Do Catholics believe John 6:53?

[Church_Militant]

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.

 

[Church_Militant]

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

 

[Church_Militant]

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

Which is precisely why your doctrines are wrong.

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

Except that, as I have already shown you, the Catholic Church says precisely the same things that Jesus Himself said and taught and that the New Testament very clearly expresses while your own errant doctrine is a new wind of modern men.

 

[bullfrog654]

i disagree i believe god can lie in job he told satan not to harm a hair on job. later he said it was ok and he got boils and so forth. this is only one instence i would recognise as a lie

 

[juliamajor]

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

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.

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.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”.

With all those individual interpretations out there (and all HS inspired!) one is bound to come across a Protestant who believes in the Real Presence- I think I’ll sit and wait for his HS guided interpretation!

 

[guanophore]

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

In this case, it makes no difference. Jesus is not making a “suggestion” to His disciples here. The Apostles taught that this is a commandment that we are to follow. If we love Him, we will keep His commandments.

There are always rare cases where faithful Catholics are unable to celebrate the Eucharist. For example, Catholic priests, who practice this sacrament daily, have found themselves imprisoned without the necessary elements to cathect the Eucharist. However, “normally”, (when they were able) they would celebrate Mass daily.

 

[pnewton]

If the RCC took Jesus’ word literally then it would be impossible for protestants, Jews and Muslims to ever be saved because Jews, Muslims, etc do not eat the flesh or drink the blood of Jesus made available only through the work of the RCC priest.

If you took the words really literally, it would be impossible for those disciples to whom he directly was speaking, who had not case of ignorance, to be saved if they walked away.

I think the root of this whole misunderstanding is that spirit/flesh simply can not be equated with figuratively/literally. No where in the Bible does the concept of something being spiritual mean it is just figurative. Instead, all Christians accept that the spiritual world* is* a reality.

Finally, the passage only becomes problematic in the manner suggested by the OP if one accepts that the “flesh” mentioned there is the flesh of the real presence of Christ, which is the opposite of the point trying to be proved.

 

[BereanRuss]

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.

Again, Jesus cannot be speaking of the Eucharist in John 6:53 without completely contradicting Himself elsewhere. Jesus cannot lie and therefore He cannot one day say, “Anyone who comes to me I will in no way cast out…” and then the next day say, “…unless you eat of the flesh…” Jesus cannot contradict Himself and remain holy, without sin.

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).

Again, the CC does not believe the words of Jesus. If the CC believed the words of the Jesus they would teach that only those in the CC can be saved. They do not teach this.

(Edited)

 

[BereanRuss]

Jesus said:

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

You are only finding problems with you own theology, not with the Bible. The CC says that Jesus is speaking of baptism here but Jesus did not say Baptism.

There are several other possible meanings of “water” in this verse.

1. The water of the womb. Jesus is telling Nic that there are two births required, the first birth from the womb (water) and the second birth of the Spirit.
2. The washing of the water of the word. We are born again by the word 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…”

'Upon whom you see the Spirit descending, and remaining on Him, this is He who baptizes with the Holy Spirit.

Water baptism is not required for salvation. Baptism of the Holy Spirit is required for salvation.

That is why Paul was not concerned about baptism but preaching the gospel:

For Christ did not send me to baptize, but to preach the gospel, not with wisdom of words, lest the cross of Christ should be made of no effect.

(Edited)

 

[cazayoux]

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

Absolutely.

It seems that non-Catholics see the ‘spirit’ in John 6 as ‘symbolic’, which just isn’t true. ‘Spirit’ and ‘symbolic’ are not at all the same. The trinity is not made of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Symbolic.

The spirit is MORE real than the flesh that we know in this life.
I tend to think that our physical bodies are a mere shadow compared to the reality of our spirit.
We are bound by our limited understanding while in these physical bodies.
When Jesus says that he is speaking of the Spirit … He’s talking about something MORE real than the physicality that we understand now.
THIS is how we see the spirit … THIS is how we see the reality of the literal meaning of John 6.

When talking to my 8th graders studying for confirmation, I tie John 6 to the last supper accounts and the sacrifice on the cross.

In John 6, Jesus is talking to his apostles and many, many disciples.
These people have seen him walk on water and feed thousands. They KNOW what he is capable of.
When he tells them they must eat his flesh and drink his blood, some disciples say that this is a hard teaching. Does Jesus make it easier for them? No … he uses even stronger language to reiterate it. Some of those disciples leave. Does Jesus call them back and say ‘wait … you misunderstood … i was speaking symbolically’? No … he lets them go, AND THEN turns to the apostles to ask them if they too will leave. I don’t think the apostles understood what he meant about eating his flesh and drinking his blood, but they trust him. Their answer is to say that they KNOW Jesus is the truth and there is nobody else they would go to for the truth. The accept it even though they do not understand.

