Help with John 6 about Eucharist

[sambos671]

Catholics believe Jesus when he said that to remain in his love you must obey his commandments.

Clearly, if there is no opportunity to receive the eucharist then it is not possible to obey this particular commandment.

However, if you do have the opportunity, you are risking the loss of your salvation by rejecting it.

I’m still trying to answer the first question. The statement you mention here automatically follows once the first is sufficiently settled.

 

[CHESTERTONRULES]

I’m still trying to answer the first question. The statement you mention here automatically follows once the first is sufficiently settled.

I agree.

What methods can be used to answer the question?

 

[sambos671]

I agree.

What methods can be used to answer the question?

You can use Sacred Scripture, and reason. I would prefer both in conjunction with each other. Tradition is moot until the first question is answered. Once it is determined that the first is sufficient in like manner acceptance of Tradition is automatic. However, though Tradition is moot that does not invalidate the logic of flow or scriptural use regarding this matter in Tradition. This also does not prohibit use of the ECF. However, consistency with Sacred Scripture is key. Because with the Catholic Catachizem; Sacred Scripture is not deminished by Tradition. They work hand in hand. It follows then that Tradition will follow the meaning and intent of Sacred Scripture. I hope I wasn’t confusing.

 

[Techno2000]

You can use Sacred Scripture, and reason. I would prefer both in conjunction with each other. Tradition is moot until the first question is answered. Once it is determined that the first is sufficient in like manner acceptance of Tradition is automatic. However, though Tradition is moot that does not invalidate the logic of flow or scriptural use regarding this matter in Tradition. This also does not prohibit use of the ECF. However, consistency with Sacred Scripture is key. Because with the Catholic Catachizem; Sacred Scripture is not deminished by Tradition. They work hand in hand. It follows then that Tradition will follow the meaning and intent of Sacred Scripture. I hope I wasn’t confusing.

You have to( want to believe) what the Catholic Church says about the Eucharist is true.Only Catholics with strong Faith Believe it, you are using Human Reasoning to try to understand this.

 

[jim1130]

This verse is part of the discourse not in conclusion or even after the verses I mention. Jesus didn’t changed the subject he was still making his point. Obviously, Catholics believe you may obtain eternal life without ever receiving the Eucharist. How do they then view this verse if not with in a part of the overall discourse about Jesus being from the Father. Manna is bread but not bread of eternal life. Jesus is eternal this eternal bread because he comes from the Father and is part of the Trinity. This part of the discourse contrast Jesus with Manna to which Jesus is showing that he indeed comes from the Father.

I recall having this EXACT same “discussion” on CARM (Christian Apologetics Research Ministry), which is Calvinistic in doctrine, and the CARM scholar frequently referencing D.A. Carson that ALL of St. John 6 is answered in verses 30-35, i.e., supporting the “figurative” speech; unfortunately, if we take the literal meaning of eating flesh and drinking blood" was the idiomatic phrase synonymous with persecution, violence, betrayal, and murder.

A good source is “The Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma” by Dr. Ludwig Ott. Ott states that the body and blood as described by Christ in John 6 (and the synoptic Gospels, too) are not figurative because nowhere else in the Bible (either OT or NT) are the words “body” and “blood” used figuratively. To assign these words “figurative” status, given their specific time 2,000 years ago, means that to the Jews of Christ’s day to “eat someone’s flesh and drink someone’s blood” was synonymous with persecution, violence, betrayal, bitterly hate, and murder. Also, “to drink some one’s blood”, in Scripture, especially, has no other figurative meaning than that of dire chastisement. Examples cited by Ott are:

Micah 3:1-3 You that hate good, and love evil: that violently pluck off their skins from them and their flesh from their bones? 3 Who have eaten the flesh of my people, and have flayed their skin off them: and have broken, and chopped their bones as for the kettle, and as flesh in the midst of the pot.

Isaiah 9:20 20 And he shall turn to the right hand, and shall be hungry: and shall eat on the left hand, and shall not be filled: every one shall eat the flesh of his own arm: Manasses Ephraim, and Ephraim Manasses, and they together shall be against Juda.

Isaiah 49:26 26 And I will feed thy enemies with their own flesh: and they shall be made drunk with their own blood, as with new wine: and all flesh shall know, that I am the Lord that save thee, and thy Redeemer the Mighty One of Jacob.

