Cannibalism and Magic in Christianity

[Munin-Hugin]

I was raised Roman Catholic, and all through that time there were a few things that I never really quite understood, no matter who I asked or how hard I listened during sermons and Sunday School. Interestingly, the two biggest things sort of went hand in hand.

Let's assume that we agree that the definition of cannibalism is the act of eating the flesh of a being that is the same as the ones doing the eating. Let us also assume that we agree that Jesus, before the time of his death and Resurrection was, despite his divine father, was human. During the Last Supper, we were taught (and are reminded of each week at mass) that Jesus stood before his Apostles and said (to paraphrase) "here's my blood, here's my flesh, take a sip and take a bite", then passed around bread and wine.

Now, one of the things that is part of the Roman Catholic sect is that there is a belief in the practice of transubstantiation. Basically, this is the belief that the bread and wine, once blessed, in actuality becomes the flesh and blood of Jesus, even though the appearance of bread and wine remains. In magical terms, that would be considered transmutation, the creation of one thing out of another.

Put those two things together, and when stated in a way that is not referencing any specific religion, you have the following: A respected member of the community, possessing of magical powers, transforms mere food and drink into the actual flesh and blood of the human child of their deity. Then, the gathered people eat and drink of the physical body of said son, in an act of ritualized cannibalism.

So what is the actual difference between magic and miracle, and cannibalism and taking part of the Holy Communion ritual?

[B. de Corbin]

Symbolism, metaphor vs. actuality.

[Munin-Hugin]

Symbolism, metaphor vs. actuality.

Well, sure. But what's the purpose? I've never been able to suss out the actual meaning of the cannibalism either. The words don't really go a long way to explain it. "Eat this, for this is my body, which has been given up for you."

- - - Updated - - -


Symbolism, metaphor vs. actuality.

Should have added this. But that's the thing. Transubstantiation means that it is reality, not metaphor.

[magusphredde]

Jesus words were intended to mean that if you believe in his divinity ( eat his flesh) and his sacrifice for your sins (drink of his blood) then you will be saved ... These acts are symbolic of faith ... you don't really have to partake in bar-b-que Jesus on a bun

[Munin-Hugin]

Jesus words were intended to mean that if you believe in his divinity ( eat his flesh) and his sacrifice for your sins (drink of his blood) then you will be saved ... These acts are symbolic of faith ......

Again, though. It's not purely symbolic, as it is believed that you are eating and drinking the physical body and blood. I get the symbolism of it. I don't understand why it's not left to BE symbolic, and instead is the use of "miracle" or magic to become reality.

[anunitu]

If you consider the tribal idea of eating your enemy in order to obtain the courage and warrior spirit it might seem that what you are talking about is kind of consuming the body and spirit to obtain the purity and divinity of Jesus kinda.

[Rae'ya]

I was taught in Catholic primary school that it was symbolic, not reality. That we were partaking of the essence of Jesus in order to strengthen our faith and connection with God.

[magusphredde]

Again, though. It's not purely symbolic, as it is believed that you are eating and drinking the physical body and blood. I get the symbolism of it. I don't understand why it's not left to BE symbolic, and instead is the use of "miracle" or magic to become reality.
I would LOVE to know what Christian faith believes that they are really eating his body and drinking his blood ... Yes, it is symbolic ...

[MaskedOne]

I would LOVE to know what Christian faith believes that they are really eating his body and drinking his blood ... Yes, it is symbolic ...

Err, Catholocism, well sort of

The Vatican (http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p2s2c1a3.htm) has a long list of compiled comments on the Eucharist but the one below handles Transubstantiation



"The Council of Trent summarizes the Catholic faith by declaring: "Because Christ our Redeemer said that it was truly his body that he was offering under the species of bread, it has always been the conviction of the Church of God, and this holy Council now declares again, that by the consecration of the bread and wine there takes place a change of the whole substance of the bread into the substance of the body of Christ our Lord and of the whole substance of the wine into the substance of his blood. This change the holy Catholic Church has fittingly and properly called transubstantiation."


Regarding why....

erm,,,,

go through the link above. If you're lucky, you'll spot an answer that makes sense to you. If not, shrug, someone around here might be adequately versed in Catholic theology to handle this in detail. I don't think I could do it justice without putting more work into it than I want to.

[Medusa]

A lot of Christians, Jews and Muslims believe the bible is literal. Just different parts of the bible I guess depending upon your religion. Catholics and the Eucharist? Yup. It's the real deal. Evengalists and Fundamentalists as well.

