Do Catholics believe John 6:53?

[pismopal]

I have a better question…why wouldn’t you believe the words of Christ?

 

[Malachi4U]

The Romans called the early “Christians” cannibals before we even had a Bible. The fact that the first Christians believed they were eating His flesh should rest this case! Just study the Church Fathers and see what they believed. Now go through time and see when other churches stopped believing this and why.

 

[Todd_Easton]

If the only place to receive His flesh and blood are in those two churches, how then are some Muslims and Jews and protestants and even heathens ever saved apart from the RCC?

In Luke 12:47-48, Jesus says:
47And that servant who knew his master’s will, but did not make ready or act according to his will, shall receive a severe beating. 48But he who did not know, and did what deserved a beating, shall receive a light beating. Every one to whom much is given, of him will much be required; and of him to whom men commit much they will demand the more.
Though we know by John 6:53 that it is God’s will that we worthily receive the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ in the Eucharist, we also know that God is just and will not hold it against those Muslims, Jews, Protestant, and even heathens, who, through no fault of their own, do not know His will in this matter or who do not have the opportunity to fulfill it; since little is given to them, little will be required of them.

 

[guanophore]

Thanks for your comment. So then the Eucharist within the Orthodox Church is another source of obtaining the real transubstantiated presence of Jesus and thus fulfill Jesus’ command in John 6:53? Are there any other sources where are person can obtain Jesus’ read presence in a way that fulfills Jesus’ words in John 6:53?

“Transubstatiation” is a Latin understanding of the mystery not shared by the Eastern Catholic and Orthodox communion.

There are no other sources that I know of than these. It seems that you have something on your mind…

 

[guanophore]

The reason I bring this up is because Catholics often accuse me of not obeying Jesus’ command. They say I have faith without works. I try to point out that I believe in good works like love, compassion, forgiveness, helping the poor, etc but they insist that I must take John 6:53 literally that is why Jesus said, “Amen, amen…”

It is not right for anyone to “accuse” you. However, it may be rightly observed that you do not fulfill this command. I would not say it is a failure of charitable acts,however, but a failure to follow His commandments. He said, if we love Him, we will keep His commandments.

But then I try to lovingly point out to them that Catholics do not take this verse literally either.

Jesus says that, “unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you do not have life within you.” And the RCC says that the only place to receive His actual body and blood is in the Eucharist within the RCC or OC.

If the only place to receive His flesh and blood are in those two churches, how then are some Muslims and Jews and protestants and even heathens ever saved apart from the RCC?

The Catholic Church is not “Roman”. Jesus can save whoever He wants, however He likes. He is not bound by the commandment, WE are. He gave this instruction to His disciples, and as His disciples, we follow it.

It seems to me to be a big risk to ignore His commandments, or arbitrarily decide “oh, that does not apply to me”.

 

[BereanRuss]

…we also know that God is just and will not hold it against those Muslims, Jews, Protestant, and even heathens, who, through no fault of their own, do not know His will in this matter or who do not have the opportunity to fulfill

I think my point is fairly simple. If Catholics do not take Jesus’ words in literally, why would you fault protestants for doing the same?

 

[BereanRuss]

“No one comes to the Father except through me”. It seems the Catholic Church is no less particular than Jesus.

The Jew comes through Moses and the Muslim comes through Mohammad.

 

[guanophore]

I think my point is fairly simple. If Catholics do not take Jesus’ words in literally, why would you fault protestants for doing the same?

It is a good question. However, I think we have a difference of understanding about “literal”. When we take it literally, we understand that he meant what he said.

Many Protestants take a “literalist” approach to interpreting, which means He meant what they think he said, or if it cannot be understood in a literalist manner (cannibalism) then it must mean something other than what it plainly says (symbolic).

We interpret it according to what the Apostles believed and taught.

 

[guanophore]

The Jew comes through Moses and the Muslim comes through Mohammad.

Indeed, but they both come from Abraham, as to Christians.

 

[NotWorthy]

The Jew comes through Moses and the Muslim comes through Mohammad.

I’m not aware of where Scripture says this. Can you enlighten me? It sort of makes Jesus’ ultimate Sacrifice sort of… well, unnecessary.

 

[NotWorthy]

I think my point is fairly simple. If Catholics do not take Jesus’ words in literally, why would you fault protestants for doing the same?

Who said that Catholics do not take it literally. The Church teaches that those Catholics who don’t take it literally, are in error.

 

[BereanRuss]

Who said that Catholics do not take it literally. The Church teaches that those Catholics who don’t take it literally, are in error.

