Eating God

[Pygoscelis]

As most of you know, the Catholics have a doctrine called Transubstantiation. The idea is that when they take "communion" and eat the cracker and drink the grape juice it becomes the body and blood of Christ. This is not meant to be symbolic, but literal, according to the official church doctrine. It always struck me as very odd.

But I am now wondering how uncommon it really is. I know that some hunter societies, such as the Inuit in the Canadian north would pray for food and would see the seal or other hunted animals as manifestations of God, providing them nousishment. But it still seems a bit different than the eucharist.

Do you guys know of any other religions in which the believers "eat" their God(s)?

[Wyatt]

I'm not aware of any, nor any practice in Islam that is similar.

However, now that you say that, it is kind of... different... What's the purpose behind it? Communion, that is. When I was but a wee lad, I was always excited just because the juice was delicious (It was sparkling grape juice, the kind we always drank as children on New Years eve). I hadn't thought about it since I left the Christian religion at the age of 12.

The Inuit viewpoint of eating a manifestation of God is kind of interesting, too. It's different than Christians eating something symbolising a manifestation of God.

I don't know how it's supposed to be "literal" consumption of Jesus' body.

[Pygoscelis]

I'm not aware of any, nor any practice in Islam that is similar.

However, now that you say that, it is kind of... different... What's the purpose behind it? Communion, that is. When I was but a wee lad, I was always excited just because the juice was delicious (It was sparkling grape juice, the kind we always drank as children on New Years eve). I hadn't thought about it since I left the Christian religion at the age of 12.

The Inuit viewpoint of eating a manifestation of God is kind of interesting, too. It's different than Christians eating something symbolising a manifestation of God.

I don't know how it's supposed to be "literal" consumption of Jesus' body.

As hard as it is to fathom to those of us who are not Catholic, it IS the official doctrine of the church that the cracker literally becomes the host (the body of Christ). It is not merely symbolic cannibalism. It is actual cannibalism (though they would never express it that way)

[glo]

It would be good to hear from a Catholic on this matter.
I find the concept of transubstantiation strange too.

I expect it relates back to these words of Jesus, as reported in the gospel of Matthew (and Mark):

While they were eating, Jesus took bread, and when he had given thanks, he broke it and gave it to his disciples, saying, “Take and eat; this is my body.”

Then he took a cup, and when he had given thanks, he gave it to them, saying, “Drink from it, all of you. This is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins. I tell you, I will not drink from this fruit of the vine from now on until that day when I drink it new with you in my Father’s kingdom.”

When they had sung a hymn, they went out to the Mount of Olives.
(Matthew 26:26-30)

Luke adds this:

And he took bread, gave thanks and broke it, and gave it to them, saying, “This is my body given for you; do this in remembrance of me.”
(Luke 22:19)

As far as I am concerned the communion/Eucharist celebrates/commemorates or even re-enacts the Last Supper. I consider it to be symbolic, but I know it is considered a real change in the bread and wine by some.

Hey there! Looks like you're enjoying the discussion, but you're not signed up for an account.

When you create an account, you can participate in the discussions and share your thoughts. You also get notifications, here and via email, whenever new posts are made. And you can like posts and make new friends.
Sign Up

[Grace Seeker]

It is not just Catholics who hold that it is the literal body and blood of Jesus. Anglicans, Lutherans, even Methodist all hold that the Eucharist is more than just a symbolic re-enactment of a historical event, but that Jesus is indeed really present and with us today in the present day celebration. What is unique among Catholics is their belief that the very elements of the bread and wine actually physically change into that of Jesus himself. I believe that Orthodox Christians and most eastern forms of Christianity share that view.

But since Sol Invictus is active on the board, I will let him clarify the Catholic view.

[Grace Seeker]

Do you guys know of any other religions in which the believers "eat" their God(s)?

Well, there is the ritualized consumption of the "Flying Spaghetti Monster" to name one. :omg: (Did I say that? :hiding:)

Seriously, there are a number of such groups. James Frazier has a whole chapter on "Eating The God" in his book The Golden Bough: A Study in Magic and Religion. Some of them are found in ancient southeast European and and Middle-Eastern societies, which of course leads people to hastily conclude that Christianity must have borrowed their ideas. But it is also found in Mezo-American, among indigenous tribes of the American northwest, in northern Europe and many other lands.

