Canabolism?

[Pixie_Dust]

I like the answers in this thread in general, but I am a little worried that in defending the charge against cannibalisim that we are not playing dangerous games with the nature of the incarnation. We must remember that when we receive the Eucharist, we are not only receiving the divine person, but also the human person. Jesus while always divine took on a human nature that was united but distinct from his divine nature. As a result when we receive, we receive it all. Indeed my inclination would not be to stress that we are not receiving the human body of Christ, because we are, but that we are receiving so much more.

Ultimately if someone makes the charge that I am a cannibal because I eat the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ, all I can answer is that it is what God commanded us to do if we wish to have eternal life.

–
Bill

After the resurrection, Jesus appeared in a glorified body. Ordinary humans can’t appear in the middle of a room or pass through walls. It is that flesh and blood that we are receiving in the Eucharist. (Well, “we” meaning those of you who are Catholic, that is. I’m still in “Limbo” LOL!)

 

[Verbum_Caro]

But you can murder a Divine Person when that Person takes on a human nature. It was not Christ’s human nature that died, it was the Person of Christ who died. Now the very concept of death only applies to created things, so God could only die when He took on the nature of His creation. But it is critical to accept that the Divine Person Jesus Christ really did die, not just His human nature. To put it another way, natures don’t die, people do.

Hi VociMike,

Good points! Thank you for your thoughtful reply.

I think that I may have been a little imprecise. I assent to the truth that you pointed out: you can murder a Divine Person when that Person takes on a human nature. And also you rightly point out that Christ did really die. And you also rightly point out that only Persons die and not natures.

All of the above is what I meant to convey when I wrote that some things done to Christ (His Person) are done through or in His human nature. Murder was one of those things.

My point is that we could conceive of Christ being cannibalized, if someone were to have eaten parts of His Sacred Body after the crucifixion and before His entombment. At least, that is how I would characterize it. It seemed to me (perhaps wrongly) that the line of argument you were taking would preclude this from being cannibalism since His dead human body belonged to His Divine Person?

In other words, my take on it is that cannibalism is the eating of a human body qua human body (such that the eating diminishes the human body), and whether or not the body belonged to a human person or not wouldn’t affect the charge of cannibalism. It is due to the fact that in the Eucharist we do not diminish Christ’s body that Holy Communion cannot be properly termed cannibalism.

What do you think?
VC

 

[mchale]

After the resurrection, Jesus appeared in a glorified body. Ordinary humans can’t appear in the middle of a room or pass through walls. It is that flesh and blood that we are receiving in the Eucharist. (Well, “we” meaning those of you who are Catholic, that is. I’m still in “Limbo” LOL!)

Right, but keep in mind, the flesh and the blood that apostles received at the last supper was that of the pre-glorified body. Further, also keep in mind that the glorified body is not essential to Jesus’ divine nature, but rather his human nature. We will receive bodies like that on the last day. So it is still a human body, just not one like we encounter.

–
Bill

 

[Verbum_Caro]

After the resurrection, Jesus appeared in a glorified body. . . It is that flesh and blood that we are receiving in the Eucharist.

Hi Pixie Dust,

First, nice “talking to you” on the forums, I don’t think we’ve “spoken” before, so hello. And congratulations on your soon to be reception into the Church!

I just wanted to touch on what I think you are pointing out, and then share my thought on it.

I think that you are pointing out that because we receive Christ who now has a glorified body, for that reason Holy Communion is not cannibalism. The difficulty that this would pose for me would be this: what did the Apostles receive at the Last Supper?

I hold that the Apostles received Christ as He was really present. And back then, at that time, prior to the crucifixion and resurrection, Christ’s body was not glorified. So, if the charge of cannibalism is avoided by an appeal to Christ’s glorified body, we run into problems in the case of the Apostles who received Christ’s passible (non-glorified) body.

What do you think?

VC

 

[Verbum_Caro]

Bill (mchale),

You beat me too it!

