A Catholic explanation of John 6

[NotWorthy]

How is this referring to the eucharist or are you trying to prove something else.

I responded to this statement:

Thank you for answering if even if you think you are wrong. I also dont understand how you get grace by receiving /doing a sacrement. Is their biblical evidence for this. I have been looking but I cant find any. Maybe somone can point me to some.

 

[Nicene]

Nicene;1901334:

I am willing to grant Ignatius if you can tell me WHEN this letter was found, where, etc, if it is 300 or 400 years later and even Catholic scholars admit forgeries for some of his letters…I do not see how I can. I have read the same links over and over but nothing to tell me exact details, which is not too much to ask. Does not matter if it is 10 years though I suppose , when you get it wrong, it is wrong…

Actually I was speaking of the gospel of John (as well as the synoptics earlier to approximately 50-70 A.D.)

But Ignatius was approximately 7 years later than John. As far as forgeries, this is a red herring, they all agree on the 7, what the forgeries consist of are the other 8. Red herrings don’t do much for me. Ever notice that protestants like to quote parts of Ignatius 7 letters. Why quote forgeries?

So, just to clarify, John could write what he did as being symbolic, but to his own student Ignatius he couldn’t say the words “Ignatius, it’s symbolic dude!!”

John must have been one poor teacher being sent from Christ if he can’t get even one of his disciples to get it. Which brings into question the Johns very gospel itself, since he could not transmit the truth to even one student, one he and Peter placed as bishop.

You’re right, if John’s teachings are questionable and not to be trusted, then they all must come under question, which includes his gospel. (You’re making the same argument as athiests I have debated.)

Peace and God Bless
Nicene

 

[Randy_Carson]

Jesus did clarify, I am one lone protestor and I do not have time to repeat what I am saying!

But if Jesus clarified, why did they discontinue following him?

Those souls were lost - possibly doomed to hell forever - because they rejected the saviour over a misunderstanding.

Brian - you are waaaay out there, brother.

 

[BrianH]

BrianH;1901344:

Actually I was speaking of the gospel of John (as well as the synoptics earlier to approximately 50-70 A.D.)

But Ignatius was approximately 7 years later than John. As far as forgeries, this is a red herring, they all agree on the 7, what the forgeries consist of are the other 8. Red herrings don’t do much for me. Ever notice that protestants like to quote parts of Ignatius 7 letters. Why quote forgeries?

So, just to clarify, John could write what he did as being symbolic, but to his own student Ignatius he couldn’t say the words “Ignatius, it’s symbolic dude!!”

John must have been one poor teacher being sent from Christ if he can’t get even one of his disciples to get it. Which brings into question the Johns very gospel itself, since he could not transmit the truth to even one student, one he and Peter placed as bishop.

You’re right, if John’s teachings are questionable and not to be trusted, then they all must come under question, which includes his gospel. (You’re making the same argument as athiests I have debated.)

Peace and God Bless
Nicene

I wonder how many times a person has to ask this question…
when and where did the translations of the letters quoting Ignatius come from? Interpolation? THEY do not all agree at all. Scholars that is.

 

[BrianH]

But if Jesus clarified, why did they discontinue following him?

The Jews, well these particular Jews, rejected his message.

Those souls were lost - possibly doomed to hell forever - because they rejected the saviour over a misunderstanding.

 

[Nicene]

Those Catholic glasses are heavily tinted
No offense…really

Nope, I accept them as spirit and life. For some reason you must think this was taught to me by the church? It wasn’t.

Protestant glasses are heavily tinted. No offense…really (and I actually mean it) It is difficult to take John 6 out of it’s natural context the way protestants have. It takes some severe twisting IMHO to not believe because one cannot accept, thinking “in the flesh” and not accepting with “spirit and life”

Peace and God Bless
Nicene

 

[ALLFORHIM]

The Holy Spirit is infused in our soul any time we receive Sanctifying Grace.

When we commit mortal sin, we basically separate ourselves from God, in other words, the Holy Spirit no longer dwells within us for we are now a corrupt temple. The infusion of Grace can come from numerous ways, BUT the church teaches that in Confession and the Eucharist we receive the Holy Spirit. Again, they are not the ONLY way to receive His graces.

This little “out” that I just talked about helps to explain how Non-Catholic Christians can still receive the Grace that helps them get to heaven.

Hey, what are the other ways to get the HS back to indwell in you?

 

[BrianH]

Nope, I accept them as spirit and life. For some reason you must think this was taught to me by the church? It wasn’t.

