Transubstantiation

Ghost Buster

Can a Catholic vegetarian take holy communion?
http://www.gotquestions.org/transubstantiation.html

seamus

That depends on the vegetarian's own personal reasons for being vegetarian.

Scientifically speaking, eating it doesn't make them a hypocrite because they're not consuming meat, they only believe they are.

Antbert

seamus wrote: »

Scientifically speaking, eating it doesn't make them a hypocrite because they're not consuming meat, they only believe they are.

Surely if they believe they are that's the most hypocritical bit? It'd be like if they didn't eat meat out of ethical protest, but caved and ate a burger. Turns out it was a soy burger, but as far as they were concerned, on an ethical ground, they did cave. (For the purpose of debate we're assuming you can't tell the difference. As a lapsed vegetarian I know this is a bit of a stretch).

Ghost Buster

seamus wrote: »

That depends on the vegetarian's own personal reasons for being vegetarian.

Scientifically speaking, eating it doesn't make them a hypocrite because they're not consuming meat, they only believe they are.

Hmmmmmm. I suppose my question should end with "in good conscience".
Yes they only believe they are eating flesh. But if they are right then from what I understand of transubstantiation they are eating human flesh in all aspects but taste and appearance.

seamus

Antbert wrote: »

Surely if they believe they are that's the most hypocritical bit? It'd be like if they didn't eat meat out of ethical protest, but caved and ate a burger. Turns out it was a soy burger, but as far as they were concerned, on an ethical ground, they did cave. (For the purpose of debate we're assuming you can't tell the difference. As a lapsed vegetarian I know this is a bit of a stretch).

That depends on the ethical grounds.

For me, for example, my goal is basically that no animals are killed in order to satisfy my needs. How would taking the eucharist (if I were to suddenly become Catholic again ) be in violation of that? You could argue that I believed that Jesus died and it's a piece of his flesh, but the net effect of taking the eurcharist would be none - Jesus would have died before I was even born, I would not be causing the death of any animals by consuming it, no matter how strong my faith.

Ghost Buster

seamus wrote: »

That depends on the ethical grounds.

For me, for example, my goal is basically that no animals are killed in order to satisfy my needs. How would taking the eucharist (if I were to suddenly become Catholic again ) be in violation of that? You could argue that I believed that Jesus died and it's a piece of his flesh, but the net effect of taking the eurcharist would be none - Jesus would have died before I was even born, I would not be causing the death of any animals by consuming it, no matter how strong my faith.

Ok
Can a catholic vegetarian with no desire to eat flesh for what ever reason take communion with good conscience:rolleyes:

Antbert

Ah here. I think it was implied in the OP and it wasn't really that necessary to clarify it...

Actually, if you're a vegetarian because you simply want to ensure no animals are killed to meet your needs, well... Jesus was theoretically killed to meet your needs. And now you're eating him.

seamus

Ghost Buster wrote: »

Ok
Can a catholic vegetarian with no desire to eat flesh for what ever reason take communion with good conscience:rolleyes:

Would being a vegetarian not be in conflict with the Bible?

My actual point is that you're putting all sorts of conditions on a particular viewpoint (vegetarianism) which doesn't necessarily follow any particular dogmatic rules.

Some people are vegetarian because they don't like the taste of meat - i.e. they "have no desire" to eat meat. Yet the eucharist doesn't taste like meat. So in good conscience, yes they can eat it.

I see what you're getting at, but unless you're trying to prove that it's impossible for a Catholic to be vegetarian, then I don't see your point.

Antbert

seamus wrote: »

Some people are vegetarian because they don't like the taste of meat - i.e. they "have no desire" to eat meat. Yet the eucharist doesn't taste like meat. So in good conscience, yes they can eat it.

Well, that's why I was a vegetarian. But then when I found out I was anaemic and went back to eating meat then there was no element of hypocrisy involved. I'm finding it really hard to say what I mean for some reason... Just that, well it's obviously not that situation.

token56

Morally should they or shouldn't they? I guess if they are taking in the literally sense that the RC teaches they probably shouldn't. I can imagine though that alot of people who go to RC mass and participate in the eucharist dont actually take it in the literally sense. At least this is the case for quite a few people I know.

Ghost Buster wrote: »

Ok
Can a catholic vegetarian with no desire to eat flesh for what ever reason take communion with good conscience:rolleyes:

Its not really fair to say for what ever reason, that is because whether or not they feel they should take communion will depend on the reason or morality behind why they are vegetarian, that is if they have a reason. For example "I dont eat meat because I dont like the taste of it" well then they wouldn't have a problem eating it, however if it was the case that just did not agree with the idea of consuming the flesh or whatever of any other being, then they probably shouldn't eat it

Edit: Just to say Seamus seems to have got to the point before me and even used the same example

Foxytocin

Ghost Buster wrote: »

Can a Catholic vegetarian take holy communion?
http://www.gotquestions.org/transubstantiation.html

if you believe it, and you take communion, i think it makes you a cannible more than a lapsing vegetarian!

seamus

OK, I'll throw you a bone here.

