ｘｅｎｏｖｉｇｏｒ

@garrettham_esq @ChristySimm23 thank you for clearing that up. I was raised Catholic and mostly just avoided Catholicism until recently and want to learn more, I sincerely consider you all my brothers and sisters in Christ.

You're right. I should have been more precise. Transaccidentation is a pretty obscure idea that I failed to consider when writing my earlier description. I'm not aware of anyone who holds to it today. Transubstantiation is still the idea that the elements are physically transformed into the body and blood of Christ, but only in their substance, not their accidents.

Most Protestants reject the Real Presence in the Eucharist as unbiblical. The Didache (~100 AD) teaches it. Ignatius (~110 AD) teaches it. Every Church Father who addressed it before the Reformation taught the same. They reject what the apostles' own students taught.

@willkietz @garrettham_esq @RevBWarr thanks for sharing, I read it

@xenovigor @garrettham_esq @RevBWarr I would encourage you to the Lutheran position on the Holy Supper: bookofconcord.org/defense/of-the…

This is why I cannot believe the Holy Ghost leads Rome, the East, or their most ardent adherence. You can't lie (whether my omission or otherwise) this blazenly and claim to be in the true Church, led by the Spirit.

@CatholicCoachP @stealthxbomber that, is not so pretty lol

@xenovigor @stealthxbomber

Protestant transubstantiation.

@garrettham_esq @ChristySimm23 hrm. where that's where I'm struggling. you said they are physically transformed in your last comment. most people read that and think you are putting forth what would be described by transaccidentation.

Transubstantiation is official Catholic teaching: substance becomes Christ's body and blood, accidents (appearance, taste) of bread and wine remain. "Transaccidentation" refers to the belief that the accidents also become Christ's body and blood, which is not the teaching of the Catholic Church. Trent Session XIII (1551) is the authoritative source.

@CatholicCoachP @stealthxbomber it is pretty.

@xenovigor @stealthxbomber

@atp_celtic @garrettham_esq @RevBWarr ex-Catholic btw. learning for the sake of brotherhood and clarity

I read the entire article; like I said, none of those support transaccidentation exclusively, and the church refutes transaccidentation. it is strange that most of the Catholics on X that I'm engaging with don't know the difference but are taking up apologetics for it I do intend to learn much more about Catholicism (and Orthodoxy) but have no intention to join

@CatholicCoachP @stealthxbomber indeed he did

@xenovigor @stealthxbomber It doesn’t really matter what YOU think scripture is saying or how YOU would word it. God is good, He left us a Church.

@shemaistheway @PopePiusIXStan oh, so does that mean you don't believe that Christ is divine?

@xenovigor @PopePiusIXStan It’s a good question, but for someone else. I’m not Oneness, I’m Unitarian. :)

This is Modalism not Trinitarianism.

@CatholicCoachP @stealthxbomber yeah that's the official teaching. I still think it's a little weird, and if I had to go to lengths on what it seems Scripture is saying about it I wouldn't PRECISELY word it that way, but it's not as crazy as many on X are making it out to be (Catholic and not alike)

@xenovigor @stealthxbomber It changes substantially, not physically. Body blood soul and divinity under the appearance of bread and wine.

@Opini4oSemSal @CatholicCoachP @HoldenCCole @Catholic_bro I have heard plenty of people say it, and I also believe it. Jesus is the Word. now the letter kills and the Spirit gives life; so I don't think he is physically the words on the page, but if you comprehend him in it by faith you are literally comprehending Jesus

@CatholicCoachP @HoldenCCole @Catholic_bro I never said that, and I've never seen anyone say it.

@stealthxbomber @CatholicCoachP I'm digging into this (as a charismatic non-denom) and actually, Coach is right - the physical-transformation view is called Transaccidentalism and is not the official teaching of the church. I think actually it's the Catholics on X who are wrong about what Rome's doctrine is

@CatholicCoachP Actually the Catechism paragraph 1376 says the bread and wine are changed “entirely“ into the body and blood of Christ, so maybe take that up with Rome 🤣🤣🤣🤣

@shemaistheway @PopePiusIXStan can you please articulate how in oneness you can talk about the Father and the Son as the same person and still acknowledge the interpersonal interactions between them in the NT?

