Is the Eucharist cannibalism?

[Strong in Him]

Yes, because some to, as in the case of Jack Chick. He is, of course, not alone in his anti-Catholicism.

Probably not, but that doesn't mean that Protestants, as a whole, ridicule the Eucharist.
I realise you didn't say that, but that's how it came across to me.

 

[The Liturgist]

Here is what Universalis presents as the explanation for the Easter Vigil on Saturday 8th April 2023, after sunset.

Saturday 8 April 2023​

Holy Saturday​

The Easter Vigil​

Liturgical Colour: White.​

​

By most ancient tradition, this is the night of keeping vigil for the Lord (Ex 12: 42), in which, following the Gospel admonition (Lk 12: 35-37), the faithful, carrying lighted lamps in their hands, should be like those looking for the Lord when he returns, so that at his coming he may find them awake and have them sit at his table.​

Of this night’s Vigil, which is the greatest and most noble of all solemnities, there is to be only one celebration in each church. It is arranged, moreover, in such a way that after the Lucernarium and Easter Proclamation (which constitutes the first part of this Vigil), holy Church meditates on the wonders the Lord God has done for his people from the beginning, trusting in his word and promise (the second part, that is, the Liturgy of the Word) until, as day approaches, with new members reborn in Baptism (the third part), the Church is called to the table the Lord has prepared for his people, the memorial of his Death and Resurrection until he comes again (the fourth part).​

The entire celebration of the Easter Vigil must take place during the night, so that it begins after nightfall and ends before daybreak on the Sunday.​

The Mass of the Vigil, even if it is celebrated before midnight, is a paschal Mass of the Sunday of the Resurrection.​

Anyone who participates in the Mass of the night may receive Communion again at Mass during the day. A Priest who celebrates or concelebrates the Mass of the night may again celebrate or concelebrate Mass during the day.​

As far as the Liturgy of the Hours is concerned, the Easter Vigil takes the place of the Office of Readings.​

Candles should be prepared for all who participate in the Vigil. The lights of the church are extinguished.​

​

---

THE SOLEMN BEGINNING OF THE VIGIL, OR LUCERNARIUM
The Blessing of the Fire and Preparation of the Candle

A blazing fire is prepared in a suitable place outside the church. When the people are gathered there, the Priest approaches with the ministers, one of whom carries the paschal candle. The processional cross and candles are not carried.
Where, however, a fire cannot be lit outside the church, the rite is carried out within the church and adapted appropriately.

Sign of the Cross

All make the Sign of the Cross as the Priest says:

In the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit.

The people reply:
Amen.

Greeting

Either: The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ,
and the love of God,
and the communion of the Holy Spirit
be with you all.

Or: Grace to you and peace
from God our Father
and the Lord Jesus Christ.

Or: The Lord be with you.

The people reply:
And with your spirit.

The Priest briefly instructs the people about the night vigil in these or similar words:

Dear brethren (brothers and sisters),
on this most sacred night,
in which our Lord Jesus Christ
passed over from death to life,
the Church calls upon her sons and daughters,
scattered throughout the world,
to come together to watch and pray.
If we keep the memorial
of the Lord’s paschal solemnity in this way,
listening to his word and celebrating his mysteries,
then we shall have the sure hope
of sharing his triumph over death
and living with him in God.

Then the Priest blesses the fire, saying with hands extended:

Let us pray.

O God, who through your Son
bestowed upon the faithful the fire of your glory,
sanctify ✠ this new fire, we pray,
and grant that,
by these paschal celebrations,
we may be so inflamed with heavenly desires,
that with minds made pure
we may attain festivities of unending splendour.
Through Christ our Lord.

Amen.

After the blessing of the new fire, one of the ministers brings the paschal candle to the Priest, who cuts a cross into the candle with a stylus. Then he makes the Greek letter Alpha above the cross, the letter Omega below, and the four numerals of the current year between the arms of the cross, saying meanwhile:

1. Christ yesterday and today; (he cuts a vertical line)
2. the Beginning and the End; (he cuts a horizontal line)
3. the Alpha; (he cuts the letter Alpha above the vertical line)
4. and the Omega. (he cuts the letter Omega below the vertical line)
5. All time belongs to him; (he cuts the first numeral of the current year in the upper left corner of the cross)
6. and all the ages. (he cuts the second numeral of the current year in the upper right corner of the cross)
7. To him be glory and power (he cuts the third numeral of the current year in the lower left corner of the cross)
8. through every age and for ever. Amen. (he cuts the fourth numeral of the current year in the lower right corner of the cross)

When the cutting of the cross and of the other signs has been completed, the Priest may insert five grains of incense into the candle in the form of a cross, meanwhile saying:

1. By his holy
2. and glorious wounds,
3. may Christ the Lord
4. guard us
5. and protect us. Amen.

The Priest lights the paschal candle from the new fire, saying:
May the light of Christ rising in glory
dispel the darkness of our hearts and minds.

