If John 6 is speaking of the eucharist, how can non Catholics be saved?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Chaddicus_Finch
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
This question is applicable to you as well. What we don’t do is proof texting. Do you?
The bible tells me to prove all things. I need to take all applicable verses and if they are not in harmony, then my interpretation is wrong, not the Bible. There can be no contradiction in God’s Word.

What i wished to point out is the parallel of v.40 and v.54 . Notice that the promised result in both are exactly the same. But what must be done to receive the promise is different. Such is often the case in stories or parables and the way we solve the inconsistencies is to recognize that Jesus often speaks in illustrative or symbolic language and plain speach also . So what I’m saying is that we must decide which verse is the symbolic and which is the plain speach or we will have an inconsistency.
 
The bible tells me to prove all things. I need to take all applicable verses and if they are not in harmony, then my interpretation is wrong, not the Bible. There can be no contradiction in God’s Word.
You are very Catholic when you say this. 👍
What i wished to point out is the parallel of v.40 and v.54 . Notice that the promised result in both are exactly the same. But what must be done to receive the promise is different. Such is often the case in stories or parables and the way we solve the inconsistencies is to recognize that Jesus often speaks in illustrative or symbolic language and plain speach also . So what I’m saying is that we must decide which verse is the symbolic and which is the plain speach or we will have an inconsistency.
Indeed.

And if we come to a different understanding than you do, then what?

And please remember, that whatever you answer will be the answer that the Magisterium of the CC gives to you when you say that you disagree with what she has discerned.
 
Again, this does not contradict other communion understandings. Any communion can be profaned.

A symbol can be very,very personal. The ickthys or fish adopted by early Christians for secrecy was very personal and could get you very personally killed if deciphered.

The elements of any ritual have meaning and are meant to be "personla,and as part of the ceremony rite.

Blessings
Maybe so, but to “have to answer for the body and blood of the Lord” is about as personal as you can get.
 
Hi ben,
I know we can beat a dead horse eventually so I’ll try not to be redundant over this. 😉 i do respect you understanding of the symbols which communion gives. Really! And I don’t deny much of it, even as much as the common faith which we accept!
Just church fathers (described communion from various understandings).And what is the evolution of such official confirmation ? probably when transubstantiation was defined, officially ?
Yes, even Church fathers can have different opinions. Possibly my two favorite saints (Jerome and Augustine) even had debated one another. But it was a healthy debate. No single doctor/father/saint of the Church is always infallible in their “sayings” or writings. The important thing is that they received the same communion, which is a Eucharist consecrated by ordained men in communion with the chief bishop in the Church.
Actually, I thought the Eucharist is thanksgiving for us being put into Him, the Body of Christ. I just disagree with the sacrificial prayer, and the idea of us offering Christ back to the Father, in hopes of acceptance (and transubstantiation). Yes, unless what is rejected is what was added.
I can appreciate this as dificult, in the sense that it is very deep. I would rather not answer that now because i have not really spent much time asking questions myself.
No, you mentioned “total” communion,as in full understanding. I did not ask how we get understanding. I suggested can anyone have full apprehension of the matter, especially when it is promised to be fuller in the future, when we see Him face to face.
I think it is both.but none are worthy on their own.
Sorry if I stated we will have full understanding if we receive the Catholic Eucharist. I dont believe that. Nevertheless, I do believe we will be responsible for any offense or abuse done towards Him and His Teachings if we receive His Eucharist. And likewise, we will receive His life and spirit unto ourselves for preparing ourselves worthily to partake in His Eucharist.

I do want to stress that there is a line between the true aspects of symbolism of His Eucharist and “mere symbolism”. I actually remember reading something from Origen that I liked quite a bit. He recognized and expressed some symbolism of His Eucharist that I wouldnt deny. But I will not deny what the Church calls “transubstantiation” because I believe God, our Father in Jesus, no longer regards the gifts of bread and wine (which also have much symbolism) as such after consecration (from valid orders) rather He regards them as the means in which He gave us His Spirit in fullness in the Incarnational life of Jesus and importantly by the power of the event of His death at Calvary.

I don’t believe it is our Father’s will that there are separate communions. And there are distinct and important differences in what we are receiving, even as many as differences in what we believe to be the will of Christ! And that is the symbolism that I understand.

But this understanding of symbolism doesn’t reject the reality of the Holy Spirit descending to the gifts from the passion of Christ.

