Communion and cannibalism?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Montie_Claunch
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
M

Montie_Claunch

Guest
Umm, I was wondering about something. Why isn’t the transubstanation (Sp. ?) cannibalism? And could someone explain to me how transubstanation work? I can’t quiet grasp it as off yet and I would like to put it to rest before I start R.C.I.A. Classes tuesday after next. Thanks and God Bless.
 
The Eucharist is a sacramental oath that Jesus made in promising us his body and blood even though it appears to be bread and wine. When Jesus made the promise in the discourse in John chapter 6, it was clear that the disciples believed him to be speaking of cannabalism and many of them left him.

If, at that moment in time, the disciples had killed Jesus and eaten his flesh and drank his blood, they would have been guilty of cannabalism. This would not have been a good thing, and it would have been worthy of condemnation. Instead, Jesus gives us his flesh to eat and blood to drink sacramentally in the transubstantiated bread and wine. There is no cannabalism under the classic and graphic definitions that man has attributed to it. The sacramental food of the Eucharist is food for the spiritual journey and it does not carry with it the character of cannabalism.

Transubstantiation is accomplished through the ministry of the priest at mass only by the power of the Holy Spirit. Only God, himself, actually transforms the bread and wine. God willingly gave us the word and the word became flesh by the power of the Holy Spirit. Jesus willingly lays down his life for the world. Jesus institutes the New Covenant at the Last Supper and fulfills his promise in John 6. Jesus willing gives himself for the world on the cross, and Jesus willingly gives himself to us again in the Eucharist.

In Genesis 1:2-3 we read that, “The earth was without form and void, and darkness was upon the face of the deep; and the **Spirit of God ** was moving over the face of the waters. And God said, “Let there be light”; and there was light.” When God’s minister celebrates mass with the faithful, God’s Spirit transubstantiates the bread and wine in the same way that God created light in Genesis 1:2-3 and in the same way that the word was made flesh in Luke chapter 1.
 
Montie Claunch:
Umm, I was wondering about something. Why isn’t the transubstanation (Sp. ?) cannibalism? And could someone explain to me how transubstanation work? I can’t quiet grasp it as off yet and I would like to put it to rest before I start R.C.I.A. Classes tuesday after next. Thanks and God Bless.
Good places to start:
Real Presence
Christ in the Eucharist
TRANSUBSTANTIATION FOR BEGINNERS (This Rock: July 1993)

Welcome home. You’ll find a lot of wonderful reference material on the Catholic Answers Home Page.

Nan
 
Montie Claunch:
Umm, I was wondering about something. Why isn’t the transubstanation (Sp. ?) cannibalism?
Because Jesus isn’t just a human, nor is He dead, nor is He missing pieces of Himself. Anybody who makes the charge of cannibalism is denying the Incarnation.
And could someone explain to me how transubstanation work? I can’t quiet grasp it as off yet and I would like to put it to rest before I start R.C.I.A. Classes tuesday after next. Thanks and God Bless.
We don’t know “how it works”. We don’t know what are the properties of Christ’s glorified body. But then we don’t understand God either yet we believe in Him.

All transubstantiation means is that the elements continue to seem to be bread and wine in every physical way, but they have actually become the body and blood, soul and divinity of Jesus. That is, the elements have disappeared and in their place is Jesus. Christ physically re-enters the physical world at every Mass. Thus He is with us always both spiritually and physically, for we are both spiritual and physical creatures.
 
Cannibalism is one human person eating the flesh of another human person. Communion is one human person eating the flesh of a divine Person.
 
Eating Christ’s body we become Christ’s body

Maybe true human nature is cannibalistic ?
 
Umm, I was wondering about something. Why isn’t the transubstanation (Sp. ?) cannibalism? And could someone explain to me how transubstanation work? I can’t quiet grasp it as off yet and I would like to put it to rest before I start R.C.I.A. Classes tuesday after next. Thanks and God Bless.
What is cannibalism, and more importantly, why is it a bad thing? Answer these questions and you will see why transubstantiation is not cannibalism.

Here’s another question for you. Is a baby breast-feeding from a mother committing cannibalism? Why or why not?

