Communion question for non Catholics

[cor5755]

I have a question for non Catholic faiths. Jesus says that unless you eat the flesh of the son of man and drink his blood, you have no life in you, how do you answer that? I have no experience with the various christian faiths and cannot see any way to understand this except the Catholic understanding.

 

[Eucharisted]

Wikipedia: The Eucharist

That should help.

Word of a wise: If you want to ask a question, don’t ask it in a seemingly offensive manner, as if you’re saying “I’m right, you’re wrong, whatcha gonna do about it?”. Be charitable as well as trustworthy. Just a thought.

 

[JRKH]

Wikipedia: The Eucharist

That should help.

**Word of a wise: If you want to ask a question, don’t ask it in a seemingly offensive manner, as if you’re saying “I’m right, you’re wrong, whatcha gonna do about it?”. Be charitable as well as trustworthy. Just a thought. **

Just as a second opinion, I did not note anything in the OP that seemed offensive. I may be wrong…

I checked out the article you linked and it is quite long and nvolved but really doesn’t answer the question relating to the Bible passage in the OP.
Guess we’ll have to wait for other answers.

Peace
James

 

[Publisher]

Friends do not use outward forms of ritual. We believe that He is truly pesent among us in our worship as we share “communion” with Him and each other in His Presence in our midst.

We have “opened the door” and He “sups with us and we with Him”.

Understood this is not a Catholic belief…but we share with one another the Reality of His Presence…He is truly present among us.

 

[NDfan]

I have a question for non Catholic faiths. Jesus says that unless you eat the flesh of the son of man and drink his blood, you have no life in you, how do you answer that? I have no experience with the various christian faiths and cannot see any way to understand this except the Catholic understanding.

COR you are taking this passage out of context. To find out what Jesus is referring to here we need to read back earlier in John 6.

Verse 35: Jesus said to them, “I am the bread of life; whoever comes to me shall not hunger, and whoever believes in me shall never thirst.

Verse 40: For this is the will of my Father, that everyone who looks on the Son and believes in him should have eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day.”

If we roll this forward to the eating flesh and blood part of HIS sermon we see Jesus equating that with believing in HIM. To eat and drink HIS body and blood means to believe in HIM.

What you need to understand and recognize is the audience Jesus is addressing here. That is the Jews who know under Mosaic law eating the blood of any living thing is expressly forbidden. We can never imagine Jesus giving a teaching that goes directly against HIS Father’s commands. Therefore as Augustine plainly states, when Christ is implying an action that has criminal overtones HE must be speaking figuratively and not literally.

The same can be said for gouging/plucking out one’s eye out or cutting off one’s hand in Matthew 5 in an attempt to rescue the rest of the body from going to hell. The Greek words used in those situations are exaireo which literally means to pluck out and ekkopto which literally means to cut off as if cutting a branch off from a tree. Now given Christ’s use of these literal words why don’t more Christians walk around with their eyes and hands gouged out and cut off?? Because we know Jesus is using extreme figurative language to make a point of how bad sin is.

This also applies to John 6. Christ is using extreme figurative language to implore the Jews to believe in HIM. Not just acknowledging who HE is but literally consuming HIM in their beliefs. To have Jesus in their heart and soul.

If I said to you we feed on GOD’s word you wouldn’t think I was physically eating several pages of scripture. You would understand that I mean reading and meditating scripture.

PEACE

 

[Robbinson]

I have a question for non Catholic faiths. Jesus says that unless you eat the flesh of the son of man and drink his blood, you have no life in you, how do you answer that? I have no experience with the various christian faiths and cannot see any way to understand this except the Catholic understanding.

I believe in the “real presence” in the Eucharist. This belief is shared by many Anglicans and, while not exactly in the same way as Catholics, by many Lutherans.

Some other Protestant denominations believe in the real “spiritual presence” of Christ in the Eucharist (Lord’s Supper/Communion) - some view it a completely symbolic.

To me, the scriptures clearly point to the “real presence” and this is supported by the recorded beliefs of the earliest Christians (direct diciples of the apostles who heard these words from Jesus himself). I can “see” the other reading of scriptures on this point, but I believe it is much less natural reading and it ignores the historical context (belief of the disciples of the apostles).

Blessings,

Brian

 

[SyCarl]

I think that the verse you are dealing with would result in a discrepancy with Catholic teaching if it is taken literally.

My understanding is the Catholic Church teaches that a baptized person who dies without any unconfessed mortal sins will be saved whether they have to spend time in purgatory or not. Now Jesus’ statement, if taken literally, would mean that teaching was wrong since He says unless you eat His flesh and drink His blood you have no life in you. This places an unequivocal condition on salvation. Unless Catholic teaching on the other matter is wrong Jesus cannot be speaking literally.

That does not mean that there is not a Real Presence in the Eucharist. I believe that there is but not in the same way as the Catholic Church defines it. What it does mean is that John 6 cannot really be taken literally as applying to the Catholic understanding of the Eucharist and that the proof of such a Real Presence must be found elsewhere

 

[Robbinson]

I think that the verse you are dealing with would result in a discrepancy with Catholic teaching if it is taken literally.

