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

[Wesrock]

The context must be emphasized; the ones that left were mad because Jesus had previously fed them physical food. This time, knowing that is what they were following Him for, Jesus told them they didn’t get physical food by following Him, and no, He was not going to physically feed them like their ancestors in the wilderness. The disciples who stayed were not interested in physical food, but in Jesus and His words of eternal life. Even if they stayed with Jesus and starved to death it would be no big deal, as eternal life awaited.

The disciples questioned how Jesus could literally give them his flesh to eat. I also find it hard to believe that this “hard saying” which they found difficult to even listen to was merely grumbling over a lack of free physical food. These were throngs of people following him because of his teachings and miraculous healings. Sure, he multiplicated the loaves the previous day, but that’s not what got these people following him, and it seems ridiculous that a lack of free food would drive them away. Jesus was telling them something they couldn’t stomach (haha pun), it was a teaching that they couldn’t make sense of and sounded ridiculous/horrible to their ears. Jesus went from profound rabbi to a quack to many of them.

 

[Telstar]

Maybe it is His Spirit that quickens our spirit. Do not think His flesh quickens my flesh or spirit. Yes He incarnated and died as flesh and spirit but the spirit quickeneth the whole matter of understanding.

The whole point is that our human flesh doesn’t gain anything from the Holy Eucharist because it isn’t meant to. It’s not supposed to feed our flesh, but it does feed our soul. His Body and Blood, Soul and Divinity are mystically fused with our own soul. This is how we truly become one with Him, both physically and spiritually. This prepares our soul for attaining eternal life with Him, and gives us the spiritual strength to follow Him all the way to the end.

As far as what they did not believe, there is no evidence that they did not believe the eating . They did not believe He was the Messiah and His mission. They believed in a Messiah of their own misunderstanding. They did not know Jesus.“Depart from me I, never knew you”. They departed.

How can you say there is no evidence that they left because they didn’t believe what He said about eating His flesh? Why would they say, “[53] The Jews therefore strove among themselves, saying: How can this man give us his flesh to eat?”
They were astounded by what He said! They didn’t understand Him, and thought He was crazy! So, He continued, “[54] Then Jesus said to them: Amen, amen I say unto you: Except you eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, you shall not have life in you. [55] He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath everlasting life: and I will raise him up in the last day.”
Then, they were convinced that He was crazy! That’s why they left, “[61] Many therefore of his disciples, hearing it, said: This saying is hard, and who can hear it?”
These were people that had followed Him for a while and had witnessed His miracles, and listened to Him preach. They weren’t only the people that were following Him for free food. The Gospel clearly says they were “disciples”. When the Gospels refer to the regular crowds that gathered to listen to Him, they just refer to them as “the people”. But, His disciples were those that were already Baptized because they liked what He said and did. But, they were like the seed that landed by the wayside that Jesus spoke of in the parable, “Matthew 13:[18] Hear you therefore the parable of the sower. [19] When any one heareth the word of the kingdom, and understandeth it not, there cometh the wicked one, and catcheth away that which was sown in his heart: this is he that received the seed by the way side.”
Their lack of understanding caused them to lose the faith that they once had. But Peter and the Apostles had a much stronger faith, so even though they didn’t really understand all that Jesus said, they still believed that it was the truth.

Jesus was certainly not saying that we should symbolically “eat His words” by hearing the Gospel, as some have suggested. We should certainly listen to the Gospels, but I wouldn’t refer to that as “eating His words”. To me, that phrase has a very negative connotation to it. That’s why I, personally, wouldn’t use it. And, this discourse was much more specific. He repeated His point many times, and emphasized the fact that He was talking about His followers actually eating His Flesh and drinking His Blood, but He also said that it would be in the form of “the bread that I will give”. This is exactly what happened at the Last Supper when He said, “this is my body”, so it all makes perfect sense.

 

[JMM1957]

Many therefore of his disciples, hearing it, said: This saying is hard, and who can hear it?"
These were people that had followed Him for a while and had witnessed His miracles, and listened to Him preach. They weren’t only the people that were following Him for free food. The Gospel clearly says they were “disciples”. When the Gospels refer to the regular crowds that gathered to listen to Him, they just refer to them as “the people”.

