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

[SteveVH]

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.

And you do not find it strange that those who listened to Jesus in their own language, who understood the nuances of the various idioms used in that culture and time, did not see it as a “double metaphor”. Eating one’s flesh and drinking their blood was incredibly offensive to a Jew. That is exactly what they heard him say and it is the reason they left. He couldn’t have been clearer and they knew it. Each time Jesus was questioned, he only intensified his words. Never does he say he was speaking metaphorically and the crowd certainly did not believe this. I realize that you must ignore the meaning of these verses or attempt to change their meaning in order to remain whithin your belief structure but I would caution you about basing interpretation upon preconceived notions. I think have said this before but, either Catholics are guilty of idolatry or they are not. If we are then we will suffer the consquences. The same is true for those who do not believe in the real presence. Either they are correct or they “do not recognize the body and blood of the Lord” and call down condemnation on themeselves. One of us will have to answer. I like my chances.

 

[Anna_Scott]

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.

And you do not find it strange that those who listened to Jesus in their own language, who understood the nuances of the various idioms used in that culture and time, did not see it as a “double metaphor”. Eating one’s flesh and drinking their blood was incredibly offensive to a Jew. That is exactly what they heard him say and it is the reason they left. He couldn’t have been clearer and they knew it. Each time Jesus was questioned, he only intensified his words. Never does he say he was speaking metaphorically and the crowd certainly did not believe this. I realize that you must ignore the meaning of these verses or attempt to change their meaning in order to remain whithin your belief structure but I would caution you about basing interpretation upon preconceived notions. I think have said this before but, either Catholics are guilty of idolatry or they are not. If we are then we will suffer the consquences. The same is true for those who do not believe in the real presence. Either they are correct or they “do not recognize the body and blood of the Lord” and call down condemnation on themeselves. One of us will have to answer. I like my chances.

Very interesting thread, Steve. I am following along.

Anna

 

[ParkerD]

And you do not find it strange that those who listened to Jesus in their own language, who understood the nuances of the various idioms used in that culture and time, did not see it as a “double metaphor”. Eating one’s flesh and drinking their blood was incredibly offensive to a Jew. That is exactly what they heard him say and it is the reason they left. He couldn’t have been clearer and they knew it. Each time Jesus was questioned, he only intensified his words. Never does he say he was speaking metaphorically and the crowd certainly did not believe this. I realize that you must ignore the meaning of these verses or attempt to change their meaning in order to remain whithin your belief structure but I would caution you about basing interpretation upon preconceived notions. I think have said this before but, either Catholics are guilty of idolatry or they are not. If we are then we will suffer the consquences. The same is true for those who do not believe in the real presence. Either they are correct or they “do not recognize the body and blood of the Lord” and call down condemnation on themeselves. One of us will have to answer. I like my chances.

SteveVH,
The last two sentences here go back to the “fear factor” I had recently brought up in the thread about “Thus saith the Lord.” I consider it a fairly common but faulty misunderstanding of the Bible. Not the slightest inkling of such “fear” of whether a person “likes their chances” is present when one has the Holy Ghost in their life and has the complete spiritual assurance that they are following the impressions and guidance of the Holy Ghost, as well as following the teachings of Jesus and the apostles from the New Testament.

There is a whole New Testament with a whole set of teachings about how to follow Christ and become sanctified and do so with the kind of love that Paul and John wrote about. John chapter 6 does not trump the full set of teachings related to the new covenant gospel taught by Christ and the apostles.

That was my response to the last two sentences. Now for the rest:

You seem to think the listeners were high-powered Jews with full knowledge of the law and the prophets and an offense taken based on being told they were to “eat flesh” and “drink blood.”

Of course they would not take those words literally. Anyone who thinks they would have taken those words literally would have to have basically zero understanding of Jewish metaphorical language.

But yet, we are talking about a group of followers who had participated in eating bread and fish days earlier and thought here was someone who would give them more bread and fish if they waited long enough for Him to decide they were hungry. Instead of giving them more bread and fish, He started to really teach them why He had come to earth and why He had begun His ministry, and it was not about bread and fish although those become metaphors. Peter understood the metaphorical language.

One can find example after example in the New Testament where Jesus was not quick to change (if at all) from staying with metaphorical language even when the general audience wasn’t comprehending His message through parables and metaphors. He would later tell the apostles what He was really teaching through a metaphor, but He didn’t tell the general audience, deliberately and intentionally as He noted on a few occasions.

It is easy to understand why the Savior would do this in His teaching methods. He was not among them to condemn those who were not willing or ready to listen and follow, although he used strong language trying to get the attention of the supposed leaders and teachers–the Pharisees and scribes. He was among the ordinary people to find those who were indeed willing to listen and follow, and used the method of sifting out those with discernment from those who just wanted food by speaking in metaphorical language.

 

[SteveVH]

SteveVH,
The last two sentences here go back to the “fear factor” I had recently brought up in the thread about “Thus saith the Lord.” I consider it a fairly common but faulty misunderstanding of the Bible. Not the slightest inkling of such “fear” of whether a person “likes their chances” is present when one has the Holy Ghost in their life and has the complete spiritual assurance that they are following the impressions and guidance of the Holy Ghost, as well as following the teachings of Jesus and the apostles from the New Testament.

There is a whole New Testament with a whole set of teachings about how to follow Christ and become sanctified and do so with the kind of love that Paul and John wrote about. John chapter 6 does not trump the full set of teachings related to the new covenant gospel taught by Christ and the apostles.

