M
Michael68
Guest
Are you using Eucharist as a verb?
If John 6 is speaking of the eucharist, how can non Catholics be saved?
- Status
E
eddie_too
Guest
benhur, I agree that Jesus calling Himself the Bread of Life is the use of a metaphor.
J
JMM1957
Guest
ben, please explain how you understand John 6:55?, “For my flesh is true food, and my blood is true drink.”
If the Eucharist is just giving thanks and remembrance of Jesus, can you explain why Jesus compared his flesh and blood to real food?
Don’t you think that in this “foundational reality”, that Jesus meant for us to understand it in a particular way, and not both ways, one figurative and one literal? And because of this different understanding by the CC and P’s, would it not seem that one of us is not participating in the body and blood in the right spirit, as intended by Our Lord?
B
benhur
Guest
Yes ,saw that question coming. Not sure any definition of “figurative” fits but the closest is metaphoric, as in symbolic per religious custom (Passover) , or you refer back to "bread of “life” which is a metaphor.
Blessings
B
benhur
Guest
Circumcision was a sign,. They still had to be born again, regenerated , born of the spirit, at some point apart from the sign. (as per Nicodemus discourse)
Not sure why you bring up an emotional reaction. But for sure by any definition of salvation, or enrolling, I would think there could be an emotional response also (like the angels in heaven do).
Again , not sure how you equate my words of being born of the spirit, and water baptism, and faith in Christ as an emotional reaction only.
How “oft” do we “do it” ? Once a month. It consists of unleavened “crackers” broken form a large one and" fruit of the vine (grape)", as Jesus called it at the Last Supper. And in Passover style we repeat the words that were spoken that night, in remembrance and thanksgiving . And we also have a reflection time for the Holy Spirit to work in our hearts beforehand, even to cleanse and pursue any repentance.
So much like most people, except some have "fermented’ fruit of the vine, and some ask the Lord for transubstantiation and consider it to be a sacrifice that we offer back to God.
Blessings
C
clem456
Guest
It’s always interesting that Christians who believe in the primacy of scripture over other revelations, do mental backflips to avoid the “phago/trogo” issue. Scripture clearly, in Christ’s own words of increasing intensity, give us a definitive basis for the Eucharist. (or at the very least, no one can deny what the texts say, and then you have an unavoidable problem).
The best gloss against is “well, he didn’t mean what he said there”. Which is very weak.
Of course Christ, the Son of the Most High God, could not be capable of changing reality according to his will. Could he? Can God do that?
I can’t fathom that, so it can’t be true, I don’t care what he said.
#allpowerfulgodsomeofthetime
The best gloss against is “well, he didn’t mean what he said there”. Which is very weak.
Of course Christ, the Son of the Most High God, could not be capable of changing reality according to his will. Could he? Can God do that?
I can’t fathom that, so it can’t be true, I don’t care what he said.
#allpowerfulgodsomeofthetime
B
benhur
Guest
I think so, as in something we " do" as in “do this”. But the bigger picture is an event , a religious rite or ritual,and you would say "sacrament’. I don not mean it in your sense , of a noun or pronoun or that which signifies what is made/transubstantiated , the Lord Jesus in the bread and wine.
I think the early use of the word was a verb “thansksgiving” (for what Christ did) and that thru the “rite or communion”. Reminds me how the word “Catholic” evolved from an adjective for church to the actual name (pronoun? where we today would capitalize the word) .
Blessings
B
benhur
Guest
OK thank you.
C
clem456
Guest
We all pick and choose what to believe. Hopefully we make educated and informed judgments about these things. This passage of scripture is offensive to “the world” on a couple of fronts. The words are difficult to accept (oh…wait)
- It involves God changing reality. We are asked to believe in an outrageous magic trick, or at least to believe that God can do some things we cannot.
It’s almost as outrageous as believing that Jesus Christ is God in human flesh. 
how could that be? - God makes himself vulnerable to human beings. What kind of God would give himself to a corrupt world, in the form of his very own flesh? It’s scandalous! It’s outrageous! It’s foolish! It’s complete love.
“Lord your flesh must never be food for the world!” “Get behind me Satan.”
B
benhur
Guest
Hi JMM,
Well , what kind of food ? What kind of food were the masses looking for? And indeed what kind of food did Jesus miraculously provide for them on several occasions,that fueled His following ? What kind of food did they really need, even finally reject ?
Just as the bread and wine are true food for the body, so are His body and Blood, per the Incarnation and Calvary etc., food for our souls,spirits,
What I meant is that either method of interpretation share part of the why, and that is both “remember” what Christ has done for us by Calvary. Both.
I agree with you that truth is absolute but in wisdom , one must be careful to judge for both are done to the Lord. Care must be taken to “disqualify” another’s “Thanksgiving”. But yes, there may be levels of "doing it’’ in truth and spirit. The differences are there.
Blessings
B
benhur
Guest
Hi clem,It’s always interesting that Christians who believe in the primacy of scripture over other revelations, do mental backflips to avoid the “phago/trogo” issue. Scripture clearly, in Christ’s own words of increasing intensity, give us a definitive basis for the Eucharist. (or at the very least, no one can deny what the texts say, and then you have an unavoidable problem).
The best gloss against is “well, he didn’t mean what he said there”. Which is very weak.
Of course Christ, the Son of the Most High God, could not be capable of changing reality according to his will. Could he? Can God do that?
I can’t fathom that, so it can’t be true, I don’t care what he said.
#allpowerfulgodsomeofthetime
Yes, back to the Greek . Even there hyperbole and metaphor stand up . Nobody “gnaws” on the host though it is commanded in John 6.
Weakness in argument is in the eye of the beholder.
Blessings
C
clem456
Guest
Yes it is.
Back to the subject at hand.
Christ uses the word gnaw in the context that he uses it.
The context is not that of a manual on how to consume the Eucharist in the present.
Christ is directly addressing the shock and disbelief of his audience. He is talking to them about a reality, not a procedure. He is talking to them about basic belief.
They ask “how can he…” in disbelief. And he tells them how.
I believe Christ is God and he is able to do this if he wills. The fact that I am standing here existing ex-nihilo is proof for me that he is capable changing reality. It is not really that shocking.
C
clem456
Guest
Earlier in the passage Jesus is challenged about his identity.
They respond to Jesus’ outrageous claim of “I Am the bread of life”
hmmm:: where have I heard that before “I Am”. hmmmm. Oh yeah, God’s fundamental self-identification in the OT)
Throughout the chapter, Jesus is addressing disbelief in his identity, his power, his divinity.
“I am the bread of life”
grumbling and arguing and asking “how” cause they can’t fathom why or how God would do this for them.
He is addressing disbelief and he lays it right out there for them, to the point of blood and guts.
And many of them leave. Apparently Jesus is not joking, or “metaphoring”.
They respond to Jesus’ outrageous claim of “I Am the bread of life”
hmmm:: where have I heard that before “I Am”. hmmmm. Oh yeah, God’s fundamental self-identification in the OT)Disbelief.
Throughout the chapter, Jesus is addressing disbelief in his identity, his power, his divinity.
They ask for a sign.
“I am the bread of life”
grumbling and arguing and asking “how” cause they can’t fathom why or how God would do this for them.
He is addressing disbelief and he lays it right out there for them, to the point of blood and guts.
And many of them leave. Apparently Jesus is not joking, or “metaphoring”.
Z
zz912
Guest
No it wasn’t. It was truly how one became a member of the Old Covenant. Period. It was not a sign of the covenant, it was the enrollment into the Covenant. You were not part of the covenant until you were circumcised. Period.
Nicodemus’ discussion with Jesus did not set the standards for the Old Covenant. They were part of the Old Covenant at their circumcision. That doesn’t mean that was the end of it though. They still had to uphold the requirements of the Covenant, just as we must as well. Baptism saves you, as it enrolls you in the New Covenant, but this doesn’t mean that you are done. The New Covenant has requirements you must uphold.
