A Catholic explanation of John 6

[ncgolf]

In the end I can say Jesus I took **your **word that You would do what you said You would do … Give me your flesh and blood as food. You said it and I believed it.

What will you say Believer, I read it but could not bring myself to believe that you really meant what you said.

 

[believers]

I am not interested in any of that. Jesus promises eternal life to those who receive him. We receive him body, blood, soul and divinity in the Most Blessed Sacrament of the Altar.

Now, I challenge you to prove something. Prove to me that Jesus rose from the dead, and when you can successfully prove to me (in other words, according to the way I want it proved, not the way you do) that he indeed is risen, then you will believe that the Eucharist is truly the Body and Blood of the Lord.

You can’t prove the eucharist is Jesus any more than I can. It’s not in the Bible. Your religion has taught you to believe it. And that’s as far as it goes. The eucharist cannot fulfil the promise of eternal life. Therefore it’s a false doctrine that you believe in.

 

[hosemonkey]

I believe the flesh of Jesus is most definitely eternal life. But, it’s definitely not a wafer.

This is why I am a Catholic and you are a protestant. I pray that you will be given the Grace to see what so many have already seen, that the Holy Eucharist is truly the Body and Blood of our Lord Jesus Christ. Your lack of belief places your salvation in doubt. Protestants are wont to perform all sorts of mental gymnastics in order to rationalize their unbelief but the fact remains, Our Lord did not mince words and the apostles knew what he was talking about. This is why He gave them the power to repeat his sacrifice in the Mass. Until you deal with that fact, all your protestations are empty.

 

[WBB]

You can’t prove the eucharist is Jesus any more than I can. It’s not in the Bible. Your religion has taught you to believe it. And that’s as far as it goes. The eucharist cannot fulfil the promise of eternal life. Therefore it’s a false doctrine that you believe in.

Are you telling me that you are not up to the challenge to prove that Jesus rose from the dead? Come now! I expected more from you!

Now, I never said I could prove it. I said I believed it. It is in the bible, you just refuse to believe it. The Eucharist is the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ, the Incarnate Word, and since he is life, then most assuredly the Eucharist gives us eternal life.

 

[kaycee]

Apparently the “protestant” interpretation was’nt a new innovation.

Augustine

“If the sentence is one of command, either forbidding a crime or vice, or enjoining an act of prudence or benevolence, it is not figurative.** If, however, it seems to enjoin a crime or vice, or to forbid an act of prudence or benevolence, it is figurative.** ‘Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man,’ says Christ, ‘and drink His blood, ye have no life in you.’ This seems to enjoin a crime or a vice; it is therefore a figure, enjoining that we should have a share in the sufferings of our Lord, and that we should retain a sweet and profitable memory of the fact that His flesh was wounded and crucified for us.” - Augustine (On Christian Doctrine, 3:16:24)

Clement of Alexandria

“Elsewhere the Lord, in the Gospel according to John, brought this out by symbols, when He said: ‘Eat ye my flesh, and drink my blood,’ describing distinctly by **metaphor **the drinkable properties of faith and the promise, by means of which the Church, like a human being consisting of many members, is refreshed and grows, is welded together and compacted of both,–of faith, which is the body, and of hope, which is the soul; as also the Lord of flesh and blood. For in reality the blood of faith is hope, in which faith is held as by a vital principle.” - Clement of Alexandria (The Instructor, 1:6)

Tertullian

“He says, it is true, that ‘the flesh profiteth nothing;’ but then, as in the former case, the meaning must be regulated by the subject which is spoken of. Now, because they thought His discourse was harsh and intolerable, **supposing that He had really and literally enjoined on them to eat his flesh, He, with the view of ordering the state of salvation as a spiritual thing, set out with the principle, ‘It is the spirit that quickeneth;’ and then added, ‘The flesh profiteth nothing,’–meaning, of course, to the giving of life. He also goes on to explain what He would have us to understand by spirit: ‘The words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life.’ In a like sense He had previously said: ‘He that heareth my words, and believeth on Him that sent me, hath everlasting life, and shall not come into condemnation, but shall pass from death unto life.’ Constituting, therefore, His word as the life-giving principle, because that word is spirit and life, He likewise called His flesh by the same appelation; because, too, the Word had become flesh, we ought therefore to desire Him in order that we may have life, and to devour Him with the ear, and to ruminate on Him with the understanding, and to digest Him by faith. Now, just before the passage in hand, He had declared His flesh to be ‘the bread which cometh down from heaven,’ impressing on His hearers constantly under the figure **of necessary food the memory of their forefathers, who had preferred the bread and flesh of Egypt to their divine calling.” - Tertullian (On the Ressurection of the Flesh, 37)

