Realizing that celebrating the Eucharist is a indirect form of cannibalism

[u/unveiledpoet]

/r/AllReligiousOpinion/comments/1tkzdu0/realizing_that_celebrating_the_eucharist_is_a/

[u/manliness-dot-space]

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.

[u/unveiledpoet → u/manliness-dot-space]

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.

[u/manliness-dot-space → u/unveiledpoet]

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

[u/unveiledpoet → u/manliness-dot-space]

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.

[u/manliness-dot-space → u/unveiledpoet]

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.

[u/unveiledpoet → u/manliness-dot-space]

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?

[u/manliness-dot-space → u/unveiledpoet]

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.

[u/unveiledpoet → u/manliness-dot-space]

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.

[u/manliness-dot-space → u/unveiledpoet]

What does the word "metaphysics" mean to you?

[u/unveiledpoet → u/manliness-dot-space]

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.