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

[benhur]

They also are in this position of their own personal opinion or take…‘declaration of faith’ vs let’s say, of Peter affirming Christ as Son of the Living God…whereas we as Catholics now see this as similar to a theophany…the sign that now Peter was speaking in the Holy Spirit, and now the Lord able to name Peter as the head of His Church (Christ the Living Cornerstone

Hi Kathleen,

Interesting teaching. I am just thinking that Peter had not been baptized in the Holy Ghost yet (Pentecost) or that Jesus had not breathed on them the Holy Ghost yet. But for sure Peter was speaking in the spirit and from divine revelation. I think it also biblical that no man can call Jesus the Christ unless he first be drawn by the Father to do so (divine revelation), or without rebirth.

(Linguists and 25 Protestant theologians affirm the Church is correct that Peter was named ‘the rock’ in the Greek/Aramaic sense of referring to a person’s name, not an inanimate object.)

Yes, many affirm this as many do not/have not. I mean after all, Revelations says the 12 apostles form our foundation, Peter being one of them, and as some say, “first amongst equals”. And we are living stones placed upon those before us.

It is a whole other thing then to say Peter was officially over the other apostles, or that such would always be the case (succession of that office).

But that would be another thread.

Blessings

 

[zz912]

Hi zz’

Not sure Jesus preached a salvation message ala billy graham or St Francis etc etc. while in “hell”. That would be biblically problematic with, " it is given unto man to die once and there go to judgement (that is , no second chances).

The word preach means more of “to herald” in that quote.

You’re actually proving my point for me. They were already judged, because not all were in AB. Only the righteous were there, the unrighteous were in hell already. So they waited there until the New Covenant was enacted and could be saved by it and through the Church, but in a way we don’t understand yet.

 

[JMM1957]

Hi Kathleen,

Interesting teaching. I am just thinking that Peter had not been baptized in the Holy Ghost yet (Pentecost) or that Jesus had not breathed on them the Holy Ghost yet. But for sure Peter was speaking in the spirit and from divine revelation. I think it also biblical that no man can call Jesus the Christ unless he first be drawn by the Father to do so (divine revelation), or without rebirth.
Yes, many affirm this as many do not/have not. I mean after all, Revelations says the 12 apostles form our foundation, Peter being one of them, and as some say, “first amongst equals”. And we are living stones placed upon those before us.

It is a whole other thing then to say Peter was officially over the other apostles, or that such would always be the case (succession of that office).

But that would be another thread.

Blessings

Why is it so hard for some to grasp the concept of an authority figure in the Church. We believe Peter was the first among successive fathers of the universal flock, so to speak, established clearly in the Gospel of Matthew 16:18. Its not like the maturation of the papacy we know today began exactly the same way as when Peter received the appointment of Jesus, it grew into what it is today. What I am saying is that the papacy of Peter wasn’t as recognizable as what we see today, but it was there in its infancy.

 

[KathleenGee]

True. I was sharing with Ben Hur and others my attendance at a ‘roots of the papacy’ at our local seminary.

We had one Lutheran at our group who was really struggling and it was through her that she helped us understand the position of ‘Declaration of Faith’. In my mind, I remember Peter making previous ‘declarations of faith’…like when he jumped in the water, began to walk on it, then lost faith and sunk and the Lord had to pull him out.

But it was the timing…Peter chosen as head…but as Christ said, although He would always remain with us…through Word and Eucharist…He was providing His Comforter Who would teach many things.

And the apostles, in spite of their anointing…and they admit they were chosen before they were born…were still depending on their own human strength and power to follow the Lord’s mission for them. They wept and cried, hidden in the Upper Room.

What they were going through was their own spiritual purgation and illumination…and in this suffering and despair, learning in a most deep level to cling to the Lord and when they were empty of themselves…and this was the time following the Ascension into heaven…and the Lord now fulfilling the High Priest to minister to us here on earth…they were now ready…clinging only to Him…Jesus, the Crucified Lord, the only Bridge to the Father…and

Pentecost came…now they knowing fully who they were not, and Who Christ Is…to fill them, renew them, strengthen them.

 

[SyCarl]

I’ve asked this question twice on the “ask an apologist” forum but apparently it doesn’t qualify, so I figured I’d ask it here.

I am about to start RCIA after being a protestant for 18 years (and grown up my entire life in protestant churches). This was one question I had regarding what seems like conflicting church teaching and talking to one of my protestant friends about me converting, he asked the same question.

