be located upon the altar. The only way is to hold that Christ's real presence in the sacrament is distinct from the change of substance, which overthrows the notion that transubstantiation is necessary for Christ to be present.
            >contradicts Christ's words "the bread that I shall give is my flesh".
            Christ says that the bread "is" his flesh. Now in transubstantiation, the bread ceases to be bread and becomes only flesh, as it no longer retains the substance of bread. He does not say that the bread "becomes" flesh or that the bread "is now" flesh, which could signify a change of substance, but simply that it "is" flesh. So there is no way to say that bread "is" something else, if there no bread present.

            Not a christian, but wouldn't one reform something because they reject a premise therein?
            But what do I know?

            What do you mean? "Real presence" is a term that has to be defined. If one says "Christ is present in the sacrament," the follow-up is "In what sense?"

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            Flesh and blood are physical substances, and therefore it cannot be the flesh and blood of Christ if it isn't physical.

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            Religion is magic and they "transmute" bread into god.

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            >Yay! we fooled God
            It's purely symbolic and has nothing to do with "fooling" God.

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            Ok, buddy. Y'all are frickin sick.

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            Well if you have a definition and reform it wouldn't be because you reject the initial definition? I'm not a christian so your response means little to me.

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            Then I'm not going to argue with you.

            Flesh and blood are physical substances, and therefore it cannot be the flesh and blood of Christ if it isn't physical.

            This is actually a rather silly objection. You say that they are physical substances -- well no they aren't, because the substance is something distinct from the physical properties. This hylomorphism is the core of transubstantiation. Also the physical properties of the bread/wine are retained -- the flesh/blood is only present in a non-physical sense, in the substance which is distinct from the physical properties. Every physical property remains that proper to bread and wine.

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            Substance, property, call it what you want, the body and blood of Christ are either physically present or they aren't present. A spirit has neither body nor blood so they can't be spiritually present.

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            I already refuted this. A substance isn't a physical property. You also can't even locate the substance at the physical properties due to location being a physical property that doesn't translate to the substance. The most you can say is that it is "physical" in the sense that it is received by a physical action (eating/drinking) which is what we believe as well. Your doctrine simply adds multiple layers of nonsense on top of that.

            I'm christian argue with me.
            Reformation is denial.

            We deny any false accretions (such as transubstantiation) which have developed over the centuries, yes. Transubstantiation, this specific explanation of what is occurring in the Eucharist, is something that developed over time.

            Going to bed so can't reply for a while.

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            >A spirit has neither body nor blood so they can't be spiritually present.
            One more thing, I am quite sure that Catholic theology does not actually separate out the flesh and blood in the way this implies, but rather holds that the bread and the wine each have the full presence of Christ. That is why it was customary for centuries to deny the laity the wine. It was held that they were fully receiving Christ only by eating the bread, so the wine was drunk only by the priest. Another reason this is nonsense.

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            >but rather holds that the bread and the wine each have the full presence of Christ.
            This doesn't contradict what I said. The body and blood of Christ do not have their own spirits, and the spirit of Christ does not have its own body and blood, but the spirit of Christ is present in both the body and blood of Christ.

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            Here is how a Lutheran explains the nature of Christ's presence in the Eucharist. This is actually quite close to the Catholic view, particularly in that he repeatedly characterizes the presence as "substantial" in nature:

            .JordanBCooper

            >Substance, property, call it what you want, the body and blood of Christ are either physically present or they aren't present.
            He was prompted to make the video to respond to someone who claimed Lutherans believed Christ was "physically" present in Communion. To address this, among other things, he distinguishes between the different modes of Christ's presence, as seen in scripture.

            Catholics would agree with him in holding that it is not correct to say that Christ is "physically" present in the Eucharist.

            He also, helpfully, distinguishes the Reformed understanding of Christ's presence in Communion with the Lutheran view.

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            I'm christian argue with me.
            Reformation is denial.

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      The Reformed understanding of real presence is a rejection of real presence.

  4. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    If you don't believe in real presence AND sola fide you're not a real Christian.

  5. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    >Oyishners en masse decide they’re going to be Christian
    >pick one of the only sects where it’s an actual top down organization with definitive rules and beliefs you need to accept to be a member
    >don’t believe it
    I want you all to get a psych evaluation. You couldn’t make less sense.

  6. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    A spiritual presence is very real

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      I got some ritz bits and md 20/20 that will blow your mind

  7. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    Catholics and Orthodox literally worship a piece of bread as their god.

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      yes

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        This is an easy tell that your theology has gone astray -- it leads to a logical conclusion that you worship man-made objects.

  8. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    transubstantiation sounds like a term Catholic homies made up because they couldn’t find any measurable way bread and wine changes so they came up with a word that means that, by definition, allows for wine and bread to change into blood and flesh in all ways except for ways that are actually empirical

  9. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    Going BEYOND the VEIL of Fear-Based Religious Doctrines

  10. 1 year ago
    Anonymous
  11. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    Imagine worshiping a israeli supremacist god

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *