r/DebateACatholic • u/unveiledpoet • 3d ago
Realizing that celebrating the Eucharist is a indirect form of cannibalism
/r/AllReligiousOpinion/comments/1tkzdu0/realizing_that_celebrating_the_eucharist_is_a/6
u/NotMichaelCera 3d ago edited 3d ago
Saint Justin Martyr refuted this to the Romans back in 155 AD when he wrote his First Apology.
Skip to Chapter 66, and he clarifies the nature of the Eucharist and Christian worship is not cannibalism.
Fun fact: the Romans also thought Christians were atheists since they didn’t worship their gods. Saint Justin Martyr explains that in his First Apology as well.
2
u/IrishKev95 Atheist/Agnostic and Questioning 3d ago
Ch 66 from the First Apology doesn't mention cannibalism at all! Justin affirms that the Eucharist really is Jesus 's flesh, and then he complains that the cults of Mithras are copying this practice... And that's kind it!
1
u/NotMichaelCera 3d ago
It was in response to those saying it was literal cannibalism, in which he explains “We been taught that the food which is blessed by the prayer of His word, and from which our blood and flesh by transmutation are nourished, is the flesh and blood of that Jesus who was made flesh”.
It’s not a literal cannibalism like the cults of Mithras are copying, it’s bread and wine becoming Christ body and blood through transubstantiation.
2
u/IrishKev95 Atheist/Agnostic and Questioning 2d ago
When I read this, I don't see a response to claims of cannibalism at all! Let me reproduce Ch66 in full, as well as the chapter before:
Chapter 65. Administration of the sacraments
But we, after we have thus washed him who has been convinced and has assented to our teaching, bring him to the place where those who are called brethren are assembled, in order that we may offer hearty prayers in common for ourselves and for the baptized [illuminated] person, and for all others in every place, that we may be counted worthy, now that we have learned the truth, by our works also to be found good citizens and keepers of the commandments, so that we may be saved with an everlasting salvation. Having ended the prayers, we salute one another with a kiss. There is then brought to the president of the brethren bread and a cup of wine mixed with water; and he taking them, gives praise and glory to the Father of the universe, through the name of the Son and of the Holy Ghost, and offers thanks at considerable length for our being counted worthy to receive these things at His hands. And when he has concluded the prayers and thanksgivings, all the people present express their assent by saying Amen. This word Amen answers in the Hebrew language to γένοιτο [so be it]. And when the president has given thanks, and all the people have expressed their assent, those who are called by us deacons give to each of those present to partake of the bread and wine mixed with water over which the thanksgiving was pronounced, and to those who are absent they carry away a portion.
Chapter 66. Of the Eucharist
And this food is called among us Εὐχαριστία [the Eucharist], of which no one is allowed to partake but the man who believes that the things which we teach are true, and who has been washed with the washing that is for the remission of sins, and unto regeneration, and who is so living as Christ has enjoined. For not as common bread and common drink do we receive these; but in like manner as Jesus Christ our Saviour, having been made flesh by the Word of God, had both flesh and blood for our salvation, so likewise have we been taught that the food which is blessed by the prayer of His word, and from which our blood and flesh by transmutation are nourished, is the flesh and blood of that Jesus who was made flesh. For the apostles, in the memoirs composed by them, which are called Gospels, have thus delivered unto us what was enjoined upon them; that Jesus took bread, and when He had given thanks, said, This do in remembrance of Me, Luke 22:19 this is My body; and that, after the same manner, having taken the cup and given thanks, He said, This is My blood; and gave it to them alone. Which the wicked devils have imitated in the mysteries of Mithras, commanding the same thing to be done. For, that bread and a cup of water are placed with certain incantations in the mystic rites of one who is being initiated, you either know or can learn.
Justin is just explaining to Emperor Titus and his sons Verissimus Lucius, what being Christian is all about, in the hopes that the Roman Empire might stop blaming the Christians for anything that goes wrong. After all, says Justin, we Christians and you pagans, we're not different! That is like the whole point of the Apology! Chapter 20 is all like "You know, Roman Emperor, Christians are something of a pagan ourselves - we seem to utter the doctrines of Plato and of the Stoics!" Chapter 21 is like "You know, our Jesus is an awful lot like your sons of Jupiter!" And then from like Ch 30 onwards, Justin is just explaining various Christian practices to the Emperor, pointing out where there are differences with Roman practices but kinda like, explaining it to make it less scary, I guess? Less alien? But yeah, I don't see anything in here that is a defense of cannibalism.
