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

[eazyduzit]

Hi, ben. It looks like we’re back on the same subject, again, eh?

First of all, Jesus is the one that made the statement that we must be born again, not Nicodemus. When we are born in the flesh, our soul is in a state of spiritual “death”. Actually, it’s more like it just hasn’t really been born and come to life, yet. It’s dormant, or, as yet “unborn” in the Holy Spirit. Baptism is what gives it life by washing away original sin, as well as our actual sins in the case of adults that have reached the age of reason. Our souls are not fully born until the Holy Spirit moves over the waters of Baptism and washes them in the Precious Blood of Jesus, to bring them into full life with God. (The Holy Spirit moves over the waters of Baptism just like He did in Genesis 1:2 “And the earth was void and empty, and darkness was upon the face of the deep; and the spirit of God moved over the waters.”) That’s when they are “reborn” (or ‘born again’) and come into full spiritual awakening.

That’s when we become the adopted children of God, and can communicate freely with Him as our Father in Heaven. From that point on, we are capable of entering into eternal life along with Jesus, our Brother through adoption. Unless we are “born again” in Baptism, we are incapable of becoming all that God wants us to be, no matter how much we might ‘believe’ we can. It’s simply impossible until we become children of God. That’s what Jesus meant when He said, “Amen, amen I say to thee, unless a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God.” We cannot really ‘see’ the things of God until we’ve been washed by the Precious Blood of Jesus in Baptism.

But, we can still lose that new life with Christ that is given to us, if we turn away from Him through our own continued sinfulness. That’s when the Sacrament of Confession comes into play for Catholics, because we can go to confess our sins to the Priest and be forgiven, which washes our souls with the Precious Blood of Jesus, once again. So, if we fall, we can start over, just like Jesus had to start over when He fell on the way to Calvary. His falls were a sign to show us how we must follow His example on our own ‘way of the cross’, by picking ourselves up, brushing ourselves off (through Confession) and continuing along our path in life. Hopefully, with the graces we gain through Confession, our falls will become less and less frequent as we make our way toward Heaven. At least, that’s the plan.

You don’t need to keep instructing Ben on the Catholic interpretation. He already knows it.

The problem or weakness with your interpretation is that baptism is not mentioned. You just assume that “water” must equal “baptism” . We’re not Catholic, so we can’t just accept it. Some proof is necessary. John uses" water" to illustrate the Spirit in ch.4 and 7 so it is also possible that" water" illustrates Spirit in Ch. 3.

Secondly, ,we need to be careful about the translation of the ,word “and”. The Greek word" kai" has slightly different uses than “and”. Thayer says it has a copulative and sometimes cumulative force. Thus it can mean also, even, indeed,or but. So the phrase could just as well be translated “born of water even the Spirit” or “born of water which is the Spirit” .
Jesus then gives us the plain meaning of this illustration in v. 15, “That whosoever believes in Him should not perish, but have eternal life.” This is the effectual cause of the new birth.

T

 

[PRmerger]

You don’t need to keep instructing Ben on the Catholic interpretation. He already knows it.

Firstly, when we post here it is not only for one particular poster. There are numerous lurkers who will benefit from further explication.

And secondly, we will continue to instruct ben because his theology is impoverished and it is our job as Christians to do so.

 

[PRmerger]

The problem or weakness with your interpretation is that baptism is not mentioned. You just assume that “water” must equal “baptism” . We’re not Catholic, so we can’t just accept it. Some proof is necessary. John uses" water" to illustrate the Spirit in ch.4 and 7 so it is also possible that" water" illustrates Spirit in Ch. 3.

Secondly, ,we need to be careful about the translation of the ,word “and”. The Greek word" kai" has slightly different uses than “and”. Thayer says it has a copulative and sometimes cumulative force. Thus it can mean also, even, indeed,or but. So the phrase could just as well be translated “born of water even the Spirit” or “born of water which is the Spirit” .
Jesus then gives us the plain meaning of this illustration in v. 15, “That whosoever believes in Him should not perish, but have eternal life.” This is the effectual cause of the new birth.

T

What you are doing is acting as magisterium here, eazy.

