Do Catholics believe John 6:53?

[byzgirl]

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.”

"There are *many problems *with this interpretation of the first three chapters of the Apocalypse. First, it is a very modern one with no basis in the book itself. **Nowhere does the inspired text indicate that these seven churches represent seven future periods of Church history. Anti-Catholics often accuse us of twisting and adding to Scripture, yet they do the same themselves quite freely when it suits them. **

Second, this is a rather arbitrary division of Church history, carfully tailored (fabricated?) to “fit” a private interpretation of these chapters. Church history could be divided many other ways, taking into account many more elements and movements than the limited ones presented here.

Third, it is *based on the common Evangelical belief that we live in the last days *(since the last church, Laodicea, supposedly signifies our own era). This is questionable. We have no idea exactly when Our Lord will return; God did not reveal it to us because it is not for us to know (Matthew 24:36; Acts 1:7)! But we do know that Christians in every age since the time of Christ have thought their era to be end times, and they were obviously wrong. So how can modern Evangelicals be so sure they are right?

Fourth, notice how, from the “Sardis era” on, this alleged prophetic “history” of Christianity simply drops Catholicism! **This reveals a strong anti-Catholic bias; once the Reformation occurs, Catholicism is out of the picture, as though it ceased to be Christian or to have any role in Church history from then on! This is simply not true theologically **or historically (what about the Catholic “Counter”-Reformation? the Oxford Movement? etc.).

Fifth, Christ’s statement that the false prophetess Jezebel told people to “practice immorality and to eat food sacrificed to idols” is said to signify the introduction of pagan practices into Christianity, a charge many Evangelicals bring against the Catholic Church.

No, the Church in Thyatira does not represent an i**magined **“apostate” medieval Catholicism. In fact, all seven churches of Asia Minor were Catholic churches, since she was the only Church in existence at the time!

 

[byzgirl]

"Corresponding to Christ’s sacrifice, the paschal lamb once sacrificed and whose blood the Lord saw upon the doorpost was fully valid and allowed the firstborn to escape death. However, all those invited to partake were expected by God to eat the lamb as a sign of complete commitment and obedience - the fullest participation in the ritual that would save the Israelites. Indeed, they were told to do so with a sense of urgency in anticipation of liberation (Ex 12:11). To not entirely carry through with this procedure would have been unwise, to say the least. To have plainly ignored the edict would probably have involved grave consequences.

An important relationship exists between the seder meal of the Last Supper and the actual paschal sacrifice.

In Mark 14:22-25 -

“And whilst they were eating, Jesus took bread; and blessing, broke and gave to them and said: Take ye. This is my body. And having taken the chalice, giving thanks, he gave it to them. And they all drank of it. And he said to them: This is my blood of the new testament, which shall be shed for many. Amen I say to you that I will drink no more of the fruit of the vine until that day when I shall drink it new in the kingdom of God.”

Then in Mark 15:34-37, at the crucifixion -

“And at the ninth hour, Jesus cried out with a loud voice, saying: Eloi, Eloi, lamma sabacthani? Which is, being interpreted: My God, My God, Why hast thou forsaken me? And some of the standers by hearing, said: Behold he calleth Elias (Elijah). And one running and filling a sponge with vinegar and putting it upon a reed, gave him to drink, saying: Stay, let us see if Elias come to take him down. And Jesus, having cried out with a loud voice, gave up the ghost.”

 

[byzgirl]

In John 19:28-30 it reads -

“Afterwards, Jesus knowing that all things were now accomplished, that the scripture might be fulfilled, said: I thirst. Now there was a vessel set there, full of vinegar. And they, putting a sponge full of vinegar about hyssop, put it to his mouth. Jesus therefore, when he had taken the vinegar, said: It is consummated. And bowing his head, he gave up the ghost.”

Now, at the seder meal, the matzah (unleavened bread) is not eaten until before the blessing and drinking of the third cup of wine (out of four cups used). So the cup that Jesus raised after the breaking of the bread was the third cup. The fourth cup is then poured and drunk at the close of the pasch, after a benediction.

