Are those who do not receive Jesus in Holy Eucharist really Christians? Is it insanity for them to continue claiming to be Christians?

[SyCarl]

Keep reading. What else does He say? There is no contradiction.

{The} Blood of the Lord is salvation for our souls, with it the soul rejoices, with it, it is beautified, it is warmed; this Blood makes the mind shine more brightly than the light, it makes the soul more beautiful than gold. Those who partake of this Body stand with the angels and archangels and the powers above; with it they are adorned with royal robes and the weapons of the Spirit. Those who receive Communion receive the very King Himself. On Holy Communion, the Purifying Treasure.
St. Nicodemos of the HolyMountain

You are right; there is no contradiction if you take a Protestant view of John 6. However, Jesus specifically says that everyone who believes has eternal life. He puts no conditions on that statement. He then says that unless you eat His flesh and drink His blood that you have no life in you. He puts no requirement for belief in that statement. Now we are told that we should take the plain meaning of those verses that say to eat and drink. But we must also make sense of those statements that plainly say all who believe in Him are saved. It appears that at least one aspect of these passages cannot be given its literal plain meaning, and if you look at the rest of John 6 and the rest of John’s gospel it appears clear that it is the eating and drinking is the nonliteral one. You can’t take a plain and literal view if you must add that something else must be included or required.

Let’s look at one consequence of the plain and literal meaning. He says everyone who eats and drinks has life. No conditions. Are we really to take the plain meaning that anyone who goes to a Catholic or Orthodox church and receives Communion is saved, despite what they may or may not believe? If not, then it is apparent that the everyone cannot be given its plain and literal meaning and, if can’t then why should the rest of the verse be taken in that sense.

I note that you have included a number of quotes from the church fathers in various posts. They do not really say anything different than what you would hear in a Protestant church where the words used involve eating His body and drinking His blood. It is not proper to read a modern understanding back into words that could bear either meaning. There are many fathers who refer to Jesus speaking figuratively or symbolically. I am not at my home computer right now so I can’t access them, but I can do so later.

 

[ncgolf]

Believing transubstantiation is your choice

Thanks … for a while I didn’t think I had a choice.

as is bowing down in adoration and worship of the elements thereof.

Well what else am I supposed to do … it’s God.

 

[SimonArizona]

Catholics in sin do not take communion, and yet they are still considered Christians

 

[sandusky]

Thanks … for a while I didn’t think I had a choice.

You do.

ncgolf:

Well what else am I supposed to do … it’s God.

How do you know?

 

[Mickey]

You are right; there is no contradiction if you take a Protestant view of John 6.

Wrong. The protestant/symbolic view does harm to the text. The protestant/symbolic view does not make sense. The protestant/symbolic view goes against 2000 years of Apostolic teaching. The protestant/symbolic view is only 500 years old.

However, Jesus specifically says that everyone who believes has eternal life. He puts no conditions on that statement.

Do not cherry pick. Look at all verses. Keep reading!
47 Amen, amen I say unto you: He that believeth in me, hath everlasting life. 48 I am the bread of life. 49 Your fathers did eat manna in the desert, and are dead. 50 This is the bread which cometh down from heaven; that if any man eat of it, he may not die. 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. 59 This is the bread that came down from heaven. Not as your fathers did eat manna, and are dead. He that eateth this bread, shall live for ever. 60 These things he said, teaching in the synagogue, in Capharnaum.

Open your eyes and your ears. It is very clear.

it appears clear that the eating and drinking is the nonliteral one.

Funny. It was not taught that way for the first 1500 years.

I note that you have included a number of quotes from the church fathers in various posts. They do not really say anything different than what you would hear in a Protestant church where the words used involve eating His body and drinking His blood.

Oh please. You know that they support 2000 years of Apostolic Tradition. It is dishonest to read reformed understandings onto the quotes of Orthodox Fathers.

"[Christ] took the bread and the cup, each in a similar fashion, and said: ‘This is My Body and this is My Blood.’ Not a figure of His body nor a figure of His blood, as some persons of petrified mind are wont to rhapsodize, but in truth the Body and the Blood of Christ, seeing that His body is from the earth, and the bread and wine are likewise from the earth."
Marcarius The Magnesian, “Apocriticus” [3,23] ca. 400 A.D

 

[rinnie]

Then it’s a shame you have been misinformed. Find out what True Christianity is: www.goarch.org

I don’t understand, Is this not a Catholic Church. Are we not pretty much on the same track with our faith? Just because someone isn’t Catholic does not mean they do not believe in God. Isn’t that what Christian is to be Christ like. I agree that that I do not agree with the Protestant faith, but I would still call them Christians. As long as you believe in Jesus Christ and believe that he is our Lord and Savior means you are Christian. At least that is what our Church teaches. Just because they may not have the fullness of the truth. Does not mean they do not have some truth.