The problem is, what you have there is actually a hybrid of Byzantine Rite Pascal Matins, and reconstructions of what the Paschal Vigil or Vesperal Divine Liturgy for Holy Saturday was before it was moved to the morning, more than a thousand years ago (which is why the pre-1955 . It also ignores that the major function of these services was to baptize catechumens, which was done during the Old Testament lessons).

These services, in their pre-1955 configuration, (they remain unchanged in the Eastern Orthodox* and most Byzantine Catholic churches), in the first millenium, consist of a vespers replacing most of the synaxis of the Divine Liturgy, followed by the anaphora.

*It is possible that some monastery or seminary has experimented with alternate configurations, OCA’s formerly Byzantine Catholic New Skete being known for that as much as for their German Shepherd breeding, in the case of New Skete the idea being to partially reconstruct aspects of the Cathedral Office. Eastern Orthodox monasteries typically have a lot of freedom when it comes to liturgical practices; it is considered bad manners to criticize someone else’s typikon.

I don’t know if this applies to Oriental Orthodoxy, because Coptic monasteries among other duties serve as liturgical training facilities for parish priests, but I think it does, since some monasteries serve in different roles than others. For example, St. Anthony’s in Egypt is much more of a pure monastery, and the Cave of St. Anthony and the nearby hermitage of Fr. Lazarus el Antony, who serves a nighttime liturgy there, and a secondary hermitage he uses when a guest occupies his main hermitage, are the birthplace of monasticsm, whereas there are more conveniently located monasteries, like the Syrian Monastery, where Pope Shenouda III started his career, and the new St. Mena’s near Alexandria, opened in 1959, which I think has the most monks of any in Egypt. Fr. Lazarus started his Coptic career in one of these monasteries before being ordained a priest, serving on a mission in East Africa*

*In these lands the Copts have had some success, and indeed I have a recording of the Coptic Divine Liturgy of St. Basil performed by a parish in Namibia using traditional Namibian music rather than Tasbeha, the traditional Egyptian Christian chant of the Coptic Orthodox and Coptic Catholic churches.

**albeit with differences in melodies and hymns in Coptic Catholic churches; unlike the Byzantine Catholics, which tend to aim for liturgical parity, the Eastern Catholics related to OO churches tend to carve out a distinct musical identity, with some exceptions; also because prior to Pope Benedict XVI ruling otherwise in his role as Cardinal Prefect of the Congregation of the Doctrine of Faith, the OO were regarded as monophysite heretics, and certain modifications were insisted upon for their liturgy, for example, deleting the Theopaschite Clause appended to the Trisagion by St. Peter Fullo, which as Pope Benedict pointed out, is not interpreted as a Trinitarian hymn in the Oriental Orthodox churches like in the Chalcedonian churches, but rather is a Christological hymn).***

*** This misunderstanding is reminscent of a major aspect of the schism and subsequent violent persecution of Russian Old Rite Orthodox (also known as Old Believers), who make the sign of the cross with two fingers, as a Christological gesture symbolizing the human and divine natures of our Lord, rather than with three fingers, complimenting the Trinitarian content of the blessing. Fortunately this persecution ended in 1909 and furthermore many Old Rite Orthodox have been reconciled with the MP (the Edinovertsy), and in Erie, PA, there is a mostly ROCOR parish.

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

Probably not, but that doesn't mean that Protestants, as a whole, ridicule the Eucharist.
I realise you didn't say that, but that's how it came across to me.

One cannot answer for how you choose to interpret what wasn't said.

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

It also ignores that the major function of these services was to baptize catechumens, which was done during the Old Testament lessons

The catechumens are indeed baptised in the Easter Vigil. It comes a little later in the mass.