In John 6, Jesus says:

“Amen, amen, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood, you will not have life in you. Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day. For my flesh is true food, and my blood is true drink.** Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood abides in me/B], and I in him. Just as the living Father has sent me and I live because of the Father, so also whoever eats me, the same shall live because of me**. This is the bread that descends from heaven. It is not like the manna that your fathers ate, for they died. Whoever eats this bread shall live forever.”

If this is to be taken as the eucharist, how can non Catholics be saved since they cannot partake of his body and blood?

I too do not believe this is talking about the Eucharist, If you consider the portions I have highlighted, then Jesus is saying that anyone who eats His flesh and drinks His blood will live. If this is speaking about the Eucharist, all I would have to do is go to a Catholic mass and receive communion. Or more extreme, a person can break into a Catholic church, steal and eat the reserved host and kive.

You may find it interesting to read Augustine’s Tractates on John 6. In another place he writes:

If the sentence is one of command, either forbidding a crime or vice, or enjoining an act of prudence or benevolence, it is not figurative. If, however, it seems to enjoin a crime or vice, or to forbid an act of prudence or benevolence, it is figurative. “Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man,” says Christ, “and drink His blood, you have no life in you.” This seems to enjoin a crime or a vice; it is therefore a figure, enjoining that we should have a share in the sufferings of our Lord, and that we should retain a sweet and profitable memory of the fact that His flesh was wounded and crucified for us.

On Christian Doctrine, Book 3, Chapter 16, Paragraph 24
newadvent.org/fathers/12023.htm

 

[JMM1957]

I too do not believe this is talking about the Eucharist, If you consider the portions I have highlighted, then Jesus is saying that anyone who eats His flesh and drinks His blood will live. If this is speaking about the Eucharist, all I would have to do is go to a Catholic mass and receive communion. Or more extreme, a person can break into a Catholic church, steal and eat the reserved host and kive.

You may find it interesting to read Augustine’s Tractates on John 6. In another place he writes:

If the sentence is one of command, either forbidding a crime or vice, or enjoining an act of prudence or benevolence, it is not figurative. If, however, it seems to enjoin a crime or vice, or to forbid an act of prudence or benevolence, it is figurative. “Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man,” says Christ, “and drink His blood, you have no life in you.” This seems to enjoin a crime or a vice; it is therefore a figure, enjoining that we should have a share in the sufferings of our Lord, and that we should retain a sweet and profitable memory of the fact that His flesh was wounded and crucified for us.

On Christian Doctrine, Book 3, Chapter 16, Paragraph 24
newadvent.org/fathers/12023.htm

Intentionally or not, you failed to quote verse 55 which says "For my flesh is true food and my blood is true drink.

Breaking into a Catholic Church and eating a consecrated host to get eternal life, are you serious?

 

[SyCarl]

SyCarl;13208831:

I too do not believe this is talking about the Eucharist, If you consider the portions I have highlighted, then Jesus is saying that anyone who eats His flesh and drinks His blood will live. If this is speaking about the Eucharist, all I would have to do is go to a Catholic mass and receive communion. Or more extreme, a person can break into a Catholic church, steal and eat the reserved host and kive.

You may find it interesting to read Augustine’s Tractates on John 6. In another place he writes:

If the sentence is one of command, either forbidding a crime or vice, or enjoining an act of prudence or benevolence, it is not figurative. If, however, it seems to enjoin a crime or vice, or to forbid an act of prudence or benevolence, it is figurative. “Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man,” says Christ, “and drink His blood, you have no life in you.” This seems to enjoin a crime or a vice; it is therefore a figure, enjoining that we should have a share in the sufferings of our Lord, and that we should retain a sweet and profitable memory of the fact that His flesh was wounded and crucified for us.

Breaking into a Catholic Church and eating a consecrated host to get eternal life, are you serious?

No, I am not serious but that would be the consequence of saying that John 6 dealt with the Eucharist. While He says unless we eat His flesh and drink his blood we don’t have life, He also says whoever eats His flesh and drinks His blood has life. Are we to assume that Jesus is speaking literally in part of what He says here but not all of it?

I did not quote verse 55 because it was not in the original post I quoted from.

 

[JMM1957]

JMM1957;13208843:

SyCarl;13208831:

I too do not believe this is talking about the Eucharist, If you consider the portions I have highlighted, then Jesus is saying that anyone who eats His flesh and drinks His blood will live. If this is speaking about the Eucharist, all I would have to do is go to a Catholic mass and receive communion. Or more extreme, a person can break into a Catholic church, steal and eat the reserved host and kive.

You may find it interesting to read Augustine’s Tractates on John 6. In another place he writes:

No, I am not serious but that would be the consequence of saying that John 6 dealt with the Eucharist. While He says unless we eat His flesh and drink his blood we don’t have life, He also says whoever eats His flesh and drinks His blood has life. Are we to assume that Jesus is speaking literally in part of what He says here but not all of it?

