Do Catholics believe John 6:53?

[cazayoux]

The teaching of the Apostles is found the in the word of God for they authored the NT. The teaching of the Apostles is not found in church tradition for they did not author it.

heh heh heh

Only two of the four gospel accounts were written by apostles (Matthew, John).
The teaching of the Apostles IS found in church tradition (specifically, the bible) as evidenced by non-Apostle authors of the new testament (Mark. Luke).

michel

 

[BereanRuss]

Outside the Church there is no salvation

No, this in not clear. First you say that a Jew or Muslim cannot be saved outside of the CC but then you say that both Jews and Muslims can be saved without ever receiving communion.

 

[ralphy]

God gave us the Catholic Church. It became “Roman” when St. Peter was carried away in chains to Rome, and then appointed his successor and died there.

There is no difference between God’s Church and the (Roman) Catholic Church - they are one and the same thing.

I understand that Peter was never in Rome. Ralph

 

[cazayoux]

I understand that Peter was never in Rome. Ralph

Did you find that statement in the bible … or did someone tell you this.
This is an old falsity.
There is a mountain of historical evidence for Peter being in Rome.

Again … you have been taught a prejudice against the Catholic Church.
Let go of this … prejudice like this is not from Jesus … you want to guess where it comes from?

michel

 

[guanophore]

No, this in not clear. First you say that a Jew or Muslim cannot be saved outside of the CC but then you say that both Jews and Muslims can be saved without ever receiving communion.

This is not a problem or a conflict for us, Berean. We understand that Jesus was talking to HIs disciples when He gave them the commandment for Eucharist. God can save anyone He likes, however He wants. The fact that He commands His disciples to be in communion does not mean He is unable or unwilling to save those who are not in that communion.

There is no salvation outside Jesus - no one comes to the father, but by Him. There is no separation between Christ, and His Body, therefore, all who are saved are members of His Body.

 

[NotWorthy]

You did not tell me who belongs to Gods church, you told me who belongs to the “Roman catholi” church. Do you know who makes up Gods church? Ralph.

I thought I did. Let’s see what my words were:

  			Originally Posted by **NotWorthy** 					[forums.catholic-questions.org/images/buttons_khaki/viewpost.gif](http://forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?p=5071568#post5071568) 				
  		*See, there you go again, mis-representing what the Catholic Church teaches. I see, once again, where you are having trouble in Scripture interpretation.

The Catholic Church teaches that anyone baptized, with water and the Trinitarian Formula, is a member of the Catholic Church - God’s Church.*
Notice I said the “Catholic Church”, not the Roman Catholic. All 23 rites of the Catholic Church (those united with Rome), and all the Orthodox Churches teaches that you are a part of the Church - God’s Church, if you’ve been validly baptized.

Even a professed Baptist, who was baptized at 17, is a member of the Catholic Church, and hence God’s Church.

 

[NotWorthy]

I understand that Peter was never in Rome. Ralph

Hmmm, people that personally knew Peter said he was in Rome.

Who am I going to believe?

 

[BereanRuss]

Does the NT tell us what books/gospels/epistles belong in the NT? …
If God has established the NT, why is the list of what books are inspired completely missing from the NT?

God is responsible to get His word to the world. God used Israel to get His word in times past yet Israel crucified the Messiah. The fact that God entrusted the NT to the CC does not guarantee that the traditions of that church are infallible any more then entrusting the OT to the Jews guaranteed that the traditions of Israel are infallible.

The Jews at the time of Christ were very prideful that they were Jews and not gentiles. Jesus rebuked them for their pride. I suggest you consider their example before you boast about the CC.

 

[ralphy]

Did you find that statement in the bible … or did someone tell you this.
This is an old falsity.
There is a mountain of historical evidence for Peter being in Rome.

Again … you have been taught a prejudice against the Catholic Church.
Let go of this … prejudice like this is not from Jesus … you want to guess where it comes from?

michel

Please give me something to convince me that Peter was in Rome> Ralph

 

[NotWorthy]

The teaching of the Apostles is found the in the word of God for they authored the NT. The teaching of the Apostles is not found in church tradition for they did not author it.