 

[SyCarl]

I would just like to add that I think that many people take a too restricted view of God’s grace. He expects us to do what Jesus told us to do. That obediance is what is required, not that we understand exactly what is going on. I believe that anyone who recieves Communion with the words of consecration used in the Bible is doing what Jesus commanded. God will achieve what He will through that obediance whatever we think actually happens. I see absolutley no basis in Scripture that apostolic succession is required to consecrate the Eucharist.

 

[Mickey]

I see absolutley no basis in Scripture that apostolic succession is required to consecrate the Eucharist.

Hence, your reformed views.

 

[rinnie]

I would just like to add that I think that many people take a too restricted view of God’s grace. He expects us to do what Jesus told us to do. That obediance is what is required, not that we understand exactly what is going on. I believe that anyone who recieves Communion with the words of consecration used in the Bible is doing what Jesus commanded. God will achieve what He will through that obediance whatever we think actually happens. I see absolutley no basis in Scripture that apostolic succession is required to consecrate the Eucharist.

You may want to try 2 Tim 2:2

 

[StMarina303ad]

So are you saying that Jesus is contradicting what He says in John 6:40 and 47, where He says that everyone who believes in Him has eternal life, because what He really meant to say was believe and receive the Eucharist?

Jesus doesn’t contradicting Himself at all.

Those who reject Jesus in the Eucharist are rejecting Jesus and are not His True Followers; however, if they pretend to still be his followers without believing in Him (like the Protestants who reject Jesus in the Eucharist) then they are exactly like Judas - who remained in appearance to still be one of the Followers of Christ while at the same time plotting in his heart a way to turn Jesus over to be crucified.

 

[Peter_J]

The “Eye of a Needle” was the name given to the very small gate/narrow side gate to enter the city of Jeruselem - where it people could easily enter; however, to try to get a camel loaded down with lots of “things” aka worldly possessions would be impossible.

No one has an issue with Jesus saying this unless they (or their Tradition) has lost the historical context of this saying.

If your Tradition doesn’t teach you these things because they have lost the knowledge at some point over the last 2000 years or because your Tradition is younger than 2000 years…leave it and join the Orthodox Church!

To miss it so big on Sacred Scripture is to miss it on Christ - we can not afford to miss it on Christ! Become Orthodox!

P.S. I notice you brought up the camel and eye-of-needle passage at 2:23 (EST). I wonder how long it will be till someone says "Well you know, when he said ‘the eye of a needle’ what Jesus really meant was … "

Just shy of 6 days. (Which is actually a lot longer than I expected.) But I’m really surprised I hear this coming from you, StMarina303ad. I would have thought you’d know better.

 

[StMarina303ad]

Isn’t that what Christian is to be Christ like. I agree that that I do not agree with the Protestant faith, but I would still call them Christians. As long as you believe in Jesus Christ and believe that he is our Lord and Savior means you are Christian. At least that is what our Church teaches. Just because they may not have the fullness of the truth. Does not mean they do not have some truth.

B]The only problem with this reasoning is this:
The only “Follower of Christ”, who remained a Follower of Christ after Jesus’ preaching as recorded in John 6, while not believing Jesus words about eating His Flesh and Drinking His Blood in Holy Eucharist is Judas
And according to Jesus, in the last verse in John 6, Judas remained a “follower of Jesus” in order to attempt to destroy Christianity from within. *Judas is the ultimate traitor of Christianity. *

One who claims to be a Christian, even if validly baptized, who at the same time continues to reject Jesus in the Holy Eucharist is exactly like Judas…“it would have been better for him if he had not been born”.

Protestants have to think and pray long and hard…Do you really want to be another Judas?

Someones stance on the Eucharist has huge consequences for that person eternally - Christ’s very words, “you have NO Life in you” - “unless you Eat My Flesh and Drink My Blood”.

