Do Catholics believe John 6:53?

[byzgirl]

byzgirl;5049977:

They will twist and turn in the wind to avoid Saint John’s verse which states that ‘without works, faith is dead’.

I think you mean St. James

Oops. Of course. Thanks for the correction.

In fact, no where in Scripture does it say ‘faith alone’.

Not true, “faith alone” appears once in James 2:24 where it says, “not by faith alone.” I know what your intent was since I interpreted your post literally instead of literalistically.

Correct. I shouldn’t have said ‘nowhere’, for its common knowledge that, the one place where it does say so, in the book of James, it supports the Catholic’s rejection of faith alone (as Protestants understand it). Not making excuses, but it’s getting late here, and I’m getting tired (good time to call it quits for the evening).

That was an insertion by Martin Luther (who didn’t like the Book of James–didn’t jive with his personal interpretations).

Yes, Luther added “alone” to Romans 3:28…oops
Thank you. I couldn’t recall the exact verse.

He also originally removed James from his Bible, but later added it, though referring to it as the “epistle of straw”. Seems that Luther disagreed with the way the Bible was written.

Thanks for your corrections. I’d rather have you point them out, in kindness, than for some others to use them adversely. Your comment about Luther really pin points a problem with Protestantism–their founder got off on the wrong foot altogether, and it hasn’t much improved for them, has it? It has produced a LOT of heresy which is being popularized and promoted as the ‘normative’ for christianity, and which often (as witnessed from the forum) is in advesarial position to the Catholic Church, by nature (being heretical and all).

Very good post, just thought I’d add my 2 cents.

Thanks for the compliment. I try.

 

[guanophore]

I am convinced that the word of God is true. Any interpretation of scripture must fit with all of scripture. For example, a good understanding of the word must reconcile Paul’s statements concerning works with James’ statements concerning works. A theology that embraces one but rejects the other is not of God for God gave both. If a person says that they are saved by faith and do not have works like love and forgiveness and helping those in need, they are deceived.

It is very Catholic of you to say this!

So is my interpretation superior to yours? Only if my interpretation fits better with the teaching of the Bible than yours does.

Here in lies the problem, Berean. Scripture does not “teach” itself. Granted, many teachings can be found therein, but the duty of “teaching” was given to the Church. Only persons can teach because teaching requires the ability to discern, and take responsibility for oneself. Holy as the Writings are, you are trying to ascribe to them qualities that God never intended them to posess. If He did, He would have written the NT, instead of founding a Church,and commissioning them to teach.

If you have a clearer understanding of a topic that fits better with the Bible, I will receive it joyfully for I am convinced that the Bible is true.

Actually, what you are saying is that you have convinced yourself that your understanding of the Bible is true. Therefore, you will likely reject any understanding of it that does not coincide with what you believe is true.

Therefore, if you want to convince me of a truth that I am failing to understand, argue from the scriptures. Quote the Bible and I will receive your message.

The bottom line is that we can quote the Bible to one another till the second coming. It is more a matter of what we variously understand it to mean that wins out. Catholics understand scripture in the light of Apostolic Teaching. Those who have not recieved this teaching understand it otherwise.

That depends on the church’s teaching. If the church is teaching the truth of God’s word, then you are not wrong.

That would be, the Truth of God’s Word as BereanRuss understands it, right?

The church is made up of those who worship God in spirit and in truth.

My sheep hear my voice…

It is very Catholic of you to say this as well!

 

[BereanRuss]

Still more…I can keep them coming.

byzgirl,

I am so sorry you have put so much work into this but I am afraid you did not understand at all the “assignment”. I was away from my computer and I did not know you were posting all of these scriptures.

I am not quite sure were you got the idea that I was asking you to find places were protestants and Catholics disagree (that would be a big assignment) but I was asking you to find other places in the scripture where, as you put it, “God isn’t put in a box, by His own Word.”

In other words, your way of explaining why Jesus does not require a person to receive communion in the CC to be saved is because, “God isn’t put in a box, by His own Word” Can you find other examples in the Bible of what you are referring to in that statement?

I am sorry I was not more clear.

 

[BereanRuss]

But see, here you go, not proofreading your own thoughts.

