Do Catholics believe John 6:53?

[byzgirl]

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.

Then you ought to be nervous, eh? I guess you are, just a little, or else you wouldn’t be on the forum to discuss this, at length, with Catholics who believe in the Eucharist (as the Body and Blood of Our Lord). You keep taunting us, to admit that non-Catholics are ‘un-saved’ by ‘abstaining’. But everyone is imperfectly joined to Christ’s Body and His Church. It’s a mystical union that involves all of His children, sinners and saints. God wants to embrace you, fully, within His Church and to offer you the same Eucharist that we partake of (as Catholics and Orthodox Christians).

It’s in your court now. You must decide.

Perhaps you *will *have something to worry about. But you will only be responsible for what you understand and what you don’t. You will only be held responsible, by God, for these things of the heart. God, alone, knows them. If you reject His Church, in a knowledeable and willful manner (genuinely knowing the truth), then you may, indeed, lose your salvation. This can be said for Catholics, as well–only we have even more to worry about, if they ‘have’ received the Body and Blood of Christ, unworthily (in sin, and/or in denial of a truth they know and reject). For Catholics, we understand that rejection (of the Church and the Eucharist) as a rejection of Christ, because He is Present, Incarnationally within the Church and the Sacrifice of the Mass (Eucharist).

You can choose, “BereanRuss”, to believe it or not–just as the disciples listening to His words had the same choice. But I’d rather be counted among those that stayed with Him, than numbered among those that walked out. It’s your decision, and certainly not one to be clouded and confused by the bias of Fundamentalist tradition and misinterpetation.

 

[BereanRuss]

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?

Again, if we are to truly believe the words of Jesus in John 6:53 then no one can be saved without literally taking communion in the RCC. The RCC does not teach this. The RCC teaches that a person who has never taken communion in the RCC can be saved.

 

[PJM]

=BereanRuss;5044286]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.

Dear friend,

My heart breaks in the face of such obstinance.

You wish to pick and take out of context one verse in order to make God a liar. How very sad, my friend, how very sad:blush:

Yet, it is Gods will.

**Mt. 11:25 "At that time Jesus declared, “I thank thee, Father, Lord of heaven and earth, that thou hast hidden these things from the wise and understanding and revealed them to babes;” **

Mk. 8: 17* And being aware of it, Jesus said to them, “Why do you discuss the fact that you have no bread? Do you not yet perceive or understand? Are your hearts hardened? 18 Having eyes do you not see, and having ears do you not hear? And do you not remember? 19* When I broke the five loaves for the five thousand, how many baskets full of broken pieces did you take up?” They said to him, “Twelve.” 20* “And the seven for the four thousand, how many baskets full of broken pieces did you take up?” And they said to him, “Seven.” 21 And he said to them, “Do you not yet understand?”

2 Pet.1: 20"First of all you must understand this, that no prophecy of scripture is a matter of one’s own interpretation, 21 because no prophecy ever came by the impulse of man, but men moved by the Holy Spirit spoke from God "

Acts 8 "“Do you understand what you are reading?” 31 And he said, “How can I, unless some one guides me?”

Heb. 11: “3 By faith we understand that the world was created by the word of God, so that what is seen was made out of things which do not appear.”

Mk. 6: “51 And he got into the boat with them and the wind ceased. And they were utterly astounded, 52* for they did not understand about the loaves,** but their hearts were hardened.”**

Lk.9:45 “45 But they did not understand this saying, and it was concealed from them, that they should not perceive it; and they were afraid to ask him about this saying.”

Heb. 3: 15 “Today, when you hear his voice, do not harden your hearts as in the rebellion.”

Friends, it is not intirely your fault. God grants understanding to whom He chooses.

May I respectfully ask you to pray for TRUE understanding, if indeed that is what God places on your heart.

In private, reread outloud to yourself Jn. 6:40-60 and ask yourself, what did I just hear?

Love and prayers,

 

[byzgirl]

Again, if we are to truly believe the words of Jesus in John 6:53 then no one can be saved without literally taking communion in the RCC. The RCC does not teach this. The RCC teaches that a person who has never taken communion in the RCC can be saved.