 

[Mannyfit75]

believers won’t believe that the Blessed Sacrament is Jesus. He is worst than the Pharisees and Sadducees…

 

[Church_Militant]

Grasping? You mean like not being able to prove the eucharist is God? The eucharist cannot promise everlasting life so it isn’t the flesh of jesus. The flesh of jesus is meat. Here… let’s post this again.

Jesus promised everlasting life to those who hear His Word and believe.

If there is no real presence in the Eucharist, then how can St.Paul warn us not to take it unworthily lest we become guilty of the body and blood of the Lord? That “spiritualization” makes complete nonsense not only of the 6th chapter of John, but of 1st Corinthians 10:16-17 “16 The chalice of benediction, which we bless, is it not the communion of the blood of Christ? And the bread, which we break, is it not the partaking of the body of the Lord? 17 For we, being many, are one bread, one body, all that partake of one bread.”

and 11: 23-30

23 For I have received of the Lord that which also I delivered unto you, that the Lord Jesus, the same night in which he was betrayed, took bread. 24 And giving thanks, broke, and said: Take ye, and eat: this is my body, which shall be delivered for you: this do for the commemoration of me. 25 In like manner also the chalice, after he had supped, saying: This chalice is the new testament in my blood: this do ye, as often as you shall drink, for the commemoration of me.

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 inform and weak among you, and many sleep.

Now, how can one become guilty of the body and blood of the Lord IF THAT BODY AND BLOOD OF THE LORD IS NOT REALLY THERE? Now if I make a symbol of Karl Keating like this symbol here: and then I decide to do bad things to that symbol symbol…like say this:http://bestsmileys.com/violent/10.gif I may indeed be guilty of abusing that symbol of the goodman Karl Keating, but am I guilty of his body and blood? Silly question…of course not! Why? BECAUSE KARL KEATING IS NOT REALLY PRESENT IN THAT SYMBOL is he?
There is the the whole case for why the Eucharist really is the presence of Our Lord Jesus Christ…body and blood, soul and divinity.

Catholics! You have the greatest miracle of all at every Mass that you participate in.
Pax Domini sit semper vobiscum.

 

[runandsew]

I was just reading from the Ignatius Catholic Study Bible on the bread of life discourse.
In the commentary, the writers of the commentary state the following about the two different interpretations of this sermon.

It says that the interpretations often take one of two positions. Some think the discourse as an extensive invitation to faith, so that eating the bead of life is seen as a metaphor for believing in Jesus. Others interpret the discourse along sacramental lines, so that eating the bread of life means partaking of the Eucharist. Both of these views are true and can be correlated with a natural and symmetrical division of the sermon into two parts.

**(1) ****Invitation to Faith **(6:35-47) - The first half of the discourse open with the statement “I am the bread of life” (6:35). This is followed by a string of invitations to come to Jesus and believe in him for salvation. The metaphorical import of Jesus’ teaching is so obvious that it stands out in the response of the Jews, who ask him, not why he calls himself bread, but how he can claim to have descended from heaven (6:42).

(2) **Invitation to the Eucharist **(6:48-58) – The second half of the discourse likewise opens with the statement “I am the bread of life” (6:48). This is followed by a string of invitations to eat the flesh of Jesus and drink his blood. Here the literal import of Jesus’ teaching is so obvious that it, too, stands out in the response of the Jews, who ask how it is possible to consume his flesh (6:52).
In the end, these two halves of the sermon work in tandem, since without faith we can neither be united with Christ nor recognize his presence in the Eucharist. If eating is believing in 6:35-47, then believing leads to eating in 6:48-58 (CCC 161, 1381).

