Eucharist Explanation by Christ in John's Gospel

[BRB]

I always see John 35-58 given as the standard Catholic explanation for transubstantiation of bread/wine into body/blood.

However, the disciples had dificulty with this explanation … so Christ in 60-64 verses gave them a fuller, private explanation … which appears to have given a different meaning to the standard Church Universal teaching.

How does the Church’s dogma reconcile these final 5 verses in its full explanation ?

 

[Lazerlike42]

I always see John 35-58 given as the standard Catholic explanation for transubstantiation of bread/wine into body/blood.

However, the disciples had dificulty with this explanation … so Christ in 60-64 verses gave them a fuller, private explanation … which appears to have given a different meaning to the standard Church Universal teaching.

How does the Church’s dogma reconcile these final 5 verses in its full explanation ?

There isn’t anything different taught in verses 60-64. At this point, Jesus has already stated His teaching once, then, when people objected to it, He reiterrated it more forecfully. Note that at this time, nobody has left yet. People don’t leave until after verss 64, in verse 66. So after offering His teaching twice, people still grumble about it. Jesus then says to them, to paraphrase, ‘do you find my teaching offensive?’ What if you saw me ascending into Heaven, would you still find it offensive? You have to think spiritually. You are all thinking in the flesh - in worldly terms - but life comes from the Spirit.’

In other words, people have now twice been given His teaching and twice questioned it. He tries to tell them that He’s going to ascend to Heaven. Would they find that offensive, too? Would they doubt that, too? Would they believe His teaching if they saw Him ascend? He tells them to think with the Spirit, not with the flesh. The Spirit - the unexplainable - is going to give them life, after all. If they just think naturalistically, they won’t ever find life. Life isn’t natural - it’s supernatural, spiritual. This is basically a crowd that doesn’t believe in miracles. They’re like the Israelites that saw miracel after miracle after miracle in the time of Moses, but still wouldn’t trust God and do what He said. They had to keep thinking naturalistically and trying to do things on their own. Rather than trust God, they built armies. They trusted in princes, rather than in God. This crowd is the same. If they were spiritual people, they would believe Jesus, but they aren’t. They’re fleshy people, people who can only think their flesh, never with the Spirit.

It is after this that everyone leaves. Even if what I just said doesn’t make sense to you, the fact is that those who left Jesus obviously didn’t consider His explanation to have lessened the force of what He said before, because it was after it that they left Him.

Peace and God bless!

 

[BRB]

I see Jesus telling his disciples here [in a private conference for them only] that the flesh alone doesn’t get the job done. He goes on to say that the lesson of Eucharist is spoken in regards to Holy Spirit … and the life it will soon avail to disciples.

Thus, perhaps Jesus used analogy of blood/body [his flesh] … to get the people listening & to think harder about the real/intended meaning of the teaching. That being : his flesh/blood soon to be sacrifed on Cross, gives us Life via his Spirit.

Indeed, don’t we get ALL of Christ in the Eucharist, his body/blood yes, but most especially the H.S. — which is the real salvific aspect of the Eucharist for the Christian.

Christ’s healings during his ministry were always worked via the Spirit of God. Yes, his body [blood] contained his Spirit … but, it was always the spirit at work that healed … not some earthly potion that contained blood/flesh. The blind man had clay with spital put on his eyes … but, don’t we all believe it was the H.S. that made the miracle efficatious ?

Old Testament sacrifices always required flesh/blood to be operative. Thus, Jesus too needed to give up His bodily life for us. Yet, He yielded up His Spirit to God at the moment of death. The Spirit was separated from the body … later to be rejoined to it on Easter Sunday. W/O the H.S. … the body alone can not heal us.

 

[Nita]

I always see John 35-58 given as the standard Catholic explanation for transubstantiation of bread/wine into body/blood.

The primary texts for the doctrine of transubstatiation are Our Lord’s words at the Last Supper - (taking bread and saying) “This IS My Body”. ((taking the cup and saying) “This IS My blood”
(Mt. 26:26-28; Mk 14: 22-25; Lk 22:19-20; 1 Cor 11:23-25)

Nita

 

[Nita]

…
Old Testament sacrifices always required flesh/blood to be operative. Thus, Jesus too needed to give up His bodily life for us. Yet, He yielded up His Spirit to God at the moment of death. The Spirit was separated from the body … later to be rejoined to it on Easter Sunday. W/O the H.S. … the body alone can not heal us.