Yes, these that left him were disciples of Jesus, not the “people” looking for food to eat at the beginning, at John 6:22. This reinforces the fact that Jesus was not speaking symbolically, but literally about eating his flesh and drinking his blood.

 

[MartinJordan]

Yes, these that left him were disciples of Jesus, not the “people” looking for food to eat at the beginning, at John 6:22. This reinforces the fact that Jesus was not speaking symbolically, but literally about eating his flesh and drinking his blood.

Does it not also point that Jesus’ disciples were also cocerned that the Jews (others who were there) couldn’t accept the teaching thus his disciples were feeling embarrassed how the world thinks more than Jesus’ words? It still happens today. People find the Church teachings not in line with the world.

Scary to think Jesus said that if one is ashamed of Christ , the Father will be ashamed of them!

MJ

 

[JMM1957]

Does it not also point that Jesus’ disciples were also cocerned that the Jews (others who were there) couldn’t accept the teaching thus his disciples were feeling embarrassed how the world thinks more than Jesus’ words? It still happens today. People find the Church teachings not in line with the world.

Scary to think Jesus said that if one is ashamed of Christ , the Father will be ashamed of them!

MJ

Not sure I follow you, do you think those disciples left because they were embarrassed? Jesus words are very clear to me if you take them in the context of the rest of Scripture.

As for the Church teachings being out of line with the world (non-Catholics) on certain issues like faith and morals, so be it. We have to live in this world, but we don’t always have to be a part of it if you know what I mean.

 

[Wesrock]

Not sure I follow you, do you think those disciples left because they were embarrassed? Jesus words are very clear to me if you take them in the context of the rest of Scripture.

As for the Church teachings being out of line with the world (non-Catholics) on certain issues like faith and morals, so be it. We have to live in this world, but we don’t always have to be a part of it if you know what I mean.

Ancient Jews weren’t allowed to eat like the Gentiles, dress like the Gentiles, or even cut their hair like the Gentiles. They were called to be set apart for God. So it is with Christians today. We are less concerned with external differences, however, than with internal differences. To be Christian is to be Annointed, set apart and sealed for God.

 

[simspt]

Non transubstantiationalists are not in the same boat as the departing disciples. In hindsight and quickening , we do follow Jesus . We do believe He is the Messiah, that He is the sacrificial Lamb, and He died for our sins, and rose again, and Ascended. We believe in His eminent return as King. We do not follow Him for bread, or to remove an oppressive government, or for His miracles and superstar status teacher/prophet.

Actually the CC has more in common with them that departed for they were literalists also. The apostles may have taken it figuratively, or at least did not understand yet other than to continue following Life. Just because you did not depart does not mean you have it right with literal eating, for the unbelievers had similar understanding.

We both have not departed. We both do not find the eating a hard saying. We both at least eat His Words of life. We both even Eucharist, though with differing understanding.

Blessings

Actually Christians that deny the realism of the eucharist are at odds with orthodox Christian teaching for well over a thousand years. Non-realism interpretations are at odds with the same Church that canonized the NT. Why do you trust this Church at all if they got it wrong on such a central teaching? Why not accept some other NT canon? gnostics or marcion etc? why do you personally put your faith in this Church’s decisions re those 27 texts if they built their whole worship and liturgy around the real vs exclusively symbolic eucharist. Either one has departed and the other hasn’t or both have. Logic precludes doctrinal contradiction. Can you imagine the Arian debates where one claims ‘we both have not departed,’ we both believe in Jesus through different understandings. There was a time when He wasn’t vs of the same substance and purely symbolic vs real. Minimizing these theological differences obfuscates the mission of the Church as a sacrament of salvation that Christ has founded and promised to be guided by the Paraclete.

 

[KathleenGee]

I experience the Lord in the Eucharist…physically, spiritually, and the divinity of His saving action in my soul…the Eucharist, depending on your call in life does feed and nourish our entire being.

 

[MartinJordan]

Not sure I follow you, do you think those disciples left because they were embarrassed?

