Fomer prists argument on Eucharist/John 6

  • Thread starter Thread starter rien
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
R

rien

Guest
I had never heard this argument before - in trying to make sense of John 6 where the Eucharist is talked about.

This is from an ex-priest. Fairly recently ordained from a very orthodox seminary. He has left the church and is not preparing to become a minister.

He said we need to take John in context as we do all Scripture and this approach - in context and using the cultural norms at the time John was written lead him to come to believe that Protestants are right on this and the Eucharistic is symbolic or spiritual and can’t be take in a literal sense.

Here is briefly what he said. It sort of makes sense to me in a way.

Now for the literary context. How does Jesus talk about this Bread? He says that those that eat it will not die. This is critical to understanding what He meant and how He was using the words Bread of Life. We know for a fact that no one living today was alive in the first century. From that we can conclude that this promised eternal life is not literal or physical. It is said in a spiritual sense.

The words leading to that should, in context, be taken in the same sense. It is the same passage. So to make sense of this passage which has confused many go to context.

Jesus spoke of eternal life to those who eat his flesh. But eternal life was /is a spiritual, not physical, eternal life.

Likewise, to complement this and make sense of the passage the eating of his body must be taken spiritually and not literally.
 
rien said:
. . .

Jesus spoke of eternal life to those who eat his flesh. But eternal life was /is a spiritual, not physical, eternal life.

Likewise, to complement this and make sense of the passage the eating of his body must be taken spiritually and not literally.
Click to expand...
Nothing new, really. This poor fellow has conveniently forgotten that Our Lord rose in a real, though glorified, Body. What we participate in isn’t dead flesh, but His Glorified Flesh. Eternal life for Our Risen Lord and for those who share by grace in His life, is very real indeed.
 
How terribly sad that he has given into temptations against the faith (as seems to be the circumstance). Regarding his “conclusions” -

“Jesus spoke of eternal life to those who eat his flesh. But eternal life was /is a spiritual, not physical, eternal life. Likewise, to complement this and make sense of the passage the eating of his body must be taken spiritually and not literally.”

One thing leads to another and in first denying the Eucharistic Presence he has gone on to deny the Resurrection too if he is chucking the idea of a physical afterlife out the window.

What a tragedy.

His reasoning and conclusions make no sense to me.
 
Jesus made it very explicit that He wasn’t speaking about saving our mortal flesh from dying but was speaking about our souls:

vs 63 "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."

The crowd had pursued Jesus because they wanted free physical nourishment for their mortal flesh. And when Jesus tells them they must eat His flesh, they understand it as eating His mortal flesh (cannibalism). He clarifies that misconception also - His body will stay whole

vs 61-62 *But Jesus, knowing in Himself that His disciples murmured at it, said to them, "Do you take offense at this? Then what if you were to see the Son of man ascending where He was before? * (And from there into verse 63 above.)

He has told them what they are to do (eat His flesh and drink His blood), why they are to do it (to live forever), now He addresses the issue of “when” and “how/in what form” (the how will be clarified more at the Last Supper). He indicates it will be after His “ascending”, which in turn means it will be a different sort of body from mortal flesh - risen, glorified and immortal flesh as His followers would come to learn after the resurrection.

Our Lord’s words in Chapter 6 are not symbolic, they are literal. One just has to know which literal meaning to apply. As Catholics, we know it is literally bread that is brought to the altar, and altho the accidents of bread remain, we know the substance literally becomes Our Lord’s risen immortal flesh and blood. And just like the manna in the desert, God sends it down from heaven daily for our nourishment, spiritual nourishment/life for our souls/spirits.

I’m sorry the priest, like many of those disciples in chapter 6, chose not to believe.

Nita
 
rien said:
Protestants are right on this and the Eucharistic is symbolic or spiritual and can’t be take in a literal sense.

From that we can conclude that this promised eternal life is not literal or physical. It is said in a spiritual sense.

Jesus spoke of eternal life to those who eat his flesh. But eternal life was /is a spiritual, not physical, eternal life.

