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

  • Thread starter Thread starter Chaddicus_Finch
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
The charge of cannibalism is taken away…back to Melchizedek…who was different than all…who brought forward the gifts of bread and wine…to the Jewish custom of the breaking of bread…to Christ placed in an animal feeder at the Nativity…to the Last Supper…to become broken bread for us.

No cannibalism…but in the image of nourishment from the Tree of Life, which is the life of the Church.
 
The charge of cannibalism is taken away…back to Melchizedek…who was different than all…who brought forward the gifts of bread and wine…to the Jewish custom of the breaking of bread…to Christ placed in an animal feeder at the Nativity…to the Last Supper…to become broken bread for us.

No cannibalism…but in the image of nourishment from the Tree of Life, which is the life of the Church.
Could you explain? So you eat and drink bread and wine ? No , you say it is the body and blood of Jesus but is that then a spiritual eating (which is a way of saying you are and you are not eating body and blood )?
 
Could you explain? So you eat and drink bread and wine ? No , you say it is the body and blood of Jesus but is that then a spiritual eating (which is a way of saying you are and you are not eating body and blood )?
It IS the body and blood of Jesus Christ. just read John 6 in its entirety.
 
Benhur…the Bread and Wine made into the Body and Blood of Christ by Him, wounded but triumphant as Victim Lamb and High Priest from the altar of heaven before the Heavenly Father…

but maintaining the outer form of giving thanks…back to most ancient customs in Judaism…the breaking of bread…and going back farther…how God had two trees named, one bad with the forbidden fruit, the other of the Tree of Life…the only good fruit named…but it was passed over to take the forbidden one instead…

There is this picture of becoming adopted sons and daughters of the Lord by eating as nourishment…not just reflecting on His Word…but eating that which is concrete…

And the Eucharist is not as such only through the transmission of the laying on of hands…my bishop instructor years ago who was on the Vatican II Council of Ecumenism.

So we cannot have just symbolic means…but actual, concrete…again, the Word Made Flesh…Christ laid in an animal feeder to become nourishment for us.

If everything is symbolic, then it puts us in the position to accept or deny such a reality. Rather it is a matter of act of faith through grace freely given.
 
Benhur…the Bread and Wine made into the Body and Blood of Christ by Him, wounded but triumphant as Victim Lamb and High Priest from the altar of heaven before the Heavenly Father…

but maintaining the outer form of giving thanks…back to most ancient customs in Judaism…the breaking of bread…and going back farther…how God had two trees named, one bad with the forbidden fruit, the other of the Tree of Life…the only good fruit named…but it was passed over to take the forbidden one instead…

There is this picture of becoming adopted sons and daughters of the Lord by eating as nourishment…not just reflecting on His Word…but eating that which is concrete…

And the Eucharist is not as such only through the transmission of the laying on of hands…my bishop instructor years ago who was on the Vatican II Council of Ecumenism.

So we cannot have just symbolic means…but actual, concrete…again, the Word Made Flesh…Christ laid in an animal feeder to become nourishment for us.

If everything is symbolic, then it puts us in the position to accept or deny such a reality. Rather it is a matter of act of faith through grace freely given.
Yes thank you but you said it is not cannibalism, which is eating human flesh and drinking human blood. This was also done by some cultures in religious ceremonies.

Again if it is concretely the eating of His flesh then that is cannibalism.But if it is concretely eating bread and wine which is spiritually His body and blood , then that is not cannibalism?
 
Yes thank you but you said it is not cannibalism, which is eating human flesh and drinking human blood. This was also done by some cultures in religious ceremonies.

Again if it is concretely the eating of His flesh then that is cannibalism.But if it is concretely eating bread and wine which is spiritually His body and blood , then that is not cannibalism?
benhur, this “cannibal question” is like us asking you, “Do you worship men because you worship a man, Jesus?”

Yes, if eating His flesh, for Spiritual benefit, is cannibalism, I am a cannibal. However, there is an eternal gap between His flesh and men, for His flesh was perfectly obedient to the Holy Spirit.
 
Yes thank you but you said it is not cannibalism, which is eating human flesh and drinking human blood. This was also done by some cultures in religious ceremonies.