Belief in Greek, the language the Bible was written in “Believe” has a meaning of thought and action combined. Not only must we “believe” in our hearts, but we MUST take action to prove that belief - read the New Testament book of James, “Faith without works is DEAD”. The New Testament is filled with things such as: Even Satan knows Jesus is Lord and he trembles.

 

[SyCarl]

Wrong. The protestant/symbolic view does harm to the text. The protestant/symbolic view does not make sense. The protestant/symbolic view goes against 2000 years of Apostolic teaching. The protestant/symbolic view is only 500 years old.

Do not cherry pick. Look at all verses. Keep reading!
47 Amen, amen I say unto you: He that believeth in me, hath everlasting life. 48 I am the bread of life. 49 Your fathers did eat manna in the desert, and are dead. 50 This is the bread which cometh down from heaven; that if any man eat of it, he may not die. 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. 59 This is the bread that came down from heaven. Not as your fathers did eat manna, and are dead. He that eateth this bread, shall live for ever. 60 These things he said, teaching in the synagogue, in Capharnaum.

Open your eyes and your ears. It is very clear.
Funny. It was not taught that way for the first 1500 years.
Oh please. You know that they support 2000 years of Apostolic Tradition. It is dishonest to read reformed understandings onto the quotes of Orthodox Fathers.

"[Christ] took the bread and the cup, each in a similar fashion, and said: ‘This is My Body and this is My Blood.’ Not a figure of His body nor a figure of His blood, as some persons of petrified mind are wont to rhapsodize, but in truth the Body and the Blood of Christ, seeing that His body is from the earth, and the bread and wine are likewise from the earth."
Marcarius The Magnesian, “Apocriticus” [3,23] ca. 400 A.D

The elements being symbolic or representative does not mean that all Protestants do not believe the flesh and blood of Jesus is received in the Sacrament. Reformed teaching is that those with faith truly receive the blood and body that the elements represent. The means is a mystery. However those who do not have faith do not receive. Such an understanding give meaning to all Jesus’ words. You cannot start reading the bread of life discourse at verse 51. At very least you must go back to verse 26 and continue through to verse 69. To do otherwise is to be selective in the same way that Protestants are accused of being selective in reading Scripture.

As for the fathers, for right now a few quotes from Augustine will have to suffice, although I know he is not the most authoritative for the Orthodox.

1. 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.

ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf102.v.vi.xvi.html

“Jesus answered and said unto them, This is the work of God, that ye believe on Him whom He has sent.” This is then to eat the meat, not that which perisheth, but that which endureth unto eternal life. To what purpose dost thou make ready teeth and stomach? Believe, and thou hast eaten already.

ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf107.iii.xxvi.html

“But Jesus, knowing in Himself that His disciples murmured at it,”—for they so said these things with themselves that they might not be heard by Him: but He who knew them in themselves, hearing within Himself,—answered and said, “This offends you;” because I said, I give you my flesh to eat, and my blood to drink, this forsooth offends you. “Then what if ye shall see the Son of man ascending where He was before?” What is this? Did He hereby solve the question that perplexed them? Did He hereby uncover the source of their offense? He did clearly, if only they understood. For they supposed that He was going to deal out His body to them; but He said that He was to ascend into heaven, of course, whole: “When ye shall see the Son of man ascending where He was before;” certainly then, at least, you will see that not in the manner you suppose does He dispense His body; certainly then, at least, you will understand that His grace is not consumed by tooth-biting.

ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf107.iii.xxviii.html

There are a number of eastern fathers that speak of symbols. Eusebius of Caesarea comes most quickly to mind.

 

[sandusky]

Jesus doesn’t contradicting Himself at all.

Those who reject Jesus in the Eucharist are rejecting Jesus and are not His True Followers; however, if they pretend to still be his followers without believing in Him (like the Protestants who reject Jesus in the Eucharist) then they are exactly like Judas - who remained in appearance to still be one of the Followers of Christ while at the same time plotting in his heart a way to turn Jesus over to be crucified.

Baloney, IMO.

I don’t reject the celebration of the Supper, but your misunderstanding of it.

 

[RobGentner]

I am a Friend. I have not been baptized in water and I do not participate in outward forms of eating a morsal of bread and a sip of wine and consider it “communion”. I am a Christian in faith and practice. Those who would tell us we are not Christians…we’re ok with that…we still choose to follow Christ the Light.