That was my response to the last two sentences. Now for the rest:

Are you implying that I don’t have the Holy Spirit in my life? I said nothing about being fearful. I only pointed out the obvious. Either you are right, in which case Catholics are guilty of idolatry, or Catholics are right and you are guilty of not recognizing the body and blood of the Lord. I am not fearful at all, in fact I rejoice in my faith everyday and thank God for such a wonderful Savior. Parker, you have the “burning in the heart” when you read the BoM. My heart is melted each time I receive my Lord in the sacrament of the Eucharist. Yes, it is beyond words, but the intimacy of being in communion with Him is very, very real. There is nothing that can match it, trust me.

You seem to think the listeners were high-powered Jews with full knowledge of the law and the prophets and an offense taken based on being told they were to “eat flesh” and “drink blood.”

Of course they would not take those words literally. Anyone who thinks they would have taken those words literally would have to have basically zero understanding of Jewish metaphorical language.

So I just want to make sure I understand you correctly. From your comments I must assume that you are an expert in understanding Jewish metaphorical language, but the Jews present at that time were not. They were basically a bunch of country bumpkins who didn’t understand the law and the prophets, therefore they could not have been offended by eating another’s flesh or drinking another’s blood. Is that your argument?

But yet, we are talking about a group of followers who had participated in eating bread and fish days earlier and thought here was someone who would give them more bread and fish if they waited long enough for Him to decide they were hungry. Instead of giving them more bread and fish, He started to really teach them why He had come to earth and why He had begun His ministry, and it was not about bread and fish although those become metaphors. Peter understood the metaphorical language.

So basically they were no more than a bunch of hungry dogs following Jesus around to get another piece of bread or fish. I can just hear them. “Hey you know that guy Jesus, he’s handing out free bread and fish”. Upon hearing this 5,000 men (not including women and children) walk clear around the lake through the night (I’ve been there, its quite a jaunt) in hopes of getting another piece of bread or fish. I wonder what these folks did before Jesus showed up. Thanks Parker, I have never heard this interpretation before. Now it all makes sense.

 

[MelanieAnne]

I want to support Steve.

The best times of my life are the days (when I can make them happen in my life) where I receive Jesus every day. In the Eucharist.

Something that I think is important to note, even if it is just a little thing, although I think it is actually a really big thing.~ When people receive the Eucharist, oftentimes they believe they are taking something in.
They are actually NOT doing that.

When we receive the Eucharist, we are NOT assimilating Jesus into US. Instead, we have chosen to allow Jesus to assimilate HIMSELF and draw us into Him. In the Eucharist, we are assimilated into the Body of Christ.

This is a huge difference. And it has nothing to do with Mormonism or Catholicism, or, really, any other faith difference, it has to do with REALITY. That’s how it works.

 

[SteveVH]

I want to support Steve.

The best times of my life are the days (when I can make them happen in my life) where I receive Jesus every day. In the Eucharist.

Something that I think is important to note, even if it is just a little thing, although I think it is actually a really big thing.~ When people receive the Eucharist, oftentimes they believe they are taking something in.
They are actually NOT doing that.

When we receive the Eucharist, we are NOT assimilating Jesus into US. Instead, we have chosen to allow Jesus to assimilate HIMSELF and draw us into Him. In the Eucharist, we are assimilated into the Body of Christ.

This is a huge difference. And it has nothing to do with Mormonism or Catholicism, or, really, any other faith difference, it has to do with REALITY. That’s how it works.

Melanie, that’s a great point. It is completely the work of Christ. We consume Him, only to be consumed by Him. The two become one. The many become one. It is how we become one “even as my Father and I are one”. It is what He longs for. I find it sad that there are many who will never experience this relationship.

 

[ParkerD]

Are you implying that I don’t have the Holy Spirit in my life? I said nothing about being fearful. I only pointed out the obvious. Either you are right, in which case Catholics are guilty of idolatry, or Catholics are right and you are guilty of not recognizing the body and blood of the Lord. I am not fearful at all, in fact I rejoice in my faith everyday and thank God for such a wonderful Savior. Parker, you have the “burning in the heart” when you read the BoM. My heart is melted each time I receive my Lord in the sacrament of the Eucharist. Yes, it is beyond words, but the intimacy of being in communion with Him is very, very real. There is nothing that can match it, trust me.

SteveVH,
I would expect that you have the Holy Spirit in your life as you keep the commandments and seek the Spirit and listen to the promptings that come by inspiration and are filled with love for others. The Holy Spirit does not give “blanket coverage” for everything a person does or thinks. Nor does the Holy Spirit steer a person away from a wrong decision if they have made a choice, in that free will choice is always preserved by how He provides guidance. If one doesn’t ask, one doesn’t receive. If one has made a decision and has firmed up their resolve, then the Holy Spirit will merely allow the person to retain their decision about the thing in question. (By the way, I disagree totally about the words “guilty of i.” It merely means there is a wrong concept that has been taught for many generations and become embedded in the thinking.)

So I just want to make sure I understand you correctly. From your comments I must assume that you are an expert in understanding Jewish metaphorical language, but the Jews present at that time were not. They were basically a bunch of country bumpkins who didn’t understand the law and the prophets, therefore they could not have been offended by eating another’s flesh or drinking another’s blood. Is that your argument?

