R
rcwitness
Guest
You believe in and keep the Word in your heart, like Mary did.
If John 6 is speaking of the eucharist, how can non Catholics be saved?
- Status
B
brandonmorris
Guest
There’s only certain situations that are permissible for a Protestant to take the Holy Eucharist. Other than that Technically they are profaning the Eucharist because they are otherwise in disagreement with the Holy See of Rome at least last time I checked .Oh by the way this comment is not meant to disrespect any protestant brothers and sisters who may read this . God Bless
B
benhur
Guest
Well that is basically what Jesus started the discourse with. He used figurative speech with I am the Bread of Life and then talked of belief and unbelief.
Augustine says spiritual eating is believing His words (that he is the Christ) and has nothing to do with bodily “teeth and bellies”. Chew on that for awhile (See, we use it figuratively in our own language also).
Blessings
B
benhur
Guest
T
Telstar
Guest
When Jesus said that, He was speaking to the Jews that were “murmuring” (those who did not believe what He was saying):"[41] The Jews therefore murmured at him, because he had said: I am the living bread which came down from heaven. [42] And they said: Is not this Jesus, the son of Joseph, whose father and mother we know? How then saith he, I came down from heaven? [43] Jesus therefore answered, and said to them: Murmur not among yourselves. [44] No man can come to me, except the Father, who hath sent me, draw him; and I will raise him up in the last day. [45] It is written in the prophets: And they shall all be taught of God. Every one that hath heard of the Father, and hath learned, cometh to me. "
Then, He goes on:"[46] Not that any man hath seen the Father; but he who is of God, he hath seen the Father. [47] Amen, amen I say unto you: He that believeth in me, hath everlasting life. [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. "
What Jesus is saying is that their fathers did not have true faith in God, so even though they ate manna in the desert that kept them alive, physically, they were spiritually “dead” (just like them). Then, He gets even more adamant as He continues:"[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. [55] He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath everlasting life: and I will raise him up in the last day."
This is not figurative language that Jesus was using. He was speaking the complete truth. I believe the ones that Jesus was talking to, directly, were the Pharisees and Sadducees that were always following to argue with Him, and to spy on Him and His followers. The disciples that walked away were the ones that never really had true faith to begin with, that’s why it was such “a hard saying” for them to accept. Peter and the Apostles might have also considered it to be “a hard saying”, but their faith in Him was strong enough for them to accept whatever He taught them. They knew that He would explain it to them at the proper time. That time was at the Last Supper, and even more clearly after His Resurrection.
The Holy Eucharist is both physical and spiritual, because it becomes the Glorified Body of Christ. It is His entire essence, hidden within the appearance of simple bread. That’s why it feeds us in both ways, physically and spiritually. The “physical” effect is what joins our earthly body with the physical Body of Christ (which prepares it for our resurrection) while our souls are also joined with the Soul and Divinity of Christ. We literally become one being with Jesus Christ through receiving Holy Communion. That’s what Jesus meant when He said that He IS the Bread of Life. He is the Real Food that we need to eat in order to fully merge with Him, so we can share in His eternal life. It’s not symbolic.
L
littlestsouls2
Guest
The Eucharist is morally necessary for salvation; It is not absolutely necessary. If the Eucharist were absolutely necessary for salvation, the Church would give the Eucharist to infants.
“The doctrine of the Church is that Holy Communion is morally necessary for salvation, that is to say, without the graces of this sacrament it would be very difficult to resist grave temptations and avoid grievous sin.”
**Source: catholic.com/encyclopedia/holy-communion
“If Christ did not want to dismiss the Jews without food in the desert for fear that they would collapse on the way, it was to teach us that it is dangerous [not impossible] to try to get to heaven without the Bread of Heaven.”
Perhaps the aforementioned has already been said. If so, I am curious as to why the thread hasn’t been closed (given that this sometimes happens in other threads). It is difficult to sift through some 50 pages of responses for an answer!
“The doctrine of the Church is that Holy Communion is morally necessary for salvation, that is to say, without the graces of this sacrament it would be very difficult to resist grave temptations and avoid grievous sin.”
**Source: catholic.com/encyclopedia/holy-communion
“If Christ did not want to dismiss the Jews without food in the desert for fear that they would collapse on the way, it was to teach us that it is dangerous [not impossible] to try to get to heaven without the Bread of Heaven.”
