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

[zz912]

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.

Jesus taught clearly about those who say “Yes yes” when asked to do something by the Father, but refuse to do it. Do you remember what He said?

 

[rcwitness]

SyCarl;13209778:

JMM1957;13209707:

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.

Yes! And this is the difference in believing the “prophesy of Scripture” and trying to understand what is explicitly said.

 

[Telstar]

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.

Exactly! Some of the Corinthians were not fully understanding the deep spiritual meaning of receiving the Eucharist, because they really didn’t understand that it was the actual Body and Blood of Jesus. Paul was livid because they weren’t showing the proper respect It deserved when they were receiving It. That’s why he said in 1 Corinthians 11:[23] For I have received of the Lord that which also I delivered unto you, that the Lord Jesus, the same night in which he was betrayed, took bread. [24] And giving thanks, broke, and said: Take ye, and eat: this is my body, which shall be delivered for you: this do for the commemoration of me. [25] In like manner also the chalice, after he had supped, saying: This chalice is the new testament in my blood: this do ye, as often as you shall drink, for the commemoration of me.

[26] For as often as you shall eat this bread, and drink the chalice, you shall shew the death of the Lord, until he come. [27] Therefore whosoever shall eat this bread, or drink the chalice of the Lord unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and of the blood of the Lord. [28] But let a man prove himself: and so let him eat of that bread, and drink of the chalice. [29] For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh judgment to himself, not discerning the body of the Lord. [30] Therefore are there many infirm and weak among you, and many sleep.
This is exactly what Jesus was referring to in John 6, when He said that He is the Bread of Life which came down from Heaven, which He would give for all of us to eat.

The Holy Eucharist is the essence of the New Covenant, the New Testament, that Jesus made between God and man. It is the one thing that makes us worthy of being called “Christian”, because that’s what joins us, both physically and spiritually, to Jesus Christ. If we do not receive the Holy Eucharist worthily, then we are not fully Christian.

I could go on and on about the spiritual benefits and the absolute beauty of the Holy Eucharist, but that’s a subject for another thread. I really wish with all my heart that non-Catholics could realize what they are missing by not partaking in the fullness of it, that can only be found in the RCC. Even some Catholics are unaware of the great privilege that they have. But, like many of the Corinthians, they don’t fully understand the spiritual depth of what they receive, without really giving it another thought. It’s very sad.

 

[SyCarl]

SyCarl;13209778:

JMM1957;13209707:

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

You seem to be missing my point. I am not saying that someone can be saved without faith or by the Eucharist alone. I am saying because of the other requirements given by Paul that John 6 is not about the Eucharist. You must have faith and come to the Lord’s Supper worthily. This is what Paul tells us. But Jesus puts no restrictions on His statement that whoever eats His flesh and drinks His blood has eternal life. He certainly talks about belief and coming to Him but He does not put a qualification on His statement about having life.

John 6 could relate to the Eucharist if you were to take a receptionist view as Calvin appears to have done. He says that those who eat and drink in worthily and in faith actually receive Jesus’ body and blood. Those who receive it otherwise do not receive them But this would not fit with Catholic teaching which states that the elements actually become Jesus so that anybody who eats them eats Jesus.

I remember a question answered some time ago on Ask an Apologist. The question was what would happen is a consecrated host was dropped an a dog ate it. The answer was that the dog would have eaten Jesus.

I will repost the quote I gave from Augustine.

. 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

I had suggested looking at Augustine’s Tractates on John. Here is some of what he says.

