Holy Communion = cannibalism?

  • Thread starter Thread starter typewriterman
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
T

typewriterman

Guest
I know this subject has been answered countless times, but I can’t find a tract that directly addresses this question. A friend of mine want to know how to answer his friend who says “eating the flesh of Jesus sounds like cannibalism”. My friend wants a succinct answer. AND is there a link I can send to him about this subject?. Thanks.
 
Certainly that was one of the complaints by the ancient Romans. So much for Communion being a mere memorial at the start.
 
From OSV
  1. Eucharistic Cannibalism
    Question: Non-Catholics and Catholics I know say if we believe in the true eucharistic presence of Christ as Body and Blood, we are like cannibals when we receive Communion.
    Answer: It is understandable that (through misinformation) some non-Catholics might think that Catholics hold a cannibalistic understanding of the Eucharist. However, that Catholics themselves would think this is surprising, and it indicates a serious lack of an adequate understanding of eucharistic presence.
    The charge of eucharistic cannibalism has been made from the earliest days of Christianity. The Church has always refuted the notion by insisting that “body” and “blood” in the Eucharist do not correspond to actual meat and blood as we understand these in everyday life. This is why the Church has always been skeptical of stories of “bleeding hosts,” of images of Christ crucified appearing in the host, or of bread that turns into flesh after the consecration.
    To hold that believers receive in the Eucharist the body and blood of Christ is to say that by the power of the Spirit the bread and wine, while remaining in appearance bread and wine, are changed into the very being of the risen and glorified Christ. This is in no way to play down the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist. In the Eucharist we receive nothing less than the whole person of the risen Christ.
    The Church’s doctrine of transubstantiation excludes the idea that Christ’s body and blood are cannibalized in eucharistic communion.
osv.com/OSV4MeNav/Sacraments/TheEucharist/EucharisticQandA/tabid/498/Default.aspx
 
To hold that believers receive in the Eucharist the body and blood of Christ is to say that by the power of the Spirit the bread and wine, while remaining in appearance bread and wine, are changed into the very being of the risen and glorified Christ. This is in no way to play down the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist. In the Eucharist we receive nothing less than the whole person of the risen Christ.
The Church’s doctrine of transubstantiation excludes the idea that Christ’s body and blood are cannibalized in eucharistic communion.

Well then this is pretty much Lutherns view, recieving the real presence of Christ.
Spiritually in the host.
 
The objection Memorialists raise regarding the Jewish dietary laws and the Eucharist reduces the doctrine of Real Presence to a purely physical process which is a straw-man fallacy. That is, if the reception of Christ’s Body by Christians is a purely physical process, we would be guilty of cannibalism and therefore a violation of the Jewish dietary laws. Now the contemporary Memorialists are not the first to accuse the Catholic Church of cannibalism. This unsubstantiated claim was widely used against us by the pagans of the second century. **We emphatically do not hold the Eucharistic reception to be a purely physical process and we are not guilty of cannibalism because receiving the Eucharist is not the equivalent of taking a bite out of Jesus’ Arm nor of drinking His Blood from the Cross. Those things would be a violation of the Jewish dietary laws. The substance of the host has been changed into the risen Body of Christ which although fully corporeal and real, does not physically belong to this universe. **The Jewish dietary laws pertain to the natural; what we are partaking of in the Eucharist is supernatural. So our reception of Christ in the Eucharist is not a mere physical event. It is an event where the supernatural meets the natural. The benefit of the Eucharist is spiritual not physical; namely: grace. We cannot receive grace via digestion. Moreover, we do not digest Christ.

Source: calledtocommunion.com/2009/03/real-presence-does-it-mean-cannibalism/
 
There are few times in Scripture where Jesus specifically says in direct order “Do This” or “Verily, Verily - Very Truely”. One such order, is in John 6: 53-59. He was so sincere about this order, that He allowed the majority of the crowd to disperse from Him and then questioned the Apostles, asking them if they wished to leave also.

This calling out of the Eucharist as cannibalism has existed since the Early Church - Tertullian (160 - 220) - Tertullian, The Apology, Chapter 7:1.

Read more: catholicfidelity.com/apologetics-topics/eucharist/questions-about-the-eucharist/ .

