Do Catholics believe John 6:53?

[Todd_Easton]

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?

Perhaps you are concerned about the phrase, “Unless you…” This phrase can be understood two ways: 1) absolutely; 2) generally and normatively. If taken in the absolute sense, there would be no exceptions whatsoever to the statement; if taken in the general and normative sense, there may be exceptional circumstances for which the statement does not apply. Catholics take the statement in John 6:53 in a general and normative sense, allowing for a possible exception to the statement by reason of invincible ignorance in those otherwise disposed for salvation. Justification for an exception by reason of invincible ignorance can be found in Jesus’ words in Luke 12:47-48.

As you are probably aware, Catholics similarly takes Jesus’ statement about the necessity of water baptism for salvation in John 3:5 in a general and normative sense, allowing for a possible exception to the statement by reason of invincible ignorance in those otherwise disposed for salvation.

 

[itsjustdave1988]

… The Catholic Catechism clearly says that some Jews and Muslims, etc will be saved even though they have never had communion.

The Church doesn’t say that Muslims and Jews will be saved. It says there is a means of salvation (i.e., “may achieve salvation”) for those who through no fault of their own, etc. That means is Christ. It may seem like a small distinction, but I think it is an important one. (cf. CCC 847).

Nonetheless, your question really isn’t simply regarding Jews and Muslims, but even Catholics who perhaps die before receiving the Holy Eucharist. In terms of Catholic theology, the questions pertains to the “necessity of means” or "absolute necessity" of receiving Holy Eucharist for salvation. St. Thomas Aquinas taught regarding this many centuries ago. More on this below.

But first, the term “literal” means different things to different people. It can mean a “fundamentalist interpretation” or “literalist” such that excludes every effort at understanding the Bible that takes account of its historical origins and development. “Literal” can also mean “that which has been expressed directly by the inspired human authors.” Since it is the fruit of inspiration, this sense is also intended by God, as principal author. One arrives at this sense by means of a careful analysis of the text, within its literary and historical context. It is the latter meaning of “literal” that is an essential task in interpreting Scripture. This latter sense of “literal” is foundational, but also does not discount other senses of Scripture. For example, the noble Bereans read the Hebrew Scritpure (as the NT was not yet written), not merely literally, but in the light of the oral teaching they recieved from St. Paul. For a better understanding of how the Catholic Church interprets Scripture, see here: Interpretation of the Bible in the Church.

Secondly, a correct epistemology is important. Protestants epistemology relies upon “Sola Scriptura” or “Bible alone,” although the NT Church never held such an epistemology. Because of this, Catholics who seek to discuss the true sense of Scripture with Protestants, if they hope to make a convincing argument, attempt to make their case using Protestant epistemology, even though we believe such epistemology to be unbiblical and erroneous. Because Protestants cling to it, it necessitates using their false epistemology to be able to meet Protestants where they are at in their faith journey.

Likewise, Protestants trying to make an argument with Catholics using uniquely Protestant epistemology of “Bible alone” is absurd, as they have not yet proven why a Catholic should reject the NT epistemology for something uniquely Protestant. If a Protestant seeks to make a cogent and convincing argument with Catholics, they either need to first prove their epistemology is correct or make the argument using Catholic epistemology.

As for the theological question regarding the necessity of receiving the Holy Eucharist in order to attain eternal salvation. The Church teaches thatbaptism or its desire is a “necessity of means,” that is, baptism or its desire is absolutely necessary to attain salvation. Yet, there’s also such a thing called “necessity of precept,” wherein a superior commands of us something that although not absolutely necessary for salvation, to willfully and knowingly neglect or disobey such a command would be a sin. If the command pertains to serious matter, it would be a mortal sin. The Eucharist is necessary in this latter sense. Catholics who neglect the Eucharist sin gravely and risk eternal damnation. Yet, Jews and Muslims (or other non-baptized) do not have a “necessity of precept” to receive Holy Eucharist, as only those sacramentally baptized, in full communion with the Catholic Church, and in a state of grace may lawfully recieve the Eucharist.

As such, Jews and Muslims (or other non-baptized) do not commit a damnable sin by not partaking the Eucharist. They are, however, guilty of grave sin if they with full knowledge and consent of their obligation to be baptized, refused to be baptized.

 

[guanophore]

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…”

Jesus here is speaking to His disciples.

He can save whoever He wants, however He likes. He is giving His disciples a commandment. Those who disobey His commandments are not part of Him.

