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

[SalusaSecondus]

But you do believe some actions of Christ are eternal.

Sure, because scripture says so.

So, logically, you have to explain why you don’t believe that the Eucharist, given first at the Last Supper, can’t be eternal also.

The sacraments are for earthly life, and will cease at the second coming. Does the RC denomination teach otherwise?

What Scripture verse says this?

Scripture states marriage will cease, and sin, therefore no more sacraments of marriage and confession. And Christ will be eternally present with us in heaven and the new earth therefore no more ordination and Eucharist, they won’t be necessary anymore.

 

[SalusaSecondus]

I asked for sources, please.

I gave you one, Tertullian, On the Resurection of the Flesh chapter 24.

 

[SalusaSecondus]

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.

Doesn’t the RC teach that the churches understanding grows?

"The tradition which comes from the apostles develops in the Church with the help of the Holy Spirit. For there is a growth in the understanding of the realities and the words which have been handed down. "

What exactly are you arguing against?

Right now, it sounds like you’ve been duped into believing a man-made tradition, Salu.

What a silly and useless accusation.

 

[PRmerger]

Sure, because scripture says so.

Excellent.

So you can see that even if the Eucharist hadn’t been enacted yet, you can see how it could be eternal, yes?

The sacraments are for earthly life, and will cease at the second coming.

This is very Catholic.

Scripture states marriage will cease, and sin, therefore no more sacraments of marriage and confession. And Christ will be eternally present with us in heaven and the new earth therefore no more ordination and Eucharist, they won’t be necessary anymore.

They won’t be necessary because we will be already One with Him. They will be superfluous.

Using a parallel: when you are married, you won’t need your favorite car that you played with as a child. It becomes superfluous.

 

[PRmerger]

I gave you one, Tertullian, On the Resurection of the Flesh chapter 24.

It didn’t mention John 6, which was what you asserted “many” early Christians taught was about faith.

Also, could you offer at least 10 others, please?

 

[PRmerger]

Doesn’t the RC teach that the churches understanding grows?

Indeed. There is indeed doctrinal development.

But the Catholic faith was whole and entire before a single word of the NT was ever put to writ.

What a silly and useless accusation.

I stand by my assertion.

There is no Scripture verse that declares that we will see more clearly in modern day times than the early Christians did.

#manmadetradition

 

[SalusaSecondus]

Excellent.

So you can see that even if the Eucharist hadn’t been enacted yet, you can see how it could be eternal, yes?

Nope. It was created at a specific point in time and will cease at a point in time. Hence, not eternal.

This is very Catholic.

Thanks, I am a member of the catholic church.

They won’t be necessary because we will be already One with Him. They will be superfluous.

Using a parallel: when you are married, you won’t need your favorite car that you played with as a child. It becomes superfluous.

Indeed. They will cease because they won’t be necessary anymore, therefore not eternal.

 

[SalusaSecondus]

It didn’t mention John 6, which was what you asserted “many” early Christians taught was about faith.

No. Read the surrounding text, it is regarding John 6.

Also, could you offer at least 10 others, please?

And when I do you will ask for 50 more, then 100 more.

 

[PRmerger]

Nope. It was created at a specific point in time and will cease at a point in time. Hence, not eternal.

The Eucharist is being presented, eternally, before the Throne of Heaven, Salu.

Thanks, I am a member of the catholic church.

Yes, you were baptized into His Church and are partially (and imperfectly) joined to His Body.

 

[PRmerger]

And when I do you will ask for 50 more, then 100 more.

I promise you I won’t.

Now, please offer 10 early Christians who wrote that John 6 was about faith and NOT about the Eucharist.

 

[JMM1957]

The Eucharist is being presented, eternally, before the Throne of Heaven

That is correct, and its Biblical. Romans 9:12. The high priests would have to enter the earthly sanctuary repeatedly to offer sacrifice, Jesus entered the heavenly sanctuary once for all time.

 

[SalusaSecondus]

Indeed. There is indeed doctrinal development.

But the Catholic faith was whole and entire before a single word of the NT was ever put to writ.

And many of those fathers didn’t believe what your believe about John 6.

I stand by my assertion.

There is no Scripture verse that declares that we will see more clearly in modern day times than the early Christians did.

But the RC denomination teaches that. That’s why Dei Verbum said our understanding grows.