The Thief on the Cross did not:
a) be born of Water and Spirit.
b) eat His Body and drink His Blood.
c) Profess that Jesus Christ is Lord
d) or any of the other “you have no life’s in you unless”

And yet he joined Christ in Paradise!

I disagree completely.

a) be born of Water and Spirit. – …that He might sanctify and cleanse her with the washing of water by the word… [Eph 5:26] The thief was washed by the water of the word of God that he heard from Jesus while on the cross.
b) eat His Body and drink His Blood. – that is the subject of this post and another good reason to believe that Jesus is speaking figuratively, not literally.
c) Profess that Jesus Christ is Lord – WRONG – “…Lord, remember me when You come into Your kingdom." He confessed Jesus with his lips.
d) or any of the other “you have no life’s in you unless” Please use scriptures.

 

[guanophore]

If the CC is that true church, shouldn’t she still believe the words of the One who founded her and not change, “Amen, amen” to “Most of the time…”, or, “The normative means…”?

Yes, indeed she should. However, she believes them the way He intended, and not according to the understanding of those who have long been separated from the Apostolic teaching.

Normative means “the usual”. When Jesus said “you must be born again of water and Spirit…”, this is the normal expectation. Now, He clearly demonstrated that there exceptions, when He told the thief next to Him that he would be with Him in paradise.

Maybe everything is not as black and white as you thought?

that is correct, there is no connection between, “another gospel” and the Eucharist unless the Gospel requires belief in the Eucharist.

The Apostolic gospel includes the Catholic beliefs about the Eucharist. However, there are many other “modern” gospels that clearly do not contain this Apostolic teaching. This is one of the ways we know they are "different gospels’.

You seem to think that believing the Gospel is synonymous with believing in the Eucharist.

If this is the case, I challenge to search the scripture and see if it is true. Post your results here (include the scriptures please) if you don’t mind.

Absolutely! The good news of Jesus giving His life to purchase eternal life for us is the source and summit of our faith. We celebrate His supreme sacrifice daily in the eucharist. it is at that time that we become present at the foot of the cross through the Divine Mystery of His presence under the appearance of bread and wine.

There is no need for Catholics to “search the scriptures to see if this is true”. This is because the NT was written by Catholics. Everything in it is consistent with the Catholic faith, because it emanates from the Sacred Tradition of the Apostolic teaching alive and well in the Church. We know that everything in the Scripture is inspired by God, just as His word in the Church is so inspired.

 

[BereanRuss]

Hmmmm…

One is a clearly self-explained analogy.
One has no explanation other than literal. The figurative has absolutely no meaning.

Big difference.

I am the one arguing for a figurative interpretation of John 6:53. You are the one insisting that Jesus was speaking literally. So why insinuate that I cannot understand when the Bible is speaking figuratively?

 

[BereanRuss]

Yes, indeed she should. However, she believes them the way He intended, and not according to the understanding of those who have long been separated from the Apostolic teaching.

How are you believing the way He intended if you have the change His words from, “Amen, amen…” to “the normative means…”

 

[bullfrog654]

I believe through much idiot religious endurance justice HAS A VOICE OF justice

 

[mardukm]

How are you believing the way He intended if you have the change His words from, “Amen, amen…” to “the normative means…”

And how are you believing the way He intended if you change his words from “Amen, Amen” to “that’s not what I really mean.” Please respond to that.

The Catholic understanding takes it exactly as Jesus intended. Those who eat His flesh and drink his blood indeed have eternal life (a life-long act of submission, not a one-time event). Does this mean that those who have not heard the message are damned? Does not Jesus say elsewhere that it is worse for those who have heard, believed and fallen away than for those who have never heard. Does not Scripture also say that for those who have no knowledge of the law, they will be judged by their actions according to the Natural law God has put in their hearts (their conscience). Does not Jesus promise the thief on the cross paradise without having eaten his flesh nor drunk his blood?

So we have sure biblical grounds for believing that God is not bound by His Sacraments for the sake of salvation - we also have sure biblical grounds that He DID nevertheless insitute the Sacraments as means and helps of salvation.

