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

[benhur]

Paul says we are answerable for the Body and Blood of Our Lord. That’s not venial sin. Crucifying God Himself is not a venial matter. Being judged as guilty of profaning the Body and Blood of Jesus is an infinite sin that demands hell.

Your parsing the language to avoid the clear truth.

zz’

We are answerable to the Lord himself for every last jot and tittle that we do, do not do, feel, think and are.

Profaning is not in the text. “Unworthy” is, and of course we are all unworthy, as is so professed before partaking communion.

What you are saying is that if I partake and think myself better than the poor, hungry brethren next to me at the love feast I am going to hell for not being Christlike.

 

[benhur]

Did Jesus give different doctrines and truths to the seven churches in Revelation?

No,nor would He in a letter today. He most certainly would address some doctrinal error as He did to the seven.

He also warns about thinking oneself standing perfectly (in doctrine/faith/morals ?), as if only all* other* churches would be corrected doctrinally

blessings

 

[benhur]

So you interpret it to mean figurative, and I as literal. So who does Scripture and Jesus say we should turn to for resolution of this question?

Per purgatory post/thread: "The bible says many things take care of resolution.

If we find fault with a brethren we are to take it to the brother ,and then with a witness and then ultimately to take it to the church. That is for a fault. When apostles disputed, they got together to figure out as in council of Jerusalem. When the apostles heard conflicting views of whom Jesus was, the Father in heaven gave “resolution”. As Job says, ,“God giveth understanding to a man”. Scripture and it’s historical view (tradition) also are to give resolution.

Beyond these the goat and sheep of a matter are together till His coming."

Blessings

 

[zz912]

Per purgatory post/thread: "The bible says many things take care of resolution.

If we find fault with a brethren we are to take it to the brother ,and then with a witness and then ultimately to take it to the church. That is for a fault. When apostles disputed, they got together to figure out as in council of Jerusalem. When the apostles heard conflicting views of whom Jesus was, the Father in heaven gave “resolution”. As Job says, ,“God giveth understanding to a man”. Scripture and it’s historical view (tradition) also are to give resolution.

Beyond these the goat and sheep of a matter are together till His coming."

Blessings

So you know that the answer is we are to go to the Church for resolution of the matter. You just don’t want to admit it.

 

[zz912]

No,nor would He in a letter today. He most certainly would address some doctrinal error as He did to the seven.

He also warns about thinking oneself standing perfectly (in doctrine/faith/morals ?), as if only all* other* churches would be corrected doctrinally

blessings

So you agree that He would only give one doctrinal message, one truth. So He can’t possibly have multiple churches as you claim, when each preaches different doctrine and “truth”.

 

[zz912]

No, I can not just as you can not show He says it is a sacrament and that the bread and wine turn into His body and blood explicitly.

Whatever the Passover was/is , communion is (rite vs sacrament).

Blessings

Yeah, actually you CAN show where He says it explicitly. The chapter we’re discussing, John 6, He says explicitly that His Body and Blood are true food and true drink, and He will give this for us to eat and drink. Later, at the Last Supper, He says “this IS My Body”.

So yes, explicitly Jesus does say it.

And you also prove our point with your Passover comparison, even though you don’t realize it. The Passover that was celebrated was NOT just a memory or recalling to mind, but it was an actual participation in the first Passover. That is why the prayers recited at each Passover were specific to say that God brought “me” out of Egypt. Participation in the Passover was a participation in the first Passover.

 

[benhur]

So you know that the answer is we are to go to the Church for resolution of the matter. You just don’t want to admit it.

Oh, OK (though I admitted it).

The church is many things. Of course I do not go to Congress, or Mecca, or to TM for resolution. If it is a Christian matter that needs resolving , some aspect of the Body of Christ, the Church, is involved. And all are to receive understanding from the Lord.

Blessings

 

[benhur]

So you agree that He would only give one doctrinal message, one truth. So He can’t possibly have multiple churches as you claim, when each preaches different doctrine and “truth”.