Yes, I believe that. Embarrassed in the sense that the since people were murmuring and if Jesus’ father was a carpenter (earning a living), then how can this man (Jesus) come from Heaven? Jesus’ disciples thought they followed a hard working, confident, young man who doesn’t back down from authority and spoke with authority. But since he continued going deeper and deeper into his discourse, they realized he was very serious about his flesh and blood being life giving. So they found it too hard to follow him anymore and rather have less trouble from others and perhaps didn’t want to be ridiculed.

Jesus words are very clear to me if you take them in the context of the rest of Scripture.

Can you elaborate? Because you are preaching to the choir. Not sure where if Ive taken anything out of context.

As for the Church teachings being out of line with the world (non-Catholics) on certain issues like faith and morals, so be it. We have to live in this world, but we don’t always have to be a part of it if you know what I mean.

MJ

 

[JMM1957]

Yes, I believe that. Embarrassed in the sense that the since people were murmuring and if Jesus’ father was a carpenter (earning a living), then how can this man (Jesus) come from Heaven? Jesus’ disciples thought they followed a hard working, confident, young man who doesn’t back down from authority and spoke with authority. But since he continued going deeper and deeper into his discourse, they realized he was very serious about his flesh and blood being life giving. So they found it too hard to follow him anymore and rather have less trouble from others and perhaps didn’t want to be ridiculed.

Can you elaborate? Because you are preaching to the choir. Not sure where if Ive taken anything out of context.

We don’t know for absolute certainty all the different thoughts that were going through the minds of those who stayed with Jesus, and especially those that eventually left him. Its a possiblility that some of those thoughts that you suggested did go through their minds, but these same disciples also witnessed miraculous events too at the hands of Jesus, which should have built up their faith in him at the same time. I still stick with my original belief, based on the context, that they left him primarily because of the literal “eating of flesh and blood” that Jesus was speaking of.

 

[JMM1957]

Yes, I believe that. Embarrassed in the sense that the since people were murmuring and if Jesus’ father was a carpenter (earning a living), then how can this man (Jesus) come from Heaven? Jesus’ disciples thought they followed a hard working, confident, young man who doesn’t back down from authority and spoke with authority. But since he continued going deeper and deeper into his discourse, they realized he was very serious about his flesh and blood being life giving. So they found it too hard to follow him anymore and rather have less trouble from others and perhaps didn’t want to be ridiculed.

Can you elaborate? Because you are preaching to the choir. Not sure where if Ive taken anything out of context.



MJ

We don’t know for absolute certainty all the different thoughts that were going through the minds of those who stayed with Jesus, and especially those that eventually left him. Its a possiblility that some of those thoughts that you suggested did go through their minds, but these same disciples also witnessed miraculous events too at the hands of Jesus, which should have built up their faith in him at the same time. I still stick with my original belief, based on the context, that they left him primarily because of the literal “eating of flesh and blood” that Jesus was speaking of.

I didn’t mean to suggest you personally were taking anything out of context, but that in general we should always try to get to the ultimate meaning of a verse in Scripture (such as “eat my flesh and drink my blood”) by using all of Scripture, the whole context of it, to prove it one way or the other.

 

[rcwitness]

The context must be emphasized; the ones that left were mad because Jesus had previously fed them physical food. This time, knowing that is what they were following Him for, Jesus told them they didn’t get physical food by following Him, and no, He was not going to physically feed them like their ancestors in the wilderness. The disciples who stayed were not interested in physical food, but in Jesus and His words of eternal life. Even if they stayed with Jesus and starved to death it would be no big deal, as eternal life awaited.

I agree… Jesus was not suggesting He would fill our stomaches, and those who stayed with Peter were not interested in food for their bellies.

They stayed because they believed Jesus was who He said He was. They believed this because the Father revealed it to them, and NOT flesh and blood.

I don’t think they were ready to starve to death for Him, however. This is evident from His Apostles abandoning Him under the threat during His passion. Only Jesus (in the flesh) overcame the Devil, the world and the flesh. This is why the Spirit gave to Him all that the Spirit has, which is life to give to those who believe.