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?

Do you think that Catholics do not believe that His flesh is “true bread” and His blood “true drink”? We do not believe that Jesus gave his “symbolic” flesh and blood on the cross, but the real.

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.

I agree. This statement was made to His disciples, who have a different standard than those who do not know HIm.

 His word is greater than the word of the Apostles and greater than the word of the RCC.

The Catholic Church is not “Roman”. You are creating a false dichotomy. the word of the Apostles is His word. The Catholic church has preserved that Word. It is from thatWord that your NT was formed.

 

[byzgirl]

The Catholic Church is not “Roman”. You are creating a false dichotomy. the word of the Apostles is His word. The Catholic church has preserved that Word. It is from thatWord that your NT was formed.

That’s right. It’s not “Roman”…or else, we, as Eastern (Byzantine, in my case) Catholics would not be part of the Catholic Church, and we are --We validly share this title with other churches–small ‘c’-- and rites of the Eastern traditions–small ‘t’. That is why it is objectionable, for Protestants, to use the Roman title as a (mostly) derogatory term for ALL Catholics. Byzantine Catholics are NOT Roman Catholics. And yet we are in union with the Papacy of Rome (while still unique in our eastern traditions). Pope John Paul II referred to the Eastern Catholic churches as “the other lung of the Church”. The Church is universal, but in a tangible and real sense that identifies Her from other faith communities that are not Catholic. This has been the way, Christ intended, since it’s conception at Pentecost.

 

[PJM]

=BereanRuss;5036072]Amen, amen, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you do not have life within you. [John 6:53]

Often when speaking with protestants, Catholics will quote this verse in an attempt prove to their separated brethren that there is something lacking within protestantism. In response protestants often try to say that Jesus was not speaking literally but was speaking figuratively. They attempt to prove this by quoting Jesus when He later in the same chapter says, “It is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh profits nothing. The words that I speak to you are spirit, and they are life.” Catholics then often respond by insisting that Jesus was indeed speaking literally.

My question is, do Catholics truly believe the words of Jesus in John 6:53?

We’d better or just throw the bible out “with the bath water!”

I really like the way you answered the question, but before I respond to it specifically, allow me please to share the following.

John 6: 54 he who eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day. 55 For my flesh is food indeed, and my blood is drink indeed. 56 He who eats my flesh and drinks my blood abides in me, and I in him.*

So Christ is saying exactly what?

1 Cor. 11: 23 For I received from the Lord what I also delivered to you, that the Lord Jesus on the night when he was betrayed took bread, 24 and when he had given thanks, he broke it, and said, “This is my body which is for you. Do this in remembrance of me.” 25 In the same way also the cup, after supper, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in my blood. Do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of me.” 26 For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death until he comes.

Luke 22: 14 And when the hour came, he sat at table, and the apostles with him. 15 And he said to them, “I have earnestly desired to eat this passover with you before I suffer; 16 for I tell you I shall not eat it * until it is fulfilled in the kingdom of God.” 17And he took a cup, and when he had given thanks he said, “Take this, and divide it among yourselves; 18 for I tell you that from now on I shall not drink of the fruit of the vine until the kingdom of God comes.” 19 And he took bread, and when he had given thanks he broke it and gave it to them, saying, “This is my body which is given for you. Do this in remembrance of me.” 20 And likewise the cup after supper, saying, "This cup which is poured out for you is the new covenant in my blood.

Mt.26:
26 Now as they were eating, Jesus took bread, and blessed, and broke it, and gave it to the disciples and said, “Take, eat; this is my body.” 27 And he took a cup, and when he had given thanks he gave it to them, saying, "Drink of it, all of you; 28 for this is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins.

Mk.14: 22 And as they were eating, he took bread, and blessed, and broke it, and gave it to them, and said, “Take; this is my body.” 23 And he took a cup, and when he had given thanks he gave it to them, and they all drank of it. 24 And he said to them, "This is my blood of the covenant, * which is poured out for many.

So friends now we have five testimonies saying the same thing. Four of the five were eye witness accounts.