[Sol Invictus]

i must say that i'm actually protestant and so while i do believe in the real presence of christ , i do not believe that the items somehow become the real body of christ. i do not think this to be biblical but in the area of ecumenical relationships this isn't really the primary issue seeing as it is believed that in one way or another, christ is literally present when we partake of the communion.

thanks for the invite gene, but alas i'm merely a separated brethren.

[Grace Seeker]

Sorry, Sol Invictus, my mistake.

Well, I know that there are a few Catholics on the forum, but since they are not posting here, I will just quote from the Catechism of the Catholic Church:

The Eucharisitc presence of Jesus is so rich in meaning that it can be spoken of in many ways. When the words of consecration are spoken over the bread and wine, there is a great change in meaning or significance, a "transsignification." That which had meant to us only earthly food and drink now means far more, and speaks to us the presence of Jesus. There is also a change in the purpose of what we see, a "transfinalization." The purpose of earthly bread is to minister to natural bodily life; when the words of Jesus [i.e. the prayer of institution] have touched this visible gift in the Eucharist, its whole thrust and dynamism are different. It has become a Food that nourishes the life of God in us and strengthens us for eternal life.

But deeper than all these changes, underlying them and their foundation, is the change in being, the "transubstantiation." The appearance of bread and wine "take on this new significance, this new finality, precisely because they contain a new reality." Faith is concerned deeply with this reality: Jesus is here. He is present not merely spiritually, by His knowledge, His care, His activity, but He is present "in a unique way, whole and entire, God and man, substantially and permanently."

Over what had been bread and wine Jesus said: "This is My Body. . . . This is My Blood. . . ." With firm faith in Christ, the Church [meaning the Catholic Church] has ever believed that what He gives us in the Eucharist is indeed His Body and His Blood. When His priest says His sacred words over the gifts, the bread and wine "have ceased to exist," and it is "the adorable Body and Blood of the Lord Jesus that from then on are really before us under the sacramental species of bread and wine." With Easter faith we recognize that it is the Lord. "Instituted in these matters and certain in faith that what seems to be bread is not bread -- though it tastes like it -- but rather the Body of Christ, and that what seems to be wine is not wine -- though it seems so to the taste -- but the Blood of Christ. . . strengthen your heart by receiving this Bread as spiritual food and gladden the countenance of your soul."

The change that occurs when Christ becomes sacramentally present in the Eucharist is enduring because it is so radical, so real a change. After the consecration Jesus remains bodily present as long as the appearances of bread and wine remain. Back in the fifth century St. Cyril of Alexandria was once confronted with the false opinion that if a part of the Eucharist was left over until the following day it would lose its power to sanctify. He rejected the opinion and replied with the belief that the faith has always proclaimed: "For Christ is not altered and His holy Body is not changed, but the power and force and life-giving grace of the blessing remain in them forever."



(Quotes within the above text come from various encyclicals and other writings of the Catholic Church. To examine those sources or read this in its original context, the source is "Meaning of Eucharistic Presence", p. 426, The Teaching of Christ: A Catholic Catechism for Adults, published by Our Sunday Visitor (Huntington, IN), copyright 1976, 2nd edition 1983.)

[gmcbroom]

Oh it's literal alright. We really do partake of the risen Lord whenever we partake of the eucharist. It is a hard teaching. Some disciples left Jesus after this discourse as recounted in (The Gospel according to John 6:60-66) they just couldn't stomach it. It takes faith to do so. That's why its so sad. They knew him saw him in the flesh and even perform miracles and still they couldn't believe.

Peace be with you
gmcbroom

[Pygoscelis]

Or maybe they just didn't want to engage in what they saw as cannibalism. Can you really fault them for that?

[Woodrow]

An ex-Catholic here. Yes that is an actual teaching of Catholicism. I got in trouble as a kid when I thought I was being very pious when I used to refuse to take communion on Fridays. Back then Catholics were forbidden to eat meat on Friday. I never could understand why we were permitted to take communion on Fridays when to my thinking it was eating meat.

[Aprender]

Hmm. When I was a child, I was raised with Jehovah's Witnesses. I remember something similar to this, I think it wasn't called communion/Eucharist but something else. I just know that if you weren't one of the special 144,000 then you couldn't take the bread or wine. Passed it around and very rarely did anyone take any of it. Ah, it was so long ago. Wish I could remember more details but I left that life over 10 years ago...

