Can you address why folks thought this was a “hard saying”?
No, it was totally necessary. It’s benefits are simply eternal. That’s how Abraham was declared righteous by faith prior to the coming of Jesus.
John 6 is about the Eucharist. The word Eucharist means thanksgiving. You are implying the Eucharist was an event that happened during the Passion so therefore could not have been foreseen. Jesus was preparing his disciples for His Passion knowing this would be a difficult concept for many. Stating the Eucharist didn’t exist makes no sense.
I disagree. They would have no idea what he was referring to, and no way to fulfill what Jesus was telling them. That’s why it was hard and confusing. John 6 is about appropriating Jesus by faith, not about the Eucharist that didn’t exist at the time, and that is corroborated by many in the early church.
It’s not hard because we see everything clearly now, having the gospels to guide us. We know the whole story. Folks then didn’t, it was hard because they didn’t understand he was talking about faith.
Ah. So apply that to the Eucharist then.
What you mean, then, is that they understood him to mean that they should eat his flesh, right?
Sources, please?
So for the first decades the early Christians, who actually walked with Jesus, and were disciples of the apostles, didn’t know the kerygma as well as we do now?
Better than the apostles, and their disciples?
Why? They are completely different.Ah. So apply that to the Eucharist then.
The apostles didn’t know what he was talking about, but followed him anyway. We know what he was talking about and follow him anyway. And many of the early church theologians believed John 6 was about faith, not about the Eucharist. In fact it was the majority opinion.
Not at all. I accept that we receive Jesus bodily and blood in the Eucharist. I simply don’t think John 6 is referring to that.
"Constituting, therefore, His word as the life-giving principle, because that word is spirit and life, He likewise called His flesh by the same appellation; because, too, the Word had become flesh, John 1:14 we ought therefore to desire Him in order that we may have life, and to devour Him with the ear, and to ruminate on Him with the understanding, and to digest Him by faith. " Tertullian, On the Resurrection of the Flesh, Ch. 24.
John 6:53-58, it is true that the Eucharist was not in existence yet, at least in a way in which the faithful could participate in it. Jesus here was giving us a view of what was going to be innaugurated at the Last Supper, the language he used is unmistakeably Eucharistic. But His teaching here really had a dual meaning at this point in time imo, one was literal and one was figurative. The figurative part is that Jesus is the source of our salvation, and by eating this bread (following Him and His Word) that came down from heaven we have eternal life in us. I am quite sure that even His disciples didn’t fully understand what He was talking about (the literal part) at this point, but they said “Master, to whom shall we go, you have the words of eternal life”.
Because you believe that actions can be “retro-eternal”.
I never said I believe the Eucharist is eternal.
I asked for sources, please.
I’d also like a Scriptural source that says that we see things better than the early Christians who walked with Him and talked with him.
But you do believe some actions of Christ are eternal.
LOL!
That doesn’t mention John 6, Salu.
In non-Catholic communion, assuming that they believe that the bread and wine is actually transformed into the body and blood, do they need to say any particular prayer of consecration (Eucharistic Prayer) for it to be a legitimate consecration, at least in the Catholic Church’s eyes? I know we believe that it has to be done a certain way, but what is the least that needs to be done for a legitimate non-Catholic communion to be valid? We believe that a priest needs to perform the consecration, what about other non-Catholics? Hope you understand what I’m asking for.