No, I’m not an expert. I do love the book of Isaiah and of Ezekiel that have many metaphors, and the Psalms also. But when the people asked “How can this man give us (his) flesh to eat?” then that was a response out of frustration and out of ridicule. Jesus had already told them (v. 26), “Ye seek me, not because ye saw the miracles, but because ye did eat of the loaves, and were filled.” That is why I wrote that they wanted more bread and fish. The Savior said so. He knew their thoughts and their hearts. He knew that of course they would not think He was going to start passing around His own flesh among them for them to eat.

There was no offense taken “by (the idea) of eating another’s flesh or drinking another’s blood,” because they would of course know (unless they were little children with no education or familiarity with metaphors at all) that Jesus was not proposing to literally give them those as “food” and “drink”. Even “country bumpkins”, to use your words which I don’t agree with in describing those Jews in the audience as described in John 6, would not think a person talking about giving their own personal flesh and blood to eat and drink was being serious or literal.

So basically they were no more than … following Jesus around to get another piece of bread or fish. I can just hear them. “Hey you …, he’s handing out free bread and fish”. Upon hearing this 5,000 men (not including women and children) walk clear around the lake through the night (I’ve been there, its quite a jaunt) in hopes of getting another piece of bread or fish. I wonder what these folks did before Jesus showed up. Thanks Parker, I have never heard this interpretation before. Now it all makes sense.

Jesus knew their hearts, and described what they wanted in verse 26. As to how they arrived at the new setting, perhaps you missed verse 24 which says “they also took shipping, and came to Capernaum, seeking for Jesus.”

I agree that it seems implausible that they would go to such an effort just to eat some bread and fish, but there are plausible elements to what they did:

1. A crowd follows a crowd. That is what people do. Not finding Jesus on the one side of the sea, when some started to “take shipping” to go to find Him, many others would follow. That is how people react.
2. The miracle of the loaves and fish had been impressive, and would have been spread as “news”. If there was going to be such a miracle again, it is logical that many people would think “That’s worth going out of my way to see–especially to get a taste of it and be able to tell others about it.” That is how people are.

Sorry you had never thought about these kinds of reactions before. They are not hard to figure out, especially when the Savior leads the way by saying what was in the people’s hearts.

 

[kikkichan]

ParkerD,

Hi! I hope you’re doing well. This has been a very interesting thread, indeed. I have one small comment re: your comments (the underline and bold is mine):

… He knew that of course they would not think He was going to start passing around His own flesh among them for them to eat.

he knew this, of course ?? Yet…
John 6:52:

Then the Jews started arguing among themselves, ‘How can this man give us his flesh to eat?’ .

I’m thinking that He did know that they were going to think that, and from what they said, it is what they thought. Now they probably believed Him to be flipped out, like maybe His mind had taken a walk off the map, and that there was no way that He could actually do that, but they did believe that, that was what he said.

Parker, I also remember how you have described “partaking worthily” in a way indicative of adoration with profound reverence. So I believe that conceptually, you get it! Now I don’t generally subscribe to the BOM, but there’s a quote from 3 Nephi that caught my attention. Its author uses the euphemism “eat flesh and drink blood” 3 times. I think concluding that this notion is symbolic, is a stretch…even when considering Mormon scriptures.
3 Nephi 18:29:

For whoso eateth and drinketh my flesh and blood unworthily eateth and drinketh damnation to his soul; therefore if ye know that a man is unworthy to eat and drink of my flesh and blood ye shall forbid him.

and for those counting:

Paul:

For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh damnation to himself, not discerning the Lord’s body.

prayers
–kc

 

[ParkerD]

ParkerD,
…

he knew this, of course ?? Yet…

I’m thinking that He did know that they were going to think that, and from what they said, it is what they thought. Now they probably believed Him to be flipped out, like maybe His mind had taken a walk off the map, and that there was no way that He could actually do that, but they did believe that, that was what he said.

Parker, I also remember how you have described “partaking worthily” in a way indicative of adoration with profound reverence. So I believe that conceptually, you get it! Now I don’t generally subscribe to the BOM, but there’s a quote from 3 Nephi that caught my attention. Its author uses the euphemism “eat flesh and drink blood” 3 times. I think concluding that this notion is symbolic, is a stretch…even when considering Mormon scriptures.

prayers
–kc

Hi, Kikkichan,
Nice to hear from you, and I hope you are also doing well. I will be with a youth camping group today and tomorrow, so any reply after this may take a couple of days to respond and that’s why.

Here are some important verses in 3 Nephi 18 that establish the unmistakable context of the metaphors we are talking about, as metaphors, immediately before the Savior taught the Nephite group about eating and drinking His “flesh” and His “blood” worthily in the verses you noted:

5 And when the multitude had eaten and were filled, he said unto the Disciples: Behold there shall one be ordained among you, and to him will I give power that he shall break bread and bless it and give it unto the people of my church, unto all those who shall believe and be baptized in my name.
…
7 And this shall ye do in remembrance of my body, which I have shown unto you. And it shall be a testimony unto the Father that ye do always remember me. And if ye do always remember me ye shall have my Spirit to be with you.
8 And it came to pass that when he said these words, he commanded his Disciples that they should take of the wine of the cup and drink of it, …
9 And it came to pass that they did so, and did drink of it and were filled; and they gave unto the multitude, and they did drink, and they were filled.
10 And when the Disciples had done this, Jesus said unto them: Blessed are ye for this thing which ye have done, for this is fulfilling my commandments, and this doth witness unto the Father that ye are willing to do that which I have commanded you.
11 And this shall ye always do to those who repent and are baptized in my name; and ye shall do it in remembrance of my blood, which I have shed for you, that ye may witness unto the Father that ye do always remember me. And if ye do always remember me ye shall have my Spirit to be with you.