“They said therefore unto Him, What shall we do, that we may work the works of God?” For He had said to them, “Labor not for the meat which perishes, but for that which endures unto eternal life.” “What shall we do?” they ask; by observing what, shall we be able to fulfill this precept? “Jesus answered and said unto them, This is the work of God, that you believe in Him whom He has sent.” This is then to eat the meat, not that which perishes, but that which endures unto eternal life. To what purpose do you make ready teeth and stomach? Believe, and you have eaten already

Tractates on the Gospel of John, Tractate 25, Paragraph 12
newadvent.org/fathers/1701025.htm

Wherefore, the Lord, about to give the Holy Spirit, said that Himself was the bread that came down from heaven, exhorting us to believe in Him. For to believe in Him is to eat the living bread. He that believes eats; he is sated invisibly, because invisibly is he born again

.
Tractates on the Gospel of John. Tractate 26, Paragraph 1
newadvent.org/fathers/1701026.htm

“But Jesus, knowing in Himself that His disciples murmured at it,”—for they so said these things with themselves that they might not be heard by Him: but He who knew them in themselves, hearing within Himself,—answered and said, “This offends you;” because I said, I give you my flesh to eat, and my blood to drink, this forsooth offends you. “Then what if you shall see the Son of man ascending where He was before?” What is this? Did He hereby solve the question that perplexed them? Did He hereby uncover the source of their offense? He did clearly, if only they understood. For they supposed that He was going to deal out His body to them; but He said that He was to ascend into heaven, of course, whole: “When you shall see the Son of man ascending where He was before;” certainly then,** at least, you will see that not in the manner you suppose does He dispense His body; certainly then, at least, you will understand that His grace is not consumed by tooth-biting.**

Tractates on the Gospel of John, Tractate 27, Paragraph 3)
newadvent.org/fathers/1701027.htm

 

[KathleenGee]

The apostles were chosen by Our Lord to be His witnesses…St. Paul came to the Lord in personal experience…but when he met with the apostles, they right away acknowledged he had Christ’s authority…evangelist to the Gentiles and co founder of the Church of Rome with Peter.

But St. Paul was not at the Last Supper, when our Lord said to the Apostles: ‘Do this in memory of Me…’ the Be’Kaa…the memorial and the fulfillment of Melchizedek…the perpetual sacrificial gifts of bread and wine…that through Christ be come the Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of Christ HImself…fulfilling the Good Fruit of the Tree of Life.

 

[Doormouse]

if a dog ,or a person without a contrite heart, person who has not received the sacraments
after the bread has been consecrated by the priest.it is non valid.
my mother used to say this to me and my brothers about confession and receiving the host at mass.

 

[JMM1957]

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

Seems to me Augustine here is merely giving his definition of what he believes “figurative” and “literal” is, and gives his opinion of what verse 53 “seems” to say. This is a very selective quote of Augustine’s that does not harmonize with other statements he made concerning the real presence.

So lets look at this again… the Jews were having a hard enough time understanding how Jesus “came down from heaven,” let alone that he was “the bread that came down from heaven”. Jesus could have stopped right there with these statements and the Jews would never have believed him. Then Jesus continued and said that he was “the living bread that came down from heaven”, as opposed to the manna in the desert. But he didn’t stop there, he said “the bread I will give is my flesh for the life of the world”. Then he says unless you “eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you do not have life within you”.

Can you explain why Jesus felt that it was necessary go so much further with the “bread come down from heaven” idea, why he didn’t just leave it at that to make his point, if as you say, the point was symbolic, meaning we should just believe in him in spirit to gain life. Why did Jesus continue develop this idea by comparing eating the living bread to “eating his flesh and blood” and not only that, but linking the eating with real food, “my flesh is true food and my blood is true drink”.

Many disciples said “this saying is hard, who can accept it?” They clearly understood what he was implying, that is why many left him. Jesus asks “does this shock you?”.
Then Jesus asks, “what if you were to see the Son of Man ascending to where he was before?”, connecting this to “the bread that came down from heaven”. Nobody saw Jesus come into the world as He was born of a woman, “is this not Jesus the Son of Joseph, do we not know his father and mother?” If they could see him ascending to where he was before, would they finally believe? Or would they continue in unbelief?

 

[PRmerger]

In John 6 Jesus makes no exceptions to His statement that whoever eats His flesh and drinks His blood has life. Jesus cannot lie.

And neither can God…and yet…Scripture has some great paradoxes that you need to address.

God says we are not to worship man…and yet commands that One Man absolutely be worshipped.

God says that there are to be no human sacrifices…and yet it was through One Sacrifice that humanity was saved.

