The Blessed Sacrament is cannibalism?

[TheDoctor]

It might get a bit complicated, though, if they ask about the Eucharist consumed at the Last Supper, before his resurrection.
VC

In response to that, I’ve just said that as God, when Jesus held Himself in His hands at the last supper, it was His resurrected body that He held. Once their eyes refocus we then discuss how, being fully God and thus out of time, it is possible for Jesus to be both at the Last Supper and in His own hands simultaneously. This is also about the time we come to the conclusion that the Eucharistic Miracle is something we humans will never be able to fully understand so we might as well just accept and be thankful for it.

 

[Verbum_Caro]

In response to that, I’ve just said that as God, when Jesus held Himself in His hands at the last supper, it was His resurrected body that He held.

Hi Doctor,

Doctor who? Just The Doctor? (Yes, just “The Doctor”)

Yes, I’ve heard that theory quite a few times. I prefer St. Thomas’ theory though (The Angelic Doctor!) who said that when Christ held Himself in His hands at the Last Supper it was His mortal, passible non-resurrected body that he held and which the Apostles received.

I think it is more consistent with the Doctrine of the Real Presence, and I personally see support for that approach in various Magisterial documents.

VC

 

[TheDoctor]

Yes, I’ve heard that theory quite a few times. I prefer St. Thomas’ theory though (The Angelic Doctor!) who said that when Christ held Himself in His hands at the Last Supper it was His mortal, passible non-resurrected body that he held and which the Apostles received.

I think it is more consistent with the Doctrine of the Real Presence, and I personally see support for that approach in various Magisterial documents.

I am not sure what St. Thomas’ says so I will have to make that part of my reading “to-do” list. I do see though the issue that someone could bring up, in that if it was His non-resurrected body, that *would *be cannibalism, would it not? Would you have any documents that addess this? You have now got me wondering along this line - looks like more time on the internet tonight.

Doctor who? Just The Doctor? (Yes, just “The Doctor”)

By the Lords of Gallifrey, I believe he has it! Now, where are my jelly babies?

 

[Verbum_Caro]

Would you have any documents that addess this? You have now got me wondering along this line - looks like more time on the internet tonight.

Sure. I have a few. If you wanted, you could search “passible” along with my user name here on the forums and find various conversations about this topic if that interests you.

Otherwise, you can start with the Summa Theologica, III, 81, 3:

For it is manifest that the same body of Christ which was then seen by the disciples in its own species, was received by them under the sacramental species. But as seen in its own species it was not impassible; nay more, it was ready for the Passion. Therefore, neither was Christ’s body impassible when given under the sacramental species.

I do see though the issue that someone could bring up, in that if it was His non-resurrected body, that *would *be cannibalism, would it not?

Not exactly. That is because even though Christ’s body in the Eucharist was a passible body (when given then), it isn’t given in a passible manner (then OR now). In other words, the sacramental mode makes it impossible for any type of accidental changes to befall Christ’s body – he can’t be rent, torn, hurt, etc.

Let us know what you discover!
VC

 

[MarkThompson]

In response to that, I’ve just said that as God, when Jesus held Himself in His hands at the last supper, it was His resurrected body that He held.

Do you have a reference for this? Since Jesus was raised bodily from the dead, the body born of Mary that they nailed to the cross was the very same body that walked through closed doors and that Thomas touched the wounds of. Are you looking at this in some other way?

(Edited to add: Oh, I see the exchange above that happened while I was typing and got distracted with other things. No worries.)

 

[Jean_Anthony]

The discussion is getting into rather deep waters, which is all right, but please keep in mind the OP’s question–how to best explain the Real Presence to a non-Catholic. Thank you all.

 

[Verbum_Caro]

Thank you for the reminder Jean. Deep waters, indeed!

Flame4,

I think you could start by saying “Let’s talk about cannibalism in general. I’m not saying that Catholics are cannibals, I just want to know what you are thinking about cannibalism.”

