H
Holly3278
Guest
Hey everyone. I have asked this before and received an answer but I don’t know where that thread is and I need to refresh my memory. Why is receiving the Eucharist not cannibalism?
- Status
1
1ke
Guest
A better question… what makes you think it IS cannibalism?
I
Ignatius
Guest
Cannibalism is eating the meat of a dead person. We aren’t eating Christ in the form of meat but of bread. What’s more Christ isn’t dead, He is Alive.
S
snarflemike
Guest
Start by asking yourself, what EXACTLY is bad about cannibalism?
I
Ion
Guest
Because, like at the last supper, when we eat the Eucharist, Christ is present with us.
And we do not eat the Eucharist for the benefit of our tummy, but for our Resurection in Christ.
And we do not eat the Eucharist for the benefit of our tummy, but for our Resurection in Christ.
I
Ion
Guest
Actually we do not “eat”, we are “receiving” as you formulate the question.
I
Ion
Guest
I would like to ask, as by Transubstantiation, The Body and Blood of Christ is in the Eucharist.
What happens with the Eucharist in our body?
What happens with the Eucharist in our body?
L
loko
Guest
Similar to how ‘manna’ nourished the Israelites during their 40years in the desert, the Eucharist nourishes us while we wander the spiritual wilderness that exists in todays world.
1
1ke
Guest
OK, so you don’t think it is cannibalism. What characteristics of the Eucharist lead you to that conclusion? Seems you may already know the answer. I’m trying to help you think through it and put it in your own words.
I
ivebeenshown
Guest
Well, here are some differences:
1.) Cannibalism does physical damage human flesh. In the Eucharist, Christ’s flesh is not physically damaged.
2.) Cannibalism depletes a human body of its flesh and blood. In the Eucharist, Christ’s flesh and blood are not depleted.
3a.) Cannibalism involves eating another man’s body and blood in the form of flesh and blood. In the Eucharist, we eat the body and blood of Christ in the form of bread and wine.
3b.) Cannibalism causes one’s physical body to receive nourishment from the human flesh and blood. In the Eucharist, one’s physical body receives the physical nourishment of bread and wine.
1.) Cannibalism does physical damage human flesh. In the Eucharist, Christ’s flesh is not physically damaged.
2.) Cannibalism depletes a human body of its flesh and blood. In the Eucharist, Christ’s flesh and blood are not depleted.
3a.) Cannibalism involves eating another man’s body and blood in the form of flesh and blood. In the Eucharist, we eat the body and blood of Christ in the form of bread and wine.
3b.) Cannibalism causes one’s physical body to receive nourishment from the human flesh and blood. In the Eucharist, one’s physical body receives the physical nourishment of bread and wine.
S
snarflemike
Guest
Ask them if a mother breast-feeding her newborn is cannibalism. After all, the baby is eating/drinking a part of the mother’s body.
S
snarflemike
Guest
One could just as well ask them why being washed in the blood of Christ (a favorite phrase in many Protestant circles) is not the height of barbarism.
P
patrick457
Guest
If you go to John 6 (in Greek), you’d see Jesus actually saying that “he who munches on my flesh…”
S
steve9191
Guest
Consuming the Eucharist is no more cannibalism than is the one-flesh nuptial union in marriage and in the even more intimate conjugal union. Cannibalism is a self-centered and unilateral action. There is no desire for a UNION in love on either part. As was said in a previous post, one being is enriched at the expense of the other being. Cannibalism is practiced by those who wish to gain power by consuming the other.
In Baptism, we become living stones built into the Temple (cf. 1 Pt. 2:5), which is Jesus’ body. The Eucharist is the spiritual dimension of the most intimate union that occurs in the conjugal embrace; an embrace that both beings are desiring.
S
snarflemike
Guest
Actually, any Christian asserting cannibalism regarding the Eucharist is denying some VERY fundamental Christian beliefs, because either
a) Christ is helpless to prevent the priest from “dragging” him out of heaven to be the cannibalistic victim (denies God’s omnipotence, or perhaps that Jesus is risen from the dead),
or
b) Christ is a willing and direct participant in evil (denies God’s perfect goodness)
So can we have a big
for any Christian making these charges?!
a) Christ is helpless to prevent the priest from “dragging” him out of heaven to be the cannibalistic victim (denies God’s omnipotence, or perhaps that Jesus is risen from the dead),
or
b) Christ is a willing and direct participant in evil (denies God’s perfect goodness)
So can we have a big
for any Christian making these charges?!- Status