Is the Eucharist cannibalism?

[Aaron112]

“a sign is a thing which, over and above the impression it makes on the senses, causes something else to come into the mind as a consequence of itself”

So in Truth , Spirit and Life, are Spirit and Life, Is Truth .

Flesh is flesh, and profits nothing.

If someone desires flesh, (sexually), they are already guilty of adultery, EVEN IF they do not carry through with it, but only think about it in their mind/heart.

If someone eats flesh, even if they do not carry through with it physically, they are guilty.

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

The differences coming from your leaning on extra Biblical teachings to come to your conclusions and my reliance on Scripture.

You write that as if reliance on scripture alone is a virtue and reliance on both scripture and extrabiblical sacred tradition is an anti-virtue. Yet history demonstrates that those who say they rely on scripture alone and reject tradition as a source of divine revelation are prone to divisions and fissures in the community leading to many separated communities that show varying degrees of intolerance towards one another. I consciously choose not to be a part of that kind of religion because of its fruit.

 

[The Liturgist]

There's no contradiction if Jesus means the bread symbolizes his flesh and blood sacrificed on the cross.

Indeed, but you didn’t say that in your initial reply to me, but rather used the exact wording we use to describe the Eucharist, and for that matter, as I have repeatedly asserted, our Lord said “This is my body” and “This is my blood”, which contradicts a symbolic interpretation. If he had said “This is a symbol of my body” and “This is a symbol of my blood”, a symbolic interpretation would be indicated.

I think "anamnesis" fits perfectly well with remembrance.

Very well, if you think that, then I am sure you won’t mind explaining to me precisely why Fr. John Behr and other scholars of the New Testament who are fluent in Koine Greek are in error?

 

[Always in His Presence]

In this case, I am not leaning on extra-Biblical positions. The doctrine of the Real Presence is the plain meaning of Scripture.

That is where we disagree.

And I have no objection, as @MarkRohfrietsch can confirm, to Sola Scriptura, properly defined, that is to say, the doctrine taught by Martin Luther, who also taught the doctrine of the Real Presence.

That would be after :
hislegacy said:
The first person who clearly taught the doctrine of transubstantiation, though not using that term, was Paschasius Radbertus (785-865), abbot of the monastery at Corbie, France.

Indeed, Martin Luther taught the doctrine of the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist because it is Scriptural, and he rejected Nestorianism because it is in opposition to the plain meaning of Scripture (including, but not limited to, Luke chapters 1 and 2, John 1:1-17, John 10:30-38, and many other pericopes).

Not one refers to transubstantiation - period

Which makes this Ad Hominem response particularly amusing, in a deliciously ironic way, in that you just falsely implied that I oppose Sola Scriptura, which is laughable, considering that as a Congregationalist minister, I taught it for many years, and I still regard it, as defined by the traditional Protestant churches, as an acceptable system which is not greatly different from the Orthodox approach, in that Sola Scriptura regards Sacred Scripture as the highest authority, and Orthodoxy, in its own language, refers to Sacred Scripture as the living center of Holy Tradition, that is to say, the most important part, a verbal Icon of Christ.

Off topic

But at any rate, even if I took the view allegedly held by some Roman Catholics that Sola Scriptura is entirely erroneous, and that only the Magisterium is of any importance, an ad hominem response to my argument such as that made by yourself is still fallacious, since what I believe has nothing to do with whether or not I’m right. Although in this case your Ad Hominem was doubly fallacious, in that you assumed things about my belief system which are simply untrue, and then on the basis of those false assumptions, you proceeded to declare my argument false based on the a priori assumption that anyone who believed those things which I in fact do not believe (and if you had asked me ahead of time, I could have clarified this for you), is automatically wrong, which we know not to be the case.

word salad to me - nothing on topic

Now, moving on, if in fact you do regard the deity and humanity of our Lord as inseparable, you should agree that the doctrine of the Real Presence does not imply cannibalism, since the fact that in partaking of the Body and Blood of our Lord requires us to partake of the Divine Nature, as the Holy Apostle Peter said, unless we were to say that the Divine Nature is not present in the Body and Blood of our Lord, and if we say that, we have just introduced a separation between the Divinity and Humanity of our Lord.

NOT a fact

What Peter is referring to in his Epistle about being partakers of the Divine Nature has zero to do with communion or transubstantiation.

I am not saying you must agree with the Real Presence, for there is one, and only one, alternative interpretation which is compatible with the plain sense of Scripture, that being the interpretation often found among Calvinists such as the Dutch Reformed and Presbyterians, and also frequently found among Anglicans and Methodists, that our Lord is pneumatically, that is to say, spiritually present in the Eucharist, but not physically present, and therefore, that the bread and wine are spiritually His Body and spiritually His Blood. This alternate approach scrapes by, where Zwinglianism and Memorialism do not, since Scripture makes it clear that there are Spiritual realities that are invisible to us but that are an important part of our existence, for example, the Angels and other Bodiless Powers. Although that said, Martin Luther, on the basis of Scripture, concluded that the Real Presence was the more probable explanation, and so do I; also, with Sola Scriptura, properly defined, other secondary sources of doctrine such as the writings of the Early Church Fathers, ecclesiastical tradition, and so on, are admissible, and these secondary sources unanimously favor the real presence.