EDIT - I see this thread is 4 years old! :eek:
 
Umm, I was wondering about something. Why isn’t the transubstanation (Sp. ?) cannibalism? And could someone explain to me how transubstanation work? I can’t quiet grasp it as off yet and I would like to put it to rest before I start R.C.I.A. Classes tuesday after next. Thanks and God Bless.
Before you make the plunge to join the RCC, have you considered the opposite point of view? Namely, that transubstantiation may be a hoax? I can assure you there is a truckload of biblical evidence that this is so and I am wondering if you have ever stopped to consider even once, that Jesus was speaking figuratively in John 6? If you haven’t, then your decision to join the RCC must be classified as presumptuous.

The only transubstantiation the Bible speaks about is Christ “having made Himself of no reputation, taking upon Himself the form of a servant and being made in the likeness of men” {Phil 2:6}. He was previously in the form of God, having created the universe which outwardly expresses the inward glory that is naturally His. However, through the incarnation, He now takes on the form of a servant. The word, “form” has reference to the outward expression of an inward quality or character. And this is precisely what “being made in the likeness of men” demonstrates: the outward expression of an inward quality of servitude. In light of the Holy Spirit giving us an an “outward/inward” incarnation theology in Philippians 2:6, it is unreasonable to believe He could be so neglectful to give us a “Eucharistic theology” within the sacred text regarding the inward essence of the elements changing, but the outward appearance remaining that of ordinary bread and wine. Therefore, there is nothing salvific about ingesting the Eucharist.
 
The Eucharist is a sacramental oath that Jesus made in promising us his body and blood even though it appears to be bread and wine.

Response: On the contrary, Jesus made no such “sacramental oath” to promise His “sacramental/presence/even/though/it/doesn’t/appear/to/be” anywhere in the text!
When we take God’s character into consideration, we note that the overwhelming evidence indicates that when He wishes to demonstrate His power by miracles, they must be seen! No where in the Bible are we ever told of a miracle taking place where all the evidence indicated no miracle had taken place. Transubstantiation is an allegedly “invisible” miracle that cannot be seen. We object. The wafer looks, tastes, smells and feels like a wafer— and that is exactly what it is. How can we forget water changing into wine, a rod being changed into a serpent, the sea being split down the middle, the lame walk, the blind see, the deaf hear, the dead are raised, and even dry bones are changed into an army of men, all to the amazement of the onlookers {Ezekiel 37:5-10}. And John the Baptist said that God could of these very stones, raise up children to Abraham {Matt 3:9}. But if He did, they would no longer retain the appearance of stones! Moreover, lest we forget that Jesus turned water into wine, we are reminded that the guests did not say, “Why are you serving us water?”. Neither did Jesus respond, “It may look and taste like water, but it is actually wine under the appearance of water.” No, in fact the guests considered the wine to be the finest served that night" (John 2:1-10). Consequently, we must conclude that invisible miracles such as disguising Himself “under the form of bread and wine” is saying something about God which is incorrect {Job 42:8}.
 
The sacramental food of the Eucharist is food for the spiritual journey
Your statement simply cannot be validated by the Scriptures. In actuality, we are told to put on the whole armor of God, which includes “the belt of truth, the breastplate of righteousness, the shoes of peace, the shield of faith, the helmet of salvation and the sword of the spirit” {Eph 6:13-17}. Directly after these verses, the apostle Paul indeed says he wanted to open his mouth—but not in order to swallow the Eucharist. Notice— In Scripture, life is described as a battle. If there was anything even remotely nourishing in swallowing the communion wafer as the RCC claims {CCC #1003, “Ecclesia de Eucharista”, by John Paul II, #16-17) it would have been highlighted here as the ultimate “vitamin pill” to sustain “soldiers of Jesus Christ” in the wars ahead {1 Tim 1:18, 2 Tim 2:3}. The Pope says the Eucharist is, “our food for the journey” {Ecclesia, #61}. But the apostle did not include this food in the soldier’s battle plan, but only asks the Ephesians to pray that he would boldly open his mouth to proclaim the mystery of the gospel . . . period. In stark contrast to God’s marching orders as to what constitutes a soldier’s armor, the RCC again ventures outside the inscripturated Word and hundreds of years later expects us to believe we must add to our weaponry and be “invisibly equipped” with the Eucharist! {Consitution on the Sacred Liturgy, para 2}.

