If Catholics believe that the Eucharist is actually the body of Christ, aren't Catholics participating in cannibalism when they take Communion?

“Love the Lord with all your heart, and with all your soul,

and with all your MIND”--Matt 22:37

He is risen!  Alleluia!

Question:   If Catholics believe that the Eucharist is actually the body of Christ, aren't Catholics participating in cannibalism when they take Communion?
My first response to this question is, so what if it is cannibalism?  If Christ commanded us to do it, then as the Creator of the Universe speaking to a creature, he is to be obeyed.  <shrug> 
However, I understand if that answer is not satisfactory and not quite compelling enough to use in an apologetics discussion, when one is called to provide a reasoned defense of the hope that she has in her. 
The better response is from apologist Mark Shea:  "There are a number of paradoxes which the gospel teaches. We are not to worship men, but there is one Man whom we absolutely must worship. Human sacrifice is against the will of God, but in one unique case, a human sacrifice was at the heart of God's plan. In the Old Testament the eating of blood was forbidden since "the blood is the life." That is, we are not to seek our "life" from creatures. We are to seek it from God. And when God assumes flesh and blood he therefore tells us, "Unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you."

Cannibalism is not sinful because it's "icky". It's sinful (unless done for desperate purposes as in the Donner Party) because it violates the dignity of the human body and it violates our dignity if done (as it typically is) for the religious purpose of seeking our life from a creature rather than from God. Cannibalism is virtually always a religious act, as it was in Germany. And it is a religious act fundamentally ordered to blaspheme God and those in his image either by treating a human being as an idol or as an animal, but not as a human being.

The Eucharist is, of course, not the consumption of dead flesh, but of the Living, Risen and Glorified Christ. It is shocking, to be sure. Indeed, if the Eucharist does not shock you, you're just not awake. But it is not immoral and it is not cannibalism for it is not seeking the ends that cannibalism seeks and it is instituted by the living God to give us his divinized human life, not to make us idolators and desecrators."

That is, the social taboo against cannibalism doesn't apply at the Eucharist.  Cannibalism is gravely immoral not because consuming human flesh is inherently wrong, but through the intent--devouring the flesh of another in a barbaric and disrespectful manner violates the dignity of a human by treating the body as if it were an animal.

Finally, "cannibalism is when one individual physically eats the human flesh off of another’s body. Catholic or not, the words in John 6 do sound cannibalistic. Even a Fundamentalist would have to say that he eats the flesh of Christ and drinks his blood in a symbolic manner so as to concur with the passage. By the same allowance, Catholics eat the flesh of Christ and drink his blood in a sacramental way. Neither the Protestant nor the Catholic appears to be doing anything cannibalistic, though.

It would have been cannibalism is if a disciple two thousand years ago had tried literally to eat Jesus by sinking his teeth into his arm. Now that our Lord is in heaven with a glorified body and made present under the appearance of bread in the Eucharist, cannibalism is not possible. From "How to Defend Christ's Presence in the Eucharist".

In other words, if it's cannibalism for Catholics, then it's also cannibalism (albeit in a symbolic manner) for Protestants who partake of the Lord's Supper in their churches.  Yet it seems that those who point out that Catholics are "ritualistic cannibals" don't seem to view their communion service as a symbolic cannibalism.  If it's wrong for Catholics to literally be cannibals, wouldn't it be wrong for Protestants to symbolically pretend to be cannibals as well?

Why do Catholics believe Jesus is literally bread yet don't believe Jesus is literally a gate or a door or a vine?

“Love the Lord with all your heart, and with all your soul,

and with all your MIND”--Matt 22:37

He is risen!  Alleluia!

Question:   Why do Catholics believe Jesus is literally bread yet don't believe Jesus is literally a gate or a door or a vine?

So Jesus said again, “Amen, amen, I say to you,
I am the gate for the sheep.--John 10

Firstly, the question as posed above is a little incorrect theologically.  Catholics don't profess that Jesus is literally bread, but that the bread is literally Jesus.  An important distinction! 

The Eucharist is the source and summit of our faith.  It is the central doctrine of Christian life, and that to which every other Christian concept is oriented.  We believe and profess this truth by virtue of our faith in the Scriptures, the Sacred Tradition which has proclaimed this from the earliest days of Christianity, and our faith in the Church which has affirmed and echoed this dogma throughout its 2000 year history.