I believe that you are, as pointed out by someone else, being obstinate. It’s been explained to you several ways, and you refuse to acknowledge that anything was (explained). You just reiterate the same thing.

And you failed, typically, in counter commenting on things that were expressed (like the ‘literal’ interpretation of the Eucharist by the early church fathers). Better left alone, I see.

Your culpability remains in what you know and accept as truth.​

If this helps to clarify your above comment, it is well to share this with you:

…“There are four basic views on the presence of Christ in the Eucharist. Two of them are nominalist (symbolist) views and two of them are realist views. These two pairs are referred to as “low” or “high” Eucharistic theologies (there are no middle Eucharistic theologies since one either falls on one side of the divide or the other concerning whether Christ’s body and blood are symbolically or really present in the elements).”

…“there are no valid Eucharists in Protestant churches except for those performed by priests who were ordained as priests by a bishop in the apostolic succession or ordained by bishops who were ordained as bishops by another bishop in the apostolic succession. There are some of these in Protestant circles, and so some Protestant Eucharists are valid, but, regrettably, there is no Protestant denomination of which this is true as a whole.”

"This does not mean that Protestants such as Lutherans and Anglicans do not experience a real encounter with Jesus in the Eucharist. They can and often do receive Jesus spiritually in communion, **they just do not receive him in the fully, sacramental manner he intended and which he wants them to experience. **Thus, to quote the original question, these communions are not just “a sham” but can be described as “holy” in that they can be genuine spiritual encounters with Christ which communicate grace to the recipient, even though they are not the full encounters he intended and wants to have with his followers.
Thus upon entering the life of Catholic fullness one does not need to look back upon one’s former communions as empty shams, but as genuine spiritual encounters with the Risen Christ, encounters which gave one the grace to approach Christ even more closely and finally come to the fullness of his Eucharistic embrace, allowing him to fill one with the mighty Reality of his corporal, sanguine, pneumatic, and divine Presence, cleansing and transforming one from within as one humbly submits to and receives one’s Creator in the Blessed, the Glorious, the Most Holy Communion.

It is when you fully KNOW the truth and believe in the literal belief of Catholics (and Orthodox) that is defined as ‘transubstantiation’, that you are held accountable for denial of that truth. This would not be the case, for Protestants who have never partaken of it, in the fullest sense, and who do not believe it. They cannot be damned, to hell, for it. However, the receipt of Jesus’ Body and Blood, Soul and Divinity, is not lessened by this, nor should it be considered non-important to be in full communion, because God is Incarnate…and to be in FULL COMMUNION with Jesus means to receive Him, FULLY (which means by both aspects of His Incarnated Being–the physical Flesh and the Spiritual Divine Personhood of Christ). In the fullness of Truth, and in worthy acceptance, it is a GREAT ADVANTAGE for Catholics who are in His Grace. It provides spiritual and physical graces that are not available, in fullness, to Protestants and others.

This does not do away with the continuing necessity of Catholics to strive for relationship with Christ, in all ways, to repent of sins, and (like Saint Paul) to “work out our salvation” in cooperation with God’s salvific plan for each and every one of us. For nothing can save us (not even partaking of the Eucharist) if one is just ‘going through the motions’ and doesn’t understand or believe in its reality, as Christ. It cannot save us, without conforming our lives to Christ in every way (I wanted to add this, as I figured it to be a typical Protestant (further) objection.

---

ST. Jerome: “After the type had been fulfilled by the passover celebration and He had eaten the flesh of the lamb with His Apostles, He takes bread which strengthens the heart of man, and goes on to the true Sacrament of the passover, so that just as Melchisedech, the priest of the Most High God, in prefiguring Him, made bread and wine an offering, He too makes Himself manifest in the reality of His own Body and Blood.” (Commentaries on Matthew 4:26:26)

"[The Mass] is . . . the event in which He seals His covenant with us and makes us His children. . . . In the Mass, you and I have heaven on earth. The evidence is overwhelming. The experience is a revelation." – from The Lamb’s Supper. – Dr. Scott Hahn

 

[PJM]

=byzgirl;5044714]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.”

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).

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."

Very well done:tiphat:

I had not thought of the Eucharist and the eating “of the Lamb.” Excellent point!