I assume that you bristle when you are told by a magisterium what it is you must believe and how you are to interpret Scripture, yes?

So why is it that you are reserving for yourself what you object to in Catholicism?

 

[jlhargus]

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?

Quick answer would be by desire. As the thief on the cross.

 

[benhur]

We disagree. Jesus was not talking about born of your mother.
Jesus said you must be born again.
Nicodemus misunderstanding asks how can he enter his mother’s womb again
Jesus corrects his misunderstanding
“Amen, amen, I say to you, no one can enter the kingdom of God without being born of water and Spirit.”
Jesus is saying born again of water and Spirit. Like Nicodemus you are misunderstanding Jesus. Jesus commanded to Baptize. It is only after this water of Baptism that the Spirit comes.

Ok understand. But why did Jesus chide Nicodemus for not knowing this , as a rabbi, for this was something new that Jesus was talking about, according to you. At that time of the conversation you did not need to be baptized in water to be regenerated. The OT sign of new life (born again) and covenant was circumcision. Pentecost had not happened yet. How could Jesus expect him to know that ? This was early in Christ’s ministry.

“Are you the teacher of Israel and yet you do not understand these things?” Water baptism being regenerative has only been ascribed to our covenant , after pentecost.

 

[Michael68]

Catholics have spent the last 5-6 weeks studying John 6 and if it isn’t about the Eucharist ,then I don’t know what is! John 6 points to the Eucharist especially John 6:51-58

 

[benhur]

Hi, ben. It looks like we’re back on the same subject, again, eh?

First of all, Jesus is the one that made the statement that we must be born again, not Nicodemus. When we are born in the flesh, our soul is in a state of spiritual “death”. Actually, it’s more like it just hasn’t really been born and come to life, yet. It’s dormant, or, as yet “unborn” in the Holy Spirit. Baptism is what gives it life by washing away original sin, as well as our actual sins in the case of adults that have reached the age of reason. Our souls are not fully born until the Holy Spirit moves over the waters of Baptism and washes them in the Precious Blood of Jesus, to bring them into full life with God. (The Holy Spirit moves over the waters of Baptism just like He did in Genesis 1:2 “And the earth was void and empty, and darkness was upon the face of the deep; and the spirit of God moved over the waters.”) That’s when they are “reborn” (or ‘born again’) and come into full spiritual awakening.

Hi T,

Ok I understand but your explanation is new testament. It does not fit OT. The conversation with Nic was OT, before pentecost. Nic had problems seeing the kingdom, seeing Christ as Messiah then and there, not in the future. What was wrong with Nic and all others who did not believe ? They were not born of the spirit ,regenerated, or born again, which I believe is an OT and NT event/reality.

The context is OT and your explanations do not fit. They fit nicely somewhat in NT.

“Are you the teacher of Israel and yet you do not understand these things?" What things ? OT things of regenerating the fallen spirit we inherited from Eve. None of the OT saints were water baptized for regenerative purposes. Water must mean something else, and what you suggest would have been "new’’ to any Jew, and Jesus would not have criticized any Jew for not knowing something new . No, Jesus properly criticized Nic for not knowing something old.

Blessings

 

[rcwitness]

Catholics have spent the last 5-6 weeks studying John 6 and if it isn’t about the Eucharist ,then I don’t know what is! John 6 points to the Eucharist especially John 6:51-58

But not only is “it” about His Eucharist, But His Eucharist is about His Word!

 

[benhur]

What you are doing is acting as magisterium here, eazy.

I assume that you bristle when you are told by a magisterium what it is you must believe and how you are to interpret Scripture, yes?

So why is it that you are reserving for yourself what you object to in Catholicism?

Hi PR ,

Been awhile. I sense we need some humorous photo/video to cut thru the heaviness.

You remind me of me, replying with a question while avoiding any direct discussion of what has been posted. Like is it true that this word (kai) was used and means that, or that “water” is representative of spirit as eazy posted ?

As far magisteriums, none of us (C’s andP’s etc) have come up with anything new. None of us are stating things that one church or another, one magisterium or another has not taught before us.

