Roman Catholic Cannibalism

Cannibalism \Can”ni*bal*ism\, n. [Cf. F. cannibalisme.]
The act or practice of eating human flesh by mankind. Hence;
Murderous cruelty; barbarity. –Berke.
[1913 Webster]

Transubstantiation:

2. (R. C. Theol.) The doctrine held by Roman Catholics, that
the bread and wine in the Mass is converted into the body
and blood of Christ; — distinguished from
consubstantiation, and impanation.
[1913 Webster]
By definition of belief, Roman Catholics that partake of The Mass, and believe in the Roman Catholic teachings, are cannibals.

***********************

They eat bread that is taught to have become the actual flesh of Christ, as well as drink wine which has become the blood of Christ.

Personally, I find the belief of transubstantiation to be silly and unreal. But for those that believe that indeed, they are partaking, chewing, swallowing, and digesting (which of course means passing through the digestive system… and into the toilet), the actual flesh and blood, have cannibalistic minds.

How can any Roman Catholic find it reprehensible for other cultures to engage in cannibalism for spiritual purposes, when they do so themselves, if in fact, it is true that the bread and wine turns into the actual flesh and blood of Christ?

Fava beans, anyone?

28 thoughts on “Roman Catholic Cannibalism”

  1. The word “cannibal” comes from the Carib (Calib) Indians who inhabited the Winward and Leeward Islands at the time of Colombus. The Caribs were notorious cannibals who had a habit of letting a Jesuit live among them for 15 or so years, then eating him. I read the papers of one such Jesuit from the early 1600s, who was later eaten by the Carib. Fascinating stuff. Anyhoo, I mention all of this due to the irony of course; for centuries Catholics have been getting eaten by cannibals, rather than eating people as you are suggesting.

  2. I don’t really care where the word came from; I use it in the meaning that is generally accepted – eating human tissue.

    If transubstantiation is real, then Mass attenders are cannibals.

  3. Does Islam have any such ritual that they believe they are partaking of flesh and blood, when they eat?
    Man, that is such a gross belief, don’t you think?

  4. That’s nice Ian. So I was doing some googling on the subject and I have to share more about The Carib. First, a pic:

    http://www.eng.fju.edu.tw/worldlit/caribbean/carib.html

    Next:

    “We don’t have any real written record of very early Carib society, but by looking a their descendants in South America and from records made by early historians (mainly priests) we can infer a number of probabilities. The Caribs social structure was mobile.

    All decisions for running the community was made by the men, therefore only men held the ruling positions. The Ubutu was always a male whose position was not hereditary. He was chosen by the elders of his village. He had to have been a good warrior, proved that he was physically strong, brave and highly skilled in battle. When he was chosen, he had to carry out a raid, if the raid was successful his positioned was permanent. The Ubutu had to do many things, including:

    1) He was the leader for any raid.
    2) He planned and decided when to carry out raids and which village or enemy it should be.
    3) He distributed the medals and the loot from the raid.
    4) He chose the commanders of the piragas.

    In times of peace each district was ruled by a headman called a Tiubutuli Hauthe. The headman supervised the fishing and the cultivation of crops, beyond this he had a very little authority.

    Most boys were trained to be warriors. The warriors were the ones who fought first in line, they were also the hunters for the villages. They were the common villagers. A small percentage of the boys were trained to be priests or Boyez.

    The elders of the villages were well respected. They were taken care of by their families and their relatives. The elders were all ex-warriors. They were the ones who trained the warriors and looked for the qualities in the Ubutu since they were experienced.

    The Carib males practiced polygamy. Marriages were arranged and girls married at an early age around sixteen to eighteen years. The husband provided a hut and furniture for each of his wives at the time of their marriage.

    If the wife committed adultery it was punishable by death. It was a custom for an unmarried woman to wear a garter on her right leg, at the time of marriage the garter was removed.

    They did not have a family unit but a communal way of living, they were separated based on their sex. The men lived separately in their carbets or houses and the women lived in huts. Boys at the age of four were taken away from their mothers and placed in the carbets, because the men thought that if the boys stayed with their mother too long he would become weak. The women were expected to bear a number of children. If she was barren she was considered a disgrace.

    The women and the men had different roles in the society. Men were supposed to be the warriors, priests, leaders, builders of houses and boats, craftsmen and hunters. The women were supposed to do the domestic chores, bring up the children, collecting firewood, bartering produce, weaving, hammock making and cultivating the land.

