Is the Eucharist cannibalism?

[The Liturgist]

Yes, it really is Christ's body and it really is Christ's blood. That is why it is called the real presence.

Amen, amen, amen, I believe this to be true (to quote the response to the Coptic priest’s confiteor ante communionem). @dzheremi

 

[Jipsah]

Agreed. It is most certainly not cannibalism. Even Catholic documents admit that when you look at it at the molecular level under microscope - it is still just bread.

Take, eat. This is My Body...

And the symbolism for it is fully explained in John 6 regarding "The bread that came down from heaven" as my flesh where no one bites Christ and no one sees bread falling out of heaven.

See above.

Deut 8:3 explains that "bread falling down out of heaven" symbolism this way
"3 And He humbled you and let you go hungry, and fed you with the manna which you did not know, nor did your fathers know, in order to make you understand that man shall not live on bread alone, but man shall live on every WORD that comes from the mouth of the Lord."

Take, eat...
Your doctrine contradicts the Word of our Lord.

 

[Jipsah]

Indeed - and in the case of bread and body and blood and wine that physical substance is in fact visible with observable physical properties.

It's can't be easy to to argue against the literal words of our Lord.

But I can imagine how much easier a time it would have been for some creative word-gymnastics to make very counter intuitive claims about this in a pre-scientific more superstitious age in what is called by some as "the dark ages" today.

That's probably what the Pharisees said.

 

[ozso]

Not all protestants object to it, but many do - Catholics teach that the host (bread) and precious blood (wine) are the real body of Christ and the real blood of Christ. Not metaphors of the body and blood of Christ.

Right. But it's also said that at the same time it isn't because a person can tell the difference between a wafer and a piece of skin in their mouth. They can tell the difference between wine and blood in their mouth. If a laboratory test was performed the wafer would be shown to be a wafer and not skin. And the wine to be shown to be wine and not blood.

Wouldn't it be better to say that the presence of the Lord is present in the bread and wine?

 

[FireDragon76]

substance

the real physical matter of which a person or thing consists and which has a tangible, solid presence.

substance is a physical thing .... no getting around the definition of substance.

What is the Greek word for transubstantiation?

Transubstantiation (Latin: transubstantiatio; Greek: μετουσίωσις metousiosis) is, according to the teaching of the Catholic Church, "the change of the whole substance of bread into the substance of the Body of Christ and of the whole substance of wine into the substance of the Blood of Christ".

"Substance", in the strict sense, is not necessarily physical. Substance, in the traditional theological usage, is similar to "essence" or "nature".

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

Wouldn't it be better to say that the presence of the Lord is present in the bread and wine?

no.

 

[ozso]

no.

Why?

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

Wouldn't it be better to say that the presence of the Lord is present in the bread and wine?

no.

Why?

Because the Lord, Jesus Christ, said "this is my body".

 

[eleos1954]

And yet they claim that a close evaluation of that actual substance shows it to still remain - as bread

CATECHISM OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH
SECOND EDITION

---

1376 The Council of Trent summarizes the Catholic faith by declaring: "Because Christ our Redeemer said that it was truly his body that he was offering under the species of bread, it has always been the conviction of the Church of God, and this holy Council now declares again, that by the consecration of the bread and wine there takes place a 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. This change the holy Catholic Church has fittingly and properly called transubstantiation."

 

[eleos1954]

Why do you think this is relevant?

Except none of that is the meaning of substance.

CATECHISM OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH
SECOND EDITION

---

1376 The Council of Trent summarizes the Catholic faith by declaring: "Because Christ our Redeemer said that it was truly his body that he was offering under the species of bread, it has always been the conviction of the Church of God, and this holy Council now declares again, that by the consecration of the bread and wine there takes place a 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. This change the holy Catholic Church has fittingly and properly called transubstantiation."

 

[eleos1954]

"Substance", in the strict sense, is not necessarily physical. Substance, in the traditional theological usage, is similar to "essence" or "nature".

CATECHISM OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH
SECOND EDITION

---

1376 The Council of Trent summarizes the Catholic faith by declaring: "Because Christ our Redeemer said that it was truly his body that he was offering under the species of bread, it has always been the conviction of the Church of God, and this holy Council now declares again, that by the consecration of the bread and wine there takes place a 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. This change the holy Catholic Church has fittingly and properly called transubstantiation."

 

[BobRyan]

CATECHISM OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH
SECOND EDITION

---

1376 The Council of Trent summarizes the Catholic faith by declaring: "Because Christ our Redeemer said that it was truly his body that he was offering under the species of bread, it has always been the conviction of the Church of God, and this holy Council now declares again, that by the consecration of the bread and wine there takes place a 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. This change the holy Catholic Church has fittingly and properly called transubstantiation."

ok but you have to realize that this is a bit of "play on words" where "substance" is not what you and I think of - as it is compared to "accident".

from: https://www.commonwealmagazine.org/‘-my-body

"Transubstantiation has always been a difficult doctrine to explain and to understand. Trent said that the "appearance" or "form" (in Latin, species) of the bread and wine remains. Aquinas, following Aristotelian philosophy and physics, said that the "accidents" (that is, the appearance) remained, while the "substance" was converted into the body and blood of the risen Christ.​

​

"But in Aristotelian physics there is no such thing as a free-standing "accident." An accident, like the color red, must be a quality of, or some substance. Aquinas knew this, yet held that the accidents or appearances of the bread and wine, after consecration, did not inhere in any subject, but were held in being by a continuous miracle. Using Trent's language, we would have to say that the appearance or form of the bread and wine remains, but does not inhere in any subject. Luther found transubstantiation impossible to believe, and so taught that the bread and wine remained real substances after the consecration, but that the substance of Christ's body was also present.