[Hamza Asadullah]

I think this should be reflected upon written by a Christian who is opposed to this dogma :

If the Eucharist is a rite of the early church carried on by the Roman Catholic Church to this day, shouldn't the RCC Eucharist and its rites be in perfect keeping with the early church accounts of their practices of it?

I believe the answer is YES. If you are making a claim of tradition uniting your practice to that of the Early Churches, then, your rite and their rite must be the same. If it isn't someone is the wrong rite. If the rite does not agree with the actual description given by the Apostle Paul to the first churches and Christians, anything else or any other ritual must have another source than the Apostolic practice of the Passover celebrated by Jesus (If B=A then it must follow that A=B). As that is the logical and biblical fact of the matter, then, does the RCC "offering" of the mass match the accounts we have just read where Jesus does not offer himself? Also, does Jesus or Paul even imply that the Passover meal have ANY salvational or cleansing properties or value?

[Hamza Asadullah]

Is the bread Jesus gives the disciples to eat broken? Yes, in both accounts. We could look to another Gospel account for the reason it is broken ,but, Paul explains it with his quote of our Lord, "this is my body, which is broken for you".

Does He mean His literal body is broken? YES. His body is to be broken and therefore the bread is broken in accord with the events of His death.

Does He mean the disciples are eating His literal body? NO!
If He, God, meant that the disciples were going to eat His literal body, there are two MAJOR problems. First, He would be promoting a pagan ritual from Babylon. Second, if they were supposed to eat His actual (literal) body and drink His literal (actual) blood, Jesus should have simply carved off a piece of flesh and bled into the cup for them. However, I read that no where in the Bible texts on Passover. Also, I see a distinct absence of a couple things consider absolute dogmas of the RCC Eucharist.

One: Do we see Jesus saying an incantation over his bread converting it into His flesh?

Second: Does He warn the disciples not to spill any of His "blood" on the table or floor or to make certain their beards do not get any "blood" on them? (I cite this as it is a claim which has been made in the past to deny the cup of the Eucharist to Catholics)

[Hamza Asadullah]

Did Jesus command them to worship Himself or the bread?

We see that the direct reading of the Word is the correct reading of the Word. You cannot have it both ways. If Jesus meant that the bread was His flesh and would transform into His flesh ("transubstantiation"), the text would have read something like, "He blessed the bread and it became His flesh and then He broke His flesh and did give them to eat of it, saying..." But it does not read thusly. As a matter of fact the Catholic Encyclopedia points out the the concept of transubstantiation was formed or laid out (see their words in the link above) in around 1079. This is at least 1000 years after Jesus served Passover without any incantations, mention of actual transformation, etc.

Can you argue that He was present at the Passover, therefore, He did not have to transubstantiate? Of course not, if the "host" were Biblical, then, the first bread of the Passover would have had to be the same "host", same flesh, same blood. Obviously, the text says what Jesus did and said and nothing more and is then a symbolic gesture. As usual, God taught finite man with an object lesson and symbolism that they might understand the mystery of an Infinite God. If it was meant literally and had literally happened then all further references by Paul should have the same reading, the same style discussing the literal body of the Christ being eaten. It is not literal in either passage. That means forever after, the Passover of Jesus or Lord's Supper must always be taken as a symbolic rite without the "fleshly presence" of our Lord.

Where then do we see the practice of eating of gods or flesh? In pagan rites and rituals. The Free Masons even have a communion supper like this where they too claim to eat the very particles of the body of Jesus, too which they add also the bodies of Buddha and other so-called gods and prophets. Research out the cult of Mithras, the cult of Nimrod and the Babylonian Mystery religion. You will find that they have these rites where they ate the sun god Mithras as a part of Mithraic rites and a derivation of the "mother-son" cult (which again ties to the ancient Babylonian Mystery religion). Is that why the wafer is round like the sun and is NOT broken by the priest? Is that why the Lord's Supper is held in the morning mass like the sun worshipping religions did, eating the sun god every morning?

I know this is a lot of reading. it is a lot of typing, too. But, there are so many aspects to the problems of the RCC Eucharist and Biblical Christianity. We have only really covered one. Let us go on to the way that the Mass is "offered" and not "in remembrance of" Jesus. Jesus said 'Take, eat: this is my body, which is broken for you: this do in remembrance of me.' He is NOWHERE in scripture quoted as saying this is an offering of me. He said, 'This is my body which is given for you: this do in remembrance of me".

