Is the Eucharist Cannibalistic? Is cannibalism bad?

[teachccd]

But what does Sacramental Presence mean? And does it not include the fullness of Jesus’s body (flesh,bones, etc)? And if it contains the “body”, considering the flesh as accident, and if it contains the blood, and soul, etc. then it would still be cannibalistic.

Secondly, it is not evident to me how this is irrelevant, whatever is not evident to you can hardly be said to be proved or known, so it is not proved to me or understood at all, that this topic is irrelevant.

By Sacramental Presence we are referring to the mystery of how Jesus is present to us in the Eucharist. It is by the very fact that we are not consuming a human body that the mystery is encountered. When we speak of the “accidents” we are referring to the bread and the wine not human flesh and bones. The accidents are the appearances that are left after consecration and that would be of bread and wine.

Your question is very valid and I did not mean to undermine the premise of your inquiry. This was a misunderstanding dating back to those who followed Christ and walked away. What I meant was that to those who understand that Jesus’ presence in the Eucharist is not a literal flesh and blood presence then cannibalism would not be an issue. The miracles that occurred whereby the host turned into flesh was to confirm that what is taking place is miraculous and not to be confused with eating flesh. If what (actually who) is present were to become visible one would see Christ sitting on the altar and not just flesh (heart muscle to be exact).

I hope that this helps somewhat and please note that I never meant to offend you in my last comment but to emphasize the fact that receiving the Eucharist is not cannibalism and should never be associatied with such practices. God bless you…teachccd

 

[Semper_Zelare]

But the “Haydock Commentary” seems to say that “skins” meant overly high taxes?

Has anyone in the Church stated, 1) what cannibalism was, 2) that it was bad, good, or indifferent?

In any case, we are still eating the true body of God. That can’t be bad, so whatever this is, it isn’t bad.

Whatever this “Haydock Commentary” you speak of is… just because they think “skins” means taxes. Doesn’t change the fact that God said he hates people who put flesh and bones in a kettle and pot. Kettles are only for one thing: cooking what you’re going to eat.

No, the Biblical position on cannibalism is clear. And, it coincides with longstanding Vatican positions on the cannibalism of natives that Catholic explorers ran into.

It’s astounding to me that ANYONE wouldn’t see that God’s Word says cannibalism is evil here:
[BIBLEDRB]Micah 3:1-4[/BIBLEDRB]

 

[EmeraldWings]

so cannibalism is not “eating a human person” but to eat a human person after they are dead and/or cooked?

If this is true, then wouldn’t eating someone else when you’re lost on the high seas w/o anything else to eat, be bad? Even if the other person consents?

This seems to be against common sense though -but I’m open to other conclusions.

And if cannibalism is always murder, and all cannibalism is eating people after they are dead, then all eating people after they’re dead is murder which seems contradictory. Or all murder would be eating dead people which again seems contradictory.

I know you already answered you’re own question, more or less, after you posted this, but i want to further explain.

cannibalism is eating one of your own kind, not just human, animals and bugs do it, and yet it’s not a sin or bad at all for them, of course they can’t sin, but that’s another subject altogether, but the point is, it’s not eating human flesh in and of itself that constitutes sin, but for why and how you’re doing it, and of course we must never ever do it, but what makes it bad is that you are devouring the flesh of another, in a barbaric and disrespectful manner, it’s wrong because of how the human body(as i said) must be treated before and after death, being a temple of the Holy Ghost, and a child of God, and many other things,
but what i was trying to get at in my last post was, it’s bad for us to eat each other that way, for obvious reasons i don’t think i even need to explain, but those things don’t apply to Jesus in the Eucharist, because He is not dead, and does not need a burial, and then, provided you are properly disposed and in the state of grace, there is also no disrespect to His most holy body that you receive,
so what i’m trying to say is, cannibalism is wrong for certain reasons that in no way apply to the Eucharist, it’s just not the same by any means, what makes cannibalism wrong is not found in communion…and yet the Eucharist is such a mystery and such a holy and magnificent grace, and there is so much we don’t know,
but even when Jesus spoke to all His disciples that “He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, abideth in me, and I in him.” and they “went back; and walked no more with him.” they also heard that and thought he was speaking of cannibalism.
but to their thoughts Jesus replied - “It is the spirit that quickeneth: the flesh profiteth nothing. The words that I have spoken to you, are spirit and life.” which, as we are told in the haydock bible commentary, He is saying here that eating dead flesh *“in a gross manner” * with the spirit separated from the body, would profit them nothing, but in this manner that He proposes, which is by no means in the gross way His disciples who left him imagined, we receive “in a wonderful manner, spirit, grace, and life, in its very fountain.”

