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

[JMM1957]

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

Actually there were two and possibly three that had members teaching doctrines that were contrary to the truth. One thing is clear, Jesus didn’t tolerate these different teachings and condemned them, didn’t He? And not snuffing out false teachings in a church can lead to gangrene. So are these churches who have teachers of incorrect doctrine in them truly part of the His One Body if something doesn’t change? If you read the accounts on each of these churches in Revelation, you will see that Jesus will deal harshly with those spreading a false message and allowing it to continue. I don’t think we should be using the accounts of these 7 churches to justify the existence of competing church doctrines today, do you? This is what you seem to be saying to me.

 

[benhur]

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.

Switch ? I do not get that one word is “literal” and the other both ". Again you must gnaw at His words, literately speaking.

 

[benhur]

Actually there were two and possibly three that had members teaching doctrines that were contrary to the truth. One thing is clear, Jesus didn’t tolerate these different teachings and condemned them, didn’t He? And not snuffing out false teachings in a church can lead to gangrene. So are these churches who have teachers of incorrect doctrine in them truly part of the His One Body if something doesn’t change? If you read the accounts on each of these churches in Revelation, you will see that Jesus will deal harshly with those spreading a false message and allowing it to continue. I don’t think we should be using the accounts of these 7 churches to justify the existence of competing church doctrines today, do you? This is what you seem to be saying to me.

Very good. Now what we then justify is the divisions ,even the sharp words and utterances about false teaching, even churches, P’s to C’s and vice versa.

 

[zz912]

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

So you and I disagree on this topic. Who should we go to and receive a final resolution. You’re intentionally being vague about “some aspect” of the Church. Who and where should you, benhur, and I, zz912, go to and resolve our disagreement over the understanding of John 6. Be specific.

 

[zz912]

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

This one which did not have the same doctrine, which one was it? What was the doctrine? What was Christ’s response to this difference in doctrine?

 

[zz912]

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.

Each family ate their own lamb, even on the night of the first Passover. But they all shared in the one event. Same with Jews celebrating Passover 1,000 years later. And it wasn’t good enough that they just said the prayers, or thought really hard about the Passover. They had to EAT the lamb to participate and be an Israelite. Those who didn’t were violating the covenant.

And the New Covenant supercedes the prefigurement of the Old Covenant. Where each family had a different lamb, we bring our different bread and Jesus transforms the bread into the ONE Lamb. So the New Covenant is greater than the Old, and unites all people together in a way the Old could not.

 

[JMM1957]

Very good. Now what we then justify is the divisions ,even the sharp words and utterances about false teaching, even churches, P’s to C’s and vice versa.

Jesus did say He came to cause division, to separate the goats from the sheep, this is the division He allows to happen. He is mostly speaking of believers vs. non-believers here. Different churches all teaching different doctrines is not the same thing and is not of one mind, which Scripture plainly insists on. And yes, we must speak out about false teachings, and purge those who are spreading them if they don’t cease doing it.

 

[JMM1957]

So you and I disagree on this topic. Who should we go to and receive a final resolution. You’re intentionally being vague about “some aspect” of the Church. Who and where should you, benhur, and I, zz912, go to and resolve our disagreement over the understanding of John 6. Be specific.

 

[rcwitness]

For the sake of agreeing with the “figurative” aspect of receiving God’s Word, I would remind that the Church does hold that one must assent in faith what the Church does profess as Doctrine/Dogma, right?

So it’s not as though she says, “you are not saved until you eat His Eucharist.” Or, “Once you eat His Eucharist, then you will understand all that He Teaches.”

No, we believe because we hear what is delivered. We accept Baptism for the forgiveness of sins, and we believe that He commanded us to maintain in Him and Him in us THROUGH eating His Eucharist with the clear conscience that we have assented (though not necessarily completely understood everything) to the body of Teachings from His Magisterium, who delivered His Eucharist to us.

 

[JMM1957]

For the sake of agreeing with the “figurative” aspect of receiving God’s Word, I would remind that the Church does hold that one must assent in faith what the Church does profess as Doctrine/Dogma, right?

So it’s not as though she says, “you are not saved until you eat His Eucharist.” Or, “Once you eat His Eucharist, then you will understand all that He Teaches.”

No, we believe because we hear what is delivered. We accept Baptism for the forgiveness of sins, and we believe that He commanded us to maintain in Him and Him in us THROUGH eating His Eucharist with the clear conscience that we have assented (though not necessarily completely understood everything) to the body of Teachings from His Magisterium, who delivered His Eucharist to us.

 

[rcwitness]

For the sake of agreeing with the “figurative” aspect of receiving God’s Word, I would remind that the Church does hold that one must assent in faith what the Church does profess as Doctrine/Dogma, right?

So it’s not as though she says, “you are not saved until you eat His Eucharist.” Or, “Once you eat His Eucharist, then you will understand all that He Teaches.”

No, we believe because we hear what is delivered. We accept Baptism for the forgiveness of sins, and we believe that He commanded us to maintain in Him and Him in us THROUGH eating His Eucharist with the clear conscience that we have assented (though not necessarily completely understood everything) to the body of Teachings from His Magisterium, who delivered His Eucharist to us.