Of course Cathoics (if they are informed and practcising) believe this truth. God is capable of anything Good, being present to us, REALLY PRESENT to us is the GREATEST Good. How dare we, how dare we NOT take God at His very Words:bigyikes::whacky:

John 6: "60 Many of his disciples, when they heard it, said, “This is a hard saying; who can listen to it?”(NOTE… many left Jesus, BUT Jesus did not call them back, saying, gosh folks you didn’t think I meant my real fleash and blood did you?!.. see verse 66 below, for what actually took place) …61 But Jesus, knowing in himself that his disciples murmured at it, said to them, "Do you take offense at this? 62 Then what if you were to see the Son of man ascending where he was before? 63 It is the spirit that gives life, the flesh is of no avail; the words that I have spoken to you are spirit and life. 64 But there are some of you that do not believe." For Jesus knew from the first who those were that did not believe, and who it was that would betray him.**

John 6:**
66 After this many of his disciples drew back and no longer went about with him. 67 Jesus said to the twelve, “Do you also wish to go away?” 68 Simon Peter answered him, “Lord, to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life; 69 and we have believed, and have come to know, that you are the Holy One of God.**”

So what was Jesus speaking about in verse 63?

First Jesus was reminding us that He is “The way, the truth and the light.”(Jn.14:5).

Of what essence is God? God is of “Spiritual Essence” Jn.6: 63 "It is the spirit that gives life, the flesh is of no avail; the words that I have spoken to you are spirit and life.

What most non-Catholics fail to comprehend are the Roles of God in Catholic Holy Communion and the role of the Priest.

John 4: "24 God is spirit, and those who worship him must worship in spirit and truth."

Catholic holy Communion is:

A Gift from God (His Son)

By God (Jesus)

Offered to God, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.

It is literally God Himself, making Himself Present in Catholic Holy Communion, by preforming not One, BUT TWO seperate but unable to seperated Miracles at the same time.

Catholic Priest in following the MANDATE of Christ to do so: “Do this in Memory of Me” are miracalously transformed into “the very person of Christ” at the instant of the Transubstantiation (another Christ), but it is God who transforms the Priest and the bread and wine. It is abviously the Will of an unlimited, all-powerfull God to do so.

I hope this answers what and why we believe, what God Himself tells us is true?

Love and prayers

 

[banjo]

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…”

Along the lines of what Dave posted is the following quote from The Faith of the Early Fathers; Vol. 3; pg. 15, fn. 31…”Saint Thomas notes that the Eucharist is absolutely necessary for salvation. If a man has never received the Eucharist, he cannot be saved. But Thomas adds these distinctions: that if one is dying and has never received the Eucharist, his positive desire for it will suffice (the precise parallel of Baptism of desire); or in the case of infants or ignorant savages the desire on their behalf on the part of the Church herself will suffice.”

 

[melinda_s]

Amen, amen, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you do not have life within you. [John 6:53]

Often when speaking with protestants, Catholics will quote this verse in an attempt prove to their separated brethren that there is something lacking within protestantism. In response protestants often try to say that Jesus was not speaking literally but was speaking figuratively. They attempt to prove this by quoting Jesus when He later in the same chapter says, “It is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh profits nothing. The words that I speak to you are spirit, and they are life.” Catholics then often respond by insisting that Jesus was indeed speaking literally.

My question is, do Catholics truly believe the words of Jesus in John 6:53?

Yes we do truly believe it for myself it is one of the reasons i converted to do as Jesus comanded

 

[PJM]

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

Actually there are 22 brances of the Catholic Church where one if informed, not in Mortal sin, and believing may indeed and actually receive the Glorified Body, Bood, Soul and Divinity, of Jesus The Christ!

 

[PJM]

=BereanRuss;5036959]The Jew comes through Moses and the Muslim comes through Mohammad.

Neither of these groups are “Christian.”!

So are you saying that Jesus Christ is only a prophet? Because that is what these groups teach.

Love and prayers,

 

[BereanRuss]

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

Marduk,

Thanks for the comment. Here is a fourth possibility that you have overlooked:

4.) Jesus was speaking figuratively as He explains later in the same passage says, “The flesh profits nothing. The words that I speak are spirit and they are life.”

In fact, if Jesus is not speaking figuratively in John 6:53, then Jesus is a liar. For example, Jesus says:

I am the door. If anyone enters by Me, he will be saved, and will go in and out and find pasture. [John 10:9]

Then He says, “Amen, amen, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you do not have life within you.” [John 6:53]

If Jesus is not speaking figuratively in John 6:53 then he is contradicting Himself for many have entered the door of salvation through Jesus who have never taken communion in the RCC.

It is impossible for God to lie. If your theology results in Jesus being a liar, it is time to change your theology.