The spirit that was separated from Jesus’ body was His human spirit/soul, not the Holy Spirit or even the Divine Second Person of the Trinity.

Quote from Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma:
The Hypostatic Union was never interrupted. (Sent. Certa.)
…Christ’s death dissolved the connection between body and soul—Christ was therefore during the three days not “man” that is, a compositum of body and soul—but His death did not dissolve the attachment of Godhead and humanity, or of their parts. Even after their separation the body and the soul separately remained hypostatically united with the Divine Logos.

Nita

 

[Lazerlike42]

I see Jesus telling his disciples here [in a private conference for them only] that the flesh alone doesn’t get the job done. He goes on to say that the lesson of Eucharist is spoken in regards to Holy Spirit … and the life it will soon avail to disciples.

Thus, perhaps Jesus used analogy of blood/body [his flesh] … to get the people listening & to think harder about the real/intended meaning of the teaching. That being : his flesh/blood soon to be sacrifed on Cross, gives us Life via his Spirit.

Indeed, don’t we get ALL of Christ in the Eucharist, his body/blood yes, but most especially the H.S. — which is the real salvific aspect of the Eucharist for the Christian.

Christ’s healings during his ministry were always worked via the Spirit of God. Yes, his body [blood] contained his Spirit … but, it was always the spirit at work that healed … not some earthly potion that contained blood/flesh. The blind man had clay with spital put on his eyes … but, don’t we all believe it was the H.S. that made the miracle efficatious ?

Old Testament sacrifices always required flesh/blood to be operative. Thus, Jesus too needed to give up His bodily life for us. Yet, He yielded up His Spirit to God at the moment of death. The Spirit was separated from the body … later to be rejoined to it on Easter Sunday. W/O the H.S. … the body alone can not heal us.

Two things: First, Jesus does not tell His disciples this in a private conference. Nobody had left Him when He makes His statement about the Spirit. They leave in verse 66, He gives His Spirit speach in verses 60-64.

Second, we do receive the Holy Spirit in Holy Communion, but not in the way you are presenting it here. We flesh of Jesus that we receive in Holy Communion is united to the Son, the Second Person of the Holy Trinity, and we receive the Son. We receive the Holy Spirit because of what is callled in theology concommitance, which means (in this context) that where any one of the three Persons of the Holy Trinity are, the other two are also present. You have to be careful with this doctrine, because the Father and Holy Spirit, for example, didn’t suffer on the cross, whereas the Son did. In other words, I’m giving you a brief definition that doesn’t cover all the subtleties.

Peace and God bless

 

[Nita]

I always see John 35-58 given as the standard Catholic explanation for transubstantiation of bread/wine into body/blood.

However, the disciples had dificulty with this explanation … so Christ in 60-64 verses gave them a fuller, private explanation … which appears to have given a different meaning to the standard Church Universal teaching.

How does the Church’s dogma reconcile these final 5 verses in its full explanation ?

The people understood Jesus’ words in a cannabalistic sense, - where dead flesh is eaten to provide physical nourishment/life. Jesus’ words in verses 61 thru 65 clarify that He is not talking about eating His mortal flesh for physical nourishment; He is talking about supernatural nourishment - a nourishment that conveys “eternal life” Notice how often He mentions this (vs 47, 50, 51, 54, 57, 58), - which should have made it clear He was speaking of something beyond the natural. Flesh alone is of no avail in producing eternal life.

In verse 62 Jesus says “Then what if you were to see the Son of man ascending where He was before?” Definitely a mysterious statement/question at the time. (*1 Cor 15:44 It is sown a physical body, it is raised a spiritual body. *…) It was of course a foretelling of His resurrection and ascension, which He connects here with this teaching concerning eating His flesh and blood; connecting it to His risen, living, immortal flesh and blood; flesh and blood eternally alive, united to His human soul/spirit and His Divinity.
It is union with this risen Lord - body, blood, soul and Divinity - that is the source of eternal life for us.

John 6:63 says “It is the spirit that gives life, the flesh is of no avail; the words that I have spoken to you are spirit and life.”
He tells us to eat His flesh because His spirit and life are one with it, and in receiving/eating His flesh and blood we also receive His spirit and life - eternal life.