Fast forward to the last supper.
“This is my body which will be given up for you.”
I have to think the apostles had an ‘AHA’ moment. ‘That’s what he was talking about’.
Of course we can have the discussion about Jesus saying ‘this is’.
As we know, this is the same God that spoke the universe into existence with a word.
If He says ‘this is’, I believe him.

Non-Catholics say that he called himself a door, a vine, … and don’t Catholics take those examples as figurative. Yes we do. Realize, at the last supper even his language is different. In the figurative examples he says ‘I am this’ or ‘I am that’. At the last supper, even the language structure is different. He says ‘this is me’.

What I really draw attention to, is the second part.
‘which will be given up for you’
‘which will be shed for you’

Jesus is equating what is in his hands (bread, wine) to what will be given up.
On the cross, it was Jesus’ literal body, literal blood, not his symbolic body/blood.

Since the body and blood ‘which was given up’ is literal, what he is holding in his hands at the last supper is literal.
He’s telling us at the last supper that what he holds is the same as the flesh and blood that will be given up on the cross.

We DO see this in terms of the Spirit, which is MORE real than just the physical nature we understand now.

Hope this helps a little.

michel

 

[BereanRuss]

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.

Then why don’t you believe Jesus’ words when He says, “Unless you eat of the flesh…”? Why don’t you believe that those who are not Catholic cannot be saved if Jesus is speaking of the Eucharist? You must you change His words from, “Amen, amen…” to “ the normative means…” to make your theology work (Edited).

 

[cazayoux]

1. The water of the womb. Jesus is telling Nic that there are two births required, the first birth from the womb (water) and the second birth of the Spirit.

Hehehe … really … THIS is a new teaching … a new gospel even.
I do not see any reference to placental fluid in the bible.
eisogesis.

michel

 

[Always_For_Him]

Again, Jesus cannot be speaking of the Eucharist in John 6:53 without completely contradicting Himself elsewhere. Jesus cannot lie and therefore He cannot one day say, “Anyone who comes to me I will in no way cast out…” and then the next day say, “…unless you eat of the flesh…” Jesus cannot contradict Himself and remain holy, without sin.

I was going to ask you what the instances were that Jesus would have been contradicting himself. "Coming to Jesus and eating the flesh of Jesus for eternal life are not separate commands that cancel eachother out. They support eachother in that there is MUCH we need to do to inherit the kingdom of God. Jesus said many things that we “are to do.” The Eucharist is a sacrament established by Jesus to give us grace, so He could be with us in a real, BEAUTIFUL way until He comes again. It is not do this or do that, it is do all of this or that together the way Jesus says to do it. The way He revealed it to His Church.

Again, the CC does not believe the words of Jesus. If the CC believed the words of the Jesus they would teach that only those in the CC can be saved. They do not teach this.

(Edited)

You wouldn’t have any words of Jesus if it weren’t for the CC. Please humble yourself to that fact. Your understanding of the words of Jesus as YOU interpret them is the problem. The Catholic Church teaches it as Jesus taught it to them. Man has changed the teachings over the last 500 years and THIS is the problem of being in a church founded by fallible man and learning your faith from those fallible men and NOT being in the Church founded by Christ and taught by Christ.

 

[BereanRuss]

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.

The Apostles did not have to change the words of Jesus like the CC does.

God never said He could not, or would not, save anyone He wants, however He likes.

If Jesus is not bound by His word how will He judge the liars of this world? If Jesus can say one thing and do another, how can He judge the word in rightousness?

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

If Jesus established the priesthood He is not a God of love for the priesthood is of the LAW and by the works of the law no flesh shall be justified in His sight.

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.

Why do you say that it is necessary in one breath and in the next breath say it is not necessary for the Jew or the Muslim?

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

The Catholic priesthood is an earthly priesthood and the NT does NOT establish another earthly priesthood.

No leader in the NT church is ever referred to as a priest. None.

If the priesthood is so essential to the Christian faith, why didn’t the Apostles ever mention it in the entire NT?

 

[NotWorthy]

Again, Jesus cannot be speaking of the Eucharist in John 6:53 without completely contradicting Himself elsewhere. Jesus cannot lie and therefore He cannot one day say, “Anyone who comes to me I will in no way cast out…” and then the next day say, “…unless you eat of the flesh…” Jesus cannot contradict Himself and remain holy, without sin.

Unless “anyone who comes to me…” includes obedience. One of those factors of obedience is “eating the Flesh”.

It can’t just mean “simple faith”, for then Jesus wouldn’t preach about how hard it is to get to heaven.

 

[NotWorthy]

You are only finding problems with you own theology, not with the Bible. The CC says that Jesus is speaking of baptism here but Jesus did not say Baptism.

There are several other possible meanings of “water” in this verse.

1. The water of the womb. Jesus is telling Nic that there are two births required, the first birth from the womb (water) and the second birth of the Spirit.
2. The washing of the water of the word. We are born again by the word of God.