The reason for that is to find out what the objection to cannibalism is. The way I see it, there are four common classes of objections (and you can hold more than one at the same time):

1. Cannibalism injures the cannibalized – you have to kill and then eat person; or eat portions of a live person; or eat portions of a dead person. In each case you have to do some violence to the body of the person by dismemberment such that the body is diminished.
2. Cannibalism injures the cannibal – an objection based on the notion that eating other humans isn’t physically beneficial due to the disease it may cause.
3. Cannibalism is not moral – an objection based on the notion that killing and/or eating another person is sinful. In other words it is not compatible with right reason, how a person ought to act. It is immoral.
4. It is disgusting.
​

The next step, I suppose is to find out if they believe cannibalism (run-of-the-mill) is ever acceptable. They should. Taking the objections above in order:

1. Cannibalism physically diminishes the cannibalized – sometimes physically diminishing someone is justified (removing a diseased appendix, cremating a body, cutting someone’s hair or nails).
2. Cannibalism injures the cannibal – the negative physical effects are probably real, but would only be a practical consideration if the cannibalism was ongoing. But if there was an emergency, then the good physical effect of staying alive (of nourishment) would outweigh the negative physical effect (possible disease). It would be similar to eating spoiled food when starving.
3. Cannibalism is immoral – it could be. If the cannibal murders another person that would a sin, and could never be permitted. Aside from that case, the sinfulness of cannibalism will revolve around physically diminishing the cannibalized, risking the harmful effects to the cannibal, and the disorder of eating what we aren’t meant to eat. Each three can be morally justified in the right circumstances (in order: an appendix operation, eating spoiled food, or swallowing a valuable item to keep it safe).
4. It is disgusting – It sure is. But, you could get over that if you had to, and had a good reason.
​

Ok, so far we’ve talked about possible objections to cannibalism, and how those objections would be overcome in cases of acceptable cannibalism*. ***Next you could look at Holy Communion.

There seem to be two ways to meet the charge that Holy Communion is cannibalism. One way is to show that if it is it is acceptable cannibalism (the existence of which the questioner probably admits, or can be shown). Another way is to show that it is not cannibalism but something else. In a certain way, if you can answer the objections to cannibalism above in the case of Holy Communion you have either shown that if it is cannibalism it is acceptable, or that since the objections don’t apply to Holy Communion it isn’t cannibalism in the first place. So, taking the objections one by one:

1. Cannibalism injures the cannibalized – This doesn’t happen in Holy Communion. Christ is not injured at all, nor is he dismembered, nor is he diminished in any way*. Exactly the *opposite *happens. Instead of Christ being diminished His Mystical Body is built up, we become members of His body.
2. Cannibalism injures the cannibal – this doesn’t happen in Holy Communion. Exactly the *opposite *happens. Holy Communion produces health in mind, body, and soul.
3. Cannibalism is not moral – Since Christ isn’t killed in Holy Communion there is no question of murder involved. Since He isn’t diminished and since we don’t risk any ill effects then those things can’t be a source of sinfulness. As far as disorder – the outward sign of Holy Communion is food, so no problem there.
4. It is disgusting – Holy Communion isn’t disgusting at all. Christ conceived of a way for the faithful to eat His Body and drink His Blood in a manner that isn’t abhorrent to the senses.
​

That is my attempt. Any help at all?

VC

*To get this notion forcibly across, imagine eating pizza that is lying on a table, where when you take a slice of the pizza the whole pizza is still left on the table AND you eat the whole pizza.

 

[jpjd]

There seem to be two ways to meet the charge that Holy Communion is cannibalism. One way is to show that if it is it is acceptable cannibalism (the existence of which the questioner probably admits, or can be shown). Another way is to show that it is not cannibalism but something else.

VC, you seem to want to have it both ways. You seem to be saying, “Show the person that it is acceptable cannibalism.” and you also seem to be saying “Show the person that it’s not cannibalism but something else.” How wonderful that, either way, you have the argument to justify that eating the body and blood of Christ is OK. However, eating the body and blood of Christ can not be both (acceptable) cannibalism and not cannibalism. Which is it?

 

[Verbum_Caro]

VC, you seem to want to have it both ways. You seem to be saying, “Show the person that it is acceptable cannibalism.” and you also seem to be saying “Show the person that it’s not cannibalism but something else.” How wonderful that, either way, you have the argument to justify that eating the body and blood of Christ is OK. However, eating the body and blood of Christ can not be both (acceptable) cannibalism and not cannibalism. Which is it?

jpjd,

For my part I say that it is a unique action which cannot be classed as cannibalism.

I pointed out that “there seem to be two ways to meet the charge that Holy Communion is cannibalism” because there are. Some apologists* will say that it is cannibalism but that some cannibalism is acceptable, or that what is abhorrent in cannibalism isn’t present in Holy Communion. Other apologists* like myself say that it isn’t cannibalism at all, which we show by pointing out that some essential elements of cannibalism aren’t present in Holy Communion.

There seem to be two ways to go. I, of course, think the latter approach is a bit better, but I don’t deny that the former has merit as well.

VC

*I use “apologist” here in the wide sense.