God commands that we are not to drink blood…and yet commands the drinking of blood.

No exceptions.

And yet…we see there are exceptions.

How do you reconcile this, Carl, with the above comment about “no exceptions”?

 

[benhur]

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.

Do not understand the underlined. I thought CC teaches the gates of heaven were opened by Calvary and Resurrection, not by the “Church” and in an obscure way ?

Blessings

 

[benhur]

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.

HiJMM,

Actually, it is also difficult for some to understand Church authority without today’s Papal system. I mean there was a Patriarchal system for quite a while. Rome was ruled by elders with no apparent head bishop for a while (100- 125 years ?).

But thank you for saying the Papacy “evolved”. Maybe you can understand how some of us feel much of the evolving then is hard to define as “apostolic”.

Blessings

 

[rcwitness]

But has the OP’S question really been addressed???

It is a good question. What does it mean when Non-Catholic Christians believe in fundamental Truths from Jesus and are changed in their hearts and lives, but reject the Catholic Communion of His True Eucharist???

How can Jesus say without His Eucharist, there is NO life in you?

This truly is a complicated question. But it’s not complicated because of Christ or the Catholic faith, rather because Protestants have compromised Holy Communion.

What I mean is, the Lord’s Supper should be guarded with our very lives! If there is false teaching by the hands of those who are ordained to consecrate/offer His Eucharist, then the genuine ones ought to strive against these men and the teaching even if they are unable to receive Communion. But what has happened is separate communions arose and now it appears as an option where to receive His Body and Blood. And eventually, the significance of Communion has dissipated greatly in many church communities.

 

[benhur]

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.

Hi rc

Well said from your point of view. How about this, have you not eaten when you finally do believe He is the Messiah, and and He and His words are eternal life ?

If I recall St. Augustine mentions this, like leave your teeth and belly behind , Peter ate by faith and his declaration of such.

Blessings

PS I know ,Augustine said many many things about Eucharist, and he almost justifies all views.

 

[PJM]

=Chaddicus Finch;13202616]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, 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?

The answer from the Catechism of the RCC
**819 **“Furthermore, many elements of sanctification and of truth” are found outside the visible confines of the Catholic Church: “the written Word of God; the life of grace; faith, hope, and charity, with the other interior gifts of the Holy Spirit, as well as visible elements.” Christ’s Spirit uses these Churches and ecclesial communities as means of salvation, whose power derives from the fullness of grace and truth that Christ has entrusted to the Catholic Church. All these blessings come from Christ and lead to him, and are in themselves calls to “Catholic unity.”

**1260 **“Since Christ died for all, and since all men are in fact called to one and the same destiny, which is divine, we must hold that the Holy Spirit offers to all the possibility of being made partakers, in a way known to God, of the Paschal mystery.” Every man who is ignorant of the Gospel of Christ and of his Church, but seeks the truth and does the will of God in accordance with his understanding of it, can be saved. It may be supposed that such persons would have desired Baptism explicitly if they had known its necessity.

847 This affirmation is not aimed at those who, through no fault of their own, do not know Christ and his Church:

***Those who, through no fault of their own, do not know the Gospel of Christ or his Church, ***but who nevertheless seek God with a sincere heart, and, moved by grace, try in their actions to do his will as they know it through the dictates of their conscience - those too may achieve eternal salvation.

848 "Although in ways known to himself God can lead those who, through no fault of their own, are ignorant of the Gospel, to that faith without which it is impossible to please him, the Church still has the obligation and also the sacred right to evangelize all men."

God Bless you,

Patrick [PJM]

 

[Michael68]

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?

John 6:51-58

 

[rcwitness]

Hi rc

Well said from your point of view. How about this, have you not eaten when you finally do believe He is the Messiah, and and He and His words are eternal life ?

The same could be said about Baptism, yet Jesus says…

Mark 16:16 (RSVCE)

16 He who believes and is baptized will be saved; but he who does not believe will be condemned.

 

[zz912]

Quote:
Originally Posted by zz912 View Post
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.

