- 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 charge to be invalid. Each of his arguments are cited in bold and followed with critical commentary:
"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 point remains that Catholics allegedly eat the flesh and drink the blood of Jesus Christ. A cannibal does not cease to qualify fitting under that label just because he eats only part of the victim, has eaten the whole victim, or does so in a different manner. The state of the victim does not change the resemblance of the fundamental act of eating human flesh, which aligns with the broad definition of cannibalism. Furthermore, theological distinctions do not change the physical act of consumption. A more correct answer would be that Catholics are innocent of cannibalism because no such change in the communion elements takes place during the mass.
"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 point remains that Catholics allegedly eat the flesh and drink the blood of Jesus Christ. A cannibal does not cease to qualify fitting under that label just because he eats only part of the victim, has eaten the whole victim, or does so in a different manner. The state of the victim does not change the resemblance of the fundamental act of eating human flesh, which aligns with the broad definition of cannibalism. Furthermore, theological distinctions do not change the physical act of consumption. A more correct answer would be that Catholics are innocent of cannibalism because no such change in the communion elements takes place during the mass.
"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 atonement on a continual basis. He is not life to us because we literally eat His flesh and drink His blood. Moreover, how come the 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 certain 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, His metaphor in John 6 was an invitation to be reconciled to God, which is a positive message.
If transubstantiation is true, then the consecrated elements should taste just like human flesh and blood. However, the communion elements taste just like bread and wine, even after consecration by the parish priest. There is something fundamentally wrong with a proposition which tells us that things are not consistent with the reality of our surroundings. Obviously, Jesus Christ has a better palate for food pairings than we do. Who knew that the Savior was such a gourmet?
Excellent! Gave me lots of chuckles.
ReplyDeleteAnother thing, if the consecrated bread and wine is left open to the element, they will decay. Christ's body never decayed.
Another problem with Transubstantiation is Catholic hypocrisy.
ReplyDeleteWhat I mean is, in light of the Catholic denial that Jesus was speaking figuratively at the Last Supper, I'd bet my eternal soul that not one of them, including the Pope, ever stopped to realize that they DO in fact believe Jesus was speaking figuratively at that time, and I'll prove it.
First of all, the Lord simply said "This is my body" when holding the bread, and "This is my blood" when holding the cup. He nowhere is quoted as saying "This is my body AS WELL as my blood", nor "This is my blood AS WELL as my body"...even though Catholics assert that is exactly what he MEANS. That being so, Catholics will be shocked to find out that they have believed all along in the figure of speech called "synecdoche" (sin-ECK-toe-kee). When someone refers to a PART of something, but actually MEANS the WHOLE of something, this is synecdoche. For example, "check out my new wheels" refers to both the wheels AND all other parts of the car. Likewise, in the Catholic scheme, they think "This is my body" refers to both the body AND his blood, and "This is my blood" refers to the blood AND all other parts of his body. Thus, Catholics show themselves to be hypocrites for accusing Protestants of the very same thing THEY are guilty of (Matt 7:5). They no more think Jesus was speaking in a strictly literal sense than any Protestant does, since they give a figurative meaning to the words of Jesus as well.
At the end of the day, Protestants believe Jesus was using a figure of speech called "metaphor" while instituting the Eucharist, while Catholics believe he was using a figure of speech called "synecdoche" while instituting the Eucharist.
Hello Jesse,
ReplyDeleteIt is interesting that Romanists often define cannibalism in such a way. "The cannibal kills his victim." I have yet to find an English dictionary that defines it as such.
Collins English Dictionary provides the following definitions for cannibalism:
1. The eating of human flesh by another human being.
2. The eating of the flesh of an animal by another animal of its own kind.
3. The ceremonial eating of human flesh or parts of the human body for magical or religious purposes, as to acquire the power or skill of a person recently killed.
4. The act of pecking flesh from a live fowl by a member of the same flock.
Merriam-Webster:
1. The usually ritualistic eating of human flesh by a human being.
2. The eating of the flesh of an animal by another animal of the same kind.
The Encyclopedia Britannica:
1. Cannibalism, also called anthropophagy, eating of human flesh by humans.
The Cambridge Advanced Learner's Dictionary & Thesaurus:
1. The practice of a person who eats human flesh, or the behaviour of an animal that eats others of its own type.
The Oxford Advanced Learner's Dictionary:
1. The practice of eating other people.
2. Among animals, the fact of eating other animals of the same type.