As far as what was being described as happening in John 6:52, one needs to first read John 6:47-51 and then to visualize the situation.

“47 Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that believeth on me hath everlasting life.
48 I am that bread of life.
49 Your fathers did eat manna in the wilderness, and are dead.
50 This is the bread which cometh down from heaven, that a man may eat thereof, and not die.
51 I am the living bread which came down from heaven: if any man eat of this bread, he shall live for ever: and the bread that I will give is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world.”

The arguing described in the next verse, v. 52, would be describing an argument about what He meant in the whole situation. “How can this man give us his flesh to eat?” would be among the questions, and another one would logically be “how can eating his flesh or eating what he called “living bread” make us live for ever?” The arguing would have to do with trying to comprehend the metaphor–not whether a metaphor was being used. The question listed in verse 52 has an understood answer, and is thus primarily a rhetorical question, thus: "How can this man give us his flesh to eat? (“Of course he can’t do that, and is not going to do that–what does he mean then by what he is saying?”).

Just because the verse doesn’t include more of the words of “argument” that were being bandied about by the throng, doesn’t mean they were dwelling on the single question that is stated. That single question is provided as an example of the kinds of questions that were being asked as they “argued among themselves”.

Can you visualize the arguing? One would be saying one thing as “he means this”. Another would be saying “No, it makes more sense that he means …” and thus they would be arguing about what He meant, and it is logical because He had provided a situation where they needed to have discernment and be listening well in order to understand the metaphor He had presented. They know the answer to the question “how can this man give us his flesh to eat?” The answer is that he can’t give them his flesh to eat. (He can’t cut away his flesh and give them each a piece, as he had broken up the bread and the fish previously and given them each pieces to eat. They know that–they are not going to be arguing about the physical impossibility of his doing that. Instead, the reason they are arguing is because they understand that he has used a metaphor and now they are realizing he is not going to give them bread as he had done before, and instead is just going to teach them with this metaphor.

So, the arguing is about “what does He mean?”) Especially is this made clear with the use of the word “man” in the question. Calling Him a man shows that they are dealing with the physical impossibility of his passing around his own flesh, and instead are arguing and trying to comprehend (decipher) the metaphor.

Peace and hoped for blessings to you and your loved ones, Kikkichan.

 

[catholic-rcia]

Parker you are making your own interpretations because you simply cannot accept the deposit of Faith in which the Catholic Church has been entrusted. I understand this as I come from the same place.

The very Eucharist you speak about is the life blood or Christianity combined with Confession, authentic humility, guidance from the Holy Spirit. Eucharist through the centuries is the very reason any Christian denomination can even mention the name of Jesus, the Jesus that is authentic. God the eternal Son, one in being with the Father.

“The flesh profits nothing” not to be confused with Jesus “My Flesh”

Parker , Look at John 8:15 You are judging the same way those who could not accept His teachings regarding Eucharist. You are right in line with them along with several Protestant denominations.
.
**“How can this man give us His flesh to eat?” **

---

As a matter of fact you have nailed it and would make for a good leader for those who left Him regarding Holy Communion. “He did not mean it this way so lets do it like this instead.” And so another church is born. Another leader is dicovered.

How did the first Christians understand Him is recorded History through the Church fathers? Christian History regarding Holy Communion can not be clearer. We have the writings, we have Jesus’s own words and we have the proper interpretation on our side regarding Jesus Flesh when compared to “the flesh and what that means” . You would need to show the writings of the early church, pre Apostasy that support your interpretations. We can go back 2000 years to find support for what Jesus taught, you can only go back to about 500 years when the Apostasy from what Jesus taught took root in a more modern world, out of which your own Church sprung forth.

Not accepting that the atonement took place on the Cross, rather than in the Garden goes along way in your understanding of Jesus’ flesh. While interpreting scripture in a carnal way as did those who walked away from Him you are also claiming that the Incarnation of Jesus in the flesh and his bodily resurrection has no profit. You are comparing the flesh of Jesus to your own, in your own way. For you Jesus is a great man who became a god, you can do the same right?

For a Catholic Jesus is God and we will never be as He has always been. Yet we will share in what He has forever as His Created, adopted children.

In verse 63 Jesus is not talking about His flesh, he is speaking directly to you as well as those who could not believe regarding your / their thinking and your own / their flesh. Thinking in an earthy way rather than in a heavenly way, a spiritual way.

Jesus is referring to your human understanding apart from what we as Catholics know as divine revelation. Our eyes are open at the breaking of the bread as Jesus is with us in the here and now.

