Thursday, June 20, 2019

The Book Of Wisdom And Roman Catholic Eucharist

  • Discussion:
          -Following is a text from the Roman Catholic apocrypha which is seemingly problematic for Catholic Eucharist theology:

          "For truly, the ancient inhabitants of your holy land, whom you hated for deeds most odious-Works of witchcraft and impious sacrifices; a cannibal feast of human flesh and of blood, from the midst of...-These merciless murderers of children, and parents who took with their own hands defenseless lives, You willed to destroy by the hands of our fathers, that the land that is dearest of all to you might receive a worthy colony of God's children." (Wisdom 12:3-7)

          Apologists for the Church of Rome can protest the accusation of cannibalism as much as they desire, resorting to substance and accidents Aristotelian philosophy. All intellectual sophistry aside, the point is that Roman Catholicism teaches Christians are to eat the literal flesh and drink the literal blood of Jesus Christ. Moreover, the denial of transubstantiation entailing cannibalism is rendered implausible as one considers the vivid and keen descriptions of this dogma provided by sources such as the New Advent Catholic Encyclopedia:

          "First of all the whole structure of the discourse of promise demands a literal interpretation of the words: "eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood" can be none other than His true Flesh and Blood, to be really eaten and drunk in Holy Communion. This is why Christ was so ready to use the realistic expression "to chew" (John 6:54, 56, 58: trogein) when speaking of this, His Bread of Life, in addition to the phrase, "to eat" (John 6:51, 53: phagein)...The impossibility of a figurative interpretation is brought home more forcibly by an analysis of the following text: "Except you eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, you shall not have life in you. He that eateth my flesh and drinketh my blood, hath everlasting life: and I will raise him up in the last day. For my flesh is meat indeed: and my blood is drink indeed" (John 6:54-56)...Consequently, eating and drinking are to be understood of the actual partaking of Christ in person, hence literally."

          Nonetheless, the author of Wisdom utterly shuns this kind of consumption (eating human flesh and drinking human blood) as a heinous crime against God and humanity. He spoke in the context of the ancient pagan world. He would have known the Law which condemned the consumption of "any" and "all" blood (Leviticus 17:10-14). Of course, God the Father does not want us eating the flesh of other human beings or even that of Jesus Christ. The truths that Jesus communicated during the Bread of Life discourse and Last Supper are to be understood figuratively.

          The Lord Jesus Christ is no longer present on earth in the flesh, much less appearing in multiple places in that manner at the same time. It is highly illogical for Roman Catholics to make the claim of beholding Christ as the Eucharist. The ancient Jews never could have conceived of such brazenly barbaric nonsense as that of transubstantiation.


  1. I suppose none of the Roman Catholic apologists and/or Magistrates realize that keeping the Book of Wisdom as part of the OT Canon would blow up the transubstantiation doctrine in their faces.

  2. I don’t see how those Aristotelian arguments can just be thrown out. The bread as the form of Jesus’s body and wine, the blood. The physicality is obviously not human flesh as we generally think of it. Yet it has taken the form of Jesus and has receive actually being that it is incarnate. It is extremely difficult to see it has on par with eating a cooked human arm.
    It also should be noted that the vivid descriptions of the dogma are quotations of Jesus himself. It would seem rather silly for Jesus to say such a blatantly evil thing, so descriptively, so that everyone would misunderstand Him for 1500 years. Especially when He further along clarified what he’s talking about at the last supper. Yes they are his body, and give us a unique chance to have Christ enter us not only spiritually, but at even greater level, physically. For we will be physical beings in heaven. But He does not enter us with the general characteristics of human flesh which would connote cannabilism, but rather in the body of bread and wine. So yes, on a definitive level (and I imply by definition) it is cannibalism, but the writers of Wisdom never foresaw a circumstance like this, and I doubt that the Eucharist would be seen as cannabilism by them, especially if they met Christ.

  3. Talk about Papist delusion!!!

    Jesus NEVER even intimated that the bread and wine were physically his body and blood. Aristotelian argument can certainly be tossed out; philosophy is not necessarily factual, especially Aristotelian navel-gazing.

    Simple common sense says that when Jesus was sitting there he could not at the same time be in the bread and wine. What is blatantly evil is papist nonsense of transubstantiation. I put it on the same level of the fallacy of transgenderism.

  4. Sean,

    I think that the distinction you make between eating ordinary human flesh and eating Christ as the Eucharist is highly artificial. What takes place in both scenarios is the eating of human flesh, which is cannibalism. That is something condemned in Scripture.

    It is telling how you do not actually interact with the article, but instead parrot Catholic assertions which are baseless and beside the point. The excerpt from the New Advent Catholic Encyclopedia makes your defense even flimsier than what it was before.

    Based on what that excerpt says, I cannot help but picture in my mind the organs of Jesus being harvested on a table to be eaten. Disgusting, absolutely disgusting! Your comment is nothing but sophistry designed to get around the obvious implications of transubstantiation.

  5. You touch on an important issue, regarding the Romanist claim that Christ's corporeal body can be in multiple places at the same time. The Romanists confuse the two natures of Christ, attributing to the human nature attributes that belong to the divine nature alone (omnipresence). This being the ancient heresy known as Monophysitism. Which was unequivocally condemned at the Fourth Ecumenical Council of Chalcedon (451 A.D.). The dogmatic definitions of Chalcedon are recognized as normative by most Churches, including the Roman Church.

    The Symbol Of Chalcedon. Oct. 22d, 451:
    We, then, following the holy Fathers, all with one consent, teach men to confess one and the same Son, our Lord Jesus Christ, the same perfect in Godhead and also perfect in manhood; truly God and truly man, of a reasonable [rational] soul and body; consubstantial [coessential] with the Father according to the Godhead, and consubstantial with us according to the Manhood; in all things like unto us, without sin; begotten before all ages of the Father according to the Godhead, and in these latter days, for us and for our salvation, born of the Virgin Mary, the Mother of God, according to the Manhood; one and the same Christ, Son, Lord, Only-begotten, to be acknowledged in two natures, inconfusedly, unchangeably, indivisibly, inseparably; the distinction of natures being by no means taken away by the union, but rather the property of each nature being preserved, and concurring in one Person and one Subsistence, not parted or divided into two persons, but one and the same Son, and only begotten, God the Word, the Lord Jesus Christ, as the prophets from the beginning [have declared] concerning him, and the Lord Jesus Christ himself has taught us, and the Creed of the holy Fathers has handed down to us.
    (Philip Schaff, Creeds of Christendom, Vol. II, III. Symbolum Chalcedonense. The Symbol Of Chalcedon. Oct. 22d, 451).