EAT HIS FLESH AND DRINK HIS BLOOD?!?!
I DON'T THINK SO!

By GR Gaudreau

There's an ongoing debate between Christians and Sceptics concerning the Eucharist, sometimes referred to as the Lord's Supper, or Communion. Some Sceptics charge that it's cannibalism and, of course, Christians argue that it's not.

My opinion in this matter is twofold: As far as Roman Catholicism is concerned, I maintain that it's outright cannibalism because of the literal way they interpret the Eucharist passages in the NT. But a lot of Christians believe that Jesus' words were to be taken symbolically, ergo, I maintain that these last are practicing symbolic cannibalism.

The most oft quoted passage, where this doctrine is concerned, is found in John 6 and reads as follows in the KJV:

53 Then Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you.
54 Whoso eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life; and will raise him up at the last day.
55 For my flesh is meat indeed, and my blood is drink indeed.
56 He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, dwelleth in me, and in him.
57 As the living Father hath sent me, and I live by the Father: so he that eateth me, even he shall live by me.
58 This is that bread which came down from heaven: not as your fathers did eat manna, and are dead: he that eateth of this bread shall live forever.
59 These things said he in the synagogue, as he taught in Capernaum.
The Roman Catholic doctrine of transubstantiation
From this passage, and others like it which tell of the Last Supper, it is clear that, at the very least, some kind of flesh eating and blood drinking must take place in order for one to gain "life" (v. 53, 54, 57, 58).

Personally, I just can't see the Catholic doctrine of transubstantiation in any passage in the NT. However, because they maintain that at mass, the bread (wafer) and wine are literally (magically?) transformed into the body and blood of Jesus by the words of the priest, then anyone who eats the bread, or drinks the wine, is engaging in cannibalism. I don't see how anyone an logically escape this conclusion.

Webster's dictionary defines cannibalism as "the usually ritualistic eating of human flesh by a human being." This is pretty clear language and I think we can all agree on this definition; I know I do.

If, as Catholics maintain, the bread and wine's substances are miraculously transformed into the body and blood of Jesus, then it stands to reason that Catholics are guilty of cannibalism by eating and drinking those. But Catholics object that they would never engage in such a practice. In fact, they recoil at the accusation of cannibalism. Unfortunately, their doctrine tells another story.

The Catholic Encyclopedia web site http://newadvent.org/cathen/ has a search function which yields an interesting answer when the word "cannibalism" is entered. The site directed me to this URL http://www.newadvent.org/faq/faq028.htm and here's what it had to say concerning the charge of cannibalism against Catholics:

The questioner, real or not, asks: "Your answer to the question about cannibalism and the Eucharist in the December 1990 issue of This Rock disturbs me. The promise in John 6 of the flesh of Christ to eat and his blood to drink sounds literal. Christ is present sounds literal. Christ is present substantially (rather than supernaturally); if we eat only the accidents (appearances), how do we eat Christ, who said unless we eat his flesh and drink his blood he will not have life?”

The reply is given: "Your question unnecessarily posits a conflict between a supernatural presence and a substantial one. Jesus is both substantially present (bread and wine really become his body and blood) and supernaturally present (transubstantiation occurs by the supernatural action of God; the accidents of bread and wine remain without the substances of bread and wine)."

"In consuming the Eucharistic elements, the physical mechanisms of eating injure only the accidents of bread and wine. The process of consuming the host doesn't involve ripping and tearing Christ's body, despite its substantial presence. This is why the charge of cannibalism won't work."

"We can still say Christ's flesh and blood are consumed sacramentally in Holy Communion because what is eaten is literally his body and blood, even if the physical action of eating affects only the accidents of bread and wine."

Note what the reply states: "Jesus is both substantially present… and supernaturally present." This establishes clearly that Catholics believe that the bread and wine are actually the body and blood of Jesus. This being so, then, ipso facto, they are practicing cannibalism.

The answer person goes on to state: "In consuming the Eucharistic elements, the physical mechanisms of eating injure only the accidents of bread and wine. The process of consuming the host doesn't involve ripping and tearing Christ's body, despite its substantial presence. This is why the charge of cannibalism won't work."

This is utterly ridiculous, not to mention self-contradictory! If Jesus is, as maintained by this person, "substantially present," then when you at the bread and drink the wine, you're eating Jesus' flesh and drinking his blood! You can't have it two ways, despite the theological double-speak and contortions utilized by the answer person to eschew the charge of cannibalism.

On the one hand, Jesus is "substantially present" and is consumed by the Catholic faithful, but on the other the charge of cannibalism is nul and void because Catholics "injure only the accidents of bread and wine." How can one "injure only the accidents of bread and wine" if those are actually, and in fact, the body and blood of Jesus by some "supernatural act of God?" This person's argument is self-contradictory!

It's clear, at least to this writer, that Catholics, by their very words,are practicing cannibalism. They may look in disgust at the practice of cannibalism in, say, some cannibalistic tribe; but they do so hypocritically. This practice is no less cannibalistic, because of the literal way they interpret the words of Jesus, then those members of some tribe who ritually eats human flesh.

The Fundamentalist and Evangelical "symbol" of Communion
Fundamentalists and Evangelicals, who accuse Roman Catholicism of being the "Devil's religion," maintain that the eating Jesus and drinking his blood is purely symbolic and that there is no supernatural intervention of God to change the substance of the bread and wine.

However, even though the whole thing is symbolic, what it represents is still the body and blood of Jesus. If one eats, symbolically or otherwise, this body and blood of a man, it follows logically that ritual cannibalism is practiced. A simple syllogism will illustrate this:

P1: Jesus commanded his followers to eat his body and blood.
P2: You symbolically eat the body and blood.
 C:  You are practicing ritual cannibalism.
Again, I fail to see how a person can escape this conclusion. There's no logic in maintaining otherwise, but then again, I've yet to see the Christian faith being logically demonstrated. The whole thing, from start to finish, is chock-a-block with myths, inconsistencies and errors.

Conclusion
No matter how they slice it, Roman Catholics are, by their very words, practicing cannibalism. And no matter how much the other types of Christians try to rationalize it, they are still guilty of ritual cannibalism. Whether the bread and wine merely represent or actually are the body and blood of Jesus, the charge of cannibalism, ritual or otherwise, stands. This is a disturbing teaching and practice no matter how you define it. Unfortunately, it is but one of the obscenities in the Bible.

-- BACK --