canabalism

[shamrockfpo]

While I know t hat the Holy Euchrist - the Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of our oord Jesus Christ is not canabalism, I can not articulate why. Therefore, why?

 

[Kristen]

This has always rankled me, too, so I did a little search on the main Catholic Answers site and found the following:

The whole point of transubstantiation is that only the substance (the underlying “whatness”) of the bread and wine is transformed into the actual Body and Blood of Christ. The appearances (what medieval philosophers termed the “accidents”) remain as they were. Scientific investigation will turn up no evidence of change, because science can measure only the outward appearances of things, not their inner substance.

catholic.com/thisrock/1997/9703drag.asp

Theophilus of Antioch is quoted as writing, “For though yourself prudent, you endure fools gladly. Otherwise you would not have been moved by senseless men to yield yourself to empty words and to give credit to the prevalent rumor wherewith godless lips falsely accuse us, who are worshipers of God and are called Christians, . . . that we eat human flesh.” What Theophilus was writing about was the pagan claim that Christians were cannibals because they claimed to eat their God. Well, Christians did claim that (because they understood John 6 literally), but the pagans, not knowing that the Presence of Christ in the Eucharist is sacramental but not corporeal in the normal physical sense, thought that Christians were eating flesh indistinguishable from the flesh hanging from their own bones. Ironically, the pagan charge of cannibalism tends to prove, rather than disprove, the Catholic understanding of John 6.

catholic.com/thisrock/1997/9704drag.asp

This is really all that I found that was to the point, but the gist of it seems to be that we are not cannibals because what we consume does not **appear **to be the Flesh of Our Lord. This answer doesn’t particularly satisfy me, though, because we know that the Eucharist is His Flesh, so are we not, then, eaters of human flesh – cannibals?!

I hope someone can find a more satisfying answer.

 

[Kristen]

I did some more digging.

Here’s someone on this Forum:

Jesus is God, when we eat His flesh we are not eating our own kind.

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?p=3872391#post3872391

When Catholics say that the bread becomes the body of Christ, they are talking about the glorified body of Christ.

Immediately after Jesus said “whoever eats me will live because of me” (Jn 6:58) He says “what if you saw the Son of Man ascending to where he was before?” (Jn 6:62) Jesus is explaining that his body will be changed into a glorified body (such as is described in 1 Cor 15:40) His body became glorified at the Ascension. This passage of John foreshadows the ascension.

And this is how Jesus clarified himself and made the distinction between his mortal body (Cannibalistic concept) and his Glorified body (Eucharistic concept). The glorified body of Christ was the revelation of his true nature as the Incarnate God. That is what we Catholics receive.

AND

What is cannibalism? It is the eating of the dead flesh of a human person. So, is Christ dead? Is his flesh dead? Is Christ a human person? Answer yes to all these and the charge of cannibalism is true. But then you have denied both the Incarnation and the Resurrection. You have ceased to be a Christian. So those who make the cannibalism charge are implicitly denying their Christianity. Probably not what they had in mind.

More on the question of cannibalism: when a mother offers a part of her own body to her baby in breast feeding it, is that cannibalism? Are suckling babies all cannibals? Because this is a much closer analogy to the Eucharist. Christ offers his undamaged body for our nourishment, with no injury to himself. So if you want to claim the Eucharist is cannibalism, then be consistent and claim that breast-feeding babies is also cannibalism.

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?p=3805825&highlight=cannibal#post3805825

So, we are eating the Flesh of God, a Glorified Body, not of a man alone.

Furthermore, we can remember that Christ Himself told us that we would not have life **unless **we eat His Flesh. Many left Him for that reason and He didn’t stop them or change His teaching, so it must be important. He helps us to understand.

And, we know that He occasionally chooses to show us the Reality of His Presence by making His Flesh appear as such, such as at Lanciano.

Hope this helps us all.

 

[Pastor_Jim]

So, we are eating the Flesh of God, a Glorified Body, not of a man alone.

The BIble says that God is spirit. How does one eat a spirit?

I’ve always found it rather crass and silly to refer to it as cannibalism, but if someone claims that it’s real, literal flesh, then I think they need to be prepared to explain why it isn’t cannibalism.

 

[Marsha_Adams]

The BIble says that God is spirit. How does one eat a spirit?

I’ve always found it rather crass and silly to refer to it as cannibalism, but if someone claims that it’s real, literal flesh, then I think they need to be prepared to explain why it isn’t cannibalism.

