No, Catholics really believe that those crackers and wine are physically transformed into the flesh and blood of christ. Other christians treat it as symbolic, but catholics are very literal about it.
They don't teach that it's literally physically flesh and literally physically blood, it's still wine and a bread cracker thing, it's just that they also now have the spiritual essence and properties of the J-man's divinity. Like, most catholics would be confused that anyone would draw a comparison to say cannibalism, because it's not literal in the physical sense, just the spiritual. Which admittedly probably doesn't make much sense unless you're catholic.
Source: raised in catholic town by catholic family with twelve years of catholic school in which I actually read the bible and the catechism, all of which explain why I'm an atheist. But it's funny seeing all the (admittedly understandable) misconceptions people have about what catholics believe.
Yeah, that sounds like a lot of rationalization so they don't have to admit they are participating in ritual cannibalism.
Transubstatiation means that is is NOT symbolic or metaphoric, but that the "essence" is truly the body and blood of Christ, so it really is cannibalism - if you believe in religious magic. I don't, so I don't truly believe it's cannibalism, just a mid-service snack, but devout Catholics do believe in religious magic, so they do believe they are being Cannibals, even if they try to pretend that it's something else.
Technically it's the whole change of the substance of the Eucharist which is some sneaky wordplay. It's even specifically stated the outward characteristics remain unchanged so it's metaphorical ritualistic cannibalism at most, and even that is a reductive surface level misunderstanding. Any catholic would think you're kinda dumb for thinking the communion is even related to cannibalism. It's not considered actual flesh and blood, it's magic bread and wine that's magically infused with divinity so when you eat and drink it you more or less reswear your allegiance to the J-dog and his socialist ways. Don't get me wrong, it's all still bonkers dumb and logically inconsistent but no catholic theologian will take seriously the claim that it's actual flesh and actual blood.
Especially since it very obviously does not physically turn into flesh and blood. Any priest with half an eye would see that. It's reconciling it with what transubstantiation is supposed to do in doctrine that's the hard part.
I remember very specifically that learning this official belief being one of the things that made me start questioning my religion. Like I can very clearly see that no transformation is happening so, it started making me question everything else they were telling me.
I was told in Catholic school that if you don't believe in transubstantiation, you're not Catholic. They made it very clear that you're supposed to believe the Eucharist is literally flesh, and the wine is literally blood. That was the day I realized I was definitely not Catholic.
Nothing in catholicism can be taken at face value. Growing up Catholic, you learn to lie and obfuscate, and to work through abstractions of ideas. Anyone considering the literal words in the bible was considered some kind of idiot zealot barbarian. Frankly we looked down on the rest of the christians who were limited to what was written on the paper. Only the priests could translate the text into what we actually truly believed, and thats what they were good for-- telling us what was meant rather than what was actually written.
Esta entrada fue editada (miércoles, 3 de junio de 2026, 22:08)
But ultimately, the statement being made is addressed to people who do literally believe that it is happening. If you don't believe that, then the statement doesn't apply to you, does it?
Furthermore, if they hold, as a requirement for eating the flesh and drinking the blood, that you must believe in its magic, then they are still people who seem to think that they are regularly practising literal cannibalism.
Esta entrada fue editada (miércoles, 3 de junio de 2026, 23:10)
Throw as many words at it as you want, but literally happening means happening in real life, actually, physically, genuinely, for real. It doesn't depend on belief.
IDK man... Believing you're actually cannibalizing someone even if you're not is a bit more fucked up than understanding you're not actually eating human flesh and it's just a ritual.
Ok here's a question - if you have bleeding gums and swallow the blood, are you a cannibal? What if somebody gives you a drop of their blood to swallow? If Catholics believe Jesus is immortal, do they think they're being cannibals by drinking a small amount of his blood with his consent (in fact, it's his idea)? In my mind the central question is, does this debate matter any more than an argument about whether Superman could beat up The Hulk? To that last one I'll say no, it doesn't, to me it's all just idle amusement.
An important note: I literally never said that it was literal cannibalism.
I claimed that catholics literally believe that it happens, and that they believe that the transsubtantiation literally happens, which is what you said in your original comment. The entire thesis of my comment is that it doesn't matter at all that it doesn't literally happen. All that is required for the point is that the original statement was addressed to people who believe in the literal nature. The statement is made to "you", where "you" applies to the reader if and only if the reader "regularly consumes the blood and flesh of a demigod with elders standing around chanting". I think we can both agree on at least that much.
