File: 61SQkfKCsQL.jpg (110 KB, 907x1360)

110 KB JPG

>*blocks your path*

Only Zwinglians deny the real presence.

>>18176928
Nigga I'm not even Protestant but you have about 700 years worth of scholastic gymnastics that split the finest hairs to argue that your doctrines could potentially in a particular way hold rational water. Based on other doctrines, of course.

>>18176942
Stop conflating your crypto-gnostic heresy with the real presence.

If Jesus' body is not present in the Eucharist, he is not fully present.
Because he came in the flesh and was raised in the flesh.
You are separating between the divine and human aspects in the nature of Christ.

Calvinists deny that his body is present in the Eucharist for absolutely no good reason, whereas apostolic Christians affirm that the substance of the Eucharistic host truly does undergo a change into the body, soul, and divinity of Christ through the blessed consecration.

>>18176928
Enjoy burning. God hates you.

>>18177023
He’s not and that much is empirically provable
>inb4 nooooooooo science is for Reddit
This is why you only convert Africans and any white man with an interest in the Bible goes Calvinist (or some snowflake shit like Gnostic)

>>18176928
Man is Catholicism that stupid

>>18176928
L. Don't exist just to check randoms who will get it right but you won't… ever… get it together.

File: Catholics.webm (1.68 MB, 576x1024)

1.68 MB WEBM

>>18176928
Go dance with your golden calf, pablo.

If Jesus didnt state if his body was present in the Eucharist then its irrelevant. He said do it in remembrance of him and thats all that matters.
Stating "this is my body and this is my blood" as you hand out food could easily be a metaphor. But this is also God, so it could also be literal despite that not being possible if anyone else said it. Feels dumb to argue over.

>>18176928
>the Eucharist is idolatry
do Prots really? I've never heard this hot take irl

>>18177227
never heard a Protestant say that. perhaps baptists and pentecostal and other american fake christians who preach to buy jets

File: zoomer tradcath.png (298 KB, 698x530)

298 KB PNG

>>18176928

File: 1754560427554.png (174 KB, 1170x2532)

174 KB PNG

>>18177229
>American fake Christians
they're crypto-jews, really

>>18177023
>crypto-gnostic
Whenever someone hits you with the "Calvinism is Gnosticism" line you know you're talking to someone who is damn ignorant and damn proud of it.
>You are separating between the divine and human aspects in the nature of Christ.
There is no disunity between the natures of Christ, so we cannot see here is the human Jesus and there is the divine Jesus, since there is only one Jesus, yet as far as respects His natures the divine nature is not the human nature, nor should be conflated with it. So there is one human and divine Christ, but His human body is located at the right hand of God while His divine being fills all things. You and your tradition of men depart from the teaching of scripture by confusing the natures and denying that Christ is true man.
>Calvinists deny that his body is present in the Eucharist
This is a calumny, Christ's body is present in the sacrament in that the bread is rightly called His body because of the sacramental union between sign and thing signified, by which it makes His body present to the intellects of God's people, and the Holy Spirit makes His true body present to their souls (though without penetration of substance). But that kind of presence where Christ is said to be present in the room, and the bread is said to be the very same body which He assumed from the virgin, this presence is a denial of His ascension and second coming, since it says He did not ascend to heaven but remains on the earth, and will not return but is present even now. This kind of presence Christ warned us against when He said "if anyone says to you, ‘Look, here is the Christ!’ or ‘There he is!’ do not believe it."
>apostolic Christians
By "apostolic Christians" you mean Romanists, who are not rightly called apostolic or Christian, because this separates that cult from every other thing which calls itself Christian.

crazy how all catholic countries are garbage dumps and protestant countries are better in every single way

>>18176928
>Drink. This is my blood.
>Eat. This is my body.
The act of drinking and eating with God's congregation is Jesus Christ's blood and body. That's the point of 1 Cor 10 and why's called "communion".

>>18177290
The Eucharist and Incarnation are intrinsically connected as concerns the body of Christ as flesh.
Justin Martyr testifies to this understanding as early as the second century.
Christ came in the flesh, and it is this body which is received in the Eucharist. It's not the idea of his body or a spiritual presence alone as the Gnostics claim.

He is fully present, body and blood, soul and divinity.

>there is no disunity between the natures of Christ
And your the very language you use to frame this conclusion contradicts the premise. Your choice in words "natures" actually implies disunity.

There is as much separation in the nature of Christ as there is between the hypostases of the Godhead.
Which is to say, they are totally united.
Yes, the person's of the Trinity are referred to as hypostases.

>it makes His body present to the intellects of
This is why people call you gnostic.
You don't receive the body of Christ as an idea, but through your own body.
It unites your body to Christ's, not your mind to his body. Your entire essence becomes cleaved to him.

You have made a categorical error.
This fixation on the idea of a Christ without flesh is something you share with gnostics.

>This kind of presence Christ warned us against when He said "if anyone says to you, ‘Look, here is the Christ!’ or ‘There he is!’ do not believe it."
This is a mockery of warning.

