T
Tim_Kirchoff
Guest
Yeah, good practice, this
- Status
J
jmcrae
Guest
Cannibalism is the eating of someone who is dead.
We Catholics are much worse than cannibals, because we eat Christ alive - body and blood, soul and divinity.
Also, when we consume Christ in the Eucharist, it is really He who consumes us, instead - when we become united with Christ in Holy Communion, He overtakes us; we don’t overtake Him.
T
Tim_Kirchoff
Guest
I thought Scott was trying to practiceCannibalism is the eating of someone who is dead.
We Catholics are much worse than cannibals, because we eat Christ alive - body and blood, soul and divinity.
Also, when we consume Christ in the Eucharist, it is really He who consumes us, instead - when we become united with Christ in Holy Communion, He overtakes us; we don’t overtake Him.
P
Peregrino
Guest
The definitions I can find do not require the meal to be dead.
Good one!We Catholics are much worse than cannibals, because we eat Christ alive - body and blood, soul and divinity.
So Catholicism is cannibalistic all around! I don’t know how I feel about that one…
T
Tim_Kirchoff
Guest
Let’s leave the “feel-good” Christianity to the Evangelicals
P
Peregrino
Guest
I must confess that I laughed out loud when I read myfavoritemartin’s post because of the visual it gave me, almost a SNL skit equivalent:Let’s leave the “feel-good” Christianity to the Evangelicals
Jesus: “I am the living bread that came down from heaven; whoever eats this bread will live forever; and the bread that I will give is my flesh for the life of the world.”
The Jews quarrel among themselves, saying aloud, “How can this man give us (his) flesh to eat?”
Jesus: “Amen, amen, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you do not have life within you. For my flesh is true food, and my blood is true drink. Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me and I in him.”
The assembled Jews in the crowd continue to mutter words like “crazy”, “cannibalism” and “unclean” as they move offstage as a group.
Suddenly a crazed man with wild, long hair bursts from the crowd screaming:
Crazed man: “Master, I believe! Give me this life!”
*
The crazed man seizes one of Jesus’ arms with both hands and brings it to his mouth, beginning to gnaw feverishly on it as though it were a loaf of bread.
*
Jesus: “Get off me Satan! What in the name of Gehenna are you doing?”
Crazed man: Eating your flesh Lord. But you said…
Jesus: "I meant the Eucharist, man, the Eucharist, my body as found in the Eucharist. Not my physical body!”
T
Tim_Kirchoff
Guest
Yeah, good stuff
T
tomarin
Guest
there’s nothing funny about mocking our core devotional belief. i don’t see how he can post these kind of comments (and he does it frequently) and not be in violation of the forum rules. i may take it up with a moderator.
M
Milliardo
Guest
The best way to practice is to first read and research; do lots of it. It will help a lot. Also, be critical and analytical in your thinking; be logical and always use common sense. It will also help a lot.
N
nonsumd
Guest
For the sake of argument, let me ask: so what if consuming the Eucharist is cannibalism?
A group of travelers get lost – in the desert, on a mountaintop, out at sea. They run out of food and have no way of getting any - except by eating the flesh of one of their number, who has either died on his own or been killed by the others.
If one of the group kills himself so that his fellows may have food to eat, what is intrinsically wrong about the others eating that flesh? That would be cannibalism if that term connotes only what it denotes: eating the flesh of a member of one’s own species.
However, when we normally talk of cannibalism it is to condemn it as immoral, its connotation for us being that it is a heinous sin.
In any case, in the Eucharist we do not consume the forms of human flesh and blood; rather we consume the forms of bread and wine. We believe that in a mysterious way these forms, despite appearances, have become the physical being of Christ; they are not merely symbols which inspire us to making an exclusively spiritual communion with Christ.
The important thing to understand about the Real Presence is not precisely how it can be possible, but rather what the Real Presence, however it is possible, means: inseparable from the One Sacrifice of the Cross, it is the ultimate expression of God’s self-donation. Christ, God’s Love Incarnate, shares His very physical self with us as a mother gives of her physical substance to the child she bears in the womb (in Hebrew and Arabic the same root yields the word for “uterus” and the words for “mercy” and “compassion”).
If, loving the world so perfectly, so selflessly, God can enter the world as human flesh in a human womb, why can He, loving the world so perfectly, so selflessly, not enter the world under the forms of bread and wine?
P
Peregrino
Guest
I am mocking nothing. I happens to be MY core devotional belief, probably one of the SOLE reasons I remain Catholic. I however understand myfavoritemartin’s question and I am not challenged by it in any way, shape or form.
Myfavoritemartin is leveling an accusation of cannibalism. I don’t believe that Jesus is requiring or asking for cannibalism. Do you? I simply laughed at myfavoritemartin’s post and actually turned it into a situation where Jesus is clarifying that he is not requiring cannibalism. I even asked for others (more astute than I) to clarify Church teaching on why the Eucharist is not cannibalism.
You perhaps may not agree with any of my posts. To say that I post humorous skits all the time is patently false-this is the first post of its kind that I have made. I am not afraid to question anything and my faith is not challenged by hard questions. This perhaps is a key quality of an apologist, the goal that Scott has stated at the start of this thread.
If you are offended by my post I apologize upfront. One of my cardinal rules is respect for all faiths (including my own). If you read my posts, you will find that I frequently post these types of comments on this board, requesting that others at least respect, if not agree with, other faith declarations.
