canabalism

  • Thread starter Thread starter shamrockfpo
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Is Sean still waiting for an answer to his post?

What denomination are you, Pastor Jim?

And are you a pastor of that denomination, as your forum handle implies?
 
VociMike said:
This actually brings up an interesting question. Can anybody who discusses the faith with numerous informed Catholics still claim invincible ignorance? I honestly don’t know the correct answer to that.
Click to expand...
I would say “yes”, because even after hearing the truth some individuals are simply intrinsically unable to discern that it is truth. It isn’t a matter of willfullness or recalcitrance, it is a matter of being incapable of recognizing the truth.
 
Pastor_Jim said:
I prefer the word of God over your particular religious organization.
Click to expand...
Where can I get a copy of “the word of God”? Is it through Dream-Mail only? Or can I get one at the local Personal Revelation Store?
 
Teflon93 said:
What you find IS what’s most important, isn’t it? 🤷

For Catholics, obeying Christ is what matters. Thus, when he commands us to eat of his flesh and drink of his blood, we do.

What you eventually said, yes.

It would depend on what your unique interpretation of “discussed” means. It apparently cannot mean “to provide arguments supported by evidence” in your case.

And we prefer the Word of God to your word, or Boettner’s, whom you’ve been paraphrasing without attribution throughout.
Click to expand...
 
40.png
Pastor_Jim:
…so you are just restating what Teflon said?

or did you accidentally click the wrong button.

Question:

Am I condemned because of my interpretation of John 6 and the rest of the bible for that matter?
 
40.png
VociMike:
To make the claim of cannibalism is to deny both the Incarnation and the Resurrection.
Click to expand...
VociMike,

Although I can see the merit in your response, I tend to look at it a different way – which might prove simpler and less prone to problematic objections. First, I’ll illustrate the possible problematic responses, then give my view.
40.png
VociMike:
It denies the Incarnation because it claims that the flesh being eaten is that of a human person, but Jesus Christ is a Divine Person.
Click to expand...
Possible objection: But Christ is a man. (See Mach1Man’s objection in post # 94 above.) He has a human body. Does the fact that He is a Divine Person mean that the roman soldiers didn’t put Him to death? Did they hit him? We can say that Christ was scourged, even as a Divine Person. Why not in the case of cannibalism, if He were to allow it?

If you wish to restrict cannibalism in some way to only be applicable to human persons, you only side-step the problem. For whatever makes cannibalism abhorrent, as applied to a human person, would seem to make the eating of the flesh of a Divine Person equally, if not more so abhorrent .
40.png
VociMike:
It denies the Resurrection because it claims that the flesh of Jesus Christ that we consume is dead, and that the body of Jesus Christ is rendered asunder, but the entire body of Jesus Christ is risen, whole, alive and glorified.
Click to expand...
Possible objection: Why would it be necessary to deny the Resurrection? What if we level the charge of cannibalism upon the Apostles at the Last Supper instead? Do you wish to say that Christ was already resurrected in some way, even before He died?(See, again this actual objection in Mach1Man’s post # 94 above.)

My approach, rather would be to focus solely on something you touched upon but which should be, in my opinion, at the forefront of our argument against the charge of cannibalism, namely that the body of Christ is not rendered asunder – or to be be even more clear – the body of Christ is not diminished.

Receiving communion is to receive the Body of Christ, not under His natural mode of existence, but rather under a sacramental mode of existence. Cannibals eat bodies under their natural, proper mode of existing, with all that entails (such as, at a minimum, actually touching the natural body.) But we don’t touch the natural body of Christ. You don’t chew His natural body. His natural body is not even moved by local motion under the appearances of bread.

The huge difference between cannibalism and Holy Communion can be seen quite readily when you consider that cannibals can’t eat the same body over and over in many different places. Cannibalism always diminishes a body. Christ’s body, in the sacrament, is not diminished. And this is not primarily because of His Divinity or His resurrection, but primarily because He is sacramentally, and not naturally, present.

Thoughts?
VC
Code: 
  [](http://forums.catholic-questions.org/#_ftnref1) I hold, along with St. Thomas Aquinas (and many others) that Christ gave His Apostles His mortal, passible, un-resurrected body at the Last Supper.
Because rendering wouldn’t always be necessary in cannibalism, if, pardon the graphic nature, the cannibalized was small enough to be swallowed whole.
 