    The Caribs believed in life after death, but they had no wish for dying. They preferred to stay on earth to enjoy the materialistic pleasures. They ate healthily and took their medicines regularly. When a Carib died, he/she was examined to see if they’d been the victim of sorcery. The body was then washed carefully and painted red. The hair was oiled and combed. The grave for the body was on the floor of he/she house. The grave was round. It was about four feet wide and six feet deep.

    The body was placed on a stool in the grave, for ten days relatives brought food and water at the grave and a fire was lit around it in order to prevent the body from being cold. At the end of the ten days the hole was filled. There was a ceremony in which, the Caribs danced over the hole. As a sign of mourning relatives cut off their hair. The dead person’s possession was burnt. Later a feast was held over the grave, and after which the person’s house was burnt.”

    http://www.glpinc.org/Classroom%20Activities/St.%20Vincent%20Articles/Early%20Peoples%20of%20SVG.htm
    Share how this makes you feel?

  5. It’s not just the Catholics. The Lutherans may not believe in TRANsubstantiation, but they do believe in CONsubstantiation… which says that while the entire bread and wine are not literally changed, the literal body and blood of Christ does get mingled with the bread and wine. Not sure if that is any less cannibalism. I can’t remember what the Anglican’s believe. It was while Jesus was alive and well and standing right in front of them (or sitting, can’t remember) that he said, “this is my body” and “this is my blood”, so it would have been very obvious to the dicsiples that this was not meant to be taken literally.

  6. Now, how did I know that this was going to be your next topic of conversation? LOL!
    I wanna go O/T just briefly. Check out this post from Candace:
    http://wakinguponplanetx.blogspot.com/2006/01/our-injured-soldiers.html
    There are a few of us linking to it to send messages of support to the three wounded Canadian soldiers. And thanks to the Americans who rescued and looked after them. Wanna join in?
    Um, under the circumstances, maybe it’s not a good idea to send any home-baked goods yet, hmmmmmm…? Considering the topic of this post and all…;-)

  7. Anonalogue:

    “All decisions for running the community was made by the men, therefore only men held the ruling positions.”

    This is true of the Roman Catholic Church.

    “The Ubutu was always a male whose position was not hereditary. He was chosen by the elders of his village.”

    Interesting. Similar to the election of the Pope.

    “He had to have been a good warrior, proved that he was physically strong, brave and highly skilled in battle. When he was chosen, he had to carry out a raid, if the raid was successful his positioned was permanent. The Ubutu had to do many things, including:

    1) He was the leader for any raid.
    2) He planned and decided when to carry out raids and which village or enemy it should be.
    3) He distributed the medals and the loot from the raid.
    4) He chose the commanders of the piragas.”

    Reminds me of some Popes of the past.

    “In times of peace each district was ruled by a headman called a Tiubutuli Hauthe. The headman supervised the fishing and the cultivation of crops, beyond this he had a very little authority.”

    Well, we know that Cardinals had more authority over their districts then over crop cultivation.

    “Most boys were trained to be warriors. The warriors were the ones who fought first in line, they were also the hunters for the villages. They were the common villagers. A small percentage of the boys were trained to be priests or Boyez.”

    Interesting similarities to the days of Pope Rule in Europe, huh?

    “The elders of the villages were well respected. They were taken care of by their families and their relatives. The elders were all ex-warriors. They were the ones who trained the warriors and looked for the qualities in the Ubutu since they were experienced.”

    Of course, Cardinals and Priests are taken care of by the followers. They are not allowed to work at anything else, nor have families of their own so they do require the care of others.

    “The Carib males practiced polygamy. Marriages were arranged and girls married at an early age around sixteen to eighteen years. The husband provided a hut and furniture for each of his wives at the time of their marriage.”

    Polygamy of course, was practiced by Jews and some early Christians.

    “If the wife committed adultery it was punishable by death. It was a custom for an unmarried woman to wear a garter on her right leg, at the time of marriage the garter was removed.”

    Amazing what is punishable by death, isn’t it? Adulterers, alleged witches, accused bandits without a fair trial, individuals who question The Dogma.

    “They did not have a family unit but a communal way of living, they were separated based on their sex.”

    My goodness! Roman Catholic nuns come to mind here!

