Eucharist and Cannibalism

[Jude3b]

Does anyone know why Romanism encourages Cannibalism?

Roman Catholicism teaches that during their mass, priests allegedly have the power to supernaturally turn bread and wine into the actual and literal body and blood of Jesus Christ! Romanism teaches its members to partake in literal cannibalism!

Nowhere in the Bible does God endorse cannibalism. In fact God forbids the practice (Gen. 9:4 and Lev. 17:12).

God would never command His children to do something He had already forbidden. Why does Romanism encourage this?

[rocketman]

Jude, such an accusation of cannibalism is completely untrue and belies ignorance. I do not eat man's flesh the way the Donner Party did. If you wish to discuss the validity/non-validity of the Transubstantiation, I will glad discuss such with you. But ad hominem and unfounded assertions are simply provocations.

[spl_cadet]

Jude3b is a troll.

Running to TWeb to console yourself over the server move on DCF?

[rocketman]

Yes.

I have to find some way to procrastinate at college for a week...

[Jude3b]

Dear Rocketman: Obviously you must be a Roman Catholic, from your reply. If the bread and wine are turned into the literal body and blood of Christ by your Roman priests, than how is that not Cannibalism when you partake of it? Please explain, Jude3b

[Jude3b]

Eternal life comes through believing in Jesus Christ, not in eating His body.

[Jude3b]

Jude, such an accusation of cannibalism is completely untrue and belies ignorance. I do not eat man's flesh the way the Donner Party did. If you wish to discuss the validity/non-validity of the Transubstantiation, I will glad discuss such with you. But ad hominem and unfounded assertions are simply provocations.

Why would the Roman Catholic church rather have us eating God than placing our faith in Him?

[romepunk]

If eating His flesh and drinking His blood, when taken literally, is cannabalism. And if cannabalism, under these circumstances, is a sin. Why would our perfect Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ use such a horrid and perverse practice, a hideous disgusting sin, as a metaphor for the his wondrous and beautiful salvific action.

Whether you believe it should be taken literally, as Catholics do, or metaphorically, as Protetstants. You can't call the very idea sinful, without casting aspersions on the rhetoric of our Lord Jesus.

[Jude3b]

[QUOTE=romepunk]If eating His flesh and drinking His blood, when taken literally, is cannabalism. And if cannabalism, under these circumstances, is a sin. Why would our perfect Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ use such a horrid and perverse practice, a hideous disgusting sin, as a metaphor for the his wondrous and beautiful salvific action.

Eating and drinking is used figuratively of partaking of the benefits of the death of Christ. We partake by faith and enjoy the benefits because God gives them on the basis of what Christ did for us. Eating is used figuratively of partaking of spiritual food (I Cor. 10:1-3); of other benefits received (Ps. 69:9; Ezek 2:3; 3:1-3; Rev. 10:9); and even of the evil results of sin (Pr. 9:17; Hos. 10:13; Jas. 5:3).

Unlike pope Innocent III who proclaimed the false doctrine of transubstantiation in the year 1215 A.D., no figure of speech was more common to Jews at the time that Christ was being crucified, so there was no excuse for them to misunderstand His words.

Unlike Roman Catholics of the modern era, the Apostolic Christians in the church of God - the body of Christ - understood what Jesus was teaching. By comparing John 6:47-48 with 53-54 we see that believing on Christ is the same as eating and drinking Him.

I'll repeat: Though your verse John 6:53-54 does seem to teach cannibalism, if you read the entire passage in context, the meaning becomes clear. Right before making that statement, Jesus also said:
"... For the bread of God is he which cometh down from heaven, and giveth life unto the world. Then said they unto him, Lord, evermore give us this bread. And Jesus said unto them, I am the bread of life: he that cometh to me shall never hunder; and he that believeth on me shall never thirst." (John 6:33-35). This teaching of Jesus is consistent with the rest of Scripture. Eternal life comes through believing in Jesus Christ, not eating His body.

