The Catholic Church practices symbolic cannibalism

Half the people on the thread say that this is symbolic and half of them say it's not. Can we at least settle that much?

I'm pretty sure that the RCC believes it is not symbolic; during Eucharist it becomes the ACTUAL PHYSICAL body and blood of Christ. Transubstantiation as I said in my previous post. So can we at least establish that much?

BTW, whoever said "use the search function", does it actually work for you? I've tried to do LOTS of searches and it NEVER works.

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

Yea, just like the bible. It's nothing more then a recap of older religous beliefs. Stolen stories, characters, holidays, teachings. Nothing new in that book. Honestly, how many jesus's are we gunna see through out history before people get it ... It's a myth. A man made myth.

Originally posted by Seraphim_Serpente

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) -

But you are missing the point I think - which is that the Catholic Church teaches that the host and wine are ACTUALLY Christ's body and blood, there is nothing at all symbolic about it, it's for real. THey even have a word for it, transubstantiation, the process of the host becoming Jesus' actual body.

As far as I know, the rest of Christianity sees it as symbolic, I know that Baptists think that way for example. But it's the point that the Catholic church sees it not as symbolic but actual, is the point. And that smacks of cannibalism to me.

I'm Christian and at my church they teach you that it physically changes to the body of Christ; and as I said earlier, that scientific experiments have "proven" transubstantiation to be true. I've never found any evidence of that anywhere else though..

and as I said earlier, that scientific experiments have "proven" transubstantiation to be true

Nice idea, but unfortunately a crock of brown stuff. There is no such proof. In fact were this to be true it would be a good proof that orthodox doctrine is false... If you want to examine the orthodox doctrine it was most famously laid out by Aquinas (www.newadvent.org...) - it's in part 3.

All churches prior to Protestant questionings in the 15C onwards accepted the doctrine of Real Presence. The churches who now reject the idea are comparatively recent and also very much less populous than those who do accept it. I'm not belittling anything but feel it's important to realise that this isn't so much something odd that the Catholic Church teaches against the weight of overwhelming opposition. It's quite the reverse. There is a good summary of the different perspectives by different churches on Wikipedia (en.wikipedia.org...).

Cheers.

Rob.

I said I had doubted any scientific research that "proved" it existed, as I've looked for it before; I just said that my priest TOLD everyone that such proof existed.

Omniscient:

Perhaps you could do us all a big favor. Ask your priest for reference to the sources of the scientific experiments that prove the reality of transubstantiation, such as name of the scientists, the studies, the experiments, the specific procedure for duplicating those results, where it is published, and any other proof he has available. Then post that information on this thread. Tomorow is Sunday, a perfect opportunity.

I would really like to know whether transubstantiation is true and has been proven by scientific experiment. If it has, then the experiment will be repeatable. Find out how it was conducted. Then repeat the experiment according to the specified procedures to see whether the claim is really backed by scientific evidence, i.e. experimental results that can be reproduced by others.

If your priest can't back up his statement, why is he saying that to his congregation? Consider the implications.


[edit on 5/13/2006 by dubiousone]

Yes, they have a strange ritual surrounded by a belief which is readily disproven in the literal sense, based upon a few obscure words by their teacher who lived in a very different world and culture about 2000 years ago. And?

We remember men and even gods for what they do.

Military commanders are depicted on horseback.

Zeus would have a lightening bolt in his hand.

Moses would be carrying the ten commandments.

Arnold Schwartzenegger (you owe me a coke if I spelled that right) would either be flexing, wearing the terminator's jacket, or picking a civil servant's pockets.

So, no surprise that Jesus is depicted for what Christians believe was his most memorable act: taking our fall for all the awful stuff we've done.

Now for some reason which I do not fully understand since I'm not familiar with the culture of Judea circa AD 30, there was something either symbolically or perhaps literally important in the religious ideology of Jesus which dictated that his followers must take the communion ritual. Like I said, I don't know if Jesus intended it literally or figuratively but one way or another he said it was important and he told them to do it and they do it. They do it without killing or hurting anyone. They do it with strictly benign intentions.

It's not fetishized- none of them would actually partake of flesh and blood that were not presented to them in the form of crushed soda crackers and a thimble full of grape juice (at least in the Baptist General Conference, I can attest to the fact that actual bread is reserved for special events and particularly well-to-do churches, and actual wine is never used to my knowledge, even though those are the materials Jesus stipulated).

In so many words, what is the problem?

Why are so many posters concentrating on whether or not communion involves the symbolic or actual body and blood of Christ? Either way, consuming another person is cannibalism. If it is symbolic then, as the original poster mentioned, it is symbolic cannibalism, if not it is actual cannibalism. It's not too difficult to understand.

