Thread: Eucharist and Cannibalism
March 28th 2004, 04:26 PM #16
Rome I understand what you mean totally. I was not tyring to equate the catholic eucharist with some fundamentalist view. I was simply trying to get the issue to the simplest form. The catholic view is a more literal view. So it is more fundamentalist than those against the transsubstantiation. This, I find ironic since it seems that many fundy protestants ignore the transsubstantiation view simply based on tradition (ironic because of their constant plea "sola scriptura")
I did not mean to call the eucharist fundamentalist, though. Sorry for the misunderstanding."Whenever the devil harasses you, seek the company of men or drink more, or joke and talk nonsense, or do some other merry thing. Sometimes we must drink more, sport, recreate ourselves, and even sin a little to spite the devil, so that we leave him no place for troubling our consciences with trifles. We are conquered if we try too conscientiously not to sin at all. So when the devil says to you: do not drink, answer him: I will drink, and right freely, just because you tell me not to."
March 28th 2004, 04:34 PM #17
I must have read too hastily. Mea culpa. I still agree with your general premise though, I just wanted to put the Catholic understanding of the Eucharist into a bigger context, for those that may not know it. Sorry if I jumped the gun on you.
romepunkSalve Regina, mater misericordiae: vita, dulcedo, et spes nostra, salve. Ad te clamamus exsules filii Hevae. Ad te suspiramus, gementes et flentes in hac lacrimarum valle. Eia, ergo, advocata nostra, illos tuos misericordes oculos ad nos converte. Et Iesum, benedictum fructum ventris tui, nobis post hoc exsilium ostende.
O clemens, O pia, O dulcis Virgo Maria. Amen.
Ora pro nobis, sancta Dei Genetrix.
Ut digni efficiamur promissionibus Christi.
March 29th 2004, 03:43 AM #18
A rebuke on you for accusing me of hatredOriginally posted by mandolin
March 29th 2004, 08:59 PM #19You have no right mandolin to accuse someone of hatred because they are willing to stand up to a false religious system that teaches a false religion and one that has another Christ. I am a former Roman Catholic and my burden is to help rescue poor Roman Catholics out of the lies of Satan. The Bible commands believers to "rescue the perishing" - I happen to love Roman Catholics with Agape. Enough love to share the truth of the Word of God with them. You - who are not willing to boldly state the truth of the Word of God - are the ones who refuse to love those trapped by Satan in false religious systems - such as Romanism. I forgive you, even if I am rebuking you.
But is transubstantiation heresy?
You condemn folks to hellfire on such trivial things. Since when where these things salvific matters? Since when did god cast people to hell for taking jesus literally when he said "this is my body"?
I'm sure that you love these catholics...so quit being such a turd-burglar."Whenever the devil harasses you, seek the company of men or drink more, or joke and talk nonsense, or do some other merry thing. Sometimes we must drink more, sport, recreate ourselves, and even sin a little to spite the devil, so that we leave him no place for troubling our consciences with trifles. We are conquered if we try too conscientiously not to sin at all. So when the devil says to you: do not drink, answer him: I will drink, and right freely, just because you tell me not to."
March 29th 2004, 10:13 PM #20Originally posted by Jude3b
Few people have any guess, let alone a rational hypothesis, concerning why Jesus commanded us to perform the whole trip,...
Whether miracles of actually turning bread and wine into the actual and literal body and blood of Jesus Christ seems immaterial to the reading of Revelation below.
The Eucharist is an admission, a reminder.
The blood of Christ is on our hands.
We are to remind ourselves that even all the aposltles except John of this Revelation deserted Jesus to his cross, sort of a double cross, on our part.
Rev. 11:4 These are the two olive trees, and the two candlesticks, the Old Testament and the New Testament, standing before the God of the earth, the Word of Universal Christianity.
Rev. 11:5 And if any man will hurt them by dissent or heresy, fire at the stake proceedeth out of their mouth, and devoureth their enemies: and if any man will offer doctrine at variance with the orthodoxy, he must in this manner be killed, burned at the stake.
Rev. 11:6 These have power to shut heaven ending religious discourse, that no controversy shall reign in the days of the Dark Ages of their prophecy: and they have power over the waters of congregations to turn them to the blood of the Eucharist in sacred dogma, and to smite the earth with all plagues of trials and inquisitions as often as they will.
April 4th 2004, 02:47 PM #21
Your translation of Rev. 11:4-6 is far out...!Originally posted by kofh2u
"For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book:" (Rev. 22:18)
April 6th 2004, 01:49 AM #22Originally posted by Jude3b
Don't fault the Freudian Bible Translation and Interpretation.
