Cannablism

[Montie_Claunch]

I know this my be a dumb question but, I am not sure how to reply. What would I say to “Cannablism is wrong. Christ would not have us preform cannablism. Hence Jesus was speaking fegurativly at the last supper.”? How would I reply to that? Thanks and God bless.

 

[JimG]

Cannabilism is the dismembering and eating of human flesh.

In the Eucharist Jesus is always fully alive and always fully whole and entire.

 

[Scott_Waddell]

That which makes cannibalism morally objectionable: murder and desecration of a human and his body are not present in the Eucharist.

 

[Wolseley]

Cannibalism is eating dead flesh. Christ is alive and fully present at every Eucharist: body and blood, soul and divinity.

 

[Della]

Just to add to the others fine replies, we receive the Risen Christ in the Eucharist. That means that we are receiving the glorified body and blood of Christ–the same body and blood that passed through doors and stood before the Father offering him his sacrifice of the cross. There is no cannibalism there.

Besides, if nothing happens, as many non-believers claim, then how can mere wafers of wheat flour and a cup of wine be considered cannibalism? Ask your inquirer why he can believe readily in the Incarnation, Virgin Birth, Resurrection, and Ascension of Jesus but cannot believe that he has the power to give himself to us in the Eucharist.

 

[John_Henry]

I know this my be a dumb question but, I am not sure how to reply. What would I say to “Cannablism is wrong. Christ would not have us preform cannablism. Hence Jesus was speaking fegurativly at the last supper.”? How would I reply to that? Thanks and God bless.

We receive Christ sacramentally, in a mystery, so that, while we are eating is body and drinking his blood, it does not appear to us under those accidents.

The best part about the accusation of cannibalism is that the early Christians were also accused of being cannibals. Why? Because they also believed they were verily eating the body and blood of Jesus Christ.

 

[VociMike]

Cannibalism is the eating of the dead flesh of a dead human person. Christ is neither dead, nor is His flesh and blood in the Eucharist dead, nor is He a human person.

When I hear this charge, I countercharge that the person, by claiming that the Eucharist is cannibalism, is denying the Deity, the Incarnation and the Resurrection of Christ. They are claiming that Christ is dead, that His flesh and blood are dead, and that He is (was) a human person. The discussion quickly gets interesting at that point.

 

[uncleauberon]

I used to joke with a protestant roomate about this.

He would call me a cannibal. I would gladly accept the “jibe” and say
“Yep, you are what you Eat ! Eating Christ makes me a Christian … what do you eat ?”

tjp

 

[TimOliv]

I used to joke with a protestant roomate about this.

He would call me a cannibal. I would gladly accept the “jibe” and say
“Yep, you are what you Eat ! Eating Christ makes me a Christian … what do you eat ?”

tjp

 

[FCEGM]

Montie, I was wondering, do you have a copy of Karl Keating’s book Catholicism and Fundamentalism and also of Frank Sheed’s Theology for Beginners? I ask because these would be very helpful resources for you to have as you come up against such questions posed by non-Catholics who too frequently have a very misinformed idea of Catholic teaching. I’m sure other participants here would be able to recommend other books to aid you in your apologetic endeavors.

 

[Sabda]

I highly, highly recommend Theology for Beginners! Sheed ROCKS!!! I’m currently waiting for Karl Keating’s book to come in. I can definitly vouch for Sheed’s book. I would read a passage and have to put the book down and think about what I had just read. He explains things in a way that really made me think.

 

[Liberian]

Montie,

From my African experience I have come to think that the primary mistake that cannibals make is that they are eating the wrong person. Certainly you can define words so that formally the Eucharist is not cannibalism and you do not shock people’s sensibilities–although Jesus was not so particular in John 6. Nowhere in the moral codes of the world are we forbidden from eating the flesh of our God or from drinking His Blood.

The Old Testament forbids the consumption of the blood of animals “because the life of the animal is in the blood.” That being the case, what better way is there for God to give us His life than for us to drink His Blood?

• Liberian

 

[VociMike]

I had a couple of more ideas on this question.

First, ask the person what exactly is wrong with cannibalism. Then proceed to show that all the things they think is wrong with cannibalism do not apply to the Eucharist.

Secondly, point out to the person the disturbing “fact” that he (if he’s a Christian) believes that Jesus will marry His own mother. After all, the Church is His bride, and Mary is a member of the Church.

Now, is God really doing some wierd incest thing in heaven? Of course not. It is simply that our concepts fail to convey (or even comprehend) the reality that exists between God and His people. Same thing with the cannibalism charge.