1 Cor 15:45 Thus it is written, “The first man Adam became a living being”; the last Adam became a life-giving spirit.

Nita

 

[jcrichton]

I always see John 35-58 given as the standard Catholic explanation for transubstantiation of bread/wine into body/blood.

However, the disciples had dificulty with this explanation … so Christ in 60-64 verses gave them a fuller, private explanation … which appears to have given a different meaning to the standard Church Universal teaching.

How does the Church’s dogma reconcile these final 5 verses in its full explanation ?

Hi, BRB!

You should take into consideration Paul’s admonishions:

The chalice of benediction which we bless, is it not the communion of the blood of Christ? And the bread which we break, is it not the partaking of the body of the Lord? (1 Corinthians 10:16)

24 And giving thanks, broke and said: Take ye and eat: This is my body, which shall be delivered for you. This do for the commemoration of me. 25 In like manner also the chalice, after he had supped, saying: This chalice is the new testament in my blood. This do ye, as often as you shall drink, for the commemoration of me. 26 For as often as you shall eat this bread and drink the chalice, you shall shew the death of the Lord, until he come. 27 Therefore, whosoever shall eat this bread, or drink the chalice of the Lord unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and of the blood of the Lord. 28 But let a man prove himself: and so let him eat of that bread and drink of the chalice. 29 For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily eateth and drinketh judgment to himself, not discerning the body of the Lord. (1 Corinthians 11:24-29–DRV)

Noticed that Paul uses no simile nor metaphor; he adamantly, and with full authority, states what was revealed to him by Christ Himself!

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[BRB]

Two things: First, Jesus does not tell His disciples this in a private conference. Nobody had left Him when He makes His statement about the Spirit.

I don’t agree with your take on this.

It appears from the scripture that most of the large crowd that had heard this homily from Jesus did not stay to hear the final ‘spiritual explanation’. Most, it would appear, were disturbed by the cannabalism language … and pulled away in disbelief.

Only those disciples who had more faith and devotion remained … and desired the fuller explanation by Jesus. However, even this smaller group who persisted with the Lord … had taken his first messages as suggesting cannabalism potential. Although it is not stated, it would appear they were reassured by the final explanation by Christ re: spiritual meaning of his teaching & prophetic message for Eucharist.

This implys they probably no longer took His words literally … and perceived a cannabalistic meaning.

Later, I think they probably did come to believer this story had a double meaning. [At least we know Paul did]. Both Spiritual primarily, and also very importantly … that the memorial Eucharist event also represents ALL of Christ to us. Body and Soul.

Probably because Christ’s transformed body has spiritual aspects that don’t allow us to visably see blood and flesh, or be able to chemically prove [in a scientific way] that the bread and wine have been changed structurally into the Supernatural Christ.

 

[Lazerlike42]

BRB,

Where does it say, or even remotely suggest, that anyone had left Jesus before verse 60? It just doesn’t. In fact, it implies quite the contrary:

Joh 6:51 I am the living bread that came down from heaven. If anyone eats of this bread, he will live forever. And the bread that I will give for the life of the world is my flesh."
Joh 6:52 The Jews then disputed among themselves, saying, “How can this man give us his flesh to eat?”
Joh 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.
Joh 6:54 Whoever feeds on my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day.
Joh 6:55 For my flesh is true food, and my blood is true drink.
Joh 6:56 Whoever feeds on my flesh and drinks my blood abides in me, and I in him.
Joh 6:57 As the living Father sent me, and I live because of the Father, so whoever feeds on me, he also will live because of me.
Joh 6:58 This is the bread that came down from heaven, not as the fathers ate and died. Whoever feeds on this bread will live forever.”
Joh 6:59 Jesus said these things in the synagogue, as he taught at Capernaum.
Joh 6:60 When many of his disciples heard it, they said, “This is a hard saying; who can listen to it?”
Joh 6:61 But Jesus, knowing in himself that his disciples were grumbling about this, said to them, “Do you take offense at this?
Joh 6:62 Then what if you were to see the Son of Man ascending to where he was before?
Joh 6:63 It is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh is of no avail. The words that I have spoken to you are spirit and life.
Joh 6:64 But there are some of you who do not believe.” (For Jesus knew from the beginning who those were who did not believe, and who it was who would betray him.)
Joh 6:65 And he said, “This is why I told you that no one can come to me unless it is granted him by the Father.”
Joh 6:66 After this many of his disciples turned back and no longer walked with him.
Joh 6:67 So Jesus said to the Twelve, “Do you want to go away as well?”

