Do Catholics believe John 6:53?

[joe370]

**Ralph…

I asked:

Was Jesus’ early church (e.g. Ignatius, 107 AD, who was taught by John and Peter) --duped by the Apostles into believing in the true presence…into believing what the C.C. and the E.O.C. teaches today? They did believe!!! It’s a simple question which deserves a simple answer!!! **

You said:

If Ignatius believed that the actual “Body and Blood” of Christ was present in Lords table, he was duped along with every other Roman catholic from that time to the present…

**Wow… At least someone finally gave me a simple, albeit utterly inconceivable answer! Think about what you just said Ralph!!! Jesus’ established church circa 33 AD, which is guided by the the H.S., by the turn of the 1st century, as far as you are concerned, was already an apostate church, led by the apostate apostles who absolutely believed that the Body and Blood of Christ was truly present at the Lords table, based on the fact that they did not walk away as the Jewish grumblers did, and on the fact that their disciples such as Ignatius and Polycarp and others, who were taught to believe this supposed apostate teaching by said apostles, truly believed; if they were wrong, then the Holy Spirit was not teaching and guiding her, as the bride of Christ, for the first 70 years of Christianity.
**

**Ralph, why in the world would I trust my Bible which is a product of the C.C., the same church that was duped along with every other Catholic from the turn of the first century to the present, if what you claim is true??? **

…and I am sure that John and Peter did not believe it, nor did they teach it. If such an important event was as “you” say it was, don’t you think there would have been more said about it throughout scripture . Jesus was talking in a spiritual manner.

**If you truly believe that John and Peter did not believe that the Body and Blood of Christ was truly present, that they did not teach this to their disciples, as per the early church fathers…which of course means that men entered into Jesus’ one church as early as the turn of the first century and altered/marred what Christ taught His apostles, making Jesus’ One church an apostate church and totally untrustworthy, which of course means that my bible is totally untrustworthy —then the C.C. was an apostate church, long before your bible was codified/canonized, rendering the bible an apostate collection of books, which means: our little debate has definitely reached an impasse! There is no way an apostate church could have given the world a Holy Bible!

Russ, do you agree with Ralph??? **

 

[guanophore]

Jesus says that it is what goes into the mouth that gives life.  Paul says it is what comes out of the mouth that saves.

Actually, He did not say that. He said “unless you eat, you will not have life”. Those who eat of His Body and Drink of His Blood do so because they are united to Him by grace, through faith. We are saved by grace, not by eating. The reason those that eat will have life is because this is the activity of saved persons. Those who partake in an unworthy manner eat and drink condemnation upon themselves.

Paul did not say “it is what comes out of the mouth that saves”. Paul is talking about how a believing person behaves and expresses himself. We are saved by grace, through faith. A person of faith will express that faith in obedience, in word, deed, and attitude.

Jesus says, “whoever comes to me I will no way cast out”. Then He says, “Amen, amen, unless you eat…”

Those that know Him will obey Him.

1 John 2:2-6
3 And by this we may be sure that we know him, if we keep his commandments. 4 He who says “I know him” but disobeys his commandments is a liar, and the truth is not in him; 5 but whoever keeps his word, in him truly love for God is perfected. By this we may be sure that we are in him: 6 he who says he abides in him ought to walk in the same way in which he walked.

This knowledge is not just lip service, but faithful obedience to His way of life.

CC theology demands that Jesus contradicts Himself in these verses.

There is no contradiction for Catholics, but I can understand how it might seem that way to you, since you do not understand what the Apostles and Jesus were saying.

It is the addition of the priesthood demands that John 6:53 is literal. The theology of the CC demands that Jesus contradicts Himself.

I agree. If Jesus did not mean what He said literally in Jn. 6, then He would not have had a need to institute a priesthood in the upper room.

By interpreting John 6:53 literally and equating Jesus’ word to taking communion ONLY in the CC the CC denies the following…

Well, we don’t equate it that way, so your premise if flawed, but let’s proceed anyway to see what more errors we might turn up.

For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life.

Most assuredly, I say to you, he who hears My word and believes in Him who sent Me has everlasting life, and shall not come into judgment, but has passed from death into life.