Continued…

 

[catholic-rcia]

Zerinus takes the words spirit and life and molds them contrary to how Jesus uses them. This was the final blow as they understood this, they could not and would not believe. Black and white.
Spirit and life - This is actually where Jesus confirms that He was speaking literally, not mixing any words. He was telling them they are judging with human minds and in this failing to see the depth of what He was to leave…Himself in what would appear to be wine and bread to the unbelievers. But for us our Spiritual food that he has promised would give us eternal life. We believe.
The fruit of this heavenly food is real as you can see Jesus Himself inside 2000 years worth of Saints along with the magnitude of what His church does for the world as a whole. You can see the struggles in our own Parish within the Confessional regarding His Flesh and our flesh. No one holds any higher ground to another, again we as Catholics come with empty hands and are filled with Christ in the breaking of the bread. our daily bread.
The 12 stayed and were rewarded with the last Supper. This is our Church Parker. We are the entire group that has stayed and believed and we are nourished by Christ Himself in many miraculous ways. It’s about as big as you can ever imagine it should be. All about accepting our fallen nature, all about healing from our fallen nature. .
I am not at all convinced that you can not see these things. If you do have faith, it’s bigger than loosing anything. Everything to gain is found here. It has a lot to do with you but everything to do with Jesus.
Rich
www.utahmission.com

 

[SteveVH]

SteveVH,
I would expect that you have the Holy Spirit in your life as you keep the commandments and seek the Spirit and listen to the promptings that come by inspiration and are filled with love for others. The Holy Spirit does not give “blanket coverage” for everything a person does or thinks. Nor does the Holy Spirit steer a person away from a wrong decision if they have made a choice, in that free will choice is always preserved by how He provides guidance. If one doesn’t ask, one doesn’t receive. If one has made a decision and has firmed up their resolve, then the Holy Spirit will merely allow the person to retain their decision about the thing in question. (By the way, I disagree totally about the words “guilty of i.” It merely means there is a wrong concept that has been taught for many generations and become embedded in the thinking.)

No, I’m not an expert. I do love the book of Isaiah and of Ezekiel that have many metaphors, and the Psalms also. But when the people asked “How can this man give us (his) flesh to eat?” then that was a response out of frustration and out of ridicule. Jesus had already told them (v. 26), “Ye seek me, not because ye saw the miracles, but because ye did eat of the loaves, and were filled.” That is why I wrote that they wanted more bread and fish. The Savior said so. He knew their thoughts and their hearts. He knew that of course they would not think He was going to start passing around His own flesh among them for them to eat.

There was no offense taken “by (the idea) of eating another’s flesh or drinking another’s blood,” because they would of course know (unless they were little children with no education or familiarity with metaphors at all) that Jesus was not proposing to literally give them those as “food” and “drink”. Even “country bumpkins”, to use your words which I don’t agree with in describing those Jews in the audience as described in John 6, would not think a person talking about giving their own personal flesh and blood to eat and drink was being serious or literal.

Jesus knew their hearts, and described what they wanted in verse 26. As to how they arrived at the new setting, perhaps you missed verse 24 which says “they also took shipping, and came to Capernaum, seeking for Jesus.”

I agree that it seems implausible that they would go to such an effort just to eat some bread and fish, but there are plausible elements to what they did:

1. A crowd follows a crowd. That is what people do. Not finding Jesus on the one side of the sea, when some started to “take shipping” to go to find Him, many others would follow. That is how people react.
2. The miracle of the loaves and fish had been impressive, and would have been spread as “news”. If there was going to be such a miracle again, it is logical that many people would think “That’s worth going out of my way to see–especially to get a taste of it and be able to tell others about it.” That is how people are.

Sorry you had never thought about these kinds of reactions before. They are not hard to figure out, especially when the Savior leads the way by saying what was in the people’s hearts.

Parker, I’m not going to repeat the argument I have already made. In my opinion what you are saying amounts to grasping at anything and everything in order to avoid what was actually happening. You create scenarios that are not found in the applicable verses. The gospel is not written in a poetic or prophetic genre, such as Isaiah and Ezekiel. It is a witness giving his testimony. It goes into some detail about what the crowds were thinking and what they were thinking was "How can this man give us his flesh to eat?", not "I wonder if I can scam another piece of bread or fish from this guy".

They were shocked by his words and you cannot just deny that. Any teacher would have a responsibility to communicate clearly, especially if something were to be taken metaphorically rather than literally. Jesus is THE teacher and he made no such attempt. Please do not bring up John 6:63 again in an attempt to ignore the previous verses in John 6. As I have already demostrated, Jesus would not, in the same breath, claim that he would give his "flesh for the life of the world" and then say that his flesh "profitith nothing".

Parker, while this is something very difficult to convey to you, it is an astounding truth that must be told. It is the way that Jesus remains present with us and does not leave us orphans. It is how we enter into the New Covenant. The words of Sacred Scripture are powerful enough, however, the interior experience is just that; an interior experience which surpasses human language. I have experienced this relationship and continue to experience it. What I am asking you to do is to come to the window and experience a beautiful sunset. I am not trying to shove a bunch of doctrine down your throat. I can’t clearly express the beauty in words anymore than words could described this sunset. Until you see it for yourself you cannot grasp what I am trying to express. I hope someday you will.

God bless.

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

QUOTE=zerinus;6813413]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 6:63 confirms the Catholic teaching of the True presence of Jesus body, blood soul and divinity in the Eucharist, especially by transubstantiation.

**No where in scripture is the Spirit to be taken symbolically or metaphorically. **

1Corinthians 2:9… But as it is written; “What eye has not seen, and ear has not heard, and what has not entered the human heart, what God has prepared for those who love him,” v10… This God has revealed to us through the Spirit. For the Spirit scrutinizes everything, even the depths of God. 11… no one knows what pertains to God except the Spirit of God. 12 We have not received the spirit of the world but the Spirit that is from God, so that we may understand the things freely given us by God. 13 And we speak about them not with words taught by human wisdom, but with words taught by the Spirit, describing spiritual realities in spiritual terms.14 Now the natural person does not accept what pertains to the Spirit of God, for to him it is foolishness, and he cannot understand it, because it is judged spiritually. 15 The spiritual person, however, can judge everything but is not subject to judgment by anyone.16 For “who has known the mind of the Lord, so as to counsel him?” But we have the mind of Christ.