---

THE BAPTISMAL LITURGY
When there is a baptism

After the Homily the Baptismal Liturgy begins. The Priest goes with the ministers to the baptismal font, if this can be seen by the faithful. Otherwise a vessel with water is placed in the sanctuary.
Catechumens, if there are any, are called forward and presented by their godparents in front of the assembled Church or, if they are small children, are carried by their parents and godparents.
Then, if there is to be a procession to the baptistery or to the font, it forms immediately. A minister with the paschal candle leads off, and those to be baptized follow him with their godparents, then the ministers, the Deacon, and the Priest. During the procession, the Litany is sung. When the Litany is completed, the Priest addresses the people.
If, however, the Baptismal Liturgy takes place in the sanctuary, the Priest addresses the people first, in these or similar words, and the Litany follows.
If there are candidates to be baptized:

Dearly beloved,
with one heart and one soul, let us by our prayers
come to the aid of these our brothers and sisters in their blessed hope,
so that, as they approach the font of rebirth,
the almighty Father may bestow on them
all his merciful help.

If the font is to be blessed, but no one is to be baptized:

Dearly beloved,
let us humbly invoke upon this font
the grace of God the almighty Father,
that those who from it are born anew
may be numbered among the children of adoption in Christ.

The Litany
The Litany is sung by two cantors, with all standing (because it is Easter Time) and responding. In the Litany the names of some Saints may be added, especially the Titular Saint of the church and the Patron Saints of the place and of those to be baptized.

Lord, have mercy.
– Lord, have mercy.

Christ, have mercy.
– Christ, have mercy.

Lord, have mercy.
– Lord, have mercy.

Holy Mary, Mother of God,
– pray for us.

Saint Michael,
– pray for us.

Holy Angels of God,
– pray for us.

Saint John the Baptist,
– pray for us.

Saint Joseph,
– pray for us.

Saint Peter and Saint Paul,
– pray for us.

Saint Andrew,
– pray for us.

Saint John,
– pray for us.

Saint Mary Magdalene,
– pray for us.

Saint Stephen,
– pray for us.

Saint Ignatius of Antioch,
– pray for us.

Saint Laurence,
– pray for us.

Saint Perpetua and Saint Felicity,
– pray for us.

Saint Agnes,
– pray for us.

Saint Gregory,
– pray for us.

Saint Augustine,
– pray for us.

Saint Athanasius,
– pray for us.

Saint Basil,
– pray for us.

Saint Martin,
– pray for us.

Saint Benedict,
– pray for us.

Saint Francis and Saint Dominic,
– pray for us.

Saint Francis Xavier,
– pray for us.

Saint John Vianney,
– pray for us.

Saint Catherine of Siena,
– pray for us.

Saint Teresa of Jesus,
– pray for us.

All holy men and women, Saints of God,
– pray for us.

Lord, be merciful:
– Lord, deliver us, we pray.

From all evil,
– Lord, deliver us, we pray.

From every sin,
– Lord, deliver us, we pray.

From everlasting death,
– Lord, deliver us, we pray.

By your Incarnation,
– Lord, deliver us, we pray.

By your Death and Resurrection,
– Lord, deliver us, we pray.

By the out-pouring of the Holy Spirit,
– Lord, deliver us, we pray.

Be merciful to us sinners:
– Lord, we ask you to hear our prayer.

If there are candidates to be baptized:
Bring these chosen ones to new birth through the grace of Baptism:
– Lord, we ask you, hear our prayer.

If there is no one to be baptized:
Make this font holy by your grace for the new birth of your children:
– Lord, we ask you, hear our prayer.

Jesus, Son of the living God,
– Lord, we ask you, hear our prayer.

Christ, hear us.
– Christ, hear us.

Christ, graciously hear us.
– Christ, graciously hear us.

If there are candidates to be baptized, the Priest, with hands extended, says the following prayer:

Almighty, ever-living God,
be present by the mysteries of your great love
and send forth the spirit of adoption
to create the new peoples
brought to birth for you in the font of Baptism,
so that what is to be carried out by our humble service
may be brought to fulfilment by your mighty power.
Through Christ our Lord.
Amen.