    “The men lived separately in their carbets or houses and the women lived in huts. Boys at the age of four were taken away from their mothers and placed in the carbets,”

    Hmmm. Those Roman Catholic Residential Schools didn’t even allow the children to reside with ANY parent.

    “because the men thought that if the boys stayed with their mother too long he would become weak.”

    I find the beliefs of many to be insane thinking.

    “The women were expected to bear a number of children. If she was barren she was considered a disgrace.”

    As were women of many cultures and religions.

    “The women and the men had different roles in the society. Men were supposed to be the warriors, priests, leaders, builders of houses and boats, craftsmen and hunters. The women were supposed to do the domestic chores, bring up the children, collecting firewood, bartering produce, weaving, hammock making and cultivating the land.”

    Again, very similar to European culture.

    “The Caribs believed in life after death, but they had no wish for dying. They preferred to stay on earth to enjoy the materialistic pleasures. They ate healthily and took their medicines regularly.”

    Seems a logical desire.

    “When a Carib died, he/she was examined to see if they’d been the victim of sorcery. The body was then washed carefully and painted red. The hair was oiled and combed. The grave for the body was on the floor of he/she house. The grave was round. It was about four feet wide and six feet deep.”

    What is it with some, including Roman Catholics, that have this insane idea about witches and sorcerers?

    “The body was placed on a stool in the grave, for ten days relatives brought food and water at the grave and a fire was lit around it in order to prevent the body from being cold. At the end of the ten days the hole was filled. There was a ceremony in which, the Caribs danced over the hole. As a sign of mourning relatives cut off their hair. The dead person’s possession was burnt. Later a feast was held over the grave, and after which the person’s house was burnt.””

    Mourning rituals throughout the world are interesting (to me).

    “Share how this makes you feel?”

    It doesn’t make me “feel” anything. Does it make you “feel” something?

  8. I will probably regret admitting to this but I always found the whole blood and body bit a creepy….now I am probably bound for hell for admitting it …..thanks, Ian.

  9. I doubt you need to fear hell. What you will need to watch for though, are the Believers that might want to try to censure you for your thoughts and questioning The Doctrine.

  10. Chimera, you know.. as far as three soldiers that are referred to in the link above, I have nothing but well wishes for them to recover, as individuals.

    At the same time, I cannot offer my support for their being in Afghanistan, perhaps with my money (that has been taxed from me) in the first place.

    I do not consider the three soldiers to be enemies, by any means. I do not wish them personal harm. I do hope they recover from their wounds.

    However, I simply cannot get into the “Thank you America” meme for providing care and treatment, as for me, American politics and foreign policy has been something I cannot support, and in my opinion, is partially responsible for the wounding of the soldiers.

    I come for a long line of military men in my family history, going back many many generations. I recognize heroism and true personal sacrifice. however, true personal sacrifice and heroism means much much more to me, personally, when it is personally motivated rather than politically motivated.

    Wars against other nations or countries are politically motivated. I am not going to war against bin Laden, or Al Qaida. i do not approve of bin Laden or Alqaida, but neither do I approve of American foreign policy either.

    In principle, I cannot support the actions of ANY fundamentalists that do not fundamentally recognize the inherent rights of all individuals. This does not mean that I cannot recognize the actions and heroism, and skills of individuals. I most certainly can.

    I would be more than willing to offer my best wishes to the three Canadian military guys that have been injured; however, I would far prefer to offer my services and thoughts to children who, through no fault of their own, other than being born into a culture, or a political climate, are injured or killed, and who have no control over what adults would do in order to try to achieve their own ends.

    I would far rather spend my energies sponsoring a child in Africa, hopefully encouraging them to discover freedom and free trade, or a child in Sick Kids hospital in Toronto, then spend my time recognizing the injuries of three soldiers, who volunteered to do what they do, for a government that would send them to places that a government has no moral right to send them to.

    I do believe that those men _think_ they are fighting for my freedom. I also think that their belief is naive. They are in fact, fighting for political ends, not personal freedom.

    Personal liberty and freedom begins at home. It means not needing to feel some partisanship, or some sense of “belonging” to a group, out of expected cultural reasons, heredity, or whatever.

    Perhaps my hope for personal liberty is naive… but I’d rather fight in my own way for that liberty for me and my children, then to trust government and politics to get into fights that have nothing to do with me or my loved ones. I don’t support any “political” support on behalf of those that claim to represent me, for any other political idealogy, nor do I wish those who claim to support me to fight against other political or religious ideologies.