VC

 

[VociMike]

Hi VociMike,

Good points! Thank you for you thoughtful reply.

I think that I may have been a little imprecise. I assent to the truth that you pointed out: you can murder a Divine Person when that Person takes on a human nature. And also you rightly point out that Christ did really die. And you also rightly point out that only Person’s die and not natures.

All of the above is what I meant to convey when I wrote that some things done to Christ (His Person) are done through or in His human nature. Murder was one of those things.

My point is that we could conceive of Christ being cannibalized, if someone were to have eaten parts of His Sacred Body after the crucifixion and before His entombment. At least, that is how I would characterize it. It seemed to me (perhaps wrongly) that the line of argument you were taking would preclude this from being cannibalism since His dead human body belonged to His Divine Person?

In other words, my take on it is that cannibalism is the eating of a human body qua human body (such that the eating diminishes the human body), and whether or not the body belonged to a human person or not wouldn’t affect the charge of cannibalism. It is due to the fact that in the Eucharist we do not diminish Christ’s body that Holy Communion cannot be properly termed cannibalism.

What do you think?
VC

Hi VC,

Yes, I do agree that it should be a clue to those who claim cannibalism that there are no bones and other bits laying around after we receive the Eucharist. The question as to whether eating Christ’s flesh before the resurrection would have been cannibalism really comes down to why we think cannibalism is bad. Now when a mother breast-feeds her child that could be considered cannibalism, right? And yet nobody is horrified by that, and nobody calls it cannibalism. The reason is that those things which make cannibalism wrong in our minds are not present in that situation. The child is not causing the death or maiming of another person in that case. In this case, the mother’s body was designed to offer itself in a non-destructive manner as food to its child. Interesting parallel with the Eucharist! I had forgotten to mention this parallel in my earlier posts, but it is quite fun to bring up the breast-feeding issue as one of cannibalism when the “cannibalism” charge is thrown out. It really changes the nature and direction of the discussion quickly!

Something else very odd is that when other Christians accuse us of cannibalism, they have no problem with Christ telling them to perform symbolic acts of cannibalism, which is what, according to their own logic, their Lord’s Supper is. They are very selective in their outrage and horror.

 

[Pixie_Dust]

Hi Pixie Dust,

First, nice “talking to you” on the forums, I don’t think we’ve “spoken” before, so hello. And congratulations on your soon to be reception into the Church!

Thanks for the warm welcome! I’m thrilled (and still a little shocked, if you knew my background) to be here!

I just wanted to touch on what I think you are pointing out, and then share my thought on it.

I think that you are pointing out that because we receive Christ who now has a glorified body, for that reason Holy Communion is not cannibalism. The difficulty that this would pose for me would be this: what did the Apostles receive at the Last Supper?

I hold that the Apostles received Christ as He was really present. And back then, at that time, prior to the crucifixion and resurrection, Christ’s body was not glorified. So, if the charge of cannibalism is avoided by an appeal to Christ’s glorified body, we run into problems in the case of the Apostles who received Christ’s passible (non-glorified) body.

What do you think?

VC

I think it still goes back to what I said upthread. Cannibalism is the eating of dead human flesh. Jesus’ flesh is not dead, He lives forevermore. He was alive at the Last Supper, and He was and is alive never to die again.

 

[Verbum_Caro]

the mother’s body was designed to offer itself in a non-destructive manner as food to its child.

Mike, that is a great point about breastfeeding. That goes along with my shorthand definition of cannibalism which is the consumption of a human body such that it diminishes the body consumed. In the case of breastfeeding the person is not diminished because breast milk is produced and excreted from the body for the express purpose of consumption.

The question as to whether eating Christ’s flesh before the resurrection would have been cannibalism. . .

Hmmm. I think I may have miscommunicated again. I wasn’t talking about eating Christ’s flesh before the resurrection per se. . . . I was talking about eating Christ’s flesh after He died. I would hold that would be cannibalism. . . regardless of the fact that it is the flesh of a Divine Person. That is what I was tring to get at, and that is why I wondered if the tack were taking (i.e. cannibalsim of a Divine Person not being cannibalism) could run into some difficulty.

