The Catholic Church practices symbolic cannibalism

I wonder why I even bothered to respond in this ridiculous troll thread in the first place. I do believe Transubstantion is a corruption of Christ's teachings though, there's nothing magic about the Lord's supper. You don't go to heaven for having communion.

Originally posted by Nakash
I wonder why I even bothered to respond in this ridiculous troll thread in the first place. I do believe Transubstantion is a corruption of Christ's teachings though, there's nothing magic about the Lord's supper. You don't go to heaven for having communion.

Maybe that's why you bothered. There's so much more to Christ's words, his life, and his teachings than to center on thinking that eating a cracker can do something for you...when he never said it could in the first place.

Love God above all others.

Love your neighbor as you love yourself.

Treat everybody as you want to be treated.

(no cracker needed)

(no cracker needed)

Man, that was classic. Good advice, point taken.

i know this thread has been debated on ATS before many times. i wish ud do a search.

Joh 6:57 As the living Father hath sent me, and I live by the Father: so he that eateth me, even he shall live by me.
Joh 6:58 This is that bread which came down from heaven: not as your fathers did eat manna, and are dead: he that eateth of this bread shall live forever.

Joh 6:62 What and if ye shall see the Son of man ascend up where he was before?
Joh 6:63 It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life.

Mat 4:4 But he answered and said, It is written, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God.

Amo 8:11 Behold, the days come, saith the Lord GOD, that I will send a famine in the land, not a famine of bread, nor a thirst for water, but of hearing the words of the LORD:

Rev 2:17 He that hath an ear, let him hear what the Spirit saith unto the churches; To him that overcometh will I give to eat of the hidden manna, ..............

Jesus word = word of God = bread of life. Jesus being filled with the holy spirit broke that word, first to his disciples, then to the world (the crumbs of what the disciples ate. remember the parable of the feeding of the 5000? disciples ate first, their crumbs fed the rest. Just as now in the spiritual sense). Jesus blood = lambs blood for cleansing of sin.

Luk 22:19 And he took bread, and gave thanks, and broke it, and gave unto them, saying, This is my body which is given for you: this do in remembrance of me.

1Co 12:12 For as the body is one, and hath many members, and all the members of that one body, being many, are one body: so also is Christ.

Rom 12:5 So we, being many, are one body in Christ, and every one members one of another.

You eat/consume the WORD of God, and then start to distribute it yourself. The Body (or church) of Christ. has nothing to do with vamprism.

(edit: i wanted to add transmutation, probably a form of gnostic/occult alchelmy that slipped into RCC liturgy like everything else. has nothing to do with interpretation above).


[edit on 2006-5-13 by NuTroll]

I hate attempting exegesis online. It's not my field. However the Biblical quote from the Gospel of John just given is a good example of a truncation leading to complete misunderstanding. A summary of the full passage in Chapter 6 of the Gospel of John is as follows (forgive me not pasting a full quote but it is too long for a single post - you can find it all somewhere like this:
www.hti.umich.edu...). The relevant verses are 24-66:

The people look for Jesus. They find him. He chastises them saying they just want free food (this is just after the feeding of the multitude). He tells them that he has better things to give. Jesus says God has sent bread from heaven that will give eternal life. They ask for this bread. Jesus says he is that bread. The people take issue with his use of the words "I am the bread come down from heaven" (v.41). (NB this is inconclusive - one could read this as them objecting to that he said he "came down from heaven" rather than that he was bread)

And Jesus replies:

[43] ... Murmur not among yourselves.
...
[47] Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that believeth on me hath everlasting life.
[48] I am that bread of life.
[49] Your fathers did eat manna in the wilderness, and are dead.
[50] This is the bread which cometh down from heaven, that a man may eat thereof, and not die.
[51] I am the living bread which came down from heaven: if any man eat of this bread, he shall live for ever: and the bread that I will give is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world.

Three statements that he is the bread (vv.47, 48 & 51). The people again take issue with him about it. They latch onto the literal meaning of these words...

[52] The Jews therefore strove among themselves, saying, How can this man give us his flesh to eat?