On the other hand, the Lord has already promised the “invisible equipment” of the Holy Spirit—by whom we are promised to be “strengthened with might in the inner man” {Eph 3:16}. Thus, we are convinced that the RCC Eucharist does not belong in our artillery, let alone it being necessary for salvation. "Beware, lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the traditions of men " {Colossians 2:8}.
 
Greetings stormstopper,

You wrote that Jesus is speaking figuratively in John chapter 6. Where is your evidence? Can you show that this was a belief of the early Church? Did any of the Fathers of the early Church believe that Jesus was speaking figuratively?

Thanks and God bless,
ZP
 
When God’s minister celebrates mass with the faithful, God’s Spirit transubstantiates the bread and wine in the same way that God created light in Genesis 1:2-3 and in the same way that the word was made flesh in Luke chapter 1.
Oh my…talk about reading something into Scripture that simply isn’t there! That’s called “eisegesis” and this is a perfect example. The fact of the matter is that the Word of God overwhelms us with the described benefits of the Holy Spirit, but absolutely no where do we read that He transubstantiates the bread and wine! Because the RCC cannot p(name removed by moderator)oint any direct biblical link as to what advantage might result from actually swallowing the physical body of Jesus, she cleverly solves this problem by co-joining the presence of the Holy Spirit as a benefit, so that everything said about the Holy Spirit, may equally be said about the Eucharist. Thus she deceitfully transfers all the attributes of the Spirt’s presence which ARE found in the Bible in abundance, and then unwarrantedly transfers them over to the Eucharist, which are not stated anywhere! Swallowing the body of Christ, literally or not, is a biblically proven separate action that does not give any promise equal to what the Holy Spirit has already been appointed for, clearly set forth in the Text. The Catechism readily admits that the Spirit will “teach us everything”, helps in understanding the Word of God, renews us into the image of Christ, sanctifies the church, and produces in us “love, joy, peace, longsuffering, gentleness, goodness, faith, meekness and self-control” according to Galatians 5:22 {CCC # 729, 1101, 1109, 747, 736}. Furthermore, they agree that He has been sent . … . “to lead us into all truth” — “to convince the world of sin, righteousness and judgment” ---- “to shine in our hearts to give us light” — “to give us wisdom” — “to quicken us to spiritual life” — “to help our infirmaties, to help us pray, to intercede for us” — “to confirm within our hearts that we are children of God” —and “to be the seal of our inheritence” { John 16:13, 1 Cor 6:20, 2 Cor 4:6, Eph 1:17, John 6:63, Romans 8:16; 26, Eph 1:13}.

We have as yet to hear of any benefit of the RCC Eucharist that has not already been defined as one of the Holy Spirit’s assigned duties. That being the case, ingesting the ACTUAL body of Christ does not serve any purpose. The Holy Spirit which inspired the Scripture, singlehandedly multi-tasks all the benefits Christ promised when He emphatically stated His physical presence was going away and the Comforter sent to fill in the void. Moreover, the Catechism {#1374} which states that the Eucharist materializes the “real presence” in the fullest sense, is a lie. Galatians 3:26 says that when “we receive the promise of the Spirit by faith” ---- we are filled with that Spirit and with all the fullness of God {Luke 1:41; 67, 4:1, Acts 2:4; 4:8; 31; 6:3; 5, 7:55, 9:17, 11:24, 13:9; 52, Eph 3:17-19; 5:18, }. The RCC says the Eucharist brings “fullness” —but the Holy Spirit says HE does! Both cannot be true since you cannot fill a vessel that is already full with something else! Yet the RCC presses even further by supposing that, "in the celebration of the Eucharistic sacrifice, the Church prays that the Father of Mercies will grant His children the fullness of the Holy Spirit . . . " {Ecclesia de Eucharista, #43}. Let the RCC pray all she wishes. The Bible will not support this “dual presence in the fullest sense”, and therefore, she has neither one.
 
Christ physically re-enters the physical world at every Mass. Thus He is with us always both spiritually and physically, for we are both spiritual and physical creatures.
The claim that Jesus re-enters the physical universe is nothing but a slap in the face to the Lord Himself.
Scripture declares that the physical presence of Jesus was going away!