The Apostles never established an earthly priesthood. Consider this list from the Apostle Paul:

I thought, with this extreme commitment you have to finding no “priests” in the New Testament, that you might find Paul’s wording in Roman’s 15:16 to be a conundrum:

Then in [Romans 15:16](http://www.usccb.org/nab/bible/romans/romans15.htm#v16) Paul describes his Apostolic ministry in very forceful terms that points to the liturgical function of his ministry where Paul, serving the Gospel of Jesus Christ as a priest, offers up a sacrifice made holy and acceptable (sanctified) through the power of the Holy Spirit.  In this passage Paul identifies himself in the Old Covenant liturgical language of priesthood by using the significant Greek word *hierogon.  *

First Paul uses the Greek word leitourgos which conveys the meaning of “one who performs duties under the supervision of a superior” [also see http://www.usccb.org/nab/bible/romans/romans13.htm#v6”]Romans 13:6

and Philippians 2:25] when he identifies himself as a “minister” / leitourgos: *“I was given grace to be a minister of Christ Jesus to the Gentiles…”. *But this word is reinforced by the verb hierourgein, which in the present tense is always used in the Greek Septuagint translation of the Old Testament and in secular writings from this period [see Philo of Alexander and Flavius Josephus] in the context of priestly service in offering sacrifices. In that context this passage can also be translated: *“to be a minister of Christ Jesus to the Gentiles, serving the Gospel of God as a priest, in order that the offering of the Gentiles may be acceptable, sanctified by the Holy Spirit.” *[see Father Brendan Byrne, S.J. *Sacra Pagina Series, volume 6: Romans, page 434-435]. This imagery is expressed in terms of the ordained priest’s ritual of prescribed and holy sacrifice upon God’s holy Altar. This comes from AgapeBibleStudy.Com’s study of Romans.

 

[NotWorthy]

Please give me something to convince me that Peter was in Rome> Ralph

Both St. Clement and St. Ignatius had met St. Peter. St. Clement was the 3rd successor to Peter as Bishop of Rome. Ignatius was the 2nd successor to Peter at Antioch.

*“Through envy and jealousy, the greatest and most righteous pillars[of the Church] have been persecuted and put to death. Let us set before our eyes the illustrious apostles. Peter, through unrighteous envy, endured not one or two, but numerous labours and when he had at length suffered martyrdom, departed to the place of glory due to him. *”
Clement of Rome,The First Epistle of Clement,5(c.A.D. 96),in ANF,I:6

http://www.cin.org/users/jgallegos/res/dot_clr.gif
“I do not, as Peter and Paul, issue commandments unto you.”
Ignatius of Antioch,Epistle to the Romans,4(c.A.D. 110),in ANF,I:75

This comes from Corunum Catholic Apologetics Web-site - cin.org/users/jgallegos/rome.htm

 

[ralphy]

Both St. Clement and St. Ignatius had met St. Peter. St. Clement was the 3rd successor to Peter as Bishop of Rome. Ignatius was the 2nd successor to Peter at Antioch.
This comes from Corunum Catholic Apologetics Web-site - cin.org/users/jgallegos/rome.htm

I did not see any proof that Peter was in Rome, those names are from the Roman catholic church. Ralph

 

[BereanRuss]

The CC has the authority to pass on a priesthood, as the size of the Church outgrew the capabilities of the Apostles. As Acts 7 clearly shows, the Apostles had the ability to adapt to the Church’s ever-growing needs with the creation of the deacons to serve the poor and widows.

Only God can establish a priesthood because only God has the authority to determine how He can be approached. God detailed the OT priesthood over many LARGE books of the OT consisting of huge portions of scripture that detail every offering, who can be a priest, how to construct the tabernacle, etc. etc. etc.

God gave tremendous detail concerning the OT priesthood and then He fails to even mention “priest” in the NT? There is not ONE reference in the NT to any new earthly priesthood and if God did not establish the priesthood then it is an illegitimate priesthood.

 

[SHW]

God gave us the Catholic Church. It became “Roman” when St. Peter was carried away in chains to Rome, and then appointed his successor and died there.

There is no difference between God’s Church and the (Roman) Catholic Church - they are one and the same thing.

I learned that the Church was known simply as the Catholic (universal) Church until the Protestants added “Roman” to Catholic because the Protestants interpreted the “Babylon” of Revelation in Scripture to be Vatican Rome and they wanted desperately to make the Catholic Church this “Babylon.”

According to some Scripture scholars, the great city Babylon is Pagan Rome which sits on seven hills, not Christian Rome which sits on its own hill across the river from the seven hills. Other Scripture scholars believe that Babylon is Jerusalem (and is also called Sodom and Egypt) which sits on seven mountains and it is only this great city where Jesus was crucified, Jerusalem, that should properly be called Babylon. (Revelation 16:19, Revelation 11:8)

"The Greek word “catholic” means “universal” and was first used to describe the Church by Ignatius in written form in the late first, early second century. This name for the Church, Catholic, was in common usage before Ignatius mentioned it in his letter.

Some different Christian denominations not in communion with The Catholic Church describe themselves as “catholic,” but in common usage it refers to the body also known as the Roman Catholic Church and its members.

The Church itself in its official documents since the first Council of Nicea in 325, including the documents of the most recent ecumenical councils, Vatican I and Vatican II, uses the name “Catholic Church”.