What biblical grounds do YOU have for changing the Lord’s words “Amen, Amen…” to “that’s not what I really mean?” Did he say “Amen, Amen, I am a door…?” Did he say, “Amen, Amen, I am a vine…?” NOSIREE!!! You can’t appeal to these CLEARLY figurative phrases to justify your unbiblical comparison. He DID however, say, “Amen, Amen, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink His blood, you will have no life in you.” He DID however, say “Amen, Amen, unless you are born of water and the Spirit, you will not be saved.” We must take Jesus at His word that he truly meant what he said when he exclaims to us “TRULY, TRULY…” Many Protestants DON’T.

BTW, you have not answered my original question - what possible biblical rationale do you or can you offer for equating “the flesh that avails nothing” with “HIS flesh that promises eternal life”?

Please stop avoiding the questions. I think the fact that you are avoiding may actually be the Holy Spirit tugging at your conscience to help you to realize how unbiblical - and illogical - your position is.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[joe370]

Hey BereanRuss…

Jesus said:

John 3:5 - "Most assuredly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God.

Mark 16:15-16 - "Go into all the world and preach the gospel to every creature. “He who believes and is baptized will be saved…”

---

Jesus also said:

“Unless you eat the Flesh of the Son of man and drink His Blood, you have no life in you; he who eats My Flesh and drinks My Blood has eternal life.”

Jesus’ Jewish followers said: “This is a hard saying; who can listen to it?”

They remembered God’s command to Noah and all mankind, Gn 9:4 “Only you shall not eat flesh with its life, that is, its blood.” God spoke more forcefully to His chosen people. Lv 17:10 “I will set my face against that person who eats blood, and will cut him off from among his people.”

What did Jesus say to His followers when they were grumbling? He said again:

“Unless You Eat the Flesh of the Son of Man and Drink His Blood You Have No Life In You.”

Why is that?

It was only after Christ’s redemptive sacrifice and the Holy Spirit’s enlightenment on Pentecost that the Apostles saw the full meaning of our Father’s next words. Lv 17:11 “For the life of the flesh is in the blood; and I have given it for you upon the altar to make atonement for your souls; for it is the blood that makes atonement, by reason of the life.”

---

Here we have two commands:

1. “Unless You Eat the Flesh of the Son of Man and Drink His Blood You Have No Life In You.”
2. "Most assuredly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God.

If someone can reject number 1 which clearly decrees that we must eat the Flesh of the Son of Man and drink His Blood, if we want eternal life, then why can’t someone else reject number 2 which clearly decrees that we must be born of water and the Spirit if we want to enter the kingdom of God… which clearly decrees: He who believes and is baptized will be saved…?

If I were to start a church tomorrow and chuck baptism, would my church still be a part of Jesus’ one Mystical Body?

 

[Always_For_Him]

The Apostles didn’t “know” exactly what Jesus was talking about either. They knew Jesus wasn’t speaking symbolically though. BUT, they knew He had the Words of eternal life and there was nowhere else to go. They knew it would be revealed to them in time, they just had to trust Him, and they did. They simply believed and they were rewarded for their faith at the Last Supper and at Pentecost. Jesus revealed to them that they would receive His body and blood in the sacrament of the Holy Eucharist, not in the bloody, cannibalistic way the unbelievers had imagined. Is this really so unimaginable considering that God can do all things?

All the ECF’s believed in the Real Presence. Until the Reformation, all Christianity accepted the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist. The belief of the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist was brought through the Reformation into Protestantism. What has happened to it and many other teachings and practices that came through the Reformation over the last 500 years? Man, separated from Apostolic Teaching, has eliminated these teachings by his own authority, one by one, taught his own personal interpretations as truth, so now today, we have denomination after denomination teaching error and they don’t even know it.

 

[bullfrog654]

i believe in my basement after having a hot bath i believe jesus knows the true original spirit, this is the spirit he offers us to be filled with for he has plans and shakes his sword of truth towqards its enemies alone in battle so as no one learns but from the wispers in the jungle. he values mankinds rights and practices the bible word for word and it relays to him to prepare. for he has many plans that of which are only wispers in the brease of which the holy spirit guides him with through out the day.

for as he said and i believe the true foundation of his church is if your brother has a thorn in his eye take yours out first so as i see your all taking out your thorns i see you religious

 

[juliamajor]

I believe through much idiot religious endurance justice HAS A VOICE OF justice

Excuse me but- WHAT the heck does that mean?You write like you are not a native speaker-can you please clarify?