“I go to prepare a place for you” . . . “Yet a little while and the world seeth me no more.” . . . “I go away” . . . “But now I go my way to Him that sent me.” . . . “I leave the world and go unto the Father” . . … “I go to my Father and ye see me no more.” . . . “For the poor ye have with you always; but me ye have not always.” . . . “Ye shall seek me and shall not find me; and where I am, thither ye cannot come.” . … . “And now, I am no more in the world.” . . . {John 14:2, 14:19, 14:28, 16:5, 16:29, 16:10, 12:8, 7:34, 17:11}. And Paul confirmed that, "though we have known Christ in the flesh, yet now henceforth know we him NO MORE " {2 Cor 5:16}. Notice— He makes no exception that we be consoled with either Christ’s presence in–or eating His flesh as a result of, the Eucharist. Naturally then, a doctrine such as Transubstantiation which bids us to believe in the actual bodily presence of our Lord is at war with the Bible from the get-go.

Furthermore, Jesus emphatically states that prior to the time of His second coming, "if any man shall say to you, lo, here is Christ; or lo, He is there; believe it not " {Mk 13:21}.

Is not the RCC bidding us to believe Christ is “over there” in a dispensary called a “monstrance”, and picked out by the hands of the priest distributing Him in “physical form” at Communion? Yes they are, and this should rightly disturb you. But the Bible declares that Jesus does not dwell in temples {or any holy places} made with hands . . .but has entered into Heaven itself" where He will remain until He appears “a second time” {Acts 7:48; Hebrews 9:24;28}. No mention is made of a “sacramental presence” to sustain us in the meantime. Thus, the RCC vessel called a “monstrance” {or a “ciborium” or “tabernacle”} is nothing other than an alleged holy place made with hands, but Scripture states that Christ is not there!

We also note another warning in Matthew 24:26: "Therefore, if they shall say to you, Behold He is in the desert; go not forth: {or} Behold, He is in the secret chambers {King James Version} believe it not. " The New King James Version renders “secret chambers” as “inner rooms”. . . or even, “inner chambers” {American Standard Version}. What does this mean? In order that there would be no need to speculate, Jesus provided exact locations where these false appearances would occur. With reference to Strong’s Concordance, the actual meaning of the Greek word “TAMEION” that is translated as “inner rooms” is, “a dispensory; i.e. a chamber on the ground floor or interior of an Oriental house {generally used for storage or privacy; a spot for retirement}.” In other words, the original Greek actually refers to some kind of storage space , dispensary or private place. The backbone of Roman Catholicism is its star prop—the monstrance, which is a vessel / dispensary/ private dwelling----wherein they insist Jesus Christ “retires” in physical form until taken out by the hands of the priest, to be dispensed to the people via the mouth. However, our Lord says to REJECT any future sightings of His physical presence in any “secret chamber” by preceeding his warning with, “See, I have told you beforehand.” {Matt 24:25-26}. And He most certainly did. No where but in Catholicism do the words of Christ find their fulfillment with such stark clarity.
 
Greetings stormstopper,

Did any of the Fathers of the early Church believe that Jesus was speaking figuratively?
First of all, our main concern should be WHAT SAITH THE SCRIPTURE, as opposed to the opinions of men, however helpful they may be. Second, while many early fathers may have believed it then, there are millions today who do not----including 70% of Catholics when asked this very question in a 1992 Gallup Poll which may be found on-line. In light of the fact that the New Testament predicted an immediate departure from sound doctrine from within the church both during and after the life of the apostle Paul {Acts 20:29-30, 1 Tim 1:20, 2 Tim 1:15; 2:17-18, Jude 3,4, 10-13} —and considering the voluminous evidence against Transubstantiation, it is not unreasonable to classify this belief as one of those anticipated “perverse” departures {Acts 20:30, 2 Pet 3:16}. Third, Catholics typically assert that there was never any disagreement on this issue, which is completely untrue. Let us merely look to the Roman Catholic work by Robert Sungenis to prove that there has always been, “a diversity in patristic thought on the Eucharist” (“Not By Bread Alone”, p. 306)—right up till the time it was officially defined in 1215 under Innocent III.