[Hamza Asadullah]

He then goes onto explain:

Had He died yet? So, He was speaking of the cross to come symbolically. Otherwise, He would have had to sacrifice Himself to God at that moment and would not have made it to the cross. I am trying to make certain you see the clear meaning of direct statements made about a symbolic teaching. Jesus did not offer Himself. But, before He even died did He not commemorate His sacrifice?

Why Passover? Jesus celebrated Passover in this new way with Jews who understand the importance of Passover. Passover is the celebration of the "passing over" of houses of the Jews in Egypt by God when he slew all the first born of Egypt (Exodus 12). The significance of Passover to all of us is that the blood of the Lamb is applied on the house so that God will not punish that house with death. The blood is that of the lamb that each household killed. What was Jesus saying? He was showing them that He was the lamb. He was the messiah, He who would lay down his life for the whole world (John 3:14-17).

[Hamza Asadullah]

He continues saying:

As we know now why He had to explain the Passover to His disciples and established the "Lord's Supper", we come to the question "Was the lamb slain for Passover killed over and over as in the 'offering' of the mass as a continued sacrifice?" No.

The lamb died only once. Just as Jesus offered Himself ONLY once. We see this explained in the letter to the Hebrews. The book explains Jesus' death on the cross, then, puts that sacrifice in spiritual perspective in regard to blood atonement.

(The Old Testament of Blood)

"For when Moses had spoken every precept to all the people according to the law, he took the blood of calves and of goats, with water, and scarlet wool, and hyssop, and sprinkled both the book, and all the people, Saying, This is the blood of the testament which God hath enjoined unto you. Moreover he sprinkled with blood both the tabernacle, and all the vessels of the ministry."
(The need for Blood Atonement for Sins)

"And almost all things are by the law purged with blood; and without shedding of blood is no remission. It was therefore necessary that the patterns of things in the heavens should be purified with these; but the heavenly things themselves with better sacrifices than these."
(Jesus is in Heaven not in an earthly temple)

"For Christ is not entered into the holy places made with hands, which are the figures of the true; but into heaven itself, now to appear in the presence of God for us:"

(He offers sacrifice ONLY ONCE!)

"Nor yet that he should offer himself often, as the high priest entereth into the holy place every year with blood of others; "
(WHY NOT MORE THAN ONCE?)

"For then must he often have suffered since the foundation of the world: but now once in the end of the world hath he appeared to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself. And as it is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judgment: so Christ was once offered to bear the sins of many; and unto them that look for him shall he appear the second time without sin unto salvation."
Heb 9:19-28 (Parenthetical and underlines added)

We see in this passage that a sacrifice must be a blood offering to atone for sins. That means that if the Eucharist is a sacrifice, it is useless on its face because there is no blood. Secondly, the entire passage absolutely refutes any claim that a man can call the body of our Lord down from Heaven and offer Him again unto God. By definition, this is blasphemy because we see in this passage and throughout the book of Hebrews that Jesus is our high priest ("Whither the forerunner is for us entered, even Jesus, made a high priest forever after the order of Melchizedek." Hebrews 6:2).

And, in the passage above He is the one offering Himself to God the one time, anyone else trying to offer Jesus as a sacrifice is blaspheming God. That is because Jesus is God and you cannot take on the title or right of God. (I will not argue for the deity of Christ here because if you do not believe the Jesus is the "I am", you are not a Christian and you will die in your sins (John 8:24).

Also, we see that He suffered from the foundation of earth and must suffer if there is additional sacrifice. A second or repeat sacrifice is absolutely unscriptural. Look to Revelations and the name of Jesus to confirm the statement above...

"And all that dwell upon the earth shall worship him, whose names are not written in the book of life of the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world." Revelations 13:8

Jesus is the Lamb and the Lamb of the Lamb's Book of Life (Jesus book of the names of the children of God) is the "Lamb that was slain from the foundation of the earth". He is eternal and was already the victim of our sins from the beginning of this world. If that isn't enough, I cite more scripture once for all offering and on the open shame of a repeat sacrifice of the Lamb.