You have been a good supporter of what is good on this particular part of CAF. You have been good to push the envelope to good discussion, as one believer to another, as representative of one church/tradition to another.

Nevertheless, it could be talked about what you posted about magisteriums and what one puts out comes back to you etc. but perhaps at better timing and placement.

Love you PR

Blessings

 

[PRmerger]

Hi PR ,

Been awhile. I sense we need some humorous photo/video to cut thru the heaviness.

You remind me of me, replying with a question while avoiding any direct discussion of what has been posted.

I am heartened to see you acknowledge your posting style.

But I wish to demur quite clearly: we are NOT alike in this. At all.

Like is it true that this word (kai) was used and means that, or that “water” is representative of spirit as eazy posted ?

Before we get to that discussion, we need to acknowledge that there is some great inconsistency being professed here by eazydoesit.

Either he gets to tell people what is the correct way to interpret Scripture…and so does the CC…

OR

He has no right to tell people what is the correct way to interpret Scripture…and Catholicism is free to interpret Scripture exactly as she has done. For 2000 years.

As far magisteriums, none of us (C’s andP’s etc) have come up with anything new.

Ummm…do you not think that it’s rather new to profess that Paul’s writings are not theopneustos?

That’s certainly not something that was professed for the first centuries of Christianity.

Do you not think it’s rather new to profess that women should be ordained?

That’s certainly not something that was professed for the first centuries of Christianity.

None of us are stating things that one church or another, one magisterium or another has not taught before us.

Nonsequitur, ben.

What eazy is stating is that his interpretation of Scripture is correct and that ours is incorrect.

That’s what the magisterium of the CC does…and yet eazy and all Protestants recoil at that.

Hmmm…

 

[Michael68]

But not only is “it” about His Eucharist, But His Eucharist is about His Word!

That is absolutely right! Thank You!

 

[Telstar]

You don’t need to keep instructing Ben on the Catholic interpretation. He already knows it.

Ben and I have had several conversations about this subject, that’s very true. But, although he may already know the basics of what it means to a Catholic, I still don’t think he fully understands it yet. He’s certainly not alone, because it’s clear to me that there are many others who are also confused about the spiritual effects of Baptism on the soul. So, I thought I would try to approach the subject in a slightly different way this time.

The problem or weakness with your interpretation is that baptism is not mentioned. You just assume that “water” must equal “baptism” . We’re not Catholic, so we can’t just accept it. Some proof is necessary. John uses" water" to illustrate the Spirit in ch.4 and 7 so it is also possible that" water" illustrates Spirit in Ch. 3.

My explanation is not based on my own personal ‘interpretation’ of the passage, but on the teachings of the Catholic Church. I do not “assume” anything on my own. I trust the teaching of the Church, because those teachings have remained consistent for nearly 2000 years. There’s a very good reason for that, which is because of the guidance of the Holy Spirit, Who has never failed to do exactly what Jesus promised He would do. He leads the Church into all truth, the same way He lead the Apostles.

Secondly, ,we need to be careful about the translation of the ,word “and”. The Greek word" kai" has slightly different uses than “and”. Thayer says it has a copulative and sometimes cumulative force. Thus it can mean also, even, indeed,or but. So the phrase could just as well be translated “born of water even the Spirit” or “born of water which is the Spirit” .

This is the kind of confusion that can happen when everyone tries to interpret the Bible on their own, without the guidance of the Church that first introduced it to the world. There are so many different opinions out there, that no one can even agree on what one single word might mean. How can anyone expect to ever know the truth of every other word that’s written in it? There will always be disagreements, so how can you possibly know who’s actually correct?

Jesus then gives us the plain meaning of this illustration in v. 15, “That whosoever believes in Him should not perish, but have eternal life.” This is the effectual cause of the new birth.

T

That is your personal opinion, which is based on your own interpretation of that passage. But, Jesus never intended for one sentence to explain everything, or the Bible wouldn’t need to be a very big book. And John wouldn’t have made a point to mention that there were so many other things that Jesus taught and did, that the number of books that would need to be written would fill the world.