And Jesus said to them, "I am the bread of life. He who comes to Me shall never hunger, and he who believes in Me shall never thirst.

And this is the will of Him who sent Me, that everyone who sees the Son and believes in Him may have everlasting life; and I will raise him up at the last day."

Most assuredly, I say to you, he who believes in Me has everlasting life.

He who believes in Me, as the Scripture has said, out of his heart will flow rivers of living water."

Jesus said to her, "I am the resurrection and the life. He who believes in Me, though he may die, he shall live. And whoever lives and believes in Me shall never die.

For as many as are led by the Spirit of God, these are sons of God.

All of these passages were written by Catholics, and perfectly reflect the Catholic faith.

But if you are led by the Spirit, you are not under the law.

If you confess with your mouth the Lord Jesus and believe in your heart you will be saved.

In Him you also [trusted], after you heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation; in whom also, having believed, you were sealed with the Holy Spirit of promise…

The Apostles taught that saving faith is faith that acts, faith that obeys. Therefore, all these verses encompass Jesus command to Eat of His Body,and Drink of HIs Blood.

If you have been taught that saving faith is free to pick and choose which of Jesus’ commandments can be followed, and not follow others that don’t make sense, or are inconvenient, then you have been misled.

 

[guanophore]

If I do not take communion in the CC then I do not have life according to the CC’s understanding of John 6:53. How can I be your brother if you have life (heaven) and I do not (hell)?

We fervently hope and pray that your disobedience emanates from ignorance, and not rebellion against Christ. Only He can judge the heart.

That is correct. But He DID say that whoever believes does have life (see post 1225 for a list)

Yes, and this kind of saving belief is the kind that abides in Him, and is obedient to Him.

1 John 3:24
24 All who keep his commandments abide in him, and he in them. And by this we know that he abides in us, by the Spirit which he has given us.

If the CC’s interpretation of John 6:53 is correct then I CANNOT be a Christian for I do not have LIFE unless I eat of His flesh…

This would be the reason we are working so hard to help you understand.

Clearly, you have hung in on this thread for over 1000 posts for some reason. Maybe it is time for you to look deeper into your faith, and understand what the Apostles really believed and taught?

Otherwise the words of Jesus (Amen, amen…) are meaningless! If we cannot trust Him when He says Amen then we cannot trust Him at all.

Not meaningless, because the metaphorical meaning assigned by Protestants also has merit. We do need to “eat” His Word, and doing so does quicken our souls.

Most assuredly (Amen, amen), I say to you, he who hears My word and believes in Him who sent Me has everlasting life, and shall not come into judgment, but has passed from death into life. [John 5:24]

Most assuredly (Amen, amen), 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 6:53]

The theology of the CC does indeed require Jesus to contradict Himself.

No, Russ. I am sorry that we have been unable to make you understand the teaching of the Church. This commandment was given to His disciples. It does not apply to those who are not disciples. Unbelievers are not admitted to the sacrament of the Eucharist.

 This contradiction is specifically created by the addition of the priesthood for it is the priesthood that requires John 6:53 to be literal.

Actually, it is more accurate to say it the other way around! It is the literalness of His words that require the priesthood.

 

[ralphy]

Man-made traditions are not bad if they do not negate the Word of God.
An example … Wednesday night bible study… not in the bible … a man-made tradition, but a good one.

Sola scriptura … not in the bible … a man-made tradition, and a bad one since it goes against scripture!

michel

According to the bible you will be judged by the word of God in the last day. That should be enough for you to see that the Bible is what you follow, not tradition. If everything else fails (religion) follow the instructions. Ralph

 

[PRmerger]

According to the bible you will be judged by the word of God in the last day. That should be enough for you to see that the Bible is what you follow, not tradition. If everything else fails (religion) follow the instructions. Ralph

The Word of God is revealed to us through Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition, as interpreted infallibly by the Magisterium.

You have no claim of infallibility, so why should we listen to your interpretation?

You have maintained, “Scripture says this” and “According to the Bible”…yet it’s really only YOUR INTERPRETATION. Remember, there are over 40,000 “bible Christian churches”, all claiming their interpretation is correct.