And I should add that neither would she then say, “All you need to do is physically eat His Eucharist and you have eternal life. There is no need to assent to any matters of faith and morals which are from Him.”

It would indeed be a devilish person who would choose to eat without sufficent belief anyway.

And that is what Judas became.

 

[rcwitness]

So the Catholic Church professes the assent to the Body of Teachings delivered through the Church from Jesus as bound to the practice of eating His Eucharist delivered through the Church from Jesus.

They do not oppose one another, but sustain each other as the continuation of “staying with Him”.

 

[rcwitness]

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.

Ahh, the messages to the “churches” and it’s commendments and warnings AND promises!

That is an interesting study, especially in light of the fact that not one of them continued, but all fell and no longer exist!

Hopefully some members can share some things about that chapter which tie into John 6 and His Eucharist.

 

[Porknpie]

And it wasn’t good enough that they just said the prayers, or thought really hard about the Passover. They had to EAT the lamb to participate and be an Israelite

How does one know that that they only had to figuratively eat the Lamb?

The OT prototype is very direct and explicit.

Just like the NT fulfillment.

 

[Michael68]

How does one know that that they only had to figuratively eat the Lamb?

The OT prototype is very direct and explicit.

Just like the NT fulfillment.

Lol, maybe they just pretended to eat the lamb!!!

 

[Duane1966]

Switch ? I do not get that one word is “literal” and the other both ". Again you must gnaw at His words, literately speaking.

And the Jews walked away because they could not handle Him saying you must gnaw at my words? That is laughable. But why not just say: “gnaw at my words, or teachings?”

So in your mind, Jesus was being figurative when He said: “for My flesh is real food?” Did Jesus literally walk the Earth, or just figuratively?

Once again if St. John had stayed with the word phago, one could argue that Jesus was being figurative. When Jesus ramps up the discourse, and St. John switches to trogo, there can be no doubt Jesus is not talking figuratively, since trogo ALWAYS means to gnaw on real food.

 

[JMM1957]

And the Jews walked away because they could not handle Him saying you must gnaw at my words? That is laughable. But why not just say: “gnaw at my words, or teachings?”

So in your mind, Jesus was being figurative when He said: “for My flesh is real food?” Did Jesus literally walk the Earth, or just figuratively?

Once again if St. John had stayed with the word phago, one could argue that Jesus was being figurative. When Jesus ramps up the discourse, and St. John switches to trogo, there can be no doubt Jesus is not talking figuratively, since trogo ALWAYS means to gnaw on real food.

Or, “my Word is real food”… I don’t think so. One could “eat His Word”, but that would be figurative.

 

[rcwitness]

And the Jews walked away because they could not handle Him saying you must gnaw at my words? That is laughable. But why not just say: “gnaw at my words, or teachings?”

I don’t think laughable at all. I think there is figurative meaning to hear, digest, ponder, keep in our hearts, etc with a belief that what He says and means is the Truth of God to set us free from death.

Now what happens if we only see it as figuratively, then we also don’t have a source for Confirming what His true Teachings are. Reading the Internet for every churches interpretation on things is pretty disturbing. It’s all because they don’t make the connection that Jesus’ Teachings which we are to conform to and believe are the ones upheld and Confirmed by the same men He entrusted His Eucharist to.

 

[JonNC]

Hi Jon,

As you know I kindly assert it to be a remembrance rite. As Luther steps a bit back from transubstantiation, and Calvin a bit back from Luther, I rest more comfortably with Zwingli’s final step back from Calvin. Yet the Lord is real and present in the rite spiritually speaking, not body and blood.

Blessings

Hi Ben,
Stepping back from Transubstaniation is in no way shape or form stepping away from the real presence. I respect your view, Ben, but it is a decidedly unacceptable one for me as a Lutheran, as is Calvin’s, the crypto-Calvinists, and even the receptionists that have, at times, preached that particularly unLutheran teaching within Lutheranism.
As I said, I truly respect your view, but I agree with Luther, that before I drink mere wine (symbolic belief) with the Swiss, I would drink blood (Transubstantiation) with the pope. This, to me, is a distinct line between Lutheranism and Protestantism, one I could never cross.

“Ist ist ist.” - Luther

His peace,
Jon

 

[rcwitness]

Hi Ben,
Stepping back from Transubstaniation is in no way shape or form stepping away from the real presence. I respect your view, Ben, but it is a decidedly unacceptable one for me as a Lutheran, as is Calvin’s, the crypto-Calvinists, and even the receptionists that have, at times, preached that particularly unLutheran teaching within Lutheranism.
As I said, I truly respect your view, but I agree with Luther, that before I drink mere wine (symbolic belief) with the Swiss, I would drink blood (Transubstantiation) with the pope. This, to me, is a distinct line between Lutheranism and Protestantism, one I could never cross.

“Ist ist ist.” - Luther

His peace,
Jon

I see both yours and Ben’s faith great. I see his points and do admire much about them. I also see yours springing closer from Catholic Communion.

Didn’t Luther describe these ones as “enthusiasts”?