The verse you refer to is from Revelation, and pertains to the coming time of tribulation. Which event is preceded by clear signs.
During which many will be deceived.

You'd have to say that the church has been in the tribulation since the beginning for your accusation of the Eucharist being idolatry to stand.

It's not the apostolic tradition in error here, it's yours. Because one comes from the deposit of faith, and the other comes from the vain theorizing of modernist anti-clerical polemics.

cont

>>18177290
>true body present to their souls
In fact, it is his soul that is united with yours in the agape.

He is a man, like you are.
Unity with him must therefore take the form of a man, and there are two principle elements involved.

The visible, which is our body.
And the invisible, our animating spirit which is the breath of God.
Christ has both of these elements to his humanity, and the bridal union that occurs between him and his church corresponds, like to like.

It is comprehensive.
Both these human elements are totally infused with his divinity.

>presence is a denial of His ascension and second coming
His second coming is said to be immanent.
Do you know the full meaning of the word "immanence"?

It correctly relates to "transcendence".
These properties belong to God, and are communicated between the Father and the Son.

The second coming is a specific event where Christ overthrows the kingdoms of the world.
And he also said, that until the end of the age (the new age is the one that begins with his second coming, and it will have no end) *he would be with his church*.
As in, continuously with them.
Until he comes again in glory.

>Romanists, who are not rightly called apostolic or Christian, because this separates that cult from every other thing which calls itself Christian

You clearly don't know the first thing about apostolicity.
Getting into how far your mode of worship has deviated from the kind recognized by St Augustine is outside the scope of this reply, but your distain for the altar is sufficient to give you an idea.

>>18177402
>The Eucharist and Incarnation are intrinsically connected
1. Christ was true man before and without the Eucharist 2. The fable of transubstantiation has nothing to do with either one
>Justin Martyr testifies to this understanding as early as the second century.
No he doesn't.
>Christ came in the flesh, and it is this body which is received in the Eucharist
Amen, the believer receives the true body of the Lord which He assumed from the virgin unto eternal life. But this is done spiritually, by faith. The absurd reference to Gnosticism does not merit reply.
>Your choice in words "natures" actually implies disunity.
My choice of words is the same as the council of Chalcedon.
>There is as much separation in the nature of Christ as there is between the hypostases of the Godhead
The persons of the Trinity are absolutely identical and indistinguishable according to essence. If one supposes that as essences the humanity and deity of Christ are as identical as the Trinity then they are guilty of the heresy of Eutyches, denying the incarnation and reducing Christ's body to a spiritual phantom.
>This is why people call you gnostic
No, they do that because they're idiots
>You don't receive the body of Christ as an idea
Nor did I say you do, only that what the bread does is testify to Christ who is received by faith.
>It unites your body to Christ's
This is the type of blasphemy Romanists usually try to avoid (though I grant it is consistent) as if Christ was consumed and digested.
>the idea of a Christ without flesh
Now you're just hallucinating.
>The verse you refer to is from Revelation
No sir, it is from the Gospels and was quoted verbatim. This betrays how much actual biblical knowledge you have and how much knowledge of Christ, how reconcilable your paganism is with Christianity.
>It's not the apostolic tradition in error here
I agree, the apostolic tradition is not error. The human tradition of the Roman church however is damnably in error.

>>18177426
>In fact
What follows is some kind of incomprehensible mysticism the relevance of which I cannot apprehend.
>His second coming is said to be immanent
This is the confusion of immanent with a homonym, imminent, meaning about to occur at any moment.
>The second coming is a specific event where Christ overthrows the kingdoms of the world.
This is not the meaning of "second coming", but the Creed says "He will come again to judge the living and the dead". This accords with the truth of scripture, while your reinterpretation does not, but is a tacit concession that you do deny this article of the faith and remove yourself from the old Creed of Christendom. Christ promised that He would be with His Church, but He is present by His Spirit, and not in the flesh.
>You clearly don't know the first thing about apostolicity.
It's found in the bible and not the imaginations of priests
>Getting into how far your mode of worship has deviated from the kind recognized by St Augustine is outside the scope of this reply, but your distain for the altar is sufficient to give you an idea.
Augustine knew nothing of the abomination of worshipping a piece of bread or offering it as a sacrifice for sins, and he unequivocally belongs to my camp in this debate. He very likely would have advocated the suppression of Romanism with the power of the civil state. The use of the term "altar" in patrisric literature refers not to a literal altar and sacrifice as in the Roman church but the table is figuratively said to be an altar because on this the play of Christ's passion is performed. Likewise when they call it a table this is literal and not figurative.

Fully united man AND God by his own nature, without confusion or mixing of their conceptual independence. That is to say, without conflating the natures of God and man but recognizing that they are conjoined in the person of the incarnate Son.

Categorically speaking, two things are true.
God is not man.
Man is not God.

But *this* man is God, *this* God became a man.