"The doctrine of transubstantiation has not become easier to believe with time. A 1993 Gallup poll revealed that only 30 percent of American Catholics believe that they are actually receiving the body and blood of Christ when they receive Communion. Many Catholics, especially the young, like their Protestant brethren, see the Eucharist as a symbol, in the weak sense, rather than the real presence of the body and blood of Christ"​

​

"Part of the problem is theological. After Vatican II attempts to explain transubstantiation in metaphysical terms came to be seen as problematic, and were largely replaced by another approach, called "transignification": the idea that the eucharistic ritual changes the meaning (or significance) of the bread and wine. Since the meaning of a thing is part of its reality for us, insofar "so far as it is reasonably practical he should practice as the meaning of the bread and wine is changed, the bread and wine themselves are changed. Liturgist James White put it this way: "The concept of Christ's presence in the Eucharist has acquired the name 'transignification.' Christ uses bread and wine ... to give himself to us. No longer is it accurate to say that the elements are merely bread and wine. They are a gift; the reality of them completely changes because they become means through which we experience anew Jesus Christ​

​

"Transignification, then, focuses on the change in the perception of the Eucharist, rather than focusing on any ontological or metaphysical change in the eucharistic elements themselves. Its strength is that it sees the eucharistic transformation as involving the whole congregation. Its weakness is that it minimizes or neglects any ontological change in the eucharistic elements. To use White's example, if I give a gift of bread to my neighbor, its reality does not "completely change." If it did, it would no longer be bread, or even a gift.​

​

​

 

[BobRyan]

from: https://www.commonwealmagazine.org/‘-my-body

" No one claims that the bread and wine, after the consecration, are chemically and physically different from what they were before the consecration. So how can we say that the "substance" of these elements has changed in the eucharistic ceremony? We would have to locate this change in some substrate which "stands under" the chemical structure and is unreachable by scientific analysis. That was the position taken by metaphysical analysts before the advent of transignification, but it suffered from several problems. First, it is not clear what it means. Cyril Vollert, in his article "Transubstantiation" (New Catholic Encyclopedia) writes: "In transubstantiation the protons, neutrons, electrons, atoms, molecules, etc., that is, the entire agglomeration of substances constituting the bread and wine, are converted into the body and blood of Christ." Does this mean that the molecules of the bread and wine become the molecules of Christ's body and blood? It is not clear. Second, as noted above, following Aquinas, the "accidents" or appearances of the bread and wine are not thought of as accidents of Christ's body and blood; rather, they are free-floating appearances, grounded in no substance at all, but sustained miraculously. But this does not make sense, and has no analogy in nature. It is like talking about hardness without matter, or color without light. Even a miracle cannot accomplish the impossible; miracles elevate and perfect nature, they do not contradict it (see my "Miracles in Science and Theology," Zygon, September 2002). Finally, the church, following the Council of Trent (see Denzinger-Schonmetzer, no. 1652), teaches that the consecrated elements are no longer bread and wine at all, but are wholly the body and blood of the risen Christ; nothing of the bread and wine remains. This seems incredible.​

​

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

CATECHISM OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH
SECOND EDITION

---

1376 The Council of Trent summarizes the Catholic faith by declaring: "Because Christ our Redeemer said that it was truly his body that he was offering under the species of bread, it has always been the conviction of the Church of God, and this holy Council now declares again, that by the consecration of the bread and wine there takes place a 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. This change the holy Catholic Church has fittingly and properly called transubstantiation."

Section 1376 is lovely, why did you post it?

 

[eleos1954]

Section 1376 is lovely, why did you post it?

Because it explains the "whole substance" ..... disputes what you put forth about "essence". It is believed it it the actual body and blood of Christ ..... not an "essence" there of ... or some other idea about it.

 

[FireDragon76]

CATECHISM OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH
SECOND EDITION

---

1376 The Council of Trent summarizes the Catholic faith by declaring: "Because Christ our Redeemer said that it was truly his body that he was offering under the species of bread, it has always been the conviction of the Church of God, and this holy Council now declares again, that by the consecration of the bread and wine there takes place a 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. This change the holy Catholic Church has fittingly and properly called transubstantiation."

That doesn't imply a physical change in the bread and wine, just a change of their essential natures. The appearance of bread and wine, and all the chemical and material properties, remains.

 

[The Liturgist]

Given the controveriee surrounding the Aristotelian categories used by the RC Scholastics, I will instead quote the public liturgy of two of the most persecuted churches in the world, the Coptic Orthodox Church and the Syriac Orthodox Church.