Likewise, to complement this and make sense of the passage the eating of his body must be taken spiritually and not literally.
Click to expand...
Wiktionary defines:
Spiritual (comparative more spiritual, superlative most spiritual)
Positivespiritual
Comparativemore spiritual
Superlativemost spiritual
Of or pertaining to the spirit or the soul
Of or pertaining to the God or a Church; sacred
Of or pertaining to spirits; supernatural
Notice that none of the definitions of Spiritual resemble any thing relating to mean symbolic, or figurative.

Metaphor (countable and uncountable; plural metaphors)
(uncountable) The use of a word or phrase to refer to something that it isn’t, implying a similarity between the word or phrase used and the thing described, and without the words “like” or “as”.
(countable) The word or phrase used in this way. An implied comparison.

Symbolic
Pertaining to a symbol.
Referring to something with an implicit meaning.
 
Here is one of my posts from my blog on the Eucharist.

We continue in John chapter six. “Many of his disciples, when they heard it said ‘This is a hard saying; who can listen to it?’ But Jesus knowing in himself that his disciples murmured at it said to them, ‘Do you take offense at this? Then what if you were to see the Son of man ascending where he was before?’” (Jn 6:60-62) Remember murmuring is an example of unbelief. Jesus’s disciples were murmuring. His disciples were the ones that believed in him. These were not just passers by listening in on what he was saying. They said this saying is hard. If the bread of life discourse is all a metaphor, which is what the disciples thought earlier. What is hard about that. Nothing! Thinking Jesus is speaking metaphoric would make more sense than taking Jesus literally. What is hard to understand is how they were to truly eat his flesh and drink his blood.

What is the point of Jesus asking if they took offense to this? Because Christ knew the Mosaic law prohibiting the drinking of blood and eating of human flesh. Along with the disciples having trouble understanding how they were to eat his flesh. Christ asks what if they saw him rise up to heaven. G.H. Trench in A Study of St. John’s Gospel says “Let them not think of his Flesh as they see it now… Suppose they were to see this very flesh of his not merely risen from the dead but ascending to Heaven, they would find it easier to understand, for they would then realize that this Flesh of His exists not only as they see it now, in it’s phenomenal or physical mode, but that it exists also in a spiritual mode. And it is in it’s spiritual mode that he gives it as food: but under either mode it is one and the same flesh’”
Talk at ya Later
 
In general, those who have left the Church must prove the Her wrong in order to justify themselves. Usually their reason for leaving is something else that they do not wish to discuss; so they manufacture issues. It is usually useless to argue the matter since the real issue is unknown.

I recall a story of someone, maybe Bishop Sheen, who was confronted by a former priest who was ranting about the Church’s riches and Her obsession with money. He silenced him when he asked. " How much money did you steal Father?"
 
I struggled with the Catholic understanding of the Eucharist, coming from a Protestant (Baptist) background, but the more I read and studied, the more amazed I became. Clearly the Church has always been in the wrong and the linguistics of John 6 are to be completely ignored–or the Church is right as rain (as usual)!

Tell your priest about the Greek words “trogo” and “phago.” Ask him if he knows what they mean. My Baptist discipleship teacher (an awesome guy who’s very open to the faith and even planned to attend Christmas Eve Mass with his wife) was teaching me Greek, as he himself was learning. I don’t know much and haven’t touched it in forever, but I can identify words I am already familiar with and sound stuff out. So as soon as someone told me about “phago” and “trogo,” I went straight to my Greek New Testament to see if the claims were true. They are…

“Phago” is the word Jesus uses at the beginning of the dialogue to describe the action of consuming his flesh. It means “to eat” or “to consume” or “to devour”–something along these lines. While its denotation is strong, it’s not as if it can’t be taken in a metaphorical sense.

