Are we cannibals?

[Brian_Culliton]

Justin never said the bread becomes the flesh of Christ and the wine becomes his blood; he said we eat bread in remembrance of his body that suffered for us, and drink of the cup in remembrance of Christ’s blood that was shed. He explicitly stated that they partake of bread and wine mixed with water.

How many times have I heard Catholics defend doctrines that have no apostolic evidence say, “The ECFs only needed to mention these doctrines when heresy or opposition arose.” Well, was this not the perfect opportunity to explain what Christian believed concerning the Eucharist? If Justin believed the elements transubstantiated into the body and blood of Christ why did he not say so? Instead he explained that what they have been taught is the body and blood of Christ, is actually bread and wine which they partake in remembrance of Him.

If the emperor understood Justin, as you seem to understand him, the accusations against the Christians would have been confirmed in his mind. Instead, the emperor conceded that there was no valid accusation to be found and promised worse punishment to those who falsely accused them.

 

[Cat_Herder]

Instead he explained that what they have been taught is the body and blood of Christ, is actually bread and wine which they partake in remembrance of Him.

He did NOT say:

the food which has been made into the Eucharist by the Eucharistic prayer set down by him, and by the change of which our blood and flesh is nurtured, is bread and wine.

He said:

"the food which has been made into the Eucharist by the Eucharistic prayer set down by him, and by the change of which our blood and flesh is nurtured, is both the flesh and the blood of that incarnated Jesus."

Ignatius said:

“Take note of those who hold heterodox opinions on the grace of Jesus Christ which has come to us, and see how contrary their opinions are to the mind of God. . . . They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer because they do not confess that the Eucharist is the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ, flesh which suffered for our sins and which that Father, in his goodness, raised up again. They who deny the gift of God are perishing in their disputes” (Letter to the Smyrnaeans 6:2–7:1 [A.D. 110]).

If the emperor understood Justin, as you seem to understand him, the accusations against the Christians would have been confirmed in his mind. Instead, the emperor conceded that there was no valid accusation to be found and promised worse punishment to those who falsely accused them.

The emperor was a pagan. He did not believe that there was a Jesus Christ. So all of these bold explanations of the Real Presence didn’t win him over, not because the disciples didn’t intend to explain the doctrine, but because the emperor didn’t accept what they had to say except as the ramblings of an obscure sect.

P.S. If the emperor conceded there was “no valid accusation,” why is he called Justin Martyr?

 

[AlexNumeroUno]

Are Catholics cannibals?

Here’s a line of reasoning open to the Catholic that seems plausible to me. Philosophers sometimes talk about “thick concepts” – concepts that include both a descriptive and a normative (moral) element. For example, the concept of murder is a thick concept. Murder is not merely an act of killing; it’s an unlawful or immoral act of killing. So the concept of murder contains both a descriptive element (the killing of someone) and a normative element (the unlawfulness/immorality of that act of killing).

It seems plausible to me that the concept of cannibal is a thick concept. Cannibalism is plausibly analyzed as an immoral act of consuming human flesh. (Dictionaries, I think, tend to say that cannibalism is just the consuming of human flesh. But don’t take dictionaries as having the final word when it comes to conceptual analysis. An old philosophy professor of mine once said that dictionary entries are simply cases of bad philosophy).

If I’m right in thinking that cannibalism is a thick concept, the Catholic has the following response to the question of whether Catholics are cannibals. The consumption of the Eucharist is indeed an act of consuming human flesh. But it’s not an immoral/unlawful case of consuming human flesh. So Catholics aren’t cannibals (at least, not in virtue of consuming the Eucharist).

Just some thoughts from a friendly protestant.

-Alex

 

[Timothy17]

I eat Jesus and He is the yummy-ness of my soul

Pax !
Tim

P.S - Sacramentally, of course !

 

[Bran_Stark]

I thought cannibals eat the flesh of dead persons. We consume the Living Christ, a Divine (not human) Person, with both a Human and Divine Nature.

Doubtless cannibals usually kill their meals before they eat, but I’m sure it does happen at times that they just tear off body parts from the still (for a while at least) victim. If you don’t mind the thought.

Are Catholics cannibals?

Here’s a line of reasoning open to the Catholic that seems plausible to me. Philosophers sometimes talk about “thick concepts” – concepts that include both a descriptive and a normative (moral) element. For example, the concept of murder is a thick concept. Murder is not merely an act of killing; it’s an unlawful or immoral act of killing. So the concept of murder contains both a descriptive element (the killing of someone) and a normative element (the unlawfulness/immorality of that act of killing).

It seems plausible to me that the concept of cannibal is a thick concept. Cannibalism is plausibly analyzed as an immoral act of consuming human flesh. (Dictionaries, I think, tend to say that cannibalism is just the consuming of human flesh. But don’t take dictionaries as having the final word when it comes to conceptual analysis. An old philosophy professor of mine once said that dictionary entries are simply cases of bad philosophy).

If I’m right in thinking that cannibalism is a thick concept, the Catholic has the following response to the question of whether Catholics are cannibals. The consumption of the Eucharist is indeed an act of consuming human flesh. But it’s not an immoral/unlawful case of consuming human flesh. So Catholics aren’t cannibals (at least, not in virtue of consuming the Eucharist).

Very good points. Now whether you use the the word “cannibal” is just a quibble, depending on if you think the word covers only immoral consumption or not. So I say Catholics might indeed be cannibals, but not in a bad way, if you see it as analogous to sexual intercourse. Which is not a bad thing, of course, but instead one so holy it ought only to be done between husband and wife. So, cannibalism is not a bad thing either, but rather such a holy act it can only be rightly done between a man and his God.

 

[FCEGM]

I thought cannibals eat the flesh of dead persons. We consume the Living Christ, a Divine (not human) Person, with both a Human and Divine Nature.

Precisely. We receive Christ’s Glorified Body and Blood. Glorified now, His Body and Blood cannot be changed or diminished by our partaking of Him in the Eucharist (in contrast to cannibalism which changes by diminishment that which is consumed). He feeds our bodies and souls that we may share in that same glory.

St. Ignatius of Antioch, writing in A.D. 107, makes this very clear, when he says …

“Consider how contrary to the mind of God are the heterodox in regard to the grace of God which has come to us …They abstain from the Eucharist and from the Prayer (i.e., the Mass) because they do not admit that the Eucharist is the Flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ, the same Flesh which suffered for our sins and which the Father, in His graciousness, raised from the dead” (Ignatius to the Smyrneans, 6, A.D. 107).