why do people eat Christs body and drinks his blood in communion?

Question

in catholic comunion, people eat Christs body and drinks his blood. This seems a bit like cannibalism. ¿why is this done in this way? I know this was donde in the last supper with the disciples, but the "way" in which catholics come together with Christ could be different. Why is it "eating" him?

in catholic comunion, people eat Christs body and drinks his blood. This seems a bit like cannibalism. ¿why is this done in this way? I know this was donde in the last supper with the disciples, but the "way" in which catholics come together with Christ could be different. Why is it "eating" him?

Note: although for some religions is just to remember, to Catholics its the actual flesh and blood they are eating.

Note 2: this question is for informed catholics to enlight me about this issue, a non believer asked me, and i didnt know what to answer, since i do find it a bit cannibal...

Answer 1

the Bible never says the it it literally His body

but when we take the bread and the cup we do this "in remembrance" of Him,

to remember the sacrifice of the cross.

Answer 2

Consubstantiation is the view that the bread and wine of Communion / the Lord's Supper are seen to spiritually be the flesh and blood of Jesus, but yet the bread and wine are still actually only bread and wine. In this way, it is different from Transubstantiation where the bread and the wine are believed to actually become the body and blood of Jesus. Transubstantiation is a Roman Catholic dogma that stretches back to the earliest years of the Church while Consubstantiation is relatively new, arising out of the Protestant Reformation. Consubstantiation essentially teaches that Jesus is "with, in, and under" the bread and wine - but is not literally the bread and wine.



Martin Luther, seen to be the founder of the Protestant Reformation, was a Roman Catholic priest who was fed up with the abuses of the Roman Catholic Church and wanted to reform the Church so it could once again return to its original roots. As such, he would have learned all about the doctrine of Transubstantiation in his theological training and it would have made up part of his belief system because, as a priest, he would have celebrated the Mass many times and the dogma of Transubstantiation is central to the Roman Catholic Mass.



Thus when the Reformation started as a backlash to the Roman Catholic abuses (such as the sale of indulgences) and the reform movement was then summarily excommunicated from the Church, the leaders of the Reformation were largely Roman Catholic believers who were now without a Church since they had been excommunicated from the Roman Catholic Church. Thus was formed the climate in which the elements of the Mass, the bread and the wine, could be examined in a reformed light. So instead of Transubstantiation, a doctrine that must be taken on faith alone since no apparent change is present in the bread and wine, the doctrine of Consubstantiation was formulated to explain what happened to the bread and wine and why there was no real physical change to these basic elements.



Thus, the bread, appearing as bread, was seen to be both bread and the body of Jesus, rather than seeing the bread as not bread but as the body of Jesus. The same was true of the wine. In Consubstantiation the wine is both wine and the blood of Jesus instead of becoming the actual blood of Jesus. The change from Trans- to Con- is the key to seeing the bread and wine as the body and blood of Jesus. The prefix Trans- says that a change took place, the bread actually became the body of Jesus and the wine actually became the blood of Jesus. The prefix Con- says that the bread does not become the body of Jesus but co-exists with the physical bread so that the bread is both a bread and the body of Jesus. The same thing is true of the wine. It does not become the blood of Jesus, but co-exists with the wine so that the wine is both wine and the blood of Jesus.



In this way, the make-up of the host central to the worship service is seen as approaching reality since the physical property of the bread and wine do not change, the bread tastes like unleavened bread, not flesh and the wine tastes like wine, not blood. However these two essential elements, the flesh and the blood, remain as co-existing elements with the bread and wine so that the teaching of Jesus, in Matthew 26:26-28 and Mark 14:22-24, can be properly observed. Consubstantiation is held by some Eastern Orthodox churches, and some other liturgical Christian denominations (Episcopal and Lutheran as examples). Even amongst these groups, consubstantiation is not universally accepted.

Recommended Resource: The Lord's Supper is a Celebration of Grace by Gordon Keddie.

