canabalism

[benedictgal]

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.

Then, I suppose, you would completely throw out the sixth chapter of the Holy Gospel According to St. John and the section in First Corinthians that deals with eating the Body of Christ and drinking His Blood unworthily to the point of condemnation.

Jesus said that His Body is real food and His Blood is real drink. It’s interesting to note that the Protestants claim that they are Bible-based and take Sacred Scripture literally, but, when it comes to the Blessed Sacrament, they claim that Jesus meant for it to be a symbol. We, on the other hand, take Him at His word.

God is Spirit, but, He also has a body. To deny that He has a body is to fall into the heresy of gnosticism that pretty much said that the body was evil and the spirit is good. Incidentally, Jesus didn’t ascend up to heaven as an orb; He took His body with Him.

Furthermore, Jesus told Mary Magdalene not to touch Him. He was preparing her to experience the new and profound closeness that He would have with her and the Church through His Real Presence in the Blessed Sacrament.

At every Mass, the same Jesus who cured the sick, forgave sins and fed the multitudes comes before us in the humble forms of Bread and Wine.

This is what the Church teaches, as encapsulated by St. Thomas Aquinas:

O Godhead hid, devoutly I adore you,
Who truly are within the forms before me;
To you my heart I bow with bended knee,
As failing quite in contemplating you.

Sight, touch and taste in you are each deceived;
The ear alone most safely is believed:
I believe all the Son of God has spoken,
Than truth’s own word there is no truer token.

This faith to Christian men is given –
Bread is made flesh by words from heaven:

Into His blood the wine is turned:
What though it baffles nature’s powers
Of sense and sight? This faith of ours
Proves more than nature e’er discerned.

To deny the Real Presence is to deny the power of God. After all, He said it, He promised it and He continues to deliver!

 

[Digitonomy]

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.

I’m not sure where people got the idea that human flesh must be dead for its consumption to be cannibalism.

 

[japhy]

Pastor Jim, the early Church had the same interpretation as the Church today. If you look at Christian writing as early as the late first century, you see the Eucharist referred to as an offering to God (a thanksgiving offering, of course). As early as the early to mid second century, you see the Eucharist referred to as the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ, and only those who are baptized may receive it, and they are to do so reverently.

The writings of Pope St. Clement, St. Ignatius of Antioch, Justin Martyr, etc., attest to this.

This is how the Church interpreted Scripture; even better, they didn’t need to interpret it because they knew the people who wrote it, and they learned from them and the other Apostles and disciples.

The Last Supper was a fulfillment of the original Passover; once you understand the typology of the Passover, with Jesus as the new paschal Lamb, you will understand why the Church has always believed the Eucharist to be more than a mere “memorial” (as modern man understands that word) and, instead, is truly the Body and Blood (and with it, the Soul and Divinity) of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.

 

[Marsha_Adams]

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.

In each of those passages Jesus says “This is my body.” If it was not His flesh, he was lying. Are you prepared to call Jesus a Liar?

 

[allhers]

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:

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.

Just to clear this up, I am reading from this translation:
vatican.va/archive/bible/index.htm

 

[Pastor_Jim]

Then, I suppose, you would completely throw out the sixth chapter of the Holy Gospel According to St. John and the section in First Corinthians that deals with eating the Body of Christ and drinking His Blood unworthily to the point of condemnation.

Two different things. One has nothing to do with the other.

Jesus said that His Body is real food and His Blood is real drink.

No, He didn’t say “real”, he said indeed. Two different words, two different meanings.

It’s interesting to note that the Protestants claim that they are Bible-based and take Sacred Scripture literally, but, when it comes to the Blessed Sacrament, they claim that Jesus meant for it to be a symbol. We, on the other hand, take Him at His word.

Do you also believe that Jesus is a piece of wood with a doorknob on it? You must, because Jesus said He is the door. Do you believe that Jesus is a chicken? You must, because Jesus said that He longs to gather Jerusalem under His wings like a mother hen gathers her chicks. Do you believe that Jesus has seven horns and seven eyes? You must, because Revelation says that He does.