When St Paul defended the Lord’s Supper He did not tell the church to split from the common communion because some were abusing. This would be avoiding the suffering which Christ compells us towards. You see, His Eucharist is the table which we are called to even though it requires suffering agaisnt abuse. Just as Jesus willingly was led to His passion, so are we led to His Eucharist. It is the challenges and trials we meet in coming to this meal that is a participation in His sufferings. Discerning what is happening in our Parish. Watching carefully and staying pure in His ways. Washing ourselves in His blood when we have allowed filth into us.

It is this challenge that He calls me to. And I hope to continue with Him through it. When someone has done this to the end of their journey, they have received His true flesh and blood worthily and without betraying Him.
 
The ickthys or fish adopted by early Christians for secrecy was very personal and could get you very personally killed if deciphered.
This reference is not at all applicable.

You were killed not for profaning a symbol but for being a Christian, ben.
 
I think those are elements,symbols of the ritual.They are not offerings, especially as bread and wine.
Why are they not offerings? The community brings bread and wine to the altar, and God transforms them into His Body and His Blood. They offer up this bread and wine to participate in His sacrifice as He commanded. Why is it not an offering.
Did not know monetary or gifts are part of Eucharist communion in CC.
It is an offering given to His Church, which is His Bride, to sustain the activities of the Church. It is specifically offered in the Eucharistic liturgy and placed next to the altar.
Col. quote is a stretch. Ministerial afflictions of the church and the Body of Christ are joined to Christ’s affliction, but not His atoning Calvary sacrifice. That is something different. We do not add to Calvary. But as He was afflicted in ministry , so are we.
Could you give chapter and verse for this interpretation of yours? Where does it say that afflictions are only for His afflictions before the crucifixion, and not part of the His whole Passion?
 
You reject the symbol you reject the reality they represent.
Are they rejecting the symbol? St. Paul says they are profaning it. There’s a difference. In this understanding you have given, then someone could be damned to hell for destroying a crucifix, correct?

Just to be clear, because I don’t want to misrepresent your beliefs, but you do or do not ascribe to Once Saved, Always Saved (OSAS), correct? Because clearly the quote above precludes belief in OSAS.
 
Someone earlier stated that Jesus couldn’t have meant ‘eat’ because people die, and Jesus said you shall not die if you eat my flesh…’, thus the meaning must be something else…

Jesus answered this exact question / problem (from those who ‘believed in Him’) in Chapter 8 (I suggest reading all of it for context - usccb.org/bible/john/8 )

"51Amen, amen, I say to you, whoever keeps my word will never see death.”e

52(So) the Jews said to him, “Now we are sure that you are possessed. Abraham died, as did the prophets, yet you say, ‘Whoever keeps my word will never taste death.’

53Are you greater than our father Abraham,* who died? Or the prophets, who died? Who do you make yourself out to be?”f

54Jesus answered, “If I glorify myself, my glory is worth nothing; but it is my Father who glorifies me, of whom you say, ‘He is our God.’

55You do not know him, but I know him. And if I should say that I do not know him, I would be like you a liar. But I do know him and I keep his word.g

56Abraham your father rejoiced to see my day; he saw it* and was glad.h

57So the Jews said to him, “You are not yet fifty years old and you have seen Abraham?”*

58* Jesus said to them,i “Amen, amen, I say to you, before Abraham came to be, I AM.”

59So they picked up stones to throw at him; but Jesus hid and went out of the temple area.j "

Notice they **didn’t **give him a little elbow in the side and say ‘Well, we’ll still follow you, but why don’t you lighten up on the kooky verbiage.’.

They wanted to kill Him.

Take care,

Mike
 
Hi s’

Thank you. Yes, all forms of communion seem to have been expressed.
I beg to differ. They were all ‘together’’. None was “first” . That Ignatius meant transubstantiation is disputed. Ignatius debated the Gnostics, who denied not only the symbol of the elements, but the reality behind them. Tertullian makes similar argument against Gnostics,

“then,having taken the bread and given it to the disciples, He made it His own body by saying , “This is my body”, that is, the figure of my body. A figure, however, there could not have been, unless there were first a veritable body” (Against Marcion,BK4)

Blessings
What we see in these texts is eucharistic realism combined with Christological realism and no contradiction between them. Just as they believed in the physical reality of Christ so did they believe in something more than purely symbolic eucharist but real.

