Comparing and contrasting Mormon/Catholic views on the Sacrament/Eucharist

[catholic-rcia]

Your explanation is very Protestant in nature and very New Age. Today we even have some claiming that Jesus really did not multiply the fish and loaves in order to feed the multitude. They claim that what really happened was everyone just pitched in like having a pot luck dinner, denying this wonderful miracle. Lessoning the title of the Son of God, the eternal Son.

Their argument is very familiar. Example “did God really tell you not to eat from the tree in the middle of the garden? No,… here is what He really meant to say”

In order for you to back up the Mormon Great Apostasy you would need to show where what you have written was actually taught in the early church. Where your explanation, this protestant explanation was taught in the early church. You should be able to find it. To show that the early church believed and taught what you are saying, what you have written, the timeline and so forth. I have to ask, how does it feel to be correcting Jesus Himself, to tell His own Church what He really meant? Just some food for thought Parker.

**From Catholic Answers **
http://www.catholic.com/library/Christ_in_the_Eucharist.asp
Merely Figurative?

”They say that in John 6 Jesus was not talking about physical food and drink, but about spiritual food and drink. They quote John 6:35: “Jesus said to them, ‘I am the bread of life; he who comes to me shall not hunger, and he who believes in me shall never thirst.’” They claim that coming to him is bread, having faith in him is drink. Thus, eating his flesh and blood merely means believing in Christ.

But there is a problem with that interpretation. As Fr. John A. O’Brien explains, “The phrase ‘to eat the flesh and drink the blood,’ when used figuratively among the Jews, as among the Arabs of today, meant to inflict upon a person some serious injury, especially by calumny or by false accusation. To interpret the phrase figuratively then would be to make our Lord promise life everlasting to the culprit for slandering and hating him, which would reduce the whole passage to utter nonsense” (O’Brien, The Faith of Millions, 215). For an example of this use, see Micah 3:3.

Fundamentalist writers who comment on John 6 also assert that one can show Christ was speaking only metaphorically by comparing verses like John 10:9 (“I am the door”) and John 15:1 (“I am the true vine”). The problem is that there is not a connection to John 6:35, “I am the bread of life.” “I am the door” and “I am the vine” make sense as metaphors because Christ is like a door—we go to heaven through him—and he is also like a vine—we get our spiritual sap through him. But Christ takes John 6:35 far beyond symbolism by saying, “For my flesh is food indeed, and my blood is drink indeed” (John 6:55).

He continues: “As the living Father sent me, and I live because of the Father, so he who eats me will live because of me” (John 6:57). The Greek word used for “eats” (trogon) is very blunt and has the sense of “chewing” or “gnawing.” This is not the language of metaphor.”

Entire context above at link
Rich
www.utahmission.com
http://utahmission.com/pages/Mass_Explained.html

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

Even though the LDS Topical Guide entry for “Sacrament” refers to John 6:54?

I still don’t get it? the LDS use the word Sacrament but references a sacrament as an ordinance?

If this is true then the LDS church has no sacramental Eucharist. What they have is a man made theology denying what has been believed of the True presence of Jesus Christ in his Eucharist for the past 2000 years.

ST. IGNATIUS OF ANTIOCH ** “They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer, because they do not admit that the Eucharist is the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ, the flesh which suffered for our sins and which the Father, in His graciousness, raised from the dead.” “Letter to the Smyrnaeans”, paragraph 6. circa 80-110 A.D. **

"Come together in common, one and all without exception in charity, in one faith and in one Jesus Christ, who is of the race of David according to the flesh, the son of man, and the Son of God, so that with undivided mind you may obey the bishop and the priests, and break one Bread which is the medicine of immortality and the antidote against death, enabling us to live forever in Jesus Christ." -“Letter to the Ephesians”, paragraph 20, c. 80-110 A.D.

“I have no taste for the food that perishes nor for the pleasures of this life.** I want the Bread of God which is the Flesh of Christ,** who was the seed of David; **and for drink I desire His Blood **which is love that cannot be destroyed.” -“Letter to the Romans”, paragraph 7, circa 80-110 A.D.

“Take care, then who belong to God and to Jesus Christ - they are with the bishop. And those who repent and come to the unity of the Church - they too shall be of God, and will be living according to Jesus Christ. Do not err, my brethren: if anyone follow a schismatic, he will not inherit the Kingdom of God. If any man walk about with strange doctrine, he cannot lie down with the passion. Take care, then, to use one Eucharist, so that whatever you do, you do according to God:** for there is one Flesh of our Lord Jesus Christ, and one cup in the union of His Blood; **one altar, as there is one bishop with the presbytery and my fellow servants, the deacons.” -Epistle to the Philadelphians, 3:2-4:1, 110 A.D.

LDS should know that St. Ignatius walked and talked with the last living Apostle John and was one of his disciples. What Ignatius teaches here confirms John’s Gospel especially John chapter 6.

 

[catholic-rcia]

This was my Sunday Parker:
Today my wife and my youngest child attended Mass here in Northern Utah we gathered together on this Sunday, this ‘Lord’s Day’ and we participated in prayers and hymns, and listened to readings from the Old Testament*. ***Isaiah 66:10-14; Psalm 66:1-7,16,20; and from the writings of the apostles. **Galatians **6:14-18; **Luke *10:1-12,17-20 * Then as always, bread and wine and water were offered and the words of Jesus at the Last Supper were prayed by the one presiding. Together we all received the body and blood of Christ, and the Holy Communion was brought to the sick. A collection was taken for the poor and the needy on this day.”
*Across the street, off 800 East here in Logan Utah another type of congregation *abstained from the Eucharist and from the Euchariastic prayer, because they do not profess that the Eucharist ** **is the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ, the flesh which suffered for our sins and which the Father, in His graciousness, raised from the dead.”