If you’re going to say that Jesus literally wants us to eat His flesh (which is impossible now, since His flesh resides in Heaven), then, in order to be consistent, you must also believe these things.

Yes, we do believe that the Bible is literal. However, that doesn’t mean that we’re ignorant of the fact that the Bible also uses poetic language, metaphor, and hyperbole to illustrate spiritual truths.

God is Spirit, but, He also has a body. To deny that He has a body is to fall into the heresy of gnosticism

So. What does the Father’s body look like? How about the Holy Spirit’s body?

that pretty much said that the body was evil and the spirit is good. Incidentally, Jesus didn’t ascend up to heaven as an orb; He took His body with Him.

I agree. This only makes your claims all the more difficult to reconcile with scripture.

He was preparing her to experience the new and profound closeness that He would have with her and the Church through His Real Presence in the Blessed Sacrament.

Which verse says that?

To deny the Real Presence is to deny the power of God. After all, He said it, He promised it and He continues to deliver!

The Last Supper was a fulfillment of the original Passover; once you understand the typology of the Passover, with Jesus as the new paschal Lamb…

That I agree with the Bible and not you does not mean that I don’t understand.
MarshaAdams:

In each of those passages Jesus says “This is my body.” If it was not His flesh, he was lying. Are you prepared to call Jesus a Liar?

No, Jesus wasn’t lying. He just wasn’t speaking literally”. In each of these verses, the Bible says that Jesus chose bread to be a representation of His flesh. Are you prepared to say that God is a liar?

 

[Marsha_Adams]

No, Jesus wasn’t lying. He just wasn’t speaking literally”. In each of these verses, the Bible says that Jesus chose bread to be a representation of His flesh. Are you prepared to say that God is a liar?

Of course, He was speaking literally. In fact, He gives literal proof that He is speaking literally by saying, “You find this hard to believe? What about if you see Me ascend into heaven?” Just as the ascension was literal, so eating His flesh is literal.

 

[Pastor_Jim]

Of course, He was speaking literally. In fact, He gives literal proof that He is speaking literally by saying, “You find this hard to believe? What about if you see Me ascend into heaven?” Just as the ascension was literal, so eating His flesh is literal.

So was He also speaking literally when He said that He was a door? Or a chicken? Does Jesus literally have seven eyes and seven horns?

 

[allhers]

Two different things. One has nothing to do with the other.

No, He didn’t say “real”, he said indeed. Two different words, two different meanings.

**Do you also believe that Jesus is a piece of wood with a doorknob on it? You must, because Jesus said He is the door. Do you believe that Jesus is a chicken? You must, because Jesus said that He longs to gather Jerusalem under His wings like a mother hen gathers her chicks. Do you believe that Jesus has seven horns and seven eyes? You must, because Revelation says that He does. **

If you’re going to say that Jesus literally wants us to eat His flesh (which is impossible now, since His flesh resides in Heaven), then, in order to be consistent, you must also believe these things.

Yes, we do believe that the Bible is literal. However, that doesn’t mean that we’re ignorant of the fact that the Bible also uses poetic language, metaphor, and hyperbole to illustrate spiritual truths.

So. What does the Father’s body look like? How about the Holy Spirit’s body?

I agree. This only makes your claims all the more difficult to reconcile with scripture.

Which verse says that?

To deny the Real Presence is to deny the power of God. After all, He said it, He promised it and He continues to deliver!

That I agree with the Bible and not you does not mean that I don’t understand.