The four cups each have their own symbolic meanings at the pasch. The third cup represents liberation and redemption, which was achieved in Christ’s voluntary sacrifice. The fourth cup represents God’s final acceptance of His people - accomplished with the admission of souls into heaven and foretold in Mark 14:25.

Jesus refused to drink this fourth cup at the Last Supper, but he fulfilled Messianic prophecy by taking the sour wine while on the cross, and then saying with his last breath, “It is finished.” In fact, the branch used to hold the sponge was hyssop - the same type of branch used to sprinkle the blood on the Israelites’ doorposts at the original Passover (Ex 12:22).

Jesus was the literal equivalent of the paschal lamb - unblemished (Ex 12:5, 1 Peter 2:22). The paschal lamb could not have its bones broken (Ex 12:46), and likewise Jesus’ bones were not broken (John 19:33). Even the tradition that Elijah would herald the Messiah at Passover was realized in the prophetic ministry of John the Baptist (Mark 9:13, Matthew 11:10), establishing the life of Jesus Christ as that of the sacrificial Lamb.

Following paschal prescription, our remaining duties are to eat the Lamb, who is the bread of life (John 6:48), and to be prepared to serve Him at all times!

John 6:25-67 is also instrumental in pointing out Jesus’ very literal meaning concerning the eating and drinking of his own body and blood. Repeatedly Jesus stresses that his “flesh is meat indeed” and his “blood is drink indeed” (v. 56) in order to dispel the Jews’ skepticism (v. 53, 61).

Don’t be troubled by the apparent implications of John 6:64 –

“It is the spirit that quickeneth: the flesh profiteth nothing. The words that I have spoken to you are spirit and life.”

Jesus speaks these words in the same context as he did in John 3:6, while describing baptism to Nicodemus -

“That which is born of the flesh is flesh: and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.”

He is simply distinguishing between the supernatural and the natural to his disciples in chapter 6, just as he was doing for a perplexed Nicodemus in chapter 3. Indeed, there can be no misinterpretation, as he clearly credits the revelation of supernatural “spirit” to the work of the Holy Spirit (see also 1 Cor 2:11-13). Such higher understanding transcends perception dominated purely by natural existence or the reasoning of the human mind (1 Cor 2:14, 3:1-3 & 15:44-46). However, the tangible Eucharist is a mystery of benefit to the supranature of the soul. Jesus is telling his disciples not to think only in terms of the human psyche, but to embrace his message of “spirit and life.” The Eucharist is true, nonfigurative food that provides spiritual nourishment (John 6:27, 35, 50, 55-59).

The Apostle Paul certainly took participation in the body and blood of Christ in the same literal sense, as seen in 1 Corinthians 10:16-18 -

“The chalice of benediction which we bless, is it not the communion of the blood of Christ? And the bread which we break, is it not the partaking of the body of the Lord? For we, being many, are one bread, one body: all that partake of one bread. Behold Israel according to the flesh. Are not they that eat of the sacrifices partakers of the altar?”

Here, Paul emphasizes the importance of eating the sacrifice, and clarifies that it is a participation in Christ’s one eternal sacrifice - not a re-sacrifice (see Ex 12:26-27 & 1 Cor 11:26). He then expounds upon his Eucharistic message in 1 Cor 11:27-29 -

“Therefore, whosoever shall eat this bread, or drink the chalice of the Lord unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and of the blood of the Lord. But let a man prove himself: and so let him eat of that bread and drink of the chalice. For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily eateth and drinketh judgment to himself, not discerning the body of the Lord.”

How could people participating in a mere symbolic remembrance be held accountable for the true body and blood of Christ? Paul demonstrated a tremendous amount of reverence for the Eucharist, demanding purity of soul prior to receiving it. This is why any desecratory act against the Eucharist is forbidden - either spiritual or physical (see Ex 12:10). It is of indisputably mystical and divine substance, and the Church has never possessed the authority to change the original forms of bread and wine used in transubstantiation (even Melchisedech, who was a foreshadowing of the priest-king Jesus and earliest precursor of the new order of priesthood, used only bread and wine during sacrifice in Genesis 14:18); nor may she alter any other aspect of the sacrament which would deviate from its definitive form as established by Jesus Christ (Matt 26:26-28) - including consecration by women priests.