And your “logo” too is well thought out.

Thank you!

 

[byzgirl]

The Eucharist is “the source and summit of the Christian’s life”, as stated in the Catechism. Indeed, it is. And that is why we need to help non-Catholics come to that knowledge, and to pray for the opening of their eyes and hearts to that truth (which is Jesus Christ, Body and Blood, Soul and Divinity).

“People say that the doctrine of Transubstantiation is difficult to believe…It is difficult, impossible to imagine, I grant — but how is it difficult to believe?..For myself, I cannot, indeed prove it, I cannot tell how it is; but I say, 'Why should it not be? What’s to hinder it? What do I know of substance or matter? Just as much as the greatest philosophers, and that is nothing at all.”

-Venerable John Henry Cardinal Newman

He who eats my flesh and drinks my blood abides in me, and I in him.
As the living Father sent me, and I live because of the Father, so he who eats me will live because of me.
This is the bread which came down from heaven, not such as the fathers ate and died; he who eats this bread will live for ever."

Many of his disciples, when they heard it, said, “This is a hard saying; who can listen to it?”

But Jesus, knowing in himself that his disciples murmured at it, said to them, "Do you take offense at this?

After this many of his disciples drew back and no longer went about with him.

Jesus said to the twelve, “Do you also wish to go away?”

Simon Peter answered him, "Lord, to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life;

From convert and host of ‘The Journey Home’ on EWTN, Marcus Grodi:

**He who eats my flesh and drinks my blood abides in me, and I in him.

“The book of the Bible I most preached on was the Gospel of John and my most preached on section John 15, the analogy of the vine and the branches. I bombarded my congregations with the need to “abide” or “remain” in Christ. But what does this mean? I always had an answer, but when I saw “for the first time” the only verse where Jesus himself defines clearly what we must do to abide in Him, I was floored. “He who eats my flesh and drinks my blood abides in me and I in him.” This led me to study a boatload of verses in John 6 “I had never seen before,” and in the end, when it came accepting Jesus at His word on the Eucharist, I had only one answer: “Where else can we go? Only you have the words of life.”**”

 

[CalCatholic]

Again, if we are to truly believe the words of Jesus in John 6:53 then no one can be saved without literally taking communion in the RCC. The RCC does not teach this. The RCC teaches that a person who has never taken communion in the RCC can be saved.

BereanRuss, I’m not going to try to change your mind, because everybody else has given you every fact out there to believe in the ‘Real Presence of Our Lord Jesus in the Eucharist’. If you are a Bible believing Christian, search your heart, read all the Bible verses that have been quoted in the responses submitted to all your questions. Pray on it. Believe what the Bible says. I’ll pray for you!

 

[byzgirl]

Very well done:tiphat:

I had not thought of the Eucharist and the eating “of the Lamb.” Excellent point!

And your “logo” too is well thought out.

Thank you!

Thank you. I appreciate the kindness of your words, but I can’t take credit for the wording, as it is mostly quoted material from much more eloquent writers and thinkers (like Peter Kreeft and Scott Hahn, etc.) I am just gifted at finding materials that get to the core of the issue at hand, and am happy to share them. I never tire of searching and gathering the best ways to teach and defend the Church. Most of the material, I have on my web site somewhere.

There is also a good pdf file that I have on my web site. It’s short and sweet, and hails from converts to the faith, entitled: “You Gotta Eat the Lamb”. It goes right along with the connection between the Passover (Seder) meal and the Eucharistic sacrificial meal/offering.
This is the URL address: www.box.net/shared/98gtteg7p5

Thanks for your appreciation of the “keys” logo. I just thought it was such a cute, modern expression of a deeply meaningful need (to be in unity with Peter and his successor).

May God bless you during this very Holy Week. As my friend wrote to me so beautifully this morning, “May the graces of this Holy Week bring you much comfort and grace as you fill your lamp with the oil of the Holy Spirit to welcome the coming of the Divine Bridegroom.”

 

[BereanRuss]

"At that time Jesus declared, “I thank thee, Father, Lord of heaven and earth, that thou hast hidden these things from the wise and understanding and revealed them to babes;”

Accusing me of being blind does not answer the question. It only uses the word of God to hurl insults at another blogger.