It becomes even more clear when you look at the oldest texts re consecration. Lots of discussion revolved around coming up with a theological answer as to how these ordinary things became holy food. Per Justin Martyr it was ‘by a word of prayer which is from him’. The idea that the bread and wine was the body and blood of Christ led to the eucharistic prayers petetionary element focusing on requests of God to act in relation to the bread and wine in addition to focusing on the communicants themselves. They called on both the Holy Spirit and sometimes the Logos. An example is Sarapion bishop of Thmuis in Egypt where God is asked 'let your holy Word come on this bread, O God of truth, that the bread may become body of the Word; and this cup, that the cup may become blood of the Truth…
Cyril of Jerusalem is another who uses language about eucharistic consecration that includes changing or converting the elements. The Holy Spirit was sent from God to ‘make’ the elements the body and blood of Christ. Chrysostom used even stonger language.

Its no surprise that the realism became universal Western Christian doctrine as well as Eastern Christian theology.
 
Someone earlier stated that Jesus couldn’t have meant ‘eat’ because people die, and Jesus said you shall not die if you eat my flesh…’, thus the meaning must be something else…
Yes, it’s a moot point. It’s not as though the symbolists are not dying from this world. 🤷

And further, the whole attempt at making the belief in transubstantiation opposed to accepting the spiritual food of Christ is a copout.

A large intention of Jesus establishing a real, physical Sacrament with His body and blood is to give us conviction and confirmation about His true Teaching and mystical body.

The symbolist point of view lacks conviction over the mystical body as to what Jesus really does Teach concerning various issues.

The Christian communities outside full communion in His Eucharist do not have the fullness of the mystical body.
 
theology can be very interesting.

consider this, Jesus was not limited in what He could and could not do. He could have created for His followers a physical symbol of Himself for use in our celebration of His death and Resurrection.

however, He chose to give us, for our consumption, Himself totally, both spiritually and physically, both as Creature and as Creator.

so a question, which is the greater gift? the one He did not give us, a symbol; or, the one He did give us, His actual Body and Blood.

another question, is there a real deprivation involved when comparing what He might have done (create a mere (mere in comparison to what He actually did) symbol) with what He actually did. in other words, what is it for those who love Jesus to be deprived of His Real Presence, Body and Blood, Soul and Divinity and to replace it with mere bread and wine, even if seriously and respectfully encountered?

given the choice, in which celebration would you most like to participate, the symbolic one or the one that provides total communion with the Lord? and, no, a spiritual communion with Jesus is not the same as a total (meaning physical and spiritual communion with Jesus. heaven is a total communion, prayer would be a spiritual communion but is not a total communion.

Jesus is always looking out for us. giving us a daily miracle far surpasses symbolic celebrations.
 
Paul is speaking about the Eucharist, Jesus is not speaking about the Eucharist in John 6. It wouldn’t make any sense if he was, since the Eucharist wouldn’t exist until about 2 years after John 6. Why would Jesus be telling them to do something that was impossible?
There is no question that Jesus is speaking and teaching about the Eucharist that he was going to institute at the last supper. If he was not doing so, then he was a very bad teacher. It’s clear that the crowd understands that he is telling them to eat his flesh and drink his blood, but he does not correct this understanding. He only re-emphasizes the point again and again:
(1) I am the bread of life. 49 Your fathers ate the manna in the wilderness, and they died. 50 This is the bread which comes down from heaven, that a man may eat of it and not die. 51 I am the living bread which came down from heaven; if any one eats of this bread, he will live for ever; and the bread which I shall give for the life of the world is my flesh." 52
(2) The Jews then disputed among themselves, saying, “How can this man give us his flesh to eat?” 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; 54 he who eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day. 55 For my flesh is food indeed, and my blood is drink indeed. 56
(3) He who eats my flesh and drinks my blood abides in me, and I in him. 57
(4) As the living Father sent me, and I live because of the Father, so he who eats me will live because of me. 58* This is the bread which came down from heaven, not such as the fathers ate and died; he who eats this bread will live for ever." 59
It is a hard saying. The believers in Jesus’ time also had a hard time accepting it, and many fell away. But Jesus did not race after them to say that he didn’t really mean it… Instead, he asked the 12 if they were going to leave him too. They stayed, but Judas… perhaps because of this very teaching… betrayed Jesus in his heart.
Many of his disciples, when they heard it, said, “This is a hard saying; who can listen to it?” 61* But Jesus, knowing in himself that his disciples murmured at it, said to them, “Do you take offense at this? 62* Then what if you were to see the Son of man ascending where he was before? 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. 64* But there are some of you that do not believe.” For Jesus knew from the first who those were that did not believe, and who it was that would betray him…
After this many of his disciples drew back and no longer went about with him. 67 Jesus said to the twelve, “Do you also wish to go away?” 68* Simon Peter answered him, “Lord, to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life; 69 and we have believed, and have come to know, that you are the Holy One of God.” 70* Jesus answered them, “Did I not choose you, the twelve, and one of you is a devil?” 71* He spoke of Judas the son of Simon Iscariot, for he, one of the twelve, was to betray him.
The Eucharist is the fulfillment of this promise, Jesus feeds us with his very flesh and blood, just as he fed the Apostles with his own flesh and blood at the Last Supper just before his passion. The Eucharistic teaching is clear… but it is a hard teaching. I hope you continue to struggle through this, and ask Jesus to guide you to the truth. Set aside preconceptions and look at the text in the light of history and 2000 years of consistent Church teaching.

