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

[rcwitness]

Imo, a lot of Protestants don’t understand communion and how could they? They have been taught its a soda cracker and some grape drink you do once a month or whenever the pastor feels like it. This takes time since the mistranslation is well indoctrinated.

Well, probably not most, but a growing number, I think.

There is a mentality that the less emphasis you put on the “ritual” the more you are accepting the Spiritual. Then it becomes a “wider gate” where people can freely choose what aspects of the faith to believe and to reject.

The genuine Catholic doesn’t see it as much as a ritual as a ceramony.

 

[JMM1957]

Figurative is not the same as spiritual. Spiritual is real. Spiritual life and spiritual death are REAL. They aren’t symbols or figurative. They are real. They aren’t MATERIAL life or death, but they are real.

In the Eucharistic meal we partake of the glorified body of the Lord. Just as the Scriptures say, “If there is a natural body, there is also a spiritual one.” Also, “The last Adam became a life giving spirit.” (1 Cor. 15:44-45). It is a spiritual giving of the Lord’s body and blood in the Eucharist, but it is real, not figurative.

 

[eddie_too]

why would Jesus give us a mere symbol when it was in His power to give us the Real Thing?

 

[benhur]

But then if He is speaking figuratively, how can He not be lying when He calls His** flesh** true food?

Ben, would it be okay for someone in a legal proceeding to swear to tell the truth, lie about what they were stating to be true, and then say: " I did not commit perjury, I was being figurative when I took that oath, you just misunderstood me when I swore to tell the truth," because that really is what you seem to be saying?

Hi D ,

It is only lying when you apply one as figurative and one as literal. It is harmonious when you see it all as literal, or all as figurative/spiritual. For sure the “not dying as in wilderness” was figurative/spiritual.

Blessings

PS- His flesh is true food, spiritually, and a spirit can eat without " teeth and belly" (Augustinian phrase).

 

[benhur]

Imo, a lot of Protestants don’t understand communion and how could they? They have been taught its a soda cracker and some grape drink you do once a month or whenever the pastor feels like it. This takes time since the mistranslation is well indoctrinated.

Hi M,

All communion views are imbedded in “time and indoctrination”, as you say.

Blessings

 

[benhur]

why would Jesus give us a mere symbol when it was in His power to give us the Real Thing?

“and let us not suppose that because God can that He did”.

Mere symbols (Passover), as you say, sure have helped Jewish unity and identity, even thru two thousand of diaspora.

Blessings

 

[benhur]

I notice you also mention the bread and wine are “consecrated”. What does that mean to you, if not changed into what we recognize it as?

Hi rc,

Consecrated as , “dedicated to a sacred purpose” per Webster dictionary.

You’ve said this before, but it’s not physical death His life and sacrifice saves us from, but Spiritual. So we believe He will raise our physical bodies to unite with our souls again.

Of course, agree. But what did Christ mean when He said Israelites died in the wilderness though they ate manna (and we would not if we eat Him) ? Unless you say all those Israelites have no eternal life and went to hell.

If you switch to the spiritual, as Jesus did, so is the eating spiritual. It is not physical eating. My spirit has no literal physical teeth and belly. My flesh eats bread but my spirit eats Him.

You act as though believers in a symbolic only breaking bread do not die in this world.

Not sure where you get this for I have said all communion view participants die, like those in the wilderness (physically).

Blessings

 

[benhur]

Figurative is not the same as spiritual. Spiritual is real. Spiritual life and spiritual death are REAL. They aren’t symbols or figurative. They are real. They aren’t MATERIAL life or death, but they are real.

Hi zz,

Yes, but my spirit does not have literal teeth and belly with which to eat physical things. My spirit eats and drinks spiritual things. The crossover between physical and spiritual can only be figurative. As you say spiritual is not Material.

Blessings

 

[rcwitness]

Hi rc,

Consecrated as , “dedicated to a sacred purpose” per Webster dictionary.