Is it possible that I am blind? Absolutely. Is it possible that you are blind?

We are blogging the “Sacred Scriptures” section of this forum. Please try using those scriptures to make your theological points.

The word of God is truth. The truth cannot contradict itself. Any theology must resolve apparent contradictions in scripture.

 

[BereanRuss]

I believe that you are, as pointed out by someone else, being obstinate. It’s been explained to you several ways, and you refuse to acknowledge that anything was (explained). You just reiterate the same thing.

You see it a being obstinate. I see it as honoring God. God cannot contradict Himself because He cannot lie.

You can say, “the church says…” but until you resolve what JESUS says, you have not truly dealt with the issue at hand.

 

[BereanRuss]

BereanRuss, I’m not going to try to change your mind, because everybody else has given you every fact out there to believe in the ‘Real Presence of Our Lord Jesus in the Eucharist’. If you are a Bible believing Christian, search your heart, read all the Bible verses that have been quoted in the responses submitted to all your questions. Pray on it. Believe what the Bible says. I’ll pray for you!

I am not questioning the real presence of Jesus in the Eucharist. I am asking if Jesus was referring to the Eucharist in John 6:53. If he was, why don’t you believe Him when He says, “Amen, amen…”? The church, which came later, cannot change the words of Jesus. If Jesus says, “Amen, amen…” the church cannot later change those words to, “the normative means”. The church has no right to change the clear words of Jesus. To do so is to proclaim that His words are not the truth.

 

[byzgirl]

You see it a being obstinate. I see it as honoring God. God cannot contradict Himself because He cannot lie.

You can say, “the church says…” but until you resolve what JESUS says, you have not truly dealt with the issue at hand.

Well, you just remind me of the disciples that left the room, after hearing Jesus speak of ‘eating his flesh and drinking his blood’, that’s all. Perhaps they were obstinate as well (it would seem so). They just found the saying ‘hard’ to hear and to accept, as you do.

As Catholics, when we receive the Eucharist, in fullness, we are honoring God in a deerer sense. We are ‘abiding in Him’, and 'Him, in us". That is what Jesus wants and which you cannot accept.

Jesus is the Church. This is clear, in Scripture. “As I made my journey and drew near to Damascus, about noon a great light from heaven suddenly shone about me. And I fell to the ground and heard a voice saying to me, ‘Saul, Saul, why do you persecute Me?’ And I answered, ‘Who are you, Lord?’ And He said to me, ‘I am Jesus of Nazareth whom you are persecuting.’ Now those who were with me saw the light but did not hear the voice of the One who was speaking to me. And I said, ‘What shall I do, Lord?’ And the Lord said to me, ‘Rise, and go into Damascus, and there you will be told all that is appointed for you to do.’ And when I could not see because of the brightness of that light, I was led by the hand by those who were with me, and came into Damascus.” Saul was persecuting the Church, and Jesus let him know that to ‘persecute the Church’ was the same thing as ‘persecuting Himself’. He asked, “Why do you persecute Me?”. You can’t get any clearer than that.

Your problem is a gnostic view of creation. You cannot accept the physical Jesus (the Incarnation)–He has raised the Flesh and redeemed it by His blood. You cannot separate the human Jesus and the Divine Jesus. He is one and the same. Catholic theology is based on the Incarnation–and until you can grasp that, you will fail to understand Jesus, in His Fullness. You will not be able to see Him, as the Church, unless you do.

That is why we will, with sincerity, pray for that epiphany (if God wills it). It is you who cannot find resolution. I don’t have any doubts. I believe.

 

[byzgirl]

You have a real problem, as a sola scriptura Christian…it is evident in the mixture of eucharistic beliefs and baptismal beliefs among Protestantism! There is no definitive answer there, from Scripture alone. If it was so clear, on the face of Scripture, then why don’t you have an understanding of John 6:53? Why do you look to the Catholic Church to clarify it for you?