[edit on 13/5/06 by mytym]

Originally posted by Seraphim_Serpente
Oh you mean THESE Biblical Passages:

Remember NOT LITERAL but SYMBOLIC!!!

[edit on 13-5-2006 by Seraphim_Serpente]

Do you realize we are officially violently agreeing? My whole POINT has been it was meant to be symbolic...NOT LITERAL. The passages you listed do nothing to back the unscriptural dogma that the bread and wine are the LITERAL body and blood of Christ.

Why are we here fighting over this? A troll started this thread to portray Christians as cannibals and you instead descend upon doctrinal dispute? The RCC believes in transubstantion, I personally believe it's a distortion of Christian doctrine, but why are we here acccusing each other of something so ridiculous as "cannibalism"? Does that make sense to anybody here?

I'm sorry, but your going to have to stop calling the guy a troll, because thats just assinine and it shows how you are not open to any other disscussion on your religion, just because you belive in it, dosent mean everyone else does, and just because someone dissagrees with catholic teachings dosent give you the right to bash them for it.

I also love how the people who are cleary catholic, take offence, and then take peoples quotes, arrange them so they sound even worse, then comment on it, and they continue to make posts like, "no thats wrong... John 6:28 Thou hast life giveth by thi lord jesus, my body will be giveth to thy sinners and eaten by thy belivers, blah, blah.."
and they they say see, its written in the bible. end of argument.

you guys need to be open to critisism and not take offence. the original post didnt call you a bunch of wakos for belive in jesus, but you took it like that.

The original topic does stand still, eating the body and drinking the blood of christ is SYMBOLIC cannibalism, and its something that I think is totally unnessecary to portray to followers, that symbolically eating your saviour is the right thing to do.

Hey, excuse me- HE'S A TROLL! Anybody who starts a thread with a blood libel against an opposing religion is precisely that.

Originally posted by d60944
The churches who now reject the idea are comparatively recent and also very much less populous than those who do accept it. I'm not belittling anything but feel it's important to realise that this isn't so much something odd that the Catholic Church teaches against the weight of overwhelming opposition. It's quite the reverse.

Southern Baptists don't believe it's really his body and blood:

www.sbc.net...

The Lord's Supper is a symbolic act of obedience whereby members of the church, through partaking of the bread and the fruit of the vine, memorialize the death of the Redeemer and anticipate His second coming.

Matthew 3:13-17; 26:26-30; 28:19-20; Mark 1:9-11; 14:22-26; Luke 3:21-22; 22:19-20; John 3:23; Acts 2:41-42; 8:35-39; 16:30-33; 20:7; Romans 6:3-5; 1 Corinthians 10:16,21; 11:23-29; Colossians 2:12.

American Baptists don't believe it's really his body and blood:

www.abc-usa.org...

Through The Lord’s Supper, or Holy
Communion, the bread and cup that symbolize
the broken body and shed blood offered by Christ
recall God’s great love for us—just as
they did for the disciples on the eve
of Christ’s crucifixion.

Regular Baptists don't say but do hint they don't believe it's really his body and blood:

www.garbc.org...

We believe that the Lord's Supper is the commemoration of His death until He come

The Methodists do not believe the bread and wine are materially Christ's body and blood, but that they, by faith, receive these in a "spiritual manner" (i.e. not carnal) but declare it all by faith and no mysticism (and have a fair bit of what-for to say about transubstantiation):

archives.umc.org...

The Supper of the Lord is not only a sign of the love that Christians ought to have among themselves one to another, but rather is a sacrament of our redemption by Christ's death; insomuch that, to such as rightly, worthily, and with faith receive the same, the bread which we break is a partaking of the body of Christ; and likewise the cup of blessing is a partaking of the blood of Christ.

Transubstantiation, or the change of the substance of bread and wine in the Supper of our Lord, cannot be proved by Holy Writ, but is repugnant to the plain words of Scripture, overthroweth the nature of a sacrament, and hath given occasion to many superstitions.

The body of Christ is given, taken, and eaten in the Supper, only after a heavenly and spiritual manner. And the mean whereby the body of Christ is received and eaten in the Supper is faith.

The Episcopalians don't believe the bread and wine are materially Christ's body and blood:

www.st-thomas-a-becket.org...

In the Holy Eucharist Episcopalians recall the saving acts of God and enter communion with Christ and Christians of all times and places. In this sacrament we are fed spiritually with the Body and Blood of Christ.

