Catholics Are Cannibals. So What?

[Chesapeake]

I see over and over again quibbling over the definition of “cannibal”, especially as it pertains to consumption of the Holy Eucharist. People will make a distinction between consuming living flesh as opposed to dead meat, or go through other mental gymnastics to convince themselves that they are not cannibals. The dictionary, however, does not makes this distinction:

can⋅ni⋅bal, noun

1. a person who eats human flesh, esp. for magical or religious purposes, as among certain tribal peoples.

Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1)
Based on the Random House Unabridged Dictionary, © Random House, Inc. 2006.

Whether the flesh is alive or dead is irrelevant. When one eats human flesh (and we as Catholics vehemently support the notion that we are consuming every aspect of Christ in the Eucharist, including His Body), they are engaging in cannibalistic acts. Perhaps it could be argued that some sort of theophagy is occuring, although are we not also consuming Christ’s human Body?

In the case of Holy Communion, there ought to be no shame in admitting that one consumes human flesh, because that is what Christ commands us to do. There is no sin at all in this cannibalistic act, as there would be in eating your neighbor (whether you killed him or not). So what is wrong with admitting to the true nature of our Holy Meal?

Admittedly, in everyday speech, the word “cannibal” has highly negative connotations of savagely hunting down and killing other humans. Perhaps there is a better word out there, but at the same time, the most basic definition of the word describes the consumption of the Eucharist.

It concerns me that well-meaning Catholics try to shy away from the blunt truths of the Faith fearing that others will develop a negative opinion of Catholicism (such as claiming that “the Church doesn’t do that Indulgence thing anymore”), especially when those truths, when properly explained, are not heinous at all.

Thoughts?

 

[Reepicheep]

Well…

Admittedly, in everyday speech, the word “cannibal” has highly negative connotations of savagely hunting down and killing other humans.

In everyday speech, “Yes, I’m a cannibal”, will be taken to mean, “Yes, I savagely hunt down and kill other humans, then eat their flesh.”

This is simply not what we mean when we say we consume the Body and Blood of Our Lord.
The word “cannibalism” as actually used in everyday speech, does not apply. The fact that one may point to the dictionary and say “Look, that definition does not exclude the Eucharist”, is beside the point - a quibbling over words.

In my opinion it makes better sense to say the dictionary definition does not apply to the Eucharist, than to say it does and then demand that Catholics call themselves “cannibals”.

 

[thistle]

An extract from one of the Catholic Answers articles:

If we took Jesus’ words literally, wouldn’t that imply cannibalism?

Cannibalism is when one individual physically eats the human flesh off of another’s body. Catholic or not, the words in John 6 do sound cannibalistic. Even a Fundamentalist would have to say that he eats the flesh of Christ and drinks his blood in a symbolic manner so as to concur with the passage. By the same allowance, Catholics eat the flesh of Christ and drink his blood in a sacramental way. Neither the Protestant nor the Catholic appears to be doing anything cannibalistic, though.

It would have been cannibalism is if a disciple two thousand years ago had tried literally to eat Jesus by sinking his teeth into his arm. Now that our Lord is in heaven with a glorified body and made present under the appearance of bread in the Eucharist, cannibalism is not possible.

 

[Holly3278]

Well, if they want to call Catholics cannibals, they may as well call us Episcopalians cannibals as well because most of us do believe in the Real Presence.

 

[VociMike]

It is true that the best, most direct answer to the charge of cannibalism is to ask, “so what is so bad about cannibalism?”. Because it will turn out that everything that is considered bad about cannibalism does not apply to Christ’s real presence in the Eucharist.

 

[myfavoritmartin]

It is true that the best, most direct answer to the charge of cannibalism is to ask, “so what is so bad about cannibalism?”. Because it will turn out that everything that is considered bad about cannibalism does not apply to Christ’s real presence in the Eucharist.

Really Mike? what is so bad about it? For one we are created in the image of God, could one imagine the LORD feasting on human flesh? We are not animals, we are put above the animal kingdom.

 

[Mintaka]

Cannibalism and drinking human blood are nasty parodies of what the Eucharist is all about.

One of the standard things that Catholics used to be taught is: how is receiving Communion different from eating food? Lots of reasons:

When we eat food, that’s the end of it; when we eat Christ’s Body, He is not destroyed. Food is broken down, but Christ remains whole, Body and Blood, Soul and Divinity. But most importantly, when you eat food you take in nourishment into your body and make its components part of you. But being nourished by Christ in your body and soul makes you part of Christ. (Which is why it’s not really correct to say that we ‘take’ Communion; we can only receive it, because we’re definitely the lesser party in the exchange.)