Protestant glasses are heavily tinted. No offense…really (and I actually mean it) It is difficult to take John 6 out of it’s natural context the way protestants have. It takes some severe twisting IMHO to not believe because one cannot accept, thinking “in the flesh” and not accepting with “spirit and life”

Peace and God Bless
Nicene

I used to believe it. If you recall, and why would you, but I argued for it the last…I dont know 15 years. Reading the arguments for it against the Protestants changed my view, I used to have your prescription and I now realize it was BLURRY
Bad joke
Better go watch TV

 

[Randy_Carson]

In addition to the dramatic episode recorded in John 6, the New Testament records several other passages regarding the body and blood of Jesus. Writing from the mid to late first century (anywhere from 25 to 75 years after the death and resurrection of Jesus), Matthew, Mark, Luke and the Apostle Paul all recorded their versions of the events known as the Last Supper. But before looking at these passages, let’s consider one last point concerning the beloved disciple of Jesus, the Apostle John.

The Problem of John

We have already looked extensively at the Gospel of John’s teaching on the body and blood of Jesus. However, there is one other powerful observation that we can make concerning this book. The author, commonly considered to be John, the beloved disciple of Jesus, was the last of the original Twelve to die and the only one who did not suffer martyrdom. At the time of this writing, John had known the martyrdoms of the first four leaders of the Church: Peter, Linus, Cletus and Clement. John died around the year 100 A.D. while Evaristus, the fifth bishop of Rome, was leading the Church.

Given his longevity and his special relationship to Jesus, it would be understandable if the early believers gave a special place of honor to the Apostle John; no one alive would have had more authority to speak about the life and teaching of Jesus than he. Therefore, if John had felt that the Church had strayed from the true teaching of Jesus (or in its election of Church leaders), his objections would have been heard and heeded. Instead, his gospel account of Jesus’ teaching regarding his body and blood reinforced the plain meaning of our Lord’s words, “this is my body, this is my blood.” The fact that John, after more than half a century of reflection upon all that Jesus said and did, steadfastly held to the teaching of the early Church regarding the literal meaning of Jesus’ words, “this is my body; this is my blood” creates a problem for Protestants that cannot be explained away.

Matthew – 90-100 A.D.

“While they were eating, Jesus took bread, gave thanks and broke it, and gave it to his disciples, saying, “Take and eat; this is my body.” Then he took the cup, gave thanks and offered it to them, saying, “Drink from it, all of you. This is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins.” Mt 26:26-28

Mark – 70-90 A.D.

While they were eating, Jesus took bread, gave thanks and broke it, and gave it to his disciples, saying, “Take it; this is my body.” Then he took the cup, gave thanks and offered it to them, and they all drank from it. “This is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many,” he said to them. Mk 14:22-24

Luke – 50-60 A.D.

And he took the bread, gave thanks and broke it, and gave it to them, saying, “This is my body given for you; do this in remembrance of me.” In the same way, after the supper he took the cup, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in my blood, which is poured out for you.” Lk 22:19-20

Note that each of these writers does not have Jesus say, “This represents my body; this represents my blood.” With nearly half a century or more to reflect on the true meaning of Jesus’ teaching, they infallibly recorded the words of Jesus just as they were spoken – they wrote, “This is”. It would be another 1500 years before someone would proclaim, “This is not.”

 

[Nicene]

No, never said that. They had a problem, you bet.
That was explained though and the chief problem was who he said he was in comparision to the role they perceived based upon their importance(manna reference etc).

Ermm they had no problem accepting who Jesus was. They didn’t have a problem until:

Jn 6:56: He who eats my flesh and drinks my blood abides in me, and I in him.
57: As the living Father sent me, and I live because of the Father, so he who eats me will live because of me.
58: This is the bread which came down from heaven, not such as the fathers ate and died; he who eats this bread will live for ever."
59: This he said in the synagogue, as he taught at Caper’na-um.
60: Many of his disciples, when they heard it, said, “This is a hard saying; who can listen to it?”

If I understand correctly you are saying they walked away because:

62: Then what if you were to see the Son of man ascending where he was before?

Which honestly isn’t a problem for Jews, as he didn’t say he was God in this sentence, he says “Son of Man”. And Jews believe we all come from God, knew us before we were born, and *formed us in the womb *etc. That stuff is right out of Psalms. Are you saying Jews didn’t believe him in this?

And he doesn’t even say it will happen yet (though we know with 20/20 hindsight) he says to them "What if you were too see…"

He is saying that no matter what, even if they saw him do that, they would not believe his words:

56: He who eats my flesh and drinks my blood abides in me, and I in him.

You still have yet to answer this question;

Whose eternal life is he speaking of here:

Jn 6:53: So Jesus said to them, "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood, you have no life in you;
54: he who eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day.

Yours or his?