so the difference here is, which is a very significant difference that is worlds apart from one another, is that cannibalism is a gross and barbaric sin, while receiving Christ in the most holy Sacrament is a beautiful and most profitable fountain of grace, they cannot even be compared, and should not be, and how can it be compared? when you eat the flesh of another human being, it is dead in you, but Christ lives in you…how can we compare that? it’s just not the same.
cannibalism is eating the flesh of another human being, but holy communion is not just “eating of His flesh” but being united with Him, becoming one with Him, it is a marriage between you and Christ insomuch as it is two flesh becoming one, even if only for 15 or 20 minutes,
and then physically and spiritually speaking, it’s just entirely different, in every manner.
and in heaven we will also be united with God just as we are in communion, but it will be much deeper and more lovely…although that’s something we can’t even begin to imagine, but it’s what we were created for, and so what we have in the Holy Eucharist, is heaven itself, in being united with Jesus that way, we are experiencing, even if we can’t feel it, just what we will have in heaven…it’s our purpose, it’s what we were created for, to love God and be united with Him…

but to try and put it simply…the big difference is we receive Christ sacramentally, although really and substantially present, but unlike anything else,
when we eat anything else, it is physically and chemically processed in our digestive system, which is produced, maintained, and destroyed…and then made into energy for the body…but as for receiving Jesus in the Eucharist, He is obviously not “produced, maintained, and destroyed”, because He is whole in us, and does not decrease or change in any way, it’s just not the same, and when you think of how you eat food, vs. how we *receive *Jesus, then you can see plainly that it is by no means the same insofar as the manner of eating is concerned,
whereas of course as far as nourishing our soul, then it is similar, as Christ teaches us, that as what food we eat nourishes our bodies, He is the nourishment and life of our souls…but where else is that possible except with God? it’s just unlike anything else.

i know this subject seems silly or disrespectful to some people, but in my own experience, alot of people think or wonder about this, even Christs disciples thought that’s what He was referring to, and i think it’s just good to clarify these things, or try and help others to understand it as best as we can,
so i hope this helps you understand it better, and if not, i’d be glad to try and explain it further.

 

[The_Professor]

Interestingly, an early misinterpretation of the Eucharist by Romans was that Christians who devoured the flesh and blood of their leader.

 

[followingtheway]

No, it’s not. People die from cannibalism. That’s the main difference and that’s why it’s wrong. Anything done to physically, or emotionally/verbally, or sexually to harm others is WRONG.

 

[followingtheway]

That is to say, eating a person -no matter what -is wrong?

Human, Mortal, CAN DIE, yes, it’s wrong.

No you may be asking “wouldn’t that include Jesus?”

Jesus is an om(name removed by moderator)otent being, He’s can die or be physically harmed by consuming the eucharist. So yes there is a difference.

 

[Barbkw]

I was wondering if cannibalism is bad and it seems not since then the Eucharist would be bad.

:compcoff:

 

[Soldier_Of_God]

Human cannibalism entails the consuming the flesh, encompassing both the species and accidents, of other humans. The Eucharist is quite different in that we are consuming the species (substance/substantial reality or essence) but not the accidents (a nonessential attribute that does not effect the substance, such as appearance) of Christ, who is fully divine and human.

 

[pinctor]

The Eucharist is the Risen Christ. Not Jesus incarnate (before the resurrection).

What about the institution of the Eucharist at the last supper? Our Lord was not at that point resurrected.

