Simple answer, no. People eat bread or a cracker, not an entity. They don’t drink blood either, they drink wine or water.
In all sincerity, you’re asking a question on a board filled with noisy atheist and quiet believers. These threads always head down the same track.
It is absolutely arguing semantics. It’s not far from angels dancing on the head of a needle. You are absolutely right that Catholics do not believe it is a symbol (although most protestant denominations do), but I don’t think it’s right to say they view it as actually physically becoming flesh/blood. It’s more of a spiritual or “essential” conversion.
And to allow for the other option: there are undoubtedly many Catholics who know the doctrine, perhaps even understand it, but still think it’s false. I think a great many Catholics have areas where they believe Catholic doctrine is incorrect but they still remain Catholic.
I grew up Catholic, so I’m not sure what you mean. I was taught to believe that the bread was the actual body of Christ. Like, here’s one story to illustrate: In both grammar and high school we were taught very clearly that the Holy Eucharist is literally his body. There is a story the nuns and brothers told about a priest who didn’t believe in the literalness of this, and, one day, when he was breaking bread for communion, the communion wafer actually started bleeding, and the priest regained his faith in the transubstantiation, yaddayaddayadda.
Anyhow, I don’t buy that shit, but it was made quite important to us, that we literally believed the communion was the physical manifestation of Christ, and that we were eating his body and blood. But, I suppose it’s possible my flavor of Catholicsm was different than others, so I’d like to hear others’ experiences in this matter.
I don’t know about that. My church doesn’t have a doctrine of transubstantiation, but we do handle the elements of the eucharist reverently and dispose of them in a respectful manner.
As I understand it, that story from the nuns is not a reflection of Catholic belief (although I guess it could have been a miracle outside of the normal miracle of transubstantiation). As I read it, the substance of the bread/wine is changed to be wholly that of the body/blood. But it’s appearence/smell/taste/etc changes not one whit. So while it is “literally” body/blood in the substance sense, it would never actually look or taste or smell like it. It is only through spiritual reflection and faith that the miracle occurs (or something like that).
Like someone said, it’s pretty ancient theology/philosophy and has been disregarded by most branches of Christianity (although, admittedly, not the largest one).
That is true, I think. Catholic doctrine definitely says that the Eucharist is wholly transformed into the substance of the body/blood. It just doesn’t physically (again, depending on what you mean by physically) become flesh and blood.
I have some Catholics coming to visit this weekend, maybe I’ll ask them what they think (or maybe not, such topics are sometimes touchy…).
So what do you do with the last few drops of wine left in the cup?
However, moral and reasonable people may disagree with you in some cases about what counts as “impossible” or “blatantly cruel and bigoted”.
And that’s the part you seem to have trouble with.
Well, I guess that’s the nuance that wasn’t really made clear in our lessons. I personally don’t know what the difference between the two states are. To me, the statement that “the bread and wine are changed into the Body and Blood of Christ, as the Church has always taught. Although they still look like bread and wine, they have, by divine power, actually changed into His Body and Blood” to me means that it physically has become flesh and blood, but, as you say, depends on what you mean by “physically.”
The cup is rinsed with water and poured into a special sink that drains directly into the ground. My brain is taunting me by not remembering the Latin name for that particular object.
ETA: piscina!
Amazingly enough yes, I have trouble considering people who in the name of their religion lie and oppress and abuse and engage in bigotry and commit murder “moral”. I guess it’s just a burden I’ll have to bear. :rolleyes:
All Christians that use communion are accepting it as ritual cannibalism; quite a few have distanced themselves from the original doctrine that the wafer and wine literally transform into the body and blood of Christ - but it’s not deniable. I may have stated it with discomforting baldness, but I did not state it as a purely inflammatory comment. It really is one of those points where, if it flicked you on the raw, consider why that spot is raw.
I notice the first part of the question is being largely ignored. Isn’t anyone going to argue that whipping, beating, jamming spikes on the head, crucifixion and stabbing represent metaphors?
When porcines become aeriform.
OK, well, a little cannibalism never killed no one. See you at Mass!
Seriously, what’s your point? This is a well-flogged horse. (Well-flogged by the days of Irenaeus and Maimonides and Chrysostom, when these accusations and recriminations first surfaced.) If you think you’re cluing us into anything new, I’m afraid that isn’t so.
But when I eat some scrumptious JC this Sunday, a little bit of me will be delighted to know this apparently vexes (at least enough to take to the Internets and start and monitor a dopey thread) you to no end. Then, to heighten the passion, I will say a prayer for the salvation of your immortal soul. 
I cannot imagine that a resurrected Jesus would be happy with his “followers” wearing and worshipping at, the symbols of his torture and death. Couldn’t have been pleasant. I believe not a bit of it anyway.
Capt
Do not pray for my soul, it is fine and has a nice warranty
Capt
Ummm…because it is quite believable that was an acceptable form of punishment for that time period?
Obsess?
Centerpiece?
Cannibalism?
Celebration?
You have more explaining to do about your projections on Christians, rather than the other way around.
Torture? Murder? Cannibalism?
Fuck, that’s how I roll, bitches!
The Eucharist and eating the flesh of your god did actually not originate with Christianity – ever heard of the mystery cults? While the church may say it’s not connected, it’s still not unique to the Catholic church.
:dubious:
Are you seriously arguing that every single Christian out there does that and/or encourages? If so, you’ve seriously gone around the bend. I seriously think you’re unbalanced. Sometimes I wonder what your childhood was like. The world is not as black and white as you paint it.
Sure, but ‘magic cannibalism’ without the butchering of somebody is a very different beast. What moves cannibalism from the neutrally bizarre to the morally reprehensible bizarre is killing somebody. People are weirdly, macabre-ly fascinated by the Donner party eating their dead, or those soccer players in the Andes, but I don’t think anybody really judges them.
I’ve never trucked with people that look lovingly at bloody crucifix paintings, but huh? That’s not metaphor. Christians don’t worship the torture and pain Jesus endured. They empathize with his suffering.