This is why the Magisterium and Holy Tradition is so important. Together, they help us to understand some of those many other things that were not written in the Gospels. Many things were only handed down through word of mouth, from Jesus to the Apostles, through an oral tradition which was eventually written down in the years that followed, and has continued to be more fully explained for the past 2000 years. That tradition came to the Catholic Church from the Jewish Tradition that used the same teaching method for thousands of years before Jesus used it. The written scriptures were only a part of Jewish Tradition. Most teachings were passed on to the next generation by word of mouth, through the careful memorization of their stories and traditions.

 

[Cybophonia]

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?

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, ye 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."–(Augustine, On Christian Doctrine, 3:16:24)

Elsewhere the Lord, in the Gospel according to John, brought this out by symbols, when He said: ‘Eat ye my flesh, and drink my blood,’ describing distinctly by metaphor the drinkable properties of faith and the promise, by means of which the Church, like a human being consisting of many members, is refreshed and grows, is welded together and compacted of both,–of faith, which is the body, and of hope, which is the soul; as also the Lord of flesh and blood. For in reality the blood of faith is hope, in which faith is held as by a vital principle."–(Clement of Alexandria, The Instructor, 1:6)

“Eat ye my flesh,” He says, “and drink my blood.” Such is the suitable food which the Lord ministers, and He offers His flesh and pours forth His blood, and nothing is wanting for the children’s growth. O amazing mystery. We are enjoined to cast off the old and carnal corruption, as also the old nutriment, receiving in exchange another new regimen, that of Christ, receiving Him if we can, to hide Him within; and that, enshrining the Savior in our souls, we may correct the affections of our flesh.”
(Clement of Alexandria, Paedagogus 1:6)

But you are not inclined to understand it thus, but perchance more generally. Hear it also in the following way. The flesh figuratively represents to us the Holy Spirit; for the flesh was created by Him. The blood points out to us the Word, for as rich blood the Word has been infused into life; and the union of both is the Lord, the food of the babes–the Lord who is Spirit and Word. The food- that is, the Lord Jesus–that is, the Word of God, the Spirit made flesh, the heavenly flesh sanctified… (Clement of Alexandria, Paedagogus)

“Thus in many ways the Word is figuratively described, as meat, and flesh, and food, and bread, and blood, and milk. The Lord is all these, to give enjoyment to us who have believed on Him. Let no one then think it strange, when we say that the Lord’s blood is figuratively represented as milk. For is it not figuratively represented as wine? “Who washes,” it is said, “His garment in wine, His robe in the blood of the grape.” In His Own Spirit He says He will deck the body of the Word; as certainly by His own Spirit He will nourish those who hunger for the Word.” (ibid) (Clement of Alexandria)

“Now, if ‘everything that entereth into the mouth goes into the belly and is cast out into the drought,’ even the meat which has been sanctified through the word of God and prayer, in accordance with the fact that it is material, goes into the belly and is cast out into the draught, but in respect of the prayer which comes upon it, according to the proportion of the faith, becomes a benefit and is a means of clear vision to the mind which looks to that which is beneficial, and it is not the material of the bread but the word which is said over it which is of advantage to him who eats it not unworthily of the Lord. And these things indeed are said of the typical and symbolical body. But many things might be said about the Word Himself who became flesh, and true meat of which he that eateth shall assuredly live for ever, no worthless person being able to eat it; for if it were possible for one who continues worthless to eat of Him who became flesh, who was the Word and the living bread, it would not have been written, that ‘every one who eats of this bread shall live for ever.’” (Origen, On Matthew, 11:14)

“But what need is there to speak of bodies not allotted to be the food of any animal, and destined only for a burial in the earth in honour of nature, since the Maker of the world has not alloted any animal whatsoever as food to those of the same kind, although some others of a different kind serve for food according to nature? If, indeed, they are able to show that the flesh of men was alloted to men for food, there will be nothing to hinder its being according to nature that they should eat one another, just like anything else that is allowed by nature, and nothing to prohibit those who dare to say such things from regaling themselves with the bodies of their dearest friends as delicacies, as being especially suited to them, and to entertain their living friends with the same fare. But if it be unlawful even to speak of this, and if for men to partake of the flesh of men is a thing most hateful and abominable, and more detestable than any other unlawful and unnatural food or act; and if what is against nature can never pass into nourishment for the limbs and parts requiring it, and what does not pass into nourishment can never become united with that which it is not adapted to nourish,–then can the bodies of men never combine with bodies like themselves, to which this nourishment would be against nature, even though it were to pass many times through their stomach, owing to some most bitter mischance” (Athenagoras, On the Resurrection of the Dead, 8)

