A Catholic explanation of John 6

[kaycee]

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.”

So,…Jesus also said he was a Vine, a Gate, a Shepherd of Sheep and never mentioned that these were figues of speech at the time. I assume you believe they ARE metaphors.

 

[Jerry-Jet]

Why is it that all the literalist fundamentalist Protestants have no problem on insisting on an always literal translation of the Bible anywhere else but will attempt escape moves worthy of Houdini when it comes to Jesus’ body and blood?

The very same people will sing “There is power power wonder working power in the blood of the Lamb.” but will cower with frieght at the notion that Jesus’ blood is in the Eucharist!

Come on now–I don’t think that people who are so single minded when it comes to consistency regarding the scriptures in one are will abandon it so quickly when it comes to John chapter 6.

Let’s face it–people didn’t have a problem with the Euchatrist for over 1500 years, The problems that anyone had with the Catholic Church over the Eucharist didn’t come from genuine problems with the Catholic theoology of the Eucharist–they grew out of Luther’s refusal to submit to AUTHORITY.

Once something like that happens anything in the church’s doctrine could be questioned and perverted.

It’s not just that not believing that Jesus is present body,blood, soul, and divinity in the Eucharist is a lie–it is a lie to just be part of an anti-sacramental chorus of lies!

I’ll say this–if you’re a Protestant and you’re always searching for the next big spiritual experience–if you’re weary from trying to convince yourself of once saved always saved and that you do have blessed assurance–get REAL and ask yourslef if those memorial crackers and grape juice that you certainly receive far less than the early christians of Acts–

Ask yourself if there isn’t the slightest possibility that that faith isn’t REALLY shallow!

Ask yourself how often participating in that memorial service has made you grow as a christian. Tell me how many Protestants will preach about how that memorial Protestant service has transformed them as christians–about how intensely they have felt the Holy Spirit at those services and how often Protestants talk about such spiritual highs.

Get REAL!

 

[WBB]

Prove that the eucharist is Jesus. Thanks.

We can’t prove to those who refuse to believe that the Eucharist is the Body and Blood of the Lord any more than you can prove to an atheist that God exists. It is a quite plainly a matter of faith. I for one refuse to post long passages of scripture in defense of the Catholic belief in the Real Presence in the Eucharist because unless a person is open to belief in the Real Presence, i.e. open to grace, nothing will convince him.

Those of us who do believe are at peace with it and filled with joy to receive the Lord.

One other thing. It is offensive to some of us when you say, “It is just a wafer.” It is quite possible to convey your lack of belief in the Eucharist in less offensive terms.

Brian

 

[WBB]

So,…Jesus also said he was a Vine, a Gate, a Shepherd of Sheep and never mentioned that these were figues of speech at the time. I assume you believe they ARE metaphors.

Nope. Jesus is the vine. He is the Gate. He is the Shepherd, and we are the Sheep.

I think a fundamental problem between a lot of the protestant arguments in this long thread proceeds from a lack of understanding of the sacramental theology of Catholicism. In a sacramental way, Jesus is all of those things, and yes, Jesus is present under the appearance of bread and wine in the Eucharistic banquet in the same way.

Brian

 

[ncgolf]

As C. S. Lewis said … paraphrasing

Christ said “Take this and eat” … Christ did not say “Take this and understand.”

The amazing thing for discussion is Catholics use Christ’s own words to support their claim. Christ says eat we eat. Christ says drink we drink. I do not think he could have made it simpler.

Christ’s words are hard to believe, but there is enough in the Scriptures to make the Catholic claim of the Eucharist reasonable. The question I still have is why this is so hard … there is Scriptural support for the Catholic claim, it is not a ludicrous claim. So I still ask why would not Christ give us His body and blood to eat. Is it not physically possible?

The difficult part for the Protestant side is you must specially argue against Christ’s own words.

 

[believers]

We can’t prove to those who refuse to believe that the Eucharist is the Body and Blood of the Lord any more than you can prove to an atheist that God exists. It is a quite plainly a matter of faith. I for one refuse to post long passages of scripture in defense of the Catholic belief in the Real Presence in the Eucharist because unless a person is open to belief in the Real Presence, i.e. open to grace, nothing will convince him.

Those of us who do believe are at peace with it and filled with joy to receive the Lord.

One other thing. It is offensive to some of us when you say, “It is just a wafer.” It is quite possible to convey your lack of belief in the Eucharist in less offensive terms.