; Genesis 1: 7 the LORD God formed man out of the clay of the ground and blew into his nostrils the breath of life, and so man became a living being.

You see it is the breathe, Spirit of God that gives life whereby the flesh (physical) means nothing but mud without the Spirit of God. If you’re looking for Physical properties according to the flesh, this cannot be achieved on this side of death from our 3 dimensional states that has no understanding of the Spiritual eternal realities because God is Spirit.

So when the bread and wine are consecrated by the Word made flesh Jesus Christ, to our soul the Eucharist is food for our immortality, while according to the flesh senses the accidents of bread and wine remain, yet according the Spirit the substance has transubstantiated into the body blood soul and divinity of Jesus Christ, which gives us “eternal life”.

2Peter 1:4
Through these, he has bestowed on us the precious and very great promises, so that through them you may come to share in the divine nature,

Hebrews 11:1…Faith is the realization of what is hoped for and evidence of things not seen.

1John 4:27 Those who keep his commandments remain in him, and he in them, and the way we know that he remains in us is from the Spirit that he gave us.

4:1 Beloved, do not trust every spirit but test the spirits to see whether they belong to God, because many false prophets have gone out into the world. This is how you can know the Spirit of God; every spirit that acknowledges Jesus Christ come in the flesh belongs to God, and every spirit that does not acknowledge Jesus does not belong to God. This spirit is of the antichrist that, as you heard, is to come, but in fact is already in the world… We belong to God, and anyone who knows God listens to us, while anyone who does not belong to God refused to hear us. This is how we know the spirit of truth and the spirit of deceit.

1Corinthians 15:36 You fool!! What you sow is not brought to life unless it dies. 37 And what you sow is not the body that is to be but a bare kernel of wheat, perhaps, or of some other kind; but God gives it a body as he chooses, and to each of the seeds its own body. 39** Not all flesh is the same,** but there is one kind for human beings, another kind of flesh for animals, another kind of flesh for birds, and another for fish. 40 There are both heavenly bodies and earthly bodies, but the brightness of the heavenly is one kind and that of the earthly another.

p.s if you can grasp his mystery from scripture, there is so much more to grow in understanding, revelation and faith, this eucharist can never be exhausted by our intellect, or flesh.

Peace be with you

 

[catholic-rcia]

**No where in scripture is the Spirit to be taken symbolically or metaphorically. **

Thank you Gabriel for your post. I would like to include this scripture:

“having wiped out the handwriting of requirements that was against us, which was contrary to us. And He has taken it out of the way, having nailed it to the cross.”
**Colossians **

One I did not understand as a new Catholic (Eucharist) and the other made me fearful, to expose ones sins is never easy (Catholic). Years later my relationship with Jesus has grown to a fuller understanding of His love for me. Confessing my sins with no longer the need to explain them away brings me to the table of our Lord with empty hands in order to take Him in knowing how much I am truly loved in spite of my fallen nature.

He always says come to me, never away from me. People wonder why we as Catholics have the Crucifix above our Altar. When you have been blessed to know the things we know, only becausae of the Spirit, there is no question as to why we have the Crucifix above our Altar. In order to understand His love, His forgiveness you have to know who put Him upon the Cross. Why we were told by God not to eat from the tree in the middle of the garden. Not to take what was already freely given.
,
Trust me, when you get this you do not want to sin anymore. Sanctification occurs naturally and it’s always God who initiates this miraculous process.
I only know these things because I have been blessed with a willingness to learn my faith, to study the Saints, a willingness to go to Confession, a need for Mass each week, and a strong desire for Eucharist.

quote: "The Franciscan word for this is poverty. The Carmelites call it nothingness; the Buddhists, emptiness. It says, I am naked underneath my clothes.

This experience feels like dying. If you do not have good spiritual wisdom while it’s happening, you will do everything you can to get back up. Yet, transformation is all about going down–into the pain, into the ordinary, into the physical, into the bloody, into the concrete. It’s about descent not ascent, not heightened states of consciousness. In other words, until we can see God where we did not want to see God, the world remains a secular, dualistic world."

After we are transformed, we can look back and see that we were guided through this process by Another who is choosing us, desiring us, and is infinitely wise and compassionate. That means you do not have to figure out all the patterns ahead of time. You do not have to be that smart, that good. You just have to surrender. Good spirituality is not about being good. It is about God being good. When you keep your eyes on the reality of God’s goodness, then God rubs off into you. You start being good almost in spite of yourself, but you do not even care about it anymore. You are not checking whether you are better than the next person. You have got something so much more wonderful to be excited about."
From:
utahmission.com/pages/Why_suffering.html

Rich

 

[ParkerD]

SeveVH,
You didn’t address the issue that those who found Jesus on the other side of the sea got there by boat. I can read John 6 and understand it. It is not a mystery.

If someone starts to teach in metaphors, and says “manna” means “words, doctrines, and bread” and “bread” means “flesh” and then says, “I am going to give you some of my flesh,” then are you going to think “you can’t do that and I’m appalled that you would say that”? If you followed that logic, then you missed the metaphor. It is not some sort of mysterious offer being presented.

So, we differ. We differ in how we view the use of language–metaphors, and how Jesus used them so often in His teaching.