The Blessing of Water
The Priest then blesses the baptismal water, saying the following prayer with hands extended:

O God, who by invisible power
accomplish a wondrous effect
through sacramental signs
and who in many ways have prepared water, your creation,
to show forth the grace of Baptism;

O God, whose Spirit
in the first moments of the world’s creation
hovered over the waters,
so that the very substance of water
would even then take to itself the power to sanctify;

O God, who by the outpouring of the flood
foreshadowed regeneration,
so that from the mystery of one and the same element of water
would come an end to vice and a beginning of virtue;

O God, who caused the children of Abraham
to pass dry-shod through the Red Sea,
so that the chosen people,
set free from slavery to Pharaoh,
would prefigure the people of the baptized;

O God, whose Son,
baptized by John in the waters of the Jordan,
was anointed with the Holy Spirit,
and, as he hung upon the Cross,
gave forth water from his side along with blood,
and after his Resurrection, commanded his disciples:
“Go forth, teach all nations, baptizing them
in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit,”
look now, we pray, upon the face of your Church
and graciously unseal for her the fountain of Baptism.

May this water receive by the Holy Spirit
the grace of your Only Begotten Son,
so that human nature, created in your image
and washed clean through the Sacrament of Baptism
from all the squalor of the life of old,
may be found worthy to rise to the life of newborn children
through water and the Holy Spirit.

If appropriate, he lowers the paschal candle into the water either once or three times as he continues:

May the power of the Holy Spirit,
O Lord, we pray,
come down through your Son
into the fullness of this font,

Holding the candle in the water, he continues:

so that all who have been buried with Christ
by Baptism into death
may rise again to life with him.
Who lives and reigns with you in the unity of the Holy Spirit,
one God, for ever and ever.
Amen.

Then the candle is lifted out of the water, as the people acclaim:

Springs of water, bless the Lord;
praise and exalt him above all for ever.

After the blessing of baptismal water and the acclamation of the people, the baptism or baptisms take place.


The Renewal of Baptismal Promises

All stand, holding lighted candles in their hands, and renew the promise of baptismal faith, unless this has already been done together with those to be baptized.
The Priest addresses the faithful in these or similar words:

Dear brethren (brothers and sisters), through the Paschal Mystery
we have been buried with Christ in Baptism,
so that we may walk with him in newness of life.
And so, now that our Lenten observance is concluded,
let us renew the promises of Holy Baptism,
by which we once renounced Satan and his works
and promised to serve God in the holy catholic Church.
And so I ask you:

Do you renounce Satan?
I do.
And all his works?
I do.
And all his empty show?
I do.

Or:

Do you renounce sin,
so as to live in the freedom of the children of God?
I do.
Do you renounce the lure of evil,
so that sin may have no mastery over you?
I do.
Do you renounce Satan,
the author and prince of sin?
I do.

Then the Priest continues:

Do you believe in God,
the Father almighty,
Creator of heaven and earth?
I do.
Do you believe in Jesus Christ, his only Son, our Lord,
who was born of the Virgin Mary,
suffered death and was buried,
rose again from the dead
and is seated at the right hand of the Father?
I do.
Do you believe in the Holy Spirit,
the holy catholic Church,
the communion of saints,
the forgiveness of sins,
the resurrection of the body,
and life everlasting?
I do.

And may almighty God, the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ,
who has given us new birth by water and the Holy Spirit
and bestowed on us forgiveness of our sins,
keep us by his grace,
in Christ Jesus our Lord,
for eternal life.
Amen.

The Priest sprinkles the people with the blessed water, while all sing:

I saw water flowing from the Temple,
from its right-hand side, alleluia;
and all to whom this water came were saved
and shall say: Alleluia, alleluia.

Another chant that is baptismal in character may also be sung.

 

[Strong in Him]

One cannot answer for how you choose to interpret what wasn't said.

And if it hadn't even been implied - with the words "Protestant" and "ridicule" - then it wouldn't even have occurred to me.

But no matter.

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

no matter.

amen.

 

[BobRyan]

Yes, because some do, as in the case of Jack Chick. He is, of course, not alone in his anti-Catholicism.

Almost all Protesting Catholic scholars and priests who started the Protestant reformation found "some flaw" in Catholic teaching - but were not "anti-Catholic" - they simply wanted reforms at the start of it.

All Protestant groups today and also Orthodox churches - find at at least one doctrine in the Roman Catholic church to contain doctrinal error - but that does not make them 'anti-Catholic' or else all churches are then "anti-every-other-church" where they have at least one doctrinal difference. That kind of rhetoric makes the Catholic Church "anti-everyone-else"

It is not a very useful term and misleads the reader a bit.

