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

[rcwitness]

Well, generally whatever you do to the symbol you representatively do to the reality. So reject, as the Gnostics, or profane with unworthy participation etc…

This sounds like the veneration of images.

 

[benhur]

Then you believe Jesus meant what He said, but you think Jesus meant some form of spiritual ritual -

Hi M,

Well of course He meant what he said. The main thrust of what he said was to deal with those following improperly. As noted in John 2 :24, " He knew the hearts of men and did not commit to them and knew what was in them". (following for miracles, power, setting up Davidic kingdom, a bit like Satan’s temptation of ruler over all). In reality what was in man was unbelief in His real mission, spiritual salvation, propitiation, that was promised in Eden. They were “well”, and saw no need for the Physician side of the Messianic mission. Hence He “Simpsoned” them with partly veiled true future events, hyperbole style (eat,eat,eat), of the Messianic mission to believe in.

In ch 5 we already have an inkling for they sought to slay Him. The tool, the Word to separate true followers from false disciples was the truth of His death, Calvary, which we would come to commemorate in a rite similar to passover, He the Lamb, to eat.

So Jesus did not say or calmly explain future events, or explain the eating. But the eating represented the future in skewed, veiled terms. No mention of Calvary or a cross. Jesus goes on to say, you are baffled by this eating (death of Me) , how much more would you be baffled if I told you about my Ascension !

“When Jesus knew in himself that his disciples murmured at it, he said unto them, Doth this offend you?What and if ye shall see the Son of man ascend up where he was before?”

So can you imagine you are following for food, or for kingdom setup and then Jesus says He must die, and leave? Even Peter fell into that trap in another discourse saying Jesus would not die, with the Lord’s famous reply to Peter, “Get behind me Satan”.

So it worked.The unbelieving disciples, (from the beginning, before the discourse), departed. Only the true ones remained up to the crucifixion, and all saw the Ascension.

The discourse is in the eyes of the beholder.Some see trans, others consubstantiation ,others symbolic/spiritual in the eating. All agree the main thrust it to believe His words, His mission. That we at least ( some say at most) must eat by faith, as Peter confessed at end of discourse.

To me it seems strange that Jesus was sharing deep truths of a future communion that is a literal understanding of it, when they did not believe in even a symbolic view of it.They did not believe period. They weren’t even at first base. The eat was figurative but very representative of the deepest reality (faith and life in Christ on a cross).

Blessings

 

[JMM1957]

Do we not answer to the reality of His shed blood thru remembrance in thanksgiving ? Are the elements of remembrance more important than the reality ?

The reality for us is that it is the true flesh and blood of Jesus, we don’t see the elements (bread and wine) as being present as such after the consecration, we only see Jesus, body, soul, and divinity.

 

[benhur]

This sounds like the veneration of images.

You must be very aware that some say that about CC worshipping consecrated elements as being the Lord.

But I see what you mean. You worship what you believe is the Lord. If we say they are symbols only, then yes we must be careful not to worship those. Maybe venerate, though it is a softer word and maybe proper, as in respect or honor but in context of the communion ritual and what it represents. (ala Passover -reverence of that occasion and their elements).

Blessings

 

[JMM1957]

Hi M,

Well of course He meant what he said. The main thrust of what he said was to deal with those following improperly. As noted in John 2 :24, " He knew the hearts of men and did not commit to them and knew what was in them". (following for miracles, power, setting up Davidic kingdom, a bit like Satan’s temptation of ruler over all). In reality what was in man was unbelief in His real mission, spiritual salvation, propitiation, that was promised in Eden. They were “well”, and saw no need for the Physician side of the Messianic mission. Hence He “Simpsoned” them with partly veiled true future events, hyperbole style (eat,eat,eat), of the Messianic mission to believe in.

In ch 5 we already have an inkling for they sought to slay Him. The tool, the Word to separate true followers from false disciples was the truth of His death, Calvary, which we would come to commemorate in a rite similar to passover, He the Lamb, to eat.

So Jesus did not say or calmly explain future events, or explain the eating. But the eating represented the future in skewed, veiled terms. No mention of Calvary or a cross. Jesus goes on to say, you are baffled by this eating (death of Me) , how much more would you be baffled if I told you about my Ascension !

“When Jesus knew in himself that his disciples murmured at it, he said unto them, Doth this offend you?What and if ye shall see the Son of man ascend up where he was before?”

So can you imagine you are following for food, or for kingdom setup and then Jesus says He must die, and leave? Even Peter fell into that trap in another discourse saying Jesus would not die, with the Lord’s famous reply to Peter, “Get behind me Satan”.

