Help with John 6 about Eucharist

[sambos671]

It is clear Clement, Ignatius, and Justin Matyr hold to the real presence of our Lord in the Eucharist. John Chapter 6 is held by Catholics to speak to this matter of the Eucharist. However, If I exegete this scripture (without the Greek since I don’t know Greek) this is what I come accross and it doesn’t necissarily hold to the presence. This is what I mean:

3Then Jesus went up on a mountainside and sat down with his disciples. 4The Jewish Passover Feast was near.

Near passover Jesus is on a mountainside with is disciples.

5When Jesus looked up and saw a great crowd coming toward him, he said to Philip, “Where shall we buy bread for these people to eat?”

Jesus is considering how the people should eat though the next verse has to do with testing them and that he’s about to reveal God’s glory.

12When they had all had enough to eat, he said to his disciples, “Gather the pieces that are left over. Let nothing be wasted.” 13So they gathered them and filled twelve baskets with the pieces of the five barley loaves left over by those who had eaten.

Everyone ate and it was a miracle coming from a few loaves and fish. People seeing the miracle believe the days of either fulfillment of messiah had come and now was their misguided opportunity or that a great prophet like Elijah had come to deliver them. Jesus leaves these people (walks on water) and they come searching for him. Their opportunity is walking away (on water)

25When they found him on the other side of the lake, they asked him, “Rabbi, when did you get here?”
26Jesus answered, “I tell you the truth, you are looking for me, not because you saw miraculous signs but because you ate the loaves and had your fill. 27Do not work for food that spoils, but for food that endures to eternal life, which the Son of Man will give you. On him God the Father has placed his seal of approval.”

First of all they wonder the obvious. How did you get her this quickly? (before us maybe?) Then (here is the key point) Jesus basically tells them that the people are here looking for Jesus because of what they can get out of it. Primarily food. He tells them that filling their bellies is a waste of time but to look for spiritual fulfillment by the one God sent (next important point)
then here is the key phrase of the discourse:

28Then they asked him, “What must we do to do the works God requires?”
29Jesus answered, “The work of God is this:** to believe in the one he has sent.” **

They ask: how do we get God’s approval? What must we do what works? Jesus says simply to believe in the one God sent. Everything is based off of this pivotal statment.

30So they asked him, “What miraculous sign then will you give that we may see it and believe you? What will you do? 31Our forefathers ate the manna in the desert; as it is written: ‘He gave them bread from heaven to eat.’[c]”

So since its obvious that Jesus is claiming to be the one sent they wonder how can he prove it (is Jesus going to say he’s greater than Moses?). They remind him that Moses gave them manna.

32Jesus said to them, “I tell you the truth, it is not Moses who has given you the bread from heaven, but it is my Father who gives you the true bread from heaven. 33For the bread of God is he who comes down from heaven and gives life to the world.”

Jesus clarifies that Moses didn’t give them Manna but God himself and they should believe in the one who comes down from heaven. Still using the topic of food since that is the operation of the conversation. Topics haven’t changed.

34"Sir," they said, “from now on give us this bread.”

35Then Jesus declared, “I am the bread of life. He who comes to me will never go hungry, and he who believes in me will never be thirsty. 36But as I told you, you have seen me and still you do not believe. 37All that the Father gives me will come to me, and whoever comes to me I will never drive away. 38For I have come down from heaven not to do my will but to do the will of him who sent me. 39And this is the will of him who sent me, that I shall lose none of all that he has given me, but raise them up at the last day. 40For my Father’s will is that everyone who looks to the Son and believes in him shall have eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day.”

Jesus clairifies what he means. You need to believe in him because he comes from God like manna (thats his prove) And further God will give Jesus all who believe in him and he will not lose any of them. Believe. is the key to this point Believe in Jesus.

41At this the Jews began to grumble about him because he said, “I am the bread that came down from heaven.” 42They said, “Is this not Jesus, the son of Joseph, whose father and mother we know? **How can he now say, ‘I came down from heaven’?” **

Then the people say isn’t this guy just a normal guy? How can he claim to come down from heaven? No confusion with manna at this point.