Circa 830, a monk by the name of Radbertus, who openly made a strong identification of the Lord’s presence in the Eucharist, was opposed by another monk called Ratramnus, who took the opposite view (ibid, p. 299). In 855, Rabanas Maurus wrote that there were those who were wrong that judged the sacrament was the same body and blood which was born of the virgin Mary and which suffered on the cross and rose from the grave" (ibid, p. 300). The wondering monk called Gottschalk, and the abbot, Gezo, accused Radbertus of advocating a realism of the Eucharist which bordered on cannibalism (p. 300-1). One by the name of Erigena, held that, “the sacrament of the altar might not be the body and blood, but only a remembrance” (p. 300). Circa 1000, Berengar, of the church of St. Martin in Tours, openly denied transubstantiation and said there was no need for the substantial presence in the sacrament and that the whole idea was nonsense (p. 302-303). Nor was it the way in which one received eternal life, to which Peter of Vienna agreed (p. 308). The Cathari movement and the Albigensians of France agreed with the argument presented by Berengar (p. 303).

Fourth, we have read Darwell Stone’s, “A History of the Doctrine of the Holy Eucharist” {circa 1900}. The two volume set includes the names of others which can be added to those above. But it is significant that Mr. Stone expresses bewilderment in four separate places in relation to the, “constant use of sacrificial language in reference to the Eucharist made by those who do consider it a literal sacrifice. It is unaccompanied by any explicit and detailed explanation of the way in which the Eucharist is a sacrifice” {p. 113, 47, 49, 153}. Quite true. And this is because Scripture will not permit it. These men simply assert it, their opinion being worthless. In spite of ample opportunity to do so in an epistle replete with sacrificial language, never once does the book of Hebrews ever connect the sacrifice of Christ to the Eucharist, and never once does Paul ever equate “sacrifice” with the Lord’s Supper in his epistles either. The ludicrous idea of the Lord’s Supper needing to be offered as a sacrifice that takes away sin, slowly crept into the church unchecked.

We would also add that when you read the early fathers, it is frustrating to note that in 95% of the cases, they merely claim the fact that Transubstantiation is true based on John 6 with no meaningful explication of why we should believe it with reasons based on God’s word! Not surprisingly, they usually couple their opinion with lame analogies such as that old stand-by, “God can do anything so it must be true”.
 
Greetings stormstopper,

You wrote that Jesus is speaking figuratively in John chapter 6. Where is your evidence?
There are only two alternatives: either Jesus was saying “this is in fact my body”, or “this represents my body”. Contrary to the RCC, we believe that when we respect and stay within biblical parameters, the latter is the only logical choice----it being a metaphor. A metaphor boldly declares that one thing IS another —when it really isn’t.

The key is found in the verb “is”. It denotes representation. We have recourse to metaphor when we look over a map and say, “This is England”. We don’t mean that the paper is England, but those inkspots upon it represent that country.

OBJECTION: “Granted---- but that’s because the listenser already knows that those who point to maps don’t really mean the figure on the map is the actual country. That’s not the case with Matthew 26:26 which has no “already-decided agreement” that the word “is” will be pointing out something that is not real, or is a metaphor.”

ANSWER: Not true! The Passover meal was incredibly rich in symbolism! They would have eaten . . …

*** MOROR {bitter herbs}. Representing the bitterness of Egyptian slavery.

*** UNLEAVENED BREAD {Matzot}. Representing the haste with which the Israelites left Egypt, for they couldn’t wait for the bread to rise.

*** CHAROSETH {mixture of chopped apples, nuts, wine & cinnamon}. Representing the mortar used by the Israelite slaves to make bricks.

*** CEREMONIAL CUPS. Different cups were used to represent the various phases of the Exodus.

*** The Passover Lamb. The blood of that sacrifice was put over their doorposts so the death angel would pass over.

We see then that before the Supper, the apostles were already thinking symbolically because each of the items on the table was a symbol and a reminder to the Jewish people of their escape from Egypt by the hand of God. During the Supper, the disciples had every reason in the world to believe Jesus was speaking figuratively when He said, “This is my body”. When He held the bread and said the words, no one at table could possibly have taken Him to mean the bread was actually His physical body— since He was sitting right there in His physical body! Too, after the Supper, He continued to use illustrations by washing the disciples feet in response to their arguing who among them was the greatest. The greatest was the one who served {John 13:3-17}. And finally, subsequent to the Supper, even Paul used the word “body” figuratively many times to signify something else, namely the church—{Rms 12:5, 1 Cor 12:13; 20, Eph 1:22, 23; 2:16; 4:4; Col 1:18, 24; 3:15}. He even went so far as to figuratively identify the body of believers as BREAD in 1 Cor 10:17: “For we, though many, are one bread and one body. . .” The only sane conclusion is that Paul duplicated the metaphorical speech of Christ when He figuratively identified the bread as His body at the Last Supper!

