Technically it’s the whole change of the substance of the Eucharist which is some sneaky wordplay. It’s even specifically stated the outward characteristics remain unchanged so it’s metaphorical ritualistic cannibalism at most, and even that is a reductive surface level misunderstanding. Any catholic would think you’re kinda dumb for thinking the communion is even related to cannibalism. It’s not considered actual flesh and blood, it’s magic bread and wine that’s magically infused with divinity so when you eat and drink it you more or less reswear your allegiance to the J-dog and his socialist ways. Don’t get me wrong, it’s all still bonkers dumb and logically inconsistent but no catholic theologian will take seriously the claim that it’s actual flesh and actual blood.
Especially since it very obviously does not physically turn into flesh and blood. Any priest with half an eye would see that. It’s reconciling it with what transubstantiation is supposed to do in doctrine that’s the hard part.
Well the doctrine specifies the whole no outward characteristics changing part so it’s just a contradiction, but faith and logic are mutually exclusive.
I don’t understand why anybody does communion or baptism or any of it. I mean, I do because it’s all bonding and stuff, but if you look at the religion on paper, all you need to do is accept Jesus and you’re saved. You don’t even have to go to church!
Technically it’s the whole change of the substance of the Eucharist which is some sneaky wordplay. It’s even specifically stated the outward characteristics remain unchanged so it’s metaphorical ritualistic cannibalism at most, and even that is a reductive surface level misunderstanding. Any catholic would think you’re kinda dumb for thinking the communion is even related to cannibalism. It’s not considered actual flesh and blood, it’s magic bread and wine that’s magically infused with divinity so when you eat and drink it you more or less reswear your allegiance to the J-dog and his socialist ways. Don’t get me wrong, it’s all still bonkers dumb and logically inconsistent but no catholic theologian will take seriously the claim that it’s actual flesh and actual blood.
Especially since it very obviously does not physically turn into flesh and blood. Any priest with half an eye would see that. It’s reconciling it with what transubstantiation is supposed to do in doctrine that’s the hard part.
Well the doctrine specifies the whole no outward characteristics changing part so it’s just a contradiction, but faith and logic are mutually exclusive.
I don’t understand why anybody does communion or baptism or any of it. I mean, I do because it’s all bonding and stuff, but if you look at the religion on paper, all you need to do is accept Jesus and you’re saved. You don’t even have to go to church!
That depends on the denomination, like that doesn’t fly in catholicism.
I forgot that different denominations have diffident requirements. I always thought it was pretty sketchy having the barrier to entry be that low.