Again if it is concretely the eating of His flesh then that is cannibalism.But if it is concretely eating bread and wine which is spiritually His body and blood , then that is not cannibalism?
From Tim Staples
1.*In cannibalism, the person consumed is, generally speaking, killed. Jesus is not killed. We receive him in his resurrected body and we do not affect him in the least. In fact, he is not changed in the slightest. He changes us! This is far from cannibalism.
2.*In cannibalism, only part of the victim is consumed. One does not eat the bones, sinews, etc. In the Eucharist, we consume every bit of the Lord, eyes, hair, blood, bones, etc. But again, I emphasize that we do so under the appearances of bread and wine. This is essentially different than cannibalism, which leads to our next point:
3.*In cannibalism, the accidents of blood and flesh are consumed. One must tear flesh, drink blood, etc. In the Eucharist, we only consume the accidents of bread and wine. This is not cannibalism.
4.*In cannibalism, one only consumes a body, not a person. The person and the soul of the victim would have departed. In the Eucharist, we consume the entire person of Jesus Christ, body, blood, soul and divinity. One cannot separate Christ’s body from his Divine Person. Thus, this is a spiritual communion as well as a physical consuming. We become one with Christ on a mystical level in this sacrament. This is far from cannibalism.
5.*In cannibalism, one only receives temporal nourishment that is fleeting. In the Eucharist, we receive the divine life of God through faith and receiving our Lord well-disposed, i.e. we receive everlasting life (cf.*John 6:52-55). This is essentially different than cannibalism.
6.In cannibalism, once one eats the flesh of the victim, it is gone forever. In the Eucharist, we can consume him every day and, as mentioned in#1, we do not change him one bit. He remains the same.
And
First, Catholics do not receive our Lord in a cannibalistic form. Catholics receive him in the form of bread and wine. The cannibal kills his victim; Jesus does not die when he is consumed in Communion. Indeed, he is not changed in the slightest; the communicant is the only person who is changed. The cannibal eats part of his victim, whereas in Communion the entire Christ is consumed—body, blood, soul, and divinity. The cannibal sheds the blood of his victim; in Communion our Lord gives himself to us in a non-bloody way.*
Second, if it were truly immoral in any sense for Christ to give us his flesh and blood to eat, it would be contrary to his holiness to command anyone to eat his body and blood—even symbolically. Symbolically performing an immoral act would be of its natureimmoral.
 
The Eucharist is life.Cannibals eat what is dead. The Aztecs, the most notorious cannibalistic society in history, ate the beating hearts of victims, but they were still eating something doomed to die, and in the act of eating, it did die. By contrast, Christ, is alive. He rose on the third day, and is present in the Eucharist as fully alive (indeed, He is Life itself). Our reception of the Eucharist doesn’t destroy or change that in any way.*
 
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?
Prior to Vatican II, the Roman Catholic Church seemed more concerned with conviction for truth than political correctness.

Pope Eugene IV, the Bull Cantate Domino:

“The most Holy Roman Church firmly believes, professes and preaches that none of those existing outside the Catholic Church, not only pagans, but also Jews and heretics and schismatics, can have a share in life eternal; but that they will go into the eternal fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels, unless before death they are joined with Her; and that so important is the unity of this ecclesiastical body that only those remaining within this unity can profit by the sacraments of the Church unto salvation, and they alone can receive an eternal recompense for their fasts, their almsgivings, their other works of Christian piety and the duties of a Christian soldier. No one, let his almsgiving be as great as it may, no one, even if he pour out his blood for the Name of Christ, can be saved, unless he remain within the bosom and the unity of the Catholic Church.”

Vatican II allowed the Roman Catholics to sort of “restate” this (wink wink) positively by saying that heretics and others outside the Roman Catholic can be saved, provided they’re ignorant of the Church and seek God as best they know how.

This all good and all, but I’ve encountered more than one priest who will say something like, “those Protestants are in their boat, we’re in our boat, and it’s ok,” or, “maybe God isn’t ‘calling’ so-and-so to be Catholic.”

If Roman Catholicism is the truth (or “the fullness of the truth,” to use Vatican II language), then how can some priests spread such nonsense about heretics?

This is why I have a little more respect for the Orthodox Church, especially when they criticize Vatican II as more “doctrinal development.”

