Holy Communion = cannibalism?

  • Thread starter Thread starter typewriterman
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Zekariya said:
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.]
Click to expand...
there is no way I believe that. now that is cannabilism no matter how you try to explain its not. no wonder Protantants think what they do.
 
Luvtosew said:
there is no way I believe that. now that is cannabilism no matter how you try to explain its not. no wonder Protantants think what they do.
Click to expand...
You deny Christ’s Body being present in the Blessed Sacrament?

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. - St Thomas Aquinas, Doctor of the Church

It must be His whole Body that is present. Christians in the early Church were accused of cannibalism.
 
I believe its the Body , Soul and Divinity of Christ , not physically present,
like the other poster.

I think they thought that because they mis understood.
 
Luvtosew said:
I believe its the Body , Soul and Divinity of Christ , not physically present,
like the other poster.

I think they thought that because they mis understood.
Click to expand...
Christ is physically present in the species of bread. If He wasn’t, we couldn’t worship Him in the Blessed Sacrament.

For the body of Christ is indeed present under the species of bread by the power of the sacrament… - St Thomas Aquinas, Doctor of the Church

The accidents/appearance is bread.
The substance is Christ’s Body.

Some men accordingly, not paying heed to these things, have contended that Christ’s body and blood are not in this sacrament except as in a sign, a thing to be rejected as heretical, since it is contrary to Christ’s words. Hence Berengarius, who had been the first deviser of this heresy, was afterwards forced to withdraw his error, and to acknowledge the truth of the faith. - St Thomas Aquinas, Doctor of the Church
 
Yes I believe the body, blood and divinity of Christ is present, not his physical body of flesh, nerves and blood cells tho. Jesus no longer has a body like ours. He is a glorified body. He is everywhere at all times, when he broke bread for the last supper and ate with his apostles , he did not eat himself. 🙂
 
Luvtosew said:
Yes I believe the body, blood and divinity of Christ is present, not his physical body of flesh, nerves and blood cells tho. Jesus no longer has a body like ours. He is a glorified body. He is everywhere at all times, when he broke bread for the last supper and ate with his apostles , he did not eat himself. 🙂
Click to expand...
I agree that He didn’t appear to be physically physically present otherwise we would taste flesh. :eek: He is, however, physically present under the species of bread and wine. 😛

Spiritual presence is what the Presbyterians teach.
 
Luvtosew said:
there is no way I believe that. now that is cannabilism no matter how you try to explain its not. no wonder Protantants think what they do.
Click to expand...
Seems as if consubstantiation would be closer to cannibalism by definition than transubstantiation. IMO.
 
Hes in there , and we receive him, so thats a good thing.🙂

Spiritual presence is what the Presbyterians teach. -oh I didn’t know that.😉
 
johnnykins said:
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
Click to expand...
:)very well said!!
 
ZhaneAugustine said:
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?
Click to expand...
Makes a LOT of sense!

Jesus said “the flesh profiteth nothing.”
I think we are just supposed to take Him at His word and follow Him in faith.
I don’t have to understand, I simply must believe!
He loved me so much that He died for me and He would never lead me astray, so while I may not necessarily understand this miracle, I accept it in faith because He said “do this in memory of me.”:rolleyes:
 
Cannibalism is eating dead flesh. Think about it - the second a part of the body is separated from the whole, it is dead. The Eucharist is ALL of Jesus. Jesus is living. This is why I teach second graders the Eucharist is Jesus: Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity. Everyone just hears “Body and Blood” and they loose sight of the fact that the Eucharist is Jesus in His entirety.

Read John 6 especially verses 54-56 and 60-69. Jesus said his flesh is true food and his blood true drink. People quit following him because of it. Yet he didn’t go “hey wait I didn’t mean it”. The Apostles never said they understood but they stayed with him because they recognized him as the Holy One of God. We don’t understand everything there is to know about the Eucharist because the Eucharist is God. But we do know that the Eucharist is not cannibalism by any definition.
 
“Unless you eat my flesh you shall have no life in you.”
Cannibal or zombie? Call me a cannibal any day!
 
Zekariya said:
Christ is physically present in the species of bread. If He wasn’t, we couldn’t worship Him in the Blessed Sacrament.
Click to expand...
I’d be careful about the word “physical” since in its common sense it means something slightly different. Physical things, in the common sense, can be divided. Yet no matter how many times we divide the host it still contains the fullness of the Real Presence.
 
As regards, what Lutherans believe, it is that the bread and wine is both bread and wine as well as both the Body and Blood of Christ, and that the essence of all four are ‘united’ in that aspect. So it’s not exactly a spiritual presence, but they deny a three-dimensional substantial presence as well.
NewEnglandPries said:
I’d be careful about the word “physical” since in its common sense it means something slightly different. Physical things, in the common sense, can be divided. Yet no matter how many times we divide the host it still contains the fullness of the Real Presence.
Click to expand...
No matter how many time we cut an apple, it still tastes fully an apple. 😃
 
As regards what Lutherans believe, they claim is that Body and Blood of Christ comes under the ‘form’ of the bread and wine, and the bread and wine is both bread and wine as well as both the Body and Blood of Christ, and that the essence of all four are ‘united’. They deny a three-dimensional presence in substance, but they refuse to consider it a spiritual presence either. It’s a bit hard to wrap your head around it, I know. 😃
NewEnglandPries said:
I’d be careful about the word “physical” since in its common sense it means something slightly different. Physical things, in the common sense, can be divided. Yet no matter how many times we divide the host it still contains the fullness of the Real Presence.
Click to expand...
No matter how many time we cut an apple, you can still taste the fullness of apple, yes? 🙂
 
Luvtosew said:
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.
Click to expand...
Forgive me if I’ve misunderstood- but are you suggesting that the Lord is restricted to heaven in his glorified body? If so, what about His coming to Thomas(and the apostles after the Ressurection? His glorified body was still human as evidenced by His eating with them after they fished. Many scholars explained that because He was unrecognizable in His glorified body, it was His actions-particularly in the Breaking of Bread that they knew Him.-And that early morn when they came in from fishing He was on the beach eating.

As for cannabalism-yes, He was a man. But He was also God.We don’t partake only of Body and Blood, But also His soul and Divinity-therein is the difference from cannabalism. If I were to eat you- yes I would condsume your body and blood. But in no way shape or form is it possible for me to eat and consume your soul or what ever life of God that may be present in you. Eating the flesh and blood of someone who is only human=cannabalism. Eating the Body and Blood, Soul and Divinity of our Lord= Communion with God (and each other).
Cannabalism is taking, Communion is receiving.
 
Digitonomy said:
Unless you cut it so small that it’s no longer recognizable by the senses as an apple…
Click to expand...
And neither can continue to be called the Body and Blood of Christ when it is fractioned to such an extent that is no longer perceivable by the senses. 🙂

From St. Thomas Aquinas in Summa Theologiae:
But if the change be so great that the substance of the bread or wine would have been corrupted, then Christ’s body and blood do not remain under this sacrament; and this either on the part of the qualities, as when the color, savor, and other qualities of the bread and wine are so altered as to be incompatible with the nature of bread or of wine; or else on the part of the quantity, as, for instance, if the bread be reduced to fine particles, or the wine divided into such tiny drops that the species of bread or wine no longer remain.
Click to expand...
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top