 

[sambos671]

Cont.

43"Stop grumbling among yourselves," Jesus answered. 44"No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him, and I will raise him up at the last day. 45It is written in the Prophets: ‘They will all be taught by God.’[d] Everyone who listens to the Father and learns from him comes to me. 46No one has seen the Father except the one who is from God; only he has seen the Father. 47I tell you the truth, he who believes has everlasting life. 48I am the bread of life. 49Your forefathers ate the manna in the desert, yet they died. 50But here is the bread that comes down from heaven, which a man may eat and not die. 51I am the living bread that came down from heaven. If anyone eats of this bread, he will live forever. This bread is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world."

52Then the Jews began to argue sharply among themselves, “How can this man give us his flesh to eat?”

53Jesus said to them, “I tell you the truth, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you. 54Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day. 55For my flesh is real food and my blood is real drink. 56Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me, and I in him. 57Just as the living Father sent me and I live because of the Father, so the one who feeds on me will live because of me. 58This is the bread that came down from heaven. Your forefathers ate manna and died, but he who feeds on this bread will live forever.” 59He said this while teaching in the synagogue in Capernaum.

So the crux of the issue. He hasn’t changed topics to Eucharist but seems to still be on about believing in him and that he is real food which sustains to everlasting life because he is God. Using the manna as an the key focal point of the argument. You ate manna then died. I’m real food and can give you eternal life based on (what works can we do… believe on the one God sent.).

60On hearing it, many of his disciples said, “This is a hard teaching. Who can accept it?”
61Aware that his disciples were grumbling about this, Jesus said to them, “Does this offend you? 62What if you see the Son of Man ascend to where he was before! 63The Spirit gives life; the flesh counts for nothing. The words I have spoken to you are spirit[e] and they are life. 64Yet there are some of you who do not believe.” For Jesus had known from the beginning which of them did not believe and who would betray him. 65He went on to say, “**This is why I told you that no one can come to me unless the Father has enabled him.” **

back to the believing in him motif from the previous statement. He basically says if you actually see me raise to my prior position then what would you say? Then he finalizes his statement saying Only God can enable people to believe in him. Now help me out here. this is how I read this verse. It seems plain to me not to be a disertation of the Eucharist but on believing in Jesus. Now what other scripture will show the presence? Don’t jump on me because I’m just asking questions based on how the text reads. Please explain how I’ve erred based on the passages. Thank you. I want to believe in the Eucharist but am approaching these verses honestly I think.

 

[CHESTERTONRULES]

QUOTE]

Here’s something you need to consider.

John wrote this book years after Jesus was gone.

John had most likely participated in the Eucharist hundreds of times when he wrote these words.

His mention of the Passover recalls the sacrificial lamb which is eaten.

He emphacises the words of Jesus specifically to address the Eucharist.

John understood Jesus perfectly in retrospect, but he demonstrates accurately that they didn’t understand at the time.

Those who had faith in Jesus took him at his word, even though they had no idea what he was talking about.

 

[reteeks21]

I’d like to ask a sincere question. Regardless of who is “right”, what’s the big deal? To me, Jesus said do it so just do it! If it’s “real”, great. If not, are the words and the power behind them diminsished? I don’t think so because Jesus said to do it!

 

[guanophore]

So the crux of the issue. He hasn’t changed topics to Eucharist but seems to still be on about believing in him and that he is real food which sustains to everlasting life because he is God. Using the manna as an the key focal point of the argument. You ate manna then died. I’m real food and can give you eternal life based on (what works can we do… believe on the one God sent.).

back to the believing in him motif from the previous statement. He basically says if you actually see me raise to my prior position then what would you say? Then he finalizes his statement saying Only God can enable people to believe in him. Now help me out here. this is how I read this verse. It seems plain to me not to be a disertation of the Eucharist but on believing in Jesus. Now what other scripture will show the presence? Don’t jump on me because I’m just asking questions based on how the text reads. Please explain how I’ve erred based on the passages. Thank you. I want to believe in the Eucharist but am approaching these verses honestly I think.

