It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

The Catholic Church practices symbolic cannibalism

page: 1
0
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 12 2006 @ 06:25 PM
link   
The symbolic eating of the Body of Christ and drinking of the Blood of Christ as practiced in the ritual of Holy Communion in the Catholic Church seems to me to be directly linked to the goulish practices of cannibalism and vampirism.

Did Jesus really say more or less, "Eat Me." or is this widely accepted practice supposedly ordained in the Bible nothing more than blasphemy of the highest order?

Jesus is usually depicted suffering on the cross as a sacrifice.
Why does the Church promote the image of Christ in such a deplorable manner? At his worst?
Why not promote the main image of Jesus in a more respectful manner?
Another blatant display of mockery by the Church?

So we have the Catholic Church symbolically promoting cannibalism, vampirism and sacrificial slaughter of no less than the One the Church claims to worship.



[edit on 12-5-2006 by point]

[edit on 12-5-2006 by point]




posted on May, 12 2006 @ 06:29 PM
link   
Sorry, but the way this thread was started is a no go. Are you for real in asking this?

Eating the body of Christ in the form of bread is no way cannibalism. Drinking the blood of Christ in the form of wine is no way cannibalism.

Drinking and eating flesh and blood is cannibalism. Please do your research first before making comments like the ones you did.


You obviously have no real knowledge of the Catholic religion then?

[edit on 12-5-2006 by Bikereddie]



posted on May, 12 2006 @ 06:46 PM
link   
Yes. You have stumbled onto the great secret that every Roman Catholic knows...we all actually eat human flesh and drink human blood at every Mass. Yes we are a ghoulish lot and, ultimately, we usher in the great dark satanic era of the vampire.

If this is what you want to believe then there is no point in my continuing. I doubt if I could change your mind. However, there is an explanation.

At the Last Supper, Christ spoke and said "Eat my Body" and he also said "Drink my Blood". When he spoke these words he was referring to the sacrifice of animals which, until Christ arrived, was the way that people -- the Jews -- worshipped God (I am obviously going to the extremes here to demonstrate the realities of worship in the era). The sacrifice of animals was the norm. Christ knew that he was to be "sacrificed" on the Cross. He did so willingly to usher in a new era.

That we would eat his body and drink his blood was the symbolic way of saying that we were all to share in the reward of his sacrifice. He offered bread and said "this is my body". He offered wine and said "this is my blood". When he did this he was saying that man was no longer bound to worship God, the father, through animal sacrifice as Christ was offering Himself and we all could share in what, heretofore, was strictly God's.

Of course, I am not a theologian but, in the most simplistic terms possible, I am expressing what, in part, transpired as Christ established a new covenant or contract between man and God (as Christ was both).

As far as the gruesome figure of Christ on the Cross, well, that's the way he died. It was customary for Rome to punish "criminals" by hanging them on a Cross. Criminals would be tied to a cross and exposed to the elements. Much like a pillory stock, criminals would be exposed to endure the ridicule and torment of passersby. Christ, on the other hand, was nailed to cross and, ultimately, had his side pierced by a centurions lance. This occurred to fulfill ancient Jewish prophecy in regards to the Messiah. Two thousand years later, the Crucifix is still displayed by the Church as a reminder of Christ's ultimate sacrifice and it is venerated -- not adored.

Of course, if you choose to believe that the Catholic Church is Satan's Grand Coven of Vampires and Cannibalistic Ghouls then that's because you have chosen to accept rather than to deny ignorance.



posted on May, 12 2006 @ 07:04 PM
link   
It seems my questioning has ruffled a few feathers. So Be It.
In the pursuit of deneying ignorance I question EVERYTHING, even things considered by some to be beyond question. They are usually the things that warrant closer inspection.

The 'SYMBOLIC' cannibalism is obvious to all who wish to see with unblinkered eyes.



posted on May, 12 2006 @ 07:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by point
It seems my questioning has ruffled a few feathers. So Be It


Look, it really seems to me that you started that thread as a pure provocation. You are saying that the Chrurch is promoting cannibalism and mockery of Christ. You didn't want to gain any new insight into the matters of Church and/or religion. You just decided to stick it to the Christian folks here. Not cool.