The Bible also says that Jesus is God. Was Jesus only spirit? It is His flesh and blood that we consume in the Eucharist.

 

[Pastor_Jim]

The Bible also says that Jesus is God. Was Jesus only spirit? It is His flesh and blood that we consume in the Eucharist.

Jesus was both God and man. This is what is commonly known as the “hypostatic union”.

However, while Jesus was both God and man, it was His human body that died, not His divine nature.

Let me ask you this: how do you consume His flesh and blood, if the Bible tells us that He was resurrected physically and that His body ascended to Heaven?

 

[Marsha_Adams]

Jesus was both God and man. This is what is commonly known as the “hypostatic union”.

However, while Jesus was both God and man, it was His human body that died, not His divine nature.

Let me ask you this: how do you consume His flesh and blood, if the Bible tells us that He was resurrected physically and that His body ascended to Heaven?

We consume His flesh and blood in the same way that the disciples consumed it at the Last Supper while He was sitting there with them.

BY the way, you do know where the term “hypostatic union” comes from don’t you?

 

[Pastor_Jim]

We consume His flesh and blood in the same way that the disciples consumed it at the Last Supper while He was sitting there with them.

But they didn’t consume His flesh at the last supper.

 

[Marsha_Adams]

But they didn’t consume His flesh at the last supper.

Of course they did, check your Bible.

Matthew 26:26-28
Mark 14:22-24
Luke 22:19-20
I Corinthians 11:23-30

 

[Odell]

Let me ask you this: how do you consume His flesh and blood, if the Bible tells us that He was resurrected physically and that His body ascended to Heaven?

Well he is re-sacraficed just kidding just kidding

Catholics actually believe when we worship at mass we are worshiping with the angels and the saints in heaven. We are at Moint Zion the heavenly Jerusalem. This is why John sees the Lamb as if slain in Revelation.

Can I ask you a question why is Jesus still slain in heaven some 60 years after the sacrafice on the cross 60 years being of course if you believe Revelation was written 60 some years after Christ.

Catholics believe Christ still has something to offer that is why John sees the lamb as if still slain

“Now the point in what we are saying is this: we have such a high priest, one who is seated at the right hand of the throne of the Majesty in heaven, (Jesus) a minister in the holy places, in the true tent that the Lord set up, not man. **For every high priest is appointed to offer gifts and sacrifices; thus it is necessary for this priest also to have something to offer.” **(Hebrews 8:1-3)

We believe he is still offering us his body his sacrifice for our nurishment.

hope this helps

 

[allhers]

While I know t hat the Holy Euchrist - the Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of our oord Jesus Christ is not canabalism, I can not articulate why. Therefore, why?

Don’t canabals eat dead flesh?
Jesus is alive and well!!! He nourishes us with His very self. One of the most beautiful alters is the one of the Most Blessed Sacrament where Mother Angelica is, I’ve only seen it on T.V. (not the one at the smaller Chapel where they do the daily Mass, but the huge Church), it has a rendering of a Pelican on it, feeding its young with its own flesh. Just as Jesus does us.
Like Jesus, the Pelican would rather die, than let its young starve for lack of food, and would offer up their very life to feed their young. Jesus is indeed awesome. He feeds us with His very Self!!!

 

[Pastor_Jim]

Of course they did, check your Bible.

Matthew 26:26-28

This passage doesn’t say that they ate flesh. v 26 says that Jesus took bread and** blessed **it and gave it to them.

Mark 14:22-24

This is just another account of Matthew 26:26-28. Again, look at v 22. It says that Jesus gave them bread to eat, not flesh.

Luke 22:19-20

See above. Again, look at v 19. It says that He gave them bread, not flesh.

I Corinthians 11:23-30

v 23 says bread, not flesh.

Odell:

Can I ask you a question why is Jesus still slain in heaven some 60 years after the sacrafice on the cross 60 years being of course if you believe Revelation was written 60 some years after Christ.

Which verse are you referring to?

We believe he is still offering us his body his sacrifice for our nurishment.

Hebrews 10:10 refutes this. It tells us that Christ’s sacrifice was a one time sacrifice and there is no need for anymore sacrifice.

Feedmysheep:

Why are we skipping over the Gospel of John?

You’ll have to ask Marsha that. She was the one who cited the verses.

At the Eucharist, we receive the glorified body (blood, soul and divinity) of God the Son, not a hunk of decaying tissue.

Then why does the Bible say that the glorified body of “God the Son” is in Heaven?