No, Jesus wasn’t lying. He just wasn’t speaking literally”. In each of these verses, the Bible says that Jesus chose bread to be a representation of His flesh.** Are you prepared to say that God is a liar?/**QUOTE]

The things I bolded above are the reason why Jesus left us a Church, you need to know when Jesus is speaking literally, symbolically, in parables, etc…
Clearly you don’t understand the difference, His Church teaches other than what you are saying here.
The last sentence I bolded is for your benefit only, are YOU prepared?? It doesn’t sound like it to me, it sounds like you are the one calling HIM a liar. Not a good idea ever!!! Just because you have deceided to make up your own version, without Church approval doesn’t mean that we Catholics are ever going to believe you over Jesus’ own Word, which is HIMSELF.

 

[allhers]

Jesus gave HIS Priests the power to change bread and wine into His Body and Blood at the Last Supper when He said “Do This (This, what I am doing!!)…in remembrance of Me.” That was His command to them.

 

[japhy]

Do you also believe that Jesus is a piece of wood with a doorknob on it? You must, because Jesus said He is the door. Do you believe that Jesus is a chicken? You must, because Jesus said that He longs to gather Jerusalem under His wings like a mother hen gathers her chicks.

The analogies have Jesus being X, and us being Y.

Jesus the sheepgate, we are the sheep.
He is the vine, we are the branches.
He is the mother hen, we are the chicks.

So what is the analogy used for Jesus being the true bread from heaven? (There is one and it further vindicates the Catholic interpretation of these verses and all Her Eucharistic belief.)

 

[trrocks03]

How many times does Jesus say that we must eat his flesh? 1 time? 2 times? More than that?

How many times does he reference himself as a door?

If I was to say the following, how would you interpret them:

A ) “I am on fire!”

Possibilities:

1. I have fire on me
2. I am playing really well in a sport
3. I am doing an excellent job
4. Everything is going my way

B ) “I am on fire!” “I have flames on my back” “The temperature is like 400 degrees!” “my body has red and yellow all over me!” “It is rediculously hot!” “Can’t you see this fire on me!?!” “The fire is burning my skin off!”

1. I have fire on me

Go look at the verse again…

 

[Odell]

Do you also believe that Jesus is a piece of wood with a doorknob on it? You must, because Jesus said He is the door.

Pastor Jim we don’t belive he is a door of wood.

But you should notice something from scripture no one walked away from Jesus when he said he was a door of wood

Why did they walk away from Jesus when they heard hiM say his flesh is real food? could it be that they did not think he was talking simbolicly as he did with the door no one wlked away when he said he was a door

Why would Jesus not tell them the meaning behind what he said so they would not be confused and walk away ? He always explained the parables. When not understood?

They understood Jesus but they could not except it

Read the whole chapter these people walked a long distance. Just to hear Jesus say he is symbolicly in the bread as if that would be hard for these men to except.

How many have left your church because he is symbolically in your bread?

 

[allhers]

Pastor Jim, maybe these words from a little child will help you.
I read this years ago.
A little child was preparing for her first Holy Communion and was asked the difference between a crusifix and the Blessed Sacrament. She said innocently, “the crusifix looks like Our Lord, but isn’t Him. The Blessed Sacrament doesn’t look like Him, but it is He Himself!”

(now surely even you know that He reveals things to the little ones.)

 

[JimG]

A cannibal eats flesh by dividing it into smaller pieces, by chewing and digestion.

The Eucharist is not cannibalism because in the Eucharist Jesus always remains whole and entire. He is never subdivided. He remains whole and entire in each piece of the host or each drop of the consecrated wine.

In the Eucharist he is present whole and entire, and that includes bodily as well as spiritually. But it is only the appearances of bread and wine which can be subdivided, not Jesus.

 

[Sean_Boyle]

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

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. Really, so you don’t preach “faith alone” either then. The only way to see the five solas are from someone else traditions.

That’s referring to the fact that Jesus’ atonement was preordained, not that it is currently happening now. God has no use for human time. The word “past” means nothing to God. You are placing human constraits on the power of God to transcend time.

By stating that His sacrifice is a one time sacrifice and that there is no need for any more sacrifice. It a representation of the sacrifice of Christ. Again “human time” is not present in God vocabulary.

