Is it possible to be vegetarian and Catholic?

mossieh · 30-04-2007 9:12pm #1

Transubstantiation. It's certainly a mouthful. But the question is, do you believe that the bread you eat at communion is actually the flesh of Christ?

What does this mean to you? Is it a stretch for your imagination or does it seem perfectly natural? Is it a spiritual communion with Christ or a cannibalistic buffet?

Serious answers only please. Or funny, either is good.

philologos · 30-04-2007 9:29pm

I personally regard it as symbolism. I'm a member of the Church of Ireland though. So I won't be much help. I believe it as a spiritual communion with Christ.

Crucifix · 30-04-2007 9:31pm

mossieh wrote:

Transubstantiation. It's certainly a mouthful. But the question is, do you believe that the bread you eat at communion is actually the flesh of Christ?

What does this mean to you? Is it a stretch for your imagination or does it seem perfectly natural? Is it a spiritual communion with Christ or a cannibalistic buffet?

Serious answers only please. Or funny, either is good.

Well I imagine you could still follow the spirit of vegetarianism (not killing animals for food), if not the actual non-meat diet.

Mrs. MacGyver · 30-04-2007 9:32pm

Jakkass wrote:

I personally regard it as symbolism. I'm a member of the Church of Ireland though. So I won't be much help. I believe it as a spiritual communion with Christ.

I agree, I'm Church of Ireland also. It would have to be symbolic, I couldn't understand it any other way. I don't see how vegetarianism could conflict with the teachings of Catholicism, i mean wine is fruit of the vine and bread is derived from wheat. I studied theology for 4 years and can't think of any problem/conflict that would arise from being vegetarian and Catholic.

Fanny Cradock · 30-04-2007 9:34pm

I don't see how it could be considered anything but symbolic. I would think of it as literally food (and drink) for thought.

BrianCalgary · 30-04-2007 9:56pm

I would say that the Holy Spirit is definitely present within the communion, but transubstantiation, I have trouble with.

To answer the tag question, sure you can be Catholic and vegetarian.

mossieh · 30-04-2007 10:12pm

I could be wrong here but I believe it's dogma, can any Catholics out there confirm this?

Kojak · 30-04-2007 11:28pm

As many have already it is only symbolic.

The concept of vegetarianism would be not wanting to kill animals for food, which IMO is maintained by Transubstantiation.

PDN · 01-05-2007 12:00am

If you really believe that the bread becomes the literal body of Christ then I would imagine cannibalism would be a bigger issue than vegetarianism.

This was an issue of debate in the Nineteenth Century when C.H.Spurgeon offered to pay a large sum of money to any Catholic priest who could drink 2 gallons of communion wine and remain sober. Spurgeon's point was that if transubstantiation was true then surely you could not get drunk on Christ's Blood. I understand that the Catholic response was that Christ changed the substance of the bread and wine, but not its form, into His Flesh and Blood. So, the form of the Eucharist, which does not change, is bread and wine. I guess the same would apply to any debate about cannibalism or vegetarianism.

UU · 01-05-2007 12:29am

Interesting question. I suppose most Catholics would see it as symbolic. If Transubstantiation were to be true then one could clearly see the bread changing into a lump of flesh and wine into blood. Of course, I'm sure any intelligent and observant person wouldn't hold this to be true because there is no proof that this is so and for this to be true a lot of people would be accused of some form of caniballism which I'm sure the Bible prohibits (I really hope so!!!). Besides, it would make more sense anyway for it to be purely symbolic.

robindch · 01-05-2007 1:43am

It's been quite a while since transubstantiation came up in this forum, but yes, catholics are required to believe that the bread is literally flesh and the wine is literally blood. It is heretical (within the catholic church) to believe that they are symbolic or representational in anyway. Protestants do point out that the bread and wine remain bread and wine after they've been prayed over and that the transformation is purely symbolic.

More generally, many, many religions engage in god-eating (aka theophagy) in one form or another from the cannibalistic and ancestor-worshipping tendencies of hunter-gatherer bands, through wine-drenched bacchanalia and christian lamb-eating at easter, to the very much refined eating of the bread and wine in the catholic church.

Anthropologists suggest that this arises from the human tendency to assume that eating something will cause the essence of the consumed to rub off in the consumer. Hence physically eating the physical Jesus is thought to endow the eater with the qualities of Jesus, in a fairly similar way to, for example, eating a rhinoceros horn is commonly believed to enhance the sexual ability of the (male) diner.

Serious answers are rarely funny!

kelly1 · 01-05-2007 1:08pm

mossieh wrote:

Transubstantiation. It's certainly a mouthful. But the question is, do you believe that the bread you eat at communion is actually the flesh of Christ?

What does this mean to you? Is it a stretch for your imagination or does it seem perfectly natural? Is it a spiritual communion with Christ or a cannibalistic buffet?