First, from the Coptic anaphorae:

Priest:

Amen, Amen, Amen. I believe, I believe, I believe and confess to the last breath that this is the life-giving flesh that Your only-begotten Son, our Lord, God, and Savior Jesus Christ, took from our lady, the lady of us all, the holy Theotokos, Saint Mary.

He made it One with His divinity without mingling, without confusion, and without alteration. He confessed the good confession before Pontius Pilate.

He gave it up for us upon the holy wood of the cross, of His own will, for us all. Truly I believe that His divinity parted not from His humanity for a single moment, nor a twinkling of an eye.

Given for us for salvation, remission of sins, and eternal life to those who partake of Him. I believe, I believe, I believe that this is true. Amen.

+

Deacon:

Amen, Amen, Amen. I believe, I believe, I believe that this is so in truth. Amen.

Pray for us and for all Christians who said to us concerning them, "Remember us in the house of the Lord." The peace and love of Jesus Christ be with you. Sing Alleluia

Pray for the worthy communion of the immaculate, heavenly, and holy mysteries. Lord have mercy.

People:
Glory to You O Lord, glory to You.

+


And then this metrical homily or hymn, Haw Nurone, is sung at the end of the Syriac Orthodox liturgy:

The Lord Whom the seraphs fear to look at,
The same you behold in bread and wine on the altar.
The lightning clothed hosts are burned if they see Him in His brilliance.
Yet the contemptible dust partakes of Him with confidence.
The Son's Mysteries are fire among the heavenly beings,
Isaiah bears witness with us to have seen them.
These Mysteries which were in the Divinity's bosom,
Are distributed to Adam's children on the altar.
The altar is fashioned like the cherubim's chariot,
And is surrounded by the heavenly hosts.
On the altar is laid the Body of God's Son,
And Adam's children carry it solemnly on their hands.
Instead of a man clad in linen, stands the (priest),
And distributes alms (the Eucharist) among the needy.
If envy existed among the angels,
The cherubim would have envied men.
Where Zion set up the Cross to crucify the Son,
There grew up the tree that gave birth to the Lamb.
Where nails were driven in the Son's hands,
There Isaac's hands were bound for an offering.
Welcome, priest, who carries the Mysteries of his Lord,
And with his right hand distributes life to men.
Welcome, priest, who carries a pure censer,
And with its fragrance makes the world sweet and pleasant.
Welcome, priest, whom the Holy Spirit did raise up,
And on his tongue bears the keys to the house of God.
Welcome, priest, who binds man in the depth below,
And the Lord binds him in heaven on high. Halleluiah.
Welcome, priest, who unbinds men on earth,
And the Lord unbinds him in the highest. Kyrie eleison.
Praise be to the Lord. His mercy upon you and absolution for me.
And good commemoration to Mor Jacob the malphono.

+

These are rather unequivocal that a validly consecrated Eucharist is the true and actual body and blood of our Lord. Indeed part of the reason why I love the Syriac and Coptic liturgy so much is its, for want of a better term, “Eucharistic intensity” which exceeds that of even the Byzantine (namely because the Epiclesis is often said softly in the Byzantine Rite while intoned in whole or in part in the Coptic and Syriac Rites.

 

[Jipsah]

"Transubstantiation has always been a difficult doctrine to explain and to understand.​

Then don't bother. Just acknowledge what our Lord said, that the bread and wine are His Body and Blood.

 

[Jipsah]

from: https://www.commonwealmagazine.org/‘-my-body

" No one claims that the bread and wine, after the consecration, are chemically and physically different from what they were before the consecration. So how can we say that the "substance" of these elements has changed in the eucharistic ceremony? We would have to locate this change in some substrate which "stands under" the chemical structure and is unreachable by scientific analysis.​

Is this the same kind of scientific analysis that you explicitly deny in believing that the universe was created in six solar days? Wow, y'all don't value consistency at a straw's worth, do you?

 

[Reader Antonius]

I'm a tad late to the convo, but I think it's helpful to note that cannibalism is the eating a flesh either torn from a living human being as we normally exist, or, more likely, the eating of a corpse. Neither one of those applies to the concept of transubstantiation/μετουσίωση as it is understood by Catholics, Eastern & Oriental Orthodox, Assyrians, and others. The Eucharistic Body and Blood of Christ is the Risen, Glorified Christ. Thus, His physicality has been radically transformed by the glorification that His Father and the Holy Spirit accomplished in His Resurrection. Keep in mind that the Risen Lord could do things that we cannot: go through solid objects, change appearance, etc.

So, on those grounds alone it is not cannibalism as we humans have understood it in our fallen world. If anything, it is a fulfillment of the typology of the paschal lamb that must be eaten for Passover, only now God Himself has become both the Priest & Lamb for us to consume. Hence, the reception of a true Eucharist is both a literal partaking in His Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity...but also a Mystery that remains beyond us. In His preaching in John 6, Our Lord utilizes these images and concepts to convey *both* a literal Eucharist and also a mystery of faith. Hope that helps.