Even Lutherans reject both transubstantiation and consubstantiation and state the bread and wine do NOT change but that the believer is, by the "Jesus' word of institution" the bread is his body and the wine is his blood (i.e. it's symbolic and the symbolism is made real by the institution of the ritual originated by Christ's words at the Last Supper). They do believe in the "Real Presence" of Christ at the Eucharist - he's the one that makes the symbolism become real:

www.lutheran.co.uk...

Lutherans believe and teach that in the other Sacrament, Holy Communion, the Lord Jesus Christ, according to How own plain Word, gives us His body and blood for the remission of sins; that the Lutheran belief, call the ‘Real Presence’, does not imply, either by transubstantiation or consubstantiation, any king of change in the visible elements, that the bread remains bread and the wine remains wine, but by virtue of Jesus word of institution, this bread is the Body and this wine is His blood; that all who eat and drink at the Lord’s Table receive His body and blood in and with the bread and wine, those who believe to the strengthening of their faith, those who reject to their condemnation; and that this Sacrament ought therefore to be withheld from those who are unable to examine themselves in the Christian faith.
References: Matthew 26: 26-28; Mark 14: 24; 1Corinthians 11: 24-25, 26-28; Matthew 7: 6; 1 Corinthians 11: 29.

The Assembly of God churches believe Christ is "at the table" (Real Presence), but as the host of his (the Lord's) supper. They do NOT believe the bread and wine are the body and blood of Christ:

enrichmentjournal.ag.org...

In drawing the distinction between a fellowship meal and the memorial meal Jesus commanded, Paul indicated the prime distinctive of Communion—it is the Lord’s Supper. The Greek words are kuriakon deipnon, a "meal belonging to the Lord."1 Jesus himself, the host of the meal, presides over the remembrance. He is present at His table in the fullness of His resurrection power. When Jesus is the host, His righteousness is revealed. The bread represents His perfect life and limitless love. In the cup His atoning suffering is applied to us—by His stripes we are healed. His sustaining grace and flawless favor flow to us as we partake of His sufferings and His victories, and as we anticipate His soon return.

The Presbyterians do not believe the bread and wine are the body and blood of Christ. Again, the "real presence" is via the Divine Host at his (the Lord's) supper:

www.pcusa.org...

It is the Lord's feast, hosted by the One who promises an ultimate continuous feast in the Kingdom of God. Under the enabling power of the Holy Spirit the divine host is made present so that a bond of unity can exist among those present and those unseen.

The host welcomes all who accept the invitation to the Table. We who come need not be concerned about our personal appearance or aptitude. What matters is that the love, the grace and the hospitality of the host create unanimity among us. This meal is provided, not because we have earned the right to eat and drink with Jesus, but simply as an act of divine love.

For Presbyterians this divinely initiated meal is one of two sacraments of the church, instituted by God and commended by Christ. We are following in the tradition of the early church when we affirm three primal material elements of life--water, bread and wine--as the primary symbols of offering life to God. Being washed with the water of baptism, we receive new life in Christ. In eating the bread and drinking the cup offered by God, our memory of the promises are made present by the Holy Spirit.

In the words of John Calvin, sacraments are "a testimony of divine grace toward us, confirmed by an outward sign, with mutual attestation of our piety toward [God]." A sacrament is a testimony of God's favor toward the church, confirmed by an outward sign, with a mutual testifying of our godliness toward God. It is a primal, physical act that signifies a spiritual relationship between personal beings.

The Lord's Supper is a sacrament of continuous growth, nourishment and new life. In our Reformed tradition participation in this sacrament should follow the sacrament of baptism. Just as humans need food and drink for nurture and sustenance, Calvin wrote that the Holy Meal is God's way of providing for our maintenance during the whole course of our lives after we have been received into God's family. Both sacraments provide a visible, in fact a graphic, way of presenting God's promises.

The Anglicans reject transubstantiation but believe in the Real Presence. But seem tremendously dedicated to keeping it a secret as to what that actually means to them. (I couldn't find it.)

www.cofe.anglican.org...

The Christian Church does not believe the bread and wine are really his body and blood:

www.disciples.org...

Traditionally the Disciples of Christ have been hesitant to speak of the Lord's Supper as a sacrament. They believed that some who regarded the Lord's Supper as a sacrament attributed supernatural powers to the elements of bread and wine. It may be true that Jesus said that "he who eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life (John 6:54)," but Jesus often spoke in lively metaphor. The meaning for us is expanded when we understand that Jesus spoke in these symbolic terms.

So, I'm having a hard time finding this preponderance of Christian faiths that side with the Catholic belief on this. Maybe the first problem was taking Wikipedia at face value.