My understanding is the Catholic Church teaches that a baptized person who dies without any unconfessed mortal sins will be saved whether they have to spend time in purgatory or not. Now Jesus’ statement, if taken literally, would mean that teaching was wrong since He says unless you eat His flesh and drink His blood you have no life in you. This places an unequivocal condition on salvation. Unless Catholic teaching on the other matter is wrong Jesus cannot be speaking literally.

That does not mean that there is not a Real Presence in the Eucharist. I believe that there is but not in the same way as the Catholic Church defines it. What it does mean is that John 6 cannot really be taken literally as applying to the Catholic understanding of the Eucharist and that the proof of such a Real Presence must be found elsewhere

That’s an interesting point SyCarl - I think the Catholic response would be that it is a “mortal sin” under Church doctrine to abstain from the Eucharist on Easter, thus one who never partakes of the Eucharist would in fact have mortal sin.

I do believe that Christ was instructing us, affirmatively, to partake of his blood and body (and I believe in the “real presence”). Christ said that if we love him, we will follow his commandments. He also instructed us to be baptized and said, unless we are born of water and spirit (baptized) we can’t be saved (yet the thief on the cross was not baptized - so there are exceptions even to some absolute statements)… I think failure to follow such commandments can rise to the level of rejection of the Holy Spirit. In that sense, Jesus words regarding the Eucharist make sense.

This should be true whether one has a Catholic or non-Catholic perspective on transubstantiation.

Blessings,

Brian

 

[SyCarl]

That’s an interesting point SyCarl - I think the Catholic response would be that it is a “mortal sin” under Church doctrine to abstain from the Eucharist on Easter, thus one who never partakes of the Eucharist would in fact have mortal sin.

I do believe that Christ was instructing us, affirmatively, to partake of his blood and body (and I believe in the “real presence”). Christ said that if we love him, we will follow his commandments. He also instructed us to be baptized and said, unless we are born of water and spirit (baptized) we can’t be saved (yet the thief on the cross was not baptized - so there are exceptions even to some absolute statements)… I think failure to follow such commandments can rise to the level of rejection of the Holy Spirit. In that sense, Jesus words regarding the Eucharist make sense.

This should be true whether one has a Catholic or non-Catholic perspective on transubstantiation.

Blessings,

Brian

However, even if abstaining from the Eucharist is a mortal sin, it is one that can be confessed so that the person remains in a state of grace.

Going further though Jesus also says:

“I am the living bread that came down out of heaven; if anyone eats of this bread, he will live forever; and the bread also which I will give for the life of the world is My flesh.”
(John 6:51 NASB)

Now if Jesus was speaking literally in the sense of transubstantiation, He would be saying that anyone who receives the Eucharist in a Catholic Church would be saved whatever they believe. He makes an unconditional statement that anyone who eats the bread will live forever.

 

[Robbinson]

However, even if abstaining from the Eucharist is a mortal sin, it is one that can be confessed so that the person remains in a state of grace.

Going further though Jesus also says:

Now if Jesus was speaking literally in the sense of transubstantiation, He would be saying that anyone who receives the Eucharist in a Catholic Church would be saved whatever they believe. He makes an unconditional statement that anyone who eats the bread will live forever.

SyCarl:

Yes - both good points. In reverse order

1. The “unconditional statement”. We have to understand the style of speech here. He is emphasizing that this is something that leads to eternal life, but not that eternal life can’t then be lost (I don’t believe in “eternal security”). For example, Jesus elsewhere also says that if you believe in me you will be saved (sounds unconditional). But he elsewhere talks about Christians who do believe in him but who go to hell because of what they did not do (the sheeps and goat passage - when you failed to care for the poor, feed the hungry, etc).
2. Mortal Sin - You are correct - a confessed sin can be forgiven per Catholic doctrine, but not an unrepentent sin so I imagine if someone continually refused to partake of the Eucharist, it would indeed lead to a hardening of the heart and an inability to embrace the Holy Spirit.

Blessings,

Brian

 

[With_Questions]

I think that the verse you are dealing with would result in a discrepancy with Catholic teaching if it is taken literally.

My understanding is the Catholic Church teaches that a baptized person who dies without any unconfessed mortal sins will be saved whether they have to spend time in purgatory or not. Now Jesus’ statement, if taken literally, would mean that teaching was wrong since He says unless you eat His flesh and drink His blood you have no life in you. This places an unequivocal condition on salvation. Unless Catholic teaching on the other matter is wrong Jesus cannot be speaking literally.

That does not mean that there is not a Real Presence in the Eucharist. I believe that there is but not in the same way as the Catholic Church defines it. What it does mean is that John 6 cannot really be taken literally as applying to the Catholic understanding of the Eucharist and that the proof of such a Real Presence must be found elsewhere

I have wondered the same thing.

I have come up with three possibilities.

(1) The Catholic teaching of the real presence is in fact the one true one. Only the Catholic denomination enjoys the real presence in communion. The Catholic interpretation of John 6 is the correct one.

