Catholicism: A Defense of the Faith

'Christian Cannibals': Dear Ellie

Ellie, aka DarkPH0T0N is a Protestant on this site who publishes on religion and politics. One of her books, titled No Apologies: Why I am a Christian was recommended to me once by a Protestant seeking to convince me to leave Catholicism. I had a look at it, and it only made me more Catholic than before.

This is a response to the chapter Christian Cannibals. Her words are in italics.

"I think it's important that we take the Bible literally. But sometimes people take it a little too literally."

I agree.

"A lot of times people will pretend it's a big theological issue which parts of the Bible are literal and which are figurative."

Yes, this is a problem (brought about largely by Protestantism).

"But this is just inflating a problem so as to turn black and white into grey. Tactics like this only lead to justifying problems with one's reasoning."

But this is exactly what you do with your critiques of Catholicism. And this is the basis for Protestantism and its many contradicting churches: everyone justifies their position with personal reasoning, yet claims to be guided by the same disorganized "Holy Spirit".

Catholicism interprets Scripture through the guidance of the Magisterium and the early Church — the early Catholic Church. That is why Luke 22:19 is and has always been taken literally and not in the metaphorical way taught by Zwingli in the 1520's.

"I am of course taking about transubstantiation."

No. You're talking about a straw man.

"Transubstantiation is the Catholic teaching that the bread and wine used in Communion literally turn into Jesus' flesh and blood. No, I don't mean metaphorically. I mean actual flesh and actual blood."

What you're describing is 'Real Eucharistic Presence', not 'transubstantiation'. They are not synonymous. Orthodox, Anglicans and Lutherans believe in the former but not the latter. We believe in both. Transubstantiation is an explanation of the former, i.e. the "trans-formation of the substance." It was defined by the Council of Trent in this way:

"...by the consecration of the bread and of the wine, a conversion is made 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..."

"I myself have not eaten anyone before. I don't know what it is like to drink blood or take a bite out of human flesh (gak)."

Neither have I. Cannibalism sounds horrid.

Cannibalism also has nothing to do with transubstantiation. The former involves the victim being killed and from then on is no more. Jesus is not re-crucified in the Eucharist and He lives for eternity.

It also involves the consumption of a body alone, not a person (body and soul). Jesus in the Eucharist is present Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity.

And the word 'transubstantiation' again means 'transformation of the substance'. The consecrated Host and Wine change in substance (from bread and wine to Body and Blood) but retain their physical appearances: they look like bread and wine, taste like bread and wine, feel like bread and wine, smell like bread and wine. They do not look, taste, feel or smell like flesh.

We receive the Eucharist for spiritual nourishment, not physical.

It is a mystery that therefore does not fit the definition of "cannibalism".