 

[Chipper]

I know this my be a dumb question but, I am not sure how to reply. What would I say to “Cannablism is wrong. Christ would not have us preform cannablism. Hence Jesus was speaking fegurativly at the last supper.”? How would I reply to that? Thanks and God bless.

I personally see a logical dilemna in this accusation. If they think eating the flesh and drinking the blood of Christ is Cannabalism, then how in the world does doing it symbolically do them any good? I mean isn’t a symbolic act of cannabalism just as bad?

So in short, it isn’t cannabalism. You have to be eating the flesh of ones own kind to be a cannabal. We are eating the flesh of GOD, completely different kind of flesh, then a human being.

 

[mardukm]

The best response has been given by Della.

Cannibalism is not the eating of dead human flesh. Cannibalism is the eating of LIKE flesh (thus, cannibalism is known to exist even among animals). If one understands what cannibalism really is, one can realize the utter heresy of making the accusation. To say that the Eucharist is cannibalism is to state that Christ’s flesh is like OUR OWN flesh. If Christ’s body/flesh was not glorified, if Christ’s body/flesh was not transformed, if his body/flesh is truly like ours, then what is our hope? Have you ever thought of that, Montie? To insist that Christ’s body/flesh is like ours is to deny the promise of the resurrection!!! Conversely, if you truly understand and accept that Christ’s body/flesh is as different from our flesh as air is to earth, then how could you possibly accuse the Catholic (and Orthodox) Church of cannibalism?

I do not intend this to be insulting, but perhaps you need to take some basic classes in Christology. Of course, you might be Mormon for all I know, a group whose Christology is as different from Christianity’s teaching as night is from day - so taking more classes in Christology might not help you. But if you are Christian, then perhaps such classes will do you some good.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[Daniel_Marsh]

I seem to remember reading somewhere that Jesus’ ressurrected body did not have any blood. Does anyone know where that is from? As I recall they use I cor 15:50 to claim that flesh and blood can not enter heaven ( ignores Jesus spinkling his blood on altar in heaven ). Then they go on to say that Jesus’s resurrected body was only flesh and bone based on Luke 24:39 ( never mind the fact that he is comparing his physical body to a ghost ).

1 Corinthians 15:50
I declare to you, brothers, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God, nor does the perishable inherit the imperishable.

Luke 24:39
Look at my hands and my feet. It is I myself! Touch me and see; a ghost does not have flesh and bones, as you see I have."

Simple refutation, Jesus sprinkled the altar in heaven with his blood.

Hebrews 9

14How much more shall the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself without spot to God, purge your conscience from dead works to serve the living God?

15And for this cause he is the mediator of the new testament, that by means of death, for the redemption of the transgressions that were under the first testament, they which are called might receive the promise of eternal inheritance.

16For where a testament is, there must also of necessity be the death of the testator.

17For a testament is of force after men are dead: otherwise it is of no strength at all while the testator liveth.

18Whereupon neither the first testament was dedicated without blood.

19For when Moses had spoken every precept to all the people according to the law, he took the blood of calves and of goats, with water, and scarlet wool, and hyssop, and sprinkled both the book, and all the people,

20Saying, This is the blood of the testament which God hath enjoined unto you.

21Moreover he **sprinkled with blood **both the tabernacle, and all the vessels of the ministry.

22And almost all things are by the law purged with blood; and without shedding of blood is no remission.

23It was therefore necessary that the patterns of things in the heavens should be purified with these; but the heavenly things themselves with better sacrifices than these.

24For Christ is not entered into the holy places made with hands, which are the figures of the true; but into heaven itself, now to appear in the presence of God for us:

25Nor yet that he should offer himself often, as the high priest entereth into the holy place every year with **blood **of others;

26For then must he often have suffered since the foundation of the world: but now once in the end of the world hath he appeared to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself.

27And as it is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judgment:

28So **Christ was once offered **to bear the sins of many; and unto them that look for him shall he appear the second time without sin unto salvation.

 

[RCCDefender]

I like all the posts so far. I have been called a cannibal because I eat Christ’s flesh and drink His blood. He said to in John 6. The fundamentalists who claim that we Catholics are cannibals sound just like those disciples who left Jesus that day and returned to their former way of life. Jesus did not call them back saying they misunderstood, because they didn’t misunderstand. They understood perfectly that He was speaking literally, and they couldn’t bear it, so Jesus let them go. Sounds like the Fundie’s who claim that Jesus was speaking figuratively couldn’t bear it either. Makes you wonder if they are still walking with Christ or if He has let them go, too…