However, as others have pointed out here frequently, this board is about discussion of faiths and the removal of errors. Faiths are examined in detail, sometimes quite painfully for those who are not Christian. I recently read a thread which compared the Quran to Hitler’s Mein Kampf. Such a statement is is simply vicious. I believe that myfavoritemartin is a Christian; he was leveling an accusation against our interpretation of John 6, which we take to literally mean that the Eucharist is Jesus’ real body. I don’t believe that myfavoritemartin was mocking our faith and neither was I, I merely found humor in myfavoritmartin’s interpretation of scripture which I hold dear.
P
Peregrino
Guest
Bingo. Hence the reason that myfavoritemartin’s interpretation is humorous.
N
nonsumd
Guest
“In nomine Patris et filii et Spiritus Sancti” is indeed the standard version of the Sign of the Cross in Latin, but I think In nomine et Patris et Filii et Spiritus Sancti might be gramatically possible.
“Both… and” is translated as “et… et”, so “et… et… et…” might make sense as a means of stressing that whatever you are saying is applying equally to all three items. We can’t do this in English other than to insert an “all” after the list. In any case, “et” can also mean “even” and can pop up in places where the English “and” would not.
J
jimmy85
Guest
You seem to be playing in a game of words, trying to consider whether those words were literaly or not.
Well as you well know the israelite were withneses of the miracle of the multiplication of the bread. In that very same moment they wanted to follow Christ and they wanted to make him the king of the Jews. However they didnt love him, they were arround him just because he was able to do miracles, they didnt care about his teachings.
So Jesus in order to prove their faith in him, he said some truths that they werent able to understand because afterwards in the last supper he was gonna make a new covenant in which he was going to remain in the bread and the wine, and those substances were going to change into his flesh and blood.
So he proved them in order to see if the israelites had faith and were willing to follow him even if they didnt understand his teachings very well.
Because the merit of faith is to believe without seeing, if u see a miracle and you believe then that wont be a merit.
So Jesus spoke the trues that were going to be fulfiled in the last supper. However people went away from him showing that they were arround him just because of convenience and because of his miracles, and not bcecause they truly wanted to follow him.
Only Peter was the only one to say that he didnt understand his words but that he will remain following Jesus.
Therefore that is what faith is all about, and that is the merit of faith.
the bottom line is that, Jesus spoke to the people saying that they had to eat his flesh and drink his blood. We already know that it wasent canivalism. He was talking about the upcoming covenant that he was about to make.
He talked about that in order to put the israelites to the test, in order to see if they could follow him only with the light of faith, without completely understadning what he was saying. and also in order to realize whether the israelties were following him only because of convenience because of his miracles or if it was because of his teachings.
X
xScottx
Guest
First of all, Jesus is not the same as the Father, they are two different Persons of God (but you are correct that He is equal to the Father).
Okay, for question one:
Jesus was both fully human, and fully God. Hense, He had two wills: a human, and a Divine. As His human will, he prayed to the Father. He prayed to God as a human.
And, also, in the Garden of Gesthemane, before Judas betrayed Christ and handed Him over to the Jewish Priests and Roman Guards, Christ, as a human, did not want to go through such suffering and pain (Just a little side note: Mel Gibson’s The Passion of the Christ is very good at describing this scene). Christ was, as a human, reluctant and unsure whether He should go through such agonizing pain.
And to question two:
Again, this goes into how Jesus was both fully human and fully Divine. Actually, Christ’s Tempation is one of the best examples of his Divinity, as it was said in the Gospel according to Saint Matthew, Chapter 4, Verses 1-11:
Jesus was tempted three times, and three times the devil was denied. Jesus answered Satan with similar wordings to Deuteronomy (Dt 8: 3; Dt 6; Dt 13:16). The testing of Jesus resembles those of Israel during the wondering in the desert.
If you need any more questions, please feel free to ask.
X
xScottx
Guest
Okay, I got a little behind because I’m sick right now (stupid summer allergies!)
Anyway, the doctrine of transubstatiation is truly an oddity for everyone - even Catholics.
I believe one poster (I forget who, forgive me) hit the nail on the head when he said that we consume the living Christ.
Also, I was wondering, why do Fundamentalist take all the Bible literally, yet say its symbolic when Christ said it is His Flesh and Blood?
Anyway, the doctrine of transubstatiation is truly an oddity for everyone - even Catholics.
I believe one poster (I forget who, forgive me) hit the nail on the head when he said that we consume the living Christ.
Also, I was wondering, why do Fundamentalist take all the Bible literally, yet say its symbolic when Christ said it is His Flesh and Blood?
T
tomarin
Guest
i wasn’t accusing you of anything. i was referring to martin’s post #4 alone.
T
Tim_Kirchoff
Guest
Ok, but where is your scriptural basis for saying that Jesus is both human and divine?
You said you wanted practice
I
Isa_Almisry
Guest
You said, Uzzah, that:
If the people of John 6 believed Christ was speaking literally why didn’t they run toward him and gnaw on His flesh therefore guaranteeing eternal life…
Perhaps you don’t know, canibalism means eating (gnawing is sub-species of eating) human flesh.
X
xScottx
Guest
Well, Jesus Himself said that He was Divine (with the quote above, and others)Ok, but where is your scriptural basis for saying that Jesus is both human and divine?
You said you wanted practice
And, if He was only God, not human, than He wouldn’t of died, since God is immortal.
- Status