The Catholic doctrine of Christ’s corporeal presence in the Eucharist, embodied by a complete transformation of bread and wine, is confirmed in biblical text. Likewise, the Church stresses the importance of receiving this sacrament for many scripturally-founded reasons. However, one should first be a sincere member of the Church and share her understanding of its fundamental essence (Ex 12:43-45, 1 Cor 10:21). Above all, one must always have a proper appreciation and moral attitude towards the Eucharist before being presented with so precious a gift.

It is the tireless commitment of the Catholic and Orthodox Churches today that preserves this most unique and essential facet of the Christian faith. In maintaining the celebration of the Eucharist, we fulfill the Lord’s command for perpetual observance of the paschal sacrifice (Ex 12:14, Luke 22:19). Although many have ceased to believe or have chosen not to accept its potent reality (John 6:67-70), our apostolic tradition has upheld the Blessed Sacrament as a light and invitation to all the world since the time of Christ. Just as Saint Peter recognized the “words of eternal life” in the Eucharist, still does his Church today.

By the grace of God, may we all recognize its value and be found worthy."

 

[teachccd]

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]…

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

Any Christian who believes what Jesus says must believe what He says in all of Scripture. If Jesus says it, Catholics have believed and followed it for 2000 years. We do not water down what Jesus taught in order to promote our own private interpretation so that we can stand separated from what the Church practiced for 2000 years. Jesus left a Church when He ascended. He did not leave a Bible. The Bible was written by a Church that was fully liturgical and the Gospels will reflect the early Church and their beliefs. Any contemporary difference from the practices of the early Church should be considered as heresy and rejected.

We also believe the words of the departing Jews who no longer followed Jesus in John 6:66. This saying is hard. Who can believe it? The Catholic Church can and has for 2000 years…teachccd

 

[byzgirl]

In answer, yes. Amen.

And to further affirm this, so did the members of the early church:

Writing to the Smyrnaeans around 110 and referring to “those who hold heterodox opinions”, Ignatius of Antioch said, “They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer, because they do not confess that the Eucharist is the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ, flesh which suffered for our sins and which the Father, in His goodness, raised up again.”8

Forty years later, Justin Martyr wrote, “We call this food Eucharist, and no one else is permitted to partake of it, except one who believes our teaching to be true and who has been washed in the washing which is for the remission of sins and for regeneration and is thereby living as Christ has enjoined. For not a common bread nor common drink do we receive these; but since Jesus Christ our Savior was made incarnate by the word of God and had both flesh and blood for our salvation, so too, as we have been taught, the food which has been made into the Eucharist by the Eucharistic prayer set down by Him, and by the change of which our blood and flesh is nourished, is both the flesh and the blood of that incarnated Jesus.”9

---

Whatever else might be said, it is certain that the early Church took John 6 and the accounts of the Last Supper literally. There is no record in the early centuries of any Christian doubting the Catholic interpretation.

---

Irenaeus of Lyons, in his masterwork, Against Heresies, written toward the close of the second century, said that Christ “has declared the cup, a part of creation, to be His own Blood, from which He causes our blood to flow; and the bread, a part of creation, He has established as His own Body, from which He gives increase to our bodies.” He asks, “If the Lord were from other than the Father, how could He rightly take bread, which is of the same creation as our own, and confess it to be His Body and affirm that the mixture in the cup is His Blood?”10

 

[byzgirl]

Origen, writing about 244, demonstrated that reverence is given to the smallest particle from the host. “I wish to admonish you with examples from your religion. You are accustomed to take part in the divine mysteries, so you know how, when you have received the Body of the Lord, you reverently exercise every care lest a particle of it fall and lest anything of the consecrated gift perish. You account yourselves guilty, and rightly do you so believe, if any of it be lost through negligence.”11

Athanasius, bishop of Alexandria, said this in his Sermon to the Newly Baptized, delivered in 373: “You shall see the Levites bringing loaves and a cup of wine and placing them on a table. So long as the prayers of supplication and entreaties have not been made, there is only bread and wine. But after the great and wonderful prayers have been completed, then the bread is become the Body, and the wine the Blood, of our Lord Jesus Christ.”12

As a final example, taken from dozens that could have been used, Cyril of Jerusalem, in his Cathechetical Lectures, presented in the middle of the fourth century, told his listeners: “Do not, therefore, regard the Bread and Wine as simply that, for they are, according to the Master’s declaration, the Body and Blood of Christ. Even though the senses suggest to you the other, let faith make you firm. Do not judge in this matter by taste, but be fully assured by faith, not doubting that you have been deemed worthy of the Body and Blood of Christ.”13

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

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?