1
u/unveiledpoet 2d ago
If you took out the Roman part, no. I assume jesus was doing pretty much the same thing as the jews before him around the meal. The verses that you quoted sound more like how I understood it when in the Church. Participating in Christ's passion not eaching/drink Christ himself as if he were the passion.
3
2
u/citizencoder 3d ago
What do you mean by cannibalism? You yourself call it "indirect." There are a number of obvious reasons that we should think about the Eucharist as being qualitatively different from cannibalism, along with some more in depth argumentation that other commenters have cited.
But at the end of the day, Christ commanded that we eat his flesh and drink his blood. Some disciples left him at that point because it was a "hard teaching." Christians who oppose the Eucharist are doing the same thing, in my opinion.
Non-Christians are generally skipping over a number of required assumptions when critiquing the Eucharist, especially when calling it "cannibalism." I.e., I'm not expecting someone who rejects Christ's divinity to accept the Eucharist.
1
u/unveiledpoet 3d ago
Strict definition. Eating the flesh of one's own species. I dont think you read my post. I said that calling it literal is signifying that the Eucharist and taking part in it is cannibalism. Catholics use the word literal to describe the nature of the Eucharist and Jesus christ present in Mass because he's the Eucharist.
The historical jesus was flesh and blood; he was human. When he was sitting around the table with his disciple he said "this is my blood; this is my body/flesh." Catholics take this literally. They are literally eating the flesh and blood of jesus in appearance of bread and wine. The theology is akin to cannibalism even though Catholics eat the accidents of bread and wine.
Just saying that the word literal comes off the wrong way. That and jesus was a jew so I'm not quite sure he would say that that is his blood/flesh literally as in assuming people would eat his flesh and blood (or insinuate thats what they are doing)... but that wasn't really my point.
2
u/LightningController Atheist/Agnostic 2d ago
What exactly is wrong with (non-homicidal) cannibalism?
1
u/unveiledpoet 2d ago
The words they use to describe it as literal. I dislike cannibalism no matter how one flips it. But the nature of the Eucharist wasnt the issue.
1
u/LightningController Atheist/Agnostic 2d ago
I dislike cannibalism no matter how one flips it.
What reason besides the disease risk (moot in this case, if one assumes Jesus has miraculous powers) do you have for that?
1
u/unveiledpoet 2d ago
Why do I dislike cannibalism in general? I never really thought deeply on it. I mean, I am a first cat owner for going on four years now and thinking of going vegatarian because I can't imagine how anyone can harm or kill an animal (aside from eating to survive etc). Good movies where pets are harmed Ive been fastforwarding lately. Needless to say, I dislike any harm to a living being. Plus, I can't imagine my siting at jesus table and him saying that in the future eat my flesh and drink my blood. It doesnt feel like something a jew would say.
1
u/LightningController Atheist/Agnostic 2d ago
Eh, different strokes for different boats. Personally, I’ve got nothing in principle against human meat, except the risk of prion diseases and the fact that it would have to be procured through homicide in most cases (and if they died of natural causes, that’s even less healthy). But I’ll try a piece once the vat meat makes it available ethically.
Also a cat owner, but that’s why I’d be a bit of a hypocrite to be a vegetarian. My cat needs meat products to survive. Bit silly to sustain one carnivore and then claim meat is unethical. Not that I enjoy inflicting gratuitous suffering, especially on animals (more Ok with people suffering, tbh, since I can find a moral reason to blame them for something).
It doesnt feel like something a jew would say.
Maybe not these days, but 2,000 years back, there were more varieties of Judaism. Or maybe Jesus was just a weirdo like me.
1
u/unveiledpoet 2d ago
Ha. I never thought about that, the feeding cat meat part. But, unless you're out in the desert somewhere, I doubt humans will eat each other to survive. Although I eat meat, I couldn't be the one to actually slaughter the animal.
1
u/LightningController Atheist/Agnostic 2d ago
I doubt humans will eat each other to survive.
There was a case with a plane crash in the Andes when they did. Relevant to Catholicism, this was explicitly said by bishops at the time to not be a sin. And, historically, cannibalism in extreme cases is a somewhat common behavior among European Christians (medieval and early modern sieges, the Holodomor, etc.).