There are two dimensions to this: The actual and the ethical.

A "vegetarian" in the purest sense of the word is someone who doesn't consume products made from the death of animals. Your reasons are irrelevant. So based on a Catholic's belief, they cannot call themselves vegetarian if they take the eucharist. In reality however, they *are* vegetarian because they conform with everything required of a vegetarian.

Entirely separate is their reasoning for not eating meat. As I illustrate above, it is possible to have a reason for not eating meat, but still in good conscience take the eucharist.

So to answer the initial OP - if someone was being strict about it, they are a vegetarian to the outside world and can be called a vegetarian by everyone, but cannot refer to themselves as a vegetarian because they believe they have eaten meat. Their ethics are intact unless they call themselves vegetarian, even though they are scientifically and in reality a dyed-in-the-woold veggie.

Antbert

token56 wrote: »

Its not really fair to say for what ever reason, that is because whether or not they feel they should take communion will depend on the reason or morality behind why they are vegetarian, that is if they have a reason. For example "I dont eat meat because I dont like the taste of it" well then they wouldn't have a problem eating it, however if it was the case that just did not agree with the idea of consuming the flesh or whatever of any other being, then they probably shouldn't

Well if they didn't eat meat because they don't like the taste of it, then someone gave them a bit of meat that didn't really taste like meat, and they ate that, that wouldn't be hypocrisy. It'd mean they were no longer a vegetarian. I just don't think it applies to this situation. So ok, no maybe 'for whatever reason' is a very good way to put it, but I do think it's arguing over kind of a pointless bit of syntax.

Antbert

Good summing up Seamus. I now agree.

Ghost Buster

Antbert wrote: »

Good summing up Seamus. I now agree.

Me too. Thanks folks for that. Making as much sense to me now as transubstantiation;)

Dades

Can I close this travesty yet? :pac:

Antbert

I thought it was an interesting concept...

ShooterSF

token56 wrote: »

Morally should they or shouldn't they? I guess if they are taking in the literally sense that the RC teaches they probably shouldn't. I can imagine though that alot of people who go to RC mass and participate in the eucharist dont actually take it in the literally sense. At least this is the case for quite a few people I know.

Wouldn't they be better serviced by some branch of a protestant church so?

Dades

Antbert wrote: »

I thought it was an interesting concept...

No-one here believes in transubstantiation! Whether or not it's ritual cannibalism is a question for those that do.

Antbert

Dades wrote: »

No-one here believes in transubstantiation! Whether or not it's ritual cannibalism is a question for those that do.

No one here believes in most of the things discussed...

I do agree maybe it would've been better suited to the Christianity forum though.

Edit: Apologies, I'm not deliberately trying to argue with a mod decision...

token56

ShooterSF wrote: »

Wouldn't they be better serviced by some branch of a protestant church so?

Beats me, I'm not one of them. Also views on transubstantiation is only one of many differences between RC and Protestants views.

Maybe they are just christians who share have predominately but not absolute RC views and go to that service I dont know really. I dont think most people actually think about in much detail what the RC church actually teaches, which is unfortunate.

robindch

Dades wrote: »

No-one here believes in transubstantiation! Whether or not it's ritual cannibalism is a question for those that do.

There's a lot of religions out there which claim that you can acquire the "spirit" of something by eating it (something that features in a lot of "alternative" medicine too). Anthropologists who study religion believe that this is what's behind the act of the ritual consumption of the corpse of a deity who also happens to be a human.

And while that's the background, it would be interesting to see what'd happen if you stood beside a priest during communion and asked each one whether they really, really believed that they are eating raw human flesh

Pushtrak

robindch wrote: »

And while that's the background, it would be interesting to see what'd happen if you stood beside a priest during communion and asked each one whether they really, really believed that they are eating raw human flesh

While doing that, hope that they aren't aware of that blasphemous law against free speech.

Ghost Buster

I’ve found many of the replies to this topic interesting in so much as everybody here, on an athiest forum seems to know the literal meaning of transubstantiation.
The background to my posting of this question stems from a conversation with my predominately catholic staff members at our Christmas night out. As a staff member at my table was being served her veggie dinner another was discussing her plans to bring her kids to midnight mass coupled with her woes about having another kid making her holy communion this year. At this point I, fairly flippantly, asked the vegitarian catholic if she could receive communion. I was met with a blank look for several seconds before being informed that ‘of course I can sure its only wafer. Its symbolic’. There then ensued a full debate between athiest old me, 4 catholics and a protestant. Three of the catholics hadnt a notion that when they take communion they are apparently consuming Jesus meat whilst myself and the prod were fully versed in this particular miracle. The protestant took great delight in informing his fellow Christians that the whole notion of transubstantiation was one of the major differences between their two Churches dogma.
Now I’ve read on this forum many times that few Athiest have read the bible and such. I actually have found the opposite to be true. I find that many athiests know more theology, dogma and scripture than the average Irish catholic.
From my own angle I pretty much believed myself into religion (with more than a little help from a rural Irish catholic upbringing) and out the other side. I was the most devout altar boy going and read the bible and really started looking into my faith. This sat fine for a while untill my mid teens when it all inevitably started to unravel for me.
I can think of very few catholics in my peer group who have more than a passing knowledge of the finer points of their religion.