Sometimes, I wonder if anyone believes. ISTM that a lot of the dispute is over what is meant: “literal” is a very bad choice of word. The Eucharistic Food is a sacrament - not a cannibal’s feast. The consecrated Gifts are not a haunch of meat, but​

• the outward appearances are the means

by which He is

• really
• truly
• and substantially present

in a spaceless manner not perceptible to the senses.

 

[bradwill911]

Berean,

I see you feel it is necessary to ask this question again and again. YES, Catholics believe John 6:53. Your point, if I understand it correctly, is that we must not believe it because you say that the Church teaches that Muslims can be saved through Muhammad and Jews can be saved through Moses. Let me put this in all caps so it is not misunderstood: THAT IS NOT WHAT THE CHURCH TEACHES! You said the Catechism was clear on this point, but you are now not only misinterpreting Scripture, but misunderstanding the teaching of the Church.

The Church teaches that salvation is available to mankind, Christ died for all of us.

The Church has ALWAYS taught that there is no salvation outside the Church.

The Church is the body of Christ.

Therefore, there is no salvation outside of the body of Christ.

Non-Catholics are imperfectly a part of the Church. You do not need to be a Catholic in practice to be a catholic in person. The part of the CCC that you claim is saying that we believe that Muslims will be saved through Muhammad and Jews through Moses is describing the Church’s relationship with mankind.

CCC 836 "All men are called to this catholic unity of the People of God…And to it, in different ways, belong or are ordered: the Catholic faithful, others who believe in Christ (you), and finally all mankind, called by God’s grace to salvation.

The CCC goes on to describe the Church’s relationship with non-Catholic Christians (see 838). It then describes our relationship with non-Christians: Jews 839, 840; Muslims 841; others 842-844. Finally, in 845, the Church states:

"To reunite all his children, scattered and led astray by sin, the Father willed to call the whole of humanity together into his Son’s Church. The Church is the place where humanity must rediscover its unity and salvation. The Church is “the world reconciled.” She is that bark which "in the full sail of the Lord’s cross, by the breath of the Holy Spirit, navigates safely in this world. According to another image dear to the Church Fathers, she is prefigured by Noah’s ark, which alone saves from the flood.

“Outside the Church there is no salvation.”

To understand para 841, which you have referenced, you must have a least a vague understanding of Lumen Gentium which states, “Those also can attain to salvation who through no fault of their own do not know the Gospel of Christ or His Church, yet sincerely seek God and moved by grace strive by their deeds to do His will as it is known to them through the dictates of conscience.(19*)”

This footnote (19) states, “no one will be saved who, knowing the Church to have been divinely established by Christ, nevertheless refuses to submit to the Church or withholds obedience from the Roman Pontiff, the Vicar of Christ on earth.”

It goes on, “Therefore, that one may obtain eternal salvation, it is not always required that he be incorporated into the Church actually as a member, but it is necessary that at least he be united to her by desire and longing.”

And, “when a person is involved in invincible ignorance God accepts also an implicit desire, so called because it is included in that good disposition of soul whereby a person wishes his will to be conformed to the will of God.”

To sum it up, this letter states, “…those who “are related to the Mystical Body of the Redeemer by a certain unconscious yearning and desire,” and these he by no means excludes from eternal salvation, but on the other hand states that they are in a condition “in which they cannot be sure of their salvation” since “they still remain deprived of those many heavenly gifts and helps which can only be enjoyed in the Catholic Church” (AAS, 1. c., p. 243). With these wise words he reproves both those who exclude from eternal salvation all united to the Church only by implicit desire, and those who falsely assert that men can be saved equally well in every religion.”