Serious answers only please. Or funny, either is good.

Transubstantiation is an article of dogma and must be believed by the faithful.

There are several proofs of this in the bible.

John 6:51 I am the living bread which came down from heaven. 52 If any man eat of this bread, he shall live for ever; and the bread that I will give, is my flesh, for the life of the world. 53 The Jews therefore strove among themselves, saying: How can this man give us his flesh to eat? 54 Then Jesus said to them: Amen, amen I say unto you: Except you eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, you shall not have life in you. 55 He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath everlasting life: and I will raise him up in the last day. 56 For my flesh is meat indeed: and my blood is drink indeed. 57 He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, abideth in me, and I in him. 58 As the living Father hath sent me, and I live by the Father; so he that eateth me, the same also shall live by me.

After Jesus said this, many of his disciples thought he was going mad and decided to stop following Him. He didn't call them back and say, sorry, I didn't mean real flesh, I meant this symbolically! No, He said what He meant.

Matthew 26:26 And whilst they were at supper, Jesus took bread, and blessed, and broke: and gave to his disciples, and said: Take ye, and eat. This is my body. 27 And taking the chalice, he gave thanks, and gave to them, saying: Drink ye all of this. 28 For this is my blood of the new testament, which shall be shed for many unto remission of sins.

Does this sound like symbolic language? I don't think so.

See also:

1 Corinthians 11:26 For as often as you shall eat this bread, and drink the chalice, you shall shew the death of the Lord, until he come. 27 Therefore whosoever shall eat this bread, or drink the chalice of the Lord unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and of the blood of the Lord. 28 But let a man prove himself: and so let him eat of that bread, and drink of the chalice. 29 For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh judgment to himself, not discerning the body of the Lord. 30 Therefore are there many infirm and weak among you, and many sleep.

Here's a good link with plenty of scriptural support for the Real Presence:

http://www.scripturecatholic.com/the_eucharist.html#eucharist-IIa

The real presence has always been a doctrine of the Church and in fact the Romans accused the early Christians of being canibals.

God bless,
Noel.

ISAW · 01-05-2007 1:41pm

PDN wrote:

I...I understand that the Catholic response was that Christ changed the substance of the bread and wine, but not its form, into His Flesh and Blood. So, the form of the Eucharist, which does not change, is bread and wine. I guess the same would apply to any debate about cannibalism or vegetarianism.

succint. For a more lengthy explaination look up "doctrine of the real presence"

http://www.therealpresence.org/eucharst/realpres/a12.html

http://www.catholic.net/rcc/Periodicals/Homiletic/Jan98/transubstantiation.html

In fact this issue is central to Roman Catholicism and is the main theological difference with the Anglican "consubstantiation". The Orthodox eucharist is believed to be the same. you will note Catholic Priests do not concelebrate mass with church of ireland minister (though they may well attend the mass and other con celebrate services).

philologos · 01-05-2007 4:19pm

kelly1: You do realise that Jesus spoke in parable a lot of the time. You do realise that he was rather fond of using symbolism. Also during the Passover festival don't they use symbolism for various moments during their time in Egypt? Considering this was done during a Passover meal, I'd say it's very likely that it was indeed symbolism.

Also it must have been his actual blood and flesh if the Romans of all people said we were cannibals (note sarcasm). Not trying to be rude but I would consider that flawed logic.

I also don't see how any of those quotes you have provided, proves anything other that it is indeed symbolism to us.

Tar.Aldarion · 01-05-2007 4:24pm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_vegetarianism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_Vegetarian_Society

I would have thought it was impossible as a catholic, as I was always taught by priests that it was literal for catholics, symbolism for protestants.

kelly1 · 01-05-2007 5:05pm

Jakkass wrote:

kelly1: You do realise that Jesus spoke in parable a lot of the time. You do realise that he was rather fond of using symbolism. Also during the Passover festival don't they use symbolism for various moments during their time in Egypt? Considering this was done during a Passover meal, I'd say it's very likely that it was indeed symbolism.

Also it must have been his actual blood and flesh if the Romans of all people said we were cannibals (note sarcasm). Not trying to be rude but I would consider that flawed logic.

I also don't see how any of those quotes you have provided, proves anything other that it is indeed symbolism to us.

I suggest you read John 6:51-59 again slowly. How can you interpret the words 'flesh and blood' symbolically? Why do you think some of his disciples were scandalized at what he said if He was using symbolic language?? He couldn't have been more clear

"For my flesh is meat indeed: and my blood is drink indeed."

There are none so blind as those who refuse to see.

Regards,
Noel.

UU · 01-05-2007 5:05pm

I don't mean to sound mean but transubstantiation (wow what a long word!) is a ridiculous belief. I can understand the other consubstantation perfectly well but transub is very odd!