- St. Jerome
Perhaps the aforementioned has already been said. If so, I am curious as to why the thread hasn’t been closed (given that this sometimes happens in other threads). It is difficult to sift through some 50 pages of responses for an answer!
R
rcwitness
Guest
I have appreciated Origen’s description of His Eucharist and Word. I find that he acknowledges the Word as what we receive through eating, yet because it requires our hearts to be changed by His “words”, it is not mere bread and wine we are receiving in our participation.
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=19325&highlight=origen
What Jesus did in the Last Supper is very, very profound! This is why I love this thread and our Church’s Teachings and have devoted myself to Breaking Bread with the hope that He is converting my heart through partaking.
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=19325&highlight=origen
What Jesus did in the Last Supper is very, very profound! This is why I love this thread and our Church’s Teachings and have devoted myself to Breaking Bread with the hope that He is converting my heart through partaking.
F
ffg
Guest
Hi Benhur,
So the key question then is - does it matter?
Which brings us to the other thread, I suppose.
Take care,
Mike
F
ffg
Guest
Sorry, I was referring to the one already out there - ‘Does it matter what denomination’ thread.
There is a second question though too for this thread…
So we know the teaching is hard and that it might be ‘tougher’ for transub folks than others.
This doesn’t take into consideration what is ‘right’, if there is a ‘right’.
I would hope by now, people would see that Peter’s response shows he understood what Jesus said just as much as the folks who left, that being not at all, but he trusted in the miracles that were seen to continue with Jesus and know he might understand later, if at all. (It doesn’t seem as if he is too concerned about understanding in his response, just to hang with the guy talking and acting like God seems to be the goal)
To each side (transub and non) it seems obvious the other side is missing a puzzle piece…
How do we analyze to potentially come to a conclusion that there is 1 meaning in them those Words and what is it?
Take care,
Mike
B
benhur
Guest
For sure, to add to the latter on Peter, yes,* the main thing* is that Peter and the apostles believed, and were drawn by the Father. Jesus’s question to them (will you leave also) focuses on that reality or that it brings out their overcoming testimony as made by Peter ( a reality the departing did not have).
Blessings Mike
B
benhur
Guest
Hi T,
thanks for your response .Sorry I only have time to quickly say the Lord’s speech was figurative where you say it was not. That is, Jesus is not bread literally but figuratively the Bread of Life. Remember, this discourse was way before the Last Supper where with transubstantiation you could say He is both bodily flesh and bread. Do not think he would have such a discourse expecting folks to understand that.
Also are you saying all who ate manna in the wilderness went to hell, were spiritually dead? I noticed you highlighted “their” fathers, but that is problematic as like saying the “fathers” of the apostles ate manna but lived, believed , like the apostles.
Blessings
P
Peter_J
Guest
Hi Chaddicus Finch. I’d like to ask, is there an official Catholic teaching (the CCC would be acceptable, for example) that says that verse should be interpreted: unless you receive the Eucharist you will not have life in you?
Possibly I knew the answer to that at some point, but if so I’ve forgotten.
R
rcwitness
Guest
The very fact that Baptism and Communion are Commands from Jesus supports the belief that they are not without His grace.
A mere symbol is not necessary for our salvation and continuing in His salvation. A command is necessary for our salvation.
Belief is necessary to obey the commands of God. It is even a principle command in itself.
Some Churches like to call these two Sacraments “Ordinances” in order to diminish them as a command, because obeying the commands of Jesus is STRONGLY commanded in Scripture. Yet an ordinance is synonymous with a command. But for some reason there is this attempt to remove them from actual belief which attains salvation.
The Church knows and has recognized the means of salvation in cases where for no fault of the genuine converted believer, they were unable to receive the Sacraments. Their desire and/or martyrdom which was oppressed by forces against their ability is sufficient.
A mere symbol is not necessary for our salvation and continuing in His salvation. A command is necessary for our salvation.
Belief is necessary to obey the commands of God. It is even a principle command in itself.
Some Churches like to call these two Sacraments “Ordinances” in order to diminish them as a command, because obeying the commands of Jesus is STRONGLY commanded in Scripture. Yet an ordinance is synonymous with a command. But for some reason there is this attempt to remove them from actual belief which attains salvation.