As far as I know, the rest of Christianity sees it as symbolic, I know that Baptists think that way for example. But it's the point that the Catholic Church sees it not as symbolic but actual, is the point.

OK fine. I see the Mass as a Symbolic Ritual - to be done with Faith. I do think that it is a bit of a stretch to Believe that Wine & Wheat Hosts actually turn into the Literal "Body & Blood" of Jesus.

Like I said I am not such a Huge fan of the "Catholic Church". I disagree with the focus on Christ's Suffering & Death (as a "Sacrificial Lamb" I guess). Also with the Inquisition - the Persecution, Torture & Murder of other Human Beings just because they had the gall to have Religious Beliefs other than that officially sanctioned by the Catholic Church. Now THAT is what I find to be rather Disgusting!

Nakash:
Don't disguise your opinion as a fact. In your opinion the original poster is a troll. Please don't assume that you know what I or anyone else thinks on this thread. That's offensive!

Ive got to ask Catholics something here-


Did Moses say to Israelites that the lamb they ate in Egypt would "magically" turn into the holy of holies during passover?

Did the blood of Doves turn into "sacred blood" when they were sacrificed in the Temple?


No right? Was it not SYMBOLIC? I find the whole Eucharist thing a minor complaint actually with Catholicsm. The whole "buy you way to heaven" by being "good enough" is my major disagreement. Jesus Christ did the whole job, not 50%, not 90%. This whole working your way to heaven thing even reminds me of Cain who attempted to force the hand of God into blessing him (as opposed to Abel who humbly burnt an offering asking for forgiveness and moral regeneration).

mytm- people who start blood libels go in my "invisiblity list". No comments on them. Let's move on.

[edit on 13-5-2006 by Nakash]

Originally posted by Nakash



No right? Was it not SYMBOLIC? I find the whole Eucharist thing a minor complaint actually with Catholicsm.
[edit on 13-5-2006 by Nakash]

It is as major to me as the "buying of absolution" was to Calvin, or Luther. And my problem has nothing to do with the believer's belief - because as far as I'm concerned you can believe in a fire hydrant named Fred as your Higher Power and that's your business. It's not the BELIEF of the believers...it's the DOGMA sold as doctrine and which is used to spiritually enslave those believers that is of importance. The Eucharist has been held as a shackel around the Catholic believers' souls by the organization. And it still is.

[edit on 5-13-2006 by Valhall]

ahh the symbol of the sun. we all know whos mark that is. he is so obvious its funny.

"The Word of God is blasphemed by the satanic teaching of the Eucharist, changing the Lord's supper from a memorial observance to a sacrament, a repeated sacrifice of Christ for sin. Every time the words of consecration are used, the natural body and blood of Jesus is mystically present in the form of bread and wine (cannibalism).
The repeated 'sacrifice' denies the finished work of Christ's sacrifice on the cross. If Catholic priests can offer an acceptable sacrifice, then Christ our High Priest is robbed of His glory. It exalts sinful men into the position of mediators between God and men. The elements of bread and wine are exalted to a position of honor and veneration that is not warranted in Scripture.


The round 'cakes' were used in pagan worship in Egypt, where in 1854, an ancient temple in Egypt was discovered with inscriptions showing round cakes on an altar. Above the altar is a large image of the SUN. Near Babain, Egypt is a temple with the sun symbol above its altar with two priests shown worshipping.
In Peru (South America), this same image is worshipped. Even the Israelites, when they fell into Baal worship, set sun-images above their altars. The shape of the Catholic 'host' is influenced by sun-worship. Catholicism is a mixture of paganism, Judaism and Christianity. It is not Biblical and is not of God."

[edit on 13-5-2006 by Funkydung]

So, I'm having a hard time finding this preponderance of Christian faiths that side with the Catholic belief on this. Maybe the first problem was taking Wikipedia at face value.

I think you misread my statement, which was:

The churches who now reject the idea are comparatively recent and also very much less populous than those who do accept it. I'm not belittling anything but feel it's important to realise that this isn't so much something odd that the Catholic Church teaches against the weight of overwhelming opposition. It's quite the reverse.

When I said populous I referred to the population within each church.

I don't know how accurate it is, but this site has statistics on "adherents" to particular Christian denominations. It gives something like 1,400,000,000 adherents of churches espousing a real presence/transubstatiation-concept, and something like 400,000,000 adherents of churches not doing so (sorry, but I only did a rough-and-ready addup). And this site suggests that 65% of worldwide Christians are from the transubstantiation-ish churches (which is in the same ballpark).

Cheers.

Rob.

[edit on 13-5-2006 by d60944]

[edit on 13-5-2006 by d60944]

[edit on 13-5-2006 by d60944]