Is the Eucharist cannibalism?

[dzheremi]

I believe Paul is saying we eat and drink unworthily when we do so in a manner that does not display a common union in reverence for his self-sacrifice, who suffered crucifixion and death for our sake.

So in this view is eating and drinking unworthily a matter of not being 'reverent' enough about Christ's victory upon the cross? In other words, is reverence a matter of personal or collective appraisal of a historical event, rather than saying anything about the presence of Christ in the liturgy as we are gathered, celebrating it?

I'm just curious, as I've noticed this mentality among non-Christian sects that try to claim Christianity (e.g., Mormons)– namely, that what (in their view) separates a Christian from a non-Christian is whether or not a person will essentially say "Thanks for dying on the cross, Jesus! It's great that you did that so that I can go to heaven!" or something like that. I think that's weird enough coming from them, but they are in some sense excused from being so far off because the whole point of their movement was to start a new religion, since Christianity supposedly had XYZ wrong until...some guy or gal came along to tell everyone what the score is, since the apostles and disciples and even Christ Himself apparently didn't or couldn't effectively do so (Lord have mercy). So they at least make for themselves the conceptual room to say that this is one of those things that they are correcting (even if that's not actually what's happening, because there's nothing to correct in the traditional Christian understanding of the crucifixion or of the Eucharist).

But it would be even weirder coming from actual Christians of any type.

 

[jas3]

It is our Spirit that contains who were are.

No, and this difference in understanding may be the cause of your desire to describe the presence of Christ in the Eucharist as spiritual. "Who we are" is a composite of body and soul. St. Irenaeus described the Christian doctrine thoroughly in his work Against Heresies:

Now the soul and the spirit are certainly a part of the man, but certainly not the man; for the perfect man consists in the commingling and the union of the soul receiving the spirit of the Father, and the admixture of that fleshly nature which was moulded after the image of God. For this reason does the apostle declare, "We speak wisdom among them that are perfect," [1 Corinthians 2:6] terming those persons "perfect" who have received the Spirit of God, and who through the Spirit of God do speak in all languages, as he used Himself also to speak. In like manner we do also hear many brethren in the Church, who possess prophetic gifts, and who through the Spirit speak all kinds of languages, and bring to light for the general benefit the hidden things of men, and declare the mysteries of God, whom also the apostle terms "spiritual," they being spiritual because they partake of the Spirit, and not because their flesh has been stripped off and taken away, and because they have become purely spiritual. For if any one take away the substance of flesh, that is, of the handiwork [of God], and understand that which is purely spiritual, such then would not be a spiritual man but would be the spirit of a man, or the Spirit of God. But when the spirit here blended with the soul is united to [God's] handiwork, the man is rendered spiritual and perfect because of the outpouring of the Spirit, and this is he who was made in the image and likeness of God. But if the Spirit be wanting to the soul, he who is such is indeed of an animal nature, and being left carnal, shall be an imperfect being, possessing indeed the image [of God] in his formation (in plasmate), but not receiving the similitude through the Spirit; and thus is this being imperfect. Thus also, if any one take away the image and set aside the handiwork, he cannot then understand this as being a man, but as either some part of a man, as I have already said, or as something else than a man. For that flesh which has been moulded is not a perfect man in itself, but the body of a man, and part of a man. Neither is the soul itself, considered apart by itself, the man; but it is the soul of a man, and part of a man. Neither is the spirit a man, for it is called the spirit, and not a man; but the commingling and union of all these constitutes the perfect man. And for this cause does the apostle, explaining himself, make it clear that the saved man is a complete man as well as a spiritual man; saying thus in the first Epistle to the Thessalonians, "Now the God of peace sanctify you perfect (perfectos); and may your spirit, and soul, and body be preserved whole without complaint to the coming of the Lord Jesus Christ." Now what was his object in praying that these three — that is, soul, body, and spirit — might be preserved to the coming of the Lord, unless he was aware of the [future] reintegration and union of the three, and [that they should be heirs of] one and the same salvation? For this cause also he declares that those are "the perfect" who present unto the Lord the three [component parts] without offense. Those, then, are the perfect who have had the Spirit of God remaining in them, and have preserved their souls and bodies blameless, holding fast the faith of God, that is, that faith which is [directed] towards God, and maintaining righteous dealings with respect to their neighbours.

- St. Irenaeus, Against Heresies V.6

Source: CHURCH FATHERS: Against Heresies, V.6 (St. Irenaeus)

If who we are is not just our spirit or intellect, but our body and spirit (or as St. Irenaeus and some other Church Fathers wrote, body, spirit, and soul), then that implies that a presence of the spirit only, without the body, is only a partial presence.

 

[MarkRohfrietsch]

<Snip>

Look at this scripture: "Wherefore whosoever shall eat this bread, and drink this cup of the Lord, unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord."

Now I ask you, is the body and blood of the Lord spoken of here his real body and blood? Does this imply guilty of crucifying him in some indirect way such as what you do to the least of my brethren you do unto me??

Yes, in, with and under. No, Christ is allowing us to share in the benefits of His crucifiction; forgiveness of sins, physical and spiritual healing, and eternal life. What would be achieved by re-sacrificing our Lord when He already gave himself once and for all mankind? Praise God that we are allowed to share in that sacrifice.

 

[BNR32FAN]

No, and this difference in understanding may be the cause of your desire to describe the presence of Christ in the Eucharist as spiritual. "Who we are" is a composite of body and soul. St. Irenaeus described the Christian doctrine thoroughly in his work Against Heresies:

When my spirit leaves this body there is no presence in it. There’s no conscious no autonomy, nothing, it’s just dead material. It becomes inanimate.