By the way feel free to add the Orthodox Christians to your list of vampiric cults.
Whatever makes you happy.



posted on May, 12 2006 @ 07:13 PM
link   
Bikereddie:
I think that's why point mentioned the word "symbolic", thus the example presented is as accurate an instance of symbolic cannibalism as you are ever likely to find.



posted on May, 12 2006 @ 07:33 PM
link   
Does mass popularity of a particular view or belief absolve it from all questioning?
Of course not.
There are many views I don't agree with but I don't let them get to me.
I am questioning specific rituals of the Catholic Church.
They are certainly not beyond question.



posted on May, 12 2006 @ 07:56 PM
link   
I don't think the Catholic church is eating anyone because if they were there would not be so many lawsuits by molested young boys. Religion is subject to the same corruption as the rest of the world but has been given a vail to mask it better.



posted on May, 12 2006 @ 07:58 PM
link   
No, he didn't say "Eat me" - nor did he even intimate it. Yes, I think it's a twisted slave-inducing doctrine perpetrated by the RCC organization. No, I don't hold it against the followers.

Yes, they get mad when you talk about their cracker.
So, I didn't say anything...I swear.



posted on May, 12 2006 @ 08:59 PM
link   
Dear Point, as one who stared up at a bleeding Jesus on the cross everyday for years, I, too, wondered about all this. I began to think that a better symbol for Jesus should be the empty tomb, for too many people, at the hour of their death, still are not sure of what is beyond Death. Symbols and ritual, including transubstantiation, connect people to what is beyond them. They "explain", they mediate, they offer our senses something to hang on to. After two thousand years of this, there is a growing idea that it is time to grow beyond the mythic God idea. God as a god. Just as a child outgrows a reality of childish ideas, and an adolescent outgrows certain ideas (violent behavior, anger--note the anger and violence of the popular Revelations/Armageddon ideas nowadays), we are working forward to an "adult" view of God. God is not "out there" but in our hearts. Love is real and is the ultimate reality.



posted on May, 12 2006 @ 09:24 PM
link   
This is a really old accusation pinned upon christians by the pagan romans who claimed that christians "ritually ate their god" during their practices. Similar arguements were brought up later by Gnostics and their later heirs the Bogomils and Cathari.



posted on May, 12 2006 @ 09:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by piersploughman
This is a really old accusation pinned upon christians by the pagan romans who claimed that christians "ritually ate their god" during their practices. Similar arguements were brought up later by Gnostics and their later heirs the Bogomils and Cathari.


No it's not. I'm not a pagan roman and I'm not a Gnostic...so maybe you shouldn't brush it off with this lame excuse. Christ didn't say eat him...he didn't even imply there was a requirement. It's unscriptural.



posted on May, 12 2006 @ 09:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by Valhall
No it's not. I'm not a pagan roman and I'm not a Gnostic...so maybe you shouldn't brush it off with this lame excuse. Christ didn't say eat him...he didn't even imply there was a requirement. It's unscriptural.


I like this topic.


This "cannibalism" has interested me for a long time.


Transubstantiation (from Latin transsubstantiatio) is the change of the substance of bread and wine into that of the body and blood of Christ, the change that according to the belief of the Roman Catholic Church occurs in the Eucharist.



"Substance" here means what something is in itself. (For more on the philosophical concept, see Substance theory.) A hat's shape is not the hat itself, nor is its colour the hat, nor is its size, nor its softness to the touch, nor anything else about it perceptible to the senses. The hat itself (the "substance") has the shape, the colour, the size, the softness and the other appearances, but is distinct from them. Whereas the appearances, which are referred to by the philosophical term accidents are perceptible to the senses, the substance is not.

When at his Last Supper Jesus said: "This is my body", what he held in his hands had all the appearances of bread. However, the Roman Catholic Church believes that the underlying reality was changed in accordance with what Jesus said, that the "substance" of the bread was converted to that of his body. In other words, it actually was his body, while all the appearances open to the senses or to scientific investigation were still those of bread, exactly as before. The Church believes that the same change of the substance of the bread and of the wine occurs at every celebration of the Eucharist,

The bread is changed in the Eucharist into Jesus' body, but, because Jesus, risen from the dead, is living, not only his body is present, but Jesus as a whole, body and blood, soul and divinity. The same holds for the wine changed into his blood.

SOURCE: en.wikipedia.org...

To me, this actually seems to support the fact that the RCC does practice "symbolic cannibalism", and according to the statements made in this about them believing that through Eucharist the bread physically turns into the body of Christ, it actually leans toward actual cannibalism.

I actually had the priest in my church tell the entire church that it has been "scientifically proven" that during Eucharist, the bread "physically resembles the human flesh of Christ, and has his DNA on it". If this is true, kind of makes me wonder why we've never had anyone bring up the fact of "cloning Christ through the DNA on the cracker".