I did not quote verse 55 because it was not in the original post I quoted from.

The consequence? I have never heard a story of anyone Catholic or non-Catholic stealing consecrated hosts from a church and eating them to gain eternal life. In fact, John 6 does have a Eucharistic theme to it, especially verses 51-58.

 

[SyCarl]

SyCarl;13208850:

JMM1957;13208843:

The consequence? I have never heard a story of anyone Catholic or non-Catholic stealing consecrated hosts from a church and eating them to gain eternal life. In fact, John 6 does have a Eucharistic theme to it, especially verses 51-58.

Which is why I say John 6 is not about the Eucharist. Jesus say unless you eat His flesh and drink His blood you have no life. If this speaking about the Eucharist then it would follow that when He says whoever eats His flesh and drinks His blood has life would also apply to the Eucharist. Since the elements become Jesus’ flesh and blood, anyone who partakes at a Catholic mass, whether, licitly or not, eats and drinks His flesh and blood. As the elements remain Jesus, someone who steals and eats them would also be eating and drinking Jesus and would have life. This is absurd so it would appear that John 6 does not deal with the Eucharist.

This is not saying anything about the nature of the Eucharist, just that John 6 is not dealing with it.

 

[JMM1957]

JMM1957;13208911:

SyCarl;13208850:

Which is why I say John 6 is not about the Eucharist. Jesus say unless you eat His flesh and drink His blood you have no life. If this speaking about the Eucharist then it would follow that when He says whoever eats His flesh and drinks His blood has life would also apply to the Eucharist. Since the elements become Jesus’ flesh and blood, anyone who partakes at a Catholic mass, whether, licitly or not, eats and drinks His flesh and blood. As the elements remain Jesus, someone who steals and eats them would also be eating and drinking Jesus and would have life. This is absurd so it would appear that John 6 does not deal with the Eucharist.

This is not saying anything about the nature of the Eucharist, just that John 6 is not dealing with it.

God is not bound by the Sacraments, only members of the Church are. God can give eternal life to whomever He wishes. The Eucharist gives us graces and brings us into intimate union with Jesus. If John 6 is referring to the Eucharist, and if a pagan steals the Eucharist and consumes it, would God be bound to give them eternal life? No, of course not, based on the fact that they are a pagan. This same thing could apply to any other non-believer, or even a Catholic believer. Just because you consume Jesus real body and blood in the Eucharist does not “guarantee” that you will see eternal life.

 

[rcwitness]

To believe that Jesus was going to provide His own flesh as Food for salvation meant the same as believing He was the Word of God come down from heaven.

It is foolish to reduce the faith of the Catholic Church to ‘Mere’ eating without belief!

Eating the Eucharist meal is accepting the whole gospel and coming together while professing our faith is in good conscience with God through His Son.

John 6 was not one or the other! Jesus said the bread which He will give for the life of the world is His body. We believe that was accomplished at Calvary. We also believe the way He gave us His body to eat is when He said, “This is my body, which is given up for you, take and eat.”

Peter and the others who remained with Him after His discourse, believed He would provide a fulfilment of what He spoke because He always spoke the Truth. They believed in His Word and were given His Eucharist!

You cannot believe in the Eucharist without believing Jesus’ words are eternal life! We are given the Spirit through the life, death and resurrection of Jesus who became man.

 

[SyCarl]

SyCarl;13209191:

JMM1957;13208911:

God is not bound by the Sacraments, only members of the Church are. God can give eternal life to whomever He wishes. The Eucharist gives us graces and brings us into intimate union with Jesus. If John 6 is referring to the Eucharist, and if a pagan steals the Eucharist and consumes it, would God be bound to give them eternal life? No, of course not, based on the fact that they are a pagan. This same thing could apply to any other non-believer, or even a Catholic believer. Just because you consume Jesus real body and blood in the Eucharist does not “guarantee” that you will see eternal life.

In John 6 Jesus makes no exceptions to His statement that whoever eats His flesh and drinks His blood has life. Jesus cannot lie. Either everyone, pagan or not, not who receives the Eucharist has eternal life or John 6 is not dealing with the Eucharist. Jesus doesn’t say whoever eats My flesh and drinks My blood has life unless some other thing precludes it.

Yes, God can give eternal life to whomever He wills but He cannot lie. The words used give no exceptions so if Jesus is speaking about the Eucharist and says whoever eats His flesh and drinks His blood has life He must mean it. The word whoever encompasses everyone whether they believe or not. This is an absurdity and contradicts what Jesus says elsewhere. Therefore He is not talking about the Eucharist in John 6.