I don’t mean to offend the Roman Catholics here.
 
Cannibalism is evil, very evil and perverted.

And you read about those pagans who practice to gain some kind of strength…and we read horrible stories of such acts…for various other reasons.

Again, we must look at the imagery of Scripture from the fruit of the Tree of Life, to the manna from heaven as precursor…to Christ in a feeding manger to become nourishment for us, to many of His followers leaving Him when He said we would eat His body and drink His flesh…but in the context of the fulfillment of the Breaking of Bread.

Just hearing is incomplete. That which provides us life must be consumed.

Catholics consume the Word of God Made Flesh in the Eucharist.

Dr Scott Hahn wrote a book recently on how Catholics consume the Word…The Word of Life enters into every part of our being…not just our mind and understanding…but also as nourishing us in eternal life and illuminating all our being…not as pagans but to become as His true brothers and sisters and in serving our fellow man.
 
I don’t mean to offend the -]Roman/-] Catholics here.
Wecome Donuts. To correct you, the Church is “Catholic”, the Roman rite is one of 20 some rites of the Church.

That is why it is called “Catholic Answers” and not “Roman Catholic Answers”.

Similarly, that is why my signature line refers to a Catholic Catechism on CD Audio.
 
benhur, this “cannibal question” is like us asking you, “Do you worship men because you worship a man, Jesus?”
Not exactly apples to apples. Christ was God way before incarnation, so we worship the second person in the trinity who became man and was called Jesus. It is not “dissected” to divided the two. Yet many literally and specifically cite His flesh and blood, to eat (yet containing His divinity) . Just as I do not pray to His flesh and blood (the man) I do not eat His flesh and blood (the man) but pray and eat that which is from the beginning, remembering He came in the flesh.Flesh is flesh, perfectly holy or not, and I can not come to say I literally, physically , eat His flesh, drink His blood. Spiritually, figuratively yes.

Blessings
 
Not exactly apples to apples. Christ was God way before incarnation, so we worship the second person in the trinity who became man and was called Jesus. It is not “dissected” to divided the two. Yet many literally and specifically cite His flesh and blood, to eat (yet containing His divinity) . Just as I do not pray to His flesh and blood (the man) I do not eat His flesh and blood (the man) but pray and eat that which is from the beginning, remembering He came in the flesh.Flesh is flesh, perfectly holy or not, and I can not come to say I literally, physically , eat His flesh, drink His blood. Spiritually, figuratively yes.

Blessings
This seems to dodge the question of Jesus commanding people to do something evil and immoral, even symbolically. Could Jesus symbolically command us to murder people? Or symbolically beat our children? Or symbolically steal from someone?
 
Prior to Vatican II, the Roman Catholic Church seemed more concerned with conviction for truth than political correctness.

Pope Eugene IV, the Bull Cantate Domino:

“The most Holy Roman Church firmly believes, professes and preaches that none of those existing outside the Catholic Church, not only pagans, but also Jews and heretics and schismatics, can have a share in life eternal; but that they will go into the eternal fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels, unless before death they are joined with Her; and that so important is the unity of this ecclesiastical body that only those remaining within this unity can profit by the sacraments of the Church unto salvation, and they alone can receive an eternal recompense for their fasts, their almsgivings, their other works of Christian piety and the duties of a Christian soldier. No one, let his almsgiving be as great as it may, no one, even if he pour out his blood for the Name of Christ, can be saved, unless he remain within the bosom and the unity of the Catholic Church.”

Vatican II allowed the Roman Catholics to sort of “restate” this (wink wink) positively by saying that heretics and others outside the Roman Catholic can be saved, provided they’re ignorant of the Church and seek God as best they know how.
Are you claiming that Pope Eugene was saying that everyone ignorant of the Church or the Gospel was damned? Or was he speaking to an audience of people who were fully aware of the Church and those who were leaving the Church?