We use terms like ‘normative’ because there is a Tradition that is winds it’s way back to the Apostles…words that weren’t recorded in the Bible, but were passed down as authoritative Tradition from those Apostles who sat at Jesus’ feet. They taught and ordained others, and so on. It’s the power of the Holy Spirit that enables them to operate with God’s authority. You shun 2000 years of the equal claim of the Church to Scripture and Tradition (the Bible is a book of the Church)…and challenge us on things that you don’t have a hold of yourself (again, if you did, you wouldn’t be on this forum asking us).

We speak in modern terms, to help express ancient theology (that was in place long before the Reformation) and will be until Christ’s return.

Scripture is the LIVING word of God. You want to restrict it to the written word, pull thoughts out of context, and suggest that these mystical realities are up for debate. We have presented much to explain that, while God is most certainly clear on what He means, He is a LOVING God who wants to share Himself FULLY…Protestants are always invited guests at His Banquet Table…they are part of the Body, albiet, incompletely. Incompletely and ignorantly oblivious to the fullness of His Truth does not sum up to being condemned by Christ. I think we’ve explained thoroughly.

You are making Christ’s Living Word something legalistic and one-dimensional. Christ will judge us all, uniquely, according to our obedience and our understanding. He will judge us on several things, including our love of our neighbor, our repentance of sin, and our imperfect relationship with Him.

None of us can claim to have a perfect and complete union with Christ. We are all sinners. Our job is to aspire to that beautiful relationship, and like the martyrs and saints, be prepared for His return.

We are not here to condemn each other, but to help one another to heaven. And the Eucharist, my friend, is Jesus, Incarnate. And I would be wrong if I didn’t implore you to pray for understanding and to offer my own prayers on your behalf. Not because you are ‘wrong’, but because God loves you so very much. God will not condemn those who love Him, no matter how obstinate they are. But we certainly show our love, by believing His words and being in FULL COMMUNION with Him and His Church.

 

[BereanRuss]

Saul was persecuting the Church, and Jesus let him know that to ‘persecute the Church’ was the same thing as ‘persecuting Himself’. He asked, “Why do you persecute Me?”. You can’t get any clearer than that.

Good. Now let’s look at the Biblical definition of the “church”.

Please search your Bible and tell me, who belongs to the church and how does a person become a member of the church. Please use scriptures.

 

[guanophore]

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.”

It is not possible to understand the meaning of Jesus’ words when they are taken out of context. The context of the amanesis is the Passover. the purpose of the memorial meal is to make us present at the foot of the cross. It is a re-enactment of His blood and flesh sacrifice. He did not give “symbolic” or “figurative” blood and flesh, but His
“real” flesh and blood.

The notion that Jesus was referring to anything other than the Eucharist in this passage is a modern notion that springs from the American fundamentalist movement beginning in 193o, Prior to that, all Christians were in agreement on this Apostolic Teaching. It constitutes what the Apostles taught us is a “different gospel”,

 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.

This is your opinion. It contradicts what the Apostles taught, and what the Catholic Church teaches. you are arriving at an erroneous conclusion based upon an erroneous premise. You are free, however, to reject the Apostolic Teaching if you so desire.

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.”\quote]

We are in agreement that He does not contradict Himself. Your perception of what the scripture means is deficient. Jesus commanded His disciples to keep the amanesis. He can save whoever He wants, however He wants. He is not bound by His commandments, we are.
BereanRuss;5046822:

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.” \quote]

The Catholic Church is not Roman, Berean. If you want to continue to have a productive dialogue, you might with to consider respecting this fact, and the sentiments of those of us that are non-Roman Catholics.

The Catholic Church does not create doctrine by trying to velcro various scriptures together. We understand what is written in the light of the Apostolic Teaching. The Apostles taught that He was speaking of His literal flesh and blood in the Eucharist.

The Apostles taught that God can, and does, save whoever He wants, however He likes.

They taught that we were to follow His commandments if we are His disciples, and that they would not be burdensome.
BereanRuss;5046822:

 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.”

If you wish to depart from the Apostolic Teaching in embracing this error, this is your perogative.

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

Well, I can’t do this for you, because to me, there is no contradiction. The contradiction exists in your mind, not in the Scripture, or the Apostolic Teaching.