    “America” might claim to have “interests” in the Middle East. I don’t.

  11. Two of the great scholars on myth (Joseph Campbell and his predecessor, Sir James Frazier), spend their lives looking at the parallel themes that occur in various guises in the myths and religions of our species. Christianity is a particularly rich field of study: it is the major human myth to arrive and evolve in a literate world. The ritual consumption of the flesh of God is actually at the centre of most mythic systems, from Christianity to pre-contact Algonquins. The Algonquin Christ figure is Corn, who sacrificed his life and allowed his flesh to be consumed by his people.

    (Pop culture fans will probably already know that one of the books beside Kurtz’s bed in Apocalypse Now is “The Golden Bough” by Frazier, which recounts this myth in its Greek form. During the making of the film Coppola considered having Martin Sheen lick the machete with which he killed Kurtz, but decided against it.)

    Both scholars believe that myths express truths about existence that are too subtle, complex or terrifying to contemplate directly. They date the emergence of this particular myth (the king, father, leader, wise man or god who willingly dies, is interred, and is reborn, saving his followers from starvation, the enemy, or perdition) from the discovery of agriculture.

    The consumption of the body of the sacrificed, according to Campbell, was literal in ancient times, but became symbolic with arrival of larger social units and literacy.

  12. Interesting, Balbulican. If I have time that I wish to explore this further, I will do so.

    ” but became symbolic with arrival of larger social units and literacy.”

    interesting no? that to Roman Catholics, it remains not symbolic.. but in fact, the belief is that the actual body and blood of Christ is being consumed. The majority of Protestant sects seem to recognize that it is “symbolic,” however, Roman Catholic doctrine to this day, imagines transubstantiation.

    Roman Catholics are in fact, in spirit at least, accepting of cannibalism in some form.

  13. “Interesting no? that to Roman Catholics, it remains not symbolic.. but in fact, the belief is that the actual body and blood of Christ is being consumed.”

    Very interesting. As mythic imagery, it’s a pretty potent idea.

  14. Re: transubstantiation — I have had this conversation with my staunchly Catholic mother-in-law, and the gist of her reply was that yes, when she takes communion, she is ingesting the body and blood of Christ. However, since his body and blood are no longer corporeal, she is actually not eating human flesh, but the flesh of her god. Which flesh, being divine, would not be comparable to human flesh. Therefore, the act of communion would not be compared to cannibalism.

    And as balbulican says, the myth of the dying-and-rising god spans almost all cultures and religions. Two of the most vivid are the ancient Egyptian story of Osiris, and the Norse legend of Odin. In the Egyptian story, Osiris actually impregnated Isis after his “death”-and-dismemberment (the 14 pieces of his body were scattered all over the world, and like all truly lusty goddesses, she found the most important one, and made good use of it), and she gave birth to Horus — who then went on to become the model for Moses by floating in a basket of reeds…but that’s another story…

    Tim, about the link and the soldiers: Okay; I just thought I’d extend the invitation. No harm, eh?

  15. I wonder which parts of God’s flesh catholics eat. I wonder if it’s always one particular part, like his arm over and over again, like the miracle of the 5 loaves and 2 fishes… Or does God’s whole flesh get eaten, and then starts over again. If there is a really large Mass going on, do they start with his head and eventually work their way to the pope’s nose? I wonder if some parts are tastier than other parts. I wonder if any heterosexual catholic males ever end up having to eat God’s penis…. That would be a nasty thought for them I would imagine.

  16. Which Andrew are you? I need to catalogue your anti-Catholic hate, which is way over the top.

    We can argue about why you are a hater another time, but do you have a blog or something so I can document your hate correctly? There are a few anti-Catholic Andrews in the CanBlogShpere, you see, and I want to isolate the hate correctly.

    And a couple other questions, so I can better understand the nature of your pathological hate: are you a homosexual? Or an Orangeman? In either case, please advise! Because your hate is so over the top I’m absolutely fascinated by its origins and am curious.

    I’d like to see you little pussies run this smack face to face with a Catholic man. Even better: why not try savagely insulting the Muslims, Buddhists, and Jews? We know the answer to that of course: because you are pussies. Fucking little anti-Catholic hating pussies.