I am pointing out that, people not being perfectly objective, we must interpret whether statements apply to us based on our worldview. If a true believer in transsubstatiation read the comment, then the fact that they believe that they regularly consume the flesh and blood of C
... Mostrar más
An important note: I literally never said that it was literal cannibalism.
I claimed that catholics literally believe that it happens, and that they believe that the transsubtantiation literally happens, which is what you said in your original comment. The entire thesis of my comment is that it doesn't matter at all that it doesn't literally happen. All that is required for the point is that the original statement was addressed to people who believe in the literal nature. The statement is made to "you", where "you" applies to the reader if and only if the reader "regularly consumes the blood and flesh of a demigod with elders standing around chanting". I think we can both agree on at least that much.
I am pointing out that, people not being perfectly objective, we must interpret whether statements apply to us based on our worldview. If a true believer in transsubstatiation read the comment, then the fact that they believe that they regularly consume the flesh and blood of Christ is sufficient to make that statement apply to them. Thus, it is utterly immaterial whether they "literally" eat a demigod. It is sufficient that they believe that they do, and thus should believe the statement to apply to them.
Esta entrada fue editada (miércoles, 3 de junio de 2026, 23:52)
One should strive to act with compassion and empathy toward all creatures in accordance with reason.
The struggle for justice is an ongoing and necessary pursuit that should prevail over laws and institutions.
One's body is inviolable, subject to one's own will alone.
The freedoms of others should be respected, including the freedom to offend. To willfully and unjustly encroach upon the freedoms of another is to forgo one's own.
Beliefs should conform to one's best scientific understanding of the world. One should take care never to distort scientific facts to fit one's beliefs.
People are fallible. If one makes a mistake, one should do one's best to rectify it and resolve any harm that might have been caused.
Every tenet is a guiding principle designed to inspire nobility in action and thought. The spirit of compassion, wisdom, and justice should always prevail over the written or spoken word.
Right. Those have nothing to do with The Satanic Temple.
The Church of Satan and the Satanic Temple are not two sects of the same "religion," they are two completely different (I would say almost entirely incompatible) belief systems.
Esta entrada fue editada (viernes, 5 de junio de 2026, 11:25)
Agree, we really should-- and theres great vegan food. But have you tried bacon? I think its a minor miracle that human beings do anything besides masturbating and eating bacon all day.
Esta entrada fue editada (domingo, 7 de junio de 2026, 19:36)
Of course. I loved bacon before going vegan. Well, the umami I got from animal bacon I still get from vegan bacon so 🤷🏻
And even if I didn't, I also saw pigs being put into literal gas chambers and the choice between personal pleasure and not putting intelligent, feeling individuals in death factories was pretty easy.
Even if Jesus is 100% man and 100% god simultaneously cause reasons, that still means his composition is 50% god and 50% man, which still fits the Demi god definition.
That's not a contradiction if they aren't related. Is god a species? I don't think so. It's like saying a cat is 100% cat and 100% cute. They're different things. He's not a human-god hybrid. He's a god who also happens to be human (at that time).
(Before people go assuming I'm arguing on the validity of all this, it's stupid. I'm an atheist. The whole thing doesn't really make sense. I'm just correcting a logical mistake.)
It's common knowledge that during church services, Christians eat a piece of bread that symbolizes Jesus' body and take a sip of wine which is a symbol of his blood.
Christ isn't a demigod in Christianity; He's God incarnate, fully God and fully Human. So we eat God directly. I can't explain how with any precision as I'm not a trained and experienced theologian with the credentials to make the "how" statements, but we do eat God.
Anyone who doesn't believe that Jesus is entirely God isn't a Christian. That's not gatekeeping, its like saying someone can reject the prophet Muhammad and still be a Muslim. It just wouldn't be true.\ \ I'm an Orthodox Christian, and we definitely eat God every Sunday. The Lutherans also believe they eat God but they define it more like we do than the Roman Catholics do. The Anglicans usually agree with the Catholics on how they eat God. Beyond just the groups named, I'm fairly certain no one else truly eats God's flesh.
Unitarians are weird. They don't believe in the trinity, but are Christian, but also merged with a non-Christian sect to form Unitarian Univalersalism.
But also, Catholics and most Protestants have a very different view on the Eucharist. Catholics believe in Transubstantiation, where the bread and wine become the literal body and blood of Christ in the Eucharist, whereas many Protestant sects either see the Eucharist as symbolic of the body and blood and Christ's sacrifice, or something in between (Consubstantiation or Calvin's very complicated take).