 

[BereanRuss]

So your question is a bait and switch. What you really want to ‘prove’ is that Catholics aren’t being honest…

I am showing that the RCC’s theology is not reconcilable with the Bible. It is not bait and switch. I am reasoning the scriptures.

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?

Jesus never warned against drinking his blood and eating His Flesh unworthily however Paul did warn against this:

Therefore whoever eats this bread or drinks this cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord. But let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of the bread and drink of the cup. [1 Cor 11:27, 28]

Notice first that Paul twice calls communion the, “bread and cup”. He does not call it the “flesh” or the “body” and the “cup”. He clearly indicates that as we take communion, it is still “bread”.

So, we must examine ourselves before we partake of the bread and the cup. If we are living in blatant sin (as some in Corinth were), then we are partaking of communion unworthily.

 

[BereanRuss]

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

What if the church is teaching false doctrine as was the case of the church in Thyatira?

I have a few things against you, because you allow that woman Jezebel, who calls herself a prophetess, to teach and seduce My servants to commit sexual immorality and eat things sacrificed to idols… Indeed I will cast her into a sickbed, and those who commit adultery with her into great tribulation, unless they repent of their deeds. [Rev 2:20, 22]

Notice that those who obeyed the church were cast into tribulation but those who recognized that the church was wrong and did not partake of the error in the church were not punished by the Lord.

In other words, Jesus holds us individually responsible to know the truth and to, “test all things, hold fast to that which is true.”

 

[BereanRuss]

Likewise, Protestants trying to make an argument with Catholics using uniquely Protestant epistemology of “Bible alone” is absurd, as they have not yet proven why a Catholic should reject the NT epistemology for something uniquely Protestant. If a Protestant seeks to make a cogent and convincing argument with Catholics, they either need to first prove their epistemology is correct or make the argument using Catholic epistemology.

Again, I think we are ignoring the obvious. If we cannot take Jesus at His word when He says, “Amen, amen…” then we will never take Him at His word.

 

[BereanRuss]

This statement was made to His disciples, who have a different standard than those who do not know HIm.

Not true. This statement was made to believers and non-believers alike. Those who left did not partake of His body and do not have life according to Jesus.

 

[BereanRuss]

Along the lines of what Dave posted is the following quote from The Faith of the Early Fathers; Vol. 3; pg. 15, fn. 31…”Saint Thomas notes that the Eucharist is absolutely necessary for salvation. If a man has never received the Eucharist, he cannot be saved. But Thomas adds these distinctions: that if one is dying and has never received the Eucharist, his positive desire for it will suffice (the precise parallel of Baptism of desire); or in the case of infants or ignorant savages the desire on their behalf on the part of the Church herself will suffice.”

Thanks for the comment however, Jews and Muslims and others never have the desire. How are they saved apart from the Eucharist?

 

[mardukm]

Marduk,

Thanks for the comment. Here is a fourth possibility that you have overlooked:

4.) Jesus was speaking figuratively as He explains later in the same passage says, “The flesh profits nothing. The words that I speak are spirit and they are life.”

In fact, if Jesus is not speaking figuratively in John 6:53, then Jesus is a liar. For example, Jesus says:

I am the door. If anyone enters by Me, he will be saved, and will go in and out and find pasture. [John 10:9]

Then He says, “Amen, amen, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you do not have life within you.” [John 6:53]

If Jesus is not speaking figuratively in John 6:53 then he is contradicting Himself for many have entered the door of salvation through Jesus who have never taken communion in the RCC.

It is impossible for God to lie. If your theology results in Jesus being a liar, it is time to change your theology.

Your fourth possibility is not a possibility at all.

First of all, what about the words “truly, truly” indicates to you that he is saying something other than what he is TRULY saying. Did he say, “TRULY, TRULY, I am a door”?

Second, what makes you think that “the flesh that profits nothing” is the same thing as “the flesh of the Son of Man”? Please provide your biblical reasons. Are you saying that your body and blood is the same thing as Jesus’ glorified body and blood? Can your body and blood pass through solid objects? Can your body and blood appear in many places at once? Can your body and blood defy the laws of gravity? Can your body and blood give life to the world?

You said “if Jesus is not speaking figuratively, then he is contradicting himself.” I propose to you that the error in thinking lies in the unbiblical and illogical assumption of assigning an identical equality between “the flesh that profits nothing” and “HIS flesh that gives life.”