[romepunk]

Jude3b

With all due respect, you didn't answer my question. None of your examples involve eating human flesh. I ask again, why did Christ use a sin as a metaphor for his salvific action?

pope Innocent III who proclaimed the false doctrine of transubstantiation in the year 1215 A.D

Jude, your better than that. It may have been dogmatized in Aristotelian terms in 1215, but it's much older. Take, for instance, Ignatius of Antioch.

"They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer because they do not confess that the Eucharist is the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ, flesh which suffered for our sins and which that Father, in his goodness, raised up again. They who deny the gift of God are perishing in their disputes"
(Letter to the Smyrnaeans 6:2–7:1 [A.D. 110]).


I responded to the last verse in DRR's thread "The Eucharist."

-romepunk

p.s. In the future, if you're going to cite that many verses, could you please simply quote them. Thanks.

[Jude3b]

Jesus was talking to murmuring religious Jews, just like I am talking to murmuring religious Roman Catholics. Moses did not give you the true bread that feeds the soul and sustains eternal life, but the more temporal bread that feeds the body only.

He was trying to teach those murmuring religious Jews that they will never thirst, that they can have "rivers of living water" flowing out of their innermost being.

[romepunk]

Jesus was talking to murmuring religious Jews, just like I am talking to murmuring religious Roman Catholics. Moses did not give you the true bread that feeds the soul and sustains eternal life, but the more temporal bread that feeds the body only.

He was trying to teach those murmuring religious Jews that they will never thirst, that they can have "rivers of living water" flowing out of their innermost being.

Does this mean you're not going to answer my question?

I'll outline it again, if you didin't comprehend it before.

Christ told us to eat his flesh and drink his blood. In your opinion, he meant this as a metaphor for believing in him and his sacrifice. I'm cool with that. I used to believe that for years. I'm not trying to debate the real presence here, just fend off charges of cannabalism. Because if you call what RC's believe cannabalism, by neccessity you're saying that Christ used a sinful act as a metaphor. That's what I don't like here. And, I believe, it is why the majority of protestants would never use the "cannabalism" argument.

[Jude3b]

Does this mean you're not going to answer my question?

I'll outline it again, if you didin't comprehend it before.

Christ told us to eat his flesh and drink his blood. In your opinion, he meant this as a metaphor for believing in him and his sacrifice. I'm cool with that. I used to believe that for years. I'm not trying to debate the real presence here, just fend off charges of cannabalism. Because if you call what RC's believe cannabalism, by neccessity you're saying that Christ used a sinful act as a metaphor. That's what I don't like here. And, I believe, it is why the majority of protestants would never use the "cannabalism" argument.

Not only was your question answered in Post # 9, you should also be aware that I am not a protestant. I am a former Roman Catholic that became a Christian.

[mandolin]

Jude, I beg of you...

The reason they believe in transsubstantioation is the same reason you are a polemic fundie...ignore context and take things too literally.

"This is my body"...hey, what do you know...it's christ's body. Cool, the bible says the eucharist is eating Jesus literal body...right? Who are you to say that it's figurative? Jesus says "This IS my body."

No, I don't believe it's literal. But why do you have so much catholic hatred? It's absolutely disgusting. Now they are heretics for taking christ's words to heart?

[romepunk]

Jude,

As I replied in post 10, I felt your answers in post 9 contained logical flaws. Once again, I suppose we'll have to agree to disagree.

Mandolin,

Your quite right. Everyone, to some extant, takes certain verses at a more literal value than others. I suppose Catholics feel that just as Jesus was being hyperbolic when he commanded us to "Call no man father," just as Protestants believe he was using figurative language during the Last Supper. We can still celebrate what we have in common, and join together as brothers in Christ.

However, the Catholic approach to the John 6 and the Last Supper scenes in the synoptic Gospels is far from being a fundamentalist, literalistic reading of scripture out of context. Catholics, in fact, put the whole situation in its ultimate context. That is to say, Christ really is the passover lamb. The cosmic, perfect and universal passover lamb, whose slaughter gains for us not a temporal absolution of sins (as did a mere lamb in the Old Covenant), but the absolution of sin for all time. And just as the passover lamb was truly eaten, the act which seals the sacrificial act, we truly eat the Body and Blood of Christ. This is why he commanded us to eat his flesh, because he is the Lamb of God.

-romepunk