Ok. That’s one use of the term. However, the appropriate use in this context is (b).

:to induct (a person) into a permanent office with a religious rite;especially:to ordain to the office of bishop

a*:to make or declare sacred;especially*:to devote irrevocably to the worship of God by a solemn ceremony

b*:to effect the liturgical transubstantiation of (eucharistic bread and wine)

c*:to devote to a purpose with or as if with deep solemnity or dedication

Of course, agree. But what did Christ mean when He said Israelites died in the wilderness though they ate manna (and we would not if we eat Him) ? Unless you say all those Israelites have no eternal life and went to hell.

I’m saying they died physically and did not have His Eucharist or the Gospel which must be accepted before receiving.

If you switch to the spiritual, as Jesus did, so is the eating spiritual. It is not physical eating. My spirit has no literal physical teeth and belly. My flesh eats bread but my spirit eats Him.

Jesus’ body IS the switch! His body and blood is the Spirit incarnate. I’m not sure you get this, even though you say you believe it. Because then you reduce His flesh to nothing and only worship His Spirit. This is dangerously departing Christianity altogether! He and the Spirit are one. The Spirit, like the dew fall, sends down the Body and Blood of Jesus at the words of the priest. They are actually His words from the Last Supper. We no longer regard Him in the flesh, but as Spiritual food. Yet He really has a body and it passes through doors, appears and vanishes and levitate out of sight. All these happen after His resurrection. He is showing us that His body is one and the same with the Spirit.

Not sure where you get this for I have said all communion view participants die, like those in the wilderness (physically)

Well I’m not sure why you keep trying to make a point that doesn’t mean much. There is no way for us to know who has eternal life, but before Christ, they had to await His coming to those who held to the promise through the old covenant.

 

[JMM1957]

Ok. That’s one use of the term. However, the appropriate use in this context is (b).

:to induct (a person) into a permanent office with a religious rite;especially:to ordain to the office of bishop

a*:to make or declare sacred;especially*:to devote irrevocably to the worship of God by a solemn ceremony

b*:to effect the liturgical transubstantiation of (eucharistic bread and wine)

c*:to devote to a purpose with or as if with deep solemnity or dedication

I’m saying they died physically and did not have His Eucharist or the Gospel which must be accepted before receiving.

Jesus’ body IS the switch! His body and blood is the Spirit incarnate. I’m not sure you get this, even though you say you believe it. Because then you reduce His flesh to nothing and only worship His Spirit. This is dangerously departing Christianity altogether! He and the Spirit are one. The Spirit, like the dew fall, sends down the Body and Blood of Jesus at the words of the priest. They are actually His words from the Last Supper. We no longer regard Him in the flesh, but as Spiritual food. Yet He really has a body and it passes through doors, appears and vanishes and levitate out of sight. All these happen after His resurrection. He is showing us that His body is one and the same with the Spirit.
Well I’m not sure why you keep trying to make a point that doesn’t mean much. There is no way for us to know who has eternal life, but before Christ, they had to await His coming to those who held to the promise through the old covenant.

Good answers rc.

 

[zz912]

Hi zz,

Yes, but my spirit does not have literal teeth and belly with which to eat physical things. My spirit eats and drinks spiritual things. The crossover between physical and spiritual can only be figurative. As you say spiritual is not Material.

Blessings

This is incorrect. The actions of your body can certainly send your spirit to hell. Man is a union of spirit AND body. When our bodies physically eat the Eucharist, we bring spiritual grace to our souls. You seem to hold a Jedi/Force view of the human person, where our spirit is “really” ourselves and our body is just a covering for it. But in truth we are a union of body and spirit, so what one does has an effect on the other.