Something else very odd is that when other Christians accuse us of cannibalism, they have no problem with Christ telling them to perform symbolic acts of cannibalism

That is a very interesting point!

VC

 

[VociMike]

Hmmm. I think I may have miscommunicated again. I wasn’t talking about eating Christ’s flesh before the resurrection per se. . . . I was talking about eating Christ’s flesh after He died. I would hold that would be cannibalism. . . regardless of the fact that it is the flesh of a Divine Person. That is what I was tring to get at, and that is why I wondered if the tack were taking (i.e. cannibalsim of a Divine Person not being cannibalism) could run into some difficulty.

I do understand what you’re saying. I guess all I would say about that is that it would have been impossible. Angels with flaming swords and all that. Why impossible? Precisely because the body in question was the body of a Divine Person. So that is another sense in which it is impossible to perform cannibalism on a Divine Person. Just as it would have been impossible for Christ to be killed in a childhood accident.

 

[joshua_b]

Hi Pixie Dust,

First, nice “talking to you” on the forums, I don’t think we’ve “spoken” before, so hello. And congratulations on your soon to be reception into the Church!

I just wanted to touch on what I think you are pointing out, and then share my thought on it.

I think that you are pointing out that because we receive Christ who now has a glorified body, for that reason Holy Communion is not cannibalism. The difficulty that this would pose for me would be this: what did the Apostles receive at the Last Supper?

I hold that the Apostles received Christ as He was really present. And back then, at that time, prior to the crucifixion and resurrection, Christ’s body was not glorified. So, if the charge of cannibalism is avoided by an appeal to Christ’s glorified body, we run into problems in the case of the Apostles who received Christ’s passible (non-glorified) body.

What do you think?

VC

Im not sure this is so problematic as you may think (but I’m certainly no theologian). We need to be careful in approaching this with our finite linear concepts of time and space. The sacrifice of Christ transcends both time and space…it is infinite.

Christ was able to apply the effects of His sacrifice in a unique way to Mary before He was ever conceived to preserve her from the stain of original sin (non-Catholics of course will disagree with this, but they would probably disagree with the whole thread, so anyone who disagrees with the Immaculate Conception, your objections are duly noted…please disagree further by starting another thread). He was able to apply His sacrifice to those who had died in righteousness prior to his crucifiction and bringing them to Heaven from the place of the dead after His sacrifice had opened the Gates of Heaven. Why could He not have applied His sacrifice to the Eucharist the Apostles received from Him at the last supper in the very same way He still applies it to us today ?

I have to remember every once in a while not to put God in a box, because he WILL kick the sides out of it every time. We should remember that these things are called “mysteries” for a reason; but, don’t get me wrong, I enjoy pondering things like this.

 

[Greg27]

There are lots of good books on the Eucharist by Catholic and Orthodox theologians. It is not like eating the flesh of a corpse; the function is to make us partake in the divine nature of Jesus and in turn, divinise us. Partaking in the Eucharist is partaking in the life of the Trinity, in Catholic and Orthodox theology anyway.

 

[utunumsint]

My question is, are we really digesting the Eucharist, Christ, true God and True man, or only the accidents (e.g. those things which appear like Bread and wine)?

Thanks,
Ut

 

[Verbum_Caro]

Hi Joshua,

I understand what you are saying, thank you for your insights.

We should remember that these things are called “mysteries” for a reason; but, don’t get me wrong, I enjoy pondering things like this.

Good! I enjoy pondering these things as well. I am of the opinion that when we say an article of faith is a mystery we mean that we can’t know everything about it, but we can know something about it. In other words, although the Eucharist is a mystery it is not a muddle.

The sacrifice of Christ transcends both time and space…it is infinite.

I agree wholeheartedly.