 

[Feedmysheep]

But they didn’t consume His flesh at the last supper.

Why are we skipping over the Gospel of John?

Anyway, previous posters pretty much covered it- to be a cannibal, one must consume the dead flesh of a human being.

At the Eucharist, we receive the glorified body (blood, soul and divinity) of God the Son, not a hunk of decaying tissue.

 

[allhers]

This passage doesn’t say that they ate flesh. v 26 says that Jesus took bread and** blessed **it and gave it to them.

This is just another account of Matthew 26:26-28. Again, look at v 22. It says that Jesus gave them bread to eat, not flesh.

See above. Again, look at v 19. It says that He gave them bread, not flesh.

v 23 says bread, not flesh.

Which verse are you referring to?

Hebrews 10:10 refutes this. It tells us that Christ’s sacrifice was a one time sacrifice and there is no need for anymore sacrifice.

You’ll have to ask Marsha that. She was the one who cited the verses.

Then why does the Bible say that the glorified body of “God the Son” is in Heaven?

Try John 6:51-56
51

I am the living bread that came down from heaven; whoever eats this bread will live forever; and the bread that I will give is my flesh for the life of the world."

52

The Jews quarreled among themselves, saying, “How can this man give us (his) flesh to eat?”

53

Jesus said to them, "Amen, amen, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you do not have life within you.

54

Whoever eats 19 my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him on the last day.

55

For my flesh is true food, and my blood is true drink.

56

Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me and I in him.

 

[Pastor_Jim]

Try John 6:51-56
51

I am the living bread that came down from heaven; whoever eats this bread will live forever; and the bread that I will give is my flesh for the life of the world."

And here is the verse on which the passage hinges. I don’t know what translation you’re reading from, but it is not accurate.

It should read:

I am the living bread that came down from heaven. If anyone eats of this bread, he will live forever. This bread is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world."

Jesus makes it clear that His flesh is His body, broken and crucified on the cross, represented here by bread.

He is not calling His followers to eat His literal flesh, but to take part in His crucifixion, just as we’re told we must in Romans 6:6 and Galatians 2:20.

 

[Feedmysheep]

He is not calling His followers to eat His literal flesh, but to take part in His crucifixion, just as we’re told we must in Romans 6:6 and Galatians 2:20.

Hmmm…I seem to have the following from John, chapter 6: 56-57

For my flesh is meat indeed: and my blood is drink indeed. He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, abideth in me, and I in him.

But YOU claim that all those poor, misled people who left Him at this point were merely laboring under faulty understanding?

These people who had seem Him perform so many miracles just up and left, thinking He was calling them to eat His Body and drink His Blood (which was bad enough to them), *but He was actually calling on them to take part in His crucifixion? * And the whole “my flesh is meat, my blood is drink” is, what? a red herring? Do you actually teach this stuff from your pulpit?

Anyway…to get back on topic, OP, do you now have sufficient understanding of why the Eucharist isn’t cannibalism?

 

[Odell]

Which verse are you referring to?

“lamb slain before the foundation of the world” (Revelation. 13:8).

Hebrews 10:10 refutes this. It tells us that Christ’s sacrifice was a one time sacrifice and there is no need for anymore sacrifice.

How

I never said it was not a one time sacrifice I jsut said it was perpetual

“Now the point in what we are saying is this: we have such a high priest, one who is seated at the right hand of the throne of the Majesty in heaven, (Jesus) a minister in the holy places, in the true tent that the Lord set up, not man. For every high priest is appointed to offer gifts and sacrifices; thus it is necessary for this priest also to have something to offer.” (Hebrews 8:1-3)

This verse is clearly telling us that Christ is still a minister. He is still offering that one sacrifice once for all, otherwise He would no longer be a minister. Verse 3 makes this clear, saying it is necessary for Him to have something to offer. Christ always has something to offer. This passage inarguably teaches that Christ’s offering is going on even now, and that He is still ministering at the Heavenly altar. It connects perfectly to Revelation 5:6, a book written approximately 60 years after the crucifixion, in which John sees Christ in Heaven as “a lamb standing as if slain” Christ is still presenting His offering to the Father in Heaven even 60 years after His crucifixion.

Hebrews 4:3 states that God’s works were completed "from the foundation of the world." Christ’s work on the cross, His sacrifice, and presentation to the Father, are perpetual and eternal. They exist outside of time. Jesus’ death on the cross does not contradict the completed works of God before the foundation of the world.

