This bears repeating with emphasis. The ones who stopped following Christ Jesus were the ones who objected to his teaching that his flesh was real food and his blood real drink. Jesus asked the Apostles if they too wanted to stop following him, and St. Peter, speaking for the group, said no.
No. Let us review again–The Disciples grumbled against Him and so turned to them, saying if that is shocking: “Does this shock you? What if you were to see the Son of Man ascending to where he was before?” Already here we see an affirmation that He meant it literally, not figuratively. For Jesus, it is not shocking nor impossible. We go on to the next verse: “It is the spirit that gives life, while the flesh is of no avail. The words I have spoken to you are spirit and life.” Now, I have mentioned awhile back that we can see “It is the spirit that gives life” to affirm Transubstantiation; we can further reflect on the whole verse itself, wherein Jesus affirms that what He said is the truth: what He has spoken are spirit and life. We can see then that, far from retracting or giving a new twist, He further reinforces that what He said should be taken as it is–literally. After that, the 60 left Him. At that point, He would have had come after them to explain further if He meant it to be spiritual or symbolic, but He did not. He turned to the 12 and asked them if they are also willing to go.
Ah, you should reread all of them again. How then did the Church came to this conclusion if it were not taught in the first place, from the first then? Jesus taught it; Paul affirmed it and the Early Fathers carried it.
Please explain why someone who has a calling by God to the priesthood should be rejected because of his disability. Or rather, does God only choose healthy individuals to the priesthood?
Yes, and I have not found a good scriptural and historical examination of this practice yet…
Perhaps more research is due on my part in understanding just why it is that we must use wheat bread. However, I’m sure there are many other little historical facts we can find about Jesus’ celebration of the passover that night - many of which we DO NOT imitate today. Must the priest be in the same location as Jesus was? Must we be “reclined at table” like they were? Why do we use perfectly round little “hosts” for communion? Jesus did not. I could go on and on…
**
. Thats fine. I’ve got 3 loaves of gluten-free bread right here…**
Again, that is fine. Don’t change the words of institution, and don’t use donuts unstead of bread. Like I said, I’ve got plenty of bread here that we could use…
**
Because that disability prevents him from performing his duties.
So? You have no authority to decide matters of doctrine and discipline. The Church’s position is clearly stated. If you reject the Church, you reject Christ. It’s that simple.
Read Romans 8: 1-16. Paul tells us what life though the spirit means, and how “the flesh” leads us to death.
Reading this Scripture without a Catholic bias, I think it is far more plausible that they didn’t need an explanation b/c they didn’t truly believe He was speaking literally. Perhaps they fell away as though they held to the belief that He was speaking literally, although I’m sure many of them did not truly believe He meant it literally, anymore than they believed that he was truly a vine or a door. It’s a very human way of reacting to something we already can’t accept. We look for excuses not to follow God, so we latch onto something that seems absurd as an exuse to avoid the consequences of following the truth. Perhaps these people were already struggling with Jesus’ teachings and knew they couldn’t live up to them. This “hard saying” was simply the straw that broke the camel’s back. They weren’t willing to accept any explanation about this. Neither did they understand how He could rebuild the temple in 3 days. Neither did they understand that one must be born-again…
I’m sorry, but I just don’t see that. He also said that the flesh profits nothing, after having just told us that His flesh is food indeed, and that without it we have no life in us…
How much more explaining did He need to do? He explained, before they walked away, that His words were spirit and life. There were many hard sayings of Jesus that even His apostles did not understand until He sent the Holy Spirit. He did not continually go back and try to explain it over and over…
and…
I honestly don’t know how one believes that the ECF taught it, or that Paul did. Paul certainly believed it had significance, at least symbolically, and many of the ECF may have believed in a presence, but I cannot conclude that any of them believed in transubstantiation.
Only due to a technicality on the part of the Catholic church.