 

[ralphy]

**Ralph…

I asked:

Was Jesus’ early church (e.g. Ignatius, 107 AD, who was taught by John and Peter) --duped by the Apostles into believing in the true presence…into believing what the C.C. and the E.O.C. teaches today? They did believe!!! **It’s a simple question which deserves a simple answer!!!

You said:

If Ignatius believed that the actual “Body and Blood” of Christ was present in Lords table, he was duped along with every other Roman catholic from that time to the present…

**Wow… At least someone finally gave me a simple, albeit utterly inconceivable answer! Think about what you just said Ralph!!! Jesus’ established church circa 33 AD, which is guided by the the H.S., by the turn of the 1st century, as far as you are concerned, was already an apostate church, led by the apostate apostles who absolutely believed that the Body and Blood of Christ was truly present at the Lords table, based on the fact that they did not walk away as the Jewish grumblers did, and on the fact that their disciples such as Ignatius and Polycarp and others, who were taught to believe this supposed apostate teaching by said apostles, truly believed; if they were wrong, then the Holy Spirit was not teaching and guiding her, as the bride of Christ, for the first 70 years of Christianity.
**

**Ralph, why in the world would I trust my Bible which is a product of the C.C., the same church that was duped along with every other Catholic from the turn of the first century to the present, if what you claim is true??? **

…and I am sure that John and Peter did not believe it, nor did they teach it. If such an important event was as “you” say it was, don’t you think there would have been more said about it throughout scripture . Jesus was talking in a spiritual manner.

If you truly believe that John and Peter did not believe that the Body and Blood of Christ was truly present, that they did not teach this to their disciples, as per the early church fathers…which of course means that men entered into Jesus’ one church as early as the turn of the first century and altered/marred what Christ taught His apostles, making Jesus’ One church an apostate church and totally untrustworthy, which of course means that my bible is totally untrustworthy —then the C.C. was an apostate church, long before your bible was codified/canonized, rendering the bible an apostate collection of books, which means: our little debate has definitely reached an impasse! There is no way an apostate church could have given the world a Holy Bible!

Russ, do you agree with Ralph???

You can believe what is written in scripture, anything else was not inspired by the Holy Spirit. God does not make mistakes, He knew exactly what we needed and made sure it was left written on paper to avoid any confusion. There seems to a lot of confussion anyway (with some groups), but we do have everything written so we can know for sure what we are to follow. I could not imagine the mess if He had not left us His word and we had only tradition to go by. How many times would the traditional stories be changed by the time they were handed down only a few times and how much of a change after being passed down over 2000 yrs, I hate to think. Ralph

 

[ralphy]

The Word of God is revealed to us through Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition, as interpreted infallibly by the Magisterium.

You have no claim of infallibility, so why should we listen to your interpretation?

You have maintained, “Scripture says this” and “According to the Bible”…yet it’s really only YOUR INTERPRETATION. Remember, there are over 40,000 “bible Christian churches”, all claiming their interpretation is correct.

I only quote the Bible,its the word of God, not my word. Ralph

 

[ralphy]

Well, Ralph, it is the case that Ignatius believed in the actual Body and Blood of Christ in the Eucharist. However, the Church was not, and is not “Roman”. In fact, at the time Ignatius wrote, there was no separate “Roman Rite”. All Catholics held this belief, from Antioch of Syria to Egypt all over the known world. This is because all the Churches planted by Apostles and their successors were given what Jesus taught “this is my Body…”

John and Peter most certainly did believe it, practice it, and teach it. Indeed, we see it in scripture because we have received the Apostles’ teaching. Those who “see” something else do so because they received teaching from elsewhere.

By the way, you never did explain how one can profane the Body and Blood when it is not really present.

Is that like stepping on a flag that isn’t really there?

Since you believe they were “duped”, though I am curious to know why it is you think that Jesus was too weak and ineffectual to preserve what He taught them, as He promised. How come the Risen Lord in Revelation looks so powerful and knowledgeable, but within a few years of appearing to John, He suddenly became puny and unable to correct error in the Church?