I see that you are attempting to do so. How is it you think that the first generation of the Apostles’ disciples “missed” the teaching? Were the Apostles so poorly trained they could not teach any better? Was the HS so weak that He was unable to lead them into all Truth?

I submit to you that for the Apostles and the early church, there was no separation between faith in Christ, and believing in His real presence in the Eucharist. This is the testimony of Scripture, the evidence of the early fathers, and the faith of the Church that has been handed down. There was never any attempt to separate them until the reformation (except by previous heretics).

 

[CHESTERTONRULES]

I’d like to ask a sincere question. Regardless of who is “right”, what’s the big deal? To me, Jesus said do it so just do it! If it’s “real”, great. If not, are the words and the power behind them diminsished? I don’t think so because Jesus said to do it!

The issue for Catholics is that in order for the Eucharist to be sacramentally effective, ie. to give grace and life, it must be valid.

Those who diminish the power of the Eucharist are not only missing out on this gift of grace but they are risking judgment:

1 Cor 11
29For anyone who eats and drinks without recognizing the body of the Lord eats and drinks judgment on himself.

 

[reteeks21]

The issue for Catholics is that in order for the Eucharist to be sacramentally effective, ie. to give grace and life, it must be valid.

Those who diminish the power of the Eucharist are not only missing out on this gift of grace but they are risking judgment:

1 Cor 11
29For anyone who eats and drinks without recognizing the body of the Lord eats and drinks judgment on himself.

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.

As far as 1 Corinthians 11, Paul is stressing behavior- i.e., eating it without a pure and clean conscience. To “get” this verse you have to understand what “recognize” means. If it is as you say it is, then we Prots need to get it straight. If not, does that mean something is wrong for you guys?

 

[sambos671]

The issue for Catholics is that in order for the Eucharist to be sacramentally effective, ie. to give grace and life, it must be valid.

Those who diminish the power of the Eucharist are not only missing out on this gift of grace but they are risking judgment:

1 Cor 11
29For anyone who eats and drinks without recognizing the body of the Lord eats and drinks judgment on himself.

Spot on (finger tapping the nose).

 

[sambos671]

I see that you are attempting to do so. How is it you think that the first generation of the Apostles’ disciples “missed” the teaching? Were the Apostles so poorly trained they could not teach any better? Was the HS so weak that He was unable to lead them into all Truth?

I submit to you that for the Apostles and the early church, there was no separation between faith in Christ, and believing in His real presence in the Eucharist. This is the testimony of Scripture, the evidence of the early fathers, and the faith of the Church that has been handed down. There was never any attempt to separate them until the reformation (except by previous heretics).

I could only answer by speculation. The earliest writings apart from the apostles were from those that I mentioned. So, to explain how the apostles “got it wrong” would be incorrect from a conflicting opinion. The contention would be that the apostles got it right; their disciples got it wrong and maybe not all for

They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer, because they confess not the Eucharist to be the flesh of our Saviour Jesus Christ, which suffered for our sins, and which the Father, of His goodness, raised up again. Those, therefore, who speak against this gift of God, incur death in the midst of their disputes. But it were better for them to treat it with respect, that they also might rise again.

Is taken from the prior Bishop of Antioch. From which church there are many teachings throughout Christian History that are problematic. I found these during my study of the first 7 ecuminical councils. The counter argument to the Eucharist would state. I’m personally not suggesting this either but that would be an entirely speculative argument which is what I want to stay away from. From scripture (it is on equal footing with tradition) how is the Eucharist taught? John 6 seems more to be about belief than Eucharist. Chestersonrules makes a good point but it still lacks sufficiency of argument. But is a good follow up. John does take aspects of faith for granted. However, how do we know what that is with repsect to the Eucharist? Surely, It would seem Ignatius at least believed in the Eucharist. What about the other bishop’s? By the very language Iganatius uses in the letter we can understand this Eucharist was not accepted by at least some. As you say Heretics certainly at least with Antioch what about the other churches?