It also helps explain modern Catholocism's stance that Protestants aren't allowed to take part in the Eucharist. It's not just a remnant of the old adversarial relationship between the sects, but different beliefs on what the sacrament is. They want everyone taking part in the ritual to understand it.
Anyone who doesn't believe the earth is flat isn't a flatearther. Anyone who doesn't believe in the flying Spaghetti Monster isn't a pastafarian. \ \ Definitions carry value and determine what something/someone is or isn't
In Orthodox Christianity, the bread is homemade sometimes by the priest's wife like in my parish. Its also leavened unlike the western Churches' eucharist.
Religion has always been a business plan wrapped up in series of brainwashing techniques. Mystery->Answers used to the a commodity. Not religious? Ostracized from society. If you didn't know, you paid in, if you did know, you kept your mouth shut and paid in. It was easier to be that showman back in the day, the only mystery left is existential dread, we're disillusioned with society and government.
Venator
in reply to VetOfTheSeas • • •waitmarks
in reply to Venator • • •edible_funk
in reply to waitmarks • • •They don't teach that it's literally physically flesh and literally physically blood, it's still wine and a bread cracker thing, it's just that they also now have the spiritual essence and properties of the J-man's divinity. Like, most catholics would be confused that anyone would draw a comparison to say cannibalism, because it's not literal in the physical sense, just the spiritual. Which admittedly probably doesn't make much sense unless you're catholic.
Source: raised in catholic town by catholic family with twelve years of catholic school in which I actually read the bible and the catechism, all of which explain why I'm an atheist. But it's funny seeing all the (admittedly understandable) misconceptions people have about what catholics believe.
Soggy
in reply to edible_funk • • •edible_funk
in reply to Soggy • • •BarneyPiccolo
in reply to edible_funk • • •Yeah, that sounds like a lot of rationalization so they don't have to admit they are participating in ritual cannibalism.
Transubstatiation means that is is NOT symbolic or metaphoric, but that the "essence" is truly the body and blood of Christ, so it really is cannibalism - if you believe in religious magic. I don't, so I don't truly believe it's cannibalism, just a mid-service snack, but devout Catholics do believe in religious magic, so they do believe they are being Cannibals, even if they try to pretend that it's something else.
Microblog Memes reshared this.
edible_funk
in reply to BarneyPiccolo • • •Microblog Memes reshared this.
T156
in reply to edible_funk • • •waitmarks
in reply to edible_funk • • •You were taught incorrectly then, I grew up catholic as well (also now atheist) and it was made very clear to me that it is not symbolic, it is an actual transformation.
This is directly from the US conference of catholic bishops website:
Is the Eucharist a symbol? The transformed bread and wine are truly the Body and Blood of Christ and are not merely symbols.
I remember very specifically that learning this official belief being one of the things that made me start questioning my religion. Like I can very clearly see that no transformation is happening so, it started making me question everything else they were telling me.
eucharist
www.usccb.orgT. Hex
in reply to waitmarks • • •prole
in reply to edible_funk • • •BarneyPiccolo
in reply to waitmarks • • •Which means they are openly participating in ritual cannibalism, but Atheists are the weirdos?
Seriously, we should start referring to Catholics as Cannibalists.
flamingo_pinyata
in reply to VetOfTheSeas • • •Mulligrubs
in reply to flamingo_pinyata • • •kreskin
Unknown parent • • •Microblog Memes reshared this.
Lovable Sidekick
in reply to VetOfTheSeas • • •Microblog Memes reshared this.
njm1314
in reply to Lovable Sidekick • • •Lovable Sidekick
in reply to njm1314 • • •Microblog Memes reshared this.
wolframhydroxide
in reply to Lovable Sidekick • • •But ultimately, the statement being made is addressed to people who do literally believe that it is happening. If you don't believe that, then the statement doesn't apply to you, does it?
Furthermore, if they hold, as a requirement for eating the flesh and drinking the blood, that you must believe in its magic, then they are still people who seem to think that they are regularly practising literal cannibalism.
Microblog Memes reshared this.
Lovable Sidekick
in reply to wolframhydroxide • • •🇰 🌀 🇱 🇦 🇳 🇦 🇰 🇮
in reply to Lovable Sidekick • • •Lovable Sidekick
in reply to 🇰 🌀 🇱 🇦 🇳 🇦 🇰 🇮 • • •wolframhydroxide
in reply to Lovable Sidekick • • •An important note: I literally never said that it was literal cannibalism.