Bottom line, there is no salvation outside the Church. Kudos to the post that described the literal vs literalist interpretation. Jesus also told us to pluck out our eyes if they cause us to sin. A literalist interpretation would lead to body mutilation, whereas a literal interpretation understands that this is not what he was saying.

Peace.

 

[BereanRuss]

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.

I am answering several comments by many bloggers. I am sorry if I missed a few.

 

[BereanRuss]

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!

I agree. He offered up Himself on the cross. That is the greater Arch-Type.

 

[BereanRuss]

"There are *many problems *with this interpretation of the first three chapters of the Apocalypse.

Did you read what I wrote. (Hint: I never likened church history to the churches in Rev. Why would you write 5 paragraphs about something I never mentioned?)

 

[guanophore]

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.”

No. This possibility is not “overlooked” but dispatched by Our Lord.

John 6:51
51 I am the living bread which came down from heaven; if any one eats of this bread, he will live for ever; and the bread which I shall give for the life of the world is my flesh."

Jesus did not give His “figurative flesh”, but real. It is not, as the Muslims say, that he did not actually die on the cross, but survived the crucifixion and travelled to India with His mother. This is a falsehood. Jesus gave His real flesh, and His real blood for the life of the world. No “figurative” flesh and blood could fulfill the need for a blood sacrifice. He is the real Lamb, spotless, who was slaughtered to free us from slavery.

When He says 'the flesh is of no avail", He is not speaking here of His own flesh. We know this because it was His flesh that purchased our eternal life. On the contrary, He is saying that carnal (fleshly) understanding is not useful in trying to grasp this mystery, which is beyond our fleshly comprehension. We can only apprehend it by Spirit. That is why it is called a mystery. The disciples walked away from Him because they wanted to apprehend with their mind (in the flesh/carnal). They were not willing to accept the Divine Mystery of how His presence could pass into the bread and wine. His Apostles did not either, but they accepted it in faith. They may not even have understood it at the Last Supper,when He made it clear, but they did later. How do we know this? Because the Apostles and their sucessors called everyone who did not believe this “heretics”.

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]

No, Berean. Jesus use of figures in other occasions does not make Him a liar when He chooses not to use a figure.

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.

No, Jesus does not contradict Himself because He gives one instruction to the masses, and another to the disciples.

The Church is not “Roman”, Berean.

I know that you are not ready to receive this, but for the lurkers I will say, any who have entered the door of salvation have entered through the Catholic Church, since there is only One Church, and all who are saved are members of the One Body.

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

I agree. Good thing that it is your comprehensive shortcomings that are at issue here.

 

[guanophore]

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.

Ok. Catholic theology is not “Roman”.

All you have shown is that your own “reasoning” of the scriptures is not consistent with the Apostolic Teaching.

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.

Paul was Catholic. He understood that the Body and Blood of Christ are present under the appearance of Bread and Wine.

One cannot “profane” something that is not present. You cannot “profane” the Body and Blood if it is not present.

I am glad, though, that you understand that it is right to have an examination of conscience, and that living in blatant sin is a sacriligious state in which to receive. you are on the road!

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.”

Well, you are warm, but not quite. The letter is addressed to the “angel” at Thyatira. This is the Bishop, into whose care the souls of the faithful are given. The Bishop is to be a messenger of God to the congregation. This bishop was astray. Individuals can go astray, it does not mean that the Church is astray. A whole congregation can go astray, but the Church cannot. This is because she is guarded from error by Christ.

No, those who obeyed the Bishop who was in error were cast into tribulation. That is because this Bishop was not teaching the Truth that was revealed to the Church by Christ. Unfortunately, this kind of problem still happens today.

I agree, Jesus does hold us individually responsible. Yet, the standard is Himself. It is He who is the Head of the Church. It is He who has purified Her, and presented Her to Himself, Holy and Blameless, a Spotless Bride. Until one recognizes that the pure unspotted Bride is separate from the sinful men attached to her, then one will fall short in the standard. The standard is not how each one individually interprets scripture. The standard is Christ, at work in His Body, the Church.

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.

I agree, there were probably some unbelievers in the crowd. However, this “hard saying” was made for the sake of the disciples. Jesus knew that it was time to separate the men from the boys. Those who accepted him by faith, and those who only did so through their fleshly (carnal) understanding. How do we know this? Because afterward, He asked His Apostles “will you also leave”?