1860 years ago

---

***St. Justin describes the Mass. (The year is 150 A.D.; he is a martyr who was beheaded in
165 at Rome Italy ***

*“The people gathered together on Sunday, the ‘Lord’s Day’ participated in prayers and hymns, and listened to readings from the Old Testament and from the writings of the apostles. Then as always, bread and wine and water were offered and the words of Jesus at the Last Supper were prayed by the one presiding. The people received the body and blood of Christ, and the Holy Communion was brought to the sick. A collection was taken for the poor and the needy.”
*

***St. Ignatius of Antioch’s Letter to the Smyrnaeans on the Mass. (The year is 110 A.D.)

***He became the third bishop of Antioch, succeeding St. Evodius, who was the immediate successor of St. Peter. He received the martyr’s crown as he was thrown to wild beasts in the arena. He wrote:

“They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer, because they do not profess that the Eucharist **(Jn 6:66) **is the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ, the flesh which suffered for our sins and which the Father, in His graciousness, raised from the dead.”
It is the Mass that has brought Christ into the present. It is the sign given as you contemplate all of chapter 6 in John’s gospel.

 

[stormy99]

I once lived in Logan, UT with my Mormon husband…Your church is beautiful. It’s been awhile since I have been in Logan…live now in the Midwest…without the Mormon husband and with a Catholic one…and I am also Catholic as are my children. I got custody of them…well actually he didn’t want them…or me either. I could not give up my Catholic religion to become a Mormon and I would not give it up…that ended our marriage.

It was a hurtful time for both of us…but I still would not give up my Catholic Faith…it’s that important to me. We have been traveling and came back to Mass at our Church this Sunday and it just felt like home.

Yours in Christ

stomry

 

[catholic-rcia]

You probably went to the Church up by the University. Saint Jerome’s chapel, that is where I was baptized 12 years ago. We have since built another North of it. Its good that you are doing well. Hopefully your ex husband has found his way as well. I am a product of divorced parents. Hard as a child but it has helped me to be a bit more understanding in many ways I believe. You may enjoy this:

http://www.catholic.org/diocese/diocese_story.php?id=20862&page=1

The new chapel
http://utahmission.com/pages/Mass_Explained.html

More images, just scroll down the page
http://chooseyourcross.com/Comfort_Cross.html

 

[Anna_Scott]

Parker,

Will answer later. Have some things to get done today.

How do you interpret, and act upon Christ’s command to “eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood,” in order to “have life in you”?

1. The words of the Savior in John 6 are not talking about the Eucharist, at all.

Jesus is “the bread of God, he which cometh down from heaven, and giveth life unto the world.” He says “my Father giveth you the true bread from heaven.” (v. 32, 33) He says “I am the bread of life: he that cometh to me shall never hunger; and he that believeth on me shall never thirst.” (v. 34)

These passages are talking about the Father’s gift of the Son to the world, as He who came down to earth to give life unto the world. What does the Son ask His followers to do in John 6? “He that cometh to me”; “he that believeth on me”. Those are the words that symbolize and state what He is asking His followers to do. To come unto Him. To believe on Him.

He says in verse 50, “that a man may eat thereof, and not die.” We “eat thereof” by getting the newness of life He offers through coming unto Him and believing in Him. He was using the symbol of “manna” (with which the Jews were very familiar) to convey that just as the God of Israel gave physical manna to the Israelites, He and His life were given to the world as spiritual manna, with the promise of a newness of life and of life evermore.

Christ continues the symbolism in verses 51 and 53, by changing from the word “bread” to the word “flesh”–clearly a representation of His body which was going to be slain to bring new life to the world through His atoning sacrifice. We can’t gain the newness of life or life evermore as He promised to bring, without participating in partaking of the grace He offers by coming unto Him and believing on Him.

He makes that symbolism particularly clear by also bringing in the use of the word “blood” which is a clearly known symbol among the Jews of both the Passover and of the law of sacrifice. Of course He is not asking the Jews to literally “drink His blood” during His teaching in John 6. He is not offering them His blood to drink, but is telling them that His blood will be shed just as His body will be given “for the life of the world.” (v. 51) He is speaking in the present tense, so He is telling them to begin to believe in Him and to come unto Him so that they can begin having the newness of life promised through Him, and He does that through telling them in the present tense to “eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood”–by coming unto Him and believing on Him as their promised Messiah, the Anointed One, the Christ who was promised by the prophets.

What do you believe Christ meant when he said His Flesh is “food indeed” and His Blood is “drink indeed”?

**John Chapter 6 **clearly states that more is accomplished in the Lord’s Supper, than “remembrance.” Graces are imparted during the Eucharist to include abiding in Christ and He in us; being raised up at the last day; and having eternal life.

1. Coming unto Christ is “food indeed” just as Isaiah wrote in Isaiah 55:2-3 (“eat ye that which is good, and let your soul delight itself in fatness”) Believing on Him is “drink indeed” as promised in Isaiah 55:1 and as reiterated by the Savior to the woman of Samaria as recorded in John 4.

