Eat His Flesh And Drink His Blood... WTF?!?!

There's an ongoing debate between Christians and Sceptics concerning the Eucharist, sometimes referred to as Communion, or The Lord’s Supper. Some Sceptics charge that it's cannibalism and, of course, Christians argue that it's not. 

My opinion in this matter is twofold: As far as Roman Catholicism is concerned, I maintain that it's a form of cannibalism, because of the literal way they interpret the passages in the gospels that recount the Jesus’ last supper with the twelve. But a lot of Christians believe that Jesus' words were to be taken symbolically, ergo, I maintain that these last are practicing symbolic cannibalism. Either way, it’s cannibalism.

The most often quoted passage, where this doctrine is concerned, is found in John 6 and the passages in the gospels which recount Jesus’ last supper with his disciples: Matthew 26; Mark 14; Luke 22 & John 13.

The Roman Catholic doctrine of transubstantiation
From these passages, it is clear that, at the very least, some kind of flesh eating and blood drinking, symbolic or otherwise, must take place in order for one to gain "life" (v. 53, 54, 57, 58). 

Personally, I just can't see the Catholic doctrine of transubstantiation in any passage in the NT, i.e., I can't see where Jesus taught that the bread and wine would become his body and blood the way Catholics understand it. However, because they maintain that at mass, the bread (wafer) and wine are literally (magically) transformed into the body and blood of Jesus by the words of the priest, then anyone who eats the bread, or drinks the wine, is engaging in cannibalism. I don't see how anyone can escape this conclusion.

Catholics don’t say that the bread and wine are symbolically the body & blood of Jesus, they say the bread and wine become the body of Jesus by the “miracle”, i.e., the magic of transubstantiation. 

Webster's Dictionary defines cannibalism as "the usually ritualistic eating of human flesh by a human being." What Catholics practice is a rite, or ritual, and what they eat, according to their own words, is the body of Jesus. They reject the Protestant definition of the Eucharist as the symbolic representation of the body and blood of Jesus. This is clearly trhe definition given by Webstaer's Dictionary.

If, as Catholics maintain, the bread and wine's substances are miraculously transformed into the body and blood of Jesus, then it stands to reason that Catholics are guilty of cannibalism by eating and drinking the body and blood of Jesus. But Catholics object that they don’t engage in cannibalism. In fact, they recoil at this accusation. Unfortunately, their doctrine tells another story. 

The Catholic Encyclopedia web site http://newadvent.org/cathen/ has a search function which yields an interesting answer when the word "cannibalism" is entered. The site directed me to this URL http://www.newadvent.org/faq/faq028.htm and here's what it had to say concerning the charge of cannibalism against Catholics: a questioner, real or not, asks: "Your answer to the question about cannibalism and the Eucharist in the December 1990 issue of This Rock disturbs me. The promise in John 6 of the flesh of Christ to eat and his blood to drink sounds literal. Christ is present sounds literal. Christ is present substantially (rather than supernaturally); if we eat only the accidents (appearances), how do we eat Christ, who said unless we eat his flesh and drink his blood he will not have life?”
 

The reply is given: "Your question unnecessarily posits a conflict between a supernatural presence and a substantial one. Jesus is both substantially present (bread and wine really become his body and blood) and supernaturally present (transubstantiation occurs by the supernatural action of God; the accidents of bread and wine remain without the substances of bread and wine)."

"In consuming the Eucharistic elements, the physical mechanisms of eating injure only the accidents of bread and wine. The process of consuming the host doesn't involve ripping and tearing Christ's body, despite its substantial presence. This is why the charge of cannibalism won't work."
 

"We can still say Christ's flesh and blood are consumed sacramentally in Holy Communion because what is eaten is literally his body and blood, even if the physical action of eating affects only the accidents of bread and wine."
 

Note what the reply states: "Jesus is both substantially present… and supernaturally present" and "because what is eaten is literally his body and blood." This establishes clearly that Catholic doctrine teaches that the bread and wine are actually the body and blood of Jesus by way of a supernatural act, i.e., that the bread and wine are transformed into the literal body and blood of Christ by an act of the priest. This being so, then ipso facto, they are practicing cannibalism, no matter what theological weasel words they use to try to avoid the accusation of cannibalism.

The answer person goes on to state: "In consuming the Eucharistic elements, the physical mechanisms of eating injure only the accidents of bread and wine. The process of consuming the host doesn't involve ripping and tearing Christ's body, despite its substantial presence. This is why the charge of cannibalism won't work."

This is utterly ridiculous, not to mention self-contradictory! If Jesus is, as maintained by this person, "substantially present," then when you at the bread and drink the wine, you're eating Jesus' flesh and drinking his blood! You can't have it two ways, despite the theological double-speak and contortions utilized by the answer person to circumvent the charge of cannibalism. Catholic theology would have us believe that while Catholics are literally eating the boody of Jesus, they are not practicing canniubalism; but Webster's definition is clear that they are, despite the double-speak in which theologians couch their doctrines.

On the one hand, Jesus is "substantially and lietrally present" and is consumed by the Catholic faithful, but on the other, the charge of cannibalism is nul and void because Catholics "injure only the accidents of bread and wine." Can you say BS? How can one "injure only the accidents of bread and wine" if those “accident” are actually and in fact the body and blood of Jesus by some "supernatural act of God?" This person's argument is self-contradictory, not to mention puerile.

It's clear, at least to this writer, that Catholics, based on their beliefs and actions, are practicing cannibalism. They may look in disgust at the practice of cannibalism in, say, some cannibalistic tribe, but they do so hypocritically. Their eucharistics practice is no less cannibalistic, because of the literal way they interpret the words of Jesus.

The Fundamentalist and Evangelical symbol of The Lord’s Supper

Fundamentalists and Evangelicals, some of whom believe that Roman Catholicism is satanic in nature, reject the doctrine of transubstantiation and maintain that the eating Jesus and drinking his blood is purely symbolic, and that there is no supernatural intervention of God to change the substance of the bread and wine. It is done only to commemorate Jesus’ sacrifice, however gruesome that might be. What the faithful are eating and drinking, they say, is simply bread and wine, representing the body and blood of Jesus, which were sacrificed at the cross.

However, even though the whole thing is symbolic, what it represents is still the body and blood of Jesus. If one symbolically eats the body and blood of a man, then it follows that ritual (symbolic) cannibalism is being practiced; I fail to see how a person can escape this conclusion; maintaining otherwise is illogical, but then again, I've yet to see the Christian faith logically demonstrated. The whole thing is inconsistent and self-contradictory nonsense. 

As a side note, it was the practice among certain mystery religions, such as Mithraism for example, to engage in the symbolic eating of their god which conveyed some kind of spiritual power to the communicant. This is not a practice which is original to Christianity. Furthermore, it was thought to be a disgusting practice by Jews, who recoiled at this teaching, based on the Torah. Odd, isn't it, that Jesus, a Torah-observing Jew, would institute such a practice?

Conclusion
No matter how they slice it, Roman Catholics are, by their very words, practicing cannibalism when they partake of what they call the Eucharist. And no matter how much the other types of Christians try to rationalize it, they are guilty of ritual cannibalism. Whether the bread and wine merely represent or actually are the body and blood of Jesus, the charge of cannibalism, ritual or otherwise, stands. This is a disturbing teaching and practice no matter how you define it. It is, sadly, only one example of the obscenities in the Bible.

grgaud