Comments for The Eucharist & Cannibalism at http://www.thecatholicthing.org , comment 1 to 25 out of 20 comments http://www.thecatholicthing.org Wed, 19 Jun 2013 04:58:05 +0100 FeedCreator 1.7.3 http://www.thecatholicthing.org/columns/2011/the-eucharist-a-cannibalism.html#comment-17382 Corpus Christi 2013. The entire Christ stays in Heaven, His Eucharistic presence is sacramental, we are not play acting a battle or thinking of the past, His Paschal Mystery is made present past is brought forward. The Professor Foley explanation above tries too hard to explain how it is and is not like cannibalism and as I read it, misses the Sacramental Jesus did say Eat My Flesh Drink My Blood so we need the Sacramental explanation to fully make it rational. I also reject that transubstantiation is our Faith, it simply makes it rational. This IS my Body/Blood is our Faith. The Jews were not thinking of cannibalism but that HE is the Bread of Life replacing Moses's daily miracle and the Temple Show Bread that David's troops ate. Idolatry, not cannibalism. - LoneThinker Sun, 02 Jun 2013 07:04:49 +0100 http://www.thecatholicthing.org/columns/2011/the-eucharist-a-cannibalism.html#comment-17381 Corpus Christi 2013. The Presence of Christ is a sacramental presence, His Risen Body remains in Heaven and we receive the entire Mystery of Faith sacramentally in the Jewish zikarron / Greek sense of anamnesis, not the popular memorial as we think back or play-act a battle. This explanation dwells too much on what cannibalism is and is not and misses the full Catholic Truth. - LoneThinker Sun, 02 Jun 2013 06:53:56 +0100 http://www.thecatholicthing.org/columns/2011/the-eucharist-a-cannibalism.html#comment-15609 Judaism, out of which Christianity arose, has few rivals in the ancient world for obligatory blood sacrifice, in which the object of sacrifice was later eaten. The continuance of this tradition in an offshoot of Judaism that was not intended at the time to have meaning or consequence to any but Jews should be no surprise. To change the object of the blood sacrifice from sheep, oxen, birds, and other animals to a human being was a novel and revolutionary innovation that has required continuous justification and rationalisation ever since. Believe it if you will, call it what you like, but the Scripture is crystal clear, the "Eucharist" is the consumption of the entire body of Jesus, and the drinking of his blood. If you believe this, and believe this is a good thing that others should do, don't hide from it - proclaim it and let others decide how they feel about it; and if God is sending folks to eternal damnation for being put off by the idea, sobeit! This is your God! This is your Church. This is who you are... - Oldscribe Sat, 02 Feb 2013 17:42:47 +0100 http://www.thecatholicthing.org/columns/2011/the-eucharist-a-cannibalism.html#comment-15253 It is important for Catholics to know this so they can defend themselves when they are confronted with this question. - First Communion Dressses Wed, 09 Jan 2013 04:15:50 +0100 http://www.thecatholicthing.org/columns/2011/the-eucharist-a-cannibalism.html#comment-10956 Your argument creates a strawman. By claiming Christian communion is not cannabilism because it is not the cannabilism of other cultures, "evil impostors" you say -- is to totally denigrate other culture practices to boost your own. It's like you're saying, Christianity is not inherently cannabilistic because it doesn't practice it in the way the evil impostors do. Can we find a justification for holy communion that is not so blatantly imperialistic and colonial? - Greig Roselli Thu, 19 Apr 2012 10:11:45 +0100 http://www.thecatholicthing.org/columns/2011/the-eucharist-a-cannibalism.html#comment-7915 EUCHARIST: It smells, taste and looks like bread but it is more than bread. It is the Body and Blood of King Jesus Christ under the appearance of bread. "Since Christ Himself has said, "This is My Body" who shall dare to doubt that It is His Body?" St. Cyril of Jerusalem - GADEL Tue, 30 Aug 2011 12:41:09 +0100 http://www.thecatholicthing.org/columns/2011/the-eucharist-a-cannibalism.html#comment-7764 Debra Barry, Jesus and His disciples definitely did not see this issue as a "tempest in a teapot." As a Catholic, it is astounding to me that you could see the true nature of the Eucharist as a small issue. Read chapter 6 of St. John's Gospel. Many of Christ's original followers were unable to accept His Eucharistic teaching that "This is my body...." (rather than merely "This is the spiritual essence of my sacrifice"). Those followers who could not accept Christ's teaching here chose to leave Him over this matter, and significantly, He didn't chase after them, saying, "Wait a minute! I didn't mean it literally!" He simply allowed them to leave, instead of affirming