Remember Jesus told Peter that it was the Father who revealed that Jesus is the Christ, not Peter’s own flesh and blood (or human reason/ability). So Jesus says, “This is why I told you, no one can come to me unless it is granted him by the Father.”

Yet one who was not granted by the Father did come to Him and receive. Judas did, and so betrayed the Lord. NO, the Father did grant that he come to Jesus! And so was a means of ultimate suffering for the life of the world!

Jesus told them He was the Bread which came down from heaven. This is the Word of God. What does “come down” mean but become lowly flesh? So Jesus is asking us to believe He is the living Word of God.

I will continue later to make the connection with His Eucharist…

 

[eddie_too]

as we discuss this, keep in mind that non-Catholic Christians actually do participate in a symbolic celebration when they celebrate the Lord’s Supper. they do not have access to the Real Presence because the Real Presence comes to us only through the words of priests who receive their Holy Orders from a successor to the apostles.

since they do not have access to the Real Presence by their own decisions, it is very difficult for them to accept the doctrine.

non-Catholic Christians have no sound reason for rejecting the Real Presence; and, in fact, it was Luther and Calvin’s rejection of the Real Presence that started the protestant reformation. for the fifteen hundred years leading up to the protestant reformation, Christianity was united around the Real Presence.

neither luther nor calvin were successors to the apostles, so it is not surprising that as they revolted against the Lord’s Magisterium they lost access to the Real Presence of the Lord made present by the words of the ordained priest.

for nearly two thousand years now, the successors to the apostles have celebrated the Real Presence of Jesus in the consecrated bread and wine. deviating from the Magisterium’s teaching to follow a monk and assorted others rebelling against the magisterium fifteen hundred years removed the Lord’s time on earth does not seem wise or reasonable to me.

 

[JMM1957]

as we discuss this, keep in mind that non-Catholic Christians actually do participate in a symbolic celebration when they celebrate the Lord’s Supper. they do not have access to the Real Presence because the Real Presence comes to us only through the words of priests who receive their Holy Orders from a successor to the apostles.

since they do not have access to the Real Presence by their own decisions, it is very difficult for them to accept the doctrine.

non-Catholic Christians have no sound reason for rejecting the Real Presence; and, in fact, it was Luther and Calvin’s rejection of the Real Presence that started the protestant reformation. for the fifteen hundred years leading up to the protestant reformation, Christianity was united around the Real Presence.

neither luther nor calvin were successors to the apostles, so it is not surprising that as they revolted against the Lord’s Magisterium they lost access to the Real Presence of the Lord made present by the words of the ordained priest.

for nearly two thousand years now, the successors to the apostles have celebrated the Real Presence of Jesus in the consecrated bread and wine. deviating from the Magisterium’s teaching to follow a monk and assorted others rebelling against the magisterium fifteen hundred years removed the Lord’s time on earth does not seem wise or reasonable to me.

The Protestant Reformation threw out more than just the Real Presence, they did away with the authority of the Pope and Magisterium, they changed salvation to Sola fide, introduced Sola scriptura, did away with devotion to Mary and the saints, abandoned the priesthood and the Mass, and I could go on and on, but you get the idea.

 

[rcwitness]

The Protestant Reformation threw out more than just the Real Presence, they did away with the authority of the Pope and Magisterium, they changed salvation to Sola fide, introduced Sola scriptura, did away with devotion to Mary and the saints, abandoned the priesthood and the Mass, and I could go on and on, but you get the idea.

It was a result of our leaders abusing His Eucharist, or receiving unworthily, or being hypocrites.

And we will always have those kinda problems the less we strive against abuses and uncharitable behavior in our parishes.

 

[JMM1957]

It was a result of our leaders abusing His Eucharist, or receiving unworthily, or being hypocrites.

And we will always have those kinda problems the less we strive against abuses and uncharitable behavior in our parishes.