Not the other way around, man did not become God.
God condescended to man, creating him and then becoming him, adopting and sanctifying him.

Because these properties are communicated between God and man through the Christ nature we can truly say that God himself suffered, died, and was buried.
The divine in Christ suffered the same stripes and mockery as his human body did.

If there were a separation in his nature, this would not follow. Only Christ the man would have suffered, not Christ the God.

>>18177449
>The divine in Christ suffered the same stripes and mockery as his human body did.

>If there were a separation in his nature, this would not follow. Only Christ the man would have suffered, not Christ the God.
This is directly the heresy of Monophysitism. This is to deny the hypostatic union, and this is a false Christ. The deity of Christ was not passible, according to His divine nature He neither did nor could suffer, but only in His flesh. We may rightly say it was God who suffered, but only in the sense the person of God assumed flesh to Himself which suffered. To say God Himself properly according to His deity suffered is heresy.

File: IMG_1895.png (79 KB, 1360x938)

79 KB PNG

Does the fact that Catholicism is dead means the gates have prevailed, thus fulfilling their status as a failed religion?

>>18177448
>>18177444
You don't know what agape means because it's foreign to you.
This language which was so obvious to Paul is lost on you.

>>18177448
>found in the bible
Jesus gave authority to men, not a book.

These men would write, and later men with the authority Jesus handed down would authorize these writings as canon.
This is your bible.
As Jesus was sent by his Father, and had authority thereof, so did he send his apostles with authority. And they repeat his pattern.

The bible does not give you authority.
You cannot receive a position of trust from the book.
If it could, any heathen or atheist who has read the bible could claim authority over the church.

>He is present by His Spirit, and not in the flesh.
He is fully present as a man and as God, since there is no separation in his nature.

And since men are both body and soul, both his body and soul are fully present through the Eucharist.

Your protest that he is not present physically is an echo of the gnostic heresy.

>reducing Christ's body to a spiritual phantom
This is precisely your position however.

Christ said this is my body, you say this is his spirit.
Paul says that people eat damnnation when they do not discern the body of Christ in the Eucharist, you say it is the symbol of the body of Christ in the Eucharist instead.

>the same as the council of Chalcedon
They are not, otherwise you would not pretend at separating the visible and invisible aspects inherent to the human nature of Christ.
It would be akin to separating his humanity from his divinity.

>was quoted verbatim
Even if I misremembered a quote it still pertains to the tribulation.
Do you think the tribulation has always been in effect?

>No he doesn't.
He does. See below.

>the confusion of immanent with a homonym, imminent
It's not.
They're really pronounced exactly the same way for a reason, it's because their subjects are deeply interrelated.

cont

>>18177448
>Augustine knew nothing of the abomination of worshipping a piece of bread or offering it as a sacrifice for sins, and he unequivocally belongs to my camp

You haven't read his rebuke of the Manichean Faustus. Book twenty, on his response to Faustus' accusation of saint veneration as idolatry.

"It is true that Christians pay religious honor to the memory of the martyrs, both to excite us to imitate them and to obtain a share in their merits, and the assistance of their prayers. But we build altars not to any martyr, but to the God of martyrs, although it is to the memory of the martyrs. No one officiating at the altar in the saints' burying-place ever says, We bring an offering to you, O Peter! Or O Paul! Or O Cyprian! The offering is made to God, who gave the crown of martyrdom, while it is in memory of those thus crowned. The emotion is increased by the associations of the place, and love is excited both towards those who are our examples, and towards Him by whose help we may follow such examples. We regard the martyrs with the same affectionate intimacy that we feel towards holy men of God in this life, when we know that their hearts are prepared to endure the same suffering for the truth of the gospel. There is more devotion in our feeling towards the martyrs, because we know that their conflict is over; and we can speak with greater confidence in praise of those already victors in heaven, than of those still combating here. What is properly divine worship, which the Greeks call latria, and for which there is no word in Latin, both in doctrine and in practice, we give only to God."

>we build altars not to any martyr, but to the God of martyrs
cont

>>18177458
It is not heresy to say that God bled, that his blood is divine.

That when we are washed in the precious blood of divinity, it is that divine grace in the nature of his blood which is effective to save.

>>18177444
t. Justin Martyr

"And this food is called among us Εὐχαριστία [the Eucharist], of which no one is allowed to partake but the man who believes that the things which we teach are true, and who has been washed with the washing that is for the remission of sins, and unto regeneration, and who is so living as Christ has enjoined. For not as common bread and common drink do we receive these; but in like manner as Jesus Christ our Saviour, having been made flesh by the Word of God, had both flesh and blood for our salvation, so likewise have 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.[71][72]"

6 As ye have therefore received Christ Jesus the Lord, so walk ye in him:

7 Rooted and built up in him, and stablished in the faith, as ye have been taught, abounding therein with thanksgiving.

8 Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ.

9 For in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily.


>in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily

>all the fulness of the Godhead
>dwelleth bodily
>in him
bodily