Transubstantiation

This has probably been asked numerous times on this forum already, but I don’t have the patience to look now. I might also simply want to get my post count up a bit. In any case, the Church teaches of transubstantiation, that the bread and wine literally becomes the Precious Body and Precious Blood. Has anybody on here ever been asked how this is different from cannibalism? What do you say to them?

MYSTERIUM FIDEI
ENCYCLICAL OF POPE PAUL VI ON THE HOLY EUCHARIST
SEPTEMBER 3, 1965

CHRIST PRESENT IN THE EUCHARIST THROUGH TRANSUBSTANTIATION

  1. To avoid any misunderstanding of this type of presence, which goes beyond the laws of nature and constitutes the greatest miracle of its kind, (50) we have to listen with docility to the voice of the teaching and praying Church. Her voice, which constantly echoes the voice of Christ, assures us that the way in which Christ becomes present in this Sacrament is through the conversion of the whole substance of the bread into His body and of the whole substance of the wine into His blood, a unique and truly wonderful conversion that the Catholic Church fittingly and properly calls transubstantiation. (51) As a result of transubstantiation, the species of bread and wine undoubtedly take on a new signification and a new finality, for they are no longer ordinary bread and wine but instead a sign of something sacred and a sign of spiritual food; but they take on this new signification, this new finality, precisely because they contain a new “reality” which we can rightly call ontological. For what now lies beneath the aforementioned species is not what was there before, but something completely different; and not just in the estimation of Church belief but in reality, since once the substance or nature of the bread and wine has been changed into the body and blood of Christ, nothing remains of the bread and the wine except for the species—beneath which Christ is present whole and entire in His physical “reality,” corporeally present, although not in the manner in which bodies are in a place.

w2.vatican.va/content/paul-vi/en/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-vi_enc_03091965_mysterium.html

[catholic.com/magazine/online-edition/are-catholics-cannibals](https://www.catholic.com/magazine/online-edition/are-catholics-cannibals)

God Bless

I’ve had it explain to me on account of Him coming under the appearance of bread and wine, which are things that one eats and drinks. Should a Eucharistic miracle happen and there is now flesh and blood instead of the appearance of bread and wine you shouldn’t consume it.

This one. This is the link I use to explain this to people because it breaks it down into an easy to understand explanation that most people can grasp.

[LIST]
*]In cannibalism you are eating a dead person.
*]In cannibalism the body you are eating is consumed and no longer exists
*]In cannibalism you are feeding on a dead human body to nourish another human body (even though it may be symbolic to certain cannibalistic tribes)
[/LIST]

In the Eucharist
[LIST]
*]We are eating the spiritual body and blood of Jesus Christ, who has a living glorified body in Heaven.
*]The physical appearance of bread and wine are the transubstantiated body and blood of Jesus, which nourishes the Soul (foremost) and the body as well.
*]Jesus told the Jews that the body profits nothing, but it is the Spirit that is Life.
[/LIST]

The similarities are purely superficial, not real. That is why to the carnal Jews, there was no distinction. The Spirit had no meaning for them.

A Protestant friend of mine and I talked about this a few years ago. She mentioned, in the New Testament, it’s a sin to consume blood, so any trans. that might actually occur would be the work of Satan.

On a basic, profane level, cannibalism is taking, whereas the Eucharist is receiving. We are commanded against harming other humans, but also commanded by our Lord to “take, eat…”

Those who make specious claims of cannibalism reveal only their ignorance of Christianity.

where?

Acts 15:20. But the blood referred to in Acts is both blood in accidents and substance, which is different than the Blood of Christ is is really His Blood but under the appearance of the accidents of wine and bread.

Big difference.

the decree from the Council of Jerusalem was discoplinary

catholic.com/video/how-is-the-eucharist-not-cannibalism

catholic.com/magazine/online-edition/are-catholics-cannibals

Cannibalism involves the tearing apart of the flesh of another human being, eating a part at a time. The Eucharist involves receiving and consuming the body and blood, soul and divinity, of Jesus in his entirety. We cannot hurt him, we cannot separate just a part of him. We receive him whole and entire. If the communion host is broken in two or more parts, each part contains Jesus in his entirety. We receive, not a little piece of him, but all of him, undivided, whole and entire.

I dont t h ink that devree is still in forve in the West. For latin rite at least.Though the eastern part of the Church does follow it still. The decree was disiplinary

Do you mean a decree not to consume blood, or something else?

decree to not eat blood

Ah, yes.

Acts 15:20 But that we write to them, that they refrain themselves from the pollutions of idols, and from fornication, and from things strangled, and from blood.

Acts 15:29 That you abstain from things sacrificed to idols, and from blood, and from things strangled, and from fornication: from which things keeping yourselves, you shall do well. Fare ye well.

Haydock Commentary on Acts 15:20, 29Ver. 20. Things strangled and from blood.

In these prohibitions, the Church indulged the particular feelings of the Jews, that the bond of union between them and the Gentiles might be more closely united; the latter in these two instances giving way to the prejudices of the former, who in their turn gave up much, by submitting to the abolition of the ceremonial law of Moses. This prohibition was of course only temporary, and to cease with the reasons, which gave rise to it. (Menochius)

— The Jews had such a horror of blood, that they considered those who eat it as defiled, and violators of the law of nature. The Lord had in effect from the beginning forbidden the use of blood to Noe [Noah], (Genesis ix. 4.) which he likewise reported in the strongest terms in Leviticus viii. 26.[vii. 26.?] By this we see the great authority of God’s Church, and Councils which may make permanent or temporary decrees, such as are fitting for the state of the times or peoples, without any express Scripture at all, and by this authoritative exaction, things become of strict obligation, which previous to it, were in themselves indifferent. (Bristow)

Ver. 29. From blood, and from things strangled.

The use of these things, though of their own nature indifferent, were here prohibited, to bring the Jews more easily to admit of the society of the Gentiles; and to exercise the latter in obedience. But this prohibition was but temporary, and has long since ceased to oblige; more especially in the western churches. (Challoner) — See note on ver. 20, above.

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.