Hebrews 10:10 refutes this by saying that it was done and is now over. That is your opinion of what Heb says, not what God intended it to mean.

Nowhere in the verse does it say that He’s still being sacrificed. It doesn’t need too: it’s the representation of the sacrifice.

Nowhere in v 3 does it say that Jesus is still being sacrificed. Same answer as above.

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. Again your opinion, nothing more. It in-fact says something completely different than what you believe it does, it’s actually completely within the Catholic context as is intended by Scripture.

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? There is the red herring argument.

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. More fallable opinions, thats all.

Then it’s your opinion vs Hebrews 10:10. Actually, it’s your opinon vs Hebs 10:10

If He is still being sacrificed, as you claim, then being “re-sacrificed” would not be an issue, would it? The use of the word “re-sacrificed” is a bigoted phase used to demean Christ Church by the protestant faithful. Lacking understanding of Scripture is no excuse to use a bigoted phase against Christ’s Church.

Because He was slain. However, that He was slain once does not mean that He is still being slain. More opinion on top of faulty information, no scripture to back up any of this opinion either.

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

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. Why study them then? Why not read of Mice and Men or something if their works are of little importance?

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. Why is it then that your entire post was backed up by your opinions and faulty understanding of scripture?

 

[tm30]

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

Er…how do I break this to you gently?

 

[trrocks03]

The protestants constantly argue that they rely on scripture and not the opinions of men.

So…

Martin Luther, raised catholc, had an opinion to seperate from the catholic church, which caused all the other protestant beliefs… Wouldn’t this be following a man’s opinion?

If you say “no, it was because Luther read the bible properly, which was not the way the catholic church reads it.” then one or more of the following must fit your belief:

1. You must assume that all “christians” up until 1517 were condemed because they believed in the catholc church (or orthodox church) and didn’t read the bible for themselves.
2. God does not intend to keep the faithful together, he would rather divide them and have them bicker against each other.
3. The Catholic church was wrong, (which in essense would mean that all protestant faiths are wrong, since they follow a book that was developed by the catholic church, thus meaning Christ was not the savior, and Christianity as a whole is a bunch of lies.).
4. The Catholic church is an inconsistant merry-go-round of dogmas which constantly change to fit their political motives (in this case you have never read church history and will probably church-hop the rest of your life)

 

[tm30]

Do you also believe that Jesus is a piece of wood with a doorknob on it? You must, because Jesus said He is the door.

If Jesus said, “my flesh is real woodgrain, and my nose is true brass”, I might. But He didn’t.

Do you believe that Jesus is a chicken? You must, because Jesus said that He longs to gather Jerusalem under His wings like a mother hen gathers her chicks.

If Jesus said, “…my flesh is like meat indeed”, I might agree. If He said, when He elevated the bread, “this is like my body which will be given up for you,” I might agree. But, once again, He didn’t.

Do you believe that Jesus has seven horns and seven eyes? You must, because Revelation says that He does.

Another strawman. Revelation is apocalyptic literature. It can’t be interpreted in the same way as the Gospel, because its very genre comprises symbology and fantastic representations.

 

[tm30]

Yes, we do believe that the Bible is literal. However, that doesn’t mean that we’re ignorant of the fact that the Bible also uses poetic language, metaphor, and hyperbole to illustrate spiritual truths.

Nowhere in John 6 does Jesus remotely indicate He’s talking in riddles. If you can demonstrate, specifically, where Jesus indicates He’s merely employing an analogy or symbolism, have at it. You have to have a basis for saying it’s just a figure of speech.

Jeremiah 17:23

But they did not hear, nor incline their ear: but hardened their neck, that they might not hear me, and might not receive instruction.

John 6:61-62, 67

Many therefore of his disciples, hearing it, said: This saying is hard, and who can hear it? But Jesus, knowing in himself, that his disciples murmured at this, said to them: Doth this scandalize you?..After this many of his disciples went back; and walked no more with him.