a view of the Eucharist that was less than He meant to teach. At every Mass, we are offered the Eucharist, and the priest specifically offers it to us as the "Body of Christ." When we say, "Amen" before receiving, we are affirming, "Yes, I believe that this is the Body, the true Body, of Christ." This is what "Amen" means-- I believe, I accept, what is being said. The doctrine of the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist is what Jesus Himself teaches about His Body and Blood, in the Eucharist, in chapter 6 of St. John's Gospel. It is what the Church has taught about the Eucharist for 2,000 years. If you don't believe it, then what are you affirming when you say "Amen," before you receive? - Christopher Lake Wed, 17 Aug 2011 00:59:25 +0100 http://www.thecatholicthing.org/columns/2011/the-eucharist-a-cannibalism.html#comment-7712 What a tempest in a teapot all this is. Is the next article on actually how many angels there are dancing on the head of a pin? No one eats actual flesh and blood and since I made my First Communion in grade 2 I understood the Eucharist as a taking in of the spiritual essence of Jesus' sacrifice. All your senses, science and common sense confirm it is not actual flesh and blood or no one would partake. Cannibalism! - Debra Barry Fri, 12 Aug 2011 18:00:20 +0100 http://www.thecatholicthing.org/columns/2011/the-eucharist-a-cannibalism.html#comment-7711 You of little faith.. God, the creator of everything can turn ordinary water in to wine, then I don't think it is a problem for him to turn ordinary bread and wine in to his body and blood. Jesus said it, and the early Church taught it and passed it down to us. AMEN! Turn, twist and wiggle, it does not change what Christ taught. - mark Fri, 12 Aug 2011 17:47:11 +0100 http://www.thecatholicthing.org/columns/2011/the-eucharist-a-cannibalism.html#comment-7649 Steven Lo Vullo, I am well aware of the citations you have given me. I never said there is anything wrong with calling the Eucharist Flesh. I am just bothered by the use of the word in regards to the Eucharist. "Body" and "Blood" I have no problems with. My only reason is that in my mind "flesh" implies something different than does "body" and "blood" in relation to the Eucharist. - Paul Catalanotto Sun, 07 Aug 2011 21:05:25 +0100 http://www.thecatholicthing.org/columns/2011/the-eucharist-a-cannibalism.html#comment-7648 Mr. Addison, you are ignorant both of Catholic teaching and the Scriptures. First, the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church doesn't teach that people are biting into parts of Jesus and grounding up his flesh and bones. She teaches that each communicant is receiving the whole Jesus, body, blood, soul, and divinity. Chewing is simply part of the human way of receiving food into one's system. If the glorified Christ's body could pass through closed doors or walls without any damage being done to his flesh or bones, why could not his body pass through the human digestive process, including chewing, without any damage being done to his flesh or bones? And if the Eucharist were only symbolic, as you say, and chewing necessarily means that Jesus bones must be broken, then Jesus left us an entirely inappropriate symbol, since he would have left us a symbol of breaking his bones by crushing the symbol with our teeth! Yours is a childish way of understanding the glorified body of the Lord and its astounding properties. Secondly, have you never read 1 Corinthians 11:27? Note carefully the particle and conjunction: "Whoever, therefore, eats the bread OR drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of profaning the body AND blood of the Lord." Note that eating the bread OR drinking the cup in an unworthy manner makes one guilty of the body AND blood of the Lord. If you eat the bread unworthily, you are guilty of both the body AND blood of the Lord. If you drink the cup unworthily, you are guilty of both the body AND blood of the Lord. This indicates that if you eat the bread, you are receiving the body AND blood of the Lord; if you drink the cup, you are receiving the body AND blood of the Lord. It is significant that the King James version seems to purposely mistranslate the Greek particle for "or" by translating it "and." The two words are very different. I think the translator knew the implications of what the Greek text was actually saying and didn't want it known to the reader who knew only English. Protestants can't get away with that any longer, and so translate the text appropriately. - Steven Lo Vullo Sun, 07 Aug 2011 20:30:13 +0100 http://www.thecatholicthing.org/columns/2011/the-eucharist-a-cannibalism.html#comment-7646 If one can accept the reality of the Incarnation (see Philipians 2:6-10, esp v.7) "he emptied himself and took the form of a slave, being