Is the Eucharist cannibalism?

[childeye 2]

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.

I'm not sure how to respond to this. I'm going to say that there's judgment at the cup for a reason.

 

[Always in His Presence]

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

I have. We disagree.

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.

Tl:dr

 

[Always in His Presence]

I'd be seeking at least a partial refund on my tuition if I were you.

Is attempting to be rude a debate tactic?

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

Ecclesia de Eucharistia (17 April 2003) | John Paul II

Encyclical Letter Ecclesia de Eucharistia (17 April 2003)

www.vatican.va

15. The sacramental re-presentation of Christ's sacrifice, crowned by the resurrection, in the Mass involves a most special presence which – in the words of Paul VI – “is called 'real' not as a way of excluding all other types of presence as if they were 'not real', but because it is a presence in the fullest sense: a substantial presence whereby Christ, the God-Man, is wholly and entirely present”.22 This sets forth once more the perennially valid teaching of the Council of Trent: “the consecration of the bread and wine effects the change of the whole substance of the bread into the substance of the body of Christ our Lord, and of the whole substance of the wine into the substance of his blood. And the holy Catholic Church has fittingly and properly called this change transubstantiation”.23 Truly the Eucharist is a mysterium fidei, a mystery which surpasses our understanding and can only be received in faith, as is often brought out in the catechesis of the Church Fathers regarding this divine sacrament: “Do not see – Saint Cyril of Jerusalem exhorts – in the bread and wine merely natural elements, because the Lord has expressly said that they are his body and his blood: faith assures you of this, though your senses suggest otherwise”.24

 

[The Liturgist]

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).

The problem with this argument is that logically, something cannot be a symbol of itself. The map is different from the terrain. Thus, if our Lord was speaking of His actual flesh and blood, that negates the symbolic Zwinglian interpretation.

I want to stress by the way that while I disagree with your interpretation of the Eucharist, I have no animus towards you personally. In particular, I would note with gratitude that in our discussions you have been consistently cordial and polite and have refrained from making any ad hominem arguments. And it is also clear that there is a deep piety that underpins your beliefs, which i greatly admire. My disagreement with you is limited to this issue of sacramental theology, and even then I appreciate many of your sentiments, for example, your devotion to our Lord and His salvific passion, which is immediately apparent.

I greatly desire your fellowship and friendship on the basis of this underlying piety, which I greatly admire. I also wish to apologize if in any of the past few posts my attitude has not been as charitable as i would prefer. I am perturbed by some remarks I am seeing in this thread by people on both sides of the issue, and the polemical nature of this discussion is distressing to me.

 

[The Liturgist]

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.

Wait a second, what? Could you clarify that please?

 

[George95]

ADMIN HAT ON

This thread is being closed for review.

ADMIN HAT OFF​

 

[FreeinChrist]

ADVISOR HAT

This thread is staying closed. There are too many problems. Considering the title, I am surprised it lasted as long as it did.




​