Correlating sacrifice of Isaac and the Eucharist

[KGM]

Protestants have accused Catholics of participating in cannibalism when we eat the flesh and blood of our Lord. They say this of course because it is prohibited by God for us to engage in acts of cannibalism. Their argument is that since God Himself prohibits this act then he could not have possibly meant for us to eat His flesh and drink His blood.

This morning as I was getting my son ready to read his religion book (I home school) I saw a picture of Abraham with a dagger of some kind raised high above the body of Isaac who was prepared to be a sacrifice to God. Clearly we know that God Himself prohibits us to murder or even offer another person to the point of death as a sacrifice (similar to what the pagans have practiced). Granted, Abraham did not actually kill his son, however he was prepared to obey God in spite of God’s law to not kill or offer a person as a sacrifice. Essentially he did commit this act of killing his son in his mind (similar to being guilty of committing a sin in our minds even though we did not go through with the sinful act).

Could these two circumstances be paralleled with one another as a means to combat what appears to be a contradiction when it comes to consuming the body of Christ? In other words, God clearly commands us to not kill but at the same time asks Abraham to do what he said not to do. How do we (both Catholics and Protestants) explain why God commanded Abraham to go forward and do something that He has also commanded us not to do? Likewise, how do we (Catholics) explain how God prohibits cannibalism but at the same time has chosen to give us His flesh to eat and blood to drink?

Another example might be incest. We are not permitted to engage in acts of incest, however at some point in time did not the early humans have no choice but to engage in such an act in order to populate the earth?

I have found that in the past when I have posted a thread people have a tendency to misunderstand what I am asking and include in their response explanations which do not apply to my question. Please know what I am asking before you reply. I am asking specifically: how do we explain why God prohibits something on the one hand but on the other requires us for a particular reason to engage in the very act He prohibits. In other words I am not questioning whether or not we can trust the doctrine of the Eucharist. I agree with it wholeheartedly. My concern is specifically with how do we explain what appears to be a contradiction. I know by reason that God does not contradict Himself, but at the same time I’m not able to adequately explain why God has chosen to allow something he has prohibited. Thanks so much to all who reply! Katie

 

[RyanML]

Protestants have accused Catholics of participating in cannibalism when we eat the flesh and blood of our Lord. They say this of course because it is prohibited by God for us to engage in acts of cannibalism. Their argument is that since God Himself prohibits this act then he could not have possibly meant for us to eat His flesh and drink His blood.

This morning as I was getting my son ready to read his religion book (I home school) I saw a picture of Abraham with a dagger of some kind raised high above the body of Isaac who was prepared to be a sacrifice to God. Clearly we know that God Himself prohibits us to murder or even offer another person to the point of death as a sacrifice (similar to what the pagans have practiced). Granted, Abraham did not actually kill his son, however he was prepared to obey God in spite of God’s law to not kill or offer a person as a sacrifice. Essentially he did commit this act of killing his son in his mind (similar to being guilty of committing a sin in our minds even though we did not go through with the sinful act).

Could these two circumstances be paralleled with one another as a means to combat what appears to be a contradiction when it comes to consuming the body of Christ? In other words, God clearly commands us to not kill but at the same time asks Abraham to do what he said not to do. How do we (both Catholics and Protestants) explain why God commanded Abraham to go forward and do something that He has also commanded us not to do? Likewise, how do we (Catholics) explain how God prohibits cannibalism but at the same time has chosen to give us His flesh to eat and blood to drink?

Another example might be incest. We are not permitted to engage in acts of incest, however at some point in time did not the early humans have no choice but to engage in such an act in order to populate the earth?

I have found that in the past when I have posted a thread people have a tendency to misunderstand what I am asking and include in their response explanations which do not apply to my question. Please know what I am asking before you reply. I am asking specifically: how do we explain why God prohibits something on the one hand but on the other requires us for a particular reason to engage in the very act He prohibits. In other words I am not questioning whether or not we can trust the doctrine of the Eucharist. I agree with it wholeheartedly. My concern is specifically with how do we explain what appears to be a contradiction. I know by reason that God does not contradict Himself, but at the same time I’m not able to adequately explain why God has chosen to allow something he has prohibited. Thanks so much to all who reply! Katie

Webster’s defines cannibalism as the “ritualistic eating of human flesh by a human being”. But in the Eucharist, we receive the whole Christ, body, blood, soul, and divinity in Sacrament. Our Lord’s presence is real but it is not physical. The bread does not actually become a piece of flesh and the wine does not actually become blood in it’s taste, appearance, molecular makeup, etc. Christ is wholly and substantially present but not in this physical way, which is why in receiving Holy Communion, we are not being cannibalistic. Beware though, getting into this can get very philosophical and can hurt your head! At some point we just have to accept that the gift of the Eucharist is a Mystery, and one that we can not fully understand this side of Heaven. God bless!

