Hmmm....I might suggest that the evidence says otherwise, but OK.
Sort of a disgusting ritual if you are right, though, isn't it? Eating an actual body and drinking actual blood? But then, I've never been inclined towards eating deities.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Purpose of Communion
- Thread starter Emma Pope
- Start date
Hmmm....I might suggest that the evidence says otherwise, but OK.
Sort of a disgusting ritual if you are right, though, isn't it? Eating an actual body and drinking actual blood? But then, I've never been inclined towards eating deities.
Here are a few
here are a few points from an article that might clarify how our sacrament is not like cannibalism. Maybe this will help.
1. In cannibalism, the person consumed is, generally speaking, killed. Jesus is not killed. We receive him in his resurrected body and we do not affect him in the least. In fact, he is not changed in the slightest. He changes us! This is far from cannibalism.
2. In cannibalism, only part of the victim is consumed. One does not eat the bones, sinews, etc. In the Eucharist, we consume every bit of the Lord, eyes, hair, blood, bones, etc. But again, I emphasize that we do so under the appearances of bread and wine. This is essentially different than cannibalism, which leads to our next point:
3. In cannibalism, the accidents of blood and flesh are consumed. One must tear flesh, drink blood, etc. In the Eucharist, we only consume the accidents of bread and wine. This is not cannibalism.
4. In cannibalism, one only consumes a body, not a person. The person and the soul of the victim would have departed. In the Eucharist, we consume the entire person of Jesus Christ, body, blood, soul and divinity. One cannot separate Christ’s body from his Divine Person. Thus, this is a spiritual communion as well as a physical consuming. We become one with Christ on a mystical level in this sacrament. This is far from cannibalism.
5. In cannibalism, one only receives temporal nourishment that is fleeting. In the Eucharist, we receive the divine life of God through faith and receiving our Lord well-disposed, i.e. we receive everlasting life (cf. John 6:52-55). This is essentially different than cannibalism.
6. In cannibalism, once one eats the flesh of the victim, it is gone forever. In the Eucharist, we can consume him every day and, as mentioned in #1, we do not change him one bit. He remains the same.
here are a few points from an article that might clarify how our sacrament is not like cannibalism. Maybe this will help.
1. In cannibalism, the person consumed is, generally speaking, killed. Jesus is not killed. We receive him in his resurrected body and we do not affect him in the least. In fact, he is not changed in the slightest. He changes us! This is far from cannibalism.
2. In cannibalism, only part of the victim is consumed. One does not eat the bones, sinews, etc. In the Eucharist, we consume every bit of the Lord, eyes, hair, blood, bones, etc. But again, I emphasize that we do so under the appearances of bread and wine. This is essentially different than cannibalism, which leads to our next point:
3. In cannibalism, the accidents of blood and flesh are consumed. One must tear flesh, drink blood, etc. In the Eucharist, we only consume the accidents of bread and wine. This is not cannibalism.
4. In cannibalism, one only consumes a body, not a person. The person and the soul of the victim would have departed. In the Eucharist, we consume the entire person of Jesus Christ, body, blood, soul and divinity. One cannot separate Christ’s body from his Divine Person. Thus, this is a spiritual communion as well as a physical consuming. We become one with Christ on a mystical level in this sacrament. This is far from cannibalism.
5. In cannibalism, one only receives temporal nourishment that is fleeting. In the Eucharist, we receive the divine life of God through faith and receiving our Lord well-disposed, i.e. we receive everlasting life (cf. John 6:52-55). This is essentially different than cannibalism.
6. In cannibalism, once one eats the flesh of the victim, it is gone forever. In the Eucharist, we can consume him every day and, as mentioned in #1, we do not change him one bit. He remains the same.
Yes, the Bible is full of symbolism, but there are literal messages presented in the Bible. It takes study of the Bible to determine how to read each book of the Bible to understand how to read and understand the messages they are presenting. The big factor that supports the literal body and blood in the Eucharist is found in the Gospels where Jesus loses TONS of followers by explaining that we must eat his body and drink his blood. If it were just merely a representation he would have explained that and saved himself from losing his followers.
When Jesus speaks of eating his flesh and blood, He is speaking metaphorically, not literally.
Consider John 3:1-7 when Jesus explains to Nicodemus the necessity of being born again. Nicodemus is confused as he has taken the words of Jesus literally rather than appreciating the symbolism of being born again.
It makes no sense to think of a man climbing back into his mothers womb to be born again. However, if we consider being born again as being spiritually reborn and we are created anew through the teachings of Christ, then it makes perfect sense.
Its exactly the same with John 6:51 where the literal meaning creates confusion and we must reflect deeply to understand the true meaning.
When Jesus spoke of those who had eyes to see and ears to hear, he was taking peoples spiritual capacity to understand His words.
(Matthew 13:16)
Unveiled Artist
Veteran Member
I hate to interject. Do you really think they are eating and drinking the body and blood of christ? (catholics are cannibals??)
I talked with a priest about it and he almost fell out of his chair with a sharp laugh when I asked him.
I am well aware he uses symbolism. Are you saying nothing in the Bible is literal just because some of the stories are symbolic?