born in the likeness of men."; Time Out! How can someone Who is God, "empty himself"? God knows everything, is all-powerful, never becomes tired. By contrast, Jesus does become tired, knows much that will happen (but not everything), etc. Does the Second Person of the Blessed Trinity wall Himself off from a number of the Divine attributes in order to become human? How? I accept the fact of the Incarnation; but I do not pretend to understand it. If one can accept the Incarnation as worthy of belief, the ability of God to change bread and wine into His Body and Blood should also be acceptable. Again, one can accept it w/o pretending to understand it. OTOH, the Modernist heresy starts with the assumption that miracles related in the New Testament did not happen. Paul in 1 Cor. 15 discusses the Resurrection in depth. Verses 13-19 tell the logical consequences of denying the Resurrection. "If our hopes in Christ are limited to this life only, we are the most pitiable of men" (V. 19) Why would Modernists, who deny miracles - including the Resurrection of Jesus - claim to be Christian? If the Resurrection is real, and Jesus taught what is discussed in John's gospel, Chapter 6, He does have the ability to do what He claimed. TeaPot562 - TeaPot562 Sun, 07 Aug 2011 18:48:04 +0100 http://www.thecatholicthing.org/columns/2011/the-eucharist-a-cannibalism.html#comment-7645 Richard, just to add to my last comment, this aim of the Lord to concretize what is eaten, his flesh, is also behind his words, "For my flesh is real food and my blood is real drink." This is from a Protestant translation, the NIV. - Steven Lo Vullo Sun, 07 Aug 2011 16:57:58 +0100 http://www.thecatholicthing.org/columns/2011/the-eucharist-a-cannibalism.html#comment-7644 I think many Catholics are poorly catechized on this doctrine, hence their weak faith. Several things always struck me about John's rendering of our Lord's discourse on the Eucharist. It seems to me that most Catholics are shocked at the rejection of the Doctrine by many of his disciples. I am more amazed that any of them believed what He said at all. Clearly much more was said than we are being told. At the very least the Holy Spirit was at work. And did the Apostles and a few other disciples have a true understanding of what Christ was teaching? It is hard to believe they had the clear understanding we have today after two thousand years of theological discussion and Councilar Definitions. If I had been alive at that time I could not have accepted it, it is hard even now, even with all I now know. - Linus Sun, 07 Aug 2011 16:49:38 +0100 http://www.thecatholicthing.org/columns/2011/the-eucharist-a-cannibalism.html#comment-7643 Richard, the best New Testament lexicon, A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and other Early Christian Literature, has this comment on the Greek word in question: "J[ohn] uses it to offset any tendencies to ‘spiritualize’ the concept so that nothing physical remains in it, in what many hold to be the language of the Lord’s Supper." So the purpose is to concretize and give tangible and definite form to what is eaten, namely, the flesh of the Lord. - Steven Lo Vullo Sun, 07 Aug 2011 16:44:56 +0100 http://www.thecatholicthing.org/columns/2011/the-eucharist-a-cannibalism.html#comment-7642 This arcticle/essay helped me. Thanks. I have occasionally pondered the cannibalism question. The one question I have is this: I always understood that in John chapter 6, one of the words that Jesus uses for 'eat' can as easily be translated as 'munch' or 'gnaw', words that, to me, invite cannibal imagery. Why does the Lord use that word? - Richard Sun, 07 Aug 2011 16:07:06 +0100 http://www.thecatholicthing.org/columns/2011/the-eucharist-a-cannibalism.html#comment-7640 As I've mentioned on other sites, the Lord's Supper is symbolic. If it is said, "Not one of His bones shall be broken," then what happens EVERY time you crush the host with your teeth? Answer: If it's literal, then you crush His bones and that would mean the Scripture has been broken. Also, why didn't the disciples have either the bread or wine? Answer: They knew that the "life of the flesh is in the blood," Isiah 53, etc. So, they and everyone else other than the RCC had both. - addison Sun, 07 Aug 2011 14:37:16 +0100 http://www.thecatholicthing.org/columns/2011/the-eucharist-a-cannibalism.html#comment-7639 Mr. Catalanotto, I am surprised that you are bothered by the designation "flesh" for the body of Christ. Not only is this the way Jesus himself referred to the Eucharist (John 6:51-56, where the Greek word is sarx), but it was also a designation for the Eucharist found in the Apostolic Father St. Ignatius, who even says that the term separated the orthodox from the heretical: "I take no pleasure in corruptible food or the