In this case Protestants are not saved because they do not eat His flesh and drink His blood.

(2) The Catholic interpretation of John 6 is the correct one, but the Catholic teaching of the real presence is false in at least one respect. The reality is that the real presence occurs wherever communion is celebrated. Belief in the real presence is not a prerequisite for the real presence actually occurring.

In this case Protestants that do communion are saved because they do eat His flesh and drink His blood whether they realize it or not. But sorry, groups like Publisher and Friends are not saved.

(3) The Catholic interpretation of John 6 is not correct. This does not however necessarily mean that the Real Presence is false.

 

[Robbinson]

I have wondered the same thing.

I have come up with three possibilities.

(1) The Catholic teaching of the real presence is in fact the one true one. Only the Catholic denomination enjoys the real presence in communion. The Catholic interpretation of John 6 is the correct one.

In this case Protestants are not saved because they do not eat His flesh and drink His blood.

(2) The Catholic interpretation of John 6 is the correct one, but the Catholic teaching of the real presence is false in at least one respect. The reality is that the real presence occurs wherever communion is celebrated. Belief in the real presence is not a prerequisite for the real presence actually occurring.

In this case Protestants that do communion are saved because they do eat His flesh and drink His blood whether they realize it or not. But sorry, groups like Publisher and Friends are not saved.

(3) The Catholic interpretation of John 6 is not correct. This does not however necessarily mean that the Real Presence is false.

Interesting. You may be correct on number (2) - that the real presence is there (although the CC would say it only becomes the real presence upon the invocation of the Catholic/Apostolic Church). But even if correct on number 2, Paul tells us in Corinthians that anyone who drinks the cup without “discerning the body” drinks judgement on himself. So this is a very serious doctrinal issue for all Christians.

Blessings,

Brian

 

[Napsack]

I have a question for non Catholic faiths. Jesus says that unless you eat the flesh of the son of man and drink his blood, you have no life in you, how do you answer that? I have no experience with the various christian faiths and cannot see any way to understand this except the Catholic understanding.

That’s correct. The elements at communion are filled with Christ and are essentially his body and blood. Jesus said in Scripture that the bread which comes from Heaven is my flesh.

 

[With_Questions]

Interesting. You may be correct on number (2) - that the real presence is there (although the CC would say it only becomes the real presence upon the invocation of the Catholic/Apostolic Church). But even if correct on number 2, Paul tells us in Corinthians that anyone who drinks the cup without “discerning the body” drinks judgement on himself. So this is a very serious doctrinal issue for all Christians.

Blessings,

Brian

From what I have read here, Catholics believe that you must have a valid priesthood to have the real presence. Thus the Anglicans, Lutherans, and Methodists who believe in the real presence, really do not posess it.

So therefore the Anglicans, Lutherans, and Methodists do not eat His flesh and drink His blood. And the implications of that according to their interpretation of John 6 seem clear.

I don’t know what they believe about the Orthodox and their communion.

Anyway, I have always read 1 Cor 11:29 as the body of Christ (Christians) myself. Now I read this in context of versus 17-22 and 33-34 myself.

Now If this Scripture does mean the real presence though, then a lot of Protestants should be weak and sick because they don’t discern the body of Christ. Nos I haven’t observed that myself. But then again I don’t know if there has been a formal study on the life expectancy or sickness rate of Protestants versus Catholics versus Orthodox versus others. Or better yet of Anglicans, Lutherans, and Methodists versus others.

Anyway, if I were to believe in the real presence, I would probably not believe in the Catholic version of it. Actually I don’t know really whether it is true or false. What I do is to approach the communion table as though I am really eating and drinking His flesh and blood. Then I live the physics, chemistry, and theology of what actually happens or does not happen to God.

 

[Napsack]

From what I have read here, Catholics believe that you must have a valid priesthood to have the real presence. Thus the Anglicans, Lutherans, and Methodists who believe in the real presence, really do not posess it.

So therefore the Anglicans, Lutherans, and Methodists do not eat His flesh and drink His blood. And the implications of that according to their interpretation of John 6 seem clear.

I don’t know what they believe about the Orthodox and their communion.

Anyway, I have always read 1 Cor 11:29 as the body of Christ (Christians) myself. Now I read this in context of versus 17-22 and 33-34 myself.

Now If this Scripture does mean the real presence though, then a lot of Protestants should be weak and sick because they don’t discern the body of Christ. Nos I haven’t observed that myself. But then again I don’t know if there has been a formal study on the life expectancy or sickness rate of Protestants versus Catholics versus Orthodox versus others. Or better yet of Anglicans, Lutherans, and Methodists versus others.

Anyway, if I were to believe in the real presence, I would probably not believe in the Catholic version of it. Actually I don’t know really whether it is true or false. What I do is to approach the communion table as though I am really eating and drinking His flesh and blood. Then I live the physics, chemistry, and theology of what actually happens or does not happen to God.

I don’t agree that only one denomination can posess the Real Presence. Jesus tells us that where there are two or more present in his name, there he will be. I think that Anglicans, Lutherans and Methodists can be just as good of Christians as you can be.