In your opinion perhaps. I didn’t say I had the authority to decide. I simply don’t believe that this technicality is something the Catholic church cannot change. I do not reject Christ by rejecting certain teachings of the Roman Catholic church. It’s ridiculous statements like this that drive away well-intentioned, truth-seeking Christians from conversing in forums like this.
I don’t think it is. It doesn’t give a clear enough exlanation as to why we must use the exact same bread. The Scripture say He took bread, blessed it… Although we may know, historically, that this was unleavened wheat bread, we know many other historical technicalities about that night that we do not duplicate. Why must the bread be exactly the same but not everything else? Where do we draw the line? Doesn’t the type of bread seem overly technical to you? Kind of like the restrictions placed on the Jews which Jesus clearly condemned.
I do not see, in the last supper narrative, the command by Christ that the bread must be made of wheat alone. I was not aware of the belief in *sola wheat
. *That still doesn’t explain why Jesus didn’t go after them; remember as well, they were His Disciples: believers already, not those Jewish authorities who came to listen and try to knock His teachings down. They were already following Him. Jesus was morally obliged to them to explain, as again He said “I am the Truth”. Truth not totally told is not truth; it only becomes a half-truth, which is not what Jesus is all about. So the moral obligation still stands, most especially since they were His followers.
The difference with the vine and door is that He went aside and explained it to His Disciples; the parables of Jesus were discussed by Him with His most trusted associates, as they would carry His message after He left. Not so with John 6; there was no explanation. He was adamant: would you go as well, He asked of the twelve. No explanation, no careful analysis as He would do in His parables. Jesus spoke literally. His listeners understood it that way; the Twelve understood it as well. Peter’s reply is most telling; unpacking it, he said that they as well didn’t quite get it, but there was nowhere else to turn to. Jesus didn’t speak of it again, but showed it later on at the Upper Room.
Very much, since it’s His Disciples which left Him. He was their rabbi, their teacher. A rabbi losing his disciples that way would be a very bad rabbi, and his reputation as such would plummet. His reputation as a rabbi was at stake, so His obligation to explain is all the more critical if He was talking in a figurative sense. He didn’t explain. Was verse 63 an explanation? No. What He only said was, “This is what I said. If you don’t understand it, then deal with it, but I have spoken enough.” Nothing more, nothing less. He didn’t explain any further. Spiritual? Figurative? Hardly.
I do not quite see how one can sin over a symbol, as Paul noted. Paul certainly thought it was more than a symbol or something figurative.
No, they did not merely believed in a presence, but The Presence. They believed in a literal flesh and blood in the Eucharist, not a figurative flesh and blood.
One, because they do not believe in it. Since belief should equal to actuation, or an actual reality that is happening, then the Protestant notion of a symbol does not equate to a Presence. The Catholic and Orthodox view of a real, physical Presence makes it real, as again belief goes into actuation.
They were not true disciples as you said. Had they been true believers in Christ, Jesus would not have made this point to begin with.
and…
I believe this also has significance:
Remembering also that Jesus is the Word made flesh - His Word (spoken/written/taught by the apostles)is something we should eat of - to “gnaw” on. Scripture is steeped in the importance of the Word of God
Here He is first telling us that to have everlasting life we must believe on Him. Keeping these verses in mind is key to understanding the next verses about His flesh in blood and keeping them in context, are they not?
These do not sound like faithful, faith-filled disciples, do they? He knew they would not have “ears to hear” and understand His next saying about His flesh and blood, even after he explained that His Words are spirit and life, and the flesh profits nothing.
Now,
There is so much symbolism in this one sentence I don’t even know where to begin. First of all, Jesus is the Word of God, and the Word in flesh. He is the bread of life in that His Word gives life and the sacrifice of His life gives us access to eternal life. Even Peter recognizes the eternal, saving power of Jesus’ Word:
Take away the grain of wheat, take away the Christ. Jesus’ words, not ours. Listen to mom - what she says is important. When Holy Mother Church speaks, it’s typically in a united front with Dad.