According to Matthew Chapter 26, Jesus instructed the disciples to drink of the “cup” which is the blood of the covenant poured out for the forgiveness of sins. This demonstrates the grace of forgiveness imparted through the Eucharist/Lord’s Supper.

1. I disagree that there is a “grace of forgiveness imparted through the Lord’s Supper.” The text speaks of a “new testament” or a “new covenant”–which implies entering into a covenant relationship with Christ. True, that covenant relationship brings one to repentance and forgiveness of sins through Christ’s atoning grace, but Matthew 26:28 does not change all the Savior’s teachings wherein He spoke of the need for repentance, and the apostles clearly taught the need for repentance as the precursor to entering and keeping the covenant relationship with the Savior. It does not say anything about a “grace of forgiveness imparted through the Lord’s Supper”, but a “grace of forgiveness” imparted through His shedding of His blood which means His coming atoning sacrifice.

1 Corinthians Chapter 10 speaks not of mere remembrance; but the participation in the Body and Blood of Christ. The passage also speaks of the people of Israel saying, “. . . . .are not those who eat the sacrifices participants in the altar?”

1. 1 Corinthians 10 includes the following verses:

3 And did all eat the same spiritual meat;
4 And did all drink the same spiritual drink: for they drank of that spiritual Rock that followed them: and that Rock was Christ.

The word “communion” in verse 16 is rendered from the Greek in transliteration to the word “sharing”. It is talking about sharing in the joint covenant: “For being many we are one bread, and one body: for we are all partakers of that one bread”. What is that “one bread”? It is Christ, and the action of coming unto Christ and gaining a renewal of life through Him and a covenant relationship with Him.

There’s a whole lot more going on in the Lord’s Supper than remembrance. To claim otherwise is to deny Holy Scripture.

1. I certainly agree that such a covenant relationship, especially a shared covenant relationship, and grace offered through the atonement of Christ, are more than “remembrance.”

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

Parker,

Will answer later. Have some things to get done today.

How do justify Jesus comments here? When He speaks in the present tense from John 6:40
For this is the will of my Father, that **everyone who sees **the Son **and believes **in him may have eternal life, and I shall raise him (on) the last day."

Every true believing Christian since the resurrection has “SEEN” Jesus in His Eucharist and "Believes in Him.

Christ continues the symbolism in verses 51 and 53, by changing from the word “bread” to the word “flesh”–clearly a representation of His body which was going to be slain to bring new life to the world through His atoning sacrifice. We can’t gain the newness of life or life evermore as He promised to bring, without participating in partaking of the grace He offers by coming unto Him and believing on Him.

Parker your symbolic interpretations, do not make sense; because had Jesus spoken symbolically with this flesh and blood language? A symbolic language here means; “to hate and persecute” the person, anything other than a literal interpretation, makes a mockery, manipulates and massacre’s the original text being applied here from John 6.

Jesus symbolic language would of been; If you hate and persecute me? you will have eternal life. So the symbolic language Jesus would of used in Aramaic? never makes sense, otherwise every Christian would have to hate and persecute Jesus in order to have eternal life?

Your 18Th century symbolic interpretation doesn’t even come close to the original language Jesus uses, “IF” Jesus spoke symbolically in Aramaic? The choice of symbolism in the original language never adds up in John 6, only the “Amen, Amen” literal teaching of Jesus Christ is the only one that has been defended and accepted these past 2000 years.

In the hearing, of the first unbelievers, from the gospel, got it right the first time when they asked, " how can this man give us his flesh to eat and blood to drink? "

He makes that symbolism particularly clear by also bringing in the use of the word “blood” which is a clearly known symbol among the Jews of both the Passover and of the law of sacrifice.

First of all, if you were a Jew in the first century, eating the Lamb flesh litterally was of great importance. One deceives himself or speaks in great error to think or teach that a first century Jew ate the flesh of the passover Lamb symbolically. Which, John the baptist; a first century Jewish prophet calls Jesus the “Lamb of God”.

The blood of the Lamb also had to be poured out and placed above their dwelling (door post), again no symbolism of the lambs blood is never to be taken symbolically here in the passover. The “remembrance” was to litterally relive the passover events as happening in the present, to dilute the passover to a symbolic act, is to insult God’s covenant and the Jewish feast.

The will of the Father is to "SEE, BELIEVE, EAT AND DRINK Jesus flesh and blood in order to have eternal life. Can anyone See, believe, eat or drink a symbolic Jesus? If you think you can? then be assured you have no real Jesus present.

I give thanks for your hard work here to prove your LDS symbolic view of Jesus and your efforts are to be commended, yet your not the first community of unbelievers, who don’t believe in the true presence of Jesus Christ flesh and blood, to come on the historical scene since the resurrection.

 

[SteveVH]

1. The words of the Savior in John 6 are not talking about the Eucharist, at all.

Parker, you are correct in your assessment of these verses to a point, however you are missing something very important, actually all important, in properly understanding these verses. I would ask you to set aside any preconceived notions of your understanding of the Eucharist and truly consider what I am about to say; rather consider what Jesus actually says.