I mean how can it be the ACTUAL flesh of Jesus and the ACTUAL blood of Jesus when after receiving it, it clearly isn't flesh but still cardboard-like bread thingies nor is it blood but non-alcoholic wine. I know! Why don't we get some scientists to test the chemical composition of both before and after and see if there is any change. If there is, it works. If not (which would most definately be the results) transubstantiation is wrong.

It's all food for thought! :rolleyes:

robindch · 02-05-2007 12:33am

UU wrote:

Why don't we get some scientists to test the chemical composition of both before and after and see if there is any change

I remember reading somewhere that a US-based protestant group did that a while ago and found that the bread and wine remained bread and wine. So far, I'm not aware of any catholic response.

kelly1 · 02-05-2007 12:58am

UU wrote:

I don't mean to sound mean but transubstantiation (wow what a long word!) is a ridiculous belief. I can understand the other consubstantation perfectly well but transub is very odd!

I mean how can it be the ACTUAL flesh of Jesus and the ACTUAL blood of Jesus when after receiving it, it clearly isn't flesh but still cardboard-like bread thingies nor is it blood but non-alcoholic wine. I know! Why don't we get some scientists to test the chemical composition of both before and after and see if there is any change. If there is, it works. If not (which would most definately be the results) transubstantiation is wrong.

It's all food for thought! :rolleyes:

You are free to doubt the words of our Saviour but it's there in the bible:

Matthew26:28 For this is my blood of the new testament, which shall be shed for many unto remission of sins.

How can wine be shed for the remission of sins? It says blood. Only blood can be shed for the remission of sins. The blood of the Lamb shed once on the cross in atonement for our sins is re-presented to the Father at every Mass to plead for mercy on our behalf.

Noel.

lostexpectation · 02-05-2007 2:32am

theophagy

wow great word

theophagy

philologos · 02-05-2007 7:20am

kelly1 wrote:

You are free to doubt the words of our Saviour but it's there in the bible

So are his numerous other uses of symbolism. The Passover meal is based on symbolism, Jesus was merely making a new tradition based on symbolism for his followers.

DublinWriter · 02-05-2007 7:50am

From Wiki:

A text not included in the Christian Bible known as the Gospel of the Ebionites, emphasises that Jesus advocated vegetarianism, abolished the Jewish meat sacrifice system, and never ate meat. In contemporary Christianity, the Seventh-day Adventist Church promotes vegetarianism among its followers.

Tar.Aldarion · 02-05-2007 8:48am

Yeah, I have heard of people who believe Jesus was vegetarian, and follow that. Think I saw some books on it.

Asiaprod · 02-05-2007 9:04am

Tar.Aldarion wrote:

Yeah, I have heard of people who believe Jesus was vegetarian, and follow that. Think I saw some books on it.

From the gospels, it would appear that Jesus was not mentioned eating meat, but it seems to have been ok for mankind to eat meat. It was even promised to them in Genesis.

1. The Gospels specifically mention Jesus keeping three Passover feasts in Jerusalem. However, in order to keep the feast, the participants were given roasted lamb, bitter herbs, and unleavened bread to eat (Exodus 12:3-4). The entire lamb had to be eaten during the feast. If there were any leftovers, they had to be burned (Exodus 12:10). If Jesus did not eat the lamb, he would have been violating the Law and could have been accused of sin.

2. The New Testament records that Jesus did eat the Passover feast, which would include the eating of the roasted lamb (Luke 22:14-15). In fact, before the last Passover meal, Jesus specifically instructs his disciples to prepare the meal, including the lamb, for their observance. Then came the first day of Unleavened Bread on which the Passover lamb had to be sacrificed. 8And Jesus sent Peter and John, saying, "Go and prepare the Passover for us, so that we may eat it." (Luke 22:7-8)

3 So Jesus said* to them, "Children, you do not have any fish, do you?" They answered Him, "No." 6And He said to them, "Cast the net on the right-hand side of the boat and you will find a catch." So they cast, and then they were not able to haul it in because of the great number of fish. . . . So when they got out on the land, they saw* a charcoal fire already laid and fish placed on it, and bread. 10Jesus said* to them, "Bring some of the fish which you have now caught." 11Simon Peter went up and drew the net to land, full of large fish, a hundred and fifty-three; and although there were so many, the net was not torn. 12Jesus said* to them, "Come and have breakfast." None of the disciples ventured to question Him, "Who are You?" knowing that it was the Lord. 13Jesus came* and took* the bread and gave* it to them, and the fish likewise. (John 21:5-6, 9-14)

And finally, especially for JC:

Every moving thing that is alive shall be food for you; I give all to you, as I gave the green plant. (Genesis 9:3)

Tar.Aldarion · 02-05-2007 9:20am

"I have given you every herb bearing seed... to you it shall be for meat" :P

You are right, he was not seen to eat meat or buy it. Also, that a lot of the words translated in the bible that are thought to be meat, meant 'food' and 'to eat'
Can we eat people due to that last quote of yours?