[Briton]

I have a good friend who is Catholic, who wanted to tell me Catholicism was more right than Orthodoxy, who said that transubstantiation was a very real part of Catholicism when we discussed the topic.

Transubstantiation is the belief that by the power of God, the substance of the bread and wine have literally been changed to flesh and blood respectively whilst retaining their appearance. In Orthodoxy, they prefer not to think they can explain the Eucharist but rather call it a 'mystery' (there are something like seven mysteries in Orthodoxy, the bonding of two in matrimony is another). Some say it is consubstantiation, that the bread and wine becomes flesh and blood but also remains bread and wine, coexisting. This is not the doctrine, though, and most Orthodox priests will just say "we don't know exactly in what sense it becomes the flesh and blood, but it does."

The idea that it is symbolic is a purely protestant idea. Same for baptism and the other mysteries.

- - - Updated - - -


I was taught in Catholic primary school that it was symbolic, not reality. That we were partaking of the essence of Jesus in order to strengthen our faith and connection with God.

What Catholic sect was that? Usually schools are connected with a monastic order of sorts.

[magusphredde]

Well since I don't believe in it either way I will let y'all figure it out ... I do believe I will check the crock pot ... Slow cooking corned beef so I can make fresh corned beef hash for breakfast tomorrow ...

[B. de Corbin]

Should have added this. But that's the thing. Transubstantiation means that it is reality, not metaphor.

Strictly IMHO - the greater mass of humanity is not very good at grasping symbols & metaphor, they lust for concretes, and so convert every subtly nuanced use of symbol and/or metaphor into the item of their desire - a "description of real things."

In trying to make things clear, people become confused (that sounds so Zen :rolleyes:). Catholic theologians are as subject to this as much as anybody else...

[anunitu]

So,bacon is really a holy thing then besides being tasty.?????

[B. de Corbin]

So,bacon is really a holy thing then besides being tasty.?????

Only to pigs, who are, in fact, cannibals.

[thalassa]

I was taught in Catholic primary school that it was symbolic, not reality. That we were partaking of the essence of Jesus in order to strengthen our faith and connection with God.

I learned at CYO that it was a "representational metaphor" and that the literal part came from the spirit of Jesus's body and blood being in the bread and wine.

This was because I made a joke about Jesus being a man made of bread (this was the same day that the priest in charge pulled me aside and thanked me for coming even though I was neither Catholic nor Christian because he thought that having this exposure to other ideas and having to answer them was both good for his personal faith and for that of the other kids...aparently some of the parents had complained).

[anunitu]

Reminds me of an incident in my youth when I flipped off a priest..his hand was where it should not have been...(Inner city youth was I)

[Munin-Hugin]

I sort of feel that when I was growing up and being made to go to Sunday School (aka CCD), we didn't have the cool priests or teachers who would allow "out of the box" type questions. If someone asked one, the generic response was to be told that "you're just being silly" and then the class was redirected back to whatever it was that was being discussed. So I never got the answers to the "silly" questions that I had, and stopped asking them all together. I'd have to say that even then at a young age was when I started feeling disenfranchised with the whole thing, though I tried because it was what I was supposed to do.

[Briton]

I sort of feel that when I was growing up and being made to go to Sunday School (aka CCD), we didn't have the cool priests or teachers who would allow "out of the box" type questions. If someone asked one, the generic response was to be told that "you're just being silly" and then the class was redirected back to whatever it was that was being discussed. So I never got the answers to the "silly" questions that I had, and stopped asking them all together. I'd have to say that even then at a young age was when I started feeling disenfranchised with the whole thing, though I tried because it was what I was supposed to do.

I'd say you appear to be infringing on the copyright to the story of my life but it appears you are older than me. Still. Story of my life.

[thalassa]

I sort of feel that when I was growing up and being made to go to Sunday School (aka CCD), we didn't have the cool priests or teachers who would allow "out of the box" type questions.

This seems really wierd to me...because this is completely the opposite approach in both my family and in the church I was raised in.

[B. de Corbin]

This seems really wierd to me...because this is completely the opposite approach in both my family and in the church I was raised in.

I have mixed experiences as a Catholic - young, being taught by nuns, you bought what you were told or got a wampin'.

Later, in the late 60's in Sunday School, the nuns encouraged discussion. I imagine that time and locality have big effects on these experiences, even within a specific denomination.

[DragonsFriend]

In the Catholic faith the priests hands are blessed (consecrated) in order to perform the right of changing the bread and wine into the body and blood of Christ. Whether it is considered an act of magik or a miracle is probably part of the reason that so many other Christians believe that Catholicism is a cult and not a Christian religion. There are more reasons for this but the Catholic faith requires one to believe that it is truly the body and blood of Christ.