In John 6, verses 35-47 are, without doubt, an invitation to faith, an invitation to believe. I always like to observe the reaction of the crowds to the words of Christ in order to assess what he was really saying. They listened in their own common language, in that time and in that culture so I think their reaction is probably an accurate and credible assessment of the meaning of His words. Jesus claims "I am the bread of life" (Jn 6:35) and proceeds to invite them to come to Him and believe. What was the response of those who heard Him? They didn’t ask why He calls Himself “Bread of Life”, but rather "How does he now say, ’I have come down from heaven.’"(Jn 6:42)
They understood “Bread of Life” to be metaphorical and I think we have to accept that based upon their reaction.

Now lets move to verses 48-58. Something very important changes here; both the language Jesus uses and the reaction of those who heard Him. Whereas verses 35-47 are an invitation to believe, verses 48-58 are an invitation to the Eucharist. Faith must come first (believing leads us to eating) and so that is what He taught first. Jesus spoke with purpose and authority. Lets look at what He was really saying.

"I am the living bread which came down from heaven; if any one eats of this bread, he will live forever; and the bread which I shall give for the life of the world is my flesh." (Jn 6:51). Notice the reaction of the Jews to His words this time. They were not taken metaphorically at all, but rather very literally. "How can this man give us his flesh to eat?" (Jn 6:52) The Jews disputed among themselves and so what does Jesus do? Does he correct their interpretation, if it indeed was to be taken metaphorically? No. He replies "Truly, Truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood, you have no life in you; he who eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day. For my flesh is food indeed, and my blood is drink indeed. He who eats my flesh and drinks my blood abides in me, and I in him." Note the words ""Truly, truly" In other words listen and listen well. Far from softening his words, he instead goes beyond saying that the bread he shall give is his flesh to inviting them to eat it and also drink his blood. Of course he was speaking in the future tense "I shall" leading to the cross where he would “give his life for the life of the world”.

The language he uses here is extremely important. The Greek word “Trogo” means to “chew” or gnaw. While only being used once in the rest of the New Testament, it is used five times in the Gospel of John. Up until Jn 6:54, Jesus uses another word for eating (Greek - “esthio”) (See Jn 6:49, 50, 51, 53). The use of the word "trogo changes the focus from believing to consuming. The reaction of those that heard Him testifies to what they heard. Had it been metaphorical they would have stayed. “Of course we know he didn’t really mean that.” Why would they have left him? But that is exactly what they did. The first “Apostasy”. No one had ever left him in those numbers before. The only ones who remained were the Twelve. They heard him correctly, but did not understand. One cannot ignore this aspect of John 6, Parker. Are you not joining the 5,000 as they walk away? Remember, Jesus didn’t run after them to correct their understanding. He turned to His apostles and asked "Will you also go away". Isn’t that the question? "Will you also go away".

 

[Anna_Scott]

Parker,

Will answer later. Have some things to get done today.

How do justify Jesus comments here? When He speaks in the present tense from John 6:40
For this is the will of my Father, that **everyone who sees **the Son **and believes **in him may have eternal life, and I shall raise him (on) the last day."

Every true believing Christian since the resurrection has “SEEN” Jesus in His Eucharist and "Believes in Him.

Parker your symbolic interpretations, do not make sense; because had Jesus spoken symbolically with this flesh and blood language? A symbolic language here means; “to hate and persecute” the person, anything other than a literal interpretation, makes a mockery, manipulates and massacre’s the original text being applied here from John 6.

Jesus symbolic language would of been; If you hate and persecute me? you will have eternal life. So the symbolic language Jesus would of used in Aramaic? never makes sense, otherwise every Christian would have to hate and persecute Jesus in order to have eternal life?

Your 18Th century symbolic interpretation doesn’t even come close to the original language Jesus uses, “IF” Jesus spoke symbolically in Aramaic? The choice of symbolism in the original language never adds up in John 6, only the “Amen, Amen” literal teaching of Jesus Christ is the only one that has been defended and accepted these past 2000 years.

In the hearing, of the first unbelievers, from the gospel, got it right the first time when they asked, " how can this man give us his flesh to eat and blood to drink? " . . . . .

Parker, you are correct in your assessment of these verses to a point, however you are missing something very important, actually all important, in properly understanding these verses. I would ask you to set aside any preconceived notions of your understanding of the Eucharist and truly consider what I am about to say; rather consider what Jesus actually says.

In John 6, verses 35-47 are, without doubt, an invitation to faith, an invitation to believe. I always like to observe the reaction of the crowds to the words of Christ in order to assess what he was really saying. They listened in their own common language, in that time and in that culture so I think their reaction is probably an accurate and credible assessment of the meaning of His words. Jesus claims "I am the bread of life" (Jn 6:35) and proceeds to invite them to come to Him and believe. What was the response of those who heard Him? They didn’t ask why He calls Himself “Bread of Life”, but rather "How does he now say, ’I have come down from heaven.’"(Jn 6:42)
They understood “Bread of Life” to be metaphorical and I think we have to accept that based upon their reaction. . . . . .

SteveVH & Gabriel of 12,

You took care of this for me; and did a much better job, than I could have ever hoped to do.

I appreciate your wonderful contributions in explaining the Sacrament of the Eucharist.

God’s peace,
Anna

 

[catholic-rcia]

Parker, you are correct in your assessment of these verses to a point, however you are missing something very important, actually all important, in properly understanding these verses. I would ask you to set aside any preconceived notions of your understanding of the Eucharist and truly consider what I am about to say; rather consider what Jesus actually says.