 

[KGM]

I am really interested in being able to defend the teachings of the church and my main concern is that I am able to *adequately *defend a doctrine. It sounds like there is then no parallel between Abraham sacrificing his son by means of murdering him even though God commanded us not to murder and God prohibiting cannibalism yet allowing us to consume His flesh and blood. If I am on the right track then it is because we truly are not engaging in cannibalism (which I did not believe we were doing anyway). The argument then comes down to this: we do consume His body, blood, soul and divinity, but we do not do it in a cannibalistic way because the appearance of the Body of Christ in no way resembles a genuine piece of flesh or cup full of blood. We must accept the fact that it is a Mystery otherwise as you said our head will hurt from thinking too much about it.

The best thing to do then when confronted with a person who believes contrary to this doctrine (but who refers to themselves as a Christian) would be to lead him/her into the realization that it is indeed a Mystery (which of course is ultimately impossible to adequately explain)?

 

[davidv]

I am really interested in being able to defend the teachings of the church and my main concern is that I am able to *adequately *defend a doctrine. It sounds like there is then no parallel between Abraham sacrificing his son by means of murdering him even though God commanded us not to murder and God prohibiting cannibalism yet allowing us to consume His flesh and blood. If I am on the right track then it is because we truly are not engaging in cannibalism (which I did not believe we were doing anyway). The argument then comes down to this: we do consume His body, blood, soul and divinity, but we do not do it in a cannibalistic way because the appearance of the Body of Christ in no way resembles a genuine piece of flesh or cup full of blood. We must accept the fact that it is a Mystery otherwise as you said our head will hurt from thinking too much about it.

The best thing to do then when confronted with a person who believes contrary to this doctrine (but who refers to themselves as a Christian) would be to lead him/her into the realization that it is indeed a Mystery (which of course is ultimately impossible to adequately explain)?

Given the chronology of the OT, God’s request for the sacrifice of Isaac predates the giving of the Commandments by several centuries. It was not until after Isaac died in his old age that the Israelites became slaves in Eqypt. The were captive there for 400 years before being led to freedom by Moses.

 

[RyanML]

The best thing to do then when confronted with a person who believes contrary to this doctrine (but who refers to themselves as a Christian) would be to lead him/her into the realization that it is indeed a Mystery (which of course is ultimately impossible to adequately explain)?

The Trinity also is a Mystery, and yet we do our best to understand it with what finite definitions we have. Protestants believe this as well. My father, who is protestant, can’t understand how Catholics believe the Eucharist IS the very person of Jesus Christ when, by all appearances, it is simply bread and wine. But just as we know the Trinity is true since it has been revealed, so we know the Eucharist is true, even if we can not fully understand it. We know that it is not cannibalism because we are not consuming an actual piece of flesh or actually drinking blood, but we are in fact eating the Lord’s flesh and drinking His blood. This is the Mystery. The Eastern Churches have never defined what happens in the Divine Liturgy because it is really impossible to fully comprehend and so the just say it’s a Mystery. This is what they call the sacraments in the East, Mysteries. So all we can really do is explain the Scriptural and historical evidence for the Catholic understanding of Eucharist and then pray for those who do not believe that they may be given this gift of faith. God bless!

 

[KGM]

As I ponder this more it seems that I am trying too hard to defend our faith using practical explanations. I have a relative who is strictly a bible believer and has harshly criticized others in the family concerning Catholic doctrines. This person of course uses Scripture alone to defend all that she believes (which is a very practical approach). Perhaps I desire to rely too heavily upon this method to defend our doctrines. It seems to me that in defending our faith we have to rely heavily upon both the idea of oral Tradition and the fact that some things are to a large degree a Mystery. Interestingly enough I never considered the fact that it is okay to say what can be said about the Eucharist using the Scriptures and leaving what is more difficult to understand to the fact that it is ultimately a Mystery.

I have this fear that I will not be able to adequately defend our faith and that I will be backed into a corner and not know what to say. It gives me peace of mind to think that I just have to defend the Church’s doctrines to the best that I can not concerning myself with whether or not a person receives what I have to say. This discussion has been helpful. Thank you all and God Bless.