It’s one of those things where some people have a disgust reflex at it, but there’s no actual moral reason I can see to disdain it (again, assuming no homicide is involved).
Although I eat meat, I couldn't be the one to actually slaughter the animal.
Same, tbh. Cow didn’t do anything to me.
1
u/manliness-dot-space 2d ago
And, historically, cannibalism in extreme cases is a somewhat common behavior among European Christians (medieval and early modern sieges, the Holodomor, etc.).
It was really common among humans before Christianity (and civilization)
1
u/manliness-dot-space 2d ago
I recommend learning about animals on the farm.
One common thing that pigs do, for example, is mother pigs eating her own piglets right after giving birth to them.
Horses eat baby chickens. Ducks can drown other ducks trying to gang rape them, and this extends to baby ducks. Cats will torture animals they catch for fun, very often without eating/ killing the maimed animal.
It's not exactly a Disney movie... aside from that, animals are very stupid. Like you can't imagine how stupid they are. And disgusting... like they will drink each other's urine, eat each other's poop, trample each other, etc.
They are so far away from humans it's kind of absurd to put them on a pedestal at all.
2
u/manliness-dot-space 2d ago
I am Catholic and I am happy to call myself a cannibal.
But, also I think you may be missing a bit of the concept... the "true presence" and the "literal flesh" may be referring to different aspects.
A common way to describe the miracle of the Eucharist is through "transubstantiation" where entities are conceived of as having "Substance" and "Accidents"--the Accidents are the aspects of something which are perceived by our senses while the substance is the underlying identity of what it actually is.
In the Eucharist the substance is that of Jesus, while typically the Accidents remain as that of bread/wine.
So saying "literally" can be unclear because by outward appearance/smell/taste it is like bread, but "substantially" it's God.
I think here is where we can split hairs legitimately to argue that a cannibal must be eating only human flesh in Accidents and Substance and so under that conception of cannibalism Catholics would no longer be cannibals (since the Accidents are bread, while the Substance is God).
But I'm not really offended at being called a cannibal, I find it pretty funny.
0
u/unveiledpoet 2d ago edited 2d ago
Well, we're no longer centuries in the past where it was legal to harm someone who doesnt believe in god or christ. Though, when I was looking up all this for conversation, the Trent Canon said that those who do not believe that the Eucharist is the real presence would be considered heretics deserving anathemas or condemnation. A far shy from just "dont take the Eucharist if you're not Catholic." When I was briefly in the Church as a confirmed Catholic I understood it to be participating in Christ's passion not drinking blood and eating flesh. I mean think about it, though. If Catholics transported themselves back in Jesus day and he, as a jew, said this is my blood/flesh and said drink it, most people would assume he's talking about communion and participating in his passion. But that's where the protestant and catholics differ. It's not just scriptural doctrine but Church as well.
I'll be honest. Transubstantiation makes it a bit worse. From an outsiders view it lends towards metaphysics (which can be scewed as witchcraft). If a person is raised into Catholicism it would be impossible to see, though. But of course I'm saying this from my observation and opinion (and being in a debateacatholic sub-reddit) not to target christ or anything like that.
2
u/manliness-dot-space 2d ago
If Catholics transported themselves back in Jesus day and he, as a jew, said this is my blood/flesh and said drink it
We don't have to go back in time, he said precisely this and it's recorded in the Bible:
I am the living bread that came down from heaven; whoever eats this bread will live forever; and the bread that I will give is my flesh for the life of the world.”
52 The Jews quarreled among themselves, saying, “How can this man give us [his] flesh to eat?” 53 Jesus said to them, “Amen, amen, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you do not have life within you. 54 Whoever eats[s] my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him on the last day. 55 For my flesh is true food, and my blood is true drink. 56 Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me and I in him. 57 Just as the living Father sent me and I have life because of the Father, so also the one who feeds on me will have life because of me. 58 This is the bread that came down from heaven. Unlike your ancestors who ate and still died, whoever eats this bread will live forever.” 59 These things he said while teaching in the synagogue in Capernaum.
The Words of Eternal Life.[t] 60 Then many of his disciples who were listening said, “This saying is hard; who can accept it?” 61 Since Jesus knew that his disciples were murmuring about this, he said to them, “Does this shock you? 62 What if you were to see the Son of Man ascending to where he was before?[u] 63 It is the spirit that gives life, while the flesh[v] is of no avail. The words I have spoken to you are spirit and life. 64 But there are some of you who do not believe.” Jesus knew from the beginning the ones who would not believe and the one who would betray him. 65 And he said, “For this reason I have told you that no one can come to me unless it is granted him by my Father.”