Someone who has never stepped foot in a Catholic Church, and who’s ancestors haven’t been Catholic for 5 centuries is not on the same page as someone who was raised Catholic, in a truly Catholic environment, and who is leaving the Church. Completely different circumstances.
This all good and all, but I’ve encountered more than one priest who will say something like, “those Protestants are in their boat, we’re in our boat, and it’s ok,” or, “maybe God isn’t ‘calling’ so-and-so to be Catholic.”
If Roman Catholicism is the truth (or “the fullness of the truth,” to use Vatican II language), then how can some priests spread such nonsense about heretics?
Because many don’t preach what the Church actually teaches. They preach what they want. Even if it contradicts what the Church teaches.
This is why I have a little more respect for the Orthodox Church, especially when they criticize Vatican II as more “doctrinal development.”
I have respect for those who have the courage of their convictions to plainly state what they believe. Even Jesus prefers that you be either hot or cold. The lukewarm He true abhors.
I don’t mean to offend the Roman Catholics here.
None taken. As noted above though, please drop the “Roman” part.
 
Yes thank you but you said it is not cannibalism, which is eating human flesh and drinking human blood. This was also done by some cultures in religious ceremonies.

Again if it is concretely the eating of His flesh then that is cannibalism.But if it is concretely eating bread and wine which is spiritually His body and blood , then that is not cannibalism?
Cannibalism ? Really? When our Lord commands it? I don’t think this is a serious inquiry
 
the glorified body is different from the physical body we have in this world.

Jesus’ body is a glorified Body.

cannibals partake of the physical dead body found in this world. they do not have access to the glorified Body of the Lord.

I see no logical reason to consider the faithful partaking in the glorified Body of the Lord as the same as a cannibal partaking in a dead physical body from this world.

the differences between the two (eating a dead, physical body in this world and eating the glorified Body of Jesus Christ) are infinite which makes comparing them more than a little foolish.
 
Not exactly apples to apples. Christ was God way before incarnation, so we worship the second person in the trinity who became man and was called Jesus. It is not “dissected” to divided the two. Yet many literally and specifically cite His flesh and blood, to eat (yet containing His divinity) . Just as I do not pray to His flesh and blood (the man) I do not eat His flesh and blood (the man) but pray and eat that which is from the beginning, remembering He came in the flesh.Flesh is flesh, perfectly holy or not, and I can not come to say I literally, physically , eat His flesh, drink His blood. Spiritually, figuratively yes.

Blessings
Hmmm… this sounds strange and unorthodox. I think you are separating the body and blood of Christ from the Godhead. It’s not what we believe for sure.

God’s Spirit became flesh and they did not separate, but His flesh was made obedient unto death for the life of men.
 
If we see the concept of literally eating His flesh and blood outside of the means in which He provided it, then we can never understand it.

If we see Eucharistic Communion as only a symbol of Spiritually believing, then He used a symbol of something oppositional to what He was Teaching in John 6

What I mean is, if the disciples understood him literally and were wrong so that’s why they left, then why would Jesus establish the Covenant memorial after this false understanding which disciples left Him over?🤷

He Taught the Word of God, able to save through belief. Yet for Him to save men, He also needed to die in the flesh. After this, in His risen state, He would come to be with us in His Eucharistic. Just as His risen body passed through the upper room door, He can hide under the appearance of our gifts of bread and wine. This requires faith and not proof of miracles. This is the continuous gift of faith and knowing His hidden manna. Where the body is, there the Eagles will gather. Where His body is, there will be the body of Apostolic Teachings. Where His body and blood are, there the faithful need not see to believe, but believe to see and partake with believe.
 
the glorified body is different from the physical body we have in this world.

Jesus’ body is a glorified Body.

cannibals partake of the physical dead body found in this world. they do not have access to the glorified Body of the Lord.

I see no logical reason to consider the faithful partaking in the glorified Body of the Lord as the same as a cannibal partaking in a dead physical body from this world.

the differences between the two (eating a dead, physical body in this world and eating the glorified Body of Jesus Christ) are infinite which makes comparing them more than a little foolish.
Hi ed,

just that we are to do as He did, at the Last Supper. He said “this is " not " it is going to be”. Another words, He did not differentiate between pre and post glorification of Hid flesh when instituted the rite/sacrament.
 
Hmmm… this sounds strange and unorthodox. I think you are separating the body and blood of Christ from the Godhead. It’s not what we believe for sure.

God’s Spirit became flesh and they did not separate, but His flesh was made obedient unto death for the life of men.
Do not think I am doing that. But if it is strange , it’s because transubstantiation is strange to me.

Blessings
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top