 

[NewSeeker]

These debates about how to properly interpret a few verses are a waste of time, IMO. Simple reliance on the Spirit and your own personal reading is not helpful since everyone reads scripture differently, thinks they have the Spirit on their side, yet arrive at contradictory conclusions. Agreement is not possible given the conflicting traditions behind biblical interpretation. It comes down to which tradition is more credible? Catholics rely on the interpretations provided by Apostolic Tradition. Mormons rely on the interpretations provided through the coordinated church curriculum that comes out of the Church Office Building on N. Temple in Salt Lake City. Since there is zero archeological and anthropological evidence to corroborate the Book of Mormon, many LDS prophets have taught false doctrine (e.g., Adam-God theory, the doctrine that the African priesthood ban was of God), and the papyri behind the Book of Abraham have nothing to do with Abraham but are ordinary Egyptian funerary documents, I conclude that the claims of Joseph Smith, and therefore his successors’ claims, are not credible. This means the teaching authority of the LDS church is not reliable. We need to look elsewhere for an authority to help us understand scripture. Before you go to scripture, you must decide which church is true. The “me, the Spirit, and my Bible” approach only leads to confusion and disagreement. It is not of God. God, in his mercy, sought to prevent such confusion and provided a reliable authority. Protestants, and Mormons which came from them, have rejected that authority.

NS

 

[ParkerD]

…It comes down to which tradition is more credible? Catholics rely on the interpretations provided by Apostolic Tradition. … We need to look elsewhere for an authority to help us understand scripture. Before you go to scripture, you must decide which church is true. … God, in his mercy, sought to prevent such confusion and provided a reliable authority. Protestants, and Mormons which came from them, have rejected that authority.

NS

NS,
I indeed reject any claim to religious authority and spirituality that has the following implausible aspects:

1. A supposed leader says they knew the apostle John and therefore should be believed for every word and tradition that leader follows, when we have the book of Revelation and the epistles of John that show there were many, many people who “knew John” who weren’t following the pure and true doctrines of the gospel and instead had departed from them.
2. A supposed leader says they have more authority than John while John was still a mortal person on the earth, yet John held the “keys to bind on earth and in heaven” and that other leader did not.
3. Supposedly thorough studies of John 6 fail to explain and completely miss that the Savior knew the thoughts of the group of people who had followed Him across the sea to find Him, and those thoughts as told by the Savior were “ye seek me, not because ye saw the miracles, but because ye did eat of the loaves, and were filled.” (6:26)
4. Supposedly thorough studies of the Old Testament by “tradition” fail to grasp the connection that Isaiah 22:22–23 is a prophecy about the Savior and His crucifixion and atonement, yet John is very clear in Revelation 3:7 about the key of David being held by Christ and not by any man.
5. The Savior and the apostles warn time and again about following “tradition” as the primary source for beliefs and practices.
6. The Bible is very clear that Christ is the “living Bread” and the Rock who was rejected by the leaders of the Jews, yet is become the “head of the corner” and will always be the Rock foundation of His gospel. Yet supposedly thorough studies of the Bible developed by “tradition” reject these two prominent metaphors which are so clear to be seen and understood.

 

[catholic-rcia]

NS,
I indeed reject any claim to religious authority and spirituality that has the following implausible aspects:

1. The Savior and the apostles warn time and again about following “tradition” as the primary source for beliefs and practices.

.

*“I commend you because you remember me in everything and maintain the traditions even as I have delivered them to you” (1 Cor. 11:2). *

I will take this one, comment much deeper if one wants me to. What does it have to do with this posting? Everyhting

Catholic answers does a good job here so I will go with it.
catholic.com/library/Scripture_and_Tradition.asp

“Commandments of men” From:
catholic.com/library/Scripture_and_Tradition.asp

Consider Matthew 15:6–9, which Fundamentalists and Evangelicals often use to defend their position: “So by these traditions of yours you have made God’s laws ineffectual. You hypocrites, it was a true prophecy that Isaiah made of you, when he said, ‘This people does me honor with its lips, but its heart is far from me. Their worship is in vain, for the doctrines they teach are the commandments of men.’” Look closely at what Jesus said.

He was not condemning all traditions. He condemned only those that made God’s word void. In this case, it was a matter of the Pharisees feigning the dedication of their goods to the Temple so they could avoid using them to support their aged parents. By doing this, they dodged the commandment to “Honor your father and your mother” (Ex. 20:12).

Elsewhere, Jesus instructed his followers to abide by traditions that are not contrary to God’s commandments. “The scribes and the Pharisees sit on Moses’ seat; so practice and observe whatever they tell you, but not what they do; for they preach, but do not practice” (Matt. 23:2–3).

What Fundamentalists and Evangelicals often do, unfortunately, is see the word “tradition” in Matthew 15:3 or Colossians 2:8 or elsewhere and conclude that anything termed a “tradition” is to be rejected. They forget that the term is used in a different sense, as in 1 Corinthians 11:2 and 2 Thessalonians 2:15, to describe what should be believed. Jesus did not condemn all traditions; he condemned only erroneous traditions, whether doctrines or practices, that undermined Christian truths. The rest, as the apostles taught, were to be obeyed. Paul commanded the Thessalonians to adhere to all the traditions he had given them, whether oral or written.