Brian

1Th 5:21 Prove all things; hold fast that which is good.

And it is a wafer unless you can prove it otherwise.

 

[believers]

So we’re five pages into this and since more people have joined the conversation… I’d like to know if any Catholic here can answer this T/F question.

True or False. Does the eucharist promise eternal life to anyone that eats it?

 

[WBB]

62: Then what if you were to see the Son of man ascending where he was before?
63: It is the spirit that gives life, the flesh is of no avail; the words that I have spoken to you are spirit and life.

That is not how the Catholic Church understands this passage. Jesus has just said he is the bread come down from heaven. (51 I am the living bread that came down from heaven; whoever eats this bread will live forever; and the bread that I will give is my flesh for the life of the world.) This and the ensuing passage results in the incredulity of the disciples. Sparked by their incredulity, Jesus responds, “Then what if you were to see the Son of Man ascending to where he was before?” In other words, “If you think me coming down from heaven is incredible, then just wait.” He then goes on to explain that the spirit gives life (i.e. divine nature) as opposed to the flesh (human nature). He then says, “the words I have spoken to you are spirit and life.” (i.e. the words of the bread of life discourse is a revelation of the Spirit, or the words he has spoken have divine origin)

In a nutshell what Jesus is saying here is, “I know this is hard to understand. The only way you will understand it is through the Spirit.” This is when he says, “So, ok? Do you want to leave, too?” And St. Peter (God bless him) says, “Lord to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life! We have come to believe and are convinced that you are the Holy One of God.” This is St. Peter’s profession of faith. He is admitting that although he doesn’t understand what Jesus has just said, he accepts it in faith because he realizes that it is a revelation of the Spirit through the Incarnate Word.

So, this is what we believe. It may not jive with your interpretation, but it is the Catholic Church’s. It is not my interpretation. It is the Catholic Church’s. We believe that we can only read the scriptures accurately when read and studied with the Church, not as individuals.

Brian

 

[ncgolf]

And it is a wafer unless you can prove it otherwise.

Our words are “Forgive them Father for they know not what they do.”

 

[runandsew]

Nicene;1901382:

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.

But Brian, even if the letters were changed to include a teaching that was being challanged by others during the fifth century, it wouldn’t have been the real presence, since this teaching went unchallanged until the 1200’s. So what ever teaching was ‘interpolationed’ into his writings in the 400’s and 500’s probably would have been something else in his letters.

 

[Mannyfit75]

So we’re five pages into this and since more people have joined the conversation… I’d like to know if any Catholic here can answer this T/F question.

True or False. Does the eucharist promise eternal life to anyone that eats it?

As an unbeliever like you are. Yes, I call you an unbeliever. How ironic the name, I doubt you understand the meaning of the Eucharist.

Mmmph, let’s just say the Blessed Sacrament for name sake.

Does the Eucharist promised Eternal Life to anyone that eats of it?

First we have know what the Eucharist means thanksgiving. The Eucharist of course is unleaven bread, and it is also the wine. Eucharist summarizes both the bread and the wine, which are now the consecrated Body and Blood of the Lord. When we received the Body and Blood of the Lord, we call ask God, the Father for the thanksgiving, that he has granted us His only Beloved Son, so we may not die, but have eternal life.

In the Books of Acts, we describe it as Lord’s body and blood of the Lord as mention in 1 Cor 11:20-26.

What did Jesus say about this Lord’s Supper? He said, “I am the bread of life. Whoever eats the flesh of the Son of Man, and drinks his blood shall have eternal life.”

So Jesus in John 6 said that we must eat him. We must also believed what he preached. We all know Jesus taught many other moral and faith teachings that would give us eternal life.

He said, "Love God first, love yourself, and your neighbors. Obey the commandments. He also told us to eat his flesh and drink his blood. In the Last Supper, he reminds us to, “Do this in remembrance of me.”

So let’s get back to the true and the false question. Does the eucharist promise eternal life? According to Jesus, yes. Because it is His Word that proclaim, “He who eats the flesh of the Son of Man, and Drinks his Blood shall have eternal life.”

So who do you believe? A Protestant who says it is Symbolic, or Jesus who said that “I am the Bread of Life.”

 

[believers]

Our words are “Forgive them Father for they know not what they do.”

Do you believe that the eucharist promises everlasting life to those that eat it?

 

[ncgolf]

Do you believe that the eucharist promises everlasting life to those that eat it?