Hi Publisher, :tiphat:

Aren’t you precious! :whacky: so of course they aren’t Buddist! You of course even admit you aren’t a christian.:ehh: You can’t be in the dark and claim to follow the light! It actually could be called insanity to claim you follow Him when you only follow what you want, not what He commanded!You aren’t God, He is!

What is worse, you probably use a bible from some King reflecting his desires not God’s! :bighanky: None are as blind as those that refuse to see.

.

Are those who do not receive Jesus in Holy Eucharist really Christians?

NO!:nope:

Is it insanity for them to continue claiming to be Christians?

YES!:yup:

Finally, a easy Thread! :extrahappy:
God Bless

 

[StMarina303ad]

I I believe that anyone who recieves Communion with the words of consecration used in the Bible is doing what Jesus commanded. God will achieve what He will through that obediance whatever we think actually happens. I see absolutley no basis in Scripture that apostolic succession is required to consecrate the Eucharist.

There’s your problem!

The words of Consecration are NOT found in the Bible - the actual words of Consecration have been handed down from Apostle to Bishop to Priest generation after generation from 2000 years ago to this very day.

The words you find recorded in Sacred Scripture are said by the priest after the act of Consecration has already occured.

But then you wouldn’t know this since Protestants do not use the entire Christian Tradition handed down to us from Jesus, but you focus soley on the written Tradition in Sacred Scripture - so you’ve missed it huge on this.

So you’ve got to asked yourself “What else have I missed it on?”

Join the Orthodox Church and find out to receive the Truth, the Whole Truth and Nothing but the Truth.

 

[StMarina303ad]

Thanks … for a while I didn’t think I had a choice. Well what else am I supposed to do … it’s God.

Everyone has a choice to accept Jesus and His Teachings or to reject Jesus and His Teachings. Everyone who accepts Jesus and His Teachings, which includes Holy Eucharist, are Christians. Those who reject Jesus…Well, you had a choice.

 

[StMarina303ad]

Baloney, IMO.

I don’t reject the celebration of the Supper, but your misunderstanding of it.

They are rejecting Christ’s very words. By doing so they are rejecting Christ Jesus Himself in Holy Eucharist! It is not a simple misunderstanding.

It is a conscience effort to chose to reject the overwhelming evidence by not to believing Jesus on this matter. We have not only Christ’s clear words in the Gospel on this issue, we also have St. Paul’s clear words in the New Testament on the issue, we also have 2000 years of consistant witness on the issue and we even have had many Eucharistic Miracles through out the 20 Centuries.

There is such overwhelming evidence that Jesus meant what He said that to reject Jesus on this issue is not a simple misunderstanding, but a conscience effort to not believe Him.

If someone doesn’t even believe in Christ; how on earth can anyone consider him a Christian - regardless of whether or not he was baptized.

 

[RobGentner]

Catholics in sin do not take communion, and yet they are still considered Christians

Hi Simon, :tiphat:

True Simon:thumbsup: But they also might not get into Heaven, just like the Protestants that disobey Jesus’ commandment to Eat his Body and drink His blood to obtain eternal life!:tsktsk:

I actually don’t care what I am called until God calls me a Good and Faithful Servant! :dancing: How can I be sure He will? By following His Church’s instructions.
God Bless

 

[Mickey]

You cannot start reading the bread of life discourse at verse 51.

Correct. The Apostolic Church reads all Scripture in context and it does not coincide with the reformed interpretation.

As for the fathers, for right now a few quotes from Augustine will have to suffice, although I know he is not the most authoritative for the Orthodox.

Yeah. I’ve seen the protestant ploy of using Blessed Augustine against the Latin Church. It does not wash. He believed in a symbolic and a physical reality. He was a true advocate for the Real Presence. I can send you a half dozen quotes or so…but I am thinking it might not matter to you. Okay, here’s one:
"You ought to know what you have received, what you are going to receive, and what you ought to receive daily. That Bread which you see on the altar, having been sanctified by the word of God, is the Body of Christ. The chalice, or rather, what is in that chalice, having been sanctified by the word of God, is the Blood of Christ."
Blessed Augustine, “Sermons”, [227, 21]

There are a number of eastern fathers that speak of symbols. Eusebius of Caesarea comes most quickly to mind.

Speaking of symbols does not mean that any of the Fathers are rejecting the Real Presence.

I am not familiar with a quote of Eusebius denying the Real Presence. Do you have it?