The question of whether Jesus is speaking metaphorically or literally appears to be what the Jews were in fact asking:

[53] Then Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you.
[54] Whoso eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day.
[55] For my flesh is meat indeed, and my blood is drink indeed.
[56] He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, dwelleth in me, and I in him.
[57] As the living Father hath sent me, and I live by the Father: so he that eateth me, even he shall live by me.
[58] This is that bread which came down from heaven: not as your fathers did eat manna, and are dead: he that eateth of this bread shall live for ever.

This is all rather literal to me. Jesus appears to be labouring the point that he is not speaking in purely metaphorical terms. He is unwilling to restate his point in more general terms.

I don't propose to pick this apart further. It is also significant what happens next:

[60] Many therefore of his disciples, when they had heard this, said, This is an hard saying; who can hear it?
[61] When Jesus knew in himself that his disciples murmured at it, he said unto them, Doth this offend you?

[66] From that time many of his disciples went back, and walked no more with him.

If the Gospel writer wanted to make it clear that it was a metaphor, why go into such detail about the literalness and the fact that it is so hard to "accept" (as many contributors to this thread also find it so)?

By the time Paul wrote the 1st letter to the Corinthians it was accpeted that this was literal. (see next post for the quote)

Cheers.

Rob.

The quote from the previous thread (bearing in mind that it is possible/likely that this letter of St Paul may predate the authorship of the final version of the Gospel of John in the previous post)...

1Cor.11

[23] For I have received of the Lord that which also I delivered unto you, That the Lord Jesus the same night in which he was betrayed took bread:
[24] And when he had given thanks, he brake it, and said, Take, eat: this is my body, which is broken for you: this do in remembrance of me.
[25] After the same manner also he took the cup, when he had supped, saying, This cup is the new testament in my blood: this do ye, as oft as ye drink it, in remembrance of me.
[26] For as often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do shew the Lord's death till he come.
[27] Wherefore whosoever shall eat this bread, and drink this cup of the Lord, unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord.
[28] But let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of that bread, and drink of that cup.
[29] For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh damnation to himself, not discerning the Lord's body.

This occurs during a practical discussion about how one ought to conduct oneself at the Christian gatherings where the Eucharist was celebrated (the sharing of the bread and wine), so refers to them and not a metaphorical eating and drinking.

I really don't want to involve myself in theology. The point I am making is that the early understanding of the matter was one of literal bodyness and bloodness. If it is indeed a ritual cannabalism, that in itself would not actually be wrong, or some form of perversion, if it was commanded by God.

Cheers.

Rob.

[edit on 13-5-2006 by d60944]

Originally posted by point
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

Wrong.

The Catholic Church DOES NOT say it is symbolic. The Catholic Church
teaches that it IS the Body and Blood of Christ. It specifically states that
in the Roman Catholic Church this IS NOT a symbol.

Not that any of you care to learn exactly why the Catholic church believes
this, but I'll post it just in case you actually want to read.
www.catholic.com...
www.catholic.com...

Cracker? Been reading Jack Chick??

This thread belongs in BTS Religion Forum with the rest of the
bible interpretation.


[edit on 5/13/2006 by FlyersFan]

d60944,

Well, first of all, in verse 42 they did not ask "how can he say he is the bread that came down from heaven?". They asked "how can he say he came down from heaven?" While inserting unscriptural conjecture into the interpretation of scripture seems to be par for the RCC course, let's not do it here. The Jews questioned how he could claim to have come down from heaven.

And I can't help but notice that you declare verse 41 to 66 to be the crux of the matter, but then drop the chunk of verses that are paramount to what Christ was trying to tell them. That would be verse 62 through 65:

What if you see the Son of Man ascend to where he was before! 63The Spirit gives life; the flesh counts for nothing. The words I have spoken to you are spirit[e] and they are life. 64Yet there are some of you who do not believe." For Jesus had known from the beginning which of them did not believe and who would betray him. 65He went on to say, "This is why I told you that no one can come to me unless the Father has enabled him."

Originally posted by Valhall
Christ didn't say eat him...he didn't even imply there
was a requirement. It's unscriptural.

John 6:54-57 - Then Jesus said to them: Amen, Amen, I say unto you:
except you eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood, you shall
not have life in you. He that eateth my flesh and drinketh my blood hath
everlasting life: and I will raise him up in the last day. For my flesh is meat
indeed: and my blood is drink indeed. He that eateth my flesh and drinkethmy
blood abideth in me: and I in him.