 

[ncgolf]

You can’t prove the eucharist is Jesus any more than I can.

I always thought Christianity was built on faith. Let me ask is there anything you believe (in Christianity) but do not totally understand or all you wise in all things.

 

[NotWorthy]

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

And yet you do not love by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God if you make light of a wafer.

To answer your question, Christ promises this Eternal Life, but it’s up to us to keep and feed and maintain that Eternal Life, the Sanctifying Grace that Jesus gives us, or else we lose it.

It’s not “once it’s yours, it can’t be lost”. It’s “once it’s yours, you must continue to work out your salvation with fear and trembling.”

 

[Church_Militant]

Apparently the “protestant” interpretation was’nt a new innovation.

Augustine

Yeah right, you guys have pulled that out of context again and again and then chose to ignore the most telling of all St. Augustine’s comments. One you would do well to take to heart.

"I would not believe in the Gospel myself if the authority of the Catholic Church did not influence me to do so."
Against the letter of Mani, 5,6, 397 A.D.

And by all means quote him, since his writings are not dogmatic. If you n-Cs took half a lesson from him you wouldn’t be n-Cs.
Pax Domini sit semper vobiscum.

 

[NotWorthy]

You can’t prove the eucharist is Jesus any more than I can. It’s not in the Bible. Your religion has taught you to believe it. And that’s as far as it goes. The eucharist cannot fulfil the promise of eternal life. Therefore it’s a false doctrine that you believe in.

If I beleived simply because my religion taught me, then that would be fine with me. It’s a Catholic thing, you wouldn’t understand.

But seriously, I believe because:
a) The Church tells me so.
b) The Bible reinforces this.

 

[runandsew]

Apparently the “protestant” interpretation was’nt a new innovation.

Augustine

“If the sentence is one of command, either forbidding a crime or vice, or enjoining an act of prudence or benevolence, it is not figurative.** If, however, it seems to enjoin a crime or vice, or to forbid an act of prudence or benevolence, it is figurative.** ‘Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man,’ says Christ, ‘and drink His blood, ye have no life in you.’ This seems to enjoin a crime or a vice; it is therefore a figure, enjoining that we should have a share in the sufferings of our Lord, and that we should retain a sweet and profitable memory of the fact that His flesh was wounded and crucified for us.” - Augustine (On Christian Doctrine, 3:16:24)

Clement of Alexandria

“Elsewhere the Lord, in the Gospel according to John, brought this out by symbols, when He said: ‘Eat ye my flesh, and drink my blood,’ describing distinctly by **metaphor **the drinkable properties of faith and the promise, by means of which the Church, like a human being consisting of many members, is refreshed and grows, is welded together and compacted of both,–of faith, which is the body, and of hope, which is the soul; as also the Lord of flesh and blood. For in reality the blood of faith is hope, in which faith is held as by a vital principle.” - Clement of Alexandria (The Instructor, 1:6)

Tertullian

“He says, it is true, that ‘the flesh profiteth nothing;’ but then, as in the former case, the meaning must be regulated by the subject which is spoken of. Now, because they thought His discourse was harsh and intolerable, **supposing that He had really and literally enjoined on them to eat his flesh, He, with the view of ordering the state of salvation as a spiritual thing, set out with the principle, ‘It is the spirit that quickeneth;’ and then added, ‘The flesh profiteth nothing,’–meaning, of course, to the giving of life. He also goes on to explain what He would have us to understand by spirit: ‘The words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life.’ In a like sense He had previously said: ‘He that heareth my words, and believeth on Him that sent me, hath everlasting life, and shall not come into condemnation, but shall pass from death unto life.’ Constituting, therefore, His word as the life-giving principle, because that word is spirit and life, He likewise called His flesh by the same appelation; because, too, the Word had become flesh, we ought therefore to desire Him in order that we may have life, and to devour Him with the ear, and to ruminate on Him with the understanding, and to digest Him by faith. Now, just before the passage in hand, He had declared His flesh to be ‘the bread which cometh down from heaven,’ impressing on His hearers constantly under the figure **of necessary food the memory of their forefathers, who had preferred the bread and flesh of Egypt to their divine calling.” - Tertullian (On the Ressurection of the Flesh, 37)

No offense, but these same church fathers also wrote about the real presence in the Eucharist, so if these quotes you posted seem to contridict their other writings, then I would suggest that you are taking what they have written out of context of what the issue or teaching was that they were writing about here. The language of the real presence was very vague back in the early church, it was not clearly defined for many centuries afterwards.

