[Sca-cooks] RE: Cannibalism , ritualistic or otherwise

[patrick.levesque at elf.mcgill.ca]

Following Christianna's invitation to civil discussion, here are my thoughts on
the Eucharist in general.

As a disclaimer, I am not a theologian. I'm not even a Christian, but I was
educated in catholic schools, so I've picked a few things up along the way :-)

The arguments made so far by Phlip and Christianna are about right. In the
eucharist, although Christ links bread with his flesh, and wine with his blood,
he does so metaphorically, not literally. The metaphor are further explained in
the Gospels and in the liturgy itself. Flesh is not meant in a litteral (and
therefore, cannibalistic) way, but rather, it as a representation of the divine
and dual nature of Christ. Accepting the eucharist therefore means to partake in
that divine naturem and help Christians recognize that they also are children of
God, with a distinct soul and body.

As for the wine, through its association with bloodshed, it specifically
represents the sacrifice made by God, i.e., spilling his own blood to redeem
Mankind. When Christ adjoins his disciples to drink, he reminds them not to
forget the nature of this sacrifice.

Both are therefore highly symbolistic. Bread and wine are used as metaphor
because both are use in common, everyday tasks that are performed by all
disciples, and make it easy to remember and put in practice. (The fact that
Roman culture already had similar myths around that time may have helped as
well, but I'm not versed enough in comparative theology to make a stand on this
point)

Undoubtedly there are other subtleties that escape me.

YIS

Petru