The Eucharist, Part 4
Jesus Christ: Yesterday, Today, and Forever ~
Today we continue our twenty part series on the Eucharist. In case you missed the first three, you can find them here. This is in keeping with Archbishop Etienne’s pastoral letter on the Eucharist that you can find here (in case you missed it). Enjoy.
May God Bless You,
Fr. Thomas Nathe
Trent Horn, 20 Answers – The Eucharist. Catholic Answers Press. 2015
Get your own copy from Catholic.com
Question #4:
If the Eucharist contains the physical presence of Christ’s body and blood, doesn’t that mean Catholics who eat it are cannibals?
This is actually a very old charge against Christians that dates all the way back to pagan critics of the early Church. In the third century, Origen accused the pagan critic Celsus of acting “like those Jews who, when Christianity began to be first preached, scattered abroad false reports of the Gospel, such as that Christians offered up an infant in sacrifice, and partook of the its flesh.” In the second century, Justin Martyr responded to Jewish critics who accused Christians of “fabulous and shameful deeds – the upsetting of the lamp, and promiscuous intercourse, and eating human flesh.”
Regardless of how the charge of cannibalism arose, it was as false then as it is now. That’s because consuming the body and blood of Christ under the form of bread and wine does not fall under the definition of cannibalism. Merriam-Webster defines cannibalism as “the usually ritualistic eating of human flesh by a human being,” but there are several important differences that prove Catholics are not cannibals. First, cannibals eat the substance of ordinary human flesh under the form of flesh. Catholics consume the glorified human flesh of Christ under the form of bread and wine. Second, the victim of cannibalism is often killed; then only the parts that provide temporal nourishment are consumed. The soul is not consumed (since it is immaterial and departs from the body at death) and the inedible body parts are discarded. But those who consume the Eucharist do not kill Christ, and Christ’s person is not consumed in part like a victim of cannibalism. Instead, the communicant receives Christ’s whole person – his body, blood, soul, and divinity, and, unlike the temporal nourishment provided to the body through cannibalism, the Eucharist provides the communicant with spiritual nourishment that leads to eternal life.
Another important point to remember is that a symbolic interpretation of the Eucharist does not escape this objection either. Even if Jesus were not physically present in the Eucharist, the fact that the Eucharist symbolically represents his body and blood would mean that Protestants were taking part in symbolic cannibalism. But Christ would never command his followers to symbolically act out an evil like cannibalism any more that he would instruct his followers to symbolically act out an evil like rape or murder. The simple truth is that Christ did not command us to be cannibals, either literally or symbolically. He instead commanded us to receive him in a bodily way as the new Passover lamb.
Finally, because Christ is the God-man, we don’t relate to him as we would a fellow human. Worshiping a man, for example, would normally be idolatry, but if that man is God, as is the case with Jesus Christ, then it’s not idolatry. Likewise, eating a man would normally be cannibalism, but if that man is God and he has given us his body in a miraculous way for our spiritual benefit, then consuming him is not cannibalism. In fact, it would be a sin to disobey God’s direct command to eat his body and drink his blood so that we may have life through him.