John 6:60-69

60 **Many of his disciples, when they heard it, said, **“This is a hard saying; who can listen to it?” 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. 65 And he said, “This is why I told you that no one can come to me unless it is granted him by the Father.”

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.”

Yes, there were doubters there. Jesus used this Teaching to separate them from Himself. The same holds true in the early Apostolic Church:

Ignatius of Antioch

“I have no taste for corruptible food nor for the pleasures of this life. I desire the bread of God, which is the flesh of Jesus Christ, who was of the seed of David; and for drink I desire his blood, which is love incorruptible” (Letter to the Romans 7:3 [A.D. 110]).

“Take note of those who hold heterodox opinions on the grace of Jesus Christ which has come to us, and see how contrary their opinions are to the mind of God. . . . They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer because they do not confess that the Eucharist is the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ, flesh which suffered for our sins and which that Father, in his goodness, raised up again. They who deny the gift of God are perishing in their disputes” (Letter to the Smyrnaeans 6:2–7:1 [A.D. 110]).

How do you suppose that the successors of the Apostles misunderstood their teaching so quickly? And if they did, how can you trust anything that comes from their successors, including the New Testament?

 

[guanophore]

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

None are saved apart from Christ, manifest to us in the Eucharist. There is no other name under heaven by which we may be saved. However, we are not qualified to assess the hearts of others, only God. Only He knows if they have the desire for communion with Him. They may not even know who He is, yet desire Him.

Acts 17:23-24
23 For as I passed along, and observed the objects of your worship, I found also an altar with this inscription, ‘To an unknown god.’ What therefore you worship as unknown, this I proclaim to you.

 

[joe370]

BereanRuss: 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?

If the apostles and the early church, the same church that preached the good news long before the good news was codified/canonized BELIEVED, then shouldn’t we all believe? The Holy Spirit was sent to Jesus’ One church circa 33 AD, to remind His One church of everything Jesus taught; did He fail to remind them correctly; can God fail? Did Jesus’ One church, guided by the Holy Spirit, teach heresy right off the bat?

 

[NotWorthy]

I agree. He offered up Himself on the cross. That is the greater Arch-Type.

No, you’re skipping the point.

The type offered up bread and wine, which is one of the main reasons he is the Type.
The Arch-Type must do something more with the bread and wine, or he wouldn’t be the Arch-Type.

 

[NotWorthy]

Also, I know you’ve got quite a few responses to answer (and you’re doing an admirable job!), but don’t forget the context of Do this in memory of me.

“Anamnesis” - make present
“poien” (sic?) - offer up

Both these words have sacrificial contexts all throughout the Old Testament. Jesus was speaking rather clearly to the Apostles what He wanted them to do.

 

[BereanRuss]

No. This possibility is not “overlooked” but dispatched by Our Lord.

John 6:51
51 I am the living bread which came down from heaven; if any one eats of this bread, he will live for ever; and the bread which I shall give for the life of the world is my flesh."

Jesus did not give His “figurative flesh”, but real. It is not, as the Muslims say, that he did not actually die on the cross, but survived the crucifixion and travelled to India with His mother. This is a falsehood. Jesus gave His real flesh, and His real blood for the life of the world. No “figurative” flesh and blood could fulfill the need for a blood sacrifice. He is the real Lamb, spotless, who was slaughtered to free us from slavery.

When He says 'the flesh is of no avail", He is not speaking here of His own flesh. We know this because it was His flesh that purchased our eternal life. On the contrary, He is saying that carnal (fleshly) understanding is not useful in trying to grasp this mystery, which is beyond our fleshly comprehension. We can only apprehend it by Spirit. That is why it is called a mystery. The disciples walked away from Him because they wanted to apprehend with their mind (in the flesh/carnal). They were not willing to accept the Divine Mystery of how His presence could pass into the bread and wine. His Apostles did not either, but they accepted it in faith. They may not even have understood it at the Last Supper,when He made it clear, but they did later. How do we know this? Because the Apostles and their sucessors called everyone who did not believe this “heretics”.