Well He had multiple churches in Rev and one did not have same doctrine. So He has many churches/congregations within His One Body and yes,unfortunately with differing doctrines.

Blessings

 

[benhur]

Yeah, actually you CAN show where He says it explicitly. The chapter we’re discussing, John 6, He says explicitly that His Body and Blood are true food and true drink, and He will give this for us to eat and drink. Later, at the Last Supper, He says “this IS My Body”.

So yes, explicitly Jesus does say it.

Fair enough to base your belief. I just see those same words differently , to base my belief.

And you also prove our point with your Passover comparison, even though you don’t realize it. The Passover that was celebrated was NOT just a memory or recalling to mind, but it was an actual participation in the first Passover. That is why the prayers recited at each Passover were specific to say that God brought “me” out of Egypt. Participation in the Passover was a participation in the first Passover.

Can you tell me how they participate in the original Passover besides repeating the same words as we all do at “Communion”?

Jews do not eat the* same* lamb, and bread, and wine, that Moses and his kinsman did on that first Passover. The elements do not need to be transubstantiated to the ''original" night.

Blessings

 

[Porknpie]

I see the eating as figurative in this discourse, so I color Peter’s understanding as figurative, as you color it literal.

Blessings

Ben,

How do you understand St. Ignatius of Antioch? Taking Christ literally or symbolically? Keep in mind…and I know you know this…that he was a disciple of St. John.

“They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer, because they confess not the Eucharist to be the flesh of our Saviour Jesus Christ, which suffered for our sins, and which the Father, of His goodness, raised up again.” Ignatius of Antioch, Epistle to Smyrnaeans, 7,1 (c. A.D. 110).

Or Justin Martyr?

“For not as common bread and common drink do we receive these; but in like manner as Jesus Christ our Saviour, having been made flesh and blood for our salvation, so likewise have we been taught that the food which is blessed by the prayer of His word, and from which our blood and flesh by transmutation are nourished, is the flesh and blood of that Jesus who was made flesh.” Justin Martyr, First Apology, 66 (c. A.D. 110-165).

Or a few years later…Clement of Alexandria. Sounds very Catholic : sanctified by consuming the Eucharist.

“For the blood of the grape–that is, the Word–desired to be mixed with water, as His blood is mingled with salvation. And the blood of the Lord is twofold. For there is the blood of His flesh, by which we are redeemed from corruption; and the spiritual, that by which we are anointed. And to drink the blood of Jesus, is to become partaker of the Lord’s immortality; the Spirit being the energetic principle of the Word, as blood is of flesh. Accordingly, as wine is blended with water, so is the Spirit with man. And the one, the mixture of wine and water, nourishes to faith; while the other, the Spirit, conducts to immortality. And the mixture of both–of the water and of the Word–is called Eucharist, renowned and glorious grace; and they who by faith partake of it are sanctified both in body and soul.” Clement of Alexandria, The Instructor, 2 (ante A.D. 202).

 

[rcwitness]

I see the eating as figurative in this discourse, so I color Peter’s understanding as figurative, as you color it literal.

There is a figurative eating and a literal eating. Neither can be rejected. Jesus’ “Word of bread/life” instructed us to “take and eat” what is now His flesh and blood.

You keep wanting to separate the two, when Jesus did the opposite!

“What God has joined together, let no man divide”

Jesus was the bread who delivered God’s life giving Word to us. To remain in Him while he was “on the earth” meant following Him and witnessing His work, hearing His Teaching, and taking His council. But after He left, He established Himself (or gave Himself) to the 12 in the Communion of His Eucharist.

So henceforth, all who would “remain in Him” and “have a part in Him” and “come to Him” and “hear His Word”, etc… would need to do so through “eating” at the table of the Lord’s Supper, aka Mass.

You see, many Churches profess to commune of Him, but not one professes to contain the full deposit of faith. Where His body and blood are, so too is His deposit of faith accessible.

