The Catholic Church practices symbolic cannibalism

You know what - this doesn't describe a single Catholic I know. In fact, the majority of "cradle Catholics" have gone just the other way, as seen even in this thread rejecting their religion altogether. None of them have been programmed to a point where they "fear" damnation.

What you describe may have been true last in the 40's-50's, but it does not describe Catholics raised after that.

Relentless,
From the post of mine that you partially quoted from I said "Many"- which does not mean all or even most/majority.
You're arriving at that conclusion based on the ones you know. What about the hundreds of millions you don't know?
I did not limit my opinion to the present day situation.
Regarding the present day situation: What about the many present day Catholics in third world countries?
You seem to be referring to 1st world developed countries with the "40's and 50's" comment.
Do the majorty of 'cradle Catholics' who are brought up in present day third world countries 'reject their religion altogether' in your opinion?

[edit on 17-5-2006 by point]

[edit on 17-5-2006 by point]

[edit on 17-5-2006 by point]

Originally posted by point

You know what - this doesn't describe a single Catholic I know. In fact, the majority of "cradle Catholics" have gone just the other way, as seen even in this thread rejecting their religion altogether. None of them have been programmed to a point where they "fear" damnation.

What you describe may have been true last in the 40's-50's, but it does not describe Catholics raised after that.

Relentless,
From the post of mine that you partially quoted from I said "Many"- which does not mean all or even most/majority.
You're arriving at that conclusion based on the ones you know. What about the hundreds of millions you don't know?
I did not limit my opinion to the present day situation.
Regarding the present day situation: What about the many present day Catholics in third world countries?
You seem to be referring to 1st world developed countries with the "40's and 50's" comment.
Do the majorty of 'cradle Catholics' who are brought up in present day third world countries 'reject their religion altogether' in your opinion?

Actually, there IS a growing evangelical and seperatist movement in some countries. Having experienced several 'third world' countries, I can tell you that the church provides practically the only social services available to many people. No food stamps, government cheese, rent assistence, free and subsidized medical care, education.... the list goes on. In many developing nations, the Church is the only organization capable or interested in providing assistence to the needy. Having had the pleasure of worshipping with a number of these congregations, I can tell you that the church is the social hub as well as the religion center.

As I said earlier, there are those who leave the Church. Some of them leave with anger, some have simply found they prefer a different path.

My own story - I was born a cradle Catholic. Had a crisis of faith, lost it, and found it again. Twice considered the priesthood, but there was a different calling for me at those times. Now, I am a lay minister, a husband, a Knight of Columbus, and preparing to commence my education as a permanent Deacon. I have held my faith dear with a child's innocence, questioned it with the intensity of a lover scorned and betrayed, rediscovered it with the gentler, more reasoned love of a man grown, and nutured it with reflection, study, prayer, and works.

I have spoken at length - and more than once, I fear - on the subject of the Eucharist and the Catholic perspective on this most precious of Sacraments. I have seen the thread warp a bit and am taking the liberty to address this. I am gathering that the argument is that Catholics are too fearful of heirarchical retribution for speaking out against Catholic doctrine. Well, Catholics are - at least my breed of Catholic - an intellectual lot. We have some of history's greatest thinkers probe, question, dissect, and elaborate on our beliefs. The Catholic church produces some of the world's most educated clerics. The Doctrine of the Church is the doctrine of the church. It is what we are expected to believe - or at least profess to believe. The church's policy of denying the Eucharist to politicians is not contrary to church teachings. Sorry. As I have explained before, Communion for a Catholic is just that - a communion or joining with Christ and our Community of brothers and sisters who have gathered to celebrate the Mass. This is too dear to us to take lightly. This is the reason why I get a little irritable when people are blantantly disrespectful of the Host. Granted, many people likely don't realize it's significance to Catholics. This is why I have tried to explain it. To those of you who have U2'd me about this - thank you. My comments were not meant to be mean.

We can disagree - Catholics LOVE to debate. Let's play nice though, children. After all, if you've kicked all the sand out of the box, what's left to play with???

Originally posted by Aelita

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.

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

And the Prods. We eat flesh and drink blood, too, so why should we be left out of this?

As for questioning EVERYTHING...what a weak excuse for airing your ignorance.