bnt

The vegetarian could imagine he's eating a bit of Jesus' sandals or loincloth, I suppose. Anyway, since this Jesus can be "all things to all men", he can be a vegetable to vegetarians.

What?

seamus

bnt wrote: »

The vegetarian could imagine he's eating a bit of Jesus' sandals or loincloth, I suppose. Anyway, since this Jesus can be "all things to all men", he can be a vegetable to vegetarians.

What?

It is of course, "The body and blood of our Lord Jesus Christ", and he said, "This is my body...."

PDN

Ghost Buster wrote: »

I’ve found many of the replies to this topic interesting in so much as everybody here, on an athiest forum seems to know the literal meaning of transubstantiation.

I'm not a Catholic, and I have much sympathy with the Dutch Protestants who coined the term "Hocus Pocus" as a parody of the Latin words (hoc est corpus) used when the wafer is supposedly turned into Christ.

However, some of the posters in this thread don't understand the concept of transubstantiation, or even of cannibalism, as well as Ghost Buster thinks they do.

Cannibalism is a term commonly used to denote the consumption of the flesh of dead human beings (although I'm reminded of Anthony Hopkins feeding Ray Liotta part of his own brain in 'Hannibal' ). We would not call somebody a cannibal if they chewed their fingernails, or even someone else's fingernails, because these are a renewable resource and their consumption does not cause, or result in, the death or mutilation of anyone.

Catholics believe that Jesus is alive, and that the wafer becomes Jesus in essence (not just the flesh, incidentally, but also the living soul and spirit of Jesus). If you choose to characterise this as cannibalism, then you should say the same about someone getting a blood transfusion or receiving a kidney transplant from a living donor.

Dave!

PDN wrote: »

Catholics believe that Jesus is alive, and that the wafer becomes Jesus in essence (not just the flesh, incidentally, but also the living soul and spirit of Jesus).

Not just the flesh -- but the flesh is part of it is it not?

Hypothetical situation: humans can grow back any body part that has been removed or severed. A person cuts off another person's arm and eats it. Are they a cannibal?

Now explain how bad my analogy is and set me on the right path :pac:

Dades

PDN wrote: »

I'm not a Catholic, and I have much sympathy with the Dutch Protestants who coined the term "Hocus Pocus" as a parody of the Latin words (hoc est corpus) used when the wafer is supposedly turned into Christ.

Thanks for that!

/stores it away for future reference


As for cannibalism, I can't find a single definition that states it has to do with dead flesh. In fact here's a typical result:

1 : the usually ritualistic eating of human flesh by a human being. (Link)

Also, remind me not to donate a kidney to you if you intend to implant it by eating it.

Gregor Samsa

Another aspect to consider is that in Catholic thinking, Jesus specifically wanted people to eat his "body". Also, in Catholic thinking, eating this "body" appears in no way to injure or diminish Jesus. This expressed consent and the complete lack of suffering involved remove the main ethical objections vegetarians have to eating meat.

For most vegetarians, it's the suffering and death that is involved in rearing and slaughtering the animals that is objectionable (although, it's true that most vegetarians wouldn't eat carrion, it would no doubt be for different reasons than their objection to animal cruelty and deliberate slaughter).

So I don't think the ethical reasons* for being vegetarian are compromised at all even if one truly believes in transubstantiation.

Whether the dictionary definition of "vegetarian" is compromised is purely a matter of semantics.

Of course we may as well be asking if leaving out milk and biscuits for Santa Claus is unethical as it contributes to his obesity.

*(I'm aware that there are other reasons for being vegetarian, but they're probably not relevant to this argument)

Gregor Samsa

Dave! wrote: »

Hypothetical situation: humans can grow back any body part that has been removed or severed. A person cuts off another person's arm and eats it. Are they a cannibal?

Well, the taboo of cannibalism is partially based on the fact that body parts don't grow back, so eating a human arm involves the serious injury (or perhaps death) of the victim. If human body parts could grow back (as hair and fingernails do), then yes, the eather would be considered a cannibal (by our current definition - the consumption of human flesh), but the notion of cannibalism would be significantly different to that by which we understand it now.