 

[eddie_too]

i am not saying that because God can do something that He will.

but, also, no one answered the question, since Jesus could give us the greatest gift possible, why would He not?

through history recorded from the first Pentecost Sunday to 1,500 years later, virtually all who called themselves Christian considered the consecrated bread and wine the Real Presence of Jesus.

in addition, there is little to no evidence in Sacred Scripture for denying the Real Presence of Jesus in the Eucharist.

also, as my unanswered question demonstrates, there is virtually no rational theological reasons to deny the Real Presence.

but, it is quite telling that no one chose to venture an answer, even a speculative and imaginative answer to my question.

the most rational reason, as I see it, for someone to deny the Real Presence of Jesus in the Eucharist is to prevent having to humble oneself and submit to the divinely given authority of the RCC’s magisterium.

while there may be other reasons, the one above seems most rational.

 

[JMM1957]

i am not saying that because God can do something that He will.

but, also, no one answered the question, since Jesus could give us the greatest gift possible, why would He not?

through history recorded from the first Pentecost Sunday to 1,500 years later, virtually all who called themselves Christian considered the consecrated bread and wine the Real Presence of Jesus.

in addition, there is little to no evidence in Sacred Scripture for denying the Real Presence of Jesus in the Eucharist.

also, as my unanswered question demonstrates, there is virtually no rational theological reasons to deny the Real Presence.

but, it is quite telling that no one chose to venture an answer, even a speculative and imaginative answer to my question.

the most rational reason, as I see it, for someone to deny the Real Presence of Jesus in the Eucharist is to prevent having to humble oneself and submit to the divinely given authority of the RCC’s magisterium.

while there may be other reasons, the one above seems most rational.

There are those kind of people entering into the CC every day. The issue of authority in doctrine is at or near the top of the list for most of them.

 

[benhur]

Ok. That’s one use of the term. However, the appropriate use in this context is (b).

Yes , it is in the eyes of the beholder.

I’m saying they died physically and did not have His Eucharist or the Gospel which must be accepted before receiving.

of course. But even if they did have the gospel and eucharist instead of manna, one still dies physically.

Jesus’ body IS the switch!

yes the object of eating switches (manna to Christ) so does the mode of eating (physical to spiritual) for the reward switches also ( physical sustenance in manna to spiritual eternal life and resurrection in believing/eating Christ). Manna was for physical existence and eaten physically. The Bread of Life is for spiritual life and eaten spiritually…

Because then you reduce His flesh to nothing and only worship His Spirit.

Not sure where you get that. I posted I spiritually eat “Him”. I did not split Him.

Well I’m not sure why you keep trying to make a point that doesn’t mean much.

Well one has to understand the point first for it to mean anything. maybe I am explaining it wrong, or just a tough paradigm you have to see thru.

Blessings rc

 

[benhur]

The most rational reason, as I see it, for someone to deny the Real Presence of Jesus in the Eucharist is to prevent having to humble oneself and submit to the divinely given authority of the RCC’s magisterium.

That is totally possible. It can also be applied ( and has been) to any differences or objections to CC.

The only kink I see is that one must then conclude the pride is deeper for we then also do not submit to the Orthodox ,or even to Lutherans , and a few others who also believe in a literal eating of His flesh.

Blessings

 

[JMM1957]

Manna was for physical existence and eaten physically. The Bread of Life is for spiritual life and eaten spiritually.

Blessings rc

Correct, the Eucharistic meal is not food for nutritional needs at all, but we still do have to actually eat it physically for it to become spiritual food. So, if Jesus tells us that the bread and wine that we eat physically, actually IS His flesh and blood, why would you not believe Him and leave it at that? By you always trying to express in more comprehensible terms what Jesus meant, tells me you still find it a “hard saying.”

 

[benhur]

Correct, the Eucharistic meal is not food for nutritional needs at all, but we still do have to actually eat it physically for it to become spiritual food. So, if Jesus tells us that the bread and wine that we eat physically, actually IS His flesh and blood, why would you not believe Him and leave it at that? By you always trying to express in more comprehensible terms what Jesus meant, tells me you still find it a “hard saying.”