In John 6, verses 35-47 are, without doubt, an invitation to faith, an invitation to believe. I always like to observe the reaction of the crowds to the words of Christ in order to assess what he was really saying. They listened in their own common language, in that time and in that culture so I think their reaction is probably an accurate and credible assessment of the meaning of His words. Jesus claims "I am the bread of life" (Jn 6:35) and proceeds to invite them to come to Him and believe. What was the response of those who heard Him? They didn’t ask why He calls Himself “Bread of Life”, but rather "How does he now say, ’I have come down from heaven.’"(Jn 6:42)
They understood “Bread of Life” to be metaphorical and I think we have to accept that based upon their reaction.

Now lets move to verses 48-58. Something very important changes here; both the language Jesus uses and the reaction of those who heard Him. Whereas verses 35-47 are an invitation to believe, verses 48-58 are an invitation to the Eucharist. Faith must come first (believing leads us to eating) and so that is what He taught first. Jesus spoke with purpose and authority. Lets look at what He was really saying.

"I am the living bread which came down from heaven; if any one eats of this bread, he will live forever; and the bread which I shall give for the life of the world is my flesh." (Jn 6:51). Notice the reaction of the Jews to His words this time. They were not taken metaphorically at all, but rather very literally. "How can this man give us his flesh to eat?" (Jn 6:52) The Jews disputed among themselves and so what does Jesus do? Does he correct their interpretation, if it indeed was to be taken metaphorically? No. He replies "Truly, Truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood, you have no life in you; he who eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day. For my flesh is food indeed, and my blood is drink indeed. He who eats my flesh and drinks my blood abides in me, and I in him." Note the words ""Truly, truly" In other words listen and listen well. Far from softening his words, he instead goes beyond saying that the bread he shall give is his flesh to inviting them to eat it and also drink his blood. Of course he was speaking in the future tense "I shall" leading to the cross where he would “give his life for the life of the world”.

The language he uses here is extremely important. The Greek word “Trogo” means to “chew” or gnaw. While only being used once in the rest of the New Testament, it is used five times in the Gospel of John. Up until Jn 6:54, Jesus uses another word for eating (Greek - “esthio”) (See Jn 6:49, 50, 51, 53). The use of the word "trogo changes the focus from believing to consuming. The reaction of those that heard Him testifies to what they heard. Had it been metaphorical they would have stayed. “Of course we know he didn’t really mean that.” Why would they have left him? But that is exactly what they did. The first “Apostasy”. No one had ever left him in those numbers before. The only ones who remained were the Twelve. They heard him correctly, but did not understand. One cannot ignore this aspect of John 6, Parker. Are you not joining the 5,000 as they walk away? Remember, Jesus didn’t run after them to correct their understanding. He turned to His apostles and asked "Will you also go away". Isn’t that the question? "Will you also go away".

Good job Steve,…… Parker I hope you get this. At least now you know where we are coming from with out all of those grey areas. That was about as well as Eucharist could be explained. The rest runs on pure faith. Our Holy Communion really is a miracle and it does help to produce some wonderful Saints. Saints in the sense of dying to pride and ego, at least as much as possible considering our fallen nature.

When combined with the Sacrament of Confession the Eucharist is………what can I say? Authentic humility comes to mind. Peter our first Pope also comes to mind, how he denied Jesus three times, his own humility upon spending time with Jesus after the fact. He is us and we are him.

 

[ParkerD]

Parker, you are correct in your assessment of these verses to a point, however you are missing something very important, actually all important, in properly understanding these verses. …

In John 6, verses 35-47 are, without doubt, an invitation to faith, an invitation to believe. I always like to observe the reaction of the crowds to the words of Christ in order to assess what he was really saying. They listened in their own common language, in that time and in that culture so I think their reaction is probably an accurate and credible assessment of the meaning of His words. Jesus claims "I am the bread of life" (Jn 6:35) and proceeds to invite them to come to Him and believe. What was the response of those who heard Him? They didn’t ask why He calls Himself “Bread of Life”, but rather "How does he now say, ’I have come down from heaven.’"(Jn 6:42)
They understood “Bread of Life” to be metaphorical and I think we have to accept that based upon their reaction.

Now lets move to verses 48-58. Something very important changes here; both the language Jesus uses and the reaction of those who heard Him. Whereas verses 35-47 are an invitation to believe, verses 48-58 are an invitation to the Eucharist. Faith must come first (believing leads us to eating) and so that is what He taught first. Jesus spoke with purpose and authority. Lets look at what He was really saying.

"I am the living bread which came down from heaven; if any one eats of this bread, he will live forever; and the bread which I shall give for the life of the world is my flesh.". Notice the reaction of the Jews to His words this time. They were not taken metaphorically at all, but rather very literally. The Jews disputed among themselves and so what does Jesus do? Does he correct their interpretation, if it indeed was to be taken metaphorically? No. He replies "Truly, Truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood, you have no life in you; he who eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day. For my flesh is food indeed, and my blood is drink indeed. He who eats my flesh and drinks my blood abides in me, and I in him." Note the words ""Truly, truly" In other words listen and listen well. Far from softening his words, he instead goes beyond saying that the bread he shall give is his flesh to inviting them to eat it and also drink his blood. Of course he was speaking in the future tense "I shall" leading to the cross where he would “give his life for the life of the world”.