 

[WBB]

kaycee, no Catholic is going to argue with what those ECFs wrote (except maybe Tertullian since he was condemned a heretic). They are teaching Catholic theology which is not limited in its understanding to a single aspect, hence the term “catholic” which means “pertaining to the whole” or “the fullness.” Those interpretations are valid ones, as is the testimony of St. Justin Martyr who said around the year 150 A.D.:

This food we call Eucharist, which no one is allowed to share except the one who believes (got that believer?) that our teaching is true, and who has been washed with the washing that is for the remission of sins, and unto regeneration, and so lives as Christ has handed down. For we do not receive these as common bread and common drink; but just as Jesus Christ our Savior, having been made flesh by the word of God, had both flesh and blood for our salvation, so likewise have we learned that the food over which thanks has been given by the prayer of the word which comes from him, and by which our blood and flesh are nourished through a change [Gk. *kata metabolen

], is the Flesh and Blood of the same incarnate Jesus.

I have several volumes of the ECF writings and a book called The Hidden Manna A Theology of the Eucharist that is full of references which support that the Early Church indeed viewed the Eucharist as truly the Body and Blood of the Lord.

Brian

 

[WBB]

If there is no real presence in the Eucharist, then how can St.Paul warn us not to take it unworthily lest we become guilty of the body and blood of the Lord? That “spiritualization” makes complete nonsense not only of the 6th chapter of John, but of 1st Corinthians 10:16-17 “16 The chalice of benediction, which we bless, is it not the communion of the blood of Christ? And the bread, which we break, is it not the partaking of the body of the Lord? 17 For we, being many, are one bread, one body, all that partake of one bread.”

and 11: 23-30

23 For I have received of the Lord that which also I delivered unto you, that the Lord Jesus, the same night in which he was betrayed, took bread. 24 And giving thanks, broke, and said: Take ye, and eat: this is my body, which shall be delivered for you: this do for the commemoration of me. 25 In like manner also the chalice, after he had supped, saying: This chalice is the new testament in my blood: this do ye, as often as you shall drink, for the commemoration of me.

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 inform and weak among you, and many sleep.

Now, how can one become guilty of the body and blood of the Lord IF THAT BODY AND BLOOD OF THE LORD IS NOT REALLY THERE? Now if I make a symbol of Karl Keating like this symbol here: and then I decide to do bad things to that symbol symbol…like say this:http://bestsmileys.com/violent/10.gif I may indeed be guilty of abusing that symbol of the goodman Karl Keating, but am I guilty of his body and blood? Silly question…of course not! Why? BECAUSE KARL KEATING IS NOT REALLY PRESENT IN THAT SYMBOL is he?
There is the the whole case for why the Eucharist really is the presence of Our Lord Jesus Christ…body and blood, soul and divinity.

Catholics! You have the greatest miracle of all at every Mass that you participate in.
Pax Domini sit semper vobiscum.

My goodness, Michael! What took you so long!!!

Peace to my brother in hurricane alley from another brother in hurricane alley.

Brian

 

[Church_Militant]

If I beleived simply because my religion taught me, then that would be fine with me. It’s a Catholic thing, you wouldn’t understand.

But seriously, I believe because:
a) The Church tells me so.
b) The Bible reinforces this.

And
c) The history of the Christian faith shows that the early church believed this as well (and has for 2,000 years).

 

[hosemonkey]

If I beleived simply because my religion taught me, then that would be fine with me. It’s a Catholic thing, you wouldn’t understand.

But seriously, I believe because:
a) The Church tells me so.
b) The Bible reinforces this.