Christ was able to apply the effects of His sacrifice in a unique way to Mary before He was ever conceived to preserve her from the stain of original sin . . .Why could He not have applied His sacrifice to the Eucharist the Apostles received from Him at the last supper in the very same way He still applies it to us today ?

This is a bit off topic for this thread, so I will just touch on this issue. I don’t think my stance would preclude the Apostles at the Last Supper from particpating in the Sacrifice of Calvary. During the Last Supper Christ did in an anticipatory way what he would do in a bloody way at Calvary, and what we re-present in the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass.

My point is that in order to protect the truth of the *Real *Presence, you have see it as the Christ, as He really is, present. Right *now, *Christ is in Heaven with a glorified body – so too now in the Eucharist. But back *then *Christ was on earth, across the table from the Apostles and had a passable body (one capable of suffering and death.) He gave the Apostles his passable body in the Eucharist. If not, then there were two bodies of Christ – the passable one across the table on the eve of His suffering, and the impassable Glorified body given as the Eucharist. That notion, I think, is something we should try to avoid.

VC

 

[joshua_b]

Hi Joshua,

I understanding what you are saying, thank you for your insights.

Good! I enjoy pondering these things as well. I am of the opinion that when we say an article of faith is a mystery we mean that we can’t know everything about it, but we can know something about it. In other words, although the Eucharist is a mystery it is not a muddle.

I agree wholeheartedly.

This is a bit off topic for this thread, so I will just touch on this issue. I don’t think my stance would preclude the Apostles at the Last Supper from particpating in the Sacrifice of Calvary. During the Last Supper Christ did in an anticipatory way what he would do in a bloody way at Calvary, and what we re-present in the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass.

My point is that in order to protect the truth of the *Real *Presence, you have see it as the Christ, as He really is, present. Right *now, *Christ is in Heaven with a glorified body – so too now in the Eucharist. But back *then *Christ was on earth, across the table from the Apostles and had a passable body (one capable of suffering and death.) He gave the Apostles his passable body in the Eucharist. If not, then there were two bodies of Christ – the passable one across the table on the eve of His suffering, and the impassable Glorified body given as the Eucharist. That notion, I think, is something we should try to avoid.

VC

I never intended to imply that the Eucharistic Miracle is a “muddle”, so much as to convey the point that there is a certain amount of danger in trying to academically explain every minute piece of a miracle of God. Not to say we can’t or shouldn’t (it gives theologians something to do if nothing else), just that it should be approached with a certain amount of trepidation.

Second thing for me to clear up was what I meant by “application” of the sacrifice at the last supper. Maybe it would have been better if I said “presentation”. The whole point of that was that God is infinite, Omniscient, Omnipotent…in short all of the things that we are not. God is able to do things that we simply can NOT comprehend, and how He would present His presence in the Eucharist at the last supper is another one of those things to me.

I can see your concern in regard to the glorified vs passable body. Maybe my point was that it is entirely possible (in my limited mind anyway) that Christ could present His glorified body while still occupying His passable body. How ? …I HAVE NO IDEA, but given the profound nature of God (remember YHWY literally translates “I AM”) I don’t know that I would rule out ANYTHING as a possibility.

Maybe Im not making much sense here, but my mind certainly doesn’t function on a level deep enough to communicate what Im trying to say, and again, I am certainly not a brilliant theologan, so I apologize if I interrupted the thread with my babble.

 

[Verbum_Caro]

Joshua, not at all!

I am very grateful for your reminder that we should approach this Great Mystery with humility and docility. Ultimately, you are right, we can’t wrap our minds around it totally. In the end. . . well, all that is left is awe.

My hope is that as we *learn *more about Our Lord present in the Eucharist that we are moved more to love Him. Otherwise, all the learning, speculation, discussion, etc is for nothing. It helps me, personally, to contemplate these mysteries as it moves me to greater adoration.