 

[guanophore]

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

Paul, like all the Apostles, instructed us that accepting something other than what was delivered by the Apostles ordained by Christ is a “different gospel”. Your denial of the Catholic doctrines (which are not “Roman” by the way) constitutes a denial of what we have received from the Apostles. They, and their successors, and theirs, to the present day, accept that the bread and wine become the Body and Blood of the Lord in the Eucharist.

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.

God never said He could not, or would not, save anyone He wants, however He likes. He commanded His disciples to observe the eucharist in memory of Him. As His disciples, we are eager to observe it, because His commandments are not burdensome to us. The reason we query those who deny this commandment is that Jesus was clear:

John 14:15-16
"If you love me, you will keep my commandments.’

It puzzles us, when we see so many of our separated brethren who are obviously expressive of their love for the Lord, yet do not obey His commandment in this matter.

My apologies concerning my ignorance of the Eastern Church. I am not trying to insult anyone. I will try to use CC from now on.

Thank you so much! I appreciate your courtesy.

If Jesus was referring to the Eucharist in John 6:53 then the Bible does indeed say that no one can be saved apart from taking communion in the CC.

I believe that you understand it that way.

However, in order to understand the meaning of scripture, one must look at the context. Jesus was speaking here to disciples, those who professed faith in Him. the Eucharist is not open to anyone else. This instruction is given to the faithful.

A loving God is not eager to condemn, He is eager to justify and save!  Therefore Jesus MUST be speaking figuratively and if He is speaking figuratively then there is NO need for the priesthood which is why the Apostles did not establish another earthly priesthood - because NONE is required!

There is no logical flow to this premise. God is a loving God. He established the priesthood, out of His love.

It is out of Love that He gave his real flesh, and His real blood - not “figurative” flesh and blood - for the life of the world.

Jesus established the priesthood. If you feel qualified to dispense with something He deemed necessary, then that is your affair.

I am not sure what you mean by “earthly” priesthood. Jesus priesthood can hardly be characterized as “earthly”.

However, the existence of CC priesthood is the VERY thing that makes the words of Jesus literal instead of figurative - and when you make His words in this verse literal, that is when He becomes a liar! In other words, if the CC priesthood is true, then Jesus is lying in John 6:53 but if the priesthood is false, His words are spirit and they are life – they are figurative and He remains TRUE!

This has been my point from the beginning of this BLOG!

Well, I am glad at least that we finally got down to the root of your problem. I just wish I could understand it. Nothing that humans are, or can be, “makes the words of Jesus literal instead of figurative”. Jesus is the Head of the Church, He is our great High Priest.

The rest of your post honestly makes no sense to me, but at least it is clear that you have many objections to the Apostolic faith, and the Eucharist and priesthood are clearly among them.

The OT is a shadow of what was to come. There was a High Priest, a minsterial priesthood, and the priesthood of all the believers. So in the NT, we see the fulfillment of the shadows that preceeded it. Jesus is our great High Priest, offering the once for all sacrifice. He grafts some into Himself to serve the Body, who in turn become priests to the world, part of the ministry of reconciling the world to Himself. Why does this bother you, since it is all biblical?

As I have pointed out, if Jesus is to be taken literally here, then He contradicts Himself in many other places like, “anyone who comes to me I will in no way cast out…”, or “you are clean by the word that I have spoken to you…” or “He who believes in me…”

I understand why it is hard for persons who think concretely to be able to abstract. In fact, all these things are literally true.

That is the reason why we take this verse figuratively, because if we do not, Jesus contradicts Himself on many levels. Not to mention that Jesus told us, “the words that I speak to you are spirit and they are life.”

Yes. People do whatever they need to do to make things comfortable for themselves. This is human nature.

 

[bradwill911]

I am the one arguing for a figurative interpretation of John 6:53. You are the one insisting that Jesus was speaking literally. So why insinuate that I cannot understand when the Bible is speaking figuratively?

Berean,

Please take the time to explain to us why, after Jesus says these things, many disciples left him and no longer followed him. If He was speaking figuratively, surely they would not have withdrawn. If He was speaking figuratively, surely He would have stopped them from withdrawing to explain what He had meant. Jesus takes time to explain His parables, but He is notably silent here. If it was purely symbolic, these close followers would not have withdrawn. Help me make sense of that from your point of view.