If the RCC took Jesus’ word literally then it would be impossible for protestants, Jews and Muslims to ever be saved because Jews, Muslims, etc do not eat the flesh or drink the blood of Jesus made available only through the work of the RCC priest. The Catholic Catechism clearly says that some Jews and Muslims, etc will be saved even though they have never had communion. In short the RCC does not take these words of Jesus literally even though Jesus said, “Amen, amen I say to you…”

 

[BereanRuss]

It is a good question. However, I think we have a difference of understanding about “literal”. When we take it literally, we understand that he meant what he said.

Many Protestants take a “literalist” approach to interpreting, which means He meant what they think he said, or if it cannot be understood in a literalist manner (cannibalism) then it must mean something other than what it plainly says (symbolic).

We interpret it according to what the Apostles believed and taught.

How many times does Jesus need to say, “Amen, amen…” before you will believe His word. If He would have said amen seven times, would you believe Him then?

It is impossible for God to lie. If Jesus says that those who do not eat His body nor drink His blood do not have life - then they do not have life. His word is greater than the word of the Apostles and greater than the word of the RCC.

 

[juniorapologist]

BereanRuss,

I think it may be noteworthy to mention here that it is only by the blood of Christ that we are saved. I’m sure that the protestant population would agree on this issue. The Catechism of the Catholic Church does indeed say that there are those that can and will be saved that are not Catholic. It would certainly come down to an issue of the heart. We cannot judge who will be saved and who will not be saved on the last day.

So as far as the Muslim or Buddhist go, this does not mean that they are not saved by the blood of Jesus. All salvation is because of the blood of Jesus. Because God decides to appropriate his means of salvation to a Muslim, a Jew or a Jehovah’s witness in some other way than the ordinary means because of their ignorance it does not negate the fact that it is still only by the blood.

So, as one poster said, the Eucharist is the ordinary means of grace for ‘Joe Catholic’. It must also be understood that the Eucharist is the Body and Blood of the Lord, not because I believe it, but because it just is. Truth is truth no matter what I think. It doesn’t become the Body and Blood of our Lord just because I believe it. It doesn’t depend on **my **belief. That is the nature of a Sacrament. One poster said that there are many Protestants who believe it to be the body and blood of the Lord. Good. But that doesn’t make it the Eucharist for them just because they believe it. In other words, the change that takes place to the bread and wine is not dependent upon me. You need an ordained priest to confect the Eucharist. You need Apostolic Succession. You need valid Holy Orders. I myself can’t just wave my hands over the Bread and Wine and BOOM I suddenly have Jesus. It’s not magic.

Hope this helps.
J.A.

 

[MarcoPolo]

If the RCC took Jesus’ word literally then it would be impossible for protestants, Jews and Muslims to ever be saved because Jews, Muslims, etc do not eat the flesh or drink the blood of Jesus made available only through the work of the RCC priest. The Catholic Catechism clearly says that some Jews and Muslims, etc will be saved even though they have never had communion. In short the RCC does not take these words of Jesus literally even though Jesus said, “Amen, amen I say to you…”

In your response to Todd, who correctly pointed out that genuine ignorance of Christ’s command can result in God applying extenuating grace onto that person, effecting the grace of the sacrament. This does not mean Catholics don’t take the passage literally. One cannot make the mistake of thinking that if an aborigine can receive the sacrament by extenuating means, that therefore the Catholic Church doesn’t take John 6:53 literally.

Catholics also take literally that one must be baptized in order to be saved, by way of water and Spirit. However, the Church also teaches that in extenuating circumstances, a person can receive the grace of the sacrament by extenuating means, if God so chooses to apply His grace unto that person. It does not make the sacrament any less necessary if God chooses to grant the grace of baptism to an invincibly ignorant Muslim who is seeking divine truth to the best of his abilities.

All of the faith, not just John 6:53 should be held by anyone whom has received it. However, God’s providence is not confined to the formula if He so chooses (not us), nor does He play games of “gotcha” to the invincibly ignorant.

 

[mardukm]

How many times does Jesus need to say, “Amen, amen…” before you will believe His word. If He would have said amen seven times, would you believe Him then?

It is impossible for God to lie. If Jesus says that those who do not eat His body nor drink His blood do not have life - then they do not have life. His word is greater than the word of the Apostles and greater than the word of the RCC.

And yet Jesus Himself promised the thief on the cross salvation.There are only three possibilities of interpretation - 1) Jesus lied when he exclaimed “truly, truly.”; 2) Jesus lied to the thief on the Cross; 3) Jesus told the truth in both instances and the explanation lies with the one the Catholic Church has given.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[NotWorthy]

If the RCC took Jesus’ word literally then it would be impossible for protestants, Jews and Muslims to ever be saved because Jews, Muslims, etc do not eat the flesh or drink the blood of Jesus made available only through the work of the RCC priest. The Catholic Catechism clearly says that some Jews and Muslims, etc will be saved even though they have never had communion. In short the RCC does not take these words of Jesus literally even though Jesus said, “Amen, amen I say to you…”

The Catholic Church teaches the normative means of getting into heaven.