 

[ziapueblo]

sambos671,

In verse 52, as you pointed out, those listening to Jesus say, “How can this man give us his flesh to eat?” In verses 53-56 Jesus says “eat my flesh and drink my blood” 3 times, and “my flesh is real food and my blood real drink.” He is reaffirming the literal interpretation of His followers. Anytime Jesus taught and His followers or Apostles took Him literally, He always corrected them. If Jesus was speaking symbolically, why did He not correct them?

Here is an example of Jesus speaking symbolically about bread, Matthew 16:6-12, “Jesus said to them, ‘Look out, and beware of the leaven of the Pharisees and Sadducees.’ They concluded among themselves, saying, ‘It is because we have brought no bread.’ When Jesus became aware of this he said, ‘You of little faith, why do you conclude among yourselves that it is because you have no bread? Do you not yet understand, and do you not remember the five loaves for the five thousand, and how many wicker baskets you took up? Or the seven loaves for the four thousand, and how many baskets you took up? How do you not comprehend that I was not speaking to you about bread? Beware of the leaven of the Pharisees and Sadducees.’ Then they understood that he was not telling them to beware of the leaven of bread, but of the teaching of the Pharisees and Sadducees.”

 

[sambos671]

sambos671,

In verse 52, as you pointed out, those listening to Jesus say, “How can this man give us his flesh to eat?” In verses 53-56 Jesus says “eat my flesh and drink my blood” 3 times, and “my flesh is real food and my blood real drink.” He is reaffirming the literal interpretation of His followers. Anytime Jesus taught and His followers or Apostles took Him literally, He always corrected them. If Jesus was speaking symbolically, why did He not correct them?

Here is an example of Jesus speaking symbolically about bread, Matthew 16:6-12, “Jesus said to them, 'Look out, and beware of the leaven of the Pharisees and Sadducees.’ They concluded among themselves, saying, ‘It is because we have brought no bread.’ When Jesus became aware of this he said, ‘You of little faith, why do you conclude among yourselves that it is because you have no bread? Do you not yet understand, and do you not remember the five loaves for the five thousand, and how many wicker baskets you took up? Or the seven loaves for the four thousand, and how many baskets you took up? How do you not comprehend that I was not speaking to you about bread? Beware of the leaven of the Pharisees and Sadducees.’ Then they understood that he was not telling them to beware of the leaven of bread, but of the teaching of the Pharisees and Sadducees.”

I’m not sure are you quoting me at the first sentence? I’ve said something similar previously. The counter contention is that Jesus did because he says

58This is the bread that came down from heaven. Your forefathers ate manna and died, but he who feeds on this bread will live forever."

showing continuity with the belief being the works required of God and showing that Jesus like Manna is sent from God. Then Jesus says this to his apostles

63The Spirit gives life; the** flesh counts for nothing**. The words I have spoken to you are spirit[e] and they are life. 64Yet there are some of you who do not believe."

Indicating that there is some misunderstanding about eating manna and belief in Jesus. Jesus indicates there is a spiritual principle

Jesus answered, "It is written: ‘Man does not live on bread alone, but on every word that **comes from **the mouth of God.’ "

Jesus is the Word as John states in his first Chapter and is indicating that he comes from the Father. That belief on him (from the begining of the discourse) is the works the Father requires.

 

[Techno2000]

Cont.

So the crux of the issue. He hasn’t changed topics to Eucharist but seems to still be on about believing in him and that he is real food which sustains to everlasting life because he is God. Using the manna as an the key focal point of the argument. You ate manna then died. I’m real food and can give you eternal life based on (what works can we do… believe on the one God sent.).

back to the believing in him motif from the previous statement. He basically says if you actually see me raise to my prior position then what would you say? Then he finalizes his statement saying Only God can enable people to believe in him. Now help me out here. this is how I read this verse. It seems plain to me not to be a disertation of the Eucharist but on believing in Jesus. Now what other scripture will show the presence? Don’t jump on me because I’m just asking questions based on how the text reads. Please explain how I’ve erred based on the passages. Thank you. I want to believe in the Eucharist but am approaching these verses honestly I think.