St Ignatius of Antioch, who it is generally believed learned directly from the Apostles, said the following in 110 AD:

“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]).

Did the earliest Christians teach “Real Presence” or did they teach that the bread and wine were merely symbolic?

Is it possible that Christ’s apostles (who were being led by the Holy Spirit) misunderstood what Jesus was preaching and taught their followers incorrectly?

When does the correct interpretation finally occur and why is this interpretation more accurate than what had originally been taught?

 

[Always_For_Him]

In most conversation, we assume people are speaking literally. We take it literally unless we have some reason to believe otherwise. The Bible should be interpreted literally unless one of the following conditions are met:

1. The Bible tells us that it is not literal.
2. The literal interpretation goes against clear common sense.
3. The literal interpretation goes against clear facts
4. The literal interpretation would make God contradict Himself.

We must distinguish interpretations that are against reason, and therefore impossible, from those that are beyond reason, but still possible with God. It is not against reason that God became a man, or that ordinary bread and wine are changed into Jesus’ body and blood. These are miracles beyond our common sense and experience.
Just because it seems incredible, does not make it a parable.

Jesus used many parables, similies, and metaphors in His Teachings. But, Jesus is not speaking symbolically when He says we must eat His flesh in order to have eternal life in Jn 6:52, the Jews interpret Him literally. Jesus then repeats again and again (verses 53-56) in the clearest possible language - that we must eat His flesh and drink His blood in order to have eternal life. Verse 55, “For my flesh is food indeed, and my blood is drink indeed” - this is NOT the language of symbolism.

Jesus tells us exactly what He means by calling Himself “bread.” The bread Jesus is speaking of is not merely a symbol for spiritual nourishment. Jesus tells us plainly that the bread is His own flesh (verse 51), which we must eat to have eternal life. We must accept His clear words. The word “spirit” is nowhere used in the Bible to mean “symbolic.”

Jesus’ Eucharistic talke ends with verse 58. The dialogue of verses 60-70 occurs later and deals with faith, NOT the Eucharist. In verse 63, Jesus is contrasting the natural or carnal man (“the flesh”) with the spiritual or faith-filled man. Read 1 Cor 2:14-3:4 for a good explanation of what Jesus means by “the flesh.” Jesus says “my flesh” when discussing the Eucharist. He says “the flesh” when referring to the carnal man who will not believe anything beyond his senses and reason.

The unbelieving disciples leave Jesus after verse 63 - they would not have left at this point if Jesus had assured them that He was only speaking symbolically. This is the only time recorded in the NT that any of Jesus’ disciples left Him because they found a doctrine of His too hard to accept.

 

[bullfrog654]

in the bible at times we endure trials similar to job in the bible we are tested by satan. though i suggest idiot because most are unaware and dont recognise or seek a whole day as a test if one recognises each day as being tested you at least have a chance to pass the test. it is also said in the bible we are saved if we endure to the end i remember in mathews

 

[NotWorthy]

Since guanaphore has already addressed this, I only want to comment on a couple of your statements.

So is my interpretation superior to yours? Only if my interpretation fits better with the teaching of the Bible than yours does. If you have a clearer understanding of a topic that fits better with the Bible, I will receive it joyfully for I am convinced that the Bible is true.

Now, you see. This is one difference between our churches, and it has to be simply because of the age of our churches.

Your church bases it s teaching on how it interprets the Bible.
Since the Catholic Church’s teachings precede the Bible, She used Her teachings to determine which of the 100+ potentially Scriptural writings were considered inspired. In other words, the Catholic Church used Her teachings to help determine which writings were Scriptural - and one of those basis was how well the Scriptural agreed with the Church’s teachings. So to say that Scripture disagrees with the Church is a little well, odd.

The church is made up of those who worship God in spirit and in truth.

My sheep hear my voice…

“Peter, do you love me… feed my Sheep”… “Peter do you love me… Tend my Flock”… “Peter do you love me… Tend my Sheep” (Paraphrasing).

In other words, your way of explaining why Jesus does not require a person to receive communion in the CC to be saved is because, “God isn’t put in a box, by His own Word” Can you find other examples in the Bible of what you are referring to in that statement?