So it worked.The unbelieving disciples, (from the beginning, before the discourse), departed. Only the true ones remained up to the crucifixion, and all saw the Ascension.

The discourse is in the eyes of the beholder.Some see trans, others consubstantiation ,others symbolic/spiritual in the eating. All agree the main thrust it to believe His words, His mission. That we at least ( some say at most) must eat by faith, as Peter confessed at end of discourse.

To me it seems strange that Jesus was sharing deep truths of a future communion that is a literal understanding of it, when they did not believe in even a symbolic view of it.They did not believe period. They weren’t even at first base. The eat was figurative but very representative of the deepest reality (faith and life in Christ on a cross).

Blessings

You forget, not all disciples left Jesus, did they? Obviously the ones who stayed didn’t fully comprehend what his words were leading up to (the Eucharist) at that time, but what did they say? “Master, to whom shall we go, you have the words of eternal life.” They had faith.

 

[rcwitness]

You must be very aware that some say that about CC worshipping consecrated elements as being the Lord.

But I see what you mean. You worship what you believe is the Lord. If we say they are symbols only ,then yes we must be careful not to worship those maybe venerate, thought it is a softer word and maybe proper as in respect or honor but in context of ritual (ala Passover).

So the symbolic meaning of “eat” cannot mean worship then?

 

[benhur]

You forget, not all disciples left Jesus, did they? Obviously the ones who stayed didn’t fully comprehend what his words were leading up to (the Eucharist) at that time, but what did they say? “Master, to whom shall we go, you have the words of eternal life.” They had faith.

Right, as Augustine states, Peter ate with faith in the Lord and His words/mission at end of discourse. (of course Augustine says many other things on communion).

Thank you but did not forget for I posted:

“Only the true ones remained up to the crucifixion, and all saw the Ascension.
That we at least ( some say at most) must eat by* faith, as Peter confessed at end of discourse.”*

Blessings

 

[benhur]

So the symbolic meaning of “eat” cannot mean worship then?

Of course all worship the Lord, even in the rite /sacrament.Just that some carry it to the consecrated elements and others do not. But the Lord is definitely worshipped I would say in booth forms of communion/thanksgiving.

Blessings

 

[benhur]

The reality for us is that it is the true flesh and blood of Jesus, we don’t see the elements (bread and wine) as being present as such after the consecration, we only see Jesus, body, soul, and divinity.

Yes but in the form of bread and wine. I mean you do not deny it still is bread and wine to the senses , but add a spiritual reality of the full Christ. Even Jesus calls the cup "wine"after consecration at the last Supper

“But I say to you, I will not drink of this fruit of the vine from now on until that day when I drink it new with you in My Father’s kingdom.”
Matt26:29

Blessings

 

[rcwitness]

Yes but in the form of bread and wine. I mean you do not deny it still is bread and wine to the senses , but add a spiritual reality of the full Christ. Even Jesus calls the cup "wine"after consecration at the last Supper

“But I say to you, I will not drink of this fruit of the vine from now on until that day when I drink it new with you in My Father’s kingdom.”
Matt26:29

Blessings

That’s not exactly calling it “wine”

He is the fruit of the vine.

 

[benhur]

This reference is not at all applicable.

You were killed not for profaning a symbol but for being a Christian, ben.

Hi PR, the reference is applicable not the profaning but to the statement that :"* A symbol is not personal,* it doesn’t bring us into direct contact with the actual physical flesh and blood of Jesus," Post #325

The ickthys was personal and represented the reality of being a Christian, which if deciphered, could get you killed. Right, the ickthys did not get you killed but the reality it represented, being a Christian.

Blessings

 

[PRmerger]

Hi PR, the reference is applicable not the profaning but to the statement that :"* A symbol is not personal,* it doesn’t bring us into direct contact with the actual physical flesh and blood of Jesus," Post #325

The ickthys was personal and represented the reality of being a Christian, which if deciphered, could get you killed. Right, the ickthys did not get you killed but the reality it represented, being a Christian.

Blessings

No, ben. The ichthus, as a symbol, in NO WAY, SHAPE or FORM brought you into direct contact with what it represented.

That, my friend, is idolatry.

 

[eddie_too]

why do some believe Jesus, even though He could have given us His Body and Blood as our spiritual food and given His flock the daily opportunity to unite with Him completely, decided to only create a symbolic celebration?

I have been reading this thread hoping to receive an understanding why some believe Jesus chose a lesser gift to give us even though He could have given us the ultimate gift.

I know some believe that, but I do not know of any reason I should believe along with them that my Lord and Savior gave me a second rate (second rate compared to His Real Presence) gift. to me, such a belief just does not jive well with Perfect Love.