So, just as in the joke about Soviet Russia – at Communion, God consumes you!

 

[rwoehmke]

Becauses the flesh of Jesus has been glorifed, it is no longer human flesh, but “super human flesh” which moves the Eucharist outside the dictionary definition of human flesh. There is nothing supernatural about ordinary human flesh until the resurrection.

 

[VociMike]

Really Mike? what is so bad about it? For one we are created in the image of God, could one imagine the LORD feasting on human flesh? We are not animals, we are put above the animal kingdom.

OK, you took the bait.

So what precisely is wrong with feasting on human flesh?

BTW, do you object to babies (such as baby Jesus) feasting on mother’s milk, “mother’s flesh”?

 

[grannymh]

I see over and over again quibbling over the definition of “cannibal”, especially as it pertains to consumption of the Holy Eucharist. People will make a distinction between consuming living flesh as opposed to dead meat, or go through other mental gymnastics to convince themselves that they are not cannibals. The dictionary, however, does not makes this distinction:

can⋅ni⋅bal, noun

1. a person who eats human flesh, esp. for magical or religious purposes, as among certain tribal peoples.

Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1)
Based on the Random House Unabridged Dictionary, © Random House, Inc. 2006.

Whether the flesh is alive or dead is irrelevant. When one eats human flesh (and we as Catholics vehemently support the notion that we are consuming every aspect of Christ in the Eucharist, including His Body), they are engaging in cannibalistic acts. Perhaps it could be argued that some sort of theophagy is occuring, although are we not also consuming Christ’s human Body?

In the case of Holy Communion, there ought to be no shame in admitting that one consumes human flesh, because that is what Christ commands us to do. There is no sin at all in this cannibalistic act, as there would be in eating your neighbor (whether you killed him or not). So what is wrong with admitting to the true nature of our Holy Meal?

Admittedly, in everyday speech, the word “cannibal” has highly negative connotations of savagely hunting down and killing other humans. Perhaps there is a better word out there, but at the same time, the most basic definition of the word describes the consumption of the Eucharist.

It concerns me that well-meaning Catholics try to shy away from the blunt truths of the Faith fearing that others will develop a negative opinion of Catholicism (such as claiming that “the Church doesn’t do that Indulgence thing anymore”), especially when those truths, when properly explained, are not heinous at all.

Thoughts?

Thoughts? Is this an urban myth? Frankly, I would rather read Harry Potter.

 

[catholic1seeks]

OKAY, I would AVIOD using that word.

It brings discomfort to my ears when one would use that word with the Eucharist because its connotation gives that savage, primordial, and even cult-like image.

Remember, words have a definition along with a connotation – what we think of when we read/hear of the word.

The definition of cannibalism as the poster provided may be broad, but most of us have a clear mental picture of this word.

Using cannibalism to somehow describe the Eucharist is not a good idea. Of course, I don’t expect anyone to do this. But if someone claims Catholics are cannibals, I hope no one is **planning on agreeing **as this poster is!

**EDIT: I just reread your original post. I see that you do include the word connotation, etc. Hmm…
**ALSO: The title of this thread is disturbing…

 

[VociMike]

OKAY, I would AVIOD using that word.

But the issue is, what is the proper Catholic response when somebody, in attacking our understanding of the Eucharist, uses the word? And I maintain that the proper response begins with finding out exactly what they consider objectionable about the practice of cannibalism, and then demonstrating that none of those objectionable things apply to the Eucharist, and so the charge is pointless, without meaning.

 

[grannymh]

But the issue is, what is the proper Catholic response when somebody, in attacking our understanding of the Eucharist, uses the word? And I maintain that the proper response begins with finding out exactly what they consider objectionable about the practice of cannibalism, and then demonstrating that none of those objectionable things apply to the Eucharist, and so the charge is pointless, without meaning.

Good post. You are starting at the right place by finding out what the other person is thinking.

This is the craziest topic ever! Good grief…I’ve seen this cannibalism junk in other threads to the point that I wondered what are people thinking…

I am glad that you mentioned the basic principle of discussion. i.e., understanding the other person’s point of view. At last there is some sense.