 

[JMM1957]

JMM1957;13209707:

SyCarl;13209191:

In John 6 Jesus makes no exceptions to His statement that whoever eats His flesh and drinks His blood has life. Jesus cannot lie. Either everyone, pagan or not, not who receives the Eucharist has eternal life or John 6 is not dealing with the Eucharist. Jesus doesn’t say whoever eats My flesh and drinks My blood has life unless some other thing precludes it.

Yes, God can give eternal life to whomever He wills but He cannot lie. The words used give no exceptions so if Jesus is speaking about the Eucharist and says whoever eats His flesh and drinks His blood has life He must mean it. The word whoever encompasses everyone whether they believe or not. This is an absurdity and contradicts what Jesus says elsewhere. Therefore He is not talking about the Eucharist in John 6.

Using that same logic then, in Romans 10:9-10, anyone who confesses the Lord Jesus will be saved? That’s all that it takes to be saved? Do you see this example the same as in John 6?

 

[PRmerger]

JMM1957;13209707:

SyCarl;13209191:

In John 6 Jesus makes no exceptions to His statement that whoever eats His flesh and drinks His blood has life. Jesus cannot lie. Either everyone, pagan or not, not who receives the Eucharist has eternal life or John 6 is not dealing with the Eucharist. Jesus doesn’t say whoever eats My flesh and drinks My blood has life unless some other thing precludes it.

Yes, God can give eternal life to whomever He wills but He cannot lie. The words used give no exceptions so if Jesus is speaking about the Eucharist and says whoever eats His flesh and drinks His blood has life He must mean it. The word whoever encompasses everyone whether they believe or not. This is an absurdity and contradicts what Jesus says elsewhere. Therefore He is not talking about the Eucharist in John 6.

Scripture is full of implied exceptions. There are no ONLYs in Christian theology, save for this: we are saved by Christ ONLY and His Body, the Catholic Church.

Fundamentalist thinking is what creates heresies and lies. Jesus is man ONLY. Science ONLY. English ONLY. Faith ONLY. Soccer ONLY. Scripture ONLY.

There is no need to have either/ors where none is recquired.

That’s what makes the CC so formidable–the both/and of Catholicism is so hard to refute.

 

[JMM1957]

JMM1957;13209707:

SyCarl;13209191:

In John 6 Jesus makes no exceptions to His statement that whoever eats His flesh and drinks His blood has life. Jesus cannot lie. Either everyone, pagan or not, not who receives the Eucharist has eternal life or John 6 is not dealing with the Eucharist. Jesus doesn’t say whoever eats My flesh and drinks My blood has life unless some other thing precludes it.

Yes, God can give eternal life to whomever He wills but He cannot lie. The words used give no exceptions so if Jesus is speaking about the Eucharist and says whoever eats His flesh and drinks His blood has life He must mean it. The word whoever encompasses everyone whether they believe or not. This is an absurdity and contradicts what Jesus says elsewhere. Therefore He is not talking about the Eucharist in John 6.

Does this sound like these people have eternal life also? 1 Cor. 11:27

 

[JMM1957]

JMM1957;13208911:

SyCarl;13208850:

Which is why I say John 6 is not about the Eucharist.

Jesus say unless you eat His flesh and drink His blood you have no life. If this speaking about the Eucharist then it would follow that when He says whoever eats His flesh and drinks His blood has life would also apply to the Eucharist. Since the elements become Jesus’ flesh and blood, anyone who partakes at a Catholic mass, whether, licitly or not, eats and drinks His flesh and blood. As the elements remain Jesus, someone who steals and eats them would also be eating and drinking Jesus and would have life. This is absurd so it would appear that John 6 does not deal with the Eucharist.

This is not saying anything about the nature of the Eucharist, just that John 6 is not dealing with it.

John 6:44, “No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draw him, and I will raise him on the last day.” Some will not come to understanding.

 

[ffg]

This thread got me motivated to read the Gospel of John this morning!

Quoted here is a snip of the introduction to the gospel from the USCCB. The full introduction is a great read found here: usccb.org/bible/scripture.cfm?bk=John&ch=

"Jn 6 contains two signs, the multiplication of loaves and the walking on the waters of the Sea of Galilee. These signs are connected much as the manna and the crossing of the Red Sea are in the Passover narrative and symbolize a new exodus. The multiplication of the loaves is interpreted for the reader by the discourse that follows, where the bread of life is used first as a figure for the revelation of God in Jesus and then for the Eucharist. After a series of dialogues reflecting Jesus’ debates with the Jewish authorities at the Feast of Tabernacles in Jn 7; 8, the sixth sign is presented in Jn 9, the sign of the young man born blind. This is a narrative illustration of the theme of conflict in the preceding two chapters; it proclaims the triumph of light over darkness, as Jesus is presented as the Light of the world. This is interpreted by a narrative of controversy between the Pharisees and the young man who had been given his sight by Jesus, ending with a discussion of spiritual blindness and spelling out the symbolic meaning of the cure. "

A lot of talk here about John 6, but missing the tie in through John 9, is missing quite a bit.