Russ,

Please, PLEASE tell me you don’t hold to this Tripe that “born of water” refers to the amniotic fluid. An honest look at Jesus words will show that this excuse is simply a cop-out. Putting the proverbial cart (pre-conceived beliefs) before the horse (the Truth).

And there is no teaching as consistent in the Church than that “the waters” are speaking of the waters of Baptism.

'Upon whom you see the Spirit descending, and remaining on Him, this is He who baptizes with the Holy Spirit.

Water baptism is not required for salvation. Baptism of the Holy Spirit is required for salvation.

That is why Paul was not concerned about baptism but preaching the gospel:

For Christ did not send me to baptize, but to preach the gospel, not with wisdom of words, lest the cross of Christ should be made of no effect.

(Edited)

You’ll need to step back and then take a closer look at why Paul wrote that to the Corinthians, before you base your whole belief system on Paul not needing to Baptize. You’re infecting a lot of Jesus’ core teachings when you do that. Again, the entire 2000 year teaching of the Church is very consistent on Baptism.

 

[byzgirl]

**

The trinity is not made of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Symbolic.

**

Good one, Michel!!! I love it! How true, how true. I would have never thought to use that example. Very good!

I’m enjoying your posts. Keep up the good work.

byzgirl

 

[bradwill911]

You are only finding problems with you own theology, not with the Bible. The CC says that Jesus is speaking of baptism here but Jesus did not say Baptism.

Jesus also did not say that He was God, but we believe that He is

I think you are not seeing the forest through the trees.

• Jesus Himself was baptized in water (Mt 3:16)
• Jesus’ first instruction was for his apostles to go make disciples and baptize. They knew what baptism meant!
• Mark 16:16, “He who believes AND IS BAPTIZED will be saved…”
• 1 Pet 3:21, “Baptism…now saves you…”
• Acts 2:38, “…Repent, and be baptized…”

There are several other possible meanings of “water” in this verse.

1. The water of the womb. Jesus is telling Nic that there are two births required, the first birth from the womb (water) and the second birth of the Spirit.

• Really, you can’t be serious. This verse (John 3:5) is an explanation to Nicodemus after Jesus first said that one must be born anew and Nicodemus questioned him asking how an old man can reenter the womb and be born again. Jesus explains that he is not talking about birth, but being born of water and the Spirit. This “possibility” is both intellectually dishonest and actually quite comical. Being born anew means being physically born in the first place? I don’t think so.

1. The washing of the water of the word. We are born again by the word of God.

• This one is at least plausible, but to use your own argument against you, Jesus doesn’t say being born by the word, he says water. You said that he doesn’t say “baptism”, but he also doesn’t say “word”. You can’t really use this argument when your own conclusions don’t hold up.

Water baptism is not required for salvation. Baptism of the Holy Spirit is required for salvation.

• Funny thing is that the Church has ALWAYS taught this and even Martin Luther, as anti-Catholic as he was, maintained this. I guess there are some things that are crystal clear in Scripture.

That is why Paul was not concerned about baptism but preaching the gospel:

For Christ did not send me to baptize, but to preach the gospel, not with wisdom of words, lest the cross of Christ should be made of no effect.

• Yet Paul refers to baptism as being the new sign of the covenant. Old sign was circumcision, new sign or circumcision of Christ is baptism (Col 2:11-12).

Again, if your theology demands that Jesus become a liar, change your theology, not the words of Jesus.

• Friend, I agree with this, but I do not agree with whose theology is demanding Jesus to become a liar. Not only have Christ’s actions and words remained unchanged, but they are supported in the various letters in the NT and in the actions of the early Church.

 

[pnewton]

Russ,

Please, PLEASE tell me you don’t hold to this Tripe that “born of water” refers to the amniotic fluid. An honest look at Jesus words will show that this excuse is simply a cop-out. Putting the proverbial cart (pre-conceived beliefs) before the horse (the Truth).

Also, we need to remember that John is not an historical narrative in the sense that it is in chronological order. Instead, it connects ideas in order of relevance. The immediate context of the visit to Jesus at night is that of water, literal water. The baptism of Jesus, the water into wine, then comes Nicodemus, back to baptism by the disciples of John and finally the discourse on living water by Jesus at the well. The context has nothing to do with physical birth, but of physical water. Interestingly enough, John is the only gospel to exclude the Christmas narrative. Even from a non-Catholic standpoint it does not make sense that he switches from real water, to a symbol of birth, and back.

 

[cazayoux]

Also, we need to remember that John is not an historical narrative in the sense that it is in chronological order. Instead, it connects ideas in order of relevance.

Interestingly enough, John is the only gospel to exclude the Christmas narrative.

I wonder if this has anything to do with the fact that John’s gospel was written later than the synoptic gospels.
I wonder if he was drawing attention to particular teachings and filling gaps that might have lead to misunderstandings between the time the first synoptic gospel was written and John’s was written.

michel