If you were questioning you would have asked questions. Question begin with word's like "what", "when" and "where" and have question marks on the end, you know, this funky symbol: "?".

Using that thread title was your first mistake. Starting off with a statement was your second mistake and starting with a statement that accuses someone or a group, but has no supporting evidence was your third.

You weren't questioning, you were bashing.

If you genuinely wanted to learn something you would have said so.

Howl -

No disrespect to my Protestant brethern, but their practice of communion does not incorporate the doctrine of Transubstantiation. In point of fact, in the early persecution of the church in the United States, the belief in Transubstantiation was one of the many quivers in the arrow of Anti-Catholic sentiment. And the sentiment was present, alive, and thriving. Most historians will tell you that the Whig party - the 'Know Nothings' - were Nativists who had a strong anti-Catholic agenda. To this day, the contempt that many other religions and the secular society in general has towards Catholic practices and doctrines as the ugly descendants of this organization and others like it. The charges of cannibalism and pagan actecedants associated with the doctrine are ancient. The whole Baal, Ishtar, and the other mystery cults that involved real and symbolic cannibalism was a common charge of 'Reformation' age protestants.

Originally posted by HowlrunnerIV
And the Prods. We eat flesh and drink blood, too, so why should we be left out of this?
As for questioning EVERYTHING...what a weak excuse for airing your ignorance.
If you were questioning you would have asked questions. Question begin with word's like "what", "when" and "where" and have question marks on the end, you know, this funky symbol: "?".
Using that thread title was your first mistake. Starting off with a statement was your second mistake and starting with a statement that accuses someone or a group, but has no supporting evidence was your third.
You weren't questioning, you were bashing.
If you genuinely wanted to learn something you would have said so.

If you feel I left you out of the perceived symbolic cannibalistic feasting, then feel free to jump right in and be counted among the diners.
Do you consider questioning dogmatic religious rituals to be a display of ignorance?
By the way, you seem to be able to hold your own when it comes to displaying ignorance. Did you even read the opening post?
My opening statement was my opinion derived through observation.
Why should it be formulated as a question?
I count five questions in my original post. Two starting with 'Why' and one starting with 'Did'. All of them end with one of your funky SYMBOLS "?"
Are 'why' and 'did' not good enough for you?
You appear to be using a threatening tone regarding what you perceive as my three so called 'mistakes'.
It seems that it is you that is doing the bashing.
At least show some originality with your whinging instead of merely riding on the coat tails of another poster.
Regarding learning:
After reading your reply, the only thing I have learned from you is how little of any worth you have to say.
Try thinking beforehand next time.


[edit on 19-5-2006 by point]

The Catholic Church practices symbolic cannibalism

When they start offering me beef jerky at church, then i will consider it to be cannibalism. Cannibalism implies meat. I've been getting the wrong end of the deal with their silly wafers.

I want to know why cannibalism is so wrong. Insects and other animals eat each other, so what's wrong about humans doing it? I'm not a cannibal, but how is eating your kind "evil" and "sick" if so many other creatures do it to? IMO, it's just crap spewed by religions in an attempt to attack Christianity.

Originally posted by dgtempe
The Catholic Church practices symbolic cannibalism

When they start offering me beef jerky at church, then i will consider it to be cannibalism. Cannibalism implies meat. I've been getting the wrong end of the deal with their silly wafers.

No, cannibalism is eating of your own species.

SO, once again, if you don't believe in transubstantiation, it's not canibalism, and if you do do what is being received is at that point divine, not of human species.

Either way it's not cannibalism.

If you go back to the original post (which was clearly meant to provoke) he said "symbolic cannibalism". Keyword is symbolic. Yes it is symbolic cannibalism.


Symbolic cannibalism is not the same as real cannibalism.





[edit on 20-5-2006 by Bunnabit]

If that is not the intention of the symbolism and people are interpreting it incorrectly, I don't see what's wrong with pointing it out, that is what I am doing.

If it appears to anyone that it is symbolic cannibalism, they are welcome to embrace their flawed view of it, as everyone is entitled to view any piece of the world they way they wish. However, I don't see the point in people who insist their interpretation of a faith they do not understand is correct.

The thread started as an outsiders view of what they viewed. It has been explained already that is not what it is.