However, you will see as the passage goes on and the Jews become increasingly disturbed and perplexed, that Christ, in order to make sure he is understood, changes his language from “phago” to “trogo.” Trogo is much more intense and means “to gnash” or “to chew” or “to crunch.” A spiritual interpretation cannot be adopted, (1) because it’s illogical to think of our souls “gnashing” on or “chewing” on the sacrifice of Christ, and (2) because trogo is so strong that it cannot properly be used metaphorically and never is used in such a way in Greek literature.

What’s more, your (former) priest needs to recognize that he’s right in discerning the passage’s reference to Christ’s sacrifice, but only if he does so in CONNECTION with the Eucharist (which is, after all, the re-presentation of that same eternal Sacrifice). Christ died a physical death, remember, to redeem us. His physical death gives us spiritual life. In the same way, the Eucharist (which is a substantial Presence and not a physical one, BTW), which can be touched and felt through the Host’s accidents, also gives to us spiritual, inner life.

Does that make sense? Besides that, it’s clear that his listeners understood him literally. “Does this offend you?” Christ asks. Of course! I’m very visual myself and I read this passage when I was younger and was deeply disturbed because I kept imagining cannibalism. But that’s not what Christ was imagining. He was imagining the breaking of bread at the Last Supper, the first Mass–and ALL Masses after this. The Jews didn’t know this, though, and weren’t willing to listen. This is why he tells them, “The spirit gives life, the flesh is useless,” because if they kept trying to grasp it with their human minds, and not with true spiritual faith, then they would never be able to see the beauty of the Mystery he was disclosing to them.

It’s interesting that John makes it clear in his Gospel that this encounter is close to the Passover season, making it only logical that his words would be instantly brought to mind by the “this is my body, this is my blood,” at the Last Supper.

The beauty of the Eucharist is a God so in love with us that he spares nothing: He gives himself to us wholly and entirely, nothing withheld, in hopes that we might do the same; in order that we might be empowered by his grace to do what we otherwise could not; and to ensure that through his Sacred and Precious Blood in us, we might truly be One Body, One Bread.

Tell him to look at Saint Paul on this issue, also, in 1 Cor. 10 and 11, as well as ANY early Christian writer.

Ask him if God is good. Then ask if he is Love. Ask him where else besides the Catholic Church he can receive, Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity, he who is Love in all his infinite goodness. Ask him, “Does he not care for us so? Is he not a Lover to us, desiring to touch us and in turn be touched? Desiring oneness with us? Yes? Then look at the Eucharist, and see his love made clear.”

If that doesn’t work, smile and wish him well and pray for him.

Here’s hoping. 🙂

Peace
 
Do you really know [positively] that this person is a former priest? Call me skeptical but I often hear people identify themselves as ‘former catholics’ or ''former priest/nun" then they begin with some discussion/rant about catholics/theChurch/doctrine/Eucharist/Scripture/Mary …

Like the Maria Monk in the old anti-catholic novel, many are not and never were catholic/priest/nun …

How coud someone be catholic, perceive a call to the priesthood, attend seminary and voacational formation for 8 years +/-… become ordain and only then read John Chapter 6, have an aha moment about the ‘false catholic teaching’ … leave the priesthood, etc … In their moment of disbeleif … they never meet with another priest/bishop/spiritual director/formation professor that can explain the Eucharist as well at the posters here [some of the posts in this thread are very good]?

If I am wrong, please forgive my skepticism … but I have met many supossed catholics that are not an never were catholic … some others were catholic via baptism but never stepped foot in a church after that initial ‘dunking’ and therefore are totally uncatechised … once bitten twice shy as the old saying goes…

If this man is truly a recent ‘former’ priest, the bishop should take steps to investigate the seminary and formation in his diocese …
 
See if at first you can get him to agree to come back to the Priesthood if you can answer him, before you give him an answer. State that you have an answer but if that is the issue will he agree to come back.

He probably wont agree, but maybe you can get closer to the real reason why he is rejecting the Church. It sometimes might take some digging or if it is serious sin you might never find out at all.

Charitably seek a way to share the faith with him, maybe you can be a step back to the Church.

God Bless
Scylla
 
rien said:
I had never heard this argument before - in trying to make sense of John 6 where the Eucharist is talked about.