I certainly wasn’t implying that you thought the Eucharist was a muddle! I only mentioned that it wasn’t in agreement with you that you, and I, both enjoy pondering these things. (I.e. if it was a muddle there would be nothing to ponder. )

I appreciate your thoughts on the whole thing. If you’d like you can PM me to continue the discussion. Thomas Aquinas had some interesting things to say about the issue!

God Bless you,
VC

 

[Verbum_Caro]

Another thought just came to me:

The Eucharistic body and blood of Christ only remains in us as long as the bread (the accidents) remains intact. I think I read somewhere that this lasts around 15 minutes, give or take a minute. After the bread has been dissolved, the Eucharistic presence of Christ is no longer in us.

Does this sit well with everyone?

Ut

That’s right (assuming you limit it to the *Eucharistic *presence of Christ – because there may be other ways Christ is in us).

VC

More to follow — >

 

[Verbum_Caro]

My question is, are we really digesting the Eucharist, Christ, true God and True man, or only the accidents (e.g. those things which appear like Bread and wine)?

Utunumsint,

You are touching on some very complex and subtle ideas about the Eucharist. Two preliminary remarks:

First, echoing Joshua’s statements above, I want to stress that the only proper attitude here is one of awe and humility.

Second, what I write is my best understanding of the mind of the Church on this matter. If anything I write is found to be at variance with the authentic teaching of the Church, please disregard it. The error is due to my own lack of understanding or my inability to express the truth well.

The short answer is that you are digesting the accidents*, and when the accidents cease to exist as before then the substance of Christ ceases to be present. Thereafter, an entirely new substance is generated which corresponds to the proper subject of the new accidents. In the the case of digestion (a substantial change), the substance of carbohydrates, sugars, etc (whatever are the nutritive components of bread after digestion) are generated to correspond to the change of the accidents of bread and wine. You therefore have the nutritive value of bread and wine, even though you never had their substance.

For a* much* more intricate examination of this topic see Aquinas’ Summa III, 77, 4 and 5 and 6.

What do you think?
VC

*by “digesting” I mean whatever process is causing a change of the accidents. I suppose in this case it would mean the stomach acids dissolving the species into constituent parts.

 

[VociMike]

Another thought just came to me:

The Eucharistic body and blood of Christ only remains in us as long as the bread (the accidents) remains intact. I think I read somewhere that this lasts around 15 minutes, give or take a minute. After the bread has been dissolved, the Eucharistic presence of Christ is no longer in us.

Does this sit well with everyone?

Ah, but what is the purpose of eating? To incorporate the thing being eaten into our own selves. Thus we incorporate Christ into our own selves. He abides in us, and we in him.

Remember, Christ could impart his presence and his grace to us in any manner he chose. But the manner he did choose is one that we can understand and appreciate, as much as we can understand and appreciate anything divine.

 

[utunumsint]

Ah, but what is the purpose of eating? To incorporate the thing being eaten into our own selves. Thus we incorporate Christ into our own selves. He abides in us, and we in him.
QUOTE]

Agreed, but only for fifteen minutes, and only as long as the accidents are intact. Correct?

Which begs the question: are we digesting the Eucharist and absorbing little parts of the Eucharist into our bodies as it passes through our digestive track, or are we simply containing him within our bodies like the Eucharist is contained within a Tabernacle, or better still, within the Virgin Mary?

Thanks,
Ut

 

[Nita]

What is it called when you eat something that isn’t dead yet?

Hi Syele,

In the Eucharist, we aren’t eating something that hasn’t died yet. We are eating “something” (Jesus) that has already died, conquered death, and rose in a glorious body that is incapable of ever dying again.

We are eating someone who desires to be so close to us that He wishes to abide right within us (John 6:56 and 15:4), to enter right inside us and dine with us (Rev 3:20) - union, communion. Being God, He has the power to do this. He chose a way that allows us humans (with our limitations of perceiving "spirit"ual actions) to KNOW such a union has occurred. He chose the one method whereby humans can receive something totally other than self, right within themselves - eating.
The marvelous love and wisdom of God.

Nita