Does The Roman Catholic Eucharist Entail Cannibalism?

• Discussion:

          -Tim Staples of Catholic Answers wrote an article with the intent of addressing the charge of transubstantiation entailing cannibalism. The author provides three lines of reasoning as to why he believes that particular objection to be invalid, which are being examined here. His words are cited in bold and followed by a critique:

         "First, Catholics do not receive our Lord in a cannibalistic form. Catholics receive him in the form of bread and wine. The cannibal kills his victim; Jesus does not die when he is consumed in Communion. Indeed, he is not changed in the slightest; the communicant is the only person who is changed. The cannibal eats part of his victim, whereas in Communion the entire Christ is consumed—body, blood, soul, and divinity. The cannibal sheds the blood of his victim; in Communion our Lord gives himself to us in a non-bloody way."

          The Roman Catholic Eucharist does indeed imply cannibalism, since it includes literally consuming the human flesh of Jesus Christ. Eating only part of a victim does not remedy this dilemma. A cannibal does not cease to qualify fitting under that label just because he has eaten a whole victim or does so in a different manner.

          How can one consume blood in a non-bloody fashion? How can one eat soul and divinity when chewing is a physical process?

          "Second, if it were truly immoral in any sense for Christ to give us his flesh and blood to eat, it would be contrary to his holiness to command anyone to eat his body and blood—even symbolically. Symbolically performing an immoral act would be of its nature immoral."

          The usage of symbolism does not suggest as a logical consequence a literal understanding or act practiced. Jesus Christ is our source of spiritual life. We partake of Him by trusting in His work on a continual basis. He is not life to us because we literally eat His flesh and drink His blood.

          How come the inspired writers of the New Testament never clarified that the eucharist was not cannibalism?

          "Moreover, the expressions to eat flesh and to drink blood already carried symbolic meaning both in the Hebrew Old Testament and in the Greek New Testament, which was heavily influenced by Hebrew. In Psalm 27:1-2, Isaiah 9:18-20, Isaiah 49:26, Micah 3:3, and Revelation 17:6-16, we find these words (eating flesh and drinking blood) understood as symbolic for persecuting or assaulting someone. Jesus’ Jewish audience would never have thought he was saying, “Unless you persecute and assault me, you shall not have life in you.” Jesus never encouraged sin. This may well be another reason why the Jews took Christ at his word."

           Just because a figurative expression has a negative connotation in various contexts, it does not follow such always has that same meaning or intention in every occurrence. There is nothing ruling out the possibility of more neutral or positive usages of eating flesh or drinking blood in a symbolic sense. For example, Psalm 23:5 uses imagery of a table being prepared before enemies to signify God's provision, even in the midst of adversaries. Psalm 119:103 describes the words of God as "sweeter than honey" to one's mouth, giving praise to God for His wisdom. Further, there is no substantive reason to believe that the Jews may have taken "Christ at His word" because it seemed He was encouraging the practice of sin. In fact, His metaphor was more an invitation to be reconciled to God, which is a positive message.

          If transubstantiation is true, then the consecrated elements should taste like human flesh and blood. However, the communion elements taste just like bread and wine, even after consecration by the priest. There is something fundamentally wrong with a proposition which tells us that things are not consistent with the reality of our surroundings. If transubstantiation is true, then that would mean the full human body of Christ is literally inside the stomachs of partakers during the liturgical service. Even getting His entire body into our mouths at one time would be an impossibility. These conclusions are nonsense, as our digestive system would be holding far beyond its natural capacity. Jesus Christ has a material body, just as we all do. That means His body and blood would have been consumed a long time ago. They would have been all eaten up two thousand years ago, making such in future generations a logical impossibility! Nothing is sacrificed during the Mass except one's own common sense.