I think the contradiction comes from rejected what Jesus actually meant (the real presence in the Eucharist). Once you accept this teaching, it all makes sense. You might also resolve this apparent contradiction by accepting the sovereignty of God, that He is all powerful, can save whoever He likes, however He wants. You might also accept that He calls different people to come to Him in different ways. To His disciples He commanded the amanesis. However, no one is admitted to this Divine Mystery without having been initiated into the faith, therefore, it it is not available to all.

 

[guanophore]

The Apostle John was not the Pope of the RCC at this time.

No, he was not. He was an Apostle who settled in the Asian area. The Catholic Church is not “Roman”. The Pope is not the Pope of the Latin Rite only, but of all 23 Rites. he is not “Roman” either, but German. He happens to be the bishop of Rome, and was reared in the Latin Rite.

The Apostles were all in union with Peter. John was not writing something here that was not believed and practiced by all the Apostles and their successors.

God is a God of order and not confusion, why did God write to the Bishop and not to the Pope?

John wrote to the Churches he had established, just as Paul wrote to those he had established (for the most part - Paul did write to Rome before going there). God gave the revelation to John for the Asian bishops. I guess I dont understand your question. Do you think that John had no authority?

 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?

This is off topic in this thread. Such a question indicates a fleshly (carnal) understanding of authority. Jesus was clear that those in authority were to serve, and not Lord it over their brethren. The Apostles did not vie with one another for supremacy. Furthermore, in the order established by Christ, problems were handled on the lowest level possible. A person is to go first to his brother, then if that doesn’t work, he gets help. Many did appeal to Rome for help.

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

I agree. It is not God who is inconsistent here, but your perceptions of the order He established, and how it should work. however, if you wish to take this up, it should be on a new thread. The only way the Church Authority relates here is that the valid eucharist is the one presided by the Apostle, one of his successors, or one appointed by the Bishop.

 

[banjo]

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

"or in the case of infants or ignorant savages the desire on their behalf on the part of the Church herself will suffice.” (The Faith of the Early Fathers).

If this holds for ‘ignorant savages’ why not for Jews, Muslims and others? The supporting quote below is from the Vat II document Lumen gentium, paragraph 16…

“But the plan of salvation also includes those who acknowledge the Creator. In the first place amongst these there are the Mohamedans, who, professing to hold the faith of Abraham, along with us adore the one and merciful God, who on the last day will judge mankind. Nor is God far distant from those who in shadows and images seek the unknown God, for it is He who gives to all men life and breath and all things,(127) and as Saviour wills that all men be saved.(128) 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*) Nor does Divine Providence deny the helps necessary for salvation to those who, without blame on their part, have not yet arrived at an explicit knowledge of God and with His grace strive to live a good life. Whatever good or truth is found amongst them is looked upon by the Church as a preparation for the Gospel.(20*) She knows that it is given by Him who enlightens all men so that they may finally have life.”

 

[joe370]

Hello BereanRuss…

To which Christian church in the world today, do you belong?

Joe370…

 

[BereanRuss]

The notion that Jesus was referring to anything other than the Eucharist in this passage is a modern notion that springs from the American fundamentalist movement beginning in 193o, Prior to that, all Christians were in agreement on this Apostolic Teaching. It constitutes what the Apostles taught us is a “different gospel”

Please. Look at Galatians chapter 1 and tell me where Paul likened denying the RCC doctrines concerning the Eucharist to “another gospel”.

We are in agreement that He does not contradict Himself. Your perception of what the scripture means is deficient. Jesus commanded His disciples to keep the amanesis. He can save whoever He wants, however He wants. He is not bound by His commandments, we are.

Jesus is bound by His word even as we are bound by our word. If God says one thing and does another, He would be a liar just as you and I are (let God be true and every man a liar.) If God says nothing on a subject He is free to do as He pleases but once He has spoken He has bound Himself to His word. He must act in accordance with His word or He becomes a liar.

 

[bradwill911]

Berean,

The other thread was locked so you didn’t get a chance to reply, but I’m wondering why you are posting here. I’m not against it, in fact I encourage you to keep posting, but I’d like for you to be honest about your motivation. It doesn’t seem that you are interested in learning about the Catholic faith, but rather you are trying to argue against. When people actually answer your questions you ignore them and reply elsewhere with just more accusations. Are you trying to convert Catholics or just condemn us or what?

Peace.