I claimed that catholics literally believe that it happens, and that they believe that the transsubtantiation literally happens, which is what you said in your original comment. The entire thesis of my comment is that it doesn't matter at all that it doesn't literally happen. All that is required for the point is that the original statement was addressed to people who believe in the literal nature. The statement is made to "you", where "you" applies to the reader if and only if the reader "regularly consumes the blood and flesh of a demigod with elders standing around chanting". I think we can both agree on at least that much.
I am pointing out that, people not being perfectly objective, we must interpret whether statements apply to us based on our worldview. If a true believer in transsubstatiation read the comment, then the fact that they believe that they regularly consume the flesh and blood of C
... Mostrar másAn important note: I literally never said that it was literal cannibalism.
I claimed that catholics literally believe that it happens, and that they believe that the transsubtantiation literally happens, which is what you said in your original comment. The entire thesis of my comment is that it doesn't matter at all that it doesn't literally happen. All that is required for the point is that the original statement was addressed to people who believe in the literal nature. The statement is made to "you", where "you" applies to the reader if and only if the reader "regularly consumes the blood and flesh of a demigod with elders standing around chanting". I think we can both agree on at least that much.
I am pointing out that, people not being perfectly objective, we must interpret whether statements apply to us based on our worldview. If a true believer in transsubstatiation read the comment, then the fact that they believe that they regularly consume the flesh and blood of Christ is sufficient to make that statement apply to them. Thus, it is utterly immaterial whether they "literally" eat a demigod. It is sufficient that they believe that they do, and thus should believe the statement to apply to them.
FlyingCircus
in reply to wolframhydroxide • • •Microblog Memes reshared this.
wolframhydroxide
in reply to FlyingCircus • • •FlyingCircus
in reply to wolframhydroxide • • •NoneOfUrBusiness
in reply to VetOfTheSeas • • •TheLeadenSea
in reply to NoneOfUrBusiness • • •NoneOfUrBusiness
in reply to TheLeadenSea • • •atopi
in reply to NoneOfUrBusiness • • •kreskin
in reply to atopi • • •ever seen the church of satans 11 commandments? they are gold:
churchofsatan.com/eleven-rules-of-earth/
and the 7 tenets:
The Eleven Satanic Rules of the Earth - Church of Satan
Adam (Church of Satan)Microblog Memes reshared this.
rumba
in reply to kreskin • • •zarkanian
in reply to rumba • • •kreskin
in reply to zarkanian • • •rumba
in reply to zarkanian • • •prole
in reply to zarkanian • • •prole
in reply to rumba • • •What rules are you referring to?
Oh nvm I guess they edited them out of their comment
rumba
in reply to prole • • •search out eleven-rules-of-earth
They're not necessarily horrible; a number of them are good advice, some are a little strange
There's one about magic.
Honestly, the 7 Tenets are so based, I think the entirety of humanity would do well to use them as their default.
prole
in reply to rumba • • •Right. Those have nothing to do with The Satanic Temple.
The Church of Satan and the Satanic Temple are not two sects of the same "religion," they are two completely different (I would say almost entirely incompatible) belief systems.
🦄🦄🦄
in reply to kreskin • • •Why aren't they all vegan?
Microblog Memes reshared this.
kreskin
in reply to 🦄🦄🦄 • • •🦄🦄🦄
in reply to kreskin • • •Of course. I loved bacon before going vegan. Well, the umami I got from animal bacon I still get from vegan bacon so 🤷🏻
And even if I didn't, I also saw pigs being put into literal gas chambers and the choice between personal pleasure and not putting intelligent, feeling individuals in death factories was pretty easy.
kreskin
in reply to 🦄🦄🦄 • • •Pieisawesome
in reply to NoneOfUrBusiness • • •EldritchFemininity
in reply to Pieisawesome • • •Except that he's also 100% the Holy Spirit (which is also 100% God and 100% Jesus), so he's like...67% God/ethereal being?
IDK, maybe Jesus had DID/was a system the whole time.
root
in reply to EldritchFemininity • • •Axolotl
in reply to NoneOfUrBusiness • • •Cethin
in reply to NoneOfUrBusiness • • •That's not a contradiction if they aren't related. Is god a species? I don't think so. It's like saying a cat is 100% cat and 100% cute. They're different things. He's not a human-god hybrid. He's a god who also happens to be human (at that time).