    You only hurt yourselves with all of this hate, it’s not immediately hurtful to me. I’m just noticing it, documenting it, isolating it, etc…..

    1. Sorry, but I don’t have a blog. My name isn’t even Andrew. Sometimes I post under the name Tom, and sometimes I call myself Anonalogue. What makes you think I hate pussies?

    2. Gerald Fitzpatrick and Patrick Fitzgerald

      I heard once that King William was a homosexual… Don’t know if it is true or not…

      Which Annonalogue are you? I would like to document your hatred for anti-catholics. While I myself am not anti-catholic, I have met many lovely people who were, and it bothers me to hear the hatred that some anti-catholic haters have for these poor anti-catholics. It doesn’t hurt me personally, but I did notice it, and would like to document it.

    3. Annonalogue — Why are you promoting porno sites on the net? I was reading your intersting posting above about the Carib, and then went and clicked on the link you provided. I was ghastly shocked! I do not like to expose myself to such filth! I thought I had safe-surf set on my computer, but obviously it didn’t work. Please don’t lure unsuspecting eyes to trashy pictures that make sex objects out of these people. At least a couple of the subject in your filthy picture were naked children. I would like to have you added to the national sexual offenders registry.
      You filthy pussie!! yuk! You disgust me.

  17. Chimera — Your mother in law’s view is very interesting. However, I’m not sure it is supported by the Bible. At what point does she believe that Christ’s body stopped being corporeal? After the resurection?

    Luke says that Jesus said AFTER the resurection, “Behold my hands and my feet, that it is I myself: handle me, and see; for a spirit hath not flesh and bones, as ye see me have.” Then it records that just to prove to them that he was a living, resurected, true human, he asked them for some food. The gave him some fish and honeycomb. “and he took it, and did eat in front of them”. Obviously from this, Jesus is trying to demonstrate that his body is a real body, and is just as human as before. Then after his assension into heaven, angels came and told the disciples that he would come back in the very same manner as they had seen him go. There is no indication in the Bible that I know of that his body was somehow no longer human after the resurection, or after his assension, nor after his second coming. Some have cited that he was able to walk through walls after his resurection, and that this somehow indicates that he had changed. However, we also read that long before his crucifiction, he was in a crowd, and simply vanished away from them. We also know that he was able to walk on water before — so that is a very weak argument to prove that his body had changed into some other form. I am not even sure if one could think of the ressurection as being a “victory over death”, if he merely changed from the human body into some other kind of body. Not too sure though, and I’d have to think about it.. .. But at any rate, I not convinced that eating the body and blood of Christ is any less cannibalism, and that his body is any way different now then when he was walking the earth….

  18. Anonalogue, you are again, incorrect. I have always (unlike yourself) used my full name on every blog comment including other blogs, and my own.

    I do know the identity of one of the above posters. Your projection that any of them is me is of course, a sign of your insane thinking.

  19. Andrew, heterosexual men eat “Cow Cod” soup in Jamaica. It’s quite delicious, and some claim it does wonders for a man’s libido.

  20. I dont care if you call me a canibal because if Jesus told me 4 times to eat his flesh, then so I shall. But all in all…. Jesus in not only human but God. So i am partaking in a divine feast. He does it because he loves! I love him too!
    Jesus, I love you! I shall eat your flesh as often as possible! AMEN!

    In John 6, those who did not believe left and Jesus didn’t call them back and say, “Hey, wait, I was speaking figuratively!” NO! HE reinforced his teaching! So therefor, I will NOT be one of those disbelievers that left, but i answer the way Peter did, “Jesus, you hold the words of everlasting life.” AMEN!

    1. Do you know what steak is? flesh and blood. Most people eat it.

      But since Christ is glorified, it is a glorified body we eat.

  21. Mexmickey, you have an ugly website, but you look like a pretty girl yourself.

    Tell you what I’ll do – I’ll pay for you to come visit and prove to me that indeed, the bread is Jesus’ flesh.

    Tell you what – I’ll make the bread. We’ll bring in a priest. He can pour some wine, and then he can do his abracadabra over the bread and wine to turn into into the “flesh and blood.”

    But – Just before you partake of the bread, I’ll have to let you know I’ve added a healthy dose of warfarin to it. But of course, that shouldn’t matter to you, once the Priest has done his thing, and turned it into Christ’s body, right?

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Scroll to Top