The biblical evidence is crystal clear: the emblems of bread and wine were meant for us to mediatate on the solitary, majestic and horizon-filling grandeur of the Lord Jesus Christ’s rescue mission to humanity. It was never meant to be a sacrifice offered to God over and over again as we observe in the Mass. That happened “once” 2,000 years ago—“once” being stated 7 times in Hebrews 7, 9 & 10 . . .completely precluding any idea of repetition with, “Nor yet that He should offer Himself often” {9:25}. Needless to say, the event at Calvary doesn’t need to be renewed, re-enacted, reapplied, refurbished or “re-presented”. . . not now----not ever!

Jesus prayed, “I have finished the work which thou gavest me to do” {John 17:4}.
 
stormstopper, you have strayed from the topic of the thread. Is the Eucharist as understood by the Catholic and Orthodox Churches cannibalism or not?
 
stormstopper, you have strayed from the topic of the thread. Is the Eucharist as understood by the Catholic and Orthodox Churches cannibalism or not?
Strictly, the answer is yes in light of the clear and forceful language issued forth from the Magisterium saying it izzzzz the body, blood, soul and divinity. The escape hatch to deny this is that the consumption is “sacramental”. However, the Bible does not give us any “eucharistic theology”–sacramentally or otherwise, regarding this topic, so we must conclude the RCC has imported her own ideas into the matter because the Holy Spirit did not see fit to do so. The Holy Spirit DOES give us numerous explications on various other matters—but no direct explications on the Eucharist. Hard to believe IF it were true. But because it is not true, it follows that that is the reason why the Spirit did not elucidate on Transubstantiation. It was no where on His mind.

Let’s face it----since cannibalism has generally been taboo since time began, and is practiced only among the most uncivilized and inhumane of people; the revolting idea of eating and drinking the body and blood of the Lord Jesus Christ is inherently illogical and must be abandoned at once. True, there was indeed shock value to the vivid images of cannibalism He employed; nevertheless, these jolting declarations do not for a moment prove their literal intent, nor were they out of character. For He who said to eat His flesh, also said to “cut off your hand” if it caused you to sin as mentioned earlier. Likewise, the description of a two-edged sword coming out of the mouth of Christ in Revelation 1 does not expect us to visualize a literal sword. Visual language is meant to teach us something beyond the provacative image used so that the spiritual reality of what He was teaching would capture our attention. And capture us it has. Nevertheless, after all the Bible has to offer against this belief, the RCC says John 6 is an exception to be taken “literally”. But when we noticed that they define “literal” as being, “hidden and veiled to the senses under the appearance of bread and wine”, this apostisizing viewpoint shows no doctrinal or linguistic integrity whatsoever.

It is not the anointing of the Eucharist that abides in us, but rather, “The anointing of the Holy Spirit which ye have received of Him, abideth in you” {1 John 2:27, Rms 5:5}.

This irrefutable truth cannot but have a neutralizing effect on the stardom and wide-mouthed exposure of the Transubstantiation myth. We are told to be, “an epistle of Christ, written not with ink, but with the Spirit of the Living God” {2 Cor 3:3}. Roman Catholics need to swallow their pride, not the Eucharist, and grab hold of the fact that the promise and gift of the Holy Spirit is a “treasure we have in earthen vessels” {2 Cor 4:7}. In the wilderness under the Old Covenant, God dwelt in a tent; in the new covenant, the “joy of the Holy Spirit” dwells in us! {1 Thess 1:6} .
 
Umm, I was wondering about something. Why isn’t the transubstanation (Sp. ?) cannibalism? And could someone explain to me how transubstanation work? I can’t quiet grasp it as off yet and I would like to put it to rest before I start R.C.I.A. Classes tuesday after next. Thanks and God Bless.
The Eucharist is Christ’s spiritual Body, not His physical body before His resurrection.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top