Answer 3

Try a little reading:

Mt 26:26-27; Mk 14:22,24; Lk 22:19-20; 1 Cor 11:24-25 ... this is my body ... this is my blood.
1 Cor 11:26-30 ... sinning against the body and blood.
Jn 6:32-58 ... long discourse on Eucharist.
Gen 14:18; Ps 110:4; Heb 7:1-17 ... Melchizedek.
Acts 2:42 ... breaking of bread.
Ps 14:4; Ps 53:4; Is 9:18-20; Is 49:26; Micah 3:2-3; Rev 17:6,16 ... symbolic interpretation of Jn 6 inappropriate.
Ex 12:8,46 ... paschal lamb has to be eaten.
Jn 1:29; 1 Cor 5:7 ... Jesus is lamb of God, paschal lamb.
Jn 4:31-34; Mt 16:5-12 ... Jesus speaks symbolically of food.

These will answer your questions on Catholics and the Eucharist.

Answer 4

The Eucharist "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood, you have no life in you; he who eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day. For my flesh is food indeed, and my blood is drink indeed. He who eats my flesh and drinks my blood abides in me, and I in him" (John 6:53–56). Jesus made no attempt to soften what he said, no attempt to correct "misunderstandings," for there were none. Our Lord’s listeners understood him perfectly well. They no longer thought he was speaking metaphorically. Christ explained just what he meant (cf. Matt. 16:5–12). Here, where any misunderstanding would be fatal, there was no effort by Jesus to correct. Instead, he repeated himself for greater emphasis. But he knew some did not believe. "After this, many of his disciples drew back and no longer went about with him" (John 6:66). This is the only record we have of any of Christ’s followers forsaking him for purely doctrinal reasons. If it had all been a misunderstanding, if they erred in taking a metaphor in a literal sense, why didn’t he call them back and straighten things out? Both the Jews, who were suspicious of him, and his disciples, who had accepted everything up to this point, would have remained with him had he said he was speaking only symbolically. But he did not correct these protesters. Twelve times he said he was the bread that came down from heaven; four times he said they would have "to eat my flesh and drink my blood." John 6 was an extended promise of what would be instituted at the Last Supper—and it was a promise that could not be more explicit.

Answer 5

I'm not Catholic, but my church has communion. Christ had his last supper with his disciples and told him exactly how he wanted them to do this. He basically told them that the bread was a symbol of his body which is broken for us and the whine is a symbol of his blood that is spilled for us. The communion is a symbol and I don't believe that the bread or the whine are actually Christ. I'm probably just reinstating your point, but I believe this is the way Jesus meant communion to be.

Answer 6

Read the Bible, even the king James version.

Jesus said. "This is my body" He did not say "This is a representation of my body"

It is not cannibalism, we do this because that is the way Jesus told us to. Who are we to second guess him?

When we take the Eucharist, it is different than any other thing we consume because normally when we eat, the food becomes part of us, but when we accept the Eucharist, we become part of it. (the body of Christ)

Hope this helps.

Peace!

Answer 7

This is not a Catholic belive, all or most of christian bleive that this is the real body on Jesus chirst.

He said, "I tell you the truth, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you." (John 6:53).

He also said, "Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me, and I in him" (v.56)

Asking this question is useless...

Answer 8

It is remembering that Jesus Christ has a Physical body, that He walked the Earth with us and understands us and gave us commandments to follow.. it is remembering that Jesus Christ willingly gave up His life's blood so that we might live again.

Answer 9

It IS ritualized cannibalism.
It's taken from older pagan ideas, because of which the Christians will deny it to the hilt.

Answer 10

Symbolic ritual canibalism.

Catholicism is thought to be just the old Roman religion of Jupiter rebranded (Pontifex Maximum = High Priest of Jupiter). "Your Holiness, is that a Yamaka you're earing?"

Answer 11

Its not cannibalism,because Jesus was 100% man and 100% God. He told us to do so,He.. THE Creator of earth and sky.
Our bodies are bound by death,death has dominion over them. But our spirits are alive,because of the Holy Spirit that lives in us. In order to make that life flow from the spirit through our minds,hearts and bodies..we take the Holy Communion in remembrance of His sacrifice,and the fact that through "His stripes we are healed" (our bodies and souls) (Isaiah 41)