Yes! I totally agree. Apostate Catholics are like ex-smokers, that which they formerly loved is now the smoke of Satan. If they can’t have it, then nobody can have it. A mean-spiritedness seems to enter in and for some, a deep need to disprove or deny that which formerly was an article of faith. It is especially galling to see someone style themselves as a “former Catholic, now a Christian.” As if the Church founded by Jesus Christ Himself was merely some store-front johnnie-come-lately. Sorry if this sounds uncharitable, I’m trying real hard to keep my cool.

 

[Randy_Carson]

Here… let’s post this again.

Jesus promised everlasting life to those who hear His Word and believe.

Jesus = Living Bread (John 6:51)
Living Bread = Flesh (John 6:51)
Flesh = Meat (John 6:55)
Meat = work of God (John 4:34) Already explained.
Work of God = believe on Jesus (John 6:28-29)
Believe on Jesus = have everlasting life (Jhn 6:40) Everlasting life is the result of eating his flesh.
Living Bread = NOT AS YOUR FATHERS DID EAT MANNA, AND ARE DEAD (John 6:58)

Did Jesus ever eat real meat? The flesh of an animal? The reason I ask is that the meat in John 4:34 is a metaphor for the idea that Jesus drew strength from doing the Father’s will. Being fully man, if Jesus had never eaten real food, he would have starved - unless God sustained him miraculously. Possible, but not recorded in scripture as actual fact.

When Jesus spoke in Capernaum in John 6, it was on another day and to another audience. There was no metaphor employed on this occasion as the reaction of the crowd showed. They abandoned him because he said they must eat his flesh, and he did not stop them from leaving because they had not misunderstood his words.

You seem to be taking a literalist rather than literal interpretation.

 

[NotWorthy]

Yes! I totally agree. Apostate Catholics are like ex-smokers, that which they formerly loved is now the smoke of Satan. If they can’t have it, then nobody can have it. A mean-spiritedness seems to enter in and for some, a deep need to disprove or deny that which formerly was an article of faith. It is especially galling to see someone style themselves as a “former Catholic, now a Christian.” As if the Church founded by Jesus Christ Himself was merely some store-front johnnie-come-lately. Sorry if this sounds uncharitable, I’m trying real hard to keep my cool.

You must keep your cool. Remember, our friends Newbie and believers love the Lord as much as any one of us on the boards. Just because we disagree on particulars doesn’t mean we can’t love one another.

And besides, I don’t recall converting anyone by “losing my cool” as some have on these boards. Believe it or not, but we all are brothers here

 

[Mannyfit75]

Did Jesus ever eat real meat? The flesh of an animal? The reason I ask is that the meat in John 4:34 is a metaphor for the idea that Jesus drew strength from doing the Father’s will. Being fully man, if Jesus had never eaten real food, he would have starved - unless God sustained him miraculously. Possible, but not recorded in scripture as actual fact.

When Jesus spoke in Capernaum in John 6, it was on another day and to another audience. There was no metaphor employed on this occasion as the reaction of the crowd showed. They abandoned him because he said they must eat his flesh, and he did not stop them from leaving because they had not misunderstood his words.

You seem to be taking a literalist rather than literal interpretation.

believers distort Scripture, and like Peter said in the following,

And count the forbearance of our Lord as salvation. And so also our beloved brother Paul wrote to you according to the wisdom given him, speaking of this, as he does in all his letters. There are some things in them hard to understand, which the ignorant and unstable twist to their own destruction, as they do the other scriptures. --2 Peter 3:15-16

It’s kinda odd how Protestantism fits Peter’s discription in his Epistles.

believers doesn’t understand the Blessed Sacrament or the Eucharist. For one he isn’t Catholic. He also believe that everything has to be in the Bible.

Well, there is a fallacy in his interpretation, if its not in the Bible, it is false doctrine.

Well, the Trinity isn’t in the Bible. Yet he believes in it. Even the word “incarnate” is not in the Bible. The error of Protestantism in their false doctrine of Sola Scriptura is error taught by the Reformers.

believers will like the Jews in John Chapter 6 verse 66, will deny the Real Presence of Jesus in the Bread. “This is indeed hard saying.”

So far, believers have not proven anything even in Scripture if Jesus meant symbolically. That doctrine is not taught.