Let the blood of the Eucharist be on my hands and the hands on my children. (It is for all of us anyway, of course.)
But I did not take the time to place the brackets that separate the Translation in each verse from the Interpretations:
Rev. 11:4 These are the two olive trees, and the two candlesticks, (the Old Testament and the New Testament), standing before the God of the earth, (the Word of Universal Christianity).
Rev. 11:5 And if any man will hurt them (by dissent or heresy), fire (at the stake) proceedeth out of their mouth, and devoureth their enemies: and if any man will hurt them, (]offer doctrine at variance with the orthodoxy), he must in this manner be killed, (burned at the stake).
Rev. 11:6 These have power to shut heaven (ending religious discourse), that it rain not (controversy shall not reign) in the days of the Dark Ages of their prophecy: and have power over waters (of congregations) to turn them to (the) blood (of the Eucharist in sacred dogma), and to smite the earth with all plagues (of trials and inquisitions), as often as they will.
Of course, this manner of interpretation is not unique. All explanations do add many words to the side, albeit not bracketed in the verse itself. It seems that those lengthy explanations deny the brevity of wisdom in this Bible, however, which is why I bring it to your attention.
Short and sweet, concise and cohesive throughout the entirity of Revelation. It smacks of a validity in this clear and direct bracketing, as is demonstrates here, hard to dismiss with vague and lengthy discourses I have read.
Those expositions seem as guilty in their shallow adding of ideas after the verses, or following them underneath, perhaps.
April 7th 2004, 06:19 PM #23
You also need to see that Jesus said what He meant! [literally? ;)]
There's a pattern in the Bible of when Jesus meant things literally or if He meant things not-litterally. Here, I'll show you a little:
This is taken from a site:
Protestant attacks on the Catholic Church often focus on the Eucharist. This demonstrates that opponents of the Church—mainly Evangelicals and Fundamentalists—recognize one of Catholicism’s core devotional doctrines. What’s more, the attacks show that Fundamentalists are not always literalists. This is seen in their interpretation of the key biblical passage, chapter six of John’s Gospel, in which Christ speaks about the sacrament that will be instituted at the Last Supper. This tract examines the last half of that chapter.
John 6:30 begins a colloquy that took place in the synagogue at Capernaum. The Jews asked Jesus what sign he could perform so that they might believe in him. As a challenge, they noted that "our ancestors ate manna in the desert." Could Jesus top that? He told them the real bread from heaven comes from the Father. "Give us this bread always," they said. Jesus replied, "I am the bread of life; whoever comes to me will never hunger, and whoever believes in me will never thirst." At this point the Jews understood him to be speaking metaphorically.
Again and Again
Jesus first repeated what he said, then summarized: "‘I am the living bread which came down from heaven; if any one eats of this bread, he will live for ever; and the bread which I shall give for the life of the world is my flesh.’ The Jews then disputed among themselves, saying, ‘How can this man give us his flesh to eat?’" (John 6:51–52).
His listeners were stupefied because now they understood Jesus literally—and correctly. He again repeated his words, but with even greater emphasis, and introduced the statement about drinking his blood: "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood, you have no life in you; he who eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day. For my flesh is food indeed, and my blood is drink indeed. He who eats my flesh and drinks my blood abides in me, and I in him" (John 6:53–56).
Notice that Jesus made no attempt to soften what he said, no attempt to correct "misunderstandings," for there were none. Our Lord’s listeners understood him perfectly well. They no longer thought he was speaking metaphorically. If they had, if they mistook what he said, why no correction?
On other occasions when there was confusion, Christ explained just what he meant (cf. Matt. 16:5–12). Here, where any misunderstanding would be fatal, there was no effort by Jesus to correct. Instead, he repeated himself for greater emphasis.
In John 6:60 we read: "Many of his disciples, when they heard it, said, ‘This is a hard saying; who can listen to it?’" These were his disciples, people used to his remarkable ways. He warned them not to think carnally, but spiritually: "It is the Spirit that gives life, the flesh is of no avail; the words that I have spoken to you are spirit and life" (John 6:63; cf. 1 Cor. 2:12–14).
But he knew some did not believe. (It is here, in the rejection of the Eucharist, that Judas fell away; look at John 6:64.) "After this, many of his disciples drew back and no longer went about with him" (John 6:66).