This is from an ex-priest. Fairly recently ordained from a very orthodox seminary. He has left the church and is not preparing to become a minister.

He said we need to take John in context as we do all Scripture and this approach - in context and using the cultural norms at the time John was written lead him to come to believe that Protestants are right on this and the Eucharistic is symbolic or spiritual and can’t be take in a literal sense.

Here is briefly what he said. It sort of makes sense to me in a way.

Now for the literary context. How does Jesus talk about this Bread? He says that those that eat it will not die. This is critical to understanding what He meant and how He was using the words Bread of Life. We know for a fact that no one living today was alive in the first century. From that we can conclude that this promised eternal life is not literal or physical. It is said in a spiritual sense.

The words leading to that should, in context, be taken in the same sense. It is the same passage. So to make sense of this passage which has confused many go to context.

Jesus spoke of eternal life to those who eat his flesh. But eternal life was /is a spiritual, not physical, eternal life.

Likewise, to complement this and make sense of the passage the eating of his body must be taken spiritually and not literally.
Click to expand...
Is this really the best he can do? A simple reading of the fact that “eat flesh” and “drink blood” means a vicious attack on a person easily demolishes any “spiritual” meaning.

And yes, it does mean physical eternal life. “I will raise him up on the last day.” Duh. The Resurrection will be a restoration of physical life.
 
As I see it, there are at least two flaws in the former priest’s argument.

The first flaw is the assumption that Jesus was speaking of eternal life in a purely spiritual sense because those who have received the Eucharist from the first century until today have physically died. The flaw is exposed when you consider that there is a “second death” that the reprobate will physically experience after everybody is physically raised up on the last day and Jesus may well have been speaking about physically preserving those who ate his flesh and drank his blood from this “second death.”

Jesus might well be speaking of this “second death” because in the grand scheme of things the time between Christ’s First Coming 2000 years ago and his Second Coming is nothing, the blink of an eye, when compared to the endless life (or endless death) that we will experience with our resurrected physical body and spiritual soul after the last day.

Further, Jesus might well be speaking of this “second death” because, in John 6:40 and 54, he mentions together “eternal life” and the physical events of “the last day.”

The second flaw is the assumption that, if Jesus was speaking of eternal life in a spiritual sense, then he must be speaking of eating his flesh and drinking his blood in a spiritual sense.

The spiritual and physical can exist together. One has only to look at John 3 to see that rebirth in a spirtual sense is associated with being “born of water” (baptized) in a literal or physical sense. Or Acts 8:18 to see that it was through the physical laying on of hands that the apostles conferred the Holy Spirit. Or James 5:14-15 to see that physical healing and spiritual forgiveness of sins was effected though a physical anointing with oil by the presbyters (priests) of the church.
 
rien said:
He said we need to take John in context as we do all Scripture and this approach - in context and using the cultural norms at the time John was written lead him to come to believe that Protestants are right on this and the Eucharistic is symbolic or spiritual and can’t be take in a literal sense.
Click to expand...
Does he think that St. John was a terrible teacher?

One of St. John’s students, St. Ignatius, taught the following:
“I have no taste for corruptible food nor for the pleasures of this life. I desire the bread of God, which is the flesh of Jesus Christ, who was of the seed of David; and for drink I desire his blood, which is love incorruptible” (Letter to the Romans 7:3 [A.D. 110]).
Click to expand...
“Take note of those who hold heterodox opinions on the grace of Jesus Christ which has come to us, and see how contrary their opinions are to the mind of God. . . . They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer because they do not confess that the Eucharist is the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ, flesh which suffered for our sins and which that Father, in his goodness, raised up again. They who deny the gift of God are perishing in their disputes” (Letter to the Smyrnaeans 6:2–7:1 [A.D. 110]).
Click to expand...
Also, is he taking into account what “eat my flesh and drink my blood” meant at the time of Jesus and St. John?
As Fr. John A. O’Brien explains, “The phrase ‘to eat the flesh and drink the blood,’ when used figuratively among the Jews, as among the Arabs of today, meant to inflict upon a person some serious injury, especially by calumny or by false accusation. To interpret the phrase figuratively then would be to make our Lord promise life everlasting to the culprit for slandering and hating him, which would reduce the whole passage to utter nonsense” (O’Brien, The Faith of Millions, 215). For an example of this use, see Micah 3:3.
Click to expand...
If this ex-priest is this confused on the Eucharist, maybe it is a good thing that he left the church so he doesn’t spread his errors among the faithful.
 