John 6:63 (New Living Translation)
The Spirit alone gives eternal life. Human effort accomplishes nothing. And the very words I have spoken to you are spirit and life.

Jesus is saying that the Flesh, carnal mind (HUMAN REASONING) can not understand the Supernatural world or the Spirit world.He is talking about the Eucharist being a Supernatural thing that can only be understood by Faith.

Substitute “Human reasoning” for “Human effort” and see how
it reads.John 6:63 (New Living Translation)

 

[jim1130]

I underlined that which sums it up best:

I submit to you that for the Apostles and the early church, there was no separation between faith in Christ, and believing in His real presence in the Eucharist. This is the testimony of Scripture, the evidence of the early fathers, and the faith of the Church that has been handed down. There was never any attempt to separate them until the reformation (except by previous heretics).

Those who had faith stayed because they believed in what Jesus said six times in St. John 6 “My flesh and my blood.”

I share with you four examples of the following pattern provided by St. John: (1) Ambiguous Statement from Jesus, (2) Question from those around; (3) Clarification from Jesus.

St. John 2: 18 The Jews, therefore, answered, and said to him: What sign dost thou show unto us, seeing thou dost these things? 19 Jesus answered and said to them: Destroy this temple; and in three days I will raise it up. 20 The Jews then said: Six and forty years was this temple in building; and wilt thou raise it up in three days? 21 But he spoke of the temple of his body.

St. John 3:3 Jesus answered and said to him: Amen, amen, I say to thee, unless a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God. 4 Nicodemus saith to him: How can a man be born when he is old? Can he enter a second time into his mother’s womb and be born again? 5 Jesus answered: Amen, amen, I say to thee, unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.

St. John 4: 31 In the mean time, the disciples prayed him, saying: Rabbi, eat. 32 But he said to them: I have meat to eat which you know not. 33 The disciples therefore said one to another: Hath any man brought him to eat? 34 Jesus saith to them: My meat is to do the will of him that sent me, that I may perfect his work.

St. John 8:30 When he spoke these things, many believed in him. 31 Then Jesus said to those Jews who believed him: If you continue in my word, you shall be my disciples indeed. 32 And you shall know the truth: and the truth shall make you free. 33 They answered him: We are the seed of Abraham: and we have never been slaves to any man. How sayest thou: You shall be free? 34 Jesus answered them: Amen, amen, I say unto you that whosoever committeth sin is the servant of sin.

Now, taking the pattern established by St. John of (1) Ambiguous Statement from Jesus, (2) Question from those around; (3) Clarification from Jesus, let us apply it in St. John 6:

St. John 6: 48 I am the bread of life. 49 Your fathers did eat manna in the desert: and are dead. 50 This is the bread which cometh down from heaven: that if any man eat of it, he may not die. 51 I am the living bread which came down from heaven. 52 If any man eat of this bread, he shall live for ever: and the bread that I will give is my flesh, for the life of the world. 53 The Jews therefore strove among themselves, saying: How can this man give us his flesh to eat? 54 Then Jesus said to them: Amen, amen, I say unto you: except you eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood, you shall not have life in you.

In the end, what we have is a reaffirmation of what Jesus said.

St. John 6: 67 After this, many of his disciples went back and walked no more with him. 68 Then Jesus said to the twelve: Will you also go away?

Again, a subtle reaffirmation from Jesus because he did not call those who walked away back to inform them he had been misunderstood.

In closing, six times in St. John 6 Jesus states “My flesh and my blood.” This means he had six chances to clarify what he was saying as figurative or a discord on “faith only.”

But he did not.

That’s the best I can do to help with St. John 6.

 

[ziapueblo]

Jesus is the bread that came down from heaven. We must eat this bread to have eternal life. The bread that we eat is Christ present in the Blessed Sacrament.