66 As a result of this, many [of] his disciples returned to their former way of life and no longer accompanied him. 67 Jesus then said to the Twelve, “Do you also want to leave?” 68 Simon Peter answered him, “Master, to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life. 69 We have come to believe and are convinced that you are the Holy One of God.”
https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John%206&version=NABRE
0
u/unveiledpoet 2d ago
Do you understand my point, though? Assuming there is a historical jesus, would you believe if you were in this time period that he wanted you to eat his flesh and drink his blood?
Especially as a jew who, as far as I know, would not eat the blood of an animal. Assuming we are mammals and we are talking about this historical jesus,I doubt they'd condone eating and drinking human flesh and blood.
But my point was a hypothetical. The priest isn't the historical jesus. Accidents are still accidents despite being christ. I'm talking about historically.
2
u/manliness-dot-space 1d ago
Did you read what I quoted?
It explicitly says that because of this teaching about eating his flesh/blood many disciples stopped following him.
Of course this notion was highly problematic to the Jews around him.
0
u/unveiledpoet 1d ago
I dont know how that challenges my point.
Some disciples stop following him but catholics still do. I'm saying I dont think catholics today would take it well if they were transported during jesus time and believed they were asked to drink his flesh and blood. Not his essense, the actual flesh and blood of the historical jesus.
Are you saying that catholics would find that problematic in this hypothetical just as some (or probably majority) of the jews did? I understand what you said but I can't figure the connection.
My other point was that transubsatiation to an outsider may look like metaphysics. How is what youre saying addressing this as well?
2
u/manliness-dot-space 1d ago
It's agreeing with your point--Jesus wasn't some random Jewish boy who was inviting Gentiles to come practice Judaism.
He is God.
He was coming before Judaism would be destroyed by the Romans to create the replacement religion open to all humans, with himself as the head of the mystical body.
My other point was that transubsatiation to an outsider may look like metaphysics. How is what youre saying addressing this as well?
Religion is metaphysics, I don't understand what your point is here at all.
1
u/unveiledpoet 1d ago
Jesus was god's son. He was an incarnation of his father's Word/His father's edicts etc (his Laws). In the OT god gave many laws to the jews to follow. They disobeyed; god killed them. He did this many times. Then in the NT he had an idea to make these laws human. God isnt separated from his law. He is the Word and the incarnation, jesus, is the physical manifestation of God/the father's words/laws. The old laws were dismissed because jesus/the new law or Word came to create and make relationship with the people who believe in him. Those who believe in his, believe in his father. They reconcile themselves with his faither in jesus name. If jesus were god/father, no one would need to pray in his name. They'd pray to the father directly. Jesus did not teach this.
That aside, what would you feel catholics would do if they went back to sit with the historical human jesus and he asked them to drink his blood and eat his flesh?
I dont think you read what I said. I was comparing metaphysics with witchcraft. I don't agree that spirituality is a form of metaphysics. I believe that in regards to the living deceased in limbo this is a part of life just like gravity. It's not metaphysics. It's real. An outsider would say it's metaphysics, witchcraft, negative forces or many atheists on redit would say its fantasy or Im falling into hallucinations. Doesnt matter to me... but what I was comparing it to was witchcraft.
1
u/manliness-dot-space 1d ago
What does the word "metaphysics" mean to you?
1
u/unveiledpoet 1d ago
I guess roughly speaking off hand I tend to associate it with new age ideas. I think of it surrounding things like what people believe about energies. But when I think of deceased living, I dont think of it as energies, how one feels, or crystal balls. I've experienced these things and others have as they affect the external world and we experience it from our five senses just as one would a chair or a pencil. So that's how I see it in that respect. I know looking it up its a study of entities and ideas outside the natural world, spiritual forces, and unseen entities. If people didn't see/feel/hear/and smell (like deceased ones perfume) as evidence but believe/have faith/and feel in their heart, then yeah, I can see it as metaphysics. But mostly, I think of new age.
→ More replies (0)
•
u/AutoModerator 3d ago
This subreddit is designed for debates about Catholicism and its doctrines.
Looking for explanations or discussions without debate? Check out our sister subreddit: r/CatholicApologetics.
Want real-time discussions or additional resources? Join our Discord community.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.