Post by de chuckaPost by Patrick BarkerPost by de chuckaPost by Patrick BarkerPost by de chuckaPost by Patrick BarkerPost by de chuckaPost by dukePost by de chuckaPost by Patrick BarkerPost by de chuckaPost by Patrick BarkerPost by de chuckaPost by Patrick BarkerPost by MattB.'We won't break the seal of confession': acting Adelaide Catholic head
Did you actually think otherwise?
As a secular country religions should not have special privelages
And religious people do not have the right anymore to follow their
religious beliefs?
They can practice there religious belief however they want as long as
they aren't contradictory to our laws. For eg if someone wanted to
introduce the Mesoamerican religion into Australia and they could freely
practice it except for the human sacrifice bit and any other practices
that breach the law.
Well, that was instructive.
Thank you
Post by Patrick BarkerHow many priests have had human sacrifice on the altar?
Quite a few it seems over the eons
Answer: zero.
Is that right ? I don't know that much about who the Mesoamerican
religions sacrificed. Interesting that the RCC still practices
cannibalism in their Masses so maybe religion hasn't moved that far forward
<Yawn>
That is an old stupid whine.
Come up with a new one.
The Romans accused Christians of cannibalism and that the charge has
been made against Catholics in various ways ever since.
What type of sin is plagiarism?
It depends if you are seeking the absolute truth from a Catholic
website, or if you NEED to have something 'splained to you in ausie
language.....
I'd say that from your obfuscation in your reply you know that claiming
something as your own is a sin.
I don't claim anything as my own.
Oh so omission isn't a sin in the RCC
Don't ask the question if you can't stand the answer.
Post by de chuckaPost by Patrick BarkerYou ask a question.
I give you the best answer at my disposal.
Without acknowledgement,
I give you the best answer at my disposal.
Post by de chuckaYep patdick you are participating in cannibalism, ritual if you are
sensible but actual if you are a true believer in Catholic Church dogma
<Yawn>
Find a new whine.
That one is hundreds of years old.
Miriam-Webster defines cannibalism as:
1. The usually ritualistic eating of human flesh by a human being.
2. The eating of the flesh of an animal by another animal of the same
kind.
Cannibalism implies here the actual chewing, swallowing, and
metabolizing of flesh and blood either after or during the killing of
a human being; at least, if we stick to definition #1.
Catholics do not do any of this in the Eucharist. Though Christ is
substantially presentbody, blood, soul and divinityin the Eucharist,
the accidents of bread and wine remain. Here it is important to define
terms. When the Church teaches the bread and wine at Mass are
transubstantiated into the body, blood, soul and divinity of Christ,
we have to understand what this means. The word, transubstantiation,
literally means transformation of the substance. Substance refers
to that which makes a thing essentially what it is. Thus, substance
and essence are synonyms. For example, man is essentially comprised
of body, soul, intellect, and will. If you remove any one of these, he
is no longer a human person. The accidents or accidentals would be
things like hair color, eye color, size, weight, etc. One can change
any of these and there would be no change in the essence or substance
of the person.
In the Eucharist, after the priest consecrates the bread and wine and
they are, in fact, transubstantiated into the body, blood, soul and
divinity of our Lord, our Lord is then entirely present. Neither bread
nor wine remains. However, the accidents of bread and wine (size,
weight, taste, texture) do remain. Hence, the essential reason why
Catholics are not guilty of cannibalism is the fact that we do not
receive our Lord in a cannibalistic form. We receive him in the form
of bread and wine. The two are qualitatively different.
To dive a bit deeper into this, I would suggest there are at least six
reasons why the Eucharist and cannibalism are qualitatively, or
essentially, different things.
1. In cannibalism, the person consumed is, generally speaking, killed.
Jesus is not killed. We receive him in his resurrected body and we do
not affect him in the least. In fact, he is not changed in the
slightest. He changes us! This is far from cannibalism.
2. In cannibalism, only part of the victim is consumed. One does not
eat the bones, sinews, etc. In the Eucharist, we consume every bit of
the Lord, eyes, hair, blood, bones, etc. But again, I emphasize that
we do so under the appearances of bread and wine. This is essentially
different than cannibalism, which leads to our next point:
3. In cannibalism, the accidents of blood and flesh are consumed. One
must tear flesh, drink blood, etc. In the Eucharist, we only consume
the accidents of bread and wine. This is not cannibalism.
4. In cannibalism, one only consumes a body, not a person. The person
and the soul of the victim would have departed. In the Eucharist, we
consume the entire person of Jesus Christ, body, blood, soul and
divinity. One cannot separate Christs body from his Divine Person.
Thus, this is a spiritual communion as well as a physical consuming.
We become one with Christ on a mystical level in this sacrament. This
is far from cannibalism.
5. In cannibalism, one only receives temporal nourishment that is
fleeting. In the Eucharist, we receive the divine life of God through
faith and receiving our Lord well-disposed, i.e. we receive
everlasting life (cf. John 6:52-55). This is essentially different
than cannibalism.
6. In cannibalism, once one eats the flesh of the victim, it is gone
forever. In the Eucharist, we can consume him every day and, as
mentioned in #1, we do not change him one bit. He remains the same.
Final Thoughts
One always has to be careful when applying terms and concepts to God.
Many people miss the mark with regard to the faith because they make
the mistake of applying terms in a human way to God who is infinite.
We could speak of Mormons who claim God, the Father, has a physical
body because the Scriptures speak of Gods back parts, in Exodus, or
the hand of Lord, the eyes of the Lord, etc. Youve probably heard
the classic rejoinder to these Mormon claims: Psalm 91 refers to
Gods feathers and wings. Does this mean God is some sort of bird?
The error here, of course, is rooted in interpreting texts that were
not intended to be used in a strict, literal sense, as if they were.
Back parts have to mean back parts, right?
When it comes to the Trinity, some who deny this essential teaching
will claim Christians are teaching God to be three beings because we
say God is three persons. However, person, as it relates to God,
does not mean there are three beings. There is an essential difference
between person as it relates to God, and person as it relates to
men and angels.
We could cite a litany of examples containing similar problems.
When it gets down to brass tacks, the nay-sayers who reject the
Eucharist, and most specifically, those who accuse us Catholics of
cannibalism because we say we consume the Lord in the Eucharist,
body, blood, soul, and divinity, fail to understand what we actually
mean by consuming the Lord. They end up objecting just as the
unbelieving Jews of John 6:52, who said, How can this man give us
his flesh to eat?
If you are thinking about a cannibalistic blood-meal, he cant. But if
you understand, as Jesus said, It is the Spirit that gives life, the
flesh is of no avail, the words I have spoken to you are Spirit and
life, then you understand. The Eucharist represents a miracle
confected by the power of the Holy Spirit.
God can do that.
https://www.catholic.com/magazine/online-edition/are-catholics-cannibalshttps://www.catholic.com/magazine/online-edition/are-catholics-cannibals