 

[BobRyan]

If your interpretation were accurate, it would mean our Lord was a very poor communicator given how most of his disciples abandoned him

If the solution of "blaming Christ" were valid for each time that someone rejected His teaching then we would have a big problem just as you suggest.

I don't think that works as any sort of "solution".

As it happens the argument you are conveying rests on eisegesis

Totally false speculation in your statement above.

It is transparently obvious that you limit your post to nothing more substantive than pejoratives and denunciation rather than addressing a single detail that was highlighted for you in John 6.

John 6 uses that very (symbolism for bread and flesh) - and neither the faithful followers of Christ nor the faithless ones in John 6 bite Christ

It is an observed detail IN the chapter rather than a "joke" in the chapter.

In that very chapter Christ "eating literal flesh is worthless"

John 6:
For this is the will of My Father, that everyone who sees the Son and believes in Him will have eternal life, and I Myself will raise him up on the last day.”

51 I am the living bread that came down out of heaven; if anyone eats from this bread, he will live forever; and the bread which I will give for the life of the world also is My flesh.”

.... 58 This is the bread that came down out of heaven, not as the fathers ate and died; the one who eats this bread will live forever.”​

​

note: "The details"​

​

-- Christ uses the symbolism of bread coming down out of heaven - in fact bread that ALREADY came down out of heaven. Which is using the symbol of manna - and using Christ in the symbol of bread - nobody thinks those in John 6 were seeing literal bread falling down out of heaven - obviously.​

​

-- Christ said the real literal way gaining eternal life - is to "believe IN Him" - rather than to claim you see literal bread falling out of heaven.​

But pointing to these "inconvenient details" is not "a joke - simply because it is a detail one may wish to ignore"

62 What then if you see the Son of Man ascending to where He was before? 63 It is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh provides no benefit; the WORDS that I have spoken to you are spirit, and are life. 64 But there are some of you who do not believe.”​

​

Here Jesus points again to 'His WORDS' that are the source of life - they are SPIRIT and are LIFE -- and the "Spirit gives LIFE"

Jesus then goes pointedly to the 12 saying this

​

67 So Jesus said to the twelve, “You do not want to leave also, do you?” 68 Simon Peter answered Him, “Lord, to whom shall we go? You have WORDS of eternal life. 69 And we have already believed and have come to know that You are the Holy One of God.”​

Peter (who also is not stated to be literally biting Christ as if literally eating Christ is the point of the teaching) admits to getting the point - that Jesus is talking about His WORDS as the source of life. and that simply eating literal flesh is not the real subject of His teaching.

NOTICING these "details" in the text is not "a joke because those details are inconvenient to a given POV" - rather they are the actual details IN the text.

My post ends with -

"NOTICING these "details" in the text is not "a joke because those details are inconvenient to a given POV" - rather they are the actual details IN the text."​

Not one of those details addressed in the post(s) that merely skims over all of it and settles for a few pejoratives as its substance.

Are Bible details really of so little consequence in your POV as you respond to my post about John 6 and the details highlighted for you?

Or are you saying we were simply "not supposed to notice"??

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

Almost all Protesting Catholic scholars and priests who started the Protestant reformation found "some flaw" in Catholic teaching - but were not "anti-Catholic" - they simply wanted reforms at the start of it.

And you have this insight into their mental state from what sources?

All Protestant groups today and also Orthodox churches - find at at least one doctrine in the Roman Catholic church to contain doctrinal error - but that does not make them 'anti-Catholic' or else all churches are then "anti-every-other-church" where they have at least one doctrinal difference. That kind of rhetoric makes the Catholic Church "anti-everyone-else"

Did someone in this thread claim that disagreeing with any Catholic teaching made a church or a person anti-Catholic? No? So, isn't this claim just an irrelevance?

It is not a very useful term and misleads the reader a bit.

The muddied waters that your post creates is what misleads readers.

 

[Jipsah]

sounds like you have an rather odd business venture going

Simply an example of the sort of rubbish that's dispensed by folks rabidly opposed to the idea of the actual presence of our Lord's Body and Blood in the Eucharist.

 

[Jipsah]

If the solution of "blaming Christ" were valid for each time that someone rejected His teaching then we would have a big problem just as you suggest.

