canabalism

[CentralFLJames]

Is eating the eucharist canabalism? No.

Does the baby who suckles at its mothers breast for nourishment partake in cannibalism? Of course not - this is the normal mother-child relational means by which a mother feeds her child so it may live and grow. This real giving of self hurts neither the mother nor the child and the mother does it out of love while the child suckles out of necessity and need.

Does a woman who receives a new kidney from her brother to keep her alive participate in canibalism? No. Her brother donates a part of himself so that she might live. The kidney, if successfully transplanted remains alive and is grafted into the other person. This is a real giving of self that benefits the deficient person through a sacrifice of love. Both retain life and continue in love. In a manner one lives in the other.

Does a person who receives artificial respiration from a rescuer cannibalize their rescuer? No. While the need is urgent one gives their breath of life to another to keep the other alive. This is a sacrifice of charity. Both retain the breath of life and the one lives because of the other.

These are not perfect metaphors for what happens in the Eucharistic communion but the principals are the same. None of these things have characteristics of Canibalism. Canibalism is self centered and uni-directional. Only one benefits parasitically at the total expense of the other. Some might ask - ‘how did Jesus benefit by suffering and dieing for us’. He benefited by pleasing His father for doing so, and for setting in motion the events of Divine Providence that will bring Jesus the highest and best glory that is due Him and will gain a multitude of grateful and loving spiritual brothers and sisters who will praise Him and share in His glory for all eternity.

Bottom Line - Cannibalism, NO, SACRIFICE, YES. There is a huge difference.

Protestants should mediate on Romans 11:17-24.
Romans 11:17-24 (NASB):

17But if some of the branches were broken off, and you, being a wild olive, were grafted in among them and became partaker with them of the rich root of the olive tree, 18do not be arrogant toward the branches; but if you are arrogant, remember that it is not you who supports the root, but the root supports you. 19 You will say then, “Branches were broken off so that I might be grafted in.” 20Quite right, they were broken off for their unbelief, but you stand by your faith do not be conceited, but fear; 21 for if God did not spare the natural branches, He will not spare you, either. 22Behold then the kindness and severity of God; to those who fell, severity, but to you, God’s kindness, if you continue in His kindness; otherwise you also will be cut off. 23 And they also, if they do not continue in their unbelief, will be grafted in, for God is able to graft them in again. 24For if you were cut off from what is by nature a wild olive tree, and were grafted contrary to nature into a cultivated olive tree, how much more will these who are the natural branches be grafted into their own olive tree?

James

 

[Angelos]

Cannibalism: People eat a human’s flesh, which means that one’s flesh becomes food for others. (Man turns into food)

Eucharist: We eat Jesus’ body and drink of His blood at the Lord’s Supper, which means that food (bread and wine) become Jesus’ body for us. (Bread and wine turn into Jesus).

It is impossible to eat a human’s body without killing one, but in Eucharistic celebration we meet and receive risen Jesus (alive!).

According to the account in John’s Gospel, the people listening to Jesus felt scandalised by His remarks and analogy since they understood that Jesus made His body equal to heavenly bread eaten by the Israelietes. The analogy suggested that Jesus’ followers were to eat His flesh in the same way as the Israelites ate manna in the wilderness.

 

[tm30]

Additionally, equating the Eucharist with cannibalism is the equivalent of equating Roman Catholicism with witchcraft and pagan/demonic customs of human sacrifice. Cannibalistic rituals are geared towards appeasing Satan. The unbloody sacrifice of the Holy Mass does not destroy anything, but raises the recipient to new life, instead, sharing in the eternal body and blood of Christ.

 

[Pastor_Jim]

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.

Jesus takes a piece of bread and says “THIS [meaning the bread] is my flesh”.

If Jesus was speaking literally, He would not have held up a piece of bread and said “This bread is my flesh”. He would have taken a knife, sliced off a finger or a piece of His own flesh and said “This is my flesh”.

Do you really not know the difference between flesh and bread?