That’s why, if Jesus had been speaking figuratively, his words would have made no sense at all. He would have been saying, “I solemnly assure you that unless you persecute and betray me you have no life within you. He who does violence to me has eternal life and I will raise him up on the last day.” That makes no sense at all, but that’s exactly what he would have been saying if his words were symbolic.

 

[ziapueblo]

In Scripture, and during ancient times, when one speaks of eating flesh and drinking blood in a figurative sense it means to commit harm. “Thus, 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, 1974, p. 215). Take a look at Micah 3:3 for just one example of many. You should also check out this book. It’s a great read!

O’Brien, John A. (1974). The faith of millions: the credentials of the Catholic religion. London: Allen.

p.s.

Hope my APA is correct here. Now that I’m working on my Masters degree, APA is shoved down my neck

 

[guanophore]

Ok, fair enough. But if it isn’t real, what DOES that mean for Catholics? You don’t ever get grace?

Even if it isn’t real for Protestants I wouldn’t go so far as to say that they don’t recieve grace. That’s assuming that grace only comes from the eucharist.

No, God’s grace is not limited by any sacraments. It is unbounded. He pours out His grace where He wills. What we know, and can count on, is that His grace is present in the Eucharist. It is present other places as well.

 

[sambos671]

In Scripture, and during ancient times, when one speaks of eating flesh and drinking blood in a figurative sense it means to commit harm. “Thus, 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, 1974, p. 215). Take a look at Micah 3:3 for just one example of many. You should also check out this book. It’s a great read!

O’Brien, John A. (1974). The faith of millions: the credentials of the Catholic religion. London: Allen.

p.s.

Hope my APA is correct here. Now that I’m working on my Masters degree, APA is shoved down my neck

I understand about APA. During my masters program the red and black book was my friend. A real love hate relationship there.

You make a good point about the cultural understanding of the terms Jesus used.

 

[CHESTERTONRULES]

You can use Sacred Scripture, and reason. I would prefer both in conjunction with each other. Tradition is moot until the first question is answered. .

Tradition is an important factor in answering the question.

What did the apostles teach their successors?

 

[sambos671]

Tradition is an important factor in answering the question.

What did the apostles teach their successors?

I understand. However, I want to aproach the topic thoughtfully and stay away from responces like “Because my church tells me so.” It’s unproductive and ususally ends up being circular. Now if you want to say the Apostles said such and such how do you do it? The only thing of definate Apostolic teaching is the scripture themselves. Apart from that we must approach it from secondary witnesses. Which is fine. If you want to say Tradition is correct in this matter because scriptures say this and it is also substantiated by reliable persons by this. Then that is fine.

 

[sambos671]

Jesus comments seemed to be directed at implicating himself as being from God and compared to Manna in that he is life. I don’t develope the Eucharist from this. Yet early Christians obviously believed in the presence in the Eucharist. However, from Ignatius statment even that early there were christians that disagreed with this view of the Eucharist. So which were apostolically taught? Who were in the majority? Strangely with a view of the Nicenean council it seems that the Orthodox teaching was in the minority for a time yet orthodoxy won out but it wasn’t long before Arius followers grew in strength not out right going against the Nicene council they made amendments to their beliefs causing the 2nd council at Constantinople. So with regard to the eucharist scripturally and historically were does the real presence fall?

 

[guanophore]

Jesus comments seemed to be directed at implicating himself as being from God and compared to Manna in that he is life. I don’t develope the Eucharist from this. Yet early Christians obviously believed in the presence in the Eucharist. However, from Ignatius statment even that early there were christians that disagreed with this view of the Eucharist. So which were apostolically taught? Who were in the majority? Strangely with a view of the Nicenean council it seems that the Orthodox teaching was in the minority for a time yet orthodoxy won out but it wasn’t long before Arius followers grew in strength not out right going against the Nicene council they made amendments to their beliefs causing the 2nd council at Constantinople. So with regard to the eucharist scripturally and historically were does the real presence fall?

I was thinking about all the references to Christ as the Bread of Life, living Manna. He was born in Bethlehem, which means bread, and laid in a manger, a feeding trough. I don’t think these are an accident!