 

[benhur]

Why are they not offerings? The community brings bread and wine to the altar,

Yes, but the early church ate them. God did not eat them. What God receives (our offering, from us), what He takes is the sacrifice of praise and thanskgiving, and He does “inhabit the praises of His people”.

It is an offering (monetary gifts) given to His Church, which is His Bride, to sustain the activities of the Church. It is specifically offered in the Eucharistic liturgy and placed next to the altar.

Do you mean part of Mass somewhere, or part of consecratory prayer ?

Could you give chapter and verse for this interpretation of yours? Where does it say that afflictions are only for His afflictions before the crucifixion, and not part of the His whole Passion?

Yes, that is* not* what I meant and I apologize. Of course the Cross is part of His ministerial “afflictions”, as we may suffer afflictions in our stand for Truth . So when we pick up our Cross, it is not because the propitiation of Calvary’s Cross is lacking, but we add to His ministerial sufferings. (“Saul, why persecutest thou me ?”) Our sufferings are not atoning though. Thanks for asking clarification.

Blessings

PS inserted “monetary gifts” for clarification of any other readers

 

[benhur]

why do some believe Jesus, even though He could have given us His Body and Blood as our spiritual food and given His flock the daily opportunity to unite with Him completely, decided to only create a symbolic celebration?

I have been reading this thread hoping to receive an understanding why some believe Jesus chose a lesser gift to give us even though He could have given us the ultimate gift.

I know some believe that, but I do not know of any reason I should believe along with them that my Lord and Savior gave me a second rate (second rate compared to His Real Presence) gift. to me, such a belief just does not jive well with Perfect Love.

Hi et,

Thank you for sharing and understand you seeing symbolic, spiritual view as *less or second rate, not full. *May you kindly receive then our opinion that we do not see it as such. Many are actually repulsed by the thought of not just eating human flesh or drinking human blood but that of our Lord’s. That is our spiritual communion is full and first rate already as all things with Christ are (baptism, prayer, scripture reading, worship). It is all to be done in Truth and Spirit. Like it is a mystical experience with the risen Saviour, spiritually. It is like being in a conversation with Him spiritually and then would I want to take a bite of Him or drink His blood ? What would be the point when His presence spiritually suffices for healing of my entire being, including my body (even in the context of the remembrance communion)?

Please do not take offense as I did not with your view, and treated it as your “holy ground” of experience and faith.

Blessings

 

[concretecamper]

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?

Sort of confirms EENS…doesn’t it. The CCC to this day upholds this teaching. The best the CCC can say about our protestant brothers and sisters is that they “may” be saved…and it must be thru invisible ignorance…which if you think about it is a mighty tough standard to meet.

 

[benhur]

So the symbolic meaning of “eat” cannot mean worship then?

No it is worship. Thanksgiving and praise is worship. Not sure if "remembrance’’ is worship , like was/is the Passover ceremony "worship’’, not sure. Yes we worship because we believe but though He be pleased and gets the glory is believing “worship” ?

 

[benhur]

That’s not exactly calling it “wine”

He is the fruit of the vine.

He is also the Door, the gate, the Good Shepherd, the Rock, etc.

I see what you mean but it is still calling the cup wine and certainly not in bloody terms.

Blessings

 

[benhur]

No, ben. The ichthus, as a symbol, in NO WAY, SHAPE or FORM brought you into direct contact with what it represented.

That, my friend, is idolatry.

The ickthys does not bring into contact with Christ because it does not symbloize Christ. It symbolizes “Christian”, a follower of Christ. The symbol presents the reality. There is a connection, a point of contact, between the fish symbol and the Christian.

There is no idolatry in posting a fish symbol, or posting “Christian”, or “person of the Way” etc…

Blessings

 

[benhur]

Do you remember when Jesus said, “Matthew 6: [19] Lay not up to yourselves treasures on earth: where the rust, and moth consume, and where thieves break through and steal. [20] But lay up to yourselves treasures in heaven: where neither the rust nor moth doth consume, and where thieves do not break through, nor steal.” What do you suppose Jesus meant by this? Is there really some kind of treasury (bank) in Heaven? If there is, then how can we make any kind of ‘deposit’ into that treasury? And, if we can make a deposit, can we also make a withdrawal from it?

I think it in terms of, " Behold I come quickly and my reward is with me, to give to every man according to his work" at end of Rev. We will receive rewards in heaven. Do not think it grace to be applied when needed as an "account’’. We have an account, our good works in Christ yes, which will be judged and rewarded or burned accordingly at the judgement seat of Christ, where He judges all believers.

Blessings