John 6:63, "* . . . while the flesh is of no avail.* Yes, mans natural and carnal flesh avails nothing. Notice that in the Eucharistic discourse in John 6 that Jesus is saying my flesh. In verse 63 He is saying the flesh. Are you saying that the flesh of Christ avails nothing? His flesh avails much, for it was His flesh that was pierced with nails on the cross!

 

[sambos671]

The discource Jesus gives is a lengthy responce to two things:

1. What are the works of God
2. Prove that you’re from God. Moses gave us Manna.

Jesus replies

1. Believing on him that the Father sent is the works of God
2. Jesus comes from God.

Follows that You must believe in Jesus to do the works of God.
Follows that a comparison of Manna, which also comes from God, did not endow eternal life.
Follows that believing in Jesus is compared to manna in spiritual terms. Were as manna did not grant life eternal believing in Jesus does.
Follows that the discourse of eating Jesus in contrasted to manna in that belief in Jesus grants life eating manna does not.
Follows that the initial complaint by Jews is not whether or not to eat Jesus is the issue but that he comes from God.
Follows that he explains to the disciples that eating is not the point belief in Jesus is.

I don’t think its about the sacrament but believing in Jesus.

 

[AshleyBelle]

The discource Jesus gives is a lengthy responce to two things:

1. What are the works of God
2. Prove that you’re from God. Moses gave us Manna.

Jesus replies

1. Believing on him that the Father sent is the works of God
2. Jesus comes from God.

Follows that You must believe in Jesus to do the works of God.
Follows that a comparison of Manna, which also comes from God, did not endow eternal life.
Follows that believing in Jesus is compared to manna in spiritual terms. Were as manna did not grant life eternal believing in Jesus does.
Follows that the discourse of eating Jesus in contrasted to manna in that belief in Jesus grants life eating manna does not.
Follows that the initial complaint by Jews is not whether or not to eat Jesus is the issue but that he comes from God.
Follows that he explains to the disciples that eating is not the point belief in Jesus is.

I don’t think its about the sacrament but believing in Jesus.

I’m not a scholar… But one thing I found really helpful in understanding the Eucharist, is it’s relation to the passover feast. The jews were asked to mark their door posts with the blood of the lamb, and then to literally consume the lamb.

In revelation we see Christ referred to as our “Paschal Lamb” which ties this in very well with the command to literally eat the body and blood of our Lord so that we may “have life” within us I’m sure others here who know more about this in particular can offer more than me…

Also, we know the jews were forbidden to drink blood. A lot of people will claim that is why Jesus could NOT have been speaking literally. But if you look at WHY they were commanded not to drink blood, it was because of the belief that LIFE was in the blood…

It sounds like you have a lot of research already ahead of you, but I wanted to offer these two subjects to look into.

God bless!

 

[ziapueblo]

If Jesus ended His Eucharistic teaching with John 6:35, “I am the bread of life; whoever comes to me will never hunger, and whoever believes in me will never thirst,” we Catholics would agree with you. However, He does not end there. Jesus tells the people that He is the bread of life and the bread of life is His flesh (John 6:51-58).

 

[CHESTERTONRULES]

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.

As far as 1 Corinthians 11, Paul is stressing behavior- i.e., eating it without a pure and clean conscience. To “get” this verse you have to understand what “recognize” means. If it is as you say it is, then we Prots need to get it straight. If not, does that mean something is wrong for you guys?

If it isn’t real, then the Catholic Church is not the true Church.

Catholics don’t believe that it is real for protestants given that they don’t have valid eucharistic ministers.

I believe that a special grace is received when we participate in the eucharist. I agree that remembering Christ in the last supper could possibly provide grace in other ways.

I don’t know what other meaning of ‘recognize’ you might have in mind.

 

[sambos671]

If Jesus ended His Eucharistic teaching with John 6:35, “I am the bread of life; whoever comes to me will never hunger, and whoever believes in me will never thirst,” we Catholics would agree with you. However, He does not end there. Jesus tells the people that He is the bread of life and the bread of life is His flesh (John 6:51-58).

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.

 

[CHESTERTONRULES]

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.

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.