Also, it’s painfully obvious when you actually read the early fathers, they had some of the silliest exegesis. We understand much better today.

 

[SalusaSecondus]

The Eucharist is being presented, eternally, before the Throne of Heaven, Salu.

Chapter and verse please.

Yes, you were baptized into His Church and are partially (and imperfectly) joined to His Body.

No. I am fully joined.

 

[JMM1957]

And many of those fathers didn’t believe what your believe about John 6.

But the RC denomination teaches that. That’s why Dei Verbum said our understanding grows.

Also, it’s painfully obvious when you actually read the early fathers, they had some of the silliest exegesis. We understand much better today.

It doesn’t mean that we are constantly being enlightened so as to change doctrines and dogma’s as time goes on.

 

[SalusaSecondus]

I promise you I won’t.

Now, please offer 10 early Christians who wrote that John 6 was about faith and NOT about the Eucharist.

Deal with the one I posed. Why should I post 10 or 50 when you will just dismiss them just as you dismissed the one I did post?

 

[Horton]

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.

I disagree. Jesus often spoke of things to come during His public ministry. He spoke of His crucifixion, His resurrection. He didn’t leave then to understand it on their own. There was the last supper and the Holy Spirit at Pentecost.

 

[paulrxp]

First of all, you are mistaken about what protestants believe. Most do not believe that communion is merely symbolic. Just as in baptism, only the physical elements are symbolic,but the spiritual reality is much greater than anything in the flesh.

In regard to Jn6, I agree with Peter who at the end of the discourse said “Lord, you have the WORDS of eternal life” . We are to believe or “eat” the words. This is an idiomatic saying from the OT that a Jew would understand.

Oh well then that’s great, because that’s very Catholic in part. There’s nothing symbolic about our Eucharist, it wouldn’t be the real presence, if even in part the physical is merely symbolic. . It is the Body and Blood of our Lord Jesus Christ in its entirety, that includes his divinity.

I attended my pentecostal buddies service, because of my respect for him. There was no communion or mention of it whatsoever. I had to be general when i address protestant beliefs because it’s certainly diverse . Even how you understand the Eucharist is different than my friend who calls himself pentecostal also.

I know some mainline protestants believe in the real presence, but the bread and wine don’t turn into the body and blood of Christ on their own. The Catholic priest has a vital role in the Holy Eucharist for this reason.

Do you believe your Eucharist in the pentecostal church is the same as those in the Catholic Church? If it’s not symbolic , then what made it real?

 

[jediliz]

You’re spot on with your question, if the RCC is correct.

Of course, as I’ve stated before, John 6 isn’t about the Eucharist or the Last Supper.

Yes it IS about the Eucharist. Those who could not accept it, left Jesus. The apostles did not leave - they had come to believe in him. “To whom would we go? you have the words of everlasting life.” John 6:68

 

[SalusaSecondus]

I disagree. Jesus often spoke of things to come during His public ministry. He spoke of His crucifixion, His resurrection. He didn’t leave then to understand it on their own. There was the last supper and the Holy Spirit at Pentecost.

Can you point to something in scripture where Jesus asked people to do something that was at the time impossible?

 

[Duane1966]

No. Read the surrounding text, it is regarding John 6.

And when I do you will ask for 50 more, then 100 more.

Can you give five more? You said many, I will be amazed if you even find five. You do realize John uses the Greek phogo and trogo when Jesus talks about eating His flesh. While phogo can be used metaphorically, trogo literally means to gnaw the flesh off the bone, and I believe has never been used metaphorically.

TERTULLIAN (c. 155 - 250 A.D.)Likewise, in regard to days of fast, many do not think they should be present at theSACRIFICIALprayers, because their fast would be broken if they were to receiveTHE BODY OF THE LORD…THE BODY OF THE LORD HAVING BEEN RECEIVED AND RESERVED, each point is secured: both the participationIN THE SACRIFICE…*(Prayer 19:1)

The flesh feeds onTHE BODY AND BLOOD OF CHRIST, so that theSOUL TOOmay fatten on God.(Resurrection of the Dead 8:3)

I seem to remember some more quotes by Tertullian where it is quite clear that he takes John 6 literally.

By the way, why does Jesus call His flesh true food and His blood true drink if He was being symbolic? Were Jesus’ miracles actually symbolic?