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)

          Now, apologists for the Church of Rome can deny the accusation of cannibalism all they want, 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. In fact, the denial of transubstantiation entailing cannibalism is rendered rather implausible as one considers the vivid and keen descriptions provided by Catholic 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"...it 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 (in the context of the ancient pagan world). Of course, God the Father does not want us eating the flesh of other human beings, including that of God the Son. The truths that Jesus communicated in the Bread of Life discourse are to be understood figuratively.

          Jesus is (in the present tense) sitting at the right hand of the Father (John 16:10; 17:11; Acts 1:8-9; 2 Corinthians 5:16; Colossians 3:1). The Lord Jesus Christ is no longer present on earth in the flesh. Thus, it is highly illogical for Roman Catholics to make the claim of beholding Christ as the Eucharist. He is not coming down from His heavenly throne at the command of some pompous man who proclaims himself to be a priest. Transubstantiation is a false doctrine.

3 comments:

  1. It was taboo among the Jews to drink the blood of any animal or eat the flesh of humans. That is why it is impossible for Jesus to tell His Jewish listeners to drink His Blood and eat His Flesh symbolically. He would not tell us to symbolize something sinful! Agreed? And therefore, it must not be sinful to eat HIS Body or drink HIS Blood, (for HIS Life is in HIS Blood cf Leviticus 17:11-14) Your logic is backwards and flawed and actually supports the Catholic position.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Anonymous,

    Just because references to eating flesh and drinking blood often have negative connotations in the Old Testament, does not mean that such symbolism is always or can only have that kind of interpretation.

    Jesus Christ Himself set the tone of the context in which He spoke of eating His flesh and drinking His blood. In the Bread of Life Discourse, He spoke of us coming to Him and believing on His name for salvation (John 6:35-40; 63).

    Moreover, it is clear throughout the four gospel accounts that Jesus Christ did not have a problem with speaking bluntly and offending those who clung to their man-made traditions. He was not afraid to offend Jewish sensibilities. He spoke in a figurative manner which requires interpretation.

    It is your contorted logic that is out of line with common sense and proper hermeneutics. Thank you for bringing up Leviticus 17:10-14, which condemned the consumption of "any" and "all" blood. That even further supports my contention.

    The New Covenant was not established until the crucifixion of Jesus Christ, thereby making the literalist interpretation of the Bread of Life Discourse and Lord's Supper an impossibility.

    ReplyDelete
  3. 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.

    ReplyDelete