"For Christ also hath once suffered for sins, the just for the unjust, that he might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh, but quickened by the Spirit:" 1Peter 3:18 (Underline added)

"If they shall fall away, to renew them again unto repentance; seeing they crucify to themselves the Son of God afresh, and put him to an open shame." Hebrews 6:6 (Underline added)

Jesus suffered the death of the cross once and only once. So, if Jesus were crucified or offered a second time, He is openly shamed by it. The sad thing is that we have to give a written explanation of the obvious truth of the direct statements that contradict Roman Catholic teachings on the Eucharist. Not only that, we have to quote a second passage that directly contradicts the teachings and traditions of the Mass. To re-affirm the obvious.

For he that is dead is freed from sin. Now if we be dead with Christ, we believe that we shall also live with him: knowing that Christ being raised from the dead dieth no more; death hath no more dominion over him. For in that he died, he died unto sin once: but in that he liveth, he liveth unto God. Rom 6:7-10 (Underline added)

[Hamza Asadullah]

He concludes by summarising the points he has made to refute the unbiblical pagan practise of the Eucharist:


At this point, I could go on with other aspects of the Eucharist such as venerating the wafer that are blasphemous. However, if the truth of the Word of God presented above has not made you think long and hard about your participation in and acceptance of the unbiblical Eucharist, further explanation is a waste of time and becomes merely an exercise in logic for my own benefit. Therefore, I will stop here. As you have read, I have applied as little opinion or interpretation of my own as is humanly possible for any exposition of scripture. We have used scripture upon scripture to interpret scripture. We do have to exercise a little logic and definitions to come to the conclusion we have. Still, the conclusion remains.

1. The Mass should be a symbolic rite commemorating the death of Jesus in keeping with the Passover which was established by God before the Lamb came in the flesh.
2. The "host", "presence", "bodily presence" or physical presence of Jesus in the Eucharist is totally unscriptural due the the symbolic nature of Passover and the absence of any flesh eating or blood drinking from the actual body of Jesus at the Passover.
3. The Mass cannot offer Jesus again as a sacrifice as Jesus has already entered heaven and presented that one time sacrifice to God, the Father.
4. Even if the offering could be made a second time, anyone attempting to offer Jesus in sacrifice to God is claiming to be in the place of Jesus and therefore blaspheming God, Himself.
5. Jesus suffered from the foundation of the world and would have to suffer again if He was to be offered a second time. Therefore, a daily offering of the Lamb would be a daily torturing of the Lamb.

If you have read and reread the scriptures provided against the teachings of catechisms, encyclicals, encyclopedia references and teachings of the RCC, you surely see the problems. You must think about the ramifications of doing something contrary to the Word of God. It is a choice you are brought to now. Do you please men or your God? I do not like one verse quotes, but, here is a short and in context verse that answers the Christians position when he or she is caught between pleasing men and doing that which pleases God. Paul says,

"For do I now persuade men, or God? or do I seek to please men? for if I yet pleased men, I should not be the servant of Christ." Galations 1:10

This page is not an attack on you personally, but, a Biblical answer to what you are being taught in catechism and what you are witnessing in Mass. We hope you will think gravely on the spiritual consequences of pleasing men and thereby failing to serve God.

Source: http://catholicdogmarefuted.com/mass.htm

[gmcbroom]

The eucharist isn't meant to be symbolic. It may seem that way in the beginning with Paul's Letter to the Corinthians 1Cor 11:23-26 yet if that was the case Paul wouldn't have added this 28 "A person should examine himself,and so eat the bread and drink the cup. 29 For anyone who eats and drinks without discerning the body, eats and drinks judgement on himself?

If it truly was just symbolic then how can doing it incorrectly be sinful? Conclusion, it really is the body and blood of our Lord Jesus christ.

As for recrucifying Christ over and over again through the eucharist we don't. How? Well, for the answer we have to go back to Judaism. They viewed time through connecting events not like the linear time civilization uses today. For example Passover. They re enacted it to connect every generation to that key event and thus the people to God . They termed it Zikkaron. Now as Jesus came for God's children the jews that view would naturally continue and they'd understand it. Thus, The Last Supper is a Zikkaronic event as surely as the Passover was before it.

Jesus is the true vine and God the Father is the one who prunes the vine. He came for the Jews they were the branches but where they didn't bear fruit (Pharasees and Sadducees) God the Father cut them out. Christians owe their very salvation to this as we were grafted into the vine by hearing Jesus's word and abiding in him.