Canabolism?

  • Thread starter Thread starter 031064
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Nita said:
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
Click to expand...
Thanks Nita, I was only pointing out the lack of clarity in the posts before mine. They said it wasn’t Cannibalism because Cannibalism is only eating your own kind after it’s dead but had failed to say what it actually was.
 
Syele said:
What is it called when you eat something that isn’t dead yet?
Click to expand...
Not dead yet ?!?!

Do you understand what you are suggesting about Christ?!?!

I never cease to be amazed at the heresies that pop out of people’s mouths (keyboards) when they try and dispute Catholic teaching. 😃
 
VociMike said:
Not dead yet ?!?!

Do you understand what you are suggesting about Christ?!?!

I never cease to be amazed at the heresies that pop out of people’s mouths (keyboards) when they try and dispute Catholic teaching. 😃
Click to expand...
Oh good grief. I was joking based on the weird way people worded stuff. I never said anything to dispute Catholic teaching or claim anything about Christ. 😛
 
Syele said:
Oh good grief. I was joking based on the weird way people worded stuff. I never said anything to dispute Catholic teaching or claim anything about Christ. 😛
Click to expand...
OK, comments rescinded, and stuck-out-tongue humbly acknowledged. 🙂 But comments like that pop up all the time, and those people aren’t joking!
 
utunumsint said:
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
Click to expand...
Only the accidents. We do not digest the substance of Christ’s body and blood. We cannot get at his substance. It is hidden whole and entire under the appearances of bread and wine. Christ is not divided, not by breaking the bread, not by dividing the wine, not by digestion. He remains whole and entire and complete and undivided, until the appearances of bread and wine are gone. That is why it is not cannibalism.
 
JimG said:
Only the accidents. We do not digest the substance of Christ’s body and blood. We cannot get at his substance. It is hidden whole and entire under the appearances of bread and wine. Christ is not divided, not by breaking the bread, not by dividing the wine, not by digestion. He remains whole and entire and complete and undivided, until the appearances of bread and wine are gone. That is why it is not cannibalism.
Click to expand...
Thanks JimG. I think this clarifies the argument for me. Do we have any official documents that state this?

Thanks,
Ut
 
For those who don’t know what the difference between substance and accident is, I’ll try to explain.

A substance is what is essential to a nature. The accidents of a substance are not essential to a nature. For example, my hair is brown. Brown is an accident of hair since my hair could be red, blond, black, or white for an albino.

So when we talk about transsubstantiation we are talking about a change in the substance of the bread, while the accidental, (the non essential attributes) remain the same. The substance changes and becomes the Eucharistic presence of Christ, but the accidents (e.g. all the physical properties of bread) remain the same.

What we break down and digest is the accidental properties of the Eucharist. Not the substance itself.

Ut
 
I’m not sure why Catholics are so hesitant to say eating Christ’s body and blood is cannibalism. Most defininitions just define cannibalism as eating the flesh of another person. It doesn’t say that it is “living or dead.” It doesn’t say “bloody or unbloody.” It doesn’t make an exception if the tother person also is divine as well as human.

I have no problem with this. I think alot of people just don’t like the word cannibalism and try to define it differently to soothe their minds.
 
lasersmith said:
I’m not sure why Catholics are so hesitant to say eating Christ’s body and blood is cannibalism. Most defininitions just define cannibalism as eating the flesh of another person. It doesn’t say that it is “living or dead.” It doesn’t say “bloody or unbloody.” It doesn’t make an exception if the tother person also is divine as well as human.

I have no problem with this. I think alot of people just don’t like the word cannibalism and try to define it differently to soothe their minds.
Click to expand...
Cannibalism is, at it’s core, “eating one of our own kind”. Christ isn’t one of our own kind.
 
this question was not phrased to ask about eating god. KarenNC is correct about that one.
Syele said:
What is it called when you eat something that isn’t dead yet?
Click to expand...
This one was about something not dead. I think.

Bram Stoker calls this
zoöphagous”—or life-eating
Click to expand...
in the book Dracula.

Dark imagery, huh?
 
KarenNC said:
Actually, I think it would technically be called theophagy.

tiscali.co.uk/reference/dictionaries/difficultwords/data/d0012894.html

theophagy
n. eating of god, or of thing symbolising god, as a sacrament. theophagic, theophagous, a. theophagite, n.

123exp-beliefs.com/t/00804283827/
Theophagy
Theophagy is the practice of eating the body of a god. This is sometimes performed symbolically through the eating of a food or material symbolic of the god.
Click to expand...
I’m sure you aren’t suggesting the eucharist is a symbol for god.
remember real presence.
 
utunumsint said:
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
Click to expand...
If we agree that his grace and the strength it gives us remains longer. if we allow it.
 
No, no, no, your thinking about it in completely the wrong way.Jesus lives in the Eucharist and it brings Him into our souls and hearts, we’re not eating Him as if he were normal food-He is the Living Bread, and through the Eucharist He comes to strengthen us.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top