According to Kenneth Whitehead, in his book One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic which was used by Catholic media to explain the Church’s name to worldwide viewers, “The term ‘Roman Catholic’ is not used by the Church herself; it is a relatively modern term, confined largely to the English language.” The Catholic Encyclopedia states “With regard to the modern use of the word, Roman Catholic is the designation employed in the legislative enactments of Protestant England, but Catholic is that in ordinary use on the Continent of Europe, especially in Latin countries. … From about the year 1580, besides the term papist, employed with opprobrious intent, the followers of the old religion were often called Romish or Roman Catholics. … Neither do the Catholics always seem to have objected to the appellation, but sometimes used it themselves.”

Within the Church, the term refers to the Diocese of Rome or to the Roman Rite (Latin Rite) which comprises the largest part but not all of the worldwide Catholic Church which includes other rites as well (see Eastern Catholic Churches)." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_Catholic_Church

Pax,
SHW

 

[BereanRuss]

… “Do this in Memory of me”.

Now, I ask you, Berean Russ, if Jesus didn’t want a priesthood, why did he use language that pertained only to the priestly Sacrifice when he addressed the Apostles at the Last Supper?

Nothing about this word “Do” has anything to do with offering sacrifice:

1. to make
   a) with the names of things made, to produce, construct, form, fashion, etc.
   b) to be the authors of, the cause
   c) to make ready, to prepare
   d) to produce, bear, shoot forth
   e) to acquire, to provide a thing for one’s self
   f) to make a thing out of something
   g) to (make i.e.) render one anything
2. to (make i.e.) constitute or appoint one anything, to appoint or ordain one that
3. to (make i.e.) declare one anything
   h) to put one forth, to lead him out
   i) to make one do something
4. cause one to
   j) to be the authors of a thing (to cause, bring about)
5. to do
   a) to act rightly, do well
6. to carry out, to execute
   b) to do a thing unto one
7. to do to one
   c) with designation of time: to pass, spend
   d) to celebrate, keep
8. to make ready, and so at the same time to institute, the celebration of the passover
   e) to perform: to a promise

 

[bradwill911]

No, this in not clear. First you say that a Jew or Muslim cannot be saved outside of the CC but then you say that both Jews and Muslims can be saved without ever receiving communion.

Did I say that a Jew or Muslim can be saved without ever receiving communion? I don’t think I’ve ever said that. I think I said that neither could be saved outside of the Church. I guess you will have to ask yourself if one can receive communion in any other way. We believe that Baptism is required for salvation, but we also believe in Baptism by desire. If this is possible, isn’t it possible that there can be communion by desire? Here is what an apologist on this site said regarding your question:

The Eucharist unites us with Christ which is necessary for salvation. But, similar to Church teaching on Baptism, one may obtain this union with Christ by desire. A Catholic Commentary on Holy Scripture explains: “That necessity is absolute, in the sense that without the ‘thing’ or grace of the Eucharist there is no salvation, for the Eucharist signifies, effects, and perfects the unity of Christ’s mystic body, outside of which no one can be saved. Total deliberate refusal to eat the flesh of Christ would exclude from supernatural life and entail damnation. But the grace of union can be obtained by desire – personal desire, in the case of adults, and the maternal desire of the Church in the case of baptized infants.”

I know you read this passage as being merely symbolic, but wouldn’t that still require that the symbolic gesture be done by believers? It becomes fairly important to decide whether or not Jesus was being merely symbolic.

Was Jesus being symbolic? Why did he hammer the point home rather than explaining himself as he normally did when people misunderstood what he was saying?

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

John 6:53: So Jesus said to them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood, you have no life in you”

John 6:54: He who eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day.

John 6:55: For my flesh is food indeed, and my blood is drink indeed.

John 6:56: He who eats my flesh and drinks my blood abides in me, and I in him.

So, what we know is that after saying this “many” of his disciples left him. Mere symbolism? I don’t think so.

Why did these disciples draw back? Could it be that they couldn’t reconcile what he was saying with Leviticus 17:10-14?

10 "If any man of the house of Israel or of the strangers that sojourn among them eats any blood, I will set my face against that person who eats blood, and will cut him off from among his people.

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.

12 Therefore I have said to the people of Israel, No person among you shall eat blood, neither shall any stranger who sojourns among you eat blood.

13 Any man also of the people of Israel, or of the strangers that sojourn among them, who takes in hunting any beast or bird that may be eaten shall pour out its blood and cover it with dust

14 For the life of every creature is the blood of it; therefore I have said to the people of Israel, You shall not eat the blood of any creature, for the life of every creature is its blood; whoever eats it shall be cut off."