Hi JMM,

Thank you for the understanding that we do have. Where we don’t I can only say again no one today finds it a “hard saying” as the unbelieving “disciples” who left. We all understand Calvary and the Resurrection and the Ascension and His coming back, and we do communion at least in remembrance. Those that found it a hard saying would have done or believed none of this.

I do not think I try to be more comprehensible. If anything, Aquinas and his explaining of transubstantiation is trying to put it in " more comprehensible terms".

No, I think the orthodox just simply take His words “this is my body” as literal, and others simply take it as figurative, spiritual eating. Literal and figurative/spiritual are equally put in comprehensible terms

I take John 6 as figurative for Christ was trying folks to believe in His mission, and was not putting folks in a bind over something that had not occurred yet (Last Supper). So when I get to the Supper, the figurative carries over and the spiritual eating is manifest openly. I think others take the Supper and apply it backwards to John 6. That is, I am wondering if Jesus never said those consecrating words would you interpret John 6 the same way ?

Blessings

 

[ffg]

Hi JMM,

Thank you for the understanding that we do have. Where we don’t I can only say again no one today finds it a “hard saying” as the unbelieving “disciples” who left. We all understand Calvary and the Resurrection and the Ascension and His coming back, and we do communion at least in remembrance. Those that found it a hard saying would have done or believed none of this.

I do not think I try to be more comprehensible. If anything, Aquinas and his explaining of transubstantiation is trying to put it in " more comprehensible terms".

No, I think the orthodox just simply take His words “this is my body” as literal, and others simply take it as figurative, spiritual eating. Literal and figurative/spiritual are equally put in comprehensible terms

I take John 6 as figurative for Christ was trying folks to believe in His mission, and was not putting folks in a bind over something that had not occurred yet (Last Supper). So when I get to the Supper, the figurative carries over and the spiritual eating is manifest openly. I think others take the Supper and apply it backwards to John 6. That is, I am wondering if Jesus never said those consecrating words would you interpret John 6 the same way ?

Blessings

Hi Benhur,

It has been a while since I’ve been in this one.

A couple thoughts on your last here.

Peter’s answer to Jesus is nowhere equivalent to ’ I understand Jesus’ or ‘it is an easy saying for us Jesus’.

‘hard saying’ is not made easy because of trust in Jesus. Trust in Jesus makes a hard saying palatable.

It is also not made easy because of the supper. Many people follow in the footsteps of a saint, I think saint Augustine who said ‘I believe, help my unbelief’.

It is still a hard saying, faith and trust (and the form God uses in bread and wine) gets folks past what was and is a hard saying.

Take care,

Mike

 

[St_Redemption]

This is why I was hoping an apologist could answer this. Instead of answering the logical issue, it’s devolved into a question on whether Jesus is speaking of the Eucharist in John 6, which is not my point.

I’m specifically asking how the Catholic Church can reconcile their interpretation of John 6 with their view of Protestants as separated brethren… Protestants - please don’t derail this into the interpretation of John 6. Instead, assume the Catholic view of John 6 is correct and let’s discuss how both can be true.

If that has been answered, I apologize as it’s clearly been lost in all the bickering over if Jesus was referring to the Eucharist or not.

Btw, Ben Hur I was not referring to you. You are on point, sir. ������������������

You should put your question into the ask an apologist section and you will get a response from an apologist and an apologist only

 

[Michael68]

Yes , it is in the eyes of the beholder.
of course. But even if they did have the gospel and eucharist instead of manna, one still dies physically.
yes the object of eating switches (manna to Christ) so does the mode of eating (physical to spiritual) for the reward switches also ( physical sustenance in manna to spiritual eternal life and resurrection in believing/eating Christ). Manna was for physical existence and eaten physically. The Bread of Life is for spiritual life and eaten spiritually… Not sure where you get that. I posted I spiritually eat “Him”. I did not split Him.
Well one has to understand the point first for it to mean anything. maybe I am explaining it wrong, or just a tough paradigm you have to see thru.

Blessings rc

Hey Ben! Quick question, how do you eat spiritually?