If someone were color blind and looked at red and said it was green, but someone who was not color blind told them it was red I don't think there would be a discussion this long because the color blind person needed to demand it was green because it looked green to him. I really don't get this.

Hey - the DaVinci Code is out. Make sure all of you who enjoy these arguments for the sake of arguments against the Catholic faith see it right away. You will get a lot more fiction to base your arguments on.

[edit on 5/20/2006 by Relentless]

Originally posted by Bunnabit
If you go back to the original post (which was clearly meant to provoke) he said "symbolic cannibalism".
[edit on 20-5-2006 by Bunnabit]

To provoke/initiate discussion on the topic mentioned, yes.
Is that not the reason one creates a thread in the first place?

Originally posted by point

To provoke/initiate discussion on the topic mentioned, yes.
Is that not the reason one creates a thread in the first place?

My bad - I forget some people can't distinguish between initiating and provoking a discussion. Personally I find initiating a discussion without provoking results in a much more intelligent and quality post and discussion, but that's just me.

As for the topic I think your provocative questions have been asked and answered and there is no place left to go on the intelligent discussion side, but plenty of room left for provoking as there is a strong leaning towards people just venting their views against the Catholic Church at this stage.

Personally I think this belonged in BTS from the get go.

Relentless,
The Divine Spirit of Christ incarnated in the human body of Jesus.
The "Body of Christ" as spoken by the priest when holding up the wafer symbolising the body that the Spirit of Christ was using at that time. That of Jesus.
It appears the church views the actual physical human body that was used as 'one' with the Spirit of Christ.
The dogma of the Virgin Birth and the dogma of the Resurrection that is pushed by the church is evidence of this.
As another poster on this thread has stated, many cannibals believed that consumming the flesh of another was thought to empower the consummer with the qualities (spiritual energy?) of the one consummed.

Does not the church promote the same thing in a symbolic manner?

Some on this thread believe it is literal cannibalism being practiced, because the wafer magically transforms into actual flesh.
""""I DO NOT SHARE THIS VIEW!"""" (for those who choose to misinterpret and misquote me)
That sounds like a far worse state of affairs.(If one chooses to believe this)

If the eating of an animals body is acceptable to most and the eating of a humans body is unacceptable then what is one to make of the eating of a gods or 'The God's' physical body?
If an animal eats the flesh of a human it is considered by most to be at least the result of a set of unfortunate circumstances.
Then what about humans symbolically or literally eating the flesh of a god or 'The God'?
Could not the eating (symbolically or literal) of the flesh of a far greater 'species', a god or 'The God' be considered to be far worse than symbolic or literal cannibalism?





[edit on 20-5-2006 by point]

Originally posted by point
Then what about humans symbolically or literally eating the flesh of a god or 'The God'?
Could not the eating (symbolically or literal) of the flesh of a far greater 'species', a god or 'The God' be considered to be far worse than symbolic or literal cannibalism?

The bottom line is that this is practiced as the body & blood, soul and divinity. You have to keep the whole thing together. Even at that it is a matter of faith (not conspiracy) and cannot be fully understood or explained via debate to any conclusion. Anyone can take it however they want, but the questions have been addressed by plenty of Catholics already on this thread. There is no conspiracy here. Just as any other matter of faith, therefore my feeling that this is a spiritual BTS discussion.

The Sacraments are in no way literal.

They are symbolic aspects of the ritual to infuse oneself with the Holy Spirit when taken in the proper context.

If your goal is to demean Catholicism (or any Christian ritual) then I am sure whatever sources you choose to cite will only back up this original premise.

The connections you choose to make speak more of YOUR state of mind than those you seek to judge.

Relentless,
The CONSPIRACY is that blasphemy is being committed and promoted by the Church in the guise of these religious dogmatic rituals, and is going largely unnoticed due to the massive programming of beliefs that has been directed at the masses over the centuries by the church in question.

In my opinion, The Church is actually in opposition to the True Spirit of Jesus Christ.
Those unfortunately ensnared within these promoted false teachings and rituals are being fed lies as unquestioned truth. It's a huge CONSPIRACY.
Some within the church believe the lies hook, line, and sinker, while others believe some things and are sceptical of others which I consider to be a comparitively healthier view.