Do not understand the underlined. I thought CC teaches the gates of heaven were opened by Calvary and Resurrection, not by the “Church” and in an obscure way ?

Blessings

The gates were opened at the Resurrection, once the New Covenant had been completed and fulfilled. But how is that covenant applied to those who had already died? To enter a covenant, usually one must agree to become a member of the family and take on the responsibilities of such (faith in Jesus), and then ratify/enact the covenant (baptism/Eucharist) and made a part of the family (the Church/Body of Christ), and then live out the responsibilities of being a part of the family (works).

Obviously the righteous from the OT times could not ratify and enact the covenant for themselves, so they must have been made a part of the Body of Christ through some means that we don’t understand.

 

[KathleenGee]

Holy Saturday prior to Resurrection Sunday, Easter…Christ descended to open the gates to heaven for the just…so they too in Christ…received salvation.

Also recall that at Christ’s death, the souls of the just rose and appeared to many throughout Israel on Good Friday.

 

[Chaddicus_Finch]

The answer from the Catechism of the RCC
**819 **“Furthermore, many elements of sanctification and of truth” are found outside the visible confines of the Catholic Church: “the written Word of God; the life of grace; faith, hope, and charity, with the other interior gifts of the Holy Spirit, as well as visible elements.” Christ’s Spirit uses these Churches and ecclesial communities as means of salvation, whose power derives from the fullness of grace and truth that Christ has entrusted to the Catholic Church. All these blessings come from Christ and lead to him, and are in themselves calls to “Catholic unity.”

**1260 **“Since Christ died for all, and since all men are in fact called to one and the same destiny, which is divine, we must hold that the Holy Spirit offers to all the possibility of being made partakers, in a way known to God, of the Paschal mystery.” Every man who is ignorant of the Gospel of Christ and of his Church, but seeks the truth and does the will of God in accordance with his understanding of it, can be saved. It may be supposed that such persons would have desired Baptism explicitly if they had known its necessity.

847 This affirmation is not aimed at those who, through no fault of their own, do not know Christ and his Church:

***Those who, through no fault of their own, do not know the Gospel of Christ or his Church, ***but who nevertheless seek God with a sincere heart, and, moved by grace, try in their actions to do his will as they know it through the dictates of their conscience - those too may achieve eternal salvation.

848 "Although in ways known to himself God can lead those who, through no fault of their own, are ignorant of the Gospel, to that faith without which it is impossible to please him, the Church still has the obligation and also the sacred right to evangelize all men."

God Bless you,

Patrick [PJM]

Isn’t this referring more to those who have never heard the Gospel or heard of Jesus at all? I understand them to be a completely different case than Protestants who surely cannot be referred to as “ignorant of the Gospel”. I can understand the position on those who have never heard the Gospel, but my specific question is with Protestants who do not believe John 6 is referring to the Eucharist and/or don’t believe there is anything more than symbolism at work.

God bless!

 

[JMM1957]

This is why I was hoping an apologist could answer this. Instead of answering the logical issue, it’s devolved into a question on whether Jesus is speaking of the Eucharist in John 6, which is not my point.

I’m specifically asking how the Catholic Church can reconcile their interpretation of John 6 with their view of Protestants as separated brethren… Protestants - please don’t derail this into the interpretation of John 6. Instead, assume the Catholic view of John 6 is correct and let’s discuss how both can be true.

If that has been answered, I apologize as it’s clearly been lost in all the bickering over if Jesus was referring to the Eucharist or not.

Btw, Ben Hur I was not referring to you. You are on point, sir. :+1:t2:

Please clarify “both”? Not exactly sure of the question.

 

[rcwitness]

Another thing to consider is the name “son of man” which Jesus uses in His command. Doesn’t this refer to His humanity?

I understand the discourse is hard to understand. But when He instituted His Eucharist at the Last Supper and specifically says, “take and eat, this is my body, which will be given up for you.” It is too closely related to His bread of life Teaching for me to reject the Catholic faith.

And remember, John doesn’t record the passover meal!