Yes

 

[believers]

As an unbeliever like you are. Yes, I call you an unbeliever. How ironic the name, I doubt you understand the meaning of the Eucharist.

Mmmph, let’s just say the Blessed Sacrament for name sake.

Does the Eucharist promised Eternal Life to anyone that eats of it?

First we have know what the Eucharist means thanksgiving. The Eucharist of course is unleaven bread, and it is also the wine. Eucharist summarizes both the bread and the wine, which are now the consecrated Body and Blood of the Lord. When we received the Body and Blood of the Lord, we call ask God, the Father for the thanksgiving, that he has granted us His only Beloved Son, so we may not die, but have eternal life.

In the Books of Acts, we describe it as Lord’s body and blood of the Lord as mention in 1 Cor 11:20-26.

What did Jesus say about this Lord’s Supper? He said, “I am the bread of life. Whoever eats the flesh of the Son of Man, and drinks his blood shall have eternal life.”

So Jesus in John 6 said that we must eat him. We must also believed what he preached. We all know Jesus taught many other moral and faith teachings that would give us eternal life.

He said, "Love God first, love yourself, and your neighbors. Obey the commandments. He also told us to eat his flesh and drink his blood. In the Last Supper, he reminds us to, “Do this in remembrance of me.”

So let’s get back to the true and the false question. Does the eucharist promise eternal life? According to Jesus, yes. Because it is His Word that proclaim, “He who eats the flesh of the Son of Man, and Drinks his Blood shall have eternal life.”

So who do you believe? A Protestant who says it is Symbolic, or Jesus who said that “I am the Bread of Life.”

Yes, I am an unbeliever in the eucharist. It cannot promise eternal life. Jesus promised eternal life to those that eat it.

So I’ll ask you this question again…

Do you believe that every person that eats the eucharist is promised everlasting life?

 

[WBB]

1Th 5:21 Prove all things; hold fast that which is good.

And it is a wafer unless you can prove it otherwise.

BZZZZT!!!

That’s what you get from using the KJV. It is in early modern English. The term “to prove” in early modern English means “to test”. So a modern translation (of the entire statement St. Paul is making, not just the snippet you gave) would say,

Do not quench the Spirit, do not despise prophesying, but test everything; hold fast to what is good, abstain from every form of evil.

That is the RSV (Catholic Edition, of course), but if you want, I will use one of the modern Protestant versions. Lemme see…NIV:

Do not put out the Spirit’s fire; do not treat prophecies with contempt. Test everything. Hold on to the good. Avoid every kind of evil.

Or…how about the New King James Version:

Do not quench the Spirit. Do not despise prophecies. Test all things; hold fast what is good. Abstain from every form of evil.

Oh, one more for good measure…The New Life Version:

Don’t turn away God’s Spirit or ignore prophecies. Put everything to the test. Accept what is good and don’t have anything to do with evil.

So, no I don’t have to prove anything to you. What St. Paul is saying to you is that YOU have to put everything to the test. It is not for me to do your work.

Brian

 

[ncgolf]

Do you believe that the eucharist promises everlasting life to those that eat it?

Do I understand how it works given my sinful nature. No.

 

[believers]

BZZZZT!!!

That’s what you get from using the KJV. It is in early modern English. The term “to prove” in early modern English means “to test”. So a modern translation (of the entire statement St. Paul is making, not just the snippet you gave) would say,

That is the RSV (Catholic Edition, of course), but if you want, I will use one of the modern Protestant versions. Lemme see…NIV:

Or…how about the New King James Version:

Oh, one more for good measure…The New Life Version:

So, no I don’t have to prove anything to you. What St. Paul is saying to you is that YOU have to put everything to the test. It is not for me to do your work.

Brian

dokimazo - 1) to test, examine, prove, scrutinise (to see whether a thing is genuine or not)

 

[WBB]

Do you believe that the eucharist promises everlasting life to those that eat it?

It promises eternal life to those who eat it worthily, yes, and condemnation to those who eat and do not recognize the body.

 

[WBB]

dokimazo - 1) to test, examine, prove, scrutinise (to see whether a thing is genuine or not)

The ball is in your court. That definition means that YOU have to do the scrutinizing, not me. You have to decide for yourself based on sound reasoning and study. I don’t have to do any of the work for you. I already have done the work and believe.

 

[believers]

Do I understand how it works given my sinful nature. No.

Mat 4:4
But he answered and said, It is written, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God.

Notice here how it never says eucharist… or catholicism… or catechism… or pope