Jeremiah 17:23

This doesn’t indicate in any way that Jesus is saying that the bread is literally His flesh.

John 6:61-62, 67

Again, there is nothing in this passage to indicate that Jesus is stating that He is a loaf of bread.

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

You’re right. He said “I am the door”. He didn’t say “I am like a door”, but “I AM the door”, So why is Jesus not a door?

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.

You do understand that Jesus is holding a piece of bread and pointing to a piece of bread while he is saying these things, don’t you?

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.

I agree. However, she chose to bring it up and, since she chose to use it as evidence, I see no reason not to use the same standard to show her the foolishness of her argument.

japhy:

So that means Jesus couldn’t turn bread into his flesh and wine into his blood?

The question isn’t whether or not He could, but whether or not He did.

Of course not, Jesus is not a load of bread; a piece of bread changes and becomes Jesus.

I see. So, do you talk to the loaf of bread? Seriously, if I had a loaf of bread that turned itself into Jesus, I’d have a lot of questions I’d want to ask it.

Already covered that; he was using an analogy. What is the second half of the “I am the bread of life” analogy?

Already covered that. He was using an analogy.

 

[Pastor_Jim]

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

You’re right. He said “I am the door”. He didn’t say “I am like a door”, but “I AM the door”, So why is Jesus not a door?

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.

You do understand that Jesus is holding a piece of bread and pointing to a piece of bread while he is saying these things, don’t you?

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.

I agree. However, she chose to bring it up and, since she chose to use it as evidence, I see no reason not to use the same standard to show her the foolishness of her argument.

Once more, this is hypocritical on your part to say that it’s OK for her to bring it up, but not OK for me to examine the verse and ask questions based on the argument that she’s made.

 

[japhy]

Jesus takes a piece of bread and says “THIS [meaning the bread] is my flesh”. If Jesus was speaking literally, He would not have held up a piece of bread and said “This bread is my flesh”. He would have taken a knife, sliced off a finger or a piece of His own flesh and said “This is my flesh”.

So that means Jesus couldn’t turn bread into his flesh and wine into his blood?

Again, there is nothing in this passage to indicate that Jesus is stating that He is a loaf of bread.

Of course not, Jesus is not a load of bread; a piece of bread changes and becomes Jesus.

You’re right. He said “I am the door”. He didn’t say “I am like a door”, but “I AM the door”, So why is Jesus not a door?

Already covered that; he was using an analogy. What is the second half of the “I am the bread of life” analogy?

 

[Feedmysheep]

Jesus takes a piece of bread and says “THIS [meaning the bread] is my flesh”.

If Jesus was speaking literally, He would not have held up a piece of bread and said “This bread is my flesh”. He would have taken a knife, sliced off a finger or a piece of His own flesh and said “This is my flesh”.

Do you really not know the difference between flesh and bread?

Seriously? You’re going to tell the Lord of Life that:
a) He should have done X instead of Y (“excuse me, Jesus, but since you didn’t take a knife and cut off your finger, I am disinclined to believe you”)
and
b) He couldn’t turn a piece of bread into His flesh? Why not? He turned water into wine. Clearly there’s Biblical precedence for Him turning item A into item B.

Seriously? Man, that’s a sad concept of the second Person of the Trinity.

 

[allhers]

At the words of the consecration, transubstantiation is what takes place then. The entire substance of bred nd wine are changed into our Lord’s Body and Blood.
There is then no longer bread and wine but our Lord’s Body and Blood. This is done by the almighty power of God.
The appearance remains, continues to look and feel like the same but the substance is changed.
Thus He is present, Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity.

 

[trrocks03]

If Jesus would have used the finger analogy, we would be “eating fingers”. If Jesus said “take this finger, eat it. This is my body, which is given up for you”, who are you to deny Him? What does it matter what way he says it? Why can’t you just do what Christ Jesus directly asks you to do?

It’s too hard of a concept isn’t it. Thats okay. It takes time to really understand the fullness of the gospel and God’s words.