Is it fair to say then that cannibalism is the ultimate example of a carnal act, while consumption of the Eucharist is the ultimate example of a spiritual act?
 
Teflon,
I’d hesitate to set up that dichotomy because receiving communion is both a physical and a spiritual act.

VC
 
Pastor_Jim said:
But they didn’t consume His flesh at the last supper.
Click to expand...
At the last supper, Jesus reached into the future and provided His flesh and blood from the cross for the Apostles. He actually made present for them the sacrifice on the Cross, pulling it from the future. It was as if they were sitting at the foot of the cross during the last supper. The same way we are present at the foot of the cross during Mass.
 
On another note, I wouldn’t consider it canabalism because Jesus was our sacrificial “lamb”. The Jews were REQUIRED to eat the sacrificial lamb on the evening of passover in order to be freed from slavery; and we are REQUIRED to eat the sacrificial lamb as well, in order to be freed from the slavery of sin.
 
Teflon93 said:
Oh, it has an effect. Look at Pastor Jim’s responses and you’ll see that this discussion disturbs his equanimity.

I was in a similar boat once, but upon seeing the evidence and inquiring into the Early Church could only come to the conclusion that I was wrong and the Catholic Church was right, whereupon I became Catholic and reclaimed my birthright.
Click to expand...
Teflon:

Yes, I was also in a similar boat myself. Born and raised a Seventh Day Adventist, an anti-Catholic sect, it was nothing but the infinite grace of God that allowed me to recognize the truth. Often I attempt to show an Adventist the truth of the Church in the Scriptures but to no avail. Their total inability to see and recognize in the Bible what is so very plain and simple makes me shake my head and thank God for the great grace which brought me home to Rome.

Marsha
 
Your possible objections are reasonable, and my replies would be as follows
Verbum_Caro said:
Possible objection: But Christ is a man. (See Mach1Man’s objection in post # 94 above.) He has a human body. Does the fact that He is a Divine Person mean that the roman soldiers didn’t put Him to death? Did they hit him? We can say that Christ was scourged, even as a Divine Person. Why not in the case of cannibalism, if He were to allow it?
Click to expand...
This would be a valid objection if the Eucharist had the appearance and characteristics of human flesh, but of course the “bread” and “wine” don’t have those characteristics. No human flesh in all of history has the characteristics of bread and wine. That alone tells us that the Eucharist is not human flesh in the sense that cannibalism implies.
If you wish to restrict cannibalism in some way to only be applicable to human persons, you only side-step the problem. For whatever makes cannibalism abhorrent, as applied to a human person, would seem to make the eating of the flesh of a Divine Person equally, if not more so abhorrent .
Click to expand...
Ah, but does it? Is a baby sucking milk from its mother’s breast a cannibal? Surely it is eating human “flesh” in the broadest sense. Or what about kissing one’s spouse? In that case a few human cells are taken in and digested, but is kissing considered to be cannibalism? So we must explore exactly what is objectionable in the eating of human flesh. When we do this, we see that there is no such objection in the instance of the Eucharist (and I see that you do focus on this question later in your post).
Possible objection: Why would it be necessary to deny the Resurrection? What if we level the charge of cannibalism upon the Apostles at the Last Supper instead? Do you wish to say that Christ was already resurrected in some way, even before He died?(See, again this actual objection in Mach1Man’s post # 94 above.)
Click to expand...
Again, your comments later on deal with this. Jesus did not lose pieces of his body at the Last Supper, as any definition of cannibalism would require. Is cannibalism that causes no injury cannibalism in any useful sense? What exactly is the objection in that case?
My approach, rather would be to focus solely on something you touched upon but which should be, in my opinion, at the forefront of our argument against the charge of cannibalism, namely that the body of Christ is not rendered asunder – or to be be even more clear – the body of Christ is not diminished.

Receiving communion is to receive the Body of Christ, not under His natural mode of existence, but rather under a sacramental mode of existence. Cannibals eat bodies under their natural, proper mode of existing, with all that entails (such as, at a minimum, actually touching the natural body.) But we don’t touch the natural body of Christ. You don’t chew His natural body. His natural body is not even moved by local motion under the appearances of bread.