The people first object in verse 52, after which Jesus immediately reitterates His point. Immediately after this, they continue to object, in verse 60. Verse 61 says that Jesus knew these people were objecting, so He “said to them” that they needed to think with the Spirit. After this, in verse 66, it says that many no longer walked with Him.

This is the first time it is even hinted that anyone left Jesus, and in fact in verse 61 it says that Jesus continued speaking to the very people who had objected. They did not leave, because it was to them that Jesus spoke.

I also must disagree with the idea that the spiritual explanation satisfied anybody. It is immediately after this explanation that “many of His disciples turned back.” The explanation didn’t console anybody or change anybody’s mind - it made them leave Him! Whatever they got out of this explanation didn’t make them feel any better at all about what He’d said before.

Neither did the explanation help the 12 most important disciples, the Apostles. When Jesus asks them if they are going to go to, they tell Him they have nowhere else to go. It’s obvious that this entire thing dissettled them just as much as the others, but they stuck with Jesus. They didn’t stay with Him because they understood Him differently; they stayed because He was the Lord and they had nobody else to go. Peter says that He has the words of eternal life, thus affirming belief in those words which turned many others away.

Peace and God bless

 

[BRB]

BRB,

Where does it say, or even remotely suggest, that anyone had left Jesus before verse 60? It just doesn’t. In fact, it implies quite the contrary:

The people first object in verse 52, after which Jesus immediately reitterates His point. Immediately after this, they continue to object, in verse 60. Verse 61 says that Jesus knew these people were objecting, so He “said to them” that they needed to think with the Spirit. After this, in verse 66, it says that many no longer walked with Him.

This is the first time it is even hinted that anyone left Jesus, and in fact in verse 61 it says that Jesus continued speaking to the very people who had objected. They did not leave, because it was to them that Jesus spoke.

You are correct … Jesus’s private meeting with the 12 apostles came after his spiritual explanation to the larvger group … not before, as I had recalled events.

 

[Lazerlike42]

You are correct … Jesus’s private meeting with the 12 apostles came after his spiritual explanation to the larvger group … not before, as I had recalled events.

Yeah, it happens. In fact, you’re recollection was a lot closer to the reality then some of the stuff I’ve recalled in my life.

 

[BRB]

BRB,

I also must disagree with the idea that the spiritual explanation satisfied anybody. It is immediately after this explanation that “many of His disciples turned back.” The explanation didn’t console anybody or change anybody’s mind - it made them leave Him! Whatever they got out of this explanation didn’t make them feel any better at all about what He’d said before.

Neither did the explanation help the 12 most important disciples, the Apostles. When Jesus asks them if they are going to go to, they tell Him they have nowhere else to go. It’s obvious that this entire thing dissettled them just as much as the others, but they stuck with Jesus. They didn’t stay with Him because they understood Him differently; they stayed because He was the Lord and they had nobody else to go. Peter says that He has the words of eternal life, thus affirming belief in those words which turned many others away.

Peace and God bless

Good catch my friend !

Yes … the spiritual explanation didn’t help allay the concerns of those who had first questioned Jesus’s earlier words regarding blood/flesh to be consumed.

So, it looks like it was not the 12 apostles who had verbally expressed amazement … although their answer seems to imply they were also perplexed by both physical and spiritual explanation.

So … in final analysis … its mainly the True Believers who will ‘stay the course’, along with some unbelievers mixed in … like Judas. At the last judgement …the sheep get separated from the goats.

 

[Nita]

So, it looks like it was not the 12 apostles who had verbally expressed amazement … although their answer seems to imply they were also perplexed by both physical and spiritual explanation.

.

And isn’t it amazing how the whole bread of life sermon in John 6 comes together at the Last Supper - made magnificently understandable and awesome to experience.

In John 6 Jesus first calls Himself “bread” (vs 32-51a)
(true bread from heaven; bread of God; bread of life; living bread)
At the Last Supper Jesus first takes real “bread” in His hands.

Next in John 6 He tells them the “bread…is My flesh” (vs 51b)
Next at the Last Supper, holding the bread, Jesus says “This is My body”.

Finally in John 6 Jesus tells them they must “…eat the flesh of the Son of Man” (vs 53-58)
And finally at the Last Supper, Jesus says “Take and eat”.

Nita