Eternal life or not?

[steve99]

In John 6:53:54 Jesus says:

           “I tell you most solemnly,

if you do not eat the flesh of the Son of Man
and drink his blood,
you will not have life in you.
Anyone who does eat my flesh and drink my blood
has eternal life,
and I shall raise him up on the last day.”

Now does this mean that those who cannot receive Jesus’ body and blood because they cannot perform a valid consecration (e.g. protestants) cannot have eternal life, and will not be raised up on the last day?

Surely we all have eternal life (in either heaven nor hell) and all are raised up (e.g. resurrection).

I find this confusing. Any offers?

 

[Grace_and_Glory]

Now does this mean that those who cannot receive Jesus’ body and blood because they cannot perform a valid consecration (e.g. protestants) cannot have eternal life, and will not be raised up on the last day?

There was a thread a little while ago about the necessity of receiving the Eucharist for a protestant. You can see it here:
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=61073&highlight=catholic+protestant+john
Basically, the way I see it is that Jesus’ listeners knew exactly what he was saying, and for them to reject the Eucharist was a rejection of Christ. Jesus told them what their rejection of Him would bring to them. Protestants today who reject the Eucharist honestly believe that they are following Christ’s teachings, so when they reject the Eucharist, they are not consciously rejecting Christ. The penalty for them would therefore be less severe.

Surely we all have eternal life (in either heaven nor hell) and all are raised up (e.g. resurrection).

Well, I wouldn’t really call eternity in hell ‘eternal life.’ Jesus is the Way, the Truth, and the Life. Without him, we cannot live fully. I think that the people separated from God in hell exist, but they certainly don’t have life in the way the souls in Heaven do. Also, the phrase ‘eternal life’ refers to quality of life as well as quantity, so eternal life must be a life that is God-like for it to really be eternal life; otherwise, it is just endless existence. It’s kind of the same thing with everyone being raised. Everyone will be reunited with their bodies in the resurrection of the body, but not all of them will be raised up.

 

[steve99]

Grace and Glory

Thanks for the pointer to the previous thread. I though it must have been discussed before, but I didn’t find it when I did a search.
However, interesting as the various comments were, I don’t think there was any convincing answer the Javelin’s (and my) point about taking this literally, and what the implications of this statement by Jesus are for life in the hereafter for those that don’t eat Jesus’ flesh and drink his blood.
Just how literally do we take this?

I think your points about eternal life and raised up is a bit playing with words. To me the term raised up is just referring to the resurrection, which happens for good and bad alike. Similarly eternal life is just that - life has no end. The quality of that life is very important but I don’t think you can say that eternal life means one particular kind of life in eternity. Or perhaps you can, but I would need a bit more convincing of that, otherwise we are just playing with personal definitions of terms.

 

[Todd_Easton]

The Catechism of the Catholic Church, referencing the Council of Trent, says:
1129. The Church affirms that for believers the sacraments of the New Covenant are necessary for salvation.
However, as the Catechism says elsewhere…

1. 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.
   ​

 

[Mot_Juste]

I think your points about eternal life and raised up is a bit playing with words. To me the term raised up is just referring to the resurrection, which happens for good and bad alike. Similarly eternal life is just that - life has no end. The quality of that life is very important but I don’t think you can say that eternal life means one particular kind of life in eternity. Or perhaps you can, but I would need a bit more convincing of that, otherwise we are just playing with personal definitions of terms.

There are many passages in the bible that contrast “life” or “eternal life” against the state of “death” or “condemnation”. I think it is clear from their context that “life” refers to something more than the eternal existance of the soul. It is a unique new gift won through Christ. Some passages to look at are John 5:24-25, Romans 6:21-23 and 1 John 3:14-15. The clincher, though, may be this line from the end of the story of the sheep and the goats in Matthew 25:And these will go off to eternal punishment, but the righteous to eternal life.

–Bill

 

[steve99]

Mot Juste:

There are many passages in the bible that contrast “life” or “eternal life” against the state of “death” or “condemnation”. I think it is clear from their context that “life” refers to something more than the eternal existance of the soul. It is a unique new gift won through Christ. Some passages to look at are John 5:24-25, Romans 6:21-23 and 1 John 3:14-15. The clincher, though, may be this line from the end of the story of the sheep and the goats in Matthew 25:And these will go off to eternal punishment, but the righteous to eternal life.–Bill

OK, fair enough. I’‘ll buy that.
But where does that leave Protestants?
Todd quotes the Catechism
“1129. The Church affirms that for believers the sacraments of the New Covenant are necessary for salvation.”
Protestants are believers, and do know the Gospel (see Todd’s reference to CCC 847), but they do not avail themselves of the Eucharist, because they do not have it themselves, and don’t believe it is possible to receive the body and blood of Christ.
I suppose you could say they don’t know his Church in that they have a false recognition of the true Church.
And as Grace and Glory said "Basically, the way I see it is that Jesus’ listeners knew exactly what he was saying, and for them to reject the Eucharist was a rejection of Christ. Jesus told them what their rejection of Him would bring to them. Protestants today who reject the Eucharist honestly believe that they are following Christ’s teachings, so when they reject the Eucharist, they are not consciously rejecting Christ. The penalty for them would therefore be less severe."
I just get this feeling that this is wriggling out of the solemn teaching that Jesus gave. He was quite emphatic and said basically the same thing several times.