I think the crux of this all is the attempt to understand the passage apart from the understanding of the Early Fathers or the Church. That being said though, let us see further.
No, I did not say they were not true disciples; they were, but came to a glitch once they came to this particular teaching. They were after all okay with what He taught before it, and were willing to be with Him until this.
Still does not explain everything. Now, He did know who would not believe; however, as the Truth why then not explain it? It is up to them to believe or not after He explained it. Again, He did not explain it. He left it as it is, and further even left the Twelve wanting for an explanation. No explanation after John 6 until the Upper Room.
When we look at the old testament and read about the Passover, the construction of the Ark of the Covenant, the establishment of the OT ministerial priesthood and numerous other things we see that they are established by God and that all of these things had very specific rules and rituals outlined for the people of the Covenant. The people did not have a say in how these things were established or how they were to be carried out. Likewise, we of the new covenant do not have the ability to establish these things ourselves.I don’t think it is. It doesn’t give a clear enough exlanation as to why we must use the exact same bread. The Scripture say He took bread, blessed it… Although we may know, historically, that this was unleavened wheat bread, we know many other historical technicalities about that night that we do not duplicate. Why must the bread be exactly the same but not everything else? Where do we draw the line? Doesn’t the type of bread seem overly technical to you? Kind of like the restrictions placed on the Jews which Jesus clearly condemned.
From here:natcath.com/NCR_Online/archives2/2001a/020901/020901h.htm
I do not see, in the last supper narrative, the command by Christ that the bread must be made of wheat alone. I was not aware of the belief in *sola wheat
Again I ask; what difference does it make if someone goes to communion and really and truly believes that he or she is partaking of our Lord, and doesn’t know or doesn’t believe in transubstantiation? Do you really believe that Jesus would not let this be spiritual food for that person? Why is there so much controversy about something Jesus gave us to remember him buy? You know if everyone would ask Jesus, I believe he would give us all peace and let us all benefit from his gift.
1 Cor 11 said:
Ryan, now you are telling us that Paul was telling us we had to believe in transubstantiation. My understanding he was telling us we should be sober, sinless, and in harmony with our brothers, etc. Ask yourself Ryan what if a person is incapable of understanding transubstantiation? Does that mean the host and wine are not the body and blood of Jesus then?
That’s the thing about the Church and the Sacraments. She’s really picky about what constitutes valid matter. Why? Because the sacraments are the streams of Christ’s life in the world. You mess with the sacraments, you mess with the whole shabang. No sacraments, no supernatural life. Thus: you cannot be baptized in motor oil. You cannot marry a person of the same sex. You cannot be absolved over the internet. A woman cannot be a priest.
It has nothing to do with understanding. It has everything to do with believing, to the extent that one can. Thus to fail to believe through no fault of your own (e.g., mental retardation, misunderstanding, misinformation) is not a sin. However, to persist in “obstinate post-baptismal denial of some truth which must be believed with divine and catholic faith” is heresy (ooh, the “h” word). Heresy is a sin. In fact, it is a grave sin. Like all grave sins, it must be done with freedom and understanding to be mortal. Thus, when St. Paul says, as you say, that we must not be in a state of obstinate sin (“obstinate” because we are all usually under the influence of at least some minor sin) to receive communion, that includes the sin of denying the substantial presence of Christ in the Eucharist. And as Ryan says, St. Paul certainly seems to have understood it to be the “body of Christ.”
That would be “receptionism” – a faulty doctrine because this either IS or IS NOT the Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of Christ. The point is that nobody can understand all the nuances of some of the more difficult doctrines. It is sufficient to accept in faith that the teaching of the Church is correct and believe THAT along the route of coming towards a better understanding of the details. Actually, the Orthodox do not TRY to define how Christ is present in the Blessed Sacrament. They just say it’s a mystery. They believe with all their heart, mind and soul that Christ is truly present, but with respectful diffidence decline to define HOW he does it.