Peace,
Robert
 
I understand however, that from the CC perspective it is a done deal, once for all sacrifice, and they give thanks, while at the same time ask that the Father accept the re presenting of Calvary thru the symbols in the priests hand, and pray they are transformed into His body and blood.(this last part I do not find in the earliest church writings, but do not deny they evolved later, as did the need for the priest).

Blessings
The ordained priest standing at the altar represents Christ as head of the Church. All the baptized, as members of Christ’s Body, share in his priesthood, as both priest and victim. The Eucharist is also the sacrifice of the Church. The Church, which is the Body and Bride of Christ, participates in the sacrificial offering of her Head and Spouse. In the Eucharist, the sacrifice of Christ becomes the sacrifice of the members of his Body who united to Christ form one sacrificial offering (cf. Catechism, no. 1368). As Christ’s sacrifice is made sacramentally present, united with Christ, we offer ourselves as a sacrifice to the Father. “The whole Church exercises the role of priest and victim along with Christ, offering the Sacrifice of the Mass and itself completely offered in it” ( Mysterium Fidei, no. 31; cf. Lumen Gentium, no. 11).
 
I don’t want to seem conceited but does anyone have a comment on the analysis I made in post 181? Once again, its not my own, but a Catholic poster at I believe C**M some years back made the observation that at a crucial portion of John 6, Jesus changes the object of His statements from the 3rd person to the 2nd person, then back to the 3rd.

The 3rd person statements are of the general benefits of eating His Body anddrinking His Blood, while the second person statements seems to be directed to His immediate listeners, and concern the penalties of failing to receive His Body and Blood.

The analysis seems to answer the question as to whether Protestants are condemned by not eating and drinking. It may be that becuse they were not there at the time, they may not be as responsible as Jesus’s actual listeners.

peace
steve
 
I don’t want to seem conceited but does anyone have a comment on the analysis I made in post 181? Once again, its not my own, but a Catholic poster at I believe C**M some years back made the observation that at a crucial portion of John 6, Jesus changes the object of His statements from the 3rd person to the 2nd person, then back to the 3rd.

The 3rd person statements are of the general benefits of eating His Body anddrinking His Blood, while the second person statements seems to be directed to His immediate listeners, and concern the penalties of failing to receive His Body and Blood.

The analysis seems to answer the question as to whether Protestants are condemned by not eating and drinking. It may be that becuse they were not there at the time, they may not be as responsible as Jesus’s actual listeners.

peace
steve
Yes, it was a keen observation. I appreciated the posters insight. 👍
 
Maybe so, but to “have to answer for the body and blood of the Lord” is about as personal as you can get.
Do we not answer to the reality of His shed blood thru remembrance in thanksgiving ? Are the elements of remembrance more important than the reality ?
 
Do we not answer to the reality of His shed blood thru remembrance in thanksgiving ? Are the elements of remembrance more important than the reality ?
This part of the CCC speaks about the Holy Eucharist."1356 If from the beginning Christians have celebrated the Eucharist and in a form whose substance has not changed despite the great diversity of times and liturgies, it is because we know ourselves to be bound by the command the Lord gave on the eve of his Passion: "Do this in remembrance of me."181

1357 We carry out this command of the Lord by celebrating the memorial of his sacrifice. In so doing, we offer to the Father what he has himself given us: the gifts of his creation, bread and wine which, by the power of the Holy Spirit and by the words of Christ, have become the body and blood of Christ. Christ is thus really and mysteriously made present.

