“Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you. Whoso eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day.” John 6:53-54
The Roman Catholic church teaches that in the celebration of the Eucharist, the consecrated wafer and wine are miraculously changed into the actual body and blood of Jesus in a process they call transubstantiation.
“By the consecration the transubstantiation of the bread and wine into the Body and Blood of Christ is brought about. Under the consecrated species of bread and wine Christ himself, living and glorious, is present in a true, real, and substantial manner: his Body and his Blood, with his soul and his divinity [cf. Council of Trent: DS 1640; 1651.].” Catechism of the Catholic Church
“For not as common bread and common drink do we receive these; but in like manner as Jesus Christ our Savior, having been made flesh by the Word of God, had both flesh and blood for our salvation, so likewise have we been taught that the food which is blessed by the prayer of His word is the flesh and blood of that Jesus who was made flesh.” Justin Martyr, “First Apology,” Chap 66, quoted in A. Roberts and J Donaldson Edd., “The Ante-Nicene Fathers,” Vol 1, Books For The Ages
According to my dictionary, that’s cannibalism. What do you think?
Well, first of all, it’s not canibalism, because the notion of turning bread into a dude who’s been dead for 2000 years is rediculous.
However, let’s say, for the sake of argument, that it actually is the Body and Blood of Christ. I don’t see how it could not be cannibalism.
And on a side note, a church with a rite of passage that includes ritual canibalism, real or symbolic, has got to be pretty disturbing to more people than just me.
/hijack/
When you are in Sunday School with a humorless believer
do NOT ask this question. They do not appreciate as most
of the other kids did
/end hijack/
No, Daniel, I don’t think it’s trolling. I think it’s a valid question, having come to loggerheads with my chatechist over this very issue. Actually, Jesus himself lost a good part of his following (check the “bread of life discourse” in John Ch. 6. The single verse quoted by wdeep doesn’t do it justice.
As a firm believer in the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist, I have to say, looks like bread and wine, tastes like bread and wine. It has been transformed into the Body and Blood of Christ by the Holy Spirit after the priest performs the Consecration. Christ is sacramentally present in the bread and wine, and if He’s in it, that makes it his Body and Blood.
Haven’t quite figured out how exactly it works. But the fact that the B and B come under the appearance of bread and wine makes it not cannabalism.
The Lutherans believe in “consubstantiation”, which basically states that Christ’s Spirit is present in the bread and wine, but it isn’t His actual Body and Blood.
It is symbolic cannibalism that was most likely stolen from the ancient Feast of Dionysius where they symbolically tore apart the body of the god and consumed him. Just one of the many pagan rituals co-opted by Xianity.
If the body and blood of Jesus Christ was actually physically present in the consecrated bread and wine, someone by now would have extracted the DNA and would be in the process of cloning Jesus. I would consider the finding of DNA in the communion wafers or wine as being proof that the Catholic church is correct, otherwise I am going with, at best, the communion being the symbolic presence of Jesus. Does anyone know if anyone has tried to analyze the difference between the products before and after the mysterious change? (and yes, I was raised Catholic but never had the nerve to ask the DNA question in religion class)
Perhaps it is his body and blood in the sense that it is the vessel which holds his spirit. Chemically, and biologically, it’s not flesh and blood. But spiritually, it is.
Does this actually have semantic meaning? Or is this another Three==one position which defies logical parsing?
Not that there’s anything wrong with that[sup1[/sup]. If religion were a subset of logic it would be truly useless.
[sup]1[/sup][sub]Well, there might be something wrong with it, but only if you like your logic undiluted.[/sub]
I can assure you that the author of this thread is not trolling. He is simply trying to discuss this topic in a thoughtful and reasonable manner. This topic was posted on the board a number of us frequently post at, however, due to the level of censorship at that site, it was decided to continue this discussion at a more liberal and open minded board (hopefully this is that board). I don’t think its Cannibalism, however, others have made a valid argument for cannibalistic symoblism at the very least and I will agree with that.
It was John Larroquette who said something like “Never trust a religion that uses as their logo a dead boy on a stick.” He also made some choice comments about his education from Sister Mary Rhino.
Frankly, to go back to the serious topic, it would make sense that this particular ritual was borrowed from earlier pagan religious tradition. The early Christian church borrowed heavily from pagan religions so that potential new Christians would find familiarity in the rituals, making it easier to convert them.
I am Methodist, so I get grape juice during communion, but it’s still a cool ritual and I dig it.
I’m an agnostic, but here’s my take…for what it’s worth.
The passage is not about cannabalism, no matter what the RCC says. This chapter (http://www.kingjamesbible.com/B43C006.htm) is also the one where Jesus performs the miracle of the loaves and the fishes. The passage referred to in the OP is near the end. It comes after Jesus accuses those he fed on the mountain of only following him because he had filled their bellies.
The passage is a metaphor Jesus uses to try to explain to people that filling their bellies is a short term goal. To be happy, to live joyously, they must look beyond the physical. Their minds and emotions must be fed as well as their bodies. He equates himself with his words (for is he not God manifest in the flesh? and, in the beginning, was not God one with the Word?), and his words are what he offers people to chew on.
And we’re still chewing on them. They’ve gone a lot further than the loaves and the fishes, haven’t they?