She also teaches that Jesus is not bound by these rules and can save anyone He wants. The Church does not know that Jews and Muslims go to hell. A little closer study of what the Church teaches will help you understand this.

 

[byzgirl]

Good point. The reason I bring this up is because Catholics often accuse me of not obeying Jesus’ command. They say I have faith without works. I try to point out that I believe in good works like love, compassion, forgiveness, helping the poor, etc but they insist that I must take John 6:53 literally that is why Jesus said, “Amen, amen…”

But then I try to lovingly point out to them that Catholics do not take this verse literally either.

Jesus says that, “unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you do not have life within you.” And the RCC says that the only place to receive His actual body and blood is in the Eucharist within the RCC or OC.

If the only place to receive His flesh and blood are in those two churches, how then are some Muslims and Jews and protestants and even heathens ever saved apart from the RCC?

So your question is a bait and switch. What you really want to ‘prove’ is that Catholics aren’t being honest…that, while we hold to literal belief in the Eucharist as a saving Sacrament instituted by Christ and His Church…we are ‘condemning’ others (as unsaved) by our belief.

What you really want to discuss, it would seem, is ‘salvation outside the Church’ and using the Eucharist as an approach. to prove a contradiction.

That’s what I’m getting from the flow of your posts. Am I wrong?

First of all, when Christ speaks of Spirit, He doesn’t mean ‘unreal’. Catholics hold an incarnational view of theology.

Christ is referring to the flesh in terms of human, sinful flesh and not HIS own raised Flesh (capital F).

If Christ were speaking figuratively, why did his apostles leave him?

If Christ were speaking symbolically, why did he warn against 'drinking his blood and eating His Flesh unworthily? How would one do that? What does it mean to do so? Who would be doing so? What is its significance if ‘only symbolic’? Why such a threatening warning?

 

[byzgirl]

"How does one receive salvation, justification, new birth, and eternal life?

By believing in Christ (Jn 3:16; Acts 16:31)?

By repentance (Acts 2:38; 2 Pet 3:9)?

By baptism (Jn 3:5; 1 Pet 3:21; Titus 3:5)?

By the work of the Spirit (Jn 3:5; 2 Cor 3:6)?

By declaring with our mouths (Lk 12:8; Rom 10:9)?

By coming to a knowledge of the truth (1 Tim 2:4; Heb 10:26)?

By works (Rom 2:6-7; James 2:24)?

By grace (Acts 15:11; Eph 2:8)?

By his blood (Rom 5:9; Heb 9:22)?

By his righteousness (Rom 5:17; 2 Pet 1:1)?

By his Cross (Eph 2:16; Col 2:14)?

Can we cut any one of these out of the list and proclaim it alone as the means of salvation? Can we be saved without faith? Without God’s grace? Without repentance? Without baptism? Without the Spirit?

The Answer:

These are all involved and necessary; not one of them can be dismissed as a means of obtaining eternal life. Neither can one be emphasized to the exclusion of another. They are all involved in salvation and entry into the Church. The Catholic Church does not divide these various elements of salvation up; overemphasizing some while ignoring others; rather, she holds them all in their fullness."

–Stephen Ray (convert from Evangelical Christianity)

 

[byzgirl]

Catholics do not ‘condemn’ Protestants (or any living person, Christian or non-Christian) to hell. That is God’s dominion alone. The Catholic Church is the Church that Christ established, and, in varying degrees, all His Children are part of that Body. But, the closest you can get, on this earth, to the heavenly kingdom, in the fullness of faith, is within the Catholic Church which He instituted at Pentecost. The fullness of the faith subsists within the Catholic Church…and therefore, it is ‘best’ to be joined to Her (Catholic)–‘better’ to be in schism from her (Orthodox); ‘good’ to be tied to Her (through fundamental Christian theology/doctrine), etc.

It is ‘bad’, however, to be 'agains’t her (anti-Catholic). For to be against the Catholic Church is to be against Christ.

"Jesus and the Church are one and the same. When Saul was on his way to Damascus to continue his persecution of Christ’s Church a blinding bright light appeared from heaven, Saul fell to the ground, and he heard a voice from heaven saying, "Saul, Saul, why do you persecute me?“Acts 9:4 Who was Saul persecuting? The Church.Who did the Lord accuse Saul of persecuting? Himself (“Me”). We can’t like Jesus and hate the church. It’s a false dichotomy (Jesus on one side-His Church on the other).”