Thanks for the thoughtful response. I agree completely. However, we are not discussing if Jesus literally died and was raised from the dead. We both agree that He did. We are discussing if Jesus was referring to the Eucharist when He said, “…unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you do not have life within you.”

If Jesus was indeed referring to the Eucharist, then according to Jesus’ own words no one can be saved apart from literally taking communion in the RCC or the OC.

If Jesus was speaking literally in John 6:53 then He is contradicting Himself when He later says, “the one who comes to Me I will by no means cast out.”

Jesus cannot lie. Therefore, Jesus cannot walk down the street one day and say, “ONLY those who receive communion in the RCC have life…” and then the next day say, “No, I have changed my mind, anyone who comes to me I will receive.” Therefore, the words that Jesus spoke in John 6:53 must not be literal but must be figurative just as He indicated when he said, “The words that I speak are spirit and they are life.”

Please explain how Jesus can contradict Himself if John 6:53 is to be taken literally.

 

[byzgirl]

Did you read what I wrote. (Hint: I never likened church history to the churches in Rev. Why would you write 5 paragraphs about something I never mentioned?)

Okay, so you only pointed to ‘part’ of the typical Fundamentalist’s theory to bolster your reasoning. Forgive my overstepping; however, it’s still groundless twisting of the Scriptures to suit your needs (if only in part–it’s still a modern and false theory common to Fundamentalists).

Again, I should reiterate: “No, the Church in Thyatira does not represent an imagined “apostate” medieval Catholicism. All seven churches of Asia Minor *were *Catholic churches, since she was the only Church in existence at the time!”

“The Church is the “pillar and bulwark of truth” (1 Timothy 3:15) and the final authority (Matthew 18:17). Furthermore, there are traditions to be observed which are on equal footing with Scripture for not everything the Apostles taught or Jesus said, was written down (1 Corinthians 11:2; 2 Thessalonians 2:15; 3:6; John 21:25).”--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
**On the Eucharist **(the main topic of this thread):

"They are vain in every respect, who despise the entire dispensation of God, and deny the salvation of the body and spurn its regeneration, saying that it is not capable of immortality. If the body be not saved, then, in fact, neither did the Lord redeem us with His Blood; and neither is the cup of the Eucharist the partaking of His Blood nor is the Bread which we break the partaking of His Body. …As we are His members, so too are we nourished by means of created things, He Himself granting us the creation, causing His sun to rise and sending rain as He wishes. He has declared the cup, a part of creation, to be His own Blood, from which he causes our blood to flow; and the bread, a part of creation, He has established as His own Body, from which He gives increase to our bodies. When, therefore, the mixed cup and the baked bread receives the Word of God and becomes the Eucharist, the Body of Christ, and from these the substance of our flesh is increased and supported, how can they say that the flesh is not capable of receiving the gift of God, which is eternal life – flesh which is nourished by the Body and Blood of the Lord, and is in fact a member of Him?

In this regard the blessed Paul says in his epistle to the Ephesians: “Because we are members of His Body, from His flesh and His bones.” …In the same way that the wood of the vine planted in the ground bears fruit in due season; or as a grain of wheat, falling on the ground, decomposes and rises up in manifold increase through the Spirit of God who contains all things; and then, through the Wisdom of God, comes to the service of men, and receiving the Word of God, becomes the Eucharist, which is the Body and Blood of Christ; so also our bodies, nourished by it, and deposited in the earth and decomposing therein, shall rise up in due season, the Word of God favoring them with resurrection in the glory of God the Father."

–Saint Iraneus, Bishop of Lyons (wrote AGAINST HERESIES to refute the errors of the Gnostics, who denied–among other things–the goodness of the material creation. Hence the context in which he used the very realistic language about the Eucharist).

 

[BereanRuss]

The letter is addressed to the “angel” at Thyatira. This is the Bishop, into whose care the souls of the faithful are given. The Bishop is to be a messenger of God to the congregation…

The Apostle John was not the Pope of the RCC at this time. If God is a God of order and not confusion, why did God write to the Bishop and not to the Pope? If God has established order in the Church and that order places the Pope above the Bishop, then why would God violate His own order that He has established?

If God is consistent then He should give witness to the order that He has established within the church.