It would be an extreme statement to claim that everything in the Bible as symbolic. It would be just as extreme as saying everything in the Bible is to be taken literally. To understand any biblical verse we need to consider many things:
First we need a careful textural analysis. The gospel of John in contrast to the synoptic gospels doesn't record Jesus using parables. Instead John portrays Jesus as explaining theological concepts using symbols and metaphors. There are numerous instances where His audience struggles to understand His meaning. At one point the Jews pick up stones when Jesus alludes to His Divinity. (John 8:58-59 and John 10:27-31).
Second we need to consider the Gospel of John was the last of the four Gospels to be written and was most likely written between 80 - 100 AD. It was written to meet the needs of the church at the time that were very different from the early days of Paul's ministry. The theology is more advanced than the synoptics and develops core concepts such as the Divinity of Christ.
The narrative presented by John is therefore best seen as theological than historic, as conveying spiritual truth rather than literal events. Having said that, there is no good reason to doubt events such as Christ's crucifixion and baptism were not historic. However even these events have profound symbolic meaning and significance, wouldn't you agree?
No, I do not. But some Catholics seem to think they are. Theophagy.
Unveiled Artist
Veteran Member
I asked my priest this he almost fell out the chair. I was telling a story to another cradle catholic. I told her I used to go to church daily. I had seizures because the blood is actually wine. I can see how Catholics are indoctrinated to "say" they are taking the blood and body of Christ. The lady gave me this look like "it's not like That." I stopped drinking "the blood." Another priest said it's alight to just take the bread.
Why would they say that if they believed the bread and body Is jesus himself?
Here is a good link
Transubstantiation and the Real Presence | CARM.org
They believe the accidents are actual bread and wine not body and blood. Transub. makes "the presence" of jesus in the eucharist. Jesus becomes the churh when they all commune in the presence of jesus.
They say bread and wine is jesus blood and body because of consecration Not because it is in itself.
Ask a catholic if the bread and wine Before cons. is jesus actual blood and body they'd probably look at you nuts.
Cannibalism is the Actually eating of flesh and blood of a person not of accidents turned into the blood and body of christ via consecration.
Last edited:
I would like to take this opportunity to reassure you that Jesus, to my knowledge, has never passed through my digestive tract and been pooed out with my faeces after breakfast.
In his book Font of Life (2012), Garry Wills correctly notes how St. Augustine "ridiculed" the idea that the eucharist was the literal body and blood of Christ. "Augustine repeatedly says," writes Wills, "that Christ cannot be chewed, digested, and excreted."
As you will know, there is a great deal of diversity in Christian interpretation of the import of the Lord's Supper and its sacramental character. This ranges from the purely symbolic 'memorialism' of denominations like Baptists, Anabaptists and non-denominational churches; the real and effective "spiritual presence" viewpoint espoused by traditional Calvinists; the most widely shared cross-denominational perspective, that of the "real presence" of the sacramental blood and body of Christ in the communion wavers and wine as believed by Anglicans and Lutherans among others (to varying degrees) and finally the most extreme versions, that of metousiosis (change of essence or inner reality) adhered to by Eastern Orthodox and the transubstantiation affirmed by Roman Catholics.
In none of these interpretations, including the last two, is there any insinuation that Jesus is 'eaten, chewed, digested and excreted' in a cannibalistic or theophagic manner. Using Scholastic philosophical language and its conceptual framework, the Catholic Church distinguishes between substance and species in the consecrated eucharistic bread and wine. The accidents of bread and wine (size, weight, taste, texture) do remain. So the flesh and blood is not consumed under the form or properties of flesh and blood (such that no scientific analysis would ever conclude that it is, physically speaking, anything other than bread and wine), but under the sacramental signs of bread and wine.
I admit that transubstantiation is a peculiar doctrine to those outside the church. But as weird as it might be, one does need to keep a sense of proportion and not exaggerate its meaning to a ridiculous degree.
The idea that Christians gathered to commit acts of ritual cannibalism was, of course, the accusation of many contemporary Roman writers.
So, eucharist = cannibalism? From your description, that is what it looks like.
Ciao
- viole
Well, let the OP know that. The post #11 seems to say that she believes it is literally the blood and body.
I am aware of what Catholic doctrine actually is, but we have a person who seems to believe somewhat differently.
Unveiled Artist
Veteran Member
Ponder This
Well-Known Member
I think that the question that people have trouble with is:
If the bread and wine become the blood and body of Christ, then what exactly is that? Is it human flesh? But then human flesh is imperfect. Or is it?
So I think that people have a problem comprehending what this could be that they are consuming. They don't really know what Christ's body and blood are composed of. Do you know?
But the purpose of the consumption is clear to them: Communion: sharing the mental and spiritual qualities of Christ.
They might also be sharing physical qualities, but they don't know what that means. What does that mean?
A good question. But are the qualities of Christ merely representations? Aren't the qualities of Christ real?
Is a person only 'symbolically' humble? Or is a person actually humble? Which is it?
Muffled
Jesus in me
I believe it is to bring into remembrance what Jesus has done on the cross and is doing in our lives.
Muffled
Jesus in me
So then do you believe you are a cannibal?
Muffled
Jesus in me
I believe it comes from a logical understanding of the text.