Christs words. Unless you eat his flesh and drink his blood you won't have
eternal life. HIS words. Not mine.

If he was speaking metaphorically he would have said so when everyone
left at that point. He didn't. He left it as it was.

It's all been said before.
This belongs in BTS Religion Forum.

[edit on 5/13/2006 by FlyersFan]

Yes he did (see the post above yours). You just choose to leave it off.

Text taken out of context is pretext and leads to spiritual slavery through man-made dogmatic rituals.

Which is what we're discussing here. I don't think you made the silly teaching (some one with very nefarious intentions did), I just think you follow it.

Originally posted by Valhall
Text taken out of context is ...

What I think ya'll are doing. Ignoring what Christ
said. But whatever.

I just think you follow it.

Absolutely. I believe the Catholic doctrine on the Eucharist.
www.ewtn.com...

You don't? I honestly don't care. Do your own thing.
It's just amazing that people feel the need to start
thread after thread in ATS on scriptural interpretation.
It's something more in line with trib farces dot com.

Originally posted by FlyersFan


You don't? I honestly don't care. Do your own thing.
It's just amazing that people feel the need to start
thread after thread in ATS on scriptural interpretation.
It's something more in line with trib farces dot com.

Well, FIRST OF ALL...people DON'T start "thread after thread" on scriptural interpretation on ATS. In fact, little to no real scriptural interpretation discussion takes place here any more because it gets pushed over to BTS. AND THIS PROBABLY WILL TOO. And when it does, I'll disagree with the decision, because I think this is a religious conspiracy.

THAT's why it is important to some of us. THAT's why I get involved in the discussion of this, or even initiate the discussion myself. IT IS A CONSPIRACY TO SPIRITUALLY ENSLAVE MILLIONS OF PEOPLE AROUND AN UNSCRIPTURAL RITUAL AND MAKE THEM BELIEVE IT IS REQUIRED IN ORDER FOR THEM TO HAVE SALVATION. AND IT IS A CONSPIRACY TO THEN THREATEN THOSE SAME PEOPLE WITH HAVING THIS REQUIRED RITUAL WITHHELD FROM THEM BECAUSE THEY DO SOMETHING YOUR RELIGIOUS ORGANIZATION DECIDES THEY DON'T LIKE.

FF...we've had this cracker discussion before. And every time I have to state - I have nothing against what a person decides to believe, BUT my beef is with the RCC AND THE UNSCRIPTURAL SPIRITUAL SLAVERY they have created.

[edit on 5-13-2006 by Valhall]

Originally posted by Valhall
Well, first of all, in verse 42 they did not ask "how can he say he is the bread that came down from heaven?". They asked "how can he say he came down from heaven?" While inserting unscriptural conjecture into the interpretation of scripture seems to be par for the RCC course, let's not do it here. The Jews questioned how he could claim to have come down from heaven.

That's very unfair - I brought up that very point in my posting so as to avoid what you are accusing me of!

And I can't help but notice that you declare verse 41 to 66 to be the crux of the matter, but then drop the chunk of verses that are paramount to what Christ was trying to tell them.

Again, I apologised for the lack of space for a full quote - but I gave a ref to a full online version. That notwithstanding, I don't see how the vv.62-65 shed any more light on the matter, and nothing that changes the meaning that the early Christians ascribed to the doctrine.

I am also confused in the use of the word "conspiracy" in the initial posting.

Cheers.

Rob.

[edit on 13-5-2006 by d60944]

Originally posted by Valhall
little to no real scriptural interpretation discussion
takes place here any more because it gets pushed over to BTS.

THAT is what I was saying. People keep trying to have biblical
interpretation threads here ... or just plain ol' 'bash whoever
has a religion that disagrees with mine'. Fortunately they
finally get tossed down to BTS, where they belong.

AND THIS PROBABLY WILL TOO.

Good!

I think this is a religious conspiracy.

I'm sure you do. I don't question that.
But it really is just biblical interpretation.

I have nothing against what a person decides to believe, BUT ...

There always is a 'but', isn't there?

my beef is with the RCC AND THE UNSCRIPTURAL SPIRITUAL SLAVERY ..

I can see that you have a beef with the Roman Catholic Church.
I can also see that you are sincere with your reasons.
At this point I don't consider you a 'basher of those who don't believe like me'.