The Scriptures proclaim that Jesus is the Bread of Life in John 6.  (Actually, it is on every single page of Scripture, but we look to John 6 specifically, starting with v42, today.)  The Jews understood Jesus to be speaking literally and were scandalized. He "knew that his disciples were murmuring about this, he said to them, "Does this shock you?"  Yet he does not clarify that he was only speaking metaphorically or symbolically.  He continues with "But there are some of you who do not believe". 
Contrast this "Bread of Life" discourse with John 10 and John 15  in which Jesus uses metaphors to describe himself.  In fact, the Scriptures specifically state that "Jesus used this figure of speech" (John 10:6) to describe himself as a gate.  No one left him because they thought he was saying he was literally a gate, in contrast to the previous command Jesus gave to eat his flesh, where they understood him perfectly as being literal--and many left him because of this, including Judas. "At this point, we witness the only place in Scripture where anyone leaves Jesus for a doctrinal reason. Had Jesus been speaking metaphorically, what would have been so hard for the disciples to accept?

One last passage worth considering is John 10:9, where Jesus says, "I am the door." Some say that this is the sense in which Jesus’ words in John 6 should be taken. However, no one understood Jesus to be speaking literally when he said that he was a door. The narrative does not continue, "And his disciples murmured about this, saying, ‘How can he be a door? Where are his hinges? We do not see a doorknob.’ Jesus answered them, ‘Amen, Amen, I say to you, I am a door, and my chest is real wood, and my hips are real hinges.’" This is absurd, but it illustrates how shocking Jesus’ words were when he said that his flesh was real food and his blood real drink." source.

Finally, this passage in John 6 speaks, in my opinion, volumes: “This is a hard teaching. Who can accept it?”
It speaks to not only those who left Him because they could not accept this Eucharistic command, but it also addresses those who "pick and choose" the teachings of Christ and His Church and reject those "hard teachings."  If our faith consists only of those teachings that are palatable and acceptable to our own tastes, then I suggest that we are following in the tradition of those in John 6 who want to create a messiah in their own image/principles rather than conform their beliefs to that which God has revealed.

For more in-depth study visit these websites:

Catholic Bible online

Catechism of the Catholic Church online

 

"Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have. But do this with gentleness and respect" - 1 Peter 3:15

Weren't there women priests/deacons in the early Church?

“Love the Lord with all your heart, and with all your soul,

and with all your MIND”--Matt 22:37

He is risen!  Alleluia!

Question: Weren't there women priests/deacons in the early Church?  Wasn't Phoebe identified in the book of Romans as a deacon?

I commend to you Phoebe our sister, who is (also) a minister of the church at Cenchreae,--Romans 16:1

The above passage in Romans does indicate that a woman, Phoebe, was a deacon in the Church.  (The word used in the original Greek text for "minister" is diakonos, from which we get the word "deacon".)  However, the role of a deacon in the early church should not be understood as an ordained role similar to the diaconate role we have in the church today.  Phoebe was a minister or servant who assisted the clergy in the liturgy, but was never ordained.

To be sure, women served a role in the early church, just as they do now. However, it was never the case that women served as priestesses, deaconesses or in any ordained capacity.

Modern day media portrayals of the Church in history usually fall into two categories:
-those that present the Church as oppressive to women with the male priesthood/hierarchy as the Eternal Oppressors.
-those that claim (as in the above question) that initially the Church had priestesses, but that elite, powerful and evil men usurped this role of women and started their own misogynistic agenda against women (ala The DaVinci Code).

Neither is true. 

Church teaching has always promoted the dignity and worth of women, especially in contrast to the pagan cultures in which they enculturated.  That Catholic men have, no doubt, oppressed women in the name of the Church is a sad testament.  However, how people in the Church have practiced their faith (or lack thereof) should not be confused with what the Church has taught.  It is the difference between orthopraxy (living out of the faith) and orthodoxy (the teaching of the faith.)  The orthodoxy of the Church has never promoted oppression to women.  In its orthopraxy, sadly, it has.

How has the Church promoted the dignity and esteem of women?  Starting in the Old Testament we have the examples of Miriam, Deborah, Ruth, Judith...New Testament models include, of course, the Blessed Mother--esteemed above all men--Mary Magdalene, Martha and Mary.  The early church venerated women martyrs such as St. Lucy, St. Agatha who gave their lives in the earliest days of Christianity.  There were Desert Mothers such as St. Syncletica, St. Theodora who were held in high admiration and whose theological opinions were sought.  Throughout church history we will see women abbesses of large monasteries, women who led hospitals and orphanages, women like St. Teresa of Avila who led successful efforts to reform the Church.  In relatively modern days we have the examples of women scholars such as St. Edith Stein.

Finally, the highest honor in Church hagiography is the title of "Doctor of the Church."  Those who have been declared a Doctor of the Church are those whose teachings and theological opinions are held in the highest authority and esteem.  In the 2000 year history of the Church, with thousands of saints being venerated, there are only 33 declared Doctors of the Church, and of those 33, 3 are women.

For more in-depth study visit these websites:

Catholic Bible online

Catechism of the Catholic Church online

"On the Dignity and Vocation of Women" --Pope JPII's beautiful encyclical to women; no one can read this and claim that the Church oppresses women!

 

 

"Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have. But do this with gentleness and respect" - 1 Peter 3:15