Hey everyone. I have asked this before and received an answer but I don’t know where that thread is and I need to refresh my memory. Why is receiving the Eucharist not cannibalism?
A better question… what makes you think it IS cannibalism?
Cannibalism is eating the meat of a dead person. We aren’t eating Christ in the form of meat but of bread. What’s more Christ isn’t dead, He is Alive.
Start by asking yourself, what EXACTLY is bad about cannibalism?
Because, like at the last supper, when we eat the Eucharist, Christ is present with us.
And we do not eat the Eucharist for the benefit of our tummy, but for our Resurection in Christ.
Actually we do not “eat”, we are “receiving” as you formulate the question.
I would like to ask, as by Transubstantiation, The Body and Blood of Christ is in the Eucharist.
What happens with the Eucharist in our body?
Church teaching is that when it no longer has the appearances of bread and wine, the Real Presence no longer exists. So no, Our Lord does not end up in the toilet.
Similar to how ‘manna’ nourished the Israelites during their 40years in the desert, the Eucharist nourishes us while we wander the spiritual wilderness that exists in todays world.
I don’t think it is cannibalism. I asked the question so I could better answer those who claim it is.
OK, so you don’t think it is cannibalism. What characteristics of the Eucharist lead you to that conclusion? Seems you may already know the answer. I’m trying to help you think through it and put it in your own words.
Huh? Last I checked, Matthew 26:26 says “Take this and EAT it . . .”
Well, the Eucharist is not bloody and that’s about the only thing I can think of.
Well, here are some differences:
1.) Cannibalism does physical damage human flesh. In the Eucharist, Christ’s flesh is not physically damaged.
2.) Cannibalism depletes a human body of its flesh and blood. In the Eucharist, Christ’s flesh and blood are not depleted.
3a.) Cannibalism involves eating another man’s body and blood in the form of flesh and blood. In the Eucharist, we eat the body and blood of Christ in the form of bread and wine.
3b.) Cannibalism causes one’s physical body to receive nourishment from the human flesh and blood. In the Eucharist, one’s physical body receives the physical nourishment of bread and wine.
Ask them if a mother breast-feeding her newborn is cannibalism. After all, the baby is eating/drinking a part of the mother’s body.
One could just as well ask them why being washed in the blood of Christ (a favorite phrase in many Protestant circles) is not the height of barbarism.
If you go to John 6 (in Greek), you’d see Jesus actually saying that “he who munches on my flesh…”
Consuming the Eucharist is no more cannibalism than is the one-flesh nuptial union in marriage and in the even more intimate conjugal union. Cannibalism is a self-centered and unilateral action. There is no desire for a UNION in love on either part. As was said in a previous post, one being is enriched at the expense of the other being. Cannibalism is practiced by those who wish to gain power by consuming the other.
In Baptism, we become living stones built into the Temple (cf. 1 Pt. 2:5), which is Jesus’ body. The Eucharist is the spiritual dimension of the most intimate union that occurs in the conjugal embrace; an embrace that both beings are desiring.
Actually, any Christian asserting cannibalism regarding the Eucharist is denying some VERY fundamental Christian beliefs, because either
a) Christ is helpless to prevent the priest from “dragging” him out of heaven to be the cannibalistic victim (denies God’s omnipotence, or perhaps that Jesus is risen from the dead),
b) Christ is a willing and direct participant in evil (denies God’s perfect goodness)
So can we have a big :eek::eek: for any Christian making these charges?!