Yes. The whole NT is comprised of Sacred Tradition (the Teachings of the Apostles) committed to writing. Scripture is the Word of God, and so is the preaching of the Apostles. If you believe the preaching came from"man", then you have no reason to have a NT, since everything in it was Sacred Tradition before it was Sacred Scripture.

1 Thess 2:13

13 And we also thank God constantly for this, that when you received the word of God which you heard from us, you accepted it not as the word of men but as what it really is, the word of God, which is at work in you believers.

The preached Word of God (sacred tradition) that is at work in the Church is not the word of men. One of the reasons that you are unable to receive it is because you do not have faith in the Source. Both the Sacred Scripture and the Sacred Tradition come from God.

We are looking at the same scriptures, Ralph. We just understand them differently. When Catholics read that Jesus breathed upon the Apostles, and told them “all authority is given…go therefore”, we understand that He empowered them to go in His name, fuflilling the duties He committed unto them. One of those duties is “do this in memory of me” with the Bread and the Wine. When people are obedient to His commands, the HS acts to fuflill the promises He gave. For example, “if we repent…he forgives”. If the priest fufills the command “do this”, then He will manifest Himself as He promised. This is not at all hard to find for us in scripture. But then, we are looking at it from the point of view of those who wrote it, and you are not.

I suppose I will not get a scripture verse from you showing where the priest gets the power to change the bread and wine into the Boby and Blood of Christ, will I ?. Ralph

 

[Stylteralmaldo]

You can believe what is written in scripture, anything else was not inspired by the Holy Spirit.

What is Scripture and how do you know it was inspired by the Holy Spirit?

ralphy:

God does not make mistakes, He knew exactly what we needed and made sure it was left written on paper to avoid any confusion.

How did God accomplish this? What method did He use to make sure there was no confusion?

 

[PRmerger]

I only quote the Bible,its the word of God, not my word. Ralph

That’s not quite true, Ralph. **You quote the Bible and then add your interpretation of it. ** We all do. We all must. Otherwise it’s just a bunch of words.

For example, in John 6:53–you must have an interpretation of it, and it differs from at least 5 other denominations mentioned just in this thread.

The question is, whose interpretation is correct? Your fallible one?

You must accept that you have an interpretation of Scripture. And that you are fallible.

 

[PRmerger]

According to the bible you will be judged by the word of God in the last day. That should be enough for you to see that the Bible is what you follow, not tradition. If everything else fails (religion) follow the instructions. Ralph

Ralph, do you accept that the Bible is the product of Sacred Tradition?

 

[guanophore]

According to the bible you will be judged by the word of God in the last day.

Indeed, this is in Scripture because this is what Catholics believe and Teach. However, we believe that the word of God is Jesus.

That should be enough for you to see that the Bible is what you follow, not tradition.

As has been told to you, ralphy, the Bible is the best example of Sacred Tradition. For us, the two are not separated.

It is true that the Scripture us profitable in living the Christian life, but the Church was whole and entire from the time that Jesus breathed life into her, 400 years before the Bible was assembled.

If everything else fails (religion) follow the instructions. Ralph

What you seem to be implying is that the Church founded by Christ “failed”, therefore all that we have left to follow is the Bible. If this is true, and it happened in the generation following the Apostles, as you have stated (Ignatius was duped, and all others who believed in the Real Presence), then your Bible has no authority at all. It was written and assembled by persons who were “duped”.

 

[PRmerger]

Indeed, this is in Scripture because this is what Catholics believe and Teach. However, we believe that the word of God is Jesus.

Indeed. Catholics are not people of the book, but people of the Word.

 

[guanophore]

You can believe what is written in scripture, anything else was not inspired by the Holy Spirit.

No, Ralph. There are plenty of things inspired by the HS that are not in scripture. Furthermore, if you reject Sacred Tradition, you have no basis upon which to believe that what is written in Scripture is inspired. It was declared to be so on the basis of Sacred Tradition.

God does not make mistakes, He knew exactly what we needed and made sure it was left written on paper to avoid any confusion. There seems to a lot of confussion anyway (with some groups), but we do have everything written so we can know for sure what we are to follow.

Ahh, if only this were true! As it is, what we see is that there are as many interpretations of the text as there are those reading it.