rien said:
I had never heard this argument before - in trying to make sense of John 6 where the Eucharist is talked about.

This is from an ex-priest. Fairly recently ordained from a very orthodox seminary. He has left the church and is not preparing to become a minister.

He said we need to take John in context as we do all Scripture and this approach - in context and using the cultural norms at the time John was written lead him to come to believe that Protestants are right on this and the Eucharistic is symbolic or spiritual and can’t be take in a literal sense.

Here is briefly what he said. It sort of makes sense to me in a way.

Now for the literary context. How does Jesus talk about this Bread? He says that those that eat it will not die. This is critical to understanding what He meant and how He was using the words Bread of Life. We know for a fact that no one living today was alive in the first century. From that we can conclude that this promised eternal life is not literal or physical. It is said in a spiritual sense.

The words leading to that should, in context, be taken in the same sense. It is the same passage. So to make sense of this passage which has confused many go to context.

Jesus spoke of eternal life to those who eat his flesh. But eternal life was /is a spiritual, not physical, eternal life.

Likewise, to complement this and make sense of the passage the eating of his body must be taken spiritually and not literally.
Click to expand...
***Hi, rien!

…I had so much to share with you… but I got beat! 😛

Read through these posts and then re-read St. John 6:25-69; but read slowly and several times:

Did Jesus insist that those who heard Him should eat His Body and drink His Blood?
Did anyone asked Him if He was serious or speaking figuratively?
Did Jesus pick up on their confusion and clarified that He was not to be taken literally?
Did they all stay thinking that He was using some sort of metaphore?
Did Jesus change His language to make it clear that He was being misunderstood?
Did He call any of those who left, asking to be given a second chance to simplify His Teachings?
Did Jesus take the Disciples aside and eased their troubled minds by explaining that He surely did not actually mean His Body and Blood?

Did any of the Apostles teach that they gathered in a symbolic Lord’s Supper?

Maran atha!

Angel***
 
rien said:
…We know for a fact that no one living today was alive in the first century. From that we can conclude that this promised eternal life is not literal or physical. It is said in a spiritual sense.
Click to expand...
Well, it is literal - the eternal life Our Lord spoke of is real.

And it’s not simply “spiritual” - our bodies do indeed rise as well, and reunited with our souls, live for eternity with Christ. It’s in the creed my friend:

“…and I look for the resurrection of the dead, and the life of the world to come. Amen.”

Other than that - what everone else here is saying goes too.

Be careful what you read. Don’t get sucked in to such stuff. You’ve got a duty and a responsibility to protect your faith.

Peace in Christ,

DustinsDad
 
DustinsDad said:
Well, it is literal - the eternal life Our Lord spoke of is real.

And it’s not simply “spiritual” - our bodies do indeed rise as well, and reunited with our souls, live for eternity with Christ. It’s in the creed my friend:

“…and I look for the resurrection of the dead, and the life of the world to come. Amen.”

Other than that - what everone else here is saying goes too.

DustinsDad
Click to expand...
***Hi, DustinsDad!