1358 We must therefore consider the Eucharist as:
  • thanksgiving and praise to the Father;
  • the sacrificial memorial of Christ and his Body;
  • the presence of Christ by the power of his word and of his Spirit.
1359 The Eucharist, the sacrament of our salvation accomplished by Christ on the cross, is also a sacrifice of praise in thanksgiving for the work of creation. In the Eucharistic sacrifice the whole of creation loved by God is presented to the Father through the death and the Resurrection of Christ. Through Christ the Church can offer the sacrifice of praise in thanksgiving for all that God has made good, beautiful, and just in creation and in humanity.

1360 The Eucharist is a sacrifice of thanksgiving to the Father, a blessing by which the Church expresses her gratitude to God for all his benefits, for all that he has accomplished through creation, redemption, and sanctification. Eucharist means first of all “thanksgiving.”

1361 The Eucharist is also the sacrifice of praise by which the Church sings the glory of God in the name of all creation. This sacrifice of praise is possible only through Christ: he unites the faithful to his person, to his praise, and to his intercession, so that the sacrifice of praise to the Father is offered through Christ and with him, to be accepted in him.

1362 The Eucharist is the memorial of Christ’s Passover, the making present and the sacramental offering of his unique sacrifice, in the liturgy of the Church which is his Body. In all the Eucharistic Prayers we find after the words of institution a prayer called the anamnesis or memorial.

1363 In the sense of Sacred Scripture the memorial is not merely the recollection of past events but the proclamation of the mighty works wrought by God for men.182 In the liturgical celebration of these events, they become in a certain way present and real. This is how Israel understands its liberation from Egypt: every time Passover is celebrated, the Exodus events are made present to the memory of believers so that they may conform their lives to them.

1364 In the New Testament, the memorial takes on new meaning. When the Church celebrates the Eucharist, she commemorates Christ’s Passover, and it is made present the sacrifice Christ offered once for all on the cross remains ever present.183 "As often as the sacrifice of the Cross by which ‘Christ our Pasch has been sacrificed’ is celebrated on the altar, the work of our redemption is carried out."184

1365 Because it is the memorial of Christ’s Passover, the Eucharist is also a sacrifice. the sacrificial character of the Eucharist is manifested in the very words of institution: “This is my body which is given for you” and "This cup which is poured out for you is the New Covenant in my blood."185 In the Eucharist Christ gives us the very body which he gave up for us on the cross, the very blood which he "poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins."186

1366 The Eucharist is thus a sacrifice because it re-presents (makes present) the sacrifice of the cross, because it is its memorial and because it applies its fruit:

[Christ], our Lord and God, was once and for all to offer himself to God the Father by his death on the altar of the cross, to accomplish there an everlasting redemption. But because his priesthood was not to end with his death, at the Last Supper “on the night when he was betrayed,” [he wanted] to leave to his beloved spouse the Church a visible sacrifice (as the nature of man demands) by which the bloody sacrifice which he was to accomplish once for all on the cross would be re-presented, its memory perpetuated until the end of the world, and its salutary power be applied to the forgiveness of the sins we daily commit.187

1367 The sacrifice of Christ and the sacrifice of the Eucharist are one single sacrifice: “The victim is one and the same: the same now offers through the ministry of priests, who then offered himself on the cross; only the manner of offering is different.” "In this divine sacrifice which is celebrated in the Mass, the same Christ who offered himself once in a bloody manner on the altar of the cross is contained and is offered in an unbloody manner.“188”

1368 The Eucharist is also the sacrifice of the Church. the Church which is the Body of Christ participates in the offering of her Head. With him, she herself is offered whole and entire. She unites herself to his intercession with the Father for all men. In the Eucharist the sacrifice of Christ becomes also the sacrifice of the members of his Body. the lives of the faithful, their praise, sufferings, prayer, and work, are united with those of Christ and with his total offering, and so acquire a new value. Christ’s sacrifice present on the altar makes it possible for all generations of Christians to be united with his offering.
 
Do we not answer to the reality of His shed blood thru remembrance in thanksgiving ? Are the elements of remembrance more important than the reality ?
Are you referring to the elements, as in the bread and wine? Need clarification.🙂
 
Are they rejecting the symbol? St. Paul says they are profaning it. There’s a difference. In this understanding you have given, then someone could be damned to hell for destroying a crucifix, correct?

Just to be clear, because I don’t want to misrepresent your beliefs, but you do or do not ascribe to Once Saved, Always Saved (OSAS), correct? Because clearly the quote above precludes belief in OSAS.
Well, generally whatever you do to the symbol you representatively do to the reality. So reject, as the Gnostics, or profane with unworthy participation etc…
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top