Interesting topic.


Just thought I would note; I'm Catholic, but don't limit myself to their beliefs. I don't believe something just because they tell me too, etc.

[edit on 12-5-2006 by Omniscient]

[edit on 12-5-2006 by Omniscient]



posted on May, 12 2006 @ 09:37 PM
link   
Oh, did I say YOU were a pagan roman or gnostic? Are you denying that these other groups accused the early christians of this practice?

And who called it an excuse? I'm not excusing anything just stating that this isn't the first time this arugement has been heard

And (for the sake of arguement) didn't Jesus say that the drinking of his "blood" was a sign of the "new and everlasting covenant" - that sounds scriptural to me

I don't know what your problem is, but I just wanted to give a little background info on this topic and I don't understand how you can just flat out say that this is not an old accusation - why don't you read Justin Martyr's Apologia (c 150 AD) for a start.



posted on May, 12 2006 @ 09:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by piersploughman


And (for the sake of arguement) didn't Jesus say that the drinking of his "blood" was a sign of the "new and everlasting covenant" - that sounds scriptural to me


No...he didn't. I think that was my point.



I don't know what your problem is, but I just wanted to give a little background info on this topic and I don't understand how you can just flat out say that this is not an old accusation - why don't you read Justin Martyr's Apologia (c 150 AD) for a start.


I didn't say some one else didn't call them out on the lie at some point in the past, now did I? I said my calling them out on their unscriptural practices has nothing to do with the pagan Romans or the Gnostics.

Let's keep the statements straight, ok?

and by the way - it's not a "really old accusation pinned upon christians by the pagan romans who claimed that christians "ritually ate their god" during their practices". Because it's an accusation pinned on the Roman Catholics - who do not represent all christians. So you were the first to misrepresent.



posted on May, 12 2006 @ 09:56 PM
link   
How can you pin this accusation only on Roman Catholics at such an early date?
I concede that they probably were not talking about Gnostic Christians - which is a whole 'nother anmimal in my book, but they were talking about the majority of people that were calling themselves Christians at the time. Your statement seems to be splitting hairs.

Tell you what, you tell me which christian groups they were not talking about

And in your original response to my post you emphatically stated "no it's not" to my "This is a really old accusation..."

How else am I to take that? Sounds like you refuted my whole statement



posted on May, 12 2006 @ 10:08 PM
link   
Better yet - prove that this was an accusation by the "pagan Romans" against ALL christians.

You won't be able to. But, please, offer your evidence. And be ready for the rebuttal, because the early christians did not take the Lord's Supper as the black magic, cannibalistic, transmutating heresy the RCC has pushed as a requirement for "salvation". EAT YOUR CHRIST-BONE-CRACKER OR YOU DON'T GET CONFESSION!

Nope - Christ asked that we come together in fellowship and eat bread to remember the body that was sacrificed and to drink wine to remember the blood that was lost as a sacrifice for our salvation. He didn't say - GET UP ON THIS CRACKER AND TAKE A BIG BITE OUT OF ME....or you don't get any forgiveness.



posted on May, 12 2006 @ 10:19 PM
link   
Actually, the Lord's supper is a symbolic ritual. The RCC has corrupted it into a literal thing, but the symbolism behind the Lord's supper is quite old, dating back to Judaism (ie: Passover, and even Purim though I would debate that one).



posted on May, 12 2006 @ 10:23 PM
link   
Well, exactly. My point stated succinctly. And I screwed up. I got the whole WHAT YOU HAVE TO DO BEFORE YOU GET THE SALVATION thing backwards.

You have to get the RCC confession and man-made forgiveness first - BEFORE YOU CAN EAT CHRIST-BONE-CRACKERS...but you have to eat Christ-bone-crackers before you can get salvation.

Now - just to review. I believe it was a Colorado priest in 2004 that threatened to refuse Confession to any Catholic who voted for Kerry. Thereby denying them access to their CHRIST-BONE-CRACKERS...and thereby eliminating their ability to salvation.

Of course, nobody has explained to me what happened to all the Catholics who died thinking their sins were forgiven by priests who were boinking altar boys. They ate the crackers, but hadn't really gotten their confession/forgiveness thing done...so I'm not sure the whole cannabilistic cracker thing took.



posted on May, 12 2006 @ 10:25 PM
link   
"CHRIST-BONE-CRACKERS"

I love your terming Val, classic.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join