However, the truth of the matter is, this is a biblical interpretation.
The Eucharist IS biblical. I, and others, have posted quotes and
links to show this. Posted them over and over and over ....
thread after thread after thread ....

Ref: Cracker - BTS is FULL of untruthful Anti-whoever-isn't-fundamentalist
Jack Chickisms and 'the cracker' is one of the favorite sayings of his disciples.

It is entirely possible (and probable) that the RCC used the TRUTH of
the Eucharist to extract $$$ and membership through the centuries.
The fact that wolves at the top exploited a truth for personal gain
doesn't change the truth as taught by Christ.

VALHALL ... I usually enjoy your posts and most of the time I learn
a great deal from them. Really. I'm saying this sincerely.
However, in this case ... sincerely ... I think you are missing the
truth of the Eucharist because of the bad behavior of many of
the top dogs in the RCC through the centuries.

You are welcome to believe what you wish. Let those of us who
believe in John 6 and in Christ's words about the Eucharist worship
as we wish. If you want to go after the top guys who exploited this
truth for personal gain .. you have my blessing and encouragement
to do so. But their actions don't change the truth of the Eucharist.

[edit on 5/13/2006 by FlyersFan]

ff

We do agree on one thing...the Eucharist (or Communion, or Lord's Supper) is scriptural. That I agree with. The requirement of it and it being paramount to a Catholic believer's salvation is the ONLY dogma of the RCC concerning this ritual that I take passionate issue with.

One of the things that really perturbs me about this particular issue is how the RCC becomes very selective in the scriptures they decide to teach their followers as literal. And it seems the scriptures they pick always end up helping them (the organization) keep their followers in a position of enslavement to the organization.

For instance, here we have Christ speaking of the spiritual salvation that will be obtained if his flesh - WHICH IS THE WORD OF GOD - is consumed spiritually by the believer. He pointedly states he is speaking of the spirit and that the flesh has no value whatsoever. I would like to also point out that if you are going to take this literally then if you eat a cracker that is the flesh of Christ you won't ever die - IN THE FLESH....because you can't say he was speaking spiritually about not dying and then ignore the fact he says he is speaking spiritually about what his flesh represents!

So the RCC decides this particular passage is going to be LITERALLY interpreted to require the believer to partake of the Eucharist or they can't complete the required sacraments and obtain salvation...BUT, they completely COMPLETELY disregard the scripture quoting Christ when he instructs:

"And do not call anyone on earth 'father,' for you have one Father, and he is in heaven. " Matthew 23:9

And I could copy/paste the entire chapter here and the literalness of that instruction would not be depleted whatsoever because he DOES NOT QUALIFY IT.

So he qualifies the statements made in John 6 and the RCC ignores that qualification, he does not qualify the instruction in Matthew 23 and the RCC COMPLETELY DISREGARDS HIS WORDS! Why? I'll tell you why. Because they had already disregarded FUNDAMENTAL instructions by Christ that they had to work around:

"Jesus answered, "I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me." John 14:6

But the RCC had rejected this clear and concise statement from Christ - a statement with no qualifiers and no caveats. The RCC decided to start an unscriptural dogma that Peter was the Vicar of Christ and that the Popes would be so as well. They started the unscriptural teachings that the believer had to go through the clergy in order to get to the Father...a doctrine that completely undoes the sacrifice of Christ. Because the coming of Christ, the crucifixion of Christ and more importantly (and this is why millions of christians are disgusted by the RCC use of Christ on the Cross - it is the RESURRECTED Christ that frees us to have a personal relationship with God) the resurrection of Christ that ELIMINATED THE NEED FOR THE PRIESTHOOD. No longer are we dependent on men to stand between us and the Father in our spiritual relationship with him because CHRIST HAS BECOME THE HIGH PRIEST AT THE RIGHT HAND OF GOD and he stands in that position for us petitioning for our needs, receiving our prayers, and defending our souls.

Every time the RCC teaches a believer they must confess to a priest and have him absolve their sins - THEY RECRUCIFY CHRIST. Every time the RCC teaches a believer that they must partake in the Eucharist in order to keep their salvation - THEY RECRUCIFY CHRIST. And every time the RCC teaches a believer they can petition through Mary or anybody else - THEY COMMIT HERESY AND BLASPHEME THE ROLE OF CHRIST.