Is it cannibalistic to eat the substance of one's god? When He commanded it? I don't have the answers and I spent eighteen years growing up a Catholic. My mother was Catholic and my father was a convert. I was never a very good Catholic because the leap of faith that was required was too great. Being Pagan and the process of initiation taught me in a way that that leap of faith could be made small enough to take. All religions require a leap of faith at some point. If you had proof there would be no need of faith.

[kalynraye]

My Grandmother is a Southern Baptist and Grandfather is Church of Christ, and I've got an Aunt who is Nondenominational, and I spent every Sunday growing up in either my Nan's church or with my Aunt. I was not allowed to share the last supper until I was baptized because I could not understand the sacrifice of what was made and it was considered a sin. For them it is not metaphorically speaking either. They do believe it is the actual blood and body of Christ. As for the reason why they do it I think it goes with accepting his gift and sacrifice. I can ask my Nan. She would have no issue explaining to me. Hmmm I might just do that.

[Rae'ya]

What Catholic sect was that? Usually schools are connected with a monastic order of sorts.

Erm... I'm not sure. I was a kid and we moved away when I was twelve. I remember that Mary MacKillop (who was in the process of being canonised when I was there, which has since been completed) was a big deal. Our principal was a nun, and some quick research tells me that she was Sister of St Joseph... though I'm not sure whether the 2-3 nun teachers that we had were also Josephites. We had two priests and I remember the younger one had spent a lot of time as a missionary in Papua New Guinea and he was... really fun and a bit out there.

I'm not sure if it was just my school, but my experiences in Catholic primary school were not at all like a lot of the stories I've heard from other countries and from older generation Aussies. I never went to Sunday School, but we studied the religion as a subject and regularly had classes taught by Father Eugene himself.

[MaskedOne]

Catholocism is rather large and by virtue of that, you run into some Catholics operating one way in one area and others operating differently somewhere else. I've yet to come across a priest or nun that I actively dislike but I also haven't gone out of my way to have theological debates with any of them.

I did know a priest who had

https://images.duckduckgo.com/iu/?u=http%3A%2F%2Ftse2.mm.bing.net%2Fth%3Fid%3DOIP.M 3f5f172ce5bd378b8a280f5a8a3b25b9o0%26pid%3D15.1&f=1

framed when we found it online and printed off a copy for him.

[Rae'ya]

I learned at CYO that it was a "representational metaphor" and that the literal part came from the spirit of Jesus's body and blood being in the bread and wine.

This was because I made a joke about Jesus being a man made of bread (this was the same day that the priest in charge pulled me aside and thanked me for coming even though I was neither Catholic nor Christian because he thought that having this exposure to other ideas and having to answer them was both good for his personal faith and for that of the other kids...aparently some of the parents had complained).

I was taught basically the same thing that Thal has said here. So obviously it wasn't an explanation isolated to just my school/church.

The Holy Eucharist was all very serious... you didn't partake if you hadn't undergone the full rites (Baptism, Confirmation, Reconciliation and First Eucharist), and it was a sacred and profound process. It wasn't like 'oh, this is just a symbol, here have some bread'... but we weren't taught that it wasn't bread anymore and that we were literally eating Jesus' actual flesh... it was bread and wine imbued with Jesus' spirit and made MORE than bread and wine. Partaking of it was to partake of Jesus himself, not by eating HIM, but by taking his essence into you.

[Medusa]

I do like the loophole of funerals though. In a Catholic funeral everyone gets to eat the Christ! Happened at my father's funeral. I was raised Roman Latin Catholic. Which pretty much meant we were Catholics and then throw in some hard core Hispanic magic. My nana had an altar full of saints I was to dust daily (til I broke St Francis's foot off) and she also had one of these in her bedroom:

https://img1.etsystatic.com/001/0/6921193/il_570xN.364460449_cgtn.jpg

I also had the traditional blond lady gaurdian angel over my bed:
http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-7JNckp5CFAI/ToifnkLdvOI/AAAAAAAAAVc/cvK1830Rws8/s1600/heiligeschutzengel.jpg

And on the other wall this:
https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/236x/fd/4d/33/fd4d332ce06417c68bfbcb77be4793f0.jpg

[Azvanna]

So what is the actual difference between magic and miracle, and cannibalism and taking part of the Holy Communion ritual?