 

[teachccd]

What about the institution of the Eucharist at the last supper? Our Lord was not at that point resurrected.

The Eucharist is the whole Christ: Eternal, incarnate, crucified, resurrected and ascended. Nothing less… teachccd

 

[pinctor]

The Eucharist is the whole Christ: Eternal, incarnate, crucified, resurrected and ascended. Nothing less… teachccd

True, but you have not answered my question. What was the status (so to speak) of the bread and wine at the last supper?

 

[Newbie2]

so cannibalism is not “eating a human person” but to eat a human person after they are dead and/or cooked?

If this is true, then wouldn’t eating someone else when you’re lost on the high seas w/o anything else to eat, be bad? Even if the other person consents?

This seems to be against common sense though -but I’m open to other conclusions.

And if cannibalism is always murder, and all cannibalism is eating people after they are dead, then all eating people after they’re dead is murder which seems contradictory. Or all murder would be eating dead people which again seems contradictory.

A human person is a body + soul, theologically speaking. One cannot eat another human person’s soul.

Cannibalism isn’t murder. It’s still considered cannibalism if, for example, a man dies from a heart attack climbing a mountain and the other people with him eat him to survive until they are rescued.

Murder is purposeful taking of another’s life.

Receiving the sacramental presence of the second person of the Trinity - flesh, blood or otherwise - and eating the flesh of an ordinary human being are two different things.

-Tim-

Exactly. After the resurrection, Christ’s body was no longer “human”; it was glorified.

I shall attempt an answer to my own question: It isn’t cannibalism because cannibalism connotes an evil. But the Eucharist is not evil so it is not cannibalism. The fact is that the Eucharist contains a human body and human flesh. Indeed, even if it only contained a body it would be cannibalistic. The point is though, that act of eating it, is not irrational -it is reasonable to do what God command and especially because the Eucharist is good for your soul. So therefore the Eucharist is not cannibalism because the latter is “irrationally eating another human.”

And indeed, if any eating of parts of a person was bad then breastfeeding is bad which also goes against the sense of normalcy.

No. The Eucharist does not contain a “human body and human flesh”. See “Glorified”.

That is to say, eating a person -no matter what -is wrong?

Yep. Although if one resorts to cannibalism in order to stay alive (see mountain climbing example above), it presumably wouldn’t be as serious as purposeful cannibalism when one had a choice. Still problematic, methinks.

Well Jesus was and is a human too. But I keep hearing that His Sacramental presence is the answer to my conundrum. But what is this Sacramental presence?

If the Sacramental Presence excludes His the accidents of His body, then 1) why do Eucharistic miracles have red, wet, blood dripping 2) why does the Council of Trent apparently state that Jesus is wholly in the Eucharist (even His bones) 3) in what sense is His body present if the redness, skin, etc. aren’t present?

And finally, the definition of cannibalism is “eating a human body” and so no matter what, eating the Body of God -accidents or not, is still cannibalism, assuming I have the definition of cannibalism right.

Your definition is correct, but Jesus ceased to be a human person (as we know it) when his body became glorified. Glorification changes the entire picture.

But what does Sacramental Presence mean? And does it not include the fullness of Jesus’s body (flesh,bones, etc)? And if it contains the “body”, considering the flesh as accident, and if it contains the blood, and soul, etc. then it would still be cannibalistic.

Secondly, it is not evident to me how this is irrelevant, whatever is not evident to you can hardly be said to be proved or known, so it is not proved to me or understood at all, that this topic is irrelevant.

It’s relevant. It’s also difficult to understand, and we should keep in mind that it is a mystery and will always be a mystery as we are not capable of fully understanding it.

True, but you have not answered my question. What was the status (so to speak) of the bread and wine at the last supper?

Good question.

That’s up for some measure of debate, methinks. Since this was before Christ’s glorification, and he didn’t feed them his human body, so it wasn’t his human body. So was it simply spiritual?

Another mystery. Personally, I think it was the same as what we receive now in our present day Eucharist. How that happens? Nobody knows for certain.