No - I do NOT have to agree and do not. And as shown - there in NOT only one interpretation. I apologize, but either your lack of opposing positions or your ego prevents you from understanding.

Rather, what I am saying is that if you really do believe that the humanity and deity of our Lord, God and Savior Jesus Christ are inseparable (which by the way entails, among other things, that the Blessed Virgin Mary is in fact Theotokos, since if the deity and humanity of Christ are inseparable, logic dictates that she gave birth to God; indeed the whole reason why Nestorius insisted on a separation of the humanity and divinity of our Lord was to protect the logical coherence of his insistence that St. Mary was Christotokos but not Theotokos), then it follows that you should not accuse those who believe in the real presence of believing in cannibalism, since the indivisibility of the humanity and divinity of our Lord means that we cannot eat His flesh and blood apart from His divinity, and the presence of His divinity with the flesh and blood differentiates partaking of the Eucharist from engaging in cannibalism, since obviously, partaking of the Divine Nature is not Cannibalism, and the Divinity of our Lord, while distinct from the Humanity that it is hypostatically united with, is inseparable from it. Cannibalism is, by definition, the eating of one man by another man, and does not encompass the eating of a Theandros, that is to say, a God-man, what the Church Fathers called our Lord, since He is the a person who is both God and Man in hypostatic union.

off topic and rambling

 

[Always in His Presence]

You write that as if reliance on scripture alone is a virtue and reliance on both scripture and extrabiblical sacred tradition is an anti-virtue.

BINGO! you hit the nail on the head.

Yet history demonstrates that those who say they rely on scripture alone and reject tradition as a source of divine revelation are prone to divisions and fissures in the community leading to many separated communities that show varying degrees of intolerance towards one another. I consciously choose not to be a part of that kind of religion because of its fruit.

pssst.... if you want a lesson in intolerance check out the diatribes posted with any dissenting position from the Roman Catholic Theology.

 

[The Liturgist]

That would be after :
hislegacy said:
The first person who clearly taught the doctrine of transubstantiation, though not using that term, was Paschasius Radbertus (785-865), abbot of the monastery at Corbie, France.

I suppose that would be relevant if either @MarkRohfrietsch or I believed in transubstantiation, but I made it clear in my first reply to you that Lutherans and Orthodox reject the Roman Catholic doctrine, as being overly complex and dependent upon Aristotelian categories; it is a scholastic doctrine and not a Patristic doctrine.

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

pssst.... if you want a lesson in intolerance

I need look no further than my circle of friends from Protestant denominations who shunned me when I became a Catholic. That was an excellent example of intolerance. What you offer is folly.

 

[Always in His Presence]

I need look no further than my circle of friends from Protestant denominations who shunned me when I became a Catholic. That was an excellent example of intolerance. What you offer is folly.

ditto - I had the same thing happen with my former Roman Catholic friends when I left the church. Can we not offer each other folly and just keep to a discussion?

 

[The Liturgist]

off topic and rambling

On the contrary, it is directly topical. If you say you believe the humanity and divinity of our Lord are inseparable, then logic requires an admission that the doctrine of the Real Presence in no way implies cannibalism, since there is an obvious difference between eating a mortal man still living under the curse of original sin and destined to die, and partaking of the infinite flesh and blood provided by an immortal Person who is fully Man (having risen from the grave) and fully God.

 

[Always in His Presence]

I suppose that would be relevant if either @MarkRohfrietsch or I believed in transubstantiation, but I made it clear in my first reply to you that Lutherans and Orthodox reject the Roman Catholic doctrine, as being overly complex and dependent upon Aristotelian categories; it is a scholastic doctrine and not a Patristic doctrine.

In your myriad of words - I don't have clue as to what you are speaking of most times. Your posts float from one topic to another to making mention of names etc. that there is no real life reference for.

I hold a Masters of Theology, but know enough to speak plainly.

Aristotle has NO place in Christian theology, bringing him up add nothing to an on topic discussion - as for patrology, when it adds to, or convolutes (like your definition of remembrance), it fails miserably in my opinion.

But thank you for not using four hundred words to express what 30 words conveys. That is refreshing.

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

ditto - I had the same thing happen with my former Roman Catholic friends when I left the church. Can we not offer each other folly and just keep to a discussion?

429 posts is more than sufficient to have your position expressed and mine too, @The Liturgist has expressed his view. Lutheran views too were expressed, so why prolong this?

 

[Always in His Presence]

On the contrary, it is directly topical. If you say you believe the humanity and divinity of our Lord are inseparable, then logic requires an admission that the doctrine of the Real Presence in no way implies cannibalism, since there is an obvious difference between eating a mortal man still living under the curse of original sin and destined to die, and partaking of the infinite flesh and blood provided by an immortal Person who is fully Man (having risen from the grave) and fully God.

I have already explained this - repeating it multiple times will not change my view.