"Blaming Christ" for saying things that people were unwilling to receive? What nonsense! His hearers were, and are, generally unwilling to accept that our Lord meant what He said, so that they either reject it out of hand, or try to find some way to make it more digestible. So they engage in exegetical gymnastics to prove that He really meant something other than what He said (ever the hallmark of those defending dubious doctrinal positions). In addition, they either mock those who take Him at His word (Nobody bit Jesus, hahaha), or attack them as evil people (death cookies), and appeal to the conventional wisdom by saying that Everybody Knows that He couldn't possibly have meant what He said).

The fact is that if anyone is "Blaming Christ", it's those who claim that our Lord really meant everything but the words He spoke, but just couldn't manage to get His audience to grasp it. That obviously doesn't include those of us who believe He said precisely what He meant as plainly as anything was ever spoken. What blame is there when He speaks the truth, and that truth is rejected? Not on Him, certainly. If there's any blame to be assigned, it falls on those who stuff their fingers in their ears and shout "No!"
.

It is transparently obvious that you limit your post to nothing more substantive than pejoratives and denunciation rather than addressing a single detail that was highlighted for you in John 6.

Your exercise in Scriptural prestidigitation was interesting, but still left us with what He actually said, and it's futile trying to exegete you way out of it. Our Lord meant what He said or He did not. I say He did. You say He did not. Pick one and run with it.

And FWIW, you'd be better served to leave off crude jests invoving our Lord. They're neither persuasive nor entertaining; very much the opposite, in fact.

Are Bible details really of so little consequence in your POV as you respond to my post about John 6 and the details highlighted for you?

Or are you saying we were simply "not supposed to notice"??

Your kludged together "explanation" missed its mark rather badly. Were we expected not to see it for the ad hoc construct that it was?

 

[ReuleauxMan]

The Eucharist... One word: vore.

How wonderful it is to be consumed and lose one's entire self for the wellbeing of another, insofar as one does for a good agenda, within the beautiful digestive system of a beautiful creature (that is as God says is good or glorified), churning and gurgling away at rapid pace as it and the individual relishes in nourishment paradoxically at the loss of another or other life; the ultimate sacrifice as it is ultimate annihilation. It is something almost everyone takes for granted three times a day every day. The idea seems scary to many people but here is the thing: for any vorarephile, the ultimate experience may be just that, to be as one does three times a day every day for their entire lives - an act of immense love and self-sacrifice yet having to cope with the natural sacrificial nature of thousands and thousands of things having to die for just one (human) life to live through the best way the mind can make sense of it: sexual appetite or in its scripturally-identified perverted form possibly, lust.

Yet Christ has no lust as lust is sin; He makes the ultimate sacrifice for all of us as the death of his self through the ultimate destruction of the soul - insults, swords, guns, bombs, fire, etc. leaves something in its wake of the individual, but to be fully consumed all of one's substance becomes a part of another, wherein there is none of the original consumed left. How can the mind comprehend such an absolute state of nothingness, because there is no self left but the other afterwards; still in yet for the good it is far different and hopefully far more pleasurable than the other option of absolute death, the lake of fire. Think of it this way; you are what you eat, yet no matter what or how much one eats, the firewall of individuality remains such that we are not an amalgamation of what we eat but ourselves; what is eaten is utterly destroyed insofar as it is incorporated into another because it becomes something else - that other in-dividual (i.e. that which cannot be divided; which is ironic given the divisionary nature of digestion; digestion divides (and conquers/destroys)).

What a poetic motif, that something so mundane and "simple" could be a reference for the ultimate - eating (three times a day, where most everyone sees food as just fuel rather than essence of another being). Yet, at the same time, though Christ be consumed, it is just a bite or so of Himself, but it can certainly be argued that as powerful, omniscient, and omnipotent as God is, a bite out of himself would register likewise as were someone to be consumed, but profoundly more perhaps; still and yet it can be argued that by this mode, Christ could never experience the ultimate experience of vore, because He Himself is the ultimate and cannot be fully consumed - a sacrifice in itself as the Character of God may be revealed as self-sacrifice as something God cannot do or experience fully (in its ultimate) for all time (since He Himself is the ultimate, that necessitates some things God as infinite cannot do as limited creatures can).