It’s amazing that Martin Luther knew exactly what Jesus “meant” to say, but St. Peter and St. Paul misinterpreted what Jesus directly told them. I guess it takes 1500 years to “sink in”.

Ohhhhhhh Now I get it!! You guys have been doing it all wrong!

 

[Pastor_Jim]

Seriously? You’re going to tell the Lord of Life that:
a) He should have done X instead of Y (“excuse me, Jesus, but since you didn’t take a knife and cut off your finger, I am disinclined to believe you”)

Do you really want to play that sort of game?

b) He couldn’t turn a piece of bread into His flesh? Why not? He turned water into wine. Clearly there’s Biblical precedence for Him turning item A into item B.

Seriously? Man, that’s a sad concept of the second Person of the Trinity.

Yeah, it’s also one that I don’t hold. You know very well that I didn’t say any of these things.

japhy:

And where do you find in Scripture an answer in the negative?

In the same passages I’ve cited many times now.

And you didn’t answer my question; what is the OTHER HALF of the analogy? Jesus is the door to the sheepgate, we’re the sheep. Jesus is the vine, we are the branches. Jesus is the True Bread from Heaven… what are we?

That isn’t what the analogy is. The bread is analogous to Christ’s flesh. We’re not.

 

[japhy]

The question isn’t whether or not He could, but whether or not He did.

And where do you find in Scripture an answer in the negative?

Already covered that. He was using an analogy.

And you didn’t answer my question; what is the OTHER HALF of the analogy? Jesus is the door to the sheepgate, we’re the sheep. Jesus is the vine, we are the branches. Jesus is the True Bread from Heaven… what are we?

 

[Pastor_Jim]

And where do you find in Scripture an answer in the negative?

In the same passages I’ve cited many times now.

And you didn’t answer my question; what is the OTHER HALF of the analogy? Jesus is the door to the sheepgate, we’re the sheep. Jesus is the vine, we are the branches. Jesus is the True Bread from Heaven… what are we?

That isn’t what an analogy is. The bread is analogous to Christ’s flesh. We’re not.

 

[CentralFLJames]

And where do you find in Scripture an answer in the negative?

And you didn’t answer my question; what is the OTHER HALF of the analogy? Jesus is the door to the sheepgate, we’re the sheep. Jesus is the vine, we are the branches. Jesus is the True Bread from Heaven… what are we?

Can you make it easier for him and make this into a multiple choice anwer?

• A A snow covered dung hill?
• B The sheep and the goats
• C The Salt of The Earth
• D Toast
• E None of the above

James

 

[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…

Does anyone have a comment on this analogy?

 

[Feedmysheep]

Do you really want to play that sort of game?

I’m not playing games. God tells me, repeatedly, that bread is His flesh and wine is His blood, and that I need to partake in both. Ok- I’m not going to play “symbolism” games.

b) He couldn’t turn a piece of bread into His flesh? Why not? He turned water into wine. Clearly there’s Biblical precedence for Him turning item A into item B.

Seriously? Man, that’s a sad concept of the second Person of the Trinity.

Yeah, it’s also one that I don’t hold. You know very well that I didn’t say any of these things.

I’m sorry, do you mean that you don’t hold that He turned water into wine? Or that He couldn’t turn a piece of bread into His flesh? I can’t figure out which miracle you’re denying.

 

[Teflon93]

First, define your terms.

Cannibalism

Can"nibalism, n. [Cf. F. cannibalisme.] The act or practice of eating human flesh by mankind. Hence; Murderous cruelty; barbarity. --Berke.

Is Christ’s flesh “human flesh”?

John 6:55: For my flesh is meat indeed, and my blood is drink indeed.

Nicene Creed:

By the power of the Holy Spirit, he was born of the Virgin Mary, and became man.

Yes, his flesh is human flesh.

Is partaking of his flesh murderous cruelty? No, for Christ has died and risen; we do not murder him in the consumption of his flesh and blood in the Eucharist.

Is it barbarity? Hardly. The Lord is treated with the utmost respect and reverence throughout the Mass, approached with awe, consumed in gratitude, with prayers before and after. Catholicism having defined Western civilization, such practices cannot reasonably be considered barbarism.