Thanks,

 

[Sgt_Sweaters]

Here’s a lengthy excerpt from Cardinal Ratzinger’s “The Presence of the Lord in the Sacrament” in God is Near Us:

There were those [in the twelfth century, when the Church began using the term “substance”] filled with the thought: Jesus is really there. But “reality”, for them, was simply physical, bodily. Consequently, they arrived at the conclusion: In the Eucharist we chew on the flesh of the Lord; but therein they were under the sway of a serious misapprehension. For Jesus has risen. We do not eat flesh, as cannibals would do. that is why others quite rightly opposed them, arguing against such primitive “realism”. But they, too, had fallen into the same fundamental error of regarding only what is material, tangible, visible as reality. They said: Since Christ cannot be there in a body we can bite on, the Eucharist can only be a symbol of Christ; the bread can only signify the body, but not be the body. A dispute such as that has helped the Church to develop a more profound understanding of reality.

After wrestling with the difficulty, the insight was made explicit: “Reality” is not just what we can measure. It is not only “quantums”, quantifiable entities, that are real; on the contrary, these are always only manifestations of the hidden mystery of true being. This is what was being expressed with the word “substance”. This does not refer to the quantums, but to the profound and fundamental basis of being. Jesus is not there like a piece of meat, not in the realm of what can be measured and quantified. anyone who conceives of reality as being like that is deceiving himself about it and about himself. He is living his life all wrong.

The whole essay is worth the read. So is the book.

 

[Eucharisted]

If Jesus Christ was only a man, we would truly be cannibals; but as He is the God-Man, we are not cannibals. Nor do we digest the Lord; when the appearance of bread or wine is digested, Jesus is no longer in them; but He is in our hearts, reigning as King, if we receive Him worthily.

 

[grannymh]

Here’s a lengthy excerpt from Cardinal Ratzinger’s “The Presence of the Lord in the Sacrament” in God is Near Us:

The whole essay is worth the read. So is the book.

Dear Sgt Sweaters,

You are in my prayers forever.

Important question-- Is what you quoted on line? Is the book available?

In addition to bringing some sanity to the crazy topic, your
excerpt, as well as the whole essay, is what I need for some personal writing regarding Transubstantiation; finding out if scholastic thought is really obsolete; dealing with the latest holiday advertising by the American Humanist Association; countering the idea that science can know (at some point) everything that should be known; bringing to light the real reasons participation at the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass has dropped; and the new popularity of Eucharistic miracles.

I am definitely not amused by cannibalism as it is being currently discussed on more than one thread.
Maybe if I had watched the movie “Cannibal Campout” when my son brought it home years ago…

Blessings,
grannymh

P.S. Why do I assume you have read the book “Jesus of Nazareth” by the Pope?

 

[cpayne]

In order to be considered a cannibal, one must eat the physical appearances of human flesh.

The Eucharist does not have the appearances of human flesh. It remains the appearances of bread and wine. Therefore, no cannibalism is involved in receiving the Eucharist.

It does contain the spiritual substance of Christ’s body and blood. However, those aren’t covered under “cannibalism” in the dictionary. You would have to look up “Catholic” and “Christian” and then “transubstantiation.”

And yes, I know, none of this will make any difference at all. For some folks, Catholics are forever cannibals, and no further information will be permitted in their heads.

 

[grannymh]

In order to be considered a cannibal, one must eat the physical appearances of human flesh.

The Eucharist does not have the appearances of human flesh. It remains the appearances of bread and wine. Therefore, no cannibalism is involved in receiving the Eucharist.

It does contain the spiritual substance of Christ’s body and blood. However, those aren’t covered under “cannibalism” in the dictionary. You would have to look up “Catholic” and “Christian” and then “transubstantiation.”

And yes, I know, none of this will make any difference at all. For some folks, Catholics are forever cannibals, and no further information will be permitted in their heads.

Here’s another place to learn about the Eucharist and transubstantiation. It’s a short, easy read.

www.rockforddiocese.org click Meet Bishop Doran. Then click his pastoral letter on the Most Holy Eucharist.
or go to www.rockforddiocese.org/bishop.

 

[cpayne]

Thanks!

 

[Sgt_Sweaters]

Dear Sgt Sweaters,

You are in my prayers forever.

Important question-- Is what you quoted on line? Is the book available?

I appreciate your prayers! I definitely need them.

I don’t know of an online source for the book but it’s in print through Ignatius press.

AMAZON

IGNATIUS

P.S. Why do I assume you have read the book “Jesus of Nazareth” by the Pope?

Alas, I am frightfully remiss. I own the book, and have since it came out, but haven’t read past the introduction. Mea maxima culpa!