The language he uses here is extremely important. The Greek word “Trogo” means to “chew” or gnaw. While only being used once in the rest of the New Testament, it is used five times in the Gospel of John. Up until Jn 6:54, Jesus uses another word for eating (Greek - “esthio”) (See Jn 6:49, 50, 51, 53). The use of the word "trogo changes the focus from believing to consuming. The reaction of those that heard Him testifies to what they heard. Had it been metaphorical they would have stayed. “Of course we know he didn’t really mean that.” Why would they have left him? But that is exactly what they did. The first “Apostasy”. No one had ever left him in those numbers before. The only ones who remained were the Twelve. They heard him correctly, but did not understand. One cannot ignore this aspect of John 6, Parker. Are you not joining the 5,000 as they walk away? Remember, Jesus didn’t run after them to correct their understanding. He turned to His apostles and asked "Will you also go away". Isn’t that the question? "Will you also go away".

SteveVH,
Excellent explanation–very thorough and quite simple. Thanks!

Where I differ is in several key items:

In verse 63 the Savior clarifies to the apostles, saying “the flesh profiteth nothing; the words that I speak unto you, (they) are spirit and (they) are life.”

After that entire experience and the question you noted, “Will ye also go away?” then Simon Peter answered “thou hast the words of eternal life.” And we believe and are sure that thou art that Christ, the Son of the living God."

Peter understood clearly that the use of the words “Bread of life” had a direct meaning which the Savior gave again when He said “the words that I speak unto you are spirit and are life.” Peter noted this by saying “thou hast the words of eternal life,” and by saying “thou art that Christ” meaning that Peter recognized that Christ was the Anointed One, the Messiah who fulfilled the prophecies of His coming to the earth. You don’t read that Peter is asking the Savior when He is going to begin giving them His flesh to eat and His blood to drink. That is not on Peter’s mind at all. What is on his mind is that the Savior has the words of eternal life and is the promised Messiah, the Anointed One who is the Manna from heaven, and thus he shows that he understands exactly what the Savior meant by his use of the words “Bread” and “flesh” and “blood”.

To be continued…

 

[ParkerD]

SteveVH,
Here is my continued response to your detailed and insightful post:

What puzzles me is that John 1 says “in the beginning was the Word” and that is known to mean Christ, yet now here when the Savior is telling the Jews “I Am the Word” (I am the living Bread from heaven) there is a disconnect for those who do not take verse 63 and realize its importance in the entire passage.

As to those many who left, it is very simple–they wanted real bread to eat; that is why so many had come around looking for Christ. Perhaps some hadn’t been there for the previous “feeding the five thousand”, but had heard about it. Hey–easy bread–just go and be there when He gives it out. So of course they would “go away” when He didn’t do another miracle of providing bread and instead talked about “manna from heaven–the living Bread”. Of course they would complain when He talked about giving them His flesh to eat–that isn’t what they had in mind, at all. They wanted food, real food. (They probably wanted fish also along with the bread.)

If “trogo” means consuming, then to me that would mean “feasting”, and I am very comfortable with the meaningful expression, “feast upon the Word–the Word giveth life”. One can feast on the scriptures and feast on a personal ongoing relationship with Jesus Christ, but that relationship must include covenant making, repentance, and a process of sanctification if it is to be a lasting relationship.

Thanks again for explaining in detail the origin of the Catholic belief using John 6.

 

[SteveVH]

SteveVH,
Excellent explanation–very thorough and quite simple. Thanks!

Where I differ is in several key items:

In verse 63 the Savior clarifies to the apostles, saying “the flesh profiteth nothing; the words that I speak unto you, (they) are spirit and (they) are life.”

Well, as you might imagine, I again disagree with your interpretation of Jesus’ words.

He is speaking here of the difference between listening with a carnal understanding (human reasoning) and its inability to comprehend revealed truths apart from faith. You are predisposed to reject “divine mysteries”, but this is exactly what Jesus is talking about. From a purely earthly perspective we cannot understand what he said. That is why he began the “Bread of Life” discourse with an invitation to faith; without it they would not understand. Faith, by its very definition, is believing in something which is unknowable through human reason.

Why would he tell them that his flesh will give life to the world and in the next breath tell them that his flesh “profiteth nothing”? He obviously was not talking about the same thing.

After that entire experience and the question you noted, “Will ye also go away?” then Simon Peter answered “thou hast the words of eternal life.” And we believe and are sure that thou art that Christ, the Son of the living God."

Yes, the apostles didn’t answer Jesus with “hey we understand what you mean. Not sure what their problem is”. Peter answered "Lord, to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life." (John 6:68) Even though they could not comprehend Jesus’ words, they believed because of the one who said them. As you said “What is on his [Peter’s] mind is that the Savior has the words of eternal life”. So they chose to believe what he had just told them, evidenced by their remaining with him. No one was stumbling over the words “Bread of life”. He had just told them that they must eat his flesh and drink his blood. That is what caused the ensuing conversation.

 

[ParkerD]

Well, as you might imagine, I again disagree with your interpretation of Jesus’ words.

He is speaking here of the difference between listening with a carnal understanding (human reasoning) and its inability to comprehend revealed truths apart from faith. You are predisposed to reject “divine mysteries”, but this is exactly what Jesus is talking about. From a purely earthly perspective we cannot understand what he said. That is why he began the “Bread of Life” discourse with an invitation to faith; without it they would not understand. Faith, by its very definition, is believing in something which is unknowable through human reason.

Why would he tell them that his flesh will give life to the world and in the next breath tell them that his flesh “profiteth nothing”? He obviously was not talking about the same thing.