 

[Always in His Presence]

429 posts is more than sufficient to have your position expressed and mine too, @The Liturgist has expressed his view. Lutheran views too were expressed, so why prolong this?

Most of what I have posted is in reply to you. Want to end it - feel free anytime.

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

Most of what I have posted is in reply to you. Want to end it - feel free anytime.

I do not think your claim is true, but yet I want to end this fruitless discussion with you.

 

[The Liturgist]

ditto - I had the same thing happen with my former Roman Catholic friends when I left the church. Can we not offer each other folly and just keep to a discussion?

I need look no further than my circle of friends from Protestant denominations who shunned me when I became a Catholic. That was an excellent example of intolerance. What you offer is folly.

FWIW, I lost no friends when I joined the Orthodox Church a decade ago. On the contrary, I invested considerable energy in maintaining and growing my network of friends among Protestants and Catholics, even among Protestants who were not from a liturgical background (for example, members of the Calvary Chapel, members of the Stone/Campbell movement, and so on). I know, and am friends, with more Christians now, from more denominations, than I have been at any previous point in my life. Of course, I have no doubt things also would have worked out this way had I joined the Assyrian Church of the East, or a Continuing Anglican church, or a Traditional Latin Mass parish or Eastern Catholic parish (I have serious objections to the Novus Ordo Missae of 1969; really they would have done so much better to simply retain the old liturgy but allow for it to be celebrated using a mix of Latin and the vernacular, which is what the Coptic Orthodox and Syriac Orthodox churches do, strategically mixing the vernacular, whether it is Arabic or English (or both) in an alternating pattern so that over time, one learns the historically valuable Coptic and Aramaic languages by exposure and contrast.

 

[Aaron112]

Anything that opposes Scripture should not be used nor relied upon - it is like building on quicksand .....

 

[MarkRohfrietsch]

It would really help if you read my posts before you reply.

It was certainly NOT a first Century Doctrine -

Indeed, it is a First Century doctrine; read your New Testament.

 

[The Liturgist]

In your myriad of words - I don't have clue as to what you are speaking of most times. Your posts float from one topic to another to making mention of names etc. that there is no real life reference for.

I hold a Masters of Theology, but know enough to speak plainly.

Aristotle has NO place in Christian theology, bringing him up add nothing to an on topic discussion - as for patrology, when it adds to, or convolutes (like your definition of remembrance), it fails miserably in my opinion.

But thank you for not using four hundred words to express what 30 words conveys. That is refreshing.

The whole reason why I mentioned Aristotle is because I disagree with the Roman Catholic doctrine because of its unnecessary reliance upon Aristotelian categories!

I will readily admit that my posts can be verbose, and filled with digressions of a historical nature, and this is because my friends on CF.com enjoy that style, and I aim to please. What I try to avoid are ad hominem arguments, since these, aside from being logically fallacious, are often hurtful or offensive to the person on the receiving end, so as I see it they do no good at all, since I cannot logically prove my point using an ad hominem, but I am likely to alienate someone who might otherwise be a friend.

As for the fact that you have a ThM, congratulations! I would love some time to read your thesis. Might I ask what you studied on an undergraduate level? I myself majored in computer science, but took a minor in theology, with just enough electives so that I qualified for an MDiv, but I made the mistake of going to a seminary associated with a shrinking mainline church that even 25 years ago was increasingly dominated by liberation theology, feminist theology, postmodern theology and other unpleasant forms of liberal theology.

 

[childeye 2]

Indeed, but you didn’t say that in your initial reply to me, but rather used the exact wording we use to describe the Eucharist, and for that matter, as I have repeatedly asserted, our Lord said “This is my body” and “This is my blood”, which contradicts a symbolic interpretation. If he had said “This is a symbol of my body” and “This is a symbol of my blood”, a symbolic interpretation would be indicated.

The meaning of this is my flesh and blood body which is crucified for you doesn't contradict the symbolic meaning of the bread, even because the bread wasn't crucified. The sign of the sacred thing doesn't diminish the fact that it's his real flesh and blood that was given so that sins could be forgiven, (his sacrifice).

Very well, if you think that, then I am sure you won’t mind explaining to me precisely why Fr. John Behr and other scholars of the New Testament who are fluent in Koine Greek are in error?

I never thought they're in error. I think putting oneself in the moment fits well with remembrance.

 

[The Liturgist]

Anything that opposes Scripture should not be used nor relied upon - it is like building on quicksand .....

On this we agree; this is why @MarkRohfrietsch , @Ain't Zwinglian and I are generally opposed to Zwinglianism and Memorialism, because we believe, based on our analysis of scripture, and supported by the testimony of the Early Church Fathers and the ancient liturgical texts, that these doctrines are incompatible with the plain meaning of the Institution Narratives in the Synoptic Gospels and in 1 Corinthians, read in the context of John ch. 6, and the rest of Scripture as a whole (for example, we find proto-Eucharistic material in the Old Testament, for example, in the story of the mysterious Priest-King Melchizedek, and the Paschal Siddur, and the Shewbread and Drink Offerings in the Temple.