What IS barbarous, in my opinion, is the tendency of non-Catholics to presume that the sacrament of the Eucharist, embraced by 1.3 billion Catholics and millions of Orthodox Christians, is a sign of ignorant superstition or an inability to understand metaphor.

The Early Church Fathers, who risked their very lives on the basis of such belief and practice, did not harbor such smug skepticism—they believed in the Real Presence within the Eucharist, just as the Lord bid them do.

Just as the children of the Reformation found it useful to adopt the Jewish position regarding the canon of OT Scripture in opposition to the Church founded by Christ, so too have they found it useful to adopt the Jewish position regarding the Eucharist established in John 6. For one cannot read John 6 and hold the position of those walking away from the “hard teaching” without leaving the true disciples and the Lord, as they did.

 

[bpbasilphx]

**
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.**

You believe what you want to Pastor Jim. I’ll believe our Lord, God, and Saviour Jesus Christ and His holy Word.

 

[Pastor_Jim]

**
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.**

You believe what you want to Pastor Jim. I’ll believe our Lord, God, and Saviour Jesus Christ and His holy Word.

And I will choose to believe the word of God.

 

[Teflon93]

And I will choose to believe the word of God.

Christ and God being one, you will need to reread John 6. It is particularly interesting to do so alongside Numbers 11.

Meanwhile, you may want to have another look at 1 Corinthians 11:

1: Be ye followers of me, even as I also am of Christ.
2: Now I praise you, brethren, that ye remember me in all things, and keep the ordinances, as I delivered them to you.
3: But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God.
4: Every man praying or prophesying, having his head covered, dishonoureth his head.
5: But every woman that prayeth or prophesieth with her head uncovered dishonoureth her head: for that is even all one as if she were shaven.
6: For if the woman be not covered, let her also be shorn: but if it be a shame for a woman to be shorn or shaven, let her be covered.
7: For a man indeed ought not to cover his head, forasmuch as he is the image and glory of God: but the woman is the glory of the man.
8: For the man is not of the woman; but the woman of the man.
9: Neither was the man created for the woman; but the woman for the man.
10: For this cause ought the woman to have power on her head because of the angels.
11: Nevertheless neither is the man without the woman, neither the woman without the man, in the Lord.
12: For as the woman is of the man, even so is the man also by the woman; but all things of god.
13: Judge in yourselves: is it comely that a woman pray unto God uncovered?
14: Doth not even nature itself teach you, that, if a man have long hair, it is a shame unto him?
15: But if a woman have long hair, it is a glory to her: for her hair is given her for a covering.
16: But if any man seem to be contentious, we have no such custom, neither the churches of God.
17: Now in this that I declare unto you I praise you not, that ye come together not for the better, but for the worse.
18: For first of all, when ye come together in the church, I hear that there be divisions among you; and I partly believe it.
19: For there must be also heresies among you, that they which are approved may be made manifest among you.
20: When ye come together therefore into one place, this is not to eat the Lord’s supper.
21: For in eating every one taketh before other his own supper: and one is hungry, and another is drunken.
22: What? have ye not houses to eat and to drink in? or despise ye the church of God, and shame them that have not? What shall I say to you? shall I praise you in this? I praise you not.
23: For I have received of the Lord that which also I delivered unto you, That the Lord Jesus the same night in which he was betrayed took bread:
24: And when he had given thanks, he brake it, and said, Take, eat: this is my body, which is broken for you: this do in remembrance of me.
25: After the same manner also he took the cup, when he had supped, saying, This cup is the new testament in my blood: this do ye, as oft as ye drink it, in remembrance of me.
**26: For as often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do shew the Lord’s death till he come.
27: Wherefore whosoever shall eat this bread, and drink this cup of the Lord, unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord.
28: But let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of that bread, and drink of that cup.
29: For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh damnation to himself, not discerning the Lord’s body.
30: For this cause many are weak and sickly among you, and many sleep. **
31: For if we would judge ourselves, we should not be judged.
32: But when we are judged, we are chastened of the Lord, that we should not be condemned with the world.
33: Wherefore, my brethren, when ye come together to eat, tarry one for another.
34: And if any man hunger, let him eat at home; that ye come not together unto condemnation. And the rest will I set in order when I come.