It's the greatest conspiracy that has ever been wrought - the unscriptural, downright ANTICHRIST doctrine the RCC has pushed to enslave its' followers...all to keep the need for the clergy.

I grew up going to CAtholic schools and took catholic catechism. When I was about 11 or 12 years old, I had the same thoughts as you Point. It seemed cannibalistic to me, eating Christ's body and drinking his blood.

The thing to remember about all of this, is that the Catholic Church has from the beginning, conspired to enslave people. It was extremely political for 1500 years, until Henry VIII of England thumbed his nose at the RCC and created his own church, which paved the way for Martin Luther and Protestantism. Threatening people with loss of salvation has been a way of life for the Church. Also, don't forget that in the 4th century, the Catholic church had the Nicene meeting which went through the Bible with a fine-toothed comb and "translated" it (i.e. introduced their own version). They of course reworded things to suit their own purposes.

As to the actual origin of Communion, there are some people who think that it came from the early Gnostic practice (or so they believe) of eating the entheogenic mushroom amanita muscaria. Supposedly, the mushroom gave them spiritual revelations/hallucinations. Some think Communion refers to eating this mushroom, hence the song "Jesus Was a Mushroom". There is also a book out called "The Sacred Mushroom and the Cross", which talks about all of this.

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 (and MANY other Christian Denominations might I add).

OK lets settle this once and for all. The Key words here are *SYMBOLIC & COMMUNION*. Christ Took Bread & Wine - with it he made a Symbolic Gesture which more or less = Partake of my Life. No longer Passover - but now a "New Covenant". The Covenant of LIFE based on the Teachings of Christ as set forth in the Gospels. It is a **COMMUNION with Christ & since Christ is a PART of GOD it is also COMMUNION with GOD**.

The Church uses Wheat Hosts & Wine in a Symbolic Ceremony - how is that actual Cannibalism?

Valhall - it is ALL right there in the Gospels (as FlyersFan & others has shown) - are you one of those that believes that the Gospels are fake or something?

I am not a particular fan of Catholicism - but this is one of the Central practices of Christianity itself - MANY Denominations practice it - its the MASS for crying out loud - you know "Holy Communion". I think the real problem here is people are not being taught the True Meanings of the Bible & how the Rituals of the Church relates to them - they are really just going through the motions of Ritual Piety at this point - but if it has lost its meaning with the People, then what good is it?

[edit on 13-5-2006 by Seraphim_Serpente]

Originally posted by Seraphim_Serpente


Valhall - it is ALL right there in the Gospels (as FlyersFan & others has shown) - are you one of those that believes that the Gospels are fake or something?



[edit on 13-5-2006 by Seraphim_Serpente]

Where is it? No one has shown me anything that says the cracker and the wine is Christ's flesh and his blood. Nor have they shown me where it is necessary to ritualistically "consume his flesh and blood"

Oh you mean THESE Biblical Passages:

Luk 22:19 And he took bread, and gave thanks, and broke it, and gave unto them, saying, This is my body which is given for you: this *do in remembrance of me*.

John 6:54-57 - Then Jesus said to them: Amen, Amen, I say unto you:
except you eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood, you shall
not have life in you. He that eateth my flesh and drinketh my blood hath
*Everlasting Life*: and I will raise him up in the last day. For my flesh is meat
indeed: and my blood is drink indeed. *He that eateth my flesh and drinketh my
blood abideth in me: and I in him*.

1Co 12:12 For as the body is one, and hath many members, and all the members of that one body, being many, are one body: so also is Christ.

Rom 12:5 So we, being many, are one body in Christ, and every one members one of another.

Remember NOT LITERAL but SYMBOLIC!!!

[edit on 13-5-2006 by Seraphim_Serpente]

Remember NOT LITERAL but SYMBOLIC!!!

Can I refer you again to the passage from 1Cor that I posted a few posts up - id 2204486? What do you make of Paul's assertion that the bread shared at the Eucharist is the body of Christ? (His exhortation is to receive the Eucharist in the correct reverent manner, becuase failing to do so is proof that one has not realised the presence of Christ's body therein)

Rob.

[edit on 13-5-2006 by d60944]

[edit on 13-5-2006 by d60944]