 

[Cybophonia]

“‘He that eateth me,’ He says, ‘he also shall live because of me;’ for we eat His flesh, and drink His blood, being made through His incarnation and His visible life partakers of His Word and of His Wisdom. For all His mystic sojourn among us He called flesh and blood, and set forth the teaching consisting of practical science, of physics, and of theology, whereby our soul is nourished and is meanwhile trained for the contemplation of actual realities. This is perhaps the intended meaning of what He says.” - Basil (Letter 8:4)

“He says, it is true, that ‘the flesh profiteth nothing;’ but then, as in the former case, the meaning must be regulated by the subject which is spoken of. Now, because they thought His discourse was harsh and intolerable, supposing that He had really and literally enjoined on them to eat his flesh, He, with the view of ordering the state of salvation as a spiritual thing, set out with the principle, ‘It is the spirit that quickeneth;’ and then added, ‘The flesh profiteth nothing,’–meaning, of course, to the giving of life. He also goes on to explain what He would have us to understand by spirit: ‘The words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life.’ In a like sense He had previously said: ‘He that heareth my words, and believeth on Him that sent me, hath everlasting life, and shall not come into condemnation, but shall pass from death unto life.’ Constituting, therefore, His word as the life-giving principle, because that word is spirit and life, He likewise called His flesh by the same appelation; because, too, the Word had become flesh, 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. Now, just before the passage in hand, He had declared His flesh to be ‘the bread which cometh down from heaven,’ impressing on His hearers constantly under the figure of necessary food the memory of their forefathers, who had preferred the bread and flesh of Egypt to their divine calling.” - Tertullian (On the Ressurection of the Flesh, 37)

 

[PRmerger]

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, ye 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."–(Augustine, On Christian Doctrine, 3:16:24)

Elsewhere the Lord, in the Gospel according to John, brought this out by symbols, when He said: ‘Eat ye my flesh, and drink my blood,’ describing distinctly by metaphor the drinkable properties of faith and the promise, by means of which the Church, like a human being consisting of many members, is refreshed and grows, is welded together and compacted of both,–of faith, which is the body, and of hope, which is the soul; as also the Lord of flesh and blood. For in reality the blood of faith is hope, in which faith is held as by a vital principle."–(Clement of Alexandria, The Instructor, 1:6)

“Eat ye my flesh,” He says, “and drink my blood.” Such is the suitable food which the Lord ministers, and He offers His flesh and pours forth His blood, and nothing is wanting for the children’s growth. O amazing mystery. We are enjoined to cast off the old and carnal corruption, as also the old nutriment, receiving in exchange another new regimen, that of Christ, receiving Him if we can, to hide Him within; and that, enshrining the Savior in our souls, we may correct the affections of our flesh.”
(Clement of Alexandria, Paedagogus 1:6)

But you are not inclined to understand it thus, but perchance more generally. Hear it also in the following way. The flesh figuratively represents to us the Holy Spirit; for the flesh was created by Him. The blood points out to us the Word, for as rich blood the Word has been infused into life; and the union of both is the Lord, the food of the babes–the Lord who is Spirit and Word. The food- that is, the Lord Jesus–that is, the Word of God, the Spirit made flesh, the heavenly flesh sanctified… (Clement of Alexandria, Paedagogus)

“Thus in many ways the Word is figuratively described, as meat, and flesh, and food, and bread, and blood, and milk. The Lord is all these, to give enjoyment to us who have believed on Him. Let no one then think it strange, when we say that the Lord’s blood is figuratively represented as milk. For is it not figuratively represented as wine? “Who washes,” it is said, “His garment in wine, His robe in the blood of the grape.” In His Own Spirit He says He will deck the body of the Word; as certainly by His own Spirit He will nourish those who hunger for the Word.” (ibid) (Clement of Alexandria)