St Paul, who wasn’t even present during Christ’s Eucharistic discourse in John 6, clearly does not agree with your interpretation.

But then again, how could he, since it didn’t appear for another millennium and a half after he paid the ultimate price for the Church?

 

[Pastor_Jim]

Christ and God being one, you will need to reread John 6. It is particularly interesting to do so alongside Numbers 11.

Meanwhile, you may want to have another look at 1 Corinthians 11:

1: Be ye followers of me, even as I also am of Christ.
2: Now I praise you, brethren, that ye remember me in all things, and keep the ordinances, as I delivered them to you.
3: But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God.
4: Every man praying or prophesying, having his head covered, dishonoureth his head.
5: But every woman that prayeth or prophesieth with her head uncovered dishonoureth her head: for that is even all one as if she were shaven.
6: For if the woman be not covered, let her also be shorn: but if it be a shame for a woman to be shorn or shaven, let her be covered.
7: For a man indeed ought not to cover his head, forasmuch as he is the image and glory of God: but the woman is the glory of the man.
8: For the man is not of the woman; but the woman of the man.
9: Neither was the man created for the woman; but the woman for the man.
10: For this cause ought the woman to have power on her head because of the angels.
11: Nevertheless neither is the man without the woman, neither the woman without the man, in the Lord.
12: For as the woman is of the man, even so is the man also by the woman; but all things of god.
13: Judge in yourselves: is it comely that a woman pray unto God uncovered?
14: Doth not even nature itself teach you, that, if a man have long hair, it is a shame unto him?
15: But if a woman have long hair, it is a glory to her: for her hair is given her for a covering.
16: But if any man seem to be contentious, we have no such custom, neither the churches of God.
17: Now in this that I declare unto you I praise you not, that ye come together not for the better, but for the worse.
18: For first of all, when ye come together in the church, I hear that there be divisions among you; and I partly believe it.
19: For there must be also heresies among you, that they which are approved may be made manifest among you.
20: When ye come together therefore into one place, this is not to eat the Lord’s supper.
21: For in eating every one taketh before other his own supper: and one is hungry, and another is drunken.
22: What? have ye not houses to eat and to drink in? or despise ye the church of God, and shame them that have not? What shall I say to you? shall I praise you in this? I praise you not.
23: For I have received of the Lord that which also I delivered unto you, That the Lord Jesus the same night in which he was betrayed took bread:
24: And when he had given thanks, he brake it, and said, Take, eat: this is my body, which is broken for you: this do in remembrance of me.
25: After the same manner also he took the cup, when he had supped, saying, This cup is the new testament in my blood: this do ye, as oft as ye drink it, in remembrance of me.
26: For as often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do shew the Lord’s death till he come.
27: Wherefore whosoever shall eat this bread, and drink this cup of the Lord, unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord.
28: But let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of that bread, and drink of that cup.
29: For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh damnation to himself, not discerning the Lord’s body.
30: For this cause many are weak and sickly among you, and many sleep.
31: For if we would judge ourselves, we should not be judged.
32: But when we are judged, we are chastened of the Lord, that we should not be condemned with the world.
33: Wherefore, my brethren, when ye come together to eat, tarry one for another.
34: And if any man hunger, let him eat at home; that ye come not together unto condemnation. And the rest will I set in order when I come.

St Paul, who wasn’t even present during Christ’s Eucharistic discourse in John 6, clearly does not agree with your interpretation.

But then again, how could he, since it didn’t appear for another millennium and a half after he paid the ultimate price for the Church?

I agree. When we partake of the bread and wine representing Christ’s body and blood, we should not have any unrepentant sin.

However, that doesn’t mean that Jesus is a loaf of bread.