pleasures of this life. I want the bread of God, which is the flesh [sarx] of Christ who is of the seed of David; and for drink I want his blood, which is incorruptible love.” (St. Ignatius, Romans 7:3) “Take care, therefore, to participate in one Eucharist (for there is one flesh [sarx] of our Lord Jesus Christ, and one cup that leads to unity through his blood; there is one altar, just as there is one bishop, together with the council of presbyters and the deacons, my fellow servants), in order that whatever you do, you do in accordance with God.” (St. Ignatius, Philadelphians 4:1) “They [the heretics] abstain from Eucharist and prayer because they refuse to acknowledge that the Eucharist is the flesh [sarx] of our Savior Jesus Christ, which suffered for our sins and which the Father by his goodness raised up.” (St.Ignatius, Smyrnaeans 6:2) Note in this last citation that it was Jesus "flesh" that both suffered for our sins AND was raised up by the Father. It is this resurrected flesh of which we partake in the Eucharist. This is clearly proclaimed in the Catechism: "1384 The Lord addresses an invitation to us, urging us to receive him in the sacrament of the Eucharist: '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.'" "1391 Holy Communion augments our union with Christ. The principal fruit of receiving the Eucharist in Holy Communion is an intimate union with Christ Jesus. Indeed, the Lord said: 'He who eats my flesh and drinks my blood abides in me, and I in him.' Life in Christ has its foundation in the Eucharistic banquet: 'As the living Father sent me, and I live because of the Father, so he who eats me will live because of me.'” "1392 What material food produces in our bodily life, Holy Communion wonderfully achieves in our spiritual life. Communion with the flesh of the risen Christ, a flesh 'given life and giving life through the Holy Spirit,' preserves, increases, and renews the life of grace received at Baptism. This growth in Christian life needs the nourishment of Eucharistic Communion, the bread for our pilgrimage until the moment of death, when it will be given to us as viaticum." "1524 In addition to the Anointing of the Sick, the Church offers those who are about to leave this life the Eucharist as viaticum. Communion in the body and blood of Christ, received at this moment of 'passing over' to the Father, has a particular significance and importance. It is the seed of eternal life and the power of resurrection, according to the words of the Lord: 'He who eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day.' The sacrament of Christ once dead and now risen, the Eucharist is here the sacrament of passing over from death to life, from this world to the Father." - Steven Lo Vullo Sun, 07 Aug 2011 11:41:11 +0100 http://www.thecatholicthing.org/columns/2011/the-eucharist-a-cannibalism.html#comment-7638 The title sounds needlessly confusing. Perhaps you should change it to something like "Is the Eucharist Cannibalism?" - George Sun, 07 Aug 2011 11:14:18 +0100 http://www.thecatholicthing.org/columns/2011/the-eucharist-a-cannibalism.html#comment-7636 From Dictionary.Com - a cannibal is "a person who eats human flesh, especially for magical or religious purposes, as among certain tribal peoples." I can see why you'd want to defend yourself from the charge that "you are a cannibal" - it not really very nice to be called that. But, the arguments you have here are not very convincing, and certainly based more in feelings and teachings that in actual fact. In other words, only a believer would buy those arguments, and they are not the ones that are calling Catholics cannibals. It's all point of view. I suspect the "Binderwurs of central India" would come up with similar arguments to justify their cannibalism also (as they evidently did it to please their goddess, Kali). I'm not posting to condemn or pile on (after all, I think it's just a wafer, and the cannibalism argument seems silly to me). I can see how the arguments could be comforting to a believer. In fact, the only thing I *really* objected to in the article is this: "Just as all pagan blood-sacrifices were distorted knock-offs of the one true Sacrifice of Calvary (even if they took place before the Crucifixion), so too all ritual acts of cannibalism are a distorted attempt to replace the Bread of Life with the mammon of one’s own iniquity." I mean...even before the Crucifixion? How can you draw that parallel? If you can take credit for all acts of sacrifice in any time period, and say that they are trying to imperfectly mimic the Crucifixion, you can pretty much justify anything. By that logic, all ancient societies - every one - should have had some sort of sacrifice in order to mimic the great sacrifice that was to come. - Fred Sun, 07 Aug 2011 09:49:51 +0100