What do you make of:

We should not forget that the Bible is not complete and its many inconsistencies require thoughtful interpretation. For instance, we have the contradiction between Genesis 1:29-30 with Genesis 9:2-3. Some scholars interpret the first prescription for vegetarianism as the preferred diet, and suggest that it was only after God became grievously disappointed with human sin and flooded the earth did the second provision become permitted, and not without qualification (and maybe only as an expedient for the situation). To take another example, the New Testament makes repeated attacks on meat offered to pagan idols (Acts 15:20; Revelation 2:14), but Paul gives assurances that eating such flesh is all right if no one is offended (Corinthians 10:14-33). Paul, then, would seem to be contradicting Christ.

From the same source..
Didn't Hegisuppus and Augustin that Jesus' brother James was raised vegetarian by his parents and so it was likely that Jesus was too as they were members of the Essenes?
Anyway, random arguments from their side, I have no idea, and I haven't read the bible in years.

Asiaprod · 02-05-2007 9:45am

Tar.Aldarion wrote:

Can we eat people due to that last quote of yours?

I will have to ask JC:)

Didn't Hegisuppus and Augustin that Jesus' brother James was raised vegetarian by his parents and so it was likely that Jesus was too as they were members of the Essenes?

Ah, this has come up many times, Essenes were not all vegitarian, many did eat meat. The other argument I have heard, one that I find very interesting, is the so called missing years when a young Jesus was said to have spent many years in Bengal studdying Buddhism. Buddhist tradition at that time was no meat.

Tar.Aldarion · 02-05-2007 9:53am

Oh, that one is interesting.

UU · 02-05-2007 11:19pm

Sorry Kelly1 but I'd urge you next time when you receive communion to examine what you've been given before consumption to see if they're really flesh and wine. Because anytime I took it when I was younger it was certainly not flesh and blood. Any intelligent person can see that - that the "bread and wine" is not physically "flesh and blood" from Jesus and that it's just symbolic. Obviously Jesus was speaking in symbolism. I mean, be honest, who here actually believes what they are consuming at communion is flesh and blood? I'm not trying to put down anyone's beliefs btw but just trying to point out obvious facts that it is not flesh and blood from Jesus.

PDN · 02-05-2007 11:33pm

Asiaprod wrote:

Ah, this has come up many times, Essenes were not all vegitarian, many did eat meat. The other argument I have heard, one that I find very interesting, is the so called missing years when a young Jesus was said to have spent many years in Bengal studdying Buddhism. Buddhist tradition at that time was no meat.

It would seem that Jesus was not of the Essenes for several reasons. His teachings were more in line with those of the Pharisees than of the Essenes. He certainly did not oppose animal sacrifice, because he told a leper to offer the sacrifices commanded when he had healed him (Luke 5:14). He ate animal flesh (Luke 24:42-43, as well as references to eating the Passover.) He and his disciples did not follow the Essene views of washings or of strict observance of Sabbath (Luke 6).

kelly1 · 03-05-2007 10:28pm

UU wrote:

Sorry Kelly1 but I'd urge you next time when you receive communion to examine what you've been given before consumption to see if they're really flesh and wine. Because anytime I took it when I was younger it was certainly not flesh and blood. Any intelligent person can see that - that the "bread and wine" is not physically "flesh and blood" from Jesus and that it's just symbolic. Obviously Jesus was speaking in symbolism. I mean, be honest, who here actually believes what they are consuming at communion is flesh and blood? I'm not trying to put down anyone's beliefs btw but just trying to point out obvious facts that it is not flesh and blood from Jesus.

UU,
up to the time of the reformation all Christians believed in the Real Presence of Jesus in the Eucharist. Do you really think they were following a false belief for all of 15 centuries?

Please have a look at the following site:

http://www.therealpresence.org/eucharst/mir/a3.html

God bless,
Noel.

BrianCalgary · 03-05-2007 11:00pm

kelly1 wrote:

UU,
up to the time of the reformation all Christians believed in the Real Presence of Jesus in the Eucharist. Do you really think they were following a false belief for all of 15 centuries?

Please have a look at the following site:

http://www.therealpresence.org/eucharst/mir/a3.html

God bless,
Noel.

I'm with you kelly1 on the eucharist containing the presence of Christ. Christ also instituted baptism by the Holy Spirit, His institution of the Lord's Supper would also lead me to conclude the presence of God there as well.

When it is symbolic it certainly seems to lose the impact.

Is it possible to be vegetarian and Catholic?

Comments