I agree with you though, God knew exactly what we needed. That is why He appointed a Teaching Authority to interpret the text, and guaranteed that the HS would lead them into all truth.

I could not imagine the mess if He had not left us His word and we had only tradition to go by.

This is what we see today in Protestantism. We have the mess that occurs when everyone interprets as he sees right in his own eyes. This is why we have 30,000+ denominations, some of them with totally opposite understandings from the others. Sola Scriptura is a man made tradition, and it causes division, separation, and confusion.

How many times would the traditional stories be changed by the time they were handed down only a few times and how much of a change after being passed down over 2000 yrs, I hate to think. Ralph

This is a very good point, and illustrates the difference between Sacred Tradition and secular. Sacred Tradition is the Word of God, preserved and protected by Him.

Jer 1:12
12 Then the LORD said to me, “You have seen well, for I am watching over my word to perform it.”

I only quote the Bible,its the word of God, not my word. Ralph

You do quote it,and every time you do, you are affirming the authority of Sacred Tradition, without which you would not have a bible.

You also add to what is written you limited and fallible understanding of what you think it means. Some of what you have interpreted is contrary to what the Apostles taught.

I suppose I will not get a scripture verse from you showing where the priest gets the power to change the bread and wine into the Boby and Blood of Christ, will I ?. Ralph

It has been given to you at least five times on this thread. You cannot “see” it because you have rejected the Apostolic Teaching. You are reading with your anti-Catholic glasses on, so some of the Truth is not visible to you.

 

[joe370]

Posted by ralph…

You can believe what is written in scripture, anything else was not inspired by the Holy Spirit.

**Ralph, Peter, who preached to the Jews the first Christian discourse after the Church was born on Pentecost, told them that “Jesus of Nazareth,” “whom they had put to death,” was “a man approved of God by works which God did by him,” and that God had raised him up. Ralph, words could not be more explicit, and therefore believable! Yet, not one word is uttered/written by Peter, or the other apostles, regarding the doctrine of the Trinity; the C.C. to which you regard as an apostate church, when you claim that she taught a heretical doctrine as early as the turn of the 1st century, defined this doctrine in the 4th century; why do you believe in the Trinity? **

**The New Testament does not use the word Trinity nor explicitly teach it. It required reflection by the earliest Christians (long after the apostles passed on to be with Jesus) – on the coming of Jesus and of what they believed to be the presence and power of God among them. The doctrine itself was not explicitly stated in the New Testament and no New Testament writer expounds on the relationship among the three in the detail that the post apostolic writers do. **
**
The Gospel of John starts with the affirmation that in the beginning Jesus as Word “was with God and …was God” (John 1:1) and ends with Thomas’ confession of faith to Jesus, “My Lord and my God!” (John 20:28) However, Jesus still said: “The Father is greater than I” --a statement appealed to by Marcionism, Valentinianism, Arianism and others who denied the Trinity, and at no time does the bible state that Jesus and the Holy Spirit are one. **

**The diverse references to God, Jesus, and the Spirit found in the New Testament were later systematized into the idea of a Trinity – one God subsisting in three persons and one substance – in order to combat heretical tendencies of how the three are related and to defend the church against charges of worshiping two or three gods; the apostles are dead silent on the matter!!!
**

Finally, in 325, roughly 300 years after the apostles taught, the Council of Nicaea adopted a term for the relationship between the Son and the Father (only) --that from then on was seen as the hallmark of orthodoxy; it declared that the Son is “of the same substance” as the Father. However nothing was adopted regarding the doctrine of the divinity and personality of the Holy Spirit until Athanasius defined it in the last decades of his life. He both defended and refined the Nicene formula. By the end of the 4th century, under the leadership of Basil of Caesarea, Gregory of Nyssa, and Gregory of Nazianzus (the Cappadocian Fathers) the doctrine had finally reached substantially its current form, and they accomplished this through no help of the apostles, thanks to the guidance of the Holy Spirit.

**Ralph, why do you believe in the Trinity if you can only believe what is written in scripture? Like you said: “anything else was not inspired by the Holy Spirit.”
**

God does not make mistakes, He knew exactly what we needed and made sure it was left written on paper to avoid any confusion.