St. Justin Martyr wrote (148-155) also about the Real Presence.

catholicfidelity.com/apologetics-topics/eucharist/questions-about-the-eucharist/

therealpresence.org/eucharst/father/a5.html
“This food we call the Eucharist, of which no one is allowed to partake except one who believes that the things we teach are true, and has received the washing for forgiveness of sins and for rebirth, and who lives as Christ handed down to us. For we do not receive these things as common bread or common drink; but as Jesus Christ our Savior being incarnate by God’s Word took flesh and blood for our salvation, so also we have been taught that the food consecrated by the Word of prayer which comes from him, from which our flesh and blood are nourished by transformation, is the flesh and blood of that incarnate Jesus.”
Click to expand...
“First Apology”, Ch. 66, inter A.D. 148-155.
Click to expand...
Perhaps a scholar on Luther, could explain why and when Luther lost the faith of the Church concerning the Real Presence.

Luther’s loss of faith in the Eucharist (which is based back to both Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradtion, is the real question that needs answered.
 
so what are you saying now, the host is the actural flesh (skin, tissue, organs ) and blood
of Jesus?

I think this is what your saying, right back at cannibalism again now.
 
Luvtosew said:
so what are you saying now, the host is the actural flesh (skin, tissue, organs ) and blood
of Jesus?

I think this is what your saying, right back at cannibalism again now.
Click to expand...
Yes and No.

The Eucharist is the Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of Jesus Christ. Why? In very short answer, because Jesus (Son of God and Son of Man) said that it is.
 
No I don’t think he meant us to eat his flesh and blood. He gave it to his apostels at the last supper and I believe he ate at the last supper and that is to believe he ate himself.

also in one of your above links it said that Spirit= Symbol
I would not be the one to tell the Holy Spirit he is a symbol.

Also, we all know what cannibalism is, and Jesus was man, our species. What is meant by a glorified body in heaven?

We believe God is everywhere but we dont see him, why did God have to come to earth as a human , so we could see him, in the Old Testement he would not show himself to Moses, as it would be too much for Moses to see.
 
I’ve never really understood the objection to equating communion to cannibalism, other than many find the idea “gross.”

Cannibalism is the consumption of human flesh.

Christ was fully man, and the Eucharist is his body and blood.

So in a very basic sense, it is cannibalism. The only way out of that is to either redefine the Eucharist or redefine cannibalism. The latter is the usual course, but is really avoiding the issue.
 
Could we be fed by Christ like a baby is fed by an expectant mother via umbilical cord and then after birth by breastfeeding? Not like eating flesh and blood, but nourished.
 
Barbkw said:
Perhaps a scholar on Luther, could explain why and when Luther lost the faith of the Church concerning the Real Presence.

Luther’s loss of faith in the Eucharist (which is based back to both Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradtion, is the real question that needs answered.
Click to expand...
I thought Luther held on the faith in the Real Presence. His problem was with Church authority, that is why he reassigned authority from the Church heirarchy to the Bible.
 
The Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of Christ are contained truly, really, and substantially in the Eucharist. They are not present materially…
 
Digitonomy said:
I’ve never really understood the objection to equating communion to cannibalism, other than many find the idea “gross.”

Cannibalism is the consumption of human flesh.

Christ was fully man, and the Eucharist is his body and blood.

So in a very basic sense, it is cannibalism. The only way out of that is to either redefine the Eucharist or redefine cannibalism. The latter is the usual course, but is really avoiding the issue.
Click to expand...
+1
 
now what is that saying, that Christ is physically present in the host, his flesh, bones, organs and blood? is that what that is saying? Every little hosts contains Jesus in his body?
 
The Romans charged the early Christians with the issue of cannibalism because of the Eucharist.

The Early Christians recognized Christ within the Host and Wine.

I don’t believe its cannibalism, as it is the Glorified body of Christ in the Eucharist. Even since He is human, He is a glorified human, where as WE are not.

To my understanding, Cannibalism is the eating of one’s own kind. Since we are NOT glorified humans, it can be argued that the Eucharist IS NOT CANNIBALISM.

Does this make any sense to anyone? Did I mss something?
 
St Thomas Aquinas says:

“By the power of the sacrament there is contained under it, as to the species of the bread, not only the flesh, but the entire body of Christ, that is, the bones the nerves, and the like. And this is apparent from the form of this sacrament, wherein it is not said: “This is My flesh,” but “This is My body.” Accordingly, when our Lord said (John 6:56): “My flesh is meat indeed,” there the word flesh is put for the entire body, because according to human custom it seems to be more adapted for eating, as men commonly are fed on the flesh of animals, but not on the bones or the like.”

[Emphasis mine.]
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top