The Church works against Jesus Christ by teaching a distorted doctrine that is used to adhere a great portion of the worlds population to its false teachings.
I believe that many of the high church officials that formulated this dogma from distorted texts to begin with, knew exactly what they were doing. They were complicit in the very real CONSPIRACY.
To propagate false teachings to the masses is evil, especially when taught in the Good Name of one such as Jesus Christ.
He does not require a middleman or a translator.
He speaks to the heart directly.

Originally posted by shantyman
Howl -

No disrespect to my Protestant brethern, but their practice of communion does not incorporate the doctrine of Transubstantiation.

No, just the words ""take, eat. this is my body, given in sacrifice"...and after supper Jesus spoke again, saying "this is my blood...""

At least in my end of Protestantism...

Originally posted by point

Originally posted by HowlrunnerIV
And the Prods. We eat flesh and drink blood, too, so why should we be left out of this?

If you feel I left you out of the perceived symbolic cannibalistic feasting, then feel free to jump right in and be counted among the diners.
Do you consider questioning dogmatic religious rituals to be a display of ignorance?

No, but you focused only on the Catholic Church, I've been going to communion all my life and I think I've set foot in exactly 3 Catholic churches. So, exactly what was your purpose in choosing to focus only on the Catholic Church?

By the way, you seem to be able to hold your own when it comes to displaying ignorance. Did you even read the opening post?

I count five questions in my original post.

I was talking about your opening statement. Not your post. The introductory, or "topic", sentence. The one that introduces your topic to the reader and tells them what view you will take in your writing. If you could read, you would have known that.

You appear to be using a threatening tone regarding what you perceive as my three so called 'mistakes'.

If you can feel threatened across the internet then you have bigger problems than I thought.

It seems that it is you that is doing the bashing.

No, educating. but I suppose "you can lead a horse to water" and all that...

At least show some originality with your whinging instead of merely riding on the coat tails of another poster.

Whose coat-tails would they be?

Regarding learning:
After reading your reply, the only thing I have learned from you is how little of any worth you have to say.

Hey, if you don't wish to learn, that's your decision, but I was talking about your debating style, not your debate. As a former school debate captain and a current university lecturer in English writing, I have a certain level of expertise in this matter.

Try thinking beforehand next time.

I'm actually chuckling at the irony of reading one of my own, oft-used, statements directed at me.

Originally posted by HowlrunnerIV
No, but you focused only on the Catholic Church, I've been going to communion all my life and I think I've set foot in exactly 3 Catholic churches. So, exactly what was your purpose in choosing to focus only on the Catholic Church?

My knowledge of the Catholic Church is much greater than my knowledge of other Christian Churches. I thought it best to stick to what I know.

I was talking about your opening statement. Not your post. The introductory, or "topic", sentence. The one that introduces your topic to the reader and tells them what view you will take in your writing. If you could read, you would have known that.

In the post you are quoting from I stated: "My opening statement was my opinion derived through observation" (Please 'read' before you post!)

No, educating. but I suppose "you can lead a horse to water" and all that...

I suppose I could lead a horse to water, but how does that tie in with the subject of this thread? Please educate me. lol

Whose coat-tails would they be?

Aelita, of course.

Hey, if you don't wish to learn, that's your decision, but I was talking about your debating style, not your debate. As a former school debate captain and a current university lecturer in English writing, I have a certain level of expertise in this matter.

I've nothing against learning, but I am picky when it comes to the choice of my potential teachers.
How's my grammar, by the way? (be gentle)

I'm actually chuckling at the irony of reading one of my own, oft-used, statements directed at me.

So am I (minus the bit about the irony, etc.)
We may not see eye to eye (being in different locations may be one explanation), but at least we can still have a chuckle.

Originally posted by Pyrotechnocracy23
The Sacraments are in no way literal.

I agree.

If your goal is to demean Catholicism (or any Christian ritual) then I am sure whatever sources you choose to cite will only back up this original premise.

My purpose was simply to air my opinion.
To expand on that, my purpose was to expose the strong SYMBOLIC connection I can clearly see between the said rituals and the practice of cannibalism.

The connections you choose to make speak more of YOUR state of mind than those you seek to judge.

I choose to see things for what I perceive them to be, rather than ignore my senses entirely and perceive things in the way certain others would have me perceive them.

[edit on 22-5-2006 by point]