…and that is pulled right from Scriptures:

What I am saying, brothers, is that mere human nature cannot inherit the kingdom of God: what is perishable cannot inherit what is imperishable. Now I am going to tell you a mistery: we are not all going to fall asleep, but we are all going to be changed, instantly, in the twinkling of an eye, when the last trompet sounds. The trumpet is going to sound, and then the dead will be raised, imperishable, and we shall be changed, because this perishable nature of ours must put on imperishability, this mortal nature must put on immortality. And after this perishable nature has put on imperishability and this mortal nature has put on immortality, then will the words of scriptures come true: Death is swallow up in victory***. (1 Corinthians 15:50-54)

We want you to be quite certain, brothers, about those who have fallen asleep, to make sure that you do not greave for them, as others do who have not hope. We believe that Jesus died and rose again, and that in the same way God will bring with him those who have fallen asleep in Jesus. We can tell you this from the Lord’s own teaching, that we who are still alive for the Lord’s coming will not have any advante over those who have fallen asleep. At the signal given by the voice of the Archangel and the trumpet of God, the Lord himself will come down from heaven; those who have died in Christ will be the first to rise, and only after that shall we who remain alive be taken up in the clouds, together with them, to meet the Lord in the air. This is the way we shall be with the Lord forever. (1 Thessalonians 4:13-17)

Coincidentally, this also answers the queries of Bible only… these passage are a clear demonstration of a dynamic and charismatic Doctrine, a Teaching that is alive and active, even outside of the Holy Scriptures.

Paul, as the rest of the Apostles and their immediate successors and disciples, believed that the Parousia was imminent, even within his own lifetime. As the Holy Spirit would continue to entlighten them this immediate expectancy became part of the old Teachings (2 St. Peter 3:8-18).

Maran atha!

Angel
 
rien said:
I had never heard this argument before - in trying to make sense of John 6 where the Eucharist is talked about.

This is from an ex-priest. Fairly recently ordained from a very orthodox seminary. He has left the church and is not preparing to become a minister.

He said we need to take John in context as we do all Scripture and this approach - in context and using the cultural norms at the time John was written lead him to come to believe that Protestants are right on this and the Eucharistic is symbolic or spiritual and can’t be take in a literal sense.

Here is briefly what he said. It sort of makes sense to me in a way.

Now for the literary context. How does Jesus talk about this Bread? He says that those that eat it will not die. This is critical to understanding what He meant and how He was using the words Bread of Life. We know for a fact that no one living today was alive in the first century. From that we can conclude that this promised eternal life is not literal or physical. It is said in a spiritual sense.

The words leading to that should, in context, be taken in the same sense. It is the same passage. So to make sense of this passage which has confused many go to context.

Jesus spoke of eternal life to those who eat his flesh. But eternal life was /is a spiritual, not physical, eternal life.

Likewise, to complement this and make sense of the passage the eating of his body must be taken spiritually and not literally.
Click to expand...
What bold conceit from a man who has lost his faith! He presumes to be more spiritual than Peter, the rest of the Eleven, Paul, all of the early church fathers and 1,974 years of faithful Christian Bishops, Saints and Martyrs ever since! All this from a man who has fallen under the influence of the spirit of antichrist, as spoken of in 1 John 3 and 4. Pray for him, don’t listen to his opinions.

Lord, have mercy. Christ, have mercy. Lord, have mercy.

Christ’s peace.
 
What is this man’s name and what seminary does he claim he attended?
 
I asked asimilar questions days ago … he does not sound like a former catholic priest to me…
 
jcrichton said:
Hi, rien!

…I had so much to share with you… but I got beat! 😛

Read through these posts and then re-read St. John 6:25-69; but read slowly and several times:

Did Jesus insist that those who heard Him should eat His Body and drink His Blood?
Did anyone asked Him if He was serious or speaking figuratively?
Did Jesus pick up on their confusion and clarified that He was not to be taken literally?
Did they all stay thinking that He was using some sort of metaphore?
Did Jesus change His language to make it clear that He was being misunderstood?
Did He call any of those who left, asking to be given a second chance to simplify His Teachings?
Did Jesus take the Disciples aside and eased their troubled minds by explaining that He surely did not actually mean His Body and Blood?

Did any of the Apostles teach that they gathered in a symbolic Lord’s Supper?

Maran atha!

Angel
Click to expand...
John 6:53-69 👍
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top