OK, in the Protestant interpretation of the 2nd Commandment. Thou shall not make graven images.

Then God goes out and instructs the Isrealites to make what? Graven Images… 3 times! (Ark of the Covenant, the Serpent on the Staff, and the Temple).

That’s a rather striking oxymoron, according to the typical Protestant rendering of this commandment.

I disagree completely.

a) be born of Water and Spirit. – …that He might sanctify and cleanse her with the washing of water by the word… [Eph 5:26] The thief was washed by the water of the word of God that he heard from Jesus while on the cross.

Hmmm, this is interesting. Let’s look at the entire quote. Paul is talking about Jesus and his relationship to the Church, not an individual
even as Christ loved the church and handed himself over for her 26 to sanctify her, cleansing her by the bath of water with the word, 27 that he might present to himself the church in splendor, without spot or wrinkle or any such thing, that she might be holy and without blemish.

c) Profess that Jesus Christ is Lord – WRONG – “…Lord, remember me when You come into Your kingdom." He confessed Jesus with his lips.

But the thief didn’t say, “Lord, remember me…” He called Jesus by name - 'Jesus, remember me…". except in the King James version. I’m curious if there are other translations that insert “Lord”.

 

[bullfrog654]

i realize this in the coming of the theif in the night there will be many false profits.

in my beliefe im suppose to represent jesus word that of which is also in the king james bible. in so doing so I HAVE BEEN TOLD I LOOK LIKE JESUS with long hair and beard. however we as catholics are only copy cats practicing the word of god

 

[Church_Militant]

… 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.”

No, He does not contradict himself any more than when He tells us all, “… I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No man cometh to the Father, but by me.” So when you read these passages you have to take them all in the context of each other. There is no contradiction at all since Our Lord is the one who tells us what is needed for salvation and it is up to us to obey Him. One should keep in mind that your own interpretation is a modern new wind of doctrines of man that has only been put forth in the last 500 years or so, but was never the doctrine of the New Testament or the early church.

The question for those who hold that errant belief then becomes whether they are willing to obey the correct doctrine.

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.”

No, you yourself will tell us that John 6:53 applies to the carnal thinking of men and that is precisely what the verse means when taken in context and actually refers to the thinking of the disciples who deserted Him after saying the same thing that you have essentially said. “The Jews therefore strove among themselves, saying: How can this man give us his flesh to eat?”

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

There’s your explanation and there is no contradiction except in the carnality of the minds of those who argue that what Our Lord said cannot be so.

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?

Specious argument. God gave that revelation to the last living apostle at that time.

Also, there is no rule that all such revelation has to come through the Pope and that has never been the teaching of the Catholic Church, but this revelation, as with all others, was submitted to the authority of the church and affirmed as inspired canon after much discussion. It is interesting to note that a certain “pillar of the Reformation” actually wanted to eliminate Revelation from the New Testament canon.

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

He has… you apparently just disagree with Him.

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.

Not so…The teaching of the Catholic Church is that they may be saved.

"Outside the Church there is no salvation" (LINK)
846 How are we to understand this affirmation, often repeated by the Church Fathers?335 Re-formulated positively, it means that all salvation comes from Christ the Head through the Church which is his Body:

Basing itself on Scripture and Tradition, the Council teaches that the Church, a pilgrim now on earth, is necessary for salvation: the one Christ is the mediator and the way of salvation; he is present to us in his body which is the Church. He himself explicitly asserted the necessity of faith and Baptism, and thereby affirmed at the same time the necessity of the Church which men enter through Baptism as through a door. Hence they could not be saved who, knowing that the Catholic Church was founded as necessary by God through Christ, would refuse either to enter it or to remain in it.336
847 This affirmation is not aimed at those who, through no fault of their own, do not know Christ and his Church:

Those who, through no fault of their own, do not know the Gospel of Christ or his Church, but who nevertheless seek God with a sincere heart, and, moved by grace, try in their actions to do his will as they know it through the dictates of their conscience - those too may achieve eternal salvation.337
848 "Although in ways known to himself God can lead those who, through no fault of their own, are ignorant of the Gospel, to that faith without which it is impossible to please him, the Church still has the obligation and also the sacred right to evangelize all men."338