**So, Jesus gave the world a teaching bible not a teaching church? Not according to your bible. I wonder how the church remained one and united for the first 300 years without the codified/canonized bible?
**

There seems to a lot of confussion anyway (with some groups), but we do have everything written so we can know for sure what we are to follow. I could not imagine the mess if He had not left us His word and we had only tradition to go by.

**Phew…now we can all take our questions to the Holy Bible and everyone in the protestant world, will come away with the same results, regarding anyone doctrine. Come on Ralph; you know that system has failed miserably! For the first 1500 years of Christianity, Jesus’ church remained one and united, for the simple fact that Jesus’ One church settled disputes, thanks to the guidance of the Holy Spirit, steering clear of confusion, then the P.R. rears its head, claiming that the bible is NOW the sole authority, where all Christians should go to settle disputes, and almost immediately/abruptly confusion, division and dissension rears its ugly head, to the point where Martin Luther said, what have I done.
**

How many times would the traditional stories be changed by the time they were handed down only a few times and how much of a change after being passed down over 2000 yrs, I hate to think.

**Many many times Ralph, if naught for the “guidance” and “teaching” of the Holy Spirit, in perpetuity!!! Ralph, do you not believe that the Holy Spirit, starting on Pentecost, was/is teaching and guiding Jesus’ Holy Church into all truth, as per the Holy Bible? **

 

[pete_29]

I suppose I will not get a scripture verse from you showing where the priest gets the power to change the bread and wine into the Boby and Blood of Christ, will I ?. Ralph

This is My Body, This is My Blood, Do this in memory of Me. It’s clear to me. Why can’t you understand it?

 

[NotWorthy]

Are you saying that scripture is based on something that agreed with “scared tradition”? Scripture is the word of God, tradition is based on MANS word. Ralph

In determining the Canon of the Scripture, one of the things the Catholic Fathers weighed how much the books agreed with Sacred Tradition.

You see, Sacred Tradition is older than any of the New Testament books.

How do you call Sacred Tradition “MANS Word” when St. Paul was so adamant that the Church and Her leaders should hold so tightly to the Traditions passed on to them.

 

[NotWorthy]

I was hoping that you would give me some “scripture” to show me where the priest gets this power to turn the bread and wine into the body and blood of Jesus Christ. Maybe it is very hard to find scripture for this “power” is it ?. Ralph

And I thought that’s been made abundantly clear. During the Last Supper, Jesus commissioned the Apostles to re-present His Body and Blood. You’ll find it in the three synoptics.

The Early Church Fathers all knew that this is what Christ was doing.

 

[NotWorthy]

(Copied from a previous post…)

If Jesus is speaking literally in this passage then He is contradicting MANY other scriptures…

…that if you confess with your mouth the Lord Jesus and believe in your heart that God has raised Him from the dead, you will be saved. For with the heart one believes unto righteousness, and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation. [Rom 10:9…]

Notice that it is not what goes into the mouth that saves a man but what comes out of the mouth saves. If you confess with your mouth…

Jesus said, “Do you not yet understand that whatever enters the mouth goes into the stomach and is eliminated?”

Nothing you eat can save you. Only what you believe in your heart and confess with your mouth can save you.

You just don’t get it Russ. If Jesus is speaking figuratively, He is demanding that we loathe and revile him.

Now THAT’S a contradiction.

BTW, if you look over some of the other sayings, you’ll find there is no contradiction.

If you confess with your mouth that Jesus Christ is Lord, you will obey his teachings, including those that come from His Church.

“Whatever enters the mouth is eliminated”, Jesus is showing that unclean foods are not sinful.

I could go on, but…

 

[NotWorthy]

I am surprised that you would mentioned “man made traditions”, the Roman catholic church is full of them, I have been there and I am familiar with most of them. The catechism is full of man made rules. Ralph

**There is no bigger Man-made tradition than Protestantism. **(And nothing more ironic than to listen to a non-Catholic Christian make your above claim, Ralph)

By claiming the Church is full of man-made traditions is to totally deny that fact that the Church has the Divinely-Given authority to Bind and Loose.