Peace and God Bless
Nicene

 

[Nicene]

I used to believe it. If you recall, and why would you, but I argued for it the last…I dont know 15 years. Reading the arguments for it against the Protestants changed my view, I used to have your prescription and I now realize it was BLURRY
Bad joke
Better go watch TV

I’ll never see anything God has granted me as blurry personally. Only human perception and wisdom is blurry:

1 Cor 2:9: But, as it is written, “What no eye has seen, nor ear heard, nor the heart of man conceived, what God has prepared for those who love him,”
10: God has revealed to us through the Spirit. For the Spirit searches everything, even the depths of God.
11: For what person knows a man’s thoughts except the spirit of the man which is in him? So also no one comprehends the thoughts of God except the Spirit of God.
12: Now we have received not the spirit of the world, but the Spirit which is from God, that we might understand the gifts bestowed on us by God.
13: And we impart this in words not taught by human wisdom but taught by the Spirit, interpreting spiritual truths to those who possess the Spirit.

Spiritual truths are gifts from God, but those who cannot accept those gifts of understanding think in the flesh:

1 Cor 2:14: The unspiritual man does not receive the gifts of the Spirit of God, for they are folly to him, and he is not able to understand them because they are spiritually discerned.

Fortunately though:

1 Cor 2:16: “For who has known the mind of the Lord so as to instruct him?” But we have the mind of Christ.

It would be difficult (in fact impossible) for me to give up the grace of faith based on mere human reasoning. The spiritual world would be too blurry then.

Peace and God Bless
Nicene

 

[Jerry-Jet]

Who has a bigger problem with whart the definition of IS IS? Bill Clinton or Protestants listening to Jesus hismelf say This IS my body?

 

[MrS]

Wrong.

The disciples are saying THEY do not understand it. How can you say it did not require further explaining?

because they, the Apostles, had what I always want more of… Faith.

Those who walked away, did not .

.

 

[MrS]

Akouo…you translate “listen”
Akouo, my Bible translates “understand”

Big difference…

The meaning of the word at the time it was written was listen=obey.

In some circles today, it still carries that strength…
like when dad says… " You better listen to me…" not just understand.

 

[BrianH]

Big difference…

The meaning of the word at the time it was written was listen=obey.

 

[MrS]

Strong’s Concordance copyright 27 AD?

 

[ncgolf]

because they, the Apostles, had what I always want more of… Faith…

But you also have something else in common. They did not yet understand. They had the faith but did not understand his words … yet, so you are in good company.

 

[MrS]

amen… and thank God I am what I am

 

[ncgolf]

because they, the Apostles, had what I always want more of… Faith.

Those who walked away, did not …

They wanted faith and understanding … all at once. The significance of the apostles staying was faith …yes … but faith when they **did not yet understand ** what Christ was talking about… that is even harder. This passage tells me to have faith yes … but also to have it when I do not always understand God’s ways. They wanted to go but Peter’s words are poignant … “Master, To whom shall we go …”. Peter knew he was the Christ but yet could not reconcile Christ’s words into an understanding but he stayed anyway.

Christ’s statements are always somewhat unbelievable to people … remember when asked if he was the Messiah his response was only 2 words, “I am”. John 6 saying “my flesh is true food and my blood true drink.” Tough stuff.

Why Christ can be the Messiah but his flesh cannot be eaten seems to not to take Christ at his word.

I find nowhere in the Bible that I am required or expected to understand everything but I am required to have faith in what He said.

 

[WBB]

Hi,

I need some clarification Im sure you guys can give me.

1. Catholics believe that everytime they take the Eucharist the HS dwells in them–is that correct?
2. Do you believe that every time you sin the HS leaves you?
3. If you believe #2 then repenting and doing #1 then brings the HS back–am I right or am I way off?
4. Do you need to receive the eucharist to have the HS in you? That may repeat question 1 in a different way

Thanks for now

1. Everytime we receive (we do not take ) the Eucharist we become united with the Lord in Holy Communion and with one another.
2. We we sin gravely, we destroy our relationship with God and turn from the Holy Spirit. The Spirit does not leave you, you leave Him.
3. Repenting means conversion, or turning back to God. In the matter of grave sin Catholics believe that we not only sin against God, we also sin against one another. Sin has a ripple effect such that it not only damages our relationship with God but also with one another since through Christ we are united with one another. Our personal relationship with God in Christ is personal but not independent of our brothers and sisters. In order to receive the Lord in Holy Communion, we must not be conscious of grave sin against the Lord and our brothers and sisters. To receive Holy Communion in this state heaps sin on top of sin because it implies a unity of spirit that does not exist, i.e. it is a lie to say that we are at peace with the Lord and our brothers and sisters when we have sinned gravely against them and have not repented.
4. See #1. I suppose it is possible to be filled with the Holy Spirit without receiving the Eucharist, but to receive the Eucharist is to be intimately united with God in Christ Jesus through the sacrament of his Body and Blood, so how much more filled with the Lord can you be?

I hope this answers the questions you have.

Brian