Of course it is not singular evidence, just one of many things that pushed me away from Trinitarianism. But I'm told that I can't be saved due to denying the trinity, but even most of the people who tell me that, can't clearly articulate what I'm denying. If I was purely informed by what the supposed believers in the doctrine say to me, I wouldn't be able to have a cohesive idea to even believe in. I tend to think of Trinitarians as Samaritans. They worship what don't know, but us Unitarians worship what we do know.

@atp_celtic @garrettham_esq @RevBWarr I'm finding that the material transformation of the bread and wine into flesh and blood is called Transaccidentation and is not the official teaching of the church, but on X the Catholics I'm talking to are saying it is. but that's *very* different from transubstantiation

@xenovigor @garrettham_esq @RevBWarr Hope this helps

@garrettham_esq @ChristySimm23 isn't the bread and wine physically becoming flesh and blood called Transaccidentation and not the official teaching of the church? (I really am trying to figure this out; getting contradictory explanations from Catholics on X vs. historic and Catholic sources)

No. They're not. Transubstantiation is the how, not the what. All four ancient churches believe the bread and wine physically become the body and blood of Christ, even if they don't ascribe to the Latin Church's explanation as to how the transformation takes place. Even the Eastern Catholic Churches in full communion with Rome retain the East's aversion to defining the how, while still accepting the what.

I've been fully bought-in for a while that we should regard them as the body and blood of Jesus. I'm asking specifically if it's meant to be that the bread and wine physically transforms, so that it's molecular composition is actually human tissue. I am specifically asking what it is the eyes would be seeing under a microscope. I read through all of those quotes carefully and none of them seem to insist that they are materially transformed; just that by faith, even though the senses report they are bread and wine, we should regard them as the body and blood of the Lord Jesus. btw, IMO a LOT of Evangelicals can get on board with regarding the table as the real presence in the way those quotes are describing. I am ex-Catholic and I've seen it that way for a long time

can I ask what precisely you mean by the real presence? I've been reading stuff about Catholicism and can't figure out what people are quibbling about. do Catholics teach that the bread and the cup physically transform into flesh and blood every single time, only retaining the outward appearance of bread and wine? or that there is a spiritual real presence of the body and blood that is invoked, but the physical bread and wine are unchanged? growing up in Catholic PSR, I was not taught that they materially transform into physical flesh and blood. then, in highschool, people started telling me that's what Catholics actually believe. now I am finding like a 50/50 split

@RevBWarr What specifically am I lying about, Reverend? My claim is that the Didache (~100 AD), Ignatius (~110 AD), Justin Martyr (~155 AD), and Irenaeus (~180 AD) teach the Real Presence. If one of those citations is wrong, name it and I'll retract.

@raulofmustachio @ion_eyes don't you think it was a strange thing to say in Acts 17:28 if we were supposed to be so disgusted by platonic ideals of God?

Oh we're very aware of them, whether you were or not. Many of those differences are precisely why we're latter-day saints. The Neo-Platonist notions in the creeds run so far afield of what the apostles were teaching that the notion of God is almost irreconcilable to the bible. Thank God he called prophets again, as he promised he always would in the bible.

When I was LDS, I also didn't understand it In retrospect, most LDS are not aware of all the differences between LDS & "creedal Christian" views of Jesus But when you actually study historic Christology, the differences are rather significant theologically & practically

@dviolite @Thomasdelvasto_ but it do move oxygen

@xenovigor @Thomasdelvasto_ the normal words for caaaan sound worse sometimes. 'controlled hyperventilation' doesn't move product.

anybody have experience with butekyo breathing? seems interesting in that it gives the opposite advice of most breathwork, breathingless instead of more/ more deeply

@PackageGuy747 @stackerco wait I thought fear of hell was not a Mormon thing even remotely? I'd really love to have more conversations with exmos (esp if they stayed with Jesus/NT, but either way), I literally cannot tell if I'm being gaslit by the TBMs on twitter into thinking it's not as bad as it is

I had alcohol when I first went manic. It’s the boogeyman in the church. We think anyone who has a sip is an alcoholic. Most people just drink in the evening at home and no one gets hurt. Alcoholics are rare and it depends on genetics. If you have the genes it ruins your life. I almost tried cigarettes to help my stomach with bipolar meds. Switched meds and pain went away. Still want to try them though. I pop Zyns all day long. I don’t really care for coffee. If the church decided one day coffee didn’t matter i don’t think it would make a difference. But they won’t. They have to keep everyone in fear of going to hell so they can be manipulated.

I didn’t try coffee for 2 years after losing belief in the church. Still haven’t had alcohol.