Essentially, Jesus shows those who stayed with Him how He has the ability to help one see the truth in what He says. We can’t cure ourselves of our own spiritual blindness, no matter how hard we try to re-interpret what doesn’t need interpretation, rather belief.

So then with regard to the subject - how can non-Catholics be saved? The same way Catholics might be -

Repenting, asking God for mercy, and to clear away our spiritual blindness. (Hopefully before we run out of time)

Might this lead someone down a path they didn’t expect to go, or can’t see right now? Certainly.

Take care,

Mike

 

[JMM1957]

This thread got me motivated to read the Gospel of John this morning!

Quoted here is a snip of the introduction to the gospel from the USCCB. The full introduction is a great read found here: usccb.org/bible/scripture.cfm?bk=John&ch=

"Jn 6 contains two signs, the multiplication of loaves and the walking on the waters of the Sea of Galilee. These signs are connected much as the manna and the crossing of the Red Sea are in the Passover narrative and symbolize a new exodus. The multiplication of the loaves is interpreted for the reader by the discourse that follows, where the bread of life is used first as a figure for the revelation of God in Jesus and then for the Eucharist. After a series of dialogues reflecting Jesus’ debates with the Jewish authorities at the Feast of Tabernacles in Jn 7; 8, the sixth sign is presented in Jn 9, the sign of the young man born blind. This is a narrative illustration of the theme of conflict in the preceding two chapters; it proclaims the triumph of light over darkness, as Jesus is presented as the Light of the world. This is interpreted by a narrative of controversy between the Pharisees and the young man who had been given his sight by Jesus, ending with a discussion of spiritual blindness and spelling out the symbolic meaning of the cure. "

A lot of talk here about John 6, but missing the tie in through John 9, is missing quite a bit.

Essentially, Jesus shows those who stayed with Him how He has the ability to help one see the truth in what He says. We can’t cure ourselves of our own spiritual blindness, no matter how hard we try to re-interpret what doesn’t need interpretation, rather belief.

So then with regard to the subject - how can non-Catholics be saved? The same way Catholics might be -

Repenting, asking God for mercy, and to clear away our spiritual blindness. (Hopefully before we run out of time)

Might this lead someone down a path they didn’t expect to go, or can’t see right now? Certainly.

Take care,

Mike

Thanks ffg for the link. This is one of the things I love about the Catholic Church, it makes us see the link between all of Scripture, not just making a case based on one verse of the Bible like some religious groups do. This is just another great example of why Jesus established a visible Church with Church authority, not only to give us the books that make up the complete Bible, but to interpret Scripture in an accurate manner.

 

[rcwitness]

Something I’ve come to understand is that, to Jesus, His Word (or Teachings which give eternal life) are found in the same place He gave His Eucharist.

His true Flesh and Blood are intrinsically united to His Apostolic Teachings! To receive His Body and Blood in the Eucharist is to accept the Teachings of the Church whom delivered His Eucharist for you.

To eat this unworthy is to fall away from the faith, yet still profess to be clean by walking in His way.

 

[zz912]

JMM1957;13209707:

SyCarl;13209191:

In John 6 Jesus makes no exceptions to His statement that whoever eats His flesh and drinks His blood has life. Jesus cannot lie. Either everyone, pagan or not, not who receives the Eucharist has eternal life or John 6 is not dealing with the Eucharist. Jesus doesn’t say whoever eats My flesh and drinks My blood has life unless some other thing precludes it.

Yes, God can give eternal life to whomever He wills but He cannot lie. The words used give no exceptions so if Jesus is speaking about the Eucharist and says whoever eats His flesh and drinks His blood has life He must mean it. The word whoever encompasses everyone whether they believe or not. This is an absurdity and contradicts what Jesus says elsewhere. Therefore He is not talking about the Eucharist in John 6.

St. Paul wrote his passage in 1 Corinthians to end the thinking of some in the early Church who thought as you do. They thought they could just eat His Body without actually living out His commands. Paul taught this was a false and heretical belief, and will bring down damnation if unrepented.

Implicit in Jesus’ command to eat His Flesh is to accept and believe who He is, what He taught, and what He commands.