 

[grandfather]

I have this fear that I will not be able to adequately defend our faith and that I will be backed into a corner and not know what to say. It gives me peace of mind to think that I just have to defend the Church’s doctrines to the best that I can not concerning myself with whether or not a person receives what I have to say. This discussion has been helpful. Thank you all and God Bless.

The Catholic doctrine on the Eucharist is taken directly from scripture. In fact it is taken from Jesus own words in scripture. It is also prefigured in the Old Testament which points to the Eucharist throughout.

The first hint is seen in Cain and Abel offering sacrifice. One is acceptable to God and the other is unaccesptable. Here we get the concept of sacrifice. We can think about what it means and see there is both acceptable and unacceptable sacrifice.

We then see Noah offer sacrifice. Then Abraham and Melchezidich the priest of the most high God offers bread and wine. Scripture says Jesus is a priest in the order of Melchezidich. In order to have a sacrifice you must have a priest. The firstborn son of every family was its priest. Then when Moses comes we have the Levitical priesthood and they offer sacrifice in the temple in atonement for sins, but also the sacrifice that the Jews still commemorate today of the Passover where a male lamb without blemish is offered on the night before the Jews are led out of slavery and the angel of death passes over their houses and the first born of the Eygotians die, man and beast. The Jews eat the flesh of the sacrificed lamb, drink cups of wine and eat unleavened bread. All of this points to Jesus the lamb of God who saves us from the slavery of sin, who is sacrificed for us, and whose flesh we eat. The Jews had many priests, but one high priest who went in to the holy of holies.

Then we get to Jesus words. I am the bread come down from heaven, comparing Himself to the manna that came down to feed the Jews. He says, my body is REAL food and my blood is REAL drink. Unless a man eat my flesh and drink my blood he has no life in Him. Then look at Jesus’s own words at the Last Supper. He says the cup of wine he offers ritualistically following the Mosaic prescriptions of the Passover commemoration is the cup of His blood, the new and everlasting covenant (with God). He blesses it and says it is shed for them and many so sins can be forgiven and He tells them to drink it. He says the bread is His broken body. He tells them to take it and eat it. He commands them to do this in commemoration of His Him. His words right out of scripture are repeated at every Mass.

It is Protestants who refuse to believe what scripture clearly teaches and what all Chrisitians believed and did for fifiteen hundred years.

They say Jesus’s words in scripture are not to be taken literally. But Jesus says, “My flesh is REAL food and my blood is REAL drink.” “Unless a man eat my flesh and drink my blood he has no life in him”. He did not say the bread was a symbol of His body. He said it was His body and they should eat it. He tells them to do it again, this ritual He performed, in His memory. He is the eternal high priest who offers Himself as our sacrificicial victim.

You could not find a doctrine that is more scriptural. It is seen from Genesis to Jesus. The irony is the Protestants who claim all doctrine must come from scripture alone don’t see it. They are blinded to it by lack of faith. It is too hard to believe for them.

When Jesus first taught this doctrine publicly as recodred in scripture many Jews walked away from Him. He asked His apostles if they would leave also. They said it was a hard saying, but there was nowhere else to go, because only He had the words of eternal life. The Protestants who walk away rejecting the same teaching are like those Jews. They leave Him. They do not eat His body and drink His blood and according to His very words that means they do not have any life in them.

 

[davidv]

The Catholic doctrine on the Eucharist is taken directly from scripture. In fact it is taken from Jesus own words in scripture. It is also prefigured in the Old Testament which points to the Eucharist throughout.

{snip}

This is not quite right. The doctrine on the Eucharist are taken directly from Jesus’ teachings. These teachings also happen to be recorded in Sacred Scripture.

 

[DD2007]

Scott Hahn dealt with this topic in his book " A Father who keeps his promises"

In the book he points out that when Isaac asked Abraham “where is the lamb to be sacrificed” and Abraham replied “The Lord will provide” he makes the case that that was a forshadowing of the Lord sacrificing his own son on a hill not far from Moriah far in the future. Abraham was willing, but God had mercy on him, and rewarded his faith by revealing himself to the world through Abraham’s offspring, however God took the sacrifice upon himself.

amazon.com/Father-Who-Keeps-His-Promises/dp/0892838299/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1223051988&sr=8-1

 

[Nita]

A major difference between the Eucharist and cannibalism is that cannibalism is the eating of mortal flesh; the Eucharist is the eating of immortal flesh.

 

[DianJo]

A major difference between the Eucharist and cannibalism is that cannibalism is the eating of mortal flesh; the Eucharist is the eating of immortal flesh.

Here’s the perfect answer for the cannibalisim argument!!
Great Answer - so succinct!