Yes, the apostles didn’t answer Jesus with “hey we understand what you mean. Not sure what their problem is”. Peter answered "Lord, to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life." (John 6:68) Even though they could not comprehend Jesus’ words, they believed because of the one who said them. As you said “What is on his [Peter’s] mind is that the Savior has the words of eternal life”. So they chose to believe what he had just told them, evidenced by their remaining with him. No one was stumbling over the words “Bread of life”. He had just told them that they must eat his flesh and drink his blood. That is what caused the ensuing conversation.

SteveVH,
I think that Peter did comprehend Jesus’ words, as I have already stated. He could understand the words stated as recorded for us in verse 55, “for my flesh is meat indeed, and my blood is drink indeed.” The word “meat” clearly means “food” and the word “food” goes back to the word “Bread” or the word “manna”. The Savior had said He would give His body “for the life of the world.” This was not new doctrine for Peter. It was the doctrine of the true Messiah, who would be the great and last sacrifice and would also give the Bread of life. Peter would be very familiar with Isaiah 55:1-3, so the “bread” metaphor would not be new or strange. The inclusion now of the word “flesh” interchangeably with the word “bread” would be very compatible with the understanding that Jesus was going to save the world by giving His life for the world, thus laying down His flesh for the sake of the world. It was a double metaphor–the Bread of life as the Word, and the flesh of Christ as the sacrifice for the life of the world.

The word “blood” ties in Jewish heritage to the Passover and the law of sacrifice where blood is a meaningful part of the “ceremony”, of course, and the Passover was known by those who really understood the promise of a Messiah as a sign of the coming covenant whereby death would be “passed over” and a newness of life would be brought to the world through the Anointed One, “that Christ”.

So Peter would not be puzzled by Jesus’ use of the words “drink my blood”. He already knows about drinking “living water”. Now he hears the metaphor of drinking “the blood of the Messiah” and, knowing that the Levite priests were never asked to drink the blood of a sacrificial lamb, Peter would know that “drink my blood” to “have life in you” means a similar metaphor as to drink His living water and also to recognize that He is indeed the promised “last sacrifice” Anointed One. That is why he said “thou art that Christ.” (I assume you are familiar that the word “Christ” means “Anointed One.”)

“He that eateth of this bread shall live for ever” is a very powerful and meaningful expression. Clearly He is beginning to teach about the resurrection and about the promise of eternal life through Him, in those words.

 

[catholic-rcia]

**John 1:14 **
**“And the Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us, **
**and we saw his glory, the glory of the Father’s only Son, **
**full of grace and truth.” **
This flesh is of every avail.

**Just as Steve pointed out, Jesus was not referring to His own flesh in John 6:63, **
He was explaining why the worldly thinking of the Pharisee’s kept them from believing in this truth that He had just said.

**John 6:55 “For my flesh is food indeed, and my blood is drink indeed.” **

this may also help
**1 Corinthians 2:9 - 3:3 **

**“But, as it is written, **
**‘What no eye has seen, nor ear heard, **
**nor the heart of man conceived, **
**what God has prepared for those who love him,’ God has revealed to us through the Spirit. For the Spirit searches everything, even the depths of God. For what person knows a man’s thoughts except the spirit of the man which is in him? So also no one comprehends the thoughts of God except the Spirit of God. Now we have received not the spirit of the world, but the Spirit which is from God, that we might understand the gifts bestowed on us by God. And we impart this in words not taught by human wisdom but taught by the Spirit, interpreting spiritual truths to those who possess the Spirit. **
**The unspiritual man does not receive the gifts of the Spirit of God, for they are folly to him, and he is not able to understand them because they are spiritually discerned. The spiritual man judges all things, but is himself to be judged by no one. ‘For who has known the mind of the Lord so as to instruct him?’ But we have the mind of Christ. **
**3:1 But I, brethren, could not address you as spiritual men, but as men of the flesh, as babes in Christ. I fed you with milk, not solid food; for you were not ready for it; and even yet you are not ready, for you are still of the flesh. For while there is jealousy and strife among you, are you not of the flesh, and behaving like ordinary men?” **

In Christ
Rich
**www.utahmission.com **

 

[catholic-rcia]

Parker, please go here to this site and take some time to read these quotes. Try to get into the mindset of this type of devotion.
http://www.acfp2000.com/Sections/quotes1.html

If you were to ask the greatest Saints of the Church how they became Saints they would have to ask you what you think a Saint is. They would certainly tell you that the only reason they are a Saint is because they allowed Jesus into them, and that He came to them knowing all of their sins, nothing hidden. That it was Him that transformed them through a very strict diet of Confession and Eucharist.

 

[ParkerD]

… That it was Him that transformed them through a very strict diet of Confession and Eucharist.

Catholic-rcia,
Somehow it would be well for you to understand that not only do I disagree based on very clear Biblical teachings, but that I strongly disagree and it is for the very reason of the words in the sentence with which you closed your message to me, above.

It is a profound difference in approaches, yielding a profound difference in how either of us looks at spirituality and the transforming power of sanctification through ongoing repentance and the guidance and cleansing “fire” of the Holy Spirit.

 

[zerinus]

Parker, you are correct in your assessment of these verses to a point, however you are missing something very important, actually all important, in properly understanding these verses. I would ask you to set aside any preconceived notions of your understanding of the Eucharist and truly consider what I am about to say; rather consider what Jesus actually says.