The Mass is no more contradicting the once and for all nature of Christ’s offering than His earthly death on the cross was contradicting the fact that God’s work was already done before the foundation of the world, and that Christ was already slain before the foundation of the world. Now when we read the same verse (Hebrews 9:25-26) in the context of this, it becomes much clearer: **“Nor was it to offer himself repeatedly, as the high priest enters the holy places every year with blood not his own, for then he would have had to suffer repeatedly since the foundation of the world. But as it is, he has appeared once for all at the end of the ages to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself.” **

The suffering occurred once for all, never to be repeated. Christ’s offering is perpetual and eternal. The passages above establish this clearly. Given that, it is clear that Hebrews 9:25-26 cannot possibly mean that Christ’s offering was a one-time, finished and done-with thing, because that interpretation clearly contradicts the other verses, those that say Christ currently and presently has something to offer, and those that say His sacrifice is eternal, having existed since the foundation of the world. Rather, it is the suffering that was a once and for all thing, which is why the writer to the Hebrews explicitly mentions the suffering as being what would have had to happen were He to be sacrificed again.

Now can you answer me on why is Jesus still slain?

 

[Odell]

He is not calling His followers to eat His literal flesh, but to take part in His crucifixion, just as we’re told we must in Romans 6:6 and Galatians 2:20.

Someone being a Pastor Im suprised you did not study the Chruch fathers

St. Augustine said, “You ought to know what you have received, what you are going to receive, and what you ought to receive daily. That Bread which you see on the altar, having been sanctified by the word of God, is the Body of Christ. The chalice, or rather, what is in that chalice, having been sanctified by the word of God, is the Blood of Christ.”

This was said by Justin Martyr: “For not as common bread and common drink do we receive these; but in like manner as Jesus Christ our Savior, having been made 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.”****

Irenaeus said this**. “But what consistency is there in those who hold that the bread over which thanks have been given is the Body of their Lord, and the cup His Blood, if they do not acknowledge that He is the Son of the Creator of the world…”

When you where apointed did your Chruch know you did not study the Chruch fathers?

 

[Pastor_Jim]

But YOU claim that all those poor, misled people who left Him at this point were merely laboring under faulty understanding?

No, I’m pointing out that you’re taking the passage out of context.

These people who had seem Him perform so many miracles just up and left, thinking He was calling them to eat His Body and drink His Blood (which was bad enough to them), *but He was actually calling on them to take part in His crucifixion? * And the whole “my flesh is meat, my blood is drink” is, what? a red herring? Do you actually teach this stuff from your pulpit?

No. I don’t teach that it’s a red herring. I teach the whole counself of God, which means taking into account what the entire Bible says and not just a few verses out of context.

Anyway…to get back on topic, OP, do you now have sufficient understanding of why the Eucharist isn’t cannibalism?

Actually, I was one of the first in this thread to say that it* isn’t* cannibalism.

“lamb slain before the foundation of the world” (Revelation. 13:8).

That’s referring to the fact that Jesus’ atonement was preordained, not that it is currently happening now.

How

By stating that His sacrifice is a one time sacrifice and that there is no need for any more sacrifice.

I never said it was not a one time sacrifice I jsut said it was perpetual

Hebrews 10:10 refutes this by saying that it was done and is now over.

This verse is clearly telling us that Christ is still a minister. He is still offering that one sacrifice once for all, otherwise He would no longer be a minister.

Nowhere in the verse does it say that He’s still being sacrificed.

Verse 3 makes this clear, saying it is necessary for Him to have something to offer.

Nowhere in v 3 does it say that Jesus is still being sacrificed.

This passage inarguably teaches that Christ’s offering is going on even now

Not only does it not say that Christ is still being sacrificed, Hebrews 10:10 tells us that Jesus has already performed the sacrifice and is no longer being sacrificed.

and that He is still ministering at the Heavenly altar. It connects perfectly to Revelation 5:6, a book written approximately 60 years after the crucifixion, in which John sees Christ in Heaven as “a lamb standing as if slain” Christ is still presenting His offering to the Father in Heaven even 60 years after His crucifixion.

Actually, you should probably go ahead and read all of Rev 5:6. It tells us that Jesus also has seven horns and seven eyes.

Do you believe that Jesus has seven horns and seven eyes?

Hebrews 4:3 states that God’s works were completed “from the foundation of the world.” Christ’s work on the cross, His sacrifice, and presentation to the Father, are perpetual and eternal.