The huge difference between cannibalism and Holy Communion can be seen quite readily when you consider that cannibals can’t eat the same body over and over in many different places. Cannibalism always diminishes a body. Christ’s body, in the sacrament, is not diminished. And this is not primarily because of His Divinity or His resurrection, but primarily because He is sacramentally, and not naturally, present.
Click to expand...
I don’t disagree with anything you say. But to be able to bring one who charges “cannibalism!” to the understanding of sacramental presence it may be useful to first hit them over the head with the 2x4 of “you’re denying the Incarnation and the Resurrection” - and telling a Christian they are denying the Incarnation and the Resurrection is precisely a 2x4. 🙂 Even if it can be argued that such is not the case, at least the discussion will have been moved to a much more reflective level, and can then explore if that which is objectionable in cannibalism is present in the Eucharist. 👍
 
VociMike said:
I don’t disagree with anything you say. But to be able to bring one who charges “cannibalism!” to the understanding of sacramental presence it may be useful to first hit them over the head with the 2x4 of “you’re denying the Incarnation and the Resurrection” - and telling a Christian they are denying the Incarnation and the Resurrection is precisely a 2x4. 🙂 Even if it can be argued that such is not the case, at least the discussion will have been moved to a much more reflective level, and can then explore if that which is objectionable in cannibalism is present in the Eucharist. 👍
Click to expand...
Thanks Mike,

I had a suspicion that you had a pedagogical motive in mind. I think we might disagree, though, about the best method. I would be concerned that it would get people off on the wrong foot to defend against the charge of cannibalism by making an appeal to either a)the glorified body of Christ, or b) Christ as a Divine Person. The first seems to run into problems regarding the Last Supper (which an interlocutor most likely will bring up) and the second seems to mis-apply the doctrine of the incarnation – since, although it is true that Christ is a Divine person . . . cannibals don’t eat personhood they eat the flesh *of a *person. Surely that would apply to Christ, as man, if someone (perish the thought!) had taken a bite out of him in Galilee. The biter couldn’t get away on the defense “But this man has a Divine suppositum!” He would most certainly be a would-be cannibal.

Anyway, like I said, both seem to me to be a dead end, and although they may shock someone into a deeper discussion, I wouldn’t want to have to backtrack and explain it again, or have to spend time arguing against the various objections that could be raised. I would want to avoid them (and give my questioner credit) by cutting right to the chase and saying:

No, it is impossible for the communion to be cannibalism because cannibals diminish what they eat – and we don’t diminish Christ when we receive communion.

VC
 
VociMike,

I just wanted to point out that I think Marsha Adams in post #9 actually gave the best answer – which combines both my desire for exactness and your desire for a two-by-four:
Marsha_Adams said:
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.
Click to expand...
Although, Marsha seemed to be answering a specific question, I think that her answer actually best answers the charge of cannibalism for two reasons:
  1. Christ Himself gave the Eucharist to the Apostles, so if you want to charge cannibalism, you charge Christ with it.
  2. Christ was right there **at the same time **the Apostles were consuming Him. Obviously this isn’t cannibalism, its on a entirely different order. In cannibalism the victim *doesn’t serve himself **and **continue to be seated at table making conversation at the same time.
*VC
 
Verbum Caro,

If circumstances suggested that I should not employ my 2x4 to help organize my opponent’s thoughts, then I would simply reply to the charge of cannibalism with the question “what is it, exactly, that is objectionable about cannibalism?” That, I think, would quickly get to the core of the matter.

In the end, all approaches should arrive at the sacramental aspect of the Eucharist and at the fact that Christ is in no way injured or diminished - that he is, without question, beyond injury or dimunition.
 
Pastor_Jim said:
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?

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

Thank you Jim for reminding me why your protestant " why didn’t he cut off a piece of his flesh"honestly, at first I was mad at your blasphemous remarks about the Holy Eucharist but now I realize how powerfully your own arrogance has, as the bible warns, pulled the wool over your unbelieving eyes, and has shown how your remarks are actually proof of your ignorance.

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

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?

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?

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.

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

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.
Click to expand...
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top