In John 6, verses 35-47 are, without doubt, an invitation to faith, an invitation to believe. I always like to observe the reaction of the crowds to the words of Christ in order to assess what he was really saying. They listened in their own common language, in that time and in that culture so I think their reaction is probably an accurate and credible assessment of the meaning of His words. Jesus claims "I am the bread of life" (Jn 6:35) and proceeds to invite them to come to Him and believe. What was the response of those who heard Him? They didn’t ask why He calls Himself “Bread of Life”, but rather "How does he now say, ’I have come down from heaven.’"(Jn 6:42)
They understood “Bread of Life” to be metaphorical and I think we have to accept that based upon their reaction.

Now lets move to verses 48-58. Something very important changes here; both the language Jesus uses and the reaction of those who heard Him. Whereas verses 35-47 are an invitation to believe, verses 48-58 are an invitation to the Eucharist. Faith must come first (believing leads us to eating) and so that is what He taught first. Jesus spoke with purpose and authority. Lets look at what He was really saying.

"I am the living bread which came down from heaven; if any one eats of this bread, he will live forever; and the bread which I shall give for the life of the world is my flesh." (Jn 6:51). Notice the reaction of the Jews to His words this time. They were not taken metaphorically at all, but rather very literally. "How can this man give us his flesh to eat?" (Jn 6:52) The Jews disputed among themselves and so what does Jesus do? Does he correct their interpretation, if it indeed was to be taken metaphorically? No. He replies "Truly, Truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood, you have no life in you; he who eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day. For my flesh is food indeed, and my blood is drink indeed. He who eats my flesh and drinks my blood abides in me, and I in him." Note the words ""Truly, truly" In other words listen and listen well. Far from softening his words, he instead goes beyond saying that the bread he shall give is his flesh to inviting them to eat it and also drink his blood. Of course he was speaking in the future tense "I shall" leading to the cross where he would “give his life for the life of the world”.

The language he uses here is extremely important. The Greek word “Trogo” means to “chew” or gnaw. While only being used once in the rest of the New Testament, it is used five times in the Gospel of John. Up until Jn 6:54, Jesus uses another word for eating (Greek - “esthio”) (See Jn 6:49, 50, 51, 53). The use of the word "trogo changes the focus from believing to consuming. The reaction of those that heard Him testifies to what they heard. Had it been metaphorical they would have stayed. “Of course we know he didn’t really mean that.” Why would they have left him? But that is exactly what they did. The first “Apostasy”. No one had ever left him in those numbers before. The only ones who remained were the Twelve. They heard him correctly, but did not understand. One cannot ignore this aspect of John 6, Parker. Are you not joining the 5,000 as they walk away? Remember, Jesus didn’t run after them to correct their understanding. He turned to His apostles and asked "Will you also go away". Isn’t that the question? "Will you also go away".

John 6:

63 It is the spirit that quickeneth (i.e. gives life); the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life.

John 8:

43 Why do ye not understand my speech? even because ye cannot hear my word.

---

51 Verily, verily, I say unto you, If a man keep my saying, he shall never see death.
52 Then said the Jews unto him, Now we know that thou hast a devil. Abraham is dead, and the prophets; and thou sayest, If a man keep my saying, he shall never taste of death.
53 Art thou greater than our father Abraham, which is dead? and the prophets are dead: . . .

 

[catholic-rcia]

Catholic-rcia,
Somehow it would be well for you to understand that not only do I disagree based on very clear Biblical teachings, but that I strongly disagree and it is for the very reason of the words in the sentence with which you closed your message to me, above.

It is a profound difference in approaches, yielding a profound difference in how either of us looks at spirituality and the transforming power of sanctification through ongoing repentance and the guidance and cleansing “fire” of the Holy Spirit.

Your Biblical interpretation of how flesh is used by Jesus is wrong. You know this. You are smart.

I have received from the table of our Lord as well as sitting in a pew. One where I die to self a bit more at each meal, where all I have to offer is empty hands with an open heart. The other a precursor of what was to come. It is Christ that I cling to and feed on, His Body, His Church. Parker, you have to be translating my last sentence in another light.

… That it was Him that transformed them through a very strict diet of Confession and Eucharist.

How is it that you are reading this? What is it that bothers you about it? You know the Catholic Saint that brought me to this faith. Saint Isaac Jogues I have posted his real life story many times. I realized at a certain point and time that his was a real story. I could place my heart on it. Who brings Christ to the depths of hell found on this earth? Who risks all taking little concern for their own flesh? Where are these in the world today, who are these Missionaries?
I can guarantee you this, you will fine them in Confession with Christ, feeding at the table of our Lord and mingling with the people of the entire world.

 

[SteveVH]

John 6:

63 It is the spirit that quickeneth (i.e. gives life); the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life.

John 8:

43 Why do ye not understand my speech? even because ye cannot hear my word.

---

51 Verily, verily, I say unto you, If a man keep my saying, he shall never see death.
52 Then said the Jews unto him, Now we know that thou hast a devil. Abraham is dead, and the prophets; and thou sayest, If a man keep my saying, he shall never taste of death.
53 Art thou greater than our father Abraham, which is dead? and the prophets are dead: . . .

Have you not read the previous posts? Sorry, but repeating the same thing over and over does not add to its credibility. You misunderstand the very verse you use in your defense, as I have already explained.