Not only does Hebrews 4:3 never say that Jesus’ sacrifice is “perpetual and eternal”, Hebrews 10:10 tells us that Jesus’ sacrifice was a one time event and is now complete.

The suffering occurred once for all, never to be repeated. Christ’s offering is perpetual and eternal.

Then it’s your opinion vs Hebrews 10:10.

The passages above establish this clearly. Given that, it is clear that Hebrews 9:25-26 cannot possibly mean that Christ’s offering was a one-time, finished and done-with thing, because that interpretation clearly contradicts the other verses, those that say Christ currently and presently has something to offer, and those that say His sacrifice is eternal, having existed since the foundation of the world. Rather, it is the suffering that was a once and for all thing, which is why the writer to the Hebrews explicitly mentions the suffering as being what would have had to happen were He to be sacrificed again

If He is still being sacrificed, as you claim, then being “re-sacrificed” would not be an issue, would it?

Now can you answer me on why is Jesus still slain?

Because He was slain. However, that He was slain once does not mean that He is still being slain.

Someone being a Pastor Im suprised you did not study the Chruch fathers

Who says I didn’t? Church history is a required course of study.

When you where apointed did your Chruch know you did not study the Chruch fathers?

Again, who ever said that I didn’t study the “church fathers”, as you call them? Like I said, church history, including the works of these men was a required course of study.

But what you have to remember is that, even though we studied these men, we don’t consider their words to be on a par with scripture. Their opinions are just that: their opinions and worth no more than anyone else’s. While we may study them to gain insight, we do not study them to find inspired scripture. Our doctrines are still based on scripture, not the opinions of men.

 

[Odell]

That’s referring to the fact that Jesus’ atonement was preordained, not that it is currently happening now.

The passage says he was slain before the foundation of the world. Do you not believe that?

By stating that His sacrifice is a one time sacrifice and that there is no need for any more sacrifice.

there was only one sacrifice your confused

Hebrews 10:10 refutes this by saying that it was done and is now over.

His perpetual sacrifice in no way contradicts Heb 10:10

Nowhere in the verse does it say that He’s still being sacrificed.

Never said he was still being sacrificed

Maybe this analogy will help

In the Old each family had a passover lamb just because everytime someone ate from the Lamb does not mean the lamb was sacrafice deach time they ate from the lamb

Nowhere in v 3 does it say that Jesus is still being sacrificed.

never said he is being sacraficed again

verse 3 says Jesus still has something to offer. What do you think he is offering?

Not only does it not say that Christ is still being sacrificed, Hebrews 10:10 tells us that Jesus has already performed the sacrifice and is no longer being sacrificed.

Never said he is being sacrificed. I hope your geting this

He has already been sacraficed but he is still offering that sacrafice up.

You dont belive in predestination do you?

Actually, you should probably go ahead and read all of Rev 5:6. It tells us that Jesus also has seven horns and seven eyes.

I dont know how to interprit that but I did ask you how to interprit he is still slain

He is slain heck he has seven horns and eyes to Im sure there is a significance if you know let me know. Im just telling you the significance of him still being slain

He is still offering the sacrafice

Not only does Hebrews 4:3 never say that Jesus’ sacrifice is “perpetual and eternal”, Hebrews 10:10 tells us that Jesus’ sacrifice was a one time event and is now complete.

The passover lamb of old was complete but the offering is still there as long as there was meat

And we both know Jesus is still slain the offering is still there

That is how come not every one is saved at the moment of the complete sacrafice as you call it.

People are being saved 2000 years later because he is still offering it.

Then it’s your opinion vs Hebrews 10:10.

Why is your opinion any better than mine or the Chruch fathers for that matter?

Because He was slain. However, that He was slain once does not mean that He is still being slain.

if that is what you got out of my post I apologize but he is not still being slain he just is still slain. See the difference?

Again, who ever said that I didn’t study the “church fathers”, as you call them? Like I said, church history, including the works of these men was a required course of study.

But what you have to remember is that, even though we studied these men, we don’t consider their words to be on a par with scripture. Their opinions are just that: their opinions and worth no more than anyone else’s. While we may study them to gain insight, we do not study them to find inspired scripture. Our doctrines are still based on scripture, not the opinions of men.

Again your opinion is better than theirs. I find it funny your opinion of scripture is not opinion of men but there opinion of scripture is opinion of men.

some of these men studied directly under the apotles I think they knew the scripture far better than you. No disrespect but with all honesty why should I listen to your opinion your only man falible at that?