Interesting question. I had a look online and there was a term I was unfamiliar with here: http://itsjustdave1988.blogspot.com.au/2009/08/why-is-partaking-of-holy-eucharist-not.html The bread and wine are called 'accidents' meaning
Accidents = (1) a nonessential property or quality of an entity. [Merriam-Webster] (2) things whose essence naturally requires that they exist in another being. Accidents are also called the appearances, species, or properties of a thing. These may be either physical, such as quantity, or modal, such as size or shape. [Fr. John Hardon, Modern Catholic Dictionary].

So essentially, the Eucharist is metabolised as bread and wine, but hold the supernatural substance (or true nature) of Jesus' body and blood. So for example you could say here is a square (the true nature/substance) that's purple (purple being the 'accident' or non-essential quality). For Eucharist, you would say here is the body and blood of Christ which is bread and wine.

It doesn't really make sense because it seems like a game in bad grammar and semantics, but there you have it.

Maybe transubstantiation isn't the same as transmutation. A better example of transmutation would be when Jesus turned water into wine (John 2:1-11). There was a miracle that everyone noticed and didn't have to take it on faith. I took the Eucharist once in Catholic church for school and was politely asked not to do so again. It smelled like wine, it tasted like wine and that "bread" was like licking sticky cardboard. At the wedding feast when the gospel report Jesus turning water into wine, the water literally became wine - there was no mistaking it. It sounds like in transubstantiation, the metaphysical qualities are changed, but in transmutation, the physical aspects are changed.

[thalassa]

but we weren't taught that it wasn't bread anymore and that we were literally eating Jesus' actual flesh... it was bread and wine imbued with Jesus' spirit and made MORE than bread and wine. Partaking of it was to partake of Jesus himself, not by eating HIM, but by taking his essence into you.

This--that its not literally blood and meat of a 2000 year old dead (resurrected) guy, but that it is the spiritual essence of the blood and body of the YHWH-as-man.

Which comes to the whole one ousia in three hypostases thing (aka the Trinity)--one divine essence in three bodies...they are all "God" because god is the ousia, but the imagery of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are the three...lets call them incarnations (but not in the reincarnation sense) (maybe avatar is a better description) (maybe manifestation) of the ousia. When you take communion, the bread and wine become of that ousia (the divine essence) and become spiritual manifestations of the blood and body of Jesus.

This is different from most Protestant traditions, where the blood and wine are generally thought to be symbols of Jesus (but may run the spectrum between this *purely symbolic* view and the one above). Either way, its no more odd than anything Pagans do.

[Azvanna]

And on the other wall this:
https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/236x/fd/4d/33/fd4d332ce06417c68bfbcb77be4793f0.jpg

Necromancy!

But can someone tell me about this image?

[MaskedOne]

It's likely

A. Mary (no other woman that I can think of in Catholic lore gets this type of art)
B. Glancing at the mini-pics, one of her catalogued appearances with marching orders

I don't follow Catholic lore closely enough to figure that one out specifically but there are some rather famous events over the centuries where Mary reportedly appears to someone (generally isolated souls outdoors) with some kind of message from on high.


Edit:

If I were a betting sort then I'd go with

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Our_Lady_of_Guadalupe

[Azvanna]

It's likely

A. Mary (no other woman that I can think of in Catholic lore gets this type of art)
B. Glancing at the mini-pics, one of her catalogued appearances with marching orders

I don't follow Catholic lore closely enough to figure that one out specifically but there are some rather famous events over the centuries where Mary reportedly appears to someone (generally isolated souls outdoors) with some kind of message from on high.


Edit:

If I were a betting sort then I'd go with

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Our_Lady_of_Guadalupe

Thank you! It was the mini pictures in particular that I couldn't work out.

[MaskedOne]

Thank you! It was the mini pictures in particular that I couldn't work out.

Catholic art has been known to use that type of picture to tell stories or at least remind people familiar with the stories of key plot points. I know a Church that pulls the trick with stained glass windows.

[anunitu]

There is what is called the "Cult" of Mary...might need to search on this one.
From National Geographic. (http://channel.nationalgeographic.com/explorer/episodes/explorer-the-cult-of-mary/)

- - - Updated - - -

It has from time to time been Said that the Madonna is an image that kind of mimics the pagan goddess in order to bring in those pagans that resisted leaving their beliefs..This is mostly speculation,as no evidence has been brought forward in this matter. Some use the Voodoo inclusion of saints from the Mother church that were influenced by the expansion of said Church to explain that view of bringing in outside beliefs and imagery to bring in what they(the church) term pagans or heathens(their terms,not mine)