(Before people go assuming I'm arguing on the validity of all this, it's stupid. I'm an atheist. The whole thing doesn't really make sense. I'm just correcting a logical mistake.)
Ginny [they/she]
in reply to NoneOfUrBusiness • • •It's not a contradiction, it just depends on what the meaning of the word "is" is.
See also: trinitarianism.
(/s)
runner_g
in reply to Ginny [they/she] • • •a_non_monotonic_function
in reply to NoneOfUrBusiness • • •Did someone say... heresy?
Microblog Memes reshared this.
terry_jerry
Unknown parent • • •atx_aquarian
in reply to VetOfTheSeas • • •I was just thinking about the term "Jeez-Its" this week in the grocery store and giggling like an idiot.
"So how many of those [do] you have to consume before you’ve eaten a whole Jesus?"
Someone On Tumblr Calculated How Much Communion Wafer Makes Up A Whole Jesus And It Will Crack You Up
Andželika (Bored Panda)ChickenLadyLovesLife
Unknown parent • • •Hoodoir
in reply to VetOfTheSeas • • •Microblog Memes reshared this.
real_username56
in reply to Hoodoir • • •Microblog Memes reshared this.
Hoodoir
in reply to real_username56 • • •\
I'm an Orthodox Christian, and we definitely eat God every Sunday. The Lutherans also believe they eat God but they define it more like we do than the Roman Catholics do. The Anglicans usually agree with the Catholics on how they eat God. Beyond just the groups named, I'm fairly certain no one else truly eats God's flesh.
Microblog Memes reshared this.
Jankatarch
in reply to Hoodoir • • •Nontrinitarianism - Wikipedia
Contributors to Wikimedia projects (Wikimedia Foundation, Inc.)Microblog Memes reshared this.
chiliedogg
in reply to Hoodoir • • •Unitarians are weird. They don't believe in the trinity, but are Christian, but also merged with a non-Christian sect to form Unitarian Univalersalism.
But also, Catholics and most Protestants have a very different view on the Eucharist. Catholics believe in Transubstantiation, where the bread and wine become the literal body and blood of Christ in the Eucharist, whereas many Protestant sects either see the Eucharist as symbolic of the body and blood and Christ's sacrifice, or something in between (Consubstantiation or Calvin's very complicated take).
It also helps explain modern Catholocism's stance that Protestants aren't allowed to take part in the Eucharist. It's not just a remnant of the old adversarial relationship between the sects, but different beliefs on what the sacrament is. They want everyone taking part in the ritual to understand it.
Microblog Memes reshared this.
MonkderVierte
in reply to Hoodoir • • •🙄
MyVeryRealName
in reply to MonkderVierte • • •Microblog Memes reshared this.
Hoodoir
in reply to MonkderVierte • • •\
Definitions carry value and determine what something/someone is or isn't
MonkderVierte
in reply to Hoodoir • • •HugeNerd
in reply to Hoodoir • • •Hoodoir
in reply to HugeNerd • • •Microblog Memes reshared this.
HugeNerd
in reply to Hoodoir • • •Tortellinius
in reply to HugeNerd • • •Hoodoir
in reply to HugeNerd • • •Microblog Memes reshared this.
P. Montegomery Hat (he)
in reply to VetOfTheSeas • • •Microblog Memes reshared this.
root
in reply to VetOfTheSeas • • •dual_sport_dork 🐧🗡️
in reply to root • • •Tortellinius
in reply to dual_sport_dork 🐧🗡️ • • •HugeNerd
in reply to VetOfTheSeas • • •FistingEnthusiast
in reply to HugeNerd • • •Yep,
But it still has a stranglehold on the world
There's no excuse for a developed country to be swayed by superstitious claptrap, but 'Murica isn't really a developed country, culturally speaking
ikidd
in reply to VetOfTheSeas • • •Smaile
in reply to ikidd • • •FistingEnthusiast
in reply to Smaile • • •Mohammed was a paedo
Jeebus was a weirdo who hung out with other dudes, washing their feet and shit
frankthetankPA
in reply to VetOfTheSeas • • •Transubstantiation - Wikipedia
Contributors to Wikimedia projects (Wikimedia Foundation, Inc.)Carlos Solís
in reply to VetOfTheSeas • •pulsey
in reply to VetOfTheSeas • • •rumba
in reply to kreskin • • •