It is this principle that His life was extended to church communities who are in a true, yet imperfect, communion with the One Catholic Church. They have the Written Word, which without the Church of His Eucharist would not have been able to receive. The Written Word was celebrated and established within the table of His Eucharist. Technically, there is said to be two tables, the Written Word and His Eucharist.

The Church, in the CCC, professes the devotion and veneration of both eaqually.

What I find interesting about His Eucharist, is that it cannot be interpreted, or twisted, or picked and chose from. It is simply Him. Yet belief in Him being who He said he is and what He did for us, is inevitable for the person who regards the Bread as no longer ordinary, but supernaturally Him with us in completeness, yet unassuming and hidden. Just as He was while speaking in that synagogue, yet very much the divine Son of God!

 

[PRmerger]

Fair enough to base your belief. I just see those same words differently , to base my belief.

Do you think Jesus is ok with this? 2 believers reading the Word of God and coming to different beliefs?

 

[rcwitness]

Can you tell me how they participate in the original Passover besides repeating the same words as we all do at “Communion”?

Jews do not eat the* same* lamb, and bread, and wine, that Moses and his kinsman did on that first Passover. The elements do not need to be transubstantiated to the ''original" night.

Rather, don’t you wonder how WE can participate in the Lamb of God at each memorial? There certainly isn’t another sacrifice made, like at the Jewish passover. Theirs had merit to bring them into the original sacrifice, while we no longer need a sacrifice to bring us into His. Yet we do bring our spiritual sacrifices which are made acceptable because of His.

When God “remembers” His covenant, the sacrifice is made present. When Jesus told us to “remember” the Father would not be dwelling on some other thing:shrug:

 

[Duane1966]

I see the eating as figurative in this discourse, so I color Peter’s understanding as figurative, as you color it literal.

Blessings

Ben, why do you think John uses the Greek word phago, which can be used figuratively or literally, when talking about eating, and changes it to trogo, which is never used figuratively, in the Bread of Life Discourse? If it is figurative, why not stay with the word phago?

 

[benhur]

Ben, why do you think John uses the Greek word phago, which can be used figuratively or literally, when talking about eating, and changes it to trogo, which is never used figuratively, in the Bread of Life Discourse? If it is figurative, why not stay with the word phago?

Because the eating is real. It is what we eat that is figurative or literal. i think.

 

[benhur]

Rather, don’t you wonder how WE can participate in the Lamb of God at each memorial?

Not really. We commemorate. We do as Jesus did at the Last Supper. We remember , and give thanksgiving in faith for our salvation…

Yet we do bring our spiritual sacrifices which are made acceptable because of His.

Eucharist is not about bringing sacrifices to the Father , but giving thanks for His sacrifice for us. A sacrifice of praise and thanksgiving=ecucharist.

When God “remembers” His covenant, the sacrifice is made present. When Jesus told us to “remember” the Father would not be dwelling on some other thing

OK. Just thought the Thanksgiving is because He dwells in us, and not about indwelling a thing/element, symbol.

Blessings

 

[Duane1966]

Because the eating is real. It is what we eat that is figurative or literal. i think.

So is Jesus saying to figuratively eat His flesh, or to really eat His flesh?

 

[benhur]

So is Jesus saying to figuratively eat His flesh, or to really eat His flesh?

Just doesn’t make sense to discourse to unbelievers the communion doctrine at this time. It was figurative speech for believing on Him,and His Messiah ship, Calvary and Ascension and all.

Blessings

 

[Duane1966]

Just doesn’t make sense to discourse to unbelievers the communion doctrine at this time. It was figurative speech for believing on Him,and His Messiah ship, Calvary and Ascension and all.

Blessings

Then why switch from a word phago, that can be taken figuratively, totrogo, one that can never be taken figuratively? That is what makes no sense, if Jesus is being figurative.

 

[JMM1957]

Then why switch from a word phago, that can be taken figuratively, totrogo, one that can never be taken figuratively? That is what makes no sense, if Jesus is being figurative.

Important to understand this distinction and not gloss over it.