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[allhers]

Amen, amen, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you do not have life within you. [John 6:53]

Often when speaking with protestants, Catholics will quote this verse in an attempt prove to their separated brethren that there is something lacking within protestantism. In response protestants often try to say that Jesus was not speaking literally but was speaking figuratively. They attempt to prove this by quoting Jesus when He later in the same chapter says, “It is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh profits nothing. The words that I speak to you are spirit, and they are life.” Catholics then often respond by insisting that Jesus was indeed speaking literally.

My question is, do Catholics truly believe the words of Jesus in John 6:53?

Yes, I believe Jesus and just read through this whole thread and quite honestly you sound throughly confused. Do you even read what people post to you before you reply?
Go back and read post # 34 and # 35, they posted right before you posted a few hours later and I’m still wondering if you read those posts before you started back in with your theory.

 

[NotWorthy]

Marduk,

Thanks for the comment. Here is a fourth possibility that you have overlooked:

4.) Jesus was speaking figuratively as He explains later in the same passage says, “The flesh profits nothing. The words that I speak are spirit and they are life.”

In fact, if Jesus is not speaking figuratively in John 6:53, then Jesus is a liar. For example, Jesus says:

I am the door. If anyone enters by Me, he will be saved, and will go in and out and find pasture. [John 10:9]

Then He says, “Amen, amen, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you do not have life within you.” [John 6:53]

If Jesus is not speaking figuratively in John 6:53 then he is contradicting Himself for many have entered the door of salvation through Jesus who have never taken communion in the RCC.

It is impossible for God to lie. If your theology results in Jesus being a liar, it is time to change your theology.

Nice try. Jesus is no more a liar there than when he says, “Unless one is born of water and spirit, he has no life in him”. The good thief proved that this is not a “must-check” where he is concerned.

As we posted before, Jesus teaches us the normative means of Salvation, but he is not bound by these limitations.

I think though, that Catholics are bound to the Eucharistic, for we are taught that it is necessary. Someone like you, can claim ignorance… hopefully!

 

[byzgirl]

I am showing that the RCC’s theology is not reconcilable with the Bible. It is not bait and switch. I am reasoning the scriptures.

Jesus never warned against drinking his blood and eating His Flesh unworthily however Paul did warn against this:

Therefore whoever eats this bread or drinks this cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord. But let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of the bread and drink of the cup. [1 Cor 11:27, 28]

Notice first that Paul twice calls communion the, “bread and cup”. He does not call it the “flesh” or the “body” and the “cup”. He clearly indicates that as we take communion, it is still “bread”.

So, we must examine ourselves before we partake of the bread and the cup. If we are living in blatant sin (as some in Corinth were), then we are partaking of communion unworthily.

If living in blatant sin (mortal) we Catholics would be receiving communion unworthily and are guilty. But you are stating that the sin, itself, is the focus of these verses. What ‘communion’ are we partaking of, that we can be unworthy OF? It’s our sin that makes us unworthy–but more, it is our denial of the truth of Jesus’ Eucharistic Presence (making it Bread and Wine no more). It was the denial of a profound and miraculous, eternal (timeless) offering of Jesus Himself…not just bread, or else it certainly wouldn’t have any impact of such a serious threat and wouldn’t make sense as a ‘warning’! Who warns against unworthily partaking in the eating of bread (which merely symbolizes Jesus, but isn’t)?? Paul says we would be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord! That’s a fairly serious claim. How serious is plain ol’ bread!? What sort of threat would that be? Everyone listening would have scoffed at that, just as Protestants scoff at the reality of the Eucharist, as real presence. Jesus called the broken and blessed bread and wine REAL FOOD AND *REAL *DRINK. Doesn’t sound much like symbolism to me. And, apparently, many of his disciples didn’t think it sounded like mere ‘symbolism’ either…and walked out on Him, to follow Him no more. I think I’d like to remain counted among those who stayed, regardless of how unbelievable, what he had to say, seemed.

 

[NotWorthy]

I heard someone bring up something regarding Jesus offering up just wine and bread.

We know that Melchizedek offered up wine and bread. Melchizedek (“Mel” for short) is a type of Jesus, right? Well, then, if Mel is a type of Jesus and he offered up bread and wine, then Jesus couldn’t have offered up “just bread and wine”. That shtick had already been done before. In typology, the Arch-Type must be greater and more perfect!

Hence, Jesus offered up much, MUCH more than just bread and wine at the Last Supper!