So, is the Eucharist or partaking of Christ in the flesh (in the afterlife) cannibalism? If it is mythologically (as many things pertaining to the (human) individual are poetically and symbolically captured) related, then yes and no. Whether it be the Eucharist or the real McCoy, everlastling life comes by being granted the priviledge of and eating God. The non-divine is partaking of the divine (in human form yet of different substance) to become glorified - the most esteemed honor and rite of passage for everlasting life. The fallen human being partaking of the divine, God, to incorporate into oneself the nature of the divine to such an extent that one's fallen nature is annihiliated, forgotten as far as the east is from the west.

Edit: I hope putting this in this light is not violating any NSFW rules; I tried to keep it on-topic and philosophical as possible.

 

[BobRyan]

BobRyan said:

Almost all Protesting Catholic scholars and priests who started the Protestant reformation found "some flaw" in Catholic teaching - but were not "anti-Catholic" - they simply wanted reforms at the start of it.

And you have this insight into their mental state from what sources?

Reading what they actually wrote.

 

[BobRyan]

If your interpretation were accurate, it would mean our Lord was a very poor communicator given how most of his disciples abandoned him

If the solution of "blaming Christ" were valid for each time that someone rejected His teaching then we would have a big problem just as you suggest.

I don't think that works as any sort of "solution".

"Blaming Christ" for saying things that people were unwilling to receive? What nonsense! His hearers were, and are, generally unwilling to accept that our Lord meant what He said, so that they either reject it out of hand, or try to find some way to make it more digestible. So they engage in exegetical gymnastics to prove that He really meant something other than what He said

Your lack of attention to detail in this discussion about John 6 details - is astounding. Neither the faithFUL listeners NOR the faithLESS listeners in John 6 bite Christ and Christ also does not say "some day in the FUTURE you must eat My flesh".

You are ignoring every detail present so far.

nice.

As it happens the argument you are conveying rests on eisegesis

Totally false speculation in your statement above.

It is transparently obvious that you limit your post to nothing more substantive than pejoratives and denunciation rather than addressing a single detail that was highlighted for you in John 6.

John 6 uses that very (symbolism for bread and flesh) - and neither the faithful followers of Christ nor the faithless ones in John 6 bite Christ

It is an observed detail IN the chapter rather than a "joke" in the chapter.

In that very chapter Christ "eating literal flesh is worthless"

John 6:
For this is the will of My Father, that everyone who sees the Son and believes in Him will have eternal life, and I Myself will raise him up on the last day.”

51 I am the living bread that came down out of heaven; if anyone eats from this bread, he will live forever; and the bread which I will give for the life of the world also is My flesh.”

.... 58 This is the bread that came down out of heaven, not as the fathers ate and died; the one who eats this bread will live forever.”​

​

note: "The details"​

​

-- Christ uses the symbolism of bread coming down out of heaven - in fact bread that ALREADY came down out of heaven. Which is using the symbol of manna - and using Christ in the symbol of bread - nobody thinks those in John 6 were seeing literal bread falling down out of heaven - obviously.​

​

-- Christ said the real literal way gaining eternal life - is to "believe IN Him" - rather than to claim you see literal bread falling out of heaven.​

But pointing to these "inconvenient details" is not "a joke - simply because it is a detail one may wish to ignore"

62 What then if you see the Son of Man ascending to where He was before? 63 It is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh provides no benefit; the WORDS that I have spoken to you are spirit, and are life. 64 But there are some of you who do not believe.”​

​

Here Jesus points again to 'His WORDS' that are the source of life - they are SPIRIT and are LIFE -- and the "Spirit gives LIFE"

Jesus then goes pointedly to the 12 saying this

​

67 So Jesus said to the twelve, “You do not want to leave also, do you?” 68 Simon Peter answered Him, “Lord, to whom shall we go? You have WORDS of eternal life. 69 And we have already believed and have come to know that You are the Holy One of God.”​

Peter (who also is not stated to be literally biting Christ as if literally eating Christ is the point of the teaching) admits to getting the point - that Jesus is talking about His WORDS as the source of life. and that simply eating literal flesh is not the real subject of His teaching.

NOTICING these "details" in the text is not "a joke because those details are inconvenient to a given POV" - rather they are the actual details IN the text.