This is the only record we have of any of Christ’s followers forsaking him for purely doctrinal reasons. If it had all been a misunderstanding, if they erred in taking a metaphor in a literal sense, why didn’t he call them back and straighten things out? Both the Jews, who were suspicious of him, and his disciples, who had accepted everything up to this point, would have remained with him had he said he was speaking only symbolically.
But he did not correct these protesters. Twelve times he said he was the bread that came down from heaven; four times he said they would have "to eat my flesh and drink my blood." John 6 was an extended promise of what would be instituted at the Last Supper—and it was a promise that could not be more explicit. Or so it would seem to a Catholic. But what do Fundamentalists say?
They say that in John 6 Jesus was not talking about physical food and drink, but about spiritual food and drink. They quote John 6:35: "Jesus said to them, ‘I am the bread of life; he who comes to me shall not hunger, and he who believes in me shall never thirst.’" They claim that coming to him is bread, having faith in him is drink. Thus, eating his flesh and blood merely means believing in Christ.
But there is a problem with that interpretation. As Fr. John A. O’Brien explains, "The phrase ‘to eat the flesh and drink the blood,’ when used figuratively among the Jews, as among the Arabs of today, meant to inflict upon a person some serious injury, especially by calumny or by false accusation. To interpret the phrase figuratively then would be to make our Lord promise life everlasting to the culprit for slandering and hating him, which would reduce the whole passage to utter nonsense" (O’Brien, The Faith of Millions, 215). For an example of this use, see Micah 3:3.
Fundamentalist writers who comment on John 6 also assert that one can show Christ was speaking only metaphorically by comparing verses like John 10:9 ("I am the door") and John 15:1 ("I am the true vine"). The problem is that there is not a connection to John 6:35, "I am the bread of life." "I am the door" and "I am the vine" make sense as metaphors because Christ is like a door—we go to heaven through him—and he is also like a vine—we get our spiritual sap through him. But Christ takes John 6:35 far beyond symbolism by saying, "For my flesh is food indeed, and my blood is drink indeed" (John 6:55).
He continues: "As the living Father sent me, and I live because of the Father, so he who eats me will live because of me" (John 6:57). The Greek word used for "eats" (trogon) is very blunt and has the sense of "chewing" or "gnawing." This is not the language of metaphor.
Their Main Argument
For Fundamentalist writers, the scriptural argument is capped by an appeal to John 6:63: "It is the spirit that gives life, the flesh is of no avail; the words that I have spoken to you are spirit and life." They say this means that eating real flesh is a waste. But does this make sense?
Are we to understand that Christ had just commanded his disciples to eat his flesh, then said their doing so would be pointless? Is that what "the flesh is of no avail" means? "Eat my flesh, but you’ll find it’s a waste of time"—is that what he was saying? Hardly.
The fact is that Christ’s flesh avails much! If it were of no avail, then the Son of God incarnated for no reason, he died for no reason, and he rose from the dead for no reason. Christ’s flesh profits us more than anyone else’s in the world. If it profits us nothing, so that the incarnation, death, and resurrection of Christ are of no avail, then "your faith is futile and you are still in your sins. Then those also who have fallen asleep in Christ have perished" (1 Cor. 15:17b–18).
In John 6:63 "flesh profits nothing" refers to mankind’s inclination to think using only what their natural human reason would tell them rather than what God would tell them. Thus in John 8:15–16 Jesus tells his opponents: "You judge according to the flesh, I judge no one. Yet even if I do judge, my judgment is true, for it is not I alone that judge, but I and he who sent me." So natural human judgment, unaided by God’s grace, is unreliable; but God’s judgment is always true.
And were the disciples to understand the line "The words I have spoken to you are spirit and life" as nothing but a circumlocution (and a very clumsy one at that) for "symbolic"? No one can come up with such interpretations unless he first holds to the Fundamentalist position and thinks it necessary to find a rationale, no matter how forced, for evading the Catholic interpretation. In John 6:63 "flesh" does not refer to Christ’s own flesh—the context makes this clear—but to mankind’s inclination to think on a natural, human level. "The words I have spoken to you are spirit" does not mean "What I have just said is symbolic." The word "spirit" is never used that way in the Bible. The line means that what Christ has said will be understood only through faith; only by the power of the Spirit and the drawing of the Father (cf. John 6:37, 44–45, 65).