Paul Confirms This

As to Eucharist:
The Writngs below are found at this link:
catholic.com/library/Christ_in_the_Eucharist.asp

Unanimous Testimony

"Whatever else might be said, the early Church took John 6 literally. In fact, there is no record from the early centuries that implies Christians doubted the constant Catholic interpretation. There exists no document in which the literal interpretation is opposed and only the metaphorical accepted. "

Paul wrote to the Corinthians: “The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not a participation in the blood of Christ? The bread which we break, is it not a participation in the body of Christ?” (1 Cor. 10:16). So when we receive Communion, we actually participate in the body and blood of Christ, not just eat symbols of them. Paul also said, “Therefore whoever eats the bread and drinks the cup of the Lord unworthily will have to answer for the body and blood of the Lord. . . . For any one who eats and drinks without discerning the body, eats and drinks judgment on himself” (1 Cor. 11:27, 29). “To answer for the body and blood” of someone meant to be guilty of a crime as serious as homicide. How could eating mere bread and wine “unworthily” be so serious? Paul’s comment makes sense only if the bread and wine became the real body and blood of Christ.

 

[ParkerD]

…Jesus did not condemn all traditions; he condemned only erroneous traditions, whether doctrines or practices, that undermined Christian truths. The rest, as the apostles taught, were to be obeyed. Paul commanded the Thessalonians to adhere to all the traditions he had given them, whether oral or written.

Paul Confirms This

As to Eucharist:
The Writngs below are found at this link:
catholic.com/library/Christ_in_the_Eucharist.asp

Unanimous Testimony

"Whatever else might be said, the early Church took John 6 literally. In fact, there is no record from the early centuries that implies Christians doubted the constant Catholic interpretation. There exists no document in which the literal interpretation is opposed and only the metaphorical accepted. "

Paul wrote to the Corinthians: “The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not a participation in the blood of Christ? The bread which we break, is it not a participation in the body of Christ?” (1 Cor. 10:16). So when we receive Communion, we actually participate in the body and blood of Christ, not just eat symbols of them. Paul also said, “Therefore whoever eats the bread and drinks the cup of the Lord unworthily will have to answer for the body and blood of the Lord. . . . For any one who eats and drinks without discerning the body, eats and drinks judgment on himself” (1 Cor. 11:27, 29). “To answer for the body and blood” of someone meant to be guilty of a crime as serious as homicide. How could eating mere bread and wine “unworthily” be so serious? Paul’s comment makes sense only if the bread and wine became the real body and blood of Christ.

Catholic-rcia,
I suppose you may be aware that 1 Corinthians 10:16 is translated differently in the KJV in that the words “participation in” become the words “communion of.” One could do a Greek-English transliteration comparison since there are internet sources that do that. This shows how significantly important it is that a very precise translation be used to really try and understand the original intent of an author or a speaker.

As to 1 Cor. 11:27 and 29, I suppose you are aware that the KJV has verses 24 and 25 with the words “this do in remembrance of me.”

I disagree with you final sentence. To partake unworthily is just as meaningful if taken as being done “in remembrance of me” since it is to mock the atoning sacrifice and suffering Jesus took upon Himself.

 

[catholic-rcia]

Catholic-rcia,
I suppose you may be aware that 1 Corinthians 10:16 is translated differently in the KJV in that the words “participation in” become the words “communion of.” One could do a Greek-English transliteration comparison since there are internet sources that do that. This shows how significantly important it is that a very precise translation be used to really try and understand the original intent of an author or a speaker.

As to 1 Cor. 11:27 and 29, I suppose you are aware that the KJV has verses 24 and 25 with the words “this do in remembrance of me.”

I disagree with you final sentence. To partake unworthily is just as meaningful if taken as being done “in remembrance of me” since it is to mock the atoning sacrifice and suffering Jesus took upon Himself.

I have no problem with the passages you are presenting. I know the original intent, I am a Catholic, 30 minutes from receiving Christ in the Eucharist. In communion with the One Body of Christ all around the world.

When I was a child I loved to play dot to dot. You would connect all of the dots after which you could make out the image. You have to place all of the scriptures together to get the proper image of Christ, a living image, the image of the invisible God.

As to the Scripture you present, I am comfortable with it either way. I know where my food comes from, as Jesus is the head of the Body His beloved Church.

"Whatever else might be said, the early Church took John 6 literally. In fact, there is no record from the early centuries that implies Christians doubted the constant Catholic interpretation. There exists no document in which the literal interpretation is opposed and only the metaphorical accepted. "

I live it Parker, I have lived both, tasted both, and that makes all of the difference between you and I at this present time.

When I received as a young child in the Mormon church I received as a child who dresses up like a fireman, a doctor or nurse. It was a very good time because it helped prepare me for the real food from heaven. I have fond memories of those who loved me then.

I am very aware of the real presence in the Holy Communion as I participate in it, in communion of it. I would suggest taking the time to read through all of these postings again along with spending time at Catholic Answers, maybe speaking to a Priest. It took the Apostles themselves 3 years to come to the table of our Lord before and after His gloriuse resurrection. It was at this table that their eyes were opened.

“The man called Jesus made clay and anointed my eyes and told me, ‘Go to Siloam and wash.’ So I went there and washed and was able to see.”

Parker you wrote: I disagree with you final sentence. To partake unworthily is just as meaningful if taken as being done “in remembrance of me” since it is to mock the atoning sacrifice and suffering Jesus took upon Himself.

This would bring us into a discussion of the Sacrament of Confession, why it is so important when combined with Eucharist. As we all say together at Mass "Lord I am not worthy to receive you, but only say the words and I shall be healed. These words are so very important.

I am done here as I do not think anything could be added, its all here… thanks for being here Parker…

Off to Mass
For the love of others in Christ Jesus
Rich