All I can say is, it must have been a terrible time in history to have been a devout Catholic. Even with all the abuses that were going on, especially in Church leadership, its still hard to figure how Luther and others saw fit to completely separate from the Church. I realize that the history books say Luther’s original intent was not to form a separate Church, but do we really know every thought that went through his mind, I think not. The fact that he was an ordained priest or monk tells me at some point in his life he believed in the Church as the true Church. But throwing out the baby with the bath water because you were primarily upset with the abuses associated with the selling of indulgences, somehow seems suspect to me. Anyway, I apologize for getting off topic a bit.

 

[benhur]

Do you have any evidence of a valid Christian Non-transubstantionalist community who broke bread together outside of communion with Rome? And before you say the Orthodox, we believe they do have a valid transubstantional Eucharist.

The term "valid’ certainly has changed, as is the term “transubstantiation” a sign of development. So I suppose evidence is a challenge on a moving target.

When you say, “we” do you mean all protestants? Because there is a lot of fundamental difference in that “we”.

Not much of difference in terms of remembrance, and Eucharisting for Calvary. But yes, a few variations on what happens to the elements/symbols.

I think you are right that you may have a saving communion in Jesus, as the Church calls “sanctification” through Baptism and belief. And you are able to remain in Him through Scriptural devotion and it’s fruitfull charity.

And without calling it the Church’s grace, I believe it’s Christ’s grace through the Church who was given His Sacrament. And this is because this Church, whom He gave His Sacrament to, was the vessel which delivered Baptism and the Scriptures to you.

OK. Thank you. Yes, credit to where credit and honor due, to our forefathers and our foundation, of which we also are living stones being placed upon them.

Blessings

 

[benhur]

I completely disagree with you ben, the evidence is clearly there in John 6:52, “How can this man give us his flesh to eat?” This is not about whether they thought he was the Messiah or not at this point, it is about the eating of his literal flesh and blood.

Hi JMM,

Sorry, my writing did not perhaps properly convey my meaning . I agree with you on the eating. It was the unbelievers who understood it literally as you do. That is all I was saying. That they walked away is another matter.

It still is definitely about faith in Christ as the Messiah, one who would save His people from their sins.

Blessings

 

[PRmerger]

I agree with you on the eating. It was the unbelievers who understood it literally as you do.

What you mean is, they were Believers, and then when Jesus said something that was a “hard saying”, they left. They were the ones who, like you, said “Jesus could not really be telling us to eat his body. And if he is, then we’re out of here!”

 

[benhur]

That may all be true, but you don’t fully believe everything that Jesus said in John 6, or what He further commanded us to do at the Last Supper. You only see it as mere symbolism, and not reality.

Hi T,

Thank you for the well and true.Yes we differ on just what reality is.

I certainly do understand that it’s what you’ve always been taught, so that’s what you believe.

There are those who believe what they have always been taught on both sides of the issue as well as some who have switched later on.

But, there is something that seems to be missed in that understanding, which is significant to the meaning of the Holy Eucharist. The Last Supper and Crucifixion are the fulfillment of the Jewish feast of Passover. That’s why that Holy time was chosen by God. At the Passover meal, the lamb that was sacrificed on the Temple altar for each family’s celebration, had to be completely consumed by them at the Passover meal. They could not throw anything away, because it was a holy sacrifice that was blessed for that purpose. If they could not eat it all by themselves, they would invite the poor, or their neighbors, or anyone else they could find to share it with them, until it was all gone.

Yes, they ate the elements, symbols of the ceremony/remembrance.

But, it’s not His earthly flesh and blood that we consume, but it’s His Glorified Flesh and Blood, which is completely different from normal human flesh.

Thank you. Flesh just the same as being touchable and needing food etc.

No, the unbelievers thought He meant they had to eat His human body and blood that they saw standing in front of them. That’s not what Jesus was talking about. He was referring to “the bread that I will give”, which He would mystically change into His Body at the Last Supper

Still a literal interpretation, and correct that there is no indication that anyone took it as future “communion”. That is why I feel the figurative was very applicable to apostles view at the time.

Do you really doubt that Jesus could actually do what He said He would do?

Not a question of doubt. More like a forefather said on a different matter, “Let us not suppose that because God can that He did”.

Catholics have never departed from following Jesus.

Yes, the true definition of a “Christian”.

Blessings