Paul Confirms This
Paul wrote to the Corinthians: "The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not a participation in the blood of Christ? The bread which we break, is it not a participation in the body of Christ?" (1 Cor. 10:16). So when we receive Communion, we actually participate in the body and blood of Christ, not just eat symbols of them. Paul also said, "Therefore whoever eats the bread and drinks the cup of the Lord unworthily will have to answer for the body and blood of the Lord. . . . For any one who eats and drinks without discerning the body, eats and drinks judgment on himself" (1 Cor. 11:27, 29). "To answer for the body and blood" of someone meant to be guilty of a crime as serious as homicide. How could eating mere bread and wine "unworthily" be so serious? Paul’s comment makes sense only if the bread and wine became the real body and blood of Christ.
What Did the First Christians Say?
Anti-Catholics also claim the early Church took this chapter symbolically. Is that so? Let’s see what some early Christians thought, keeping in mind that we can learn much about how Scripture should be interpreted by examining the writings of early Christians.
Ignatius of Antioch, who had been a disciple of the apostle John and who wrote a letter to the Smyrnaeans about A.D. 110, said, referring to "those who hold heterodox opinions," that "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 the Father, in his goodness, raised up again" (6:2, 7:1).
Forty years later, Justin Martyr, wrote, "Not as common bread or common drink do we receive these; but since Jesus Christ our Savior was made incarnate by the word of God and had both flesh and blood for our salvation, so too, as we have been taught, the food which has been made into the Eucharist by the Eucharistic prayer set down by him, and by the change of which our blood and flesh is nourished, . . . is both the flesh and the blood of that incarnated Jesus" (First Apology 66:1–20).
Origen, in a homily written about A.D. 244, attested to belief in the Real Presence. "I wish to admonish you with examples from your religion. You are accustomed to take part in the divine mysteries, so you know how, when you have received the Body of the Lord, you reverently exercise every care lest a particle of it fall and lest anything of the consecrated gift perish. You account yourselves guilty, and rightly do you so believe, if any of it be lost through negligence" (Homilies on Exodus 13:3).
Cyril of Jerusalem, in a catechetical lecture presented in the mid-300s, said, "Do not, therefore, regard the bread and wine as simply that, for they are, according to the Master’s declaration, the body and blood of Christ. Even though the senses suggest to you the other, let faith make you firm. Do not judge in this matter by taste, but be fully assured by faith, not doubting that you have been deemed worthy
of the body and blood of Christ" (Catechetical Discourses: Mystagogic 4:22:9).
In a fifth-century homily, Theodore of Mopsuestia seemed to be speaking to today’s Evangelicals and Fundamentalists: "When [Christ] gave the bread he did not say, ‘This is the symbol of my body,’ but, ‘This is my body.’ In the same way, when he gave the cup of his blood he did not say, ‘This is the symbol of my blood,’ but, ‘This is my blood,’ for he wanted us to look upon the [Eucharistic elements], after their reception of grace and the coming of the Holy Spirit, not according to their nature, but to receive them as they are, the body and blood of our Lord" (Catechetical Homilies 5:1).
Whatever else might be said, the early Church took John 6 literally. In fact, there is no record from the early centuries that implies Christians doubted the constant Catholic interpretation. There exists no document in which the literal interpretation is opposed and only the metaphorical accepted.
Why do Fundamentalists and Evangelicals reject the plain, literal interpretation of John 6? For them, Catholic sacraments are out because they imply a spiritual reality—grace—being conveyed by means of matter. This seems to them to be a violation of the divine plan. For many Protestants, matter is not to be used, but overcome or avoided.
One suspects, had they been asked by the Creator their opinion of how to bring about mankind’s salvation, Fundamentalists would have advised him to adopt a different approach. How much cleaner things would be if spirit never dirtied itself with matter! But God approves of matter—he approves of it because he created it—and he approves of it so much that he comes to us under the appearances of bread and wine, just as he does in the physical form of the Incarnate Christ.
Last edited by Sir Gimli; April 8th 2004 at 02:53 PM.I'm proud to be Catholic with 2000 years of great tradition to support it! Also, It's the PolkaMeister to you! For Polka is the best music, dancing, and excitement around!
April 10th 2004, 06:49 PM #24
"This do in remembrance of me" (Luke 22:19)
The special design of the ordinance of the Lord's Supper is shown in the words of Christ when commanding its observance: "This do in remembrance" of Christ. It is not actually Christ himself (though it symbolically represents him in his atonement), but it is a commemorative institution by which the sufferings of Christ for our sins are brought vividly before the mind, thus bringing us into closer fellowship with his suffering and death. "For as oft as ye this bread, and drink this cup, ye do show the Lord's death till he come" (I Cor. 11:26). In observing it, we do not obtain spiritual life, but we "show the Lord's death."