“Now, if ‘everything that entereth into the mouth goes into the belly and is cast out into the drought,’ even the meat which has been sanctified through the word of God and prayer, in accordance with the fact that it is material, goes into the belly and is cast out into the draught, but in respect of the prayer which comes upon it, according to the proportion of the faith, becomes a benefit and is a means of clear vision to the mind which looks to that which is beneficial, and it is not the material of the bread but the word which is said over it which is of advantage to him who eats it not unworthily of the Lord. And these things indeed are said of the typical and symbolical body. But many things might be said about the Word Himself who became flesh, and true meat of which he that eateth shall assuredly live for ever, no worthless person being able to eat it; for if it were possible for one who continues worthless to eat of Him who became flesh, who was the Word and the living bread, it would not have been written, that ‘every one who eats of this bread shall live for ever.’” (Origen, On Matthew, 11:14)

“But what need is there to speak of bodies not allotted to be the food of any animal, and destined only for a burial in the earth in honour of nature, since the Maker of the world has not alloted any animal whatsoever as food to those of the same kind, although some others of a different kind serve for food according to nature? If, indeed, they are able to show that the flesh of men was alloted to men for food, there will be nothing to hinder its being according to nature that they should eat one another, just like anything else that is allowed by nature, and nothing to prohibit those who dare to say such things from regaling themselves with the bodies of their dearest friends as delicacies, as being especially suited to them, and to entertain their living friends with the same fare. But if it be unlawful even to speak of this, and if for men to partake of the flesh of men is a thing most hateful and abominable, and more detestable than any other unlawful and unnatural food or act; and if what is against nature can never pass into nourishment for the limbs and parts requiring it, and what does not pass into nourishment can never become united with that which it is not adapted to nourish,–then can the bodies of men never combine with bodies like themselves, to which this nourishment would be against nature, even though it were to pass many times through their stomach, owing to some most bitter mischance” (Athenagoras, On the Resurrection of the Dead, 8)

 

[Cybophonia]

Cyprian
Cyprian apparently didn’t believe in transubstantiation. When arguing against those who wanted to use water alone rather than water mixed with wine in communion, Cyprian responds by referring to how water mixed with wine more accurately represents the blood of Christ. He says that the blood of Christ is made to appear to be in the cup by wine being in the cup. He goes on to describe the drinking of wine by Noah and other Old Testament figures as similar to Christian communion, thus suggesting that Cyprian saw the wine as remaining wine even when Christians drink it. Notice that he repeatedly refers to wine and blood together. He refers to the water in the communion cup as signifying the people of the world, citing Revelation 17:15. He obviously didn’t think that the water was transubstantiated into people. Whatever view of the eucharist Cyprian held, and we aren’t sure what it was, it wasn’t transubstantiation:
“For when Christ says, ‘I am the true vine.’ the blood of Christ is assuredly not water, but wine; neither can His blood by which we are redeemed and quickened appear to be in the cup, when in the cup there is no wine whereby the blood of Christ is shown forth, which is declared by the sacrament and testimony of all the Scriptures. For we find in Genesis also, in respect of the sacrament in Noe, this same thing was to them a precursor and figure of the Lord’s passion; that he drank wine; that he was drunken; that he was made naked in his household; that he was lying down with his thighs naked and exposed; that the nakedness of the father was observed by his second son, and was told abroad, but was covered by two, the eldest and the youngest; and other matters which it is not necessary to follow out, since this is enough for us to embrace alone, that Noe, setting forth a type of the future truth, did not drink water, but wine, and thus expressed the figure of the passion of the Lord…For who is more a priest of the most high God than our Lord Jesus Christ, who offered a sacrifice to God the Father, and offered that very same thing which Melchizedek had offered, that is, bread and wine, to wit, His body and blood?..
Moreover the Holy Spirit by Solomon shows before the type of the Lord’s sacrifice, making mention of the immolated victim, and of the bread and wine, and, moreover, of the altar and of the apostles, and says, ‘Wisdom hath builded her house, she hath underlaid her seven pillars; she hath killed her victims; she hath mingled her wine in the chalice; she hath also furnished her table: and she hath sent forth her servants, calling together with a lofty announcement to her cup, saying, Whoso is simple, let him turn to me; and to those that want understanding she hath said, Come, eat of my bread, and drink of the wine which I have mingled for you.’ He declares the wine mingled, that is, he foretells with prophetic voice the cup of the Lord mingled with water and wine, that it may appear that that was done in our Lord’s passion which had been before predicted…
To which things divine Scripture adds, and says, ‘He shall wash His garment in wine, and His clothing in the blood of the grape.’ But when the blood of the grape is mentioned, what else is set forth than the wine of the cup of the blood of the Lord?..The treading also, and pressure of the wine-press, is repeatedly dwelt on; because just as the drinking of wine cannot be attained to unless the bunch of grapes be first trodden and pressed, so neither could we drink the blood of Christ unless Christ had first been trampled upon and pressed, and had first drunk the cup of which He should also give believers to drink…
In which portion we find that the cup which the Lord offered was mixed, and that that was wine which He called His blood. Whence it appears that the blood of Christ is not offered if there be no wine in the cup…the divine Scripture in the Apocalypse declares that the waters signify the people, saying, ‘The waters which thou sawest, upon which the whore sitteth, are peoples and multitudes, and nations of the Gentiles, and tongues,’ which we evidently see to be contained also in the sacrament of the cup. For because Christ bore us all, in that He also bore our sins, we see that in the water is understood the people, but in the wine is showed the blood of Christ. But when the water is mingled in the cup with wine, the people is made one with Christ, and the assembly of believers is associated and conjoined with Him on whom it believes; which association and conjunction of water and wine is so mingled in the Lord’s cup, that that mixture cannot any more be separated…But the discipline of all religion and truth is overturned, unless what is spiritually prescribed be faithfully observed; unless indeed any one should fear in the morning sacrifices, lest by the taste of wine he should be redolent of the blood of Christ.” (Letter 62:2-7, 62:9, 62:12-13, 62:15)