So, is it safe to say that they believed he was speaking literally? Why not correct them? Fr Vincent Serpa, an apologist here provides this direction for interpreting Jn 6:53:

Jesus was under attack for suggesting that people could eat His flesh and drink His blood. Jews were forbidden from drinking any kind of blood and so they strongly objected. So Jesus goes so far as to state: “I tell you solemnly, if you do not eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink His blood, you will not have life in you.” (Jn 6:53) His concern is that they understand that He is serious about what He just said. “For my flesh is real food and my blood is real drink.” (Jn 6: 55) But with regard to salvation, this has to be seen in the light of other things He also said such as believing in Him (Jn 3:36), doing the will of His Father (Mt 7:21) and being faithful to the end (Mt 24:13). ALL these are necessary for salvation insofar as one knows about them.

 

[BereanRuss]

I thought, with this extreme commitment you have to finding no “priests” in the New Testament, that you might find Paul’s wording in Roman’s 15:16 to be a conundrum:
This comes from AgapeBibleStudy.Com’s study of Romans.

NotWorthy,

You can make the Bible say whatever you want it to say if you try hard enough but the fact remains that there is no office of priest in the NT in spite of the many places that it SHOULD be listed like:

… God has appointed these in the church: first apostles, second prophets, third teachers, after that miracles, then gifts of healings, helps, administrations, varieties of tongues.

 

[BereanRuss]

We believe that Baptism is required for salvation, but we also believe in Baptism by desire. If this is possible, isn’t it possible that there can be communion by desire?

Brad,

No, I am not referring to the “communion of desire”.

I asked several other bloggers the following question and never got an answer so I will ask you.

Suppose that a Jewish man is familiar with the teachings of Jesus and the teachings of the CC but remains faithful to his Jewish traditions instead. He is a loving, giving, caring and faithful man and He follows and practices his religion faithfully but he has not “desire” for communion in the CC. Can he be saved apart from professing Jesus as His Savior? I am not asking, “will he be saved”. I am asking, “can he be saved?”

Brethren, my heart’s desire and prayer to God for Israel is that they may be saved. For I bear them witness that they have a zeal for God, but not according to knowledge. For they being ignorant of God’s righteousness, and seeking to establish their own righteousness, have not submitted to the righteousness of God. [Rom 10:1-3]

 

[bradwill911]

Brad,

No, I am not referring to the “communion of desire”.

I asked several other bloggers the following question and never got an answer so I will ask you.

Suppose that a Jewish man is familiar with the teachings of Jesus and the teachings of the CC but remains faithful to his Jewish traditions instead. He is a loving, giving, caring and faithful man and He follows and practices his religion faithfully but he has not “desire” for communion in the CC. Can he be saved apart from professing Jesus as His Savior? I am not asking, “will he be saved”. I am asking, “can he be saved?”

Brethren, my heart’s desire and prayer to God for Israel is that they may be saved. For I bear them witness that they have a zeal for God, but not according to knowledge. For they being ignorant of God’s righteousness, and seeking to establish their own righteousness, have not submitted to the righteousness of God. [Rom 10:1-3]

I think I actually answered your original post. I do not believe this person would be saved. He is not invincibly ignorant of Christ and His Church. He is knowingly rejecting Christ. He is doing all the right things, but you can’t earn or work your way into heaven. Even an atheist can do charitable things. But that doesn’t really answer your question, that instead answers the question, “will he be saved”.

In asking “can he be saved” you are putting the blogger in the position of God so my short answer is I don’t think so, but I don’t know. What I do know is that if this person was saved, it would only be through Christ. Assuming he rejected Christ until his death, I don’ think it would be possible for the person to be saved. Knowing that all things are possible with God, I’m not inclined to put limitations on his mercy. So while I don’t believe this person would be saved, God has the final word, not me.

 

[jmcrae]

No, this in not clear. First you say that a Jew or Muslim cannot be saved outside of the CC but then you say that both Jews and Muslims can be saved without ever receiving communion.

Nobody - certainly not the Catholic Church - has ever said that Jews or Muslims can be saved outside of the Catholic faith, nor without receiving Holy Communion.

God can, should He so choose, make a miracle that causes the Muslim, Protestant, atheist, pagan, or Jew to become a Catholic and to receive Holy Communion - perhaps by means of a ministering angel at the person’s death bed.

However, I have never heard tell of such a miracle ever occuring - no official visionary has ever had a vision of such a thing happening, Mary does not mention it in any of her approved appearances, and none of the people at my parish who claim to receive private revelations from Jesus have ever mentioned such a thing - so, in my own case, I would not be wagering my soul’s eternal destiny on the idea that God is going to give such a miracle to me. (Since, if these miracles occur, they are so rare as to be as yet unrecorded.) Instead, I have joined the Catholic Church during my lifetime, and I am practicing the Catholic faith in my flesh.