My post ends with -

"NOTICING these "details" in the text is not "a joke because those details are inconvenient to a given POV" - rather they are the actual details IN the text."​

Not one of those details addressed in the post(s) that merely skims over all of it and settles for a few pejoratives as its substance.

Are Bible details really of so little consequence in your POV as you respond to my post about John 6 and the details highlighted for you?

Or are you saying we were simply "not supposed to notice"??

The fact is that if anyone is "Blaming Christ", it's those who claim that our Lord really meant everything but the words He spoke,

So far you have managed to ignore every single word He spoke as quoted in the post.

how "instructive" for the unbiased objective readers

 

[saurab]

transubstantiation does not happen for everyone but for the few who are good people. for others it is a meaningless ritual. you cant cheat God or Jesus with rituals. A good heart must be behind the ritual. Then transubstantiation does indeed happen. Also the symbolism of "drink my blood and eat my flesh" really means to take up your cross like Jesus did and suffer like him.

 

[Jipsah]

If the solution of "blaming Christ" were valid for each time that someone rejected His teaching then we would have a big problem just as you suggest.

"Blaming Christ". The only one here who can be even remotely be said to be "blaming Christ" here would be you. After all, you're taking the opinion that just about all our Lord's hearers grossly misunderstood Him, which might lead one to believe that He hadn't made Himself sufficiently clear.

On the other hand Those of us who believe that He meant precisely what He said have no such problem. His audience did in fact understand Him, and rejected what He said. That's still a typical response today: "Oh, He can't possibly have meant what He said!" (Some even make that rejection of what our Lord said into a lame joke. I'm sure you've heard it.)

I don't think that works as any sort of "solution".

Solution to what? Our Lord meant what He said, end of. What's there to "solve"?

Your lack of attention to detail in this discussion about John 6 details - is astounding.

You mean we failed to buy your attempt to "explain away" what our Lord said? Sorry. a bit too transparent.

So far you have managed to ignore every single word He spoke as quoted in the post.

Here's some Scripture you prefer to ignore:

27 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 how do you reckon that works? It's just a nibble of sourdough bread and a sip of Welchade, right?

28 But let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of that bread, and drink of that cup.
29 For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh damnation to himself, not discerning the Lord's body.

Now how can anyone discern the Lord's Body when it was never really there?

Tell us what that really means, OK?

 

[Jipsah]

Edit: I hope putting this in this light is not violating any NSFW rules; I tried to keep it on-topic and philosophical as possible.

Philosophical, yeah.

 

[Markie Boy]

At a bare minimum we all agree that communion is a symbol, done in memory of Him. The question is then how much more is it than that?

Some would say there is a spiritual presence.

Some would say real presence, without tight definition.

Some would say literal body and blood - transubstantiation.

I can't affirm transubstantiation for this reason. Catholics claim it's a miracle - it turns into literal body and blood, yet looks and literally still is bread, even under a microscope or lab analysis.

Here is the problem - every single miracle God ever did, was physically verifiable, and that was the whole purpose of a miracle - to physically show God's power and that he's not bound by laws of nature. This would be the only miracle God ever did that was not visually verifiable.

If one wanted to try and use Eucharistic miracles I don't think it helps. Jesus did not heal people, and most of the time you could not tell. If it's a miracle on every altar all the time - it's almost never physically verifiable. It's just too different from All the recorded miracles of Scripture.

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

At a bare minimum we all agree that communion is a symbol, done in memory of Him.

I do not agree with that claim.

 

[The Liturgist]

I do not agree with that claim.

Nor I. The Eucharist is in no respect a symbol. The idea presented by @Markie Boy I would call an “Onion Model”, in which we are expected to peel away Transubstantiation, the Lutheran real presence doctrine, the Calvinist spiritual presence-receptionist doctrine and get to a universal core of symbolism, which is supposed to be the lowest common denominator.

This model, I respectfully submit, is fallacious, because there exist no categories in which a fully-featured belief in transubstantiation shares any essential underlying characteristics with Zwinglianism or Memorialism. Rather than being simplified subsets of transubstantiation, I would offer a considered opinion, based on my own survey of the major works of Eucharistic theology and liturgiology, that Zwinglianism and Memorialism are completely different concepts, which are entirely foreign to the Real Presence doctrines of the Orthodox, Roman Catholics, Lutherans, Assyrians, etc, such as the Scholastic/Thomistic RCC doctrine of transubstantion.