The Church knows and has recognized the means of salvation in cases where for no fault of the genuine converted believer, they were unable to receive the Sacraments. Their desire and/or martyrdom which was oppressed by forces against their ability is sufficient.
R
rcwitness
Guest
These passages from John express the necessity of keeping the commandments of Christ. Understanding this should help those who think Communion of His body and blood does not give us life to see that if we do not partake of this command, we are denying the faith and His life. Though I don’t know why anyone would think it a burden and not a privelege, blessing, grace, gift, etc.
1 John 2:3
And by this we may be sure that we know him, if we keep his*commandments.
1 John 2:4
He who says “I know him” but disobeys his commandments*is a liar, and the truth is not in him;
1 John 3:22
and we receive from him whatever we ask, because we keep hiscommandmentsand do what pleases him.
1 John 3:24
All who keep hiscommandmentsabide in him, and he in them. And by this we know that he abides in us, by the Spirit which he has given us.
1 John 5:2
By this we know that we love the children of God, when we love God and obey his commandments.
1 John 5:3
For this is the love of God, that we keep his commandments. And his*commandments are not burdensome.
1 John 2:3
And by this we may be sure that we know him, if we keep his*commandments.
1 John 2:4
He who says “I know him” but disobeys his commandments*is a liar, and the truth is not in him;
1 John 3:22
and we receive from him whatever we ask, because we keep hiscommandmentsand do what pleases him.
1 John 3:24
All who keep hiscommandmentsabide in him, and he in them. And by this we know that he abides in us, by the Spirit which he has given us.
1 John 5:2
By this we know that we love the children of God, when we love God and obey his commandments.
1 John 5:3
For this is the love of God, that we keep his commandments. And his*commandments are not burdensome.
P
Peter_J
Guest
Anyone is welcome to answer that btw.Hi Chaddicus Finch. I’d like to ask, is there an official Catholic teaching (the CCC would be acceptable, for example) that says that verse should be interpreted: unless you receive the Eucharist you will not have life in you?
Possibly I knew the answer to that at some point, but if so I’ve forgotten.
R
rcwitness
Guest
CCC
1336*** The first announcement of the Eucharist divided the disciples, just as the announcement of the Passion scandalized them: “This is a hard saying; who can listen to it?”160The Eucharist and the Cross are stumbling blocks. It is the same mystery and it never ceases to be an occasion of division. “Will you also go away?”:161the Lord’s question echoes through the ages, as a loving invitation to discover that only he has “the words of eternal life”162and that to receive in faith the gift of his Eucharist is to receive the Lord himself.(1327)
P
Peter_J
Guest
So reading that portion of the CCC (thanks, rcwitness) notice what it says and what it doesn’t say: it says that is “the first announcement of the Eucharist”, but at the same time it *doesn’t *claim that those who have life are *only *those who receive the Eucharist.
R
rcwitness
Guest
I believe it’s when one is confronted with the message of His Eucharist that one is able to seek and receive, or walk away.
The Teachings about Christians who were born into a community and received valid Baptism, and accept the written Gospels, but because of no fault of their own and no proper knowledge of full communion in His Eucharist are in an imperfect, yet saving communion with us. They too are given the Spirit of life.
This is seen as proof that His Eucharist is unecessary for some. But it actually reveals the wounds to His mystical body. And it’s because of the hard hearts of some who do not believe He is in the Eucharist, or that they are authorized to offer Eucharistic supper outside full communion with the Bishop of Rome.
B
benhur
Guest
Of course. All obedience is by grace.
Well agreed a symbol does not save us, nor anything we do, but Christ saves us. He commands us to be saved.
Yes, and is a gift, is a grace, not anything of ourselves.
Yes, you self correct yourself. Any form of communion does not diminish the command. The difference is due to belief in just how the obedience graces us and does not. It then goes to the very reasoning for the command in the ritual in the first place. But as you imply, we all seek to obey in truth and spirit.
Yes, as one might also say attempts to make them an ‘‘obedience’’ to attain/keep salvation.
Yes, obedience by desire. To some so unnecessary and shows salvation to be a “box”, a pit we all beware not to fall into. One need not an “out” clause if indeed there were not such an exacting box already.
Blessings
- Status