 

[WetCatechumen]

Hi WC,

Arrangement of parts is an accident. The difficulty I have is that you* seem* to be saying the parts themselves are accidents and that those parts are parts of *Christ’s * Body.

Let’s leave aside for a moment what you want to say accidents are. A much bigger concern for me is that you seem to say those things are accidents of Christ’s body (i.e. that his body has the “accident” of gluten). But I think that misses the mark. That is because whatever accidents of bread that remain in the Eucharist surely are not accidents of Christ’s body*.*****As St. Thomas said, speaking of the accidents of bread and wine, “it is manifest that these accidents are not subjected in the substance of Christ’s body and blood, because the substance of the human body cannot in any way be affected by such accidents” meaning that the accidents of bread and wine do not inhere in Christ’s Body and Blood. They inhere in no substance whatsoever.

VC

The accidents are not part of Christ’s body. The whole Christ is there, undivided. I am unqualified theologically to discuss whether or not the accidents that remain are accidents of Christ’s body.

What I was trying to say is that the accidents of bread and wine remain, and that Christ’s body appears to be the accidents of bread and wine. I really can’t say anything more.

 

[Verbum_Caro]

WC,

Ok. Thanks. I just thought things could be clarified a bit, that was all. Your language seemed to indicate that Christ had “bready” accidents.

The accidents are not part of Christ’s body. The whole Christ is there, undivided. I am unqualified theologically to discuss whether or not the accidents that remain are accidents of Christ’s body.

If it interests you, it is theologically certain that the accidents of bread and wine exist without any subject whatsoever. In other words they don’t inhere in anything, and certainly not in Christ.

The Catechism of the Council of Trent summarizes this point:
For, since we have already proved that the body and blood of our Lord are really and truly contained in the Sacrament, to the entire exclusion of the substance of the bread and wine, and since the accidents of bread and wine cannot inhere in the body and blood of Christ, it remains that, contrary to physical laws, they must subsist of themselves, inhering in no subject. This has been at all times the uniform doctrine of the Catholic Church (. . .)

WetCatechumen:

What I was trying to say is that the accidents of bread and wine remain

Absolutely.

WetCatechumen:

and that Christ’s body appears to be the accidents of bread and wine.

That seems to me an unusual way of characterizing it (although perhaps I’ve just never encountered it before), but I do see the merit in that phrasing.

God bless, thanks for the discussion.
VC

 

[choy]

the difference of the Eucharist and regular food

when we eat food, we consume it, it becomes part of us when we absorb the nutrients of the food (in cases of meat, the protein, etc.)

when we eat the Body of Christ and Drink His Blood, we are consumed and become part of Christ

 

[Canto]

One of my friends made this statement! What should I say. I said I didn’t know how to answer that

The way I’ve heard it explained is that we don’t gnaw on a bit of his leg or arm or whatever - cannibalism

We recieved fully and whole the risen body blood soul and divinity of Christ our Lord and our God - not cannibalism

 

[PhilTOP]

I was asked this question in a blog recently so have been looking into a good answer from the Church. This is the best I have found so far:

No. Cannibals consume the dead flesh of human beings. Catholics consume the living flesh and blood of the risen Savior, becoming united with Him physically and spiritually in the most intimate relationship between God and man that exists.

The glorified body of Christ is not mere flesh and blood, subject to death. His physical and mortal body has been raised up as the first to manifest the imperishable “spiritual body” of the New Covenant, a body that is both physical and spiritual, and therefore it is something more than either. It is a New Creation. It is this body that will be offered on the altar of the cross, this body which on the third day disappears from the tomb, appears to the disciples as mysteriously both physical and spiritual, able to pass through walls and locked doors and is also tangible to Thomas the doubter and able to eat and drink with the disciples.

It is of this glorified body of Christ that we eat and drink in the Holy Eucharist. As first fruits of the Kingdom, it is offered to the eyes and senses of faith. With our merely physical senses we perceive bread and wine, but the consecrated elements have been transformed into a supernatural substance, a food nourishing that in us which reaches through the opposition of body and spirit into the New Man within us. That new man of the new creation is beyond the divisions of flesh and blood, history and gender.

As the first fruits of this New Creation, Christ feeds us with a divine, eschatological substance, his very glorified self, His Resurrected Body now (which is of course to say, eternally) seated at the right hand of the Father. His Blood is the firstfruits of the New Heaven, his Body of the New Earth. We communicate in that glorified Life and Being which heals all illness, mortality, and division—within, between, and among us, and between ourselves and God, the Father of us all.