This quote from St. Cyprian seems to support what SalusaSecondus said, namely that Christ was not speaking literally and mostly that Christ could not have spoken of the Eucharist as the Eucharist was enacted only later.

 

[PRmerger]

This quote from St. Cyprian seems to support what SalusaSecondus said, namely that Christ was not speaking literally and mostly that Christ could not have spoken of the Eucharist as the Eucharist was enacted only later.

Salusa’s claim was that the early church fathers professed that John 6 was about faith and NOT about the Eucharist.

There have been no ECF quotes which state that. At all.

Incidentally, are you permitted to be a member of the Orthodox Church and not believe in the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist?

 

[Cybophonia]

Salusa’s claim was that the early church fathers professed that John 6 was about faith and NOT about the Eucharist.

There have been no ECF quotes which state that. At all.

I just posted a few of them. So you are wrong.

Incidentally, are you permitted to be a member of the Orthodox Church and not believe in the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist?

Technically no, but as long as I keep giving my money to the Church all is good. I can believe and do whatever, and some priests will bless and consecrate mostly everything, if needed.

Let’s be honest, the majority of the masses don’t even know what their religion really teaches, or really believe deep down all that they say.

Personally, I am just being truthful… I am an agnostic fella.

The State Christian Church did a lot of crimes if you ask me, both West and East. The hands of the Church are not clean.

 

[PRmerger]

I just posted a few of them. So you are wrong.

Absolutely NOT.

All the ECFs, unanimously, affirmed the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist.

Not a single quote has supported the view that John 6 is about faith and NOT about the Eucharist.

 

[PRmerger]

Technically no, but as long as I keep giving my money to the Church all is good.

I hope you do continue to keep giving money to the Church. The Church in Romania can certainly use it.

I can believe and do whatever, and some priests will bless and consecrate mostly everything, if needed.

Let’s be honest, the majority of the masses don’t even know what their religion really teaches, or really believe deep down all that they say.

You are absolutely correct.

The State Christian Church did a lot of crimes if you ask me, both West and East. The hands of the Church are not clean.

And you are correct here also.