April 11th 2004, 08:30 AM #25Originally posted by Jude3bI'm proud to be Catholic with 2000 years of great tradition to support it! Also, It's the PolkaMeister to you! For Polka is the best music, dancing, and excitement around!
April 11th 2004, 10:44 AM #26Originally posted by Sir Gimli
1) You are right to be proud of your Catholicism.
2) You have the stronger of the two arguments.
3) You, as do I, love the 13th century tone to the interpretations you offer.
4) Perhaps you might at least consider a third, as yet unoffered response to the hard problem of these verses? The verses were neither literal nor metaphorical.
A.) "And the Word was made flesh"... is the foundation for suggesting this: that Jesus was speaking neither literally nor metaphorically, but analogously.
He was saying: he was the Word, made flesh, de facto of a "manna," or a key, by which the Torah can be verbatim memorized... Hence, made flesh as opposed to written Torah. .
B.) If you can tolerate more, God bless you.
The above statement correctly implies that I am ready to support this with direct example of how it can and was done. The key also can be explicitly delineated as a now literary contrivance in the scripturs themselves. nWe could come back to this point at some other time.
C.) Jesus was the director, as mentioned numerous times in the Psalms.
What he directed was a resurrected art. The methodolgy of the Hebrew Kohanim.
That is, the Aaronic priethood.
These sons of Aaron were charged, in the days of Moses, with the oral and dramatic presentation of scripture, as a team effort. Each member had his little part, and as did Aaron, the highest of priest and the mediator for the sins of the people.
D.) To follow this rational further, we must read Matthew 3:11-12.
Here we discover that Jesus baptised with a fork shaped contortion to his hand.
Jesus held his hand as if a fan, like as if his hand was a fork for reaping wheat. (Luke 3:18 repeats this unmentioned mystery).
What has this to do with the Eucharist?
First, it sets the scene for the future, a moment such as this, that the significance of my point will be no small thing.
E.) We know that there was a key of some sort which Jesus referred to on occassion.
(Matt 3:11-12) The "fan in his hand"... that is, in the hand of him, "he who holds the seven stars in his right hand"... (Rev 1:16).... has to do with this idea of spiritual bread.
He was by these methods, the Word made flesh, by using the hidden manna. The command of Eucharisr is that we might remember.
By the Eucharist, his blood spilled for this bread, over this bread, the manna God fed in the wilderness to the children of Abraham would be the mystery, Eucharist, to introduce the mysteries of manna and the Word made flesh.
F.) Jesus related the whole concept of manna to real bread, but was using an analogy of a hidden manna he was using everyday.
The point was that this "manna" is a demonstratable "method," a method of verbatim memory of the Word.
This is the analogy I refer you too.
He was marking for our future discovery, that the spiritual aspect was mental in content and divine in meaning.
That he was then, and for us now, the interceder, as was Aaron, the Hebrew High Priest of the Kohanim, in the time of the manna of the days of Moses.
By this analogy he told to those people, he was setting the stage of the future, as he did so with his crucifixion. Marking the significance of his evangelium. Both ideas somewhat repugnant, crucifixion and eating his flesh.
Neither of these actions could be understood at the time because the apostles would remember, and understand only after the consequences of his martrydom lead ultimately to his victory.
G.) Isaiah 28:9
April 11th 2004, 09:36 PM #27
Cannibalism and the Roman Eucharist doctrineOriginally posted by Jude3b
April 11th 2004, 10:08 PM #28Originally posted by Jude3b
It's in the Bible. Actually cannabalism is something that the pagans actually accussed the early Christians of doing.
April 16th 2004, 02:07 PM #29
Eternal life comes through believing in Jesus Christ, not in cannibalism
"And this is the will of him that sent me, that every one which seeth the Son, and believeth on him, may have everlasting life..." (John 6:40)
April 16th 2004, 02:34 PM #30Originally posted by Jude3bIf there is anything I’ve learned from both conservatives and liberals, it’s that we can have all the “right” answers and still be mean. And when you’re mean, it’s hard for people to listen to, much less desire, your truth.
By Kelp in forum Rec RoomReplies: 6Last Post: January 25th 2010, 11:10 PM
By Darth Executor in forum Civics 101Replies: 3Last Post: March 9th 2007, 07:12 PM
By spl_cadet in forum Ecclesiology 201Replies: 45Last Post: October 12th 2006, 01:59 AM
By Yakkity Yak in forum Civics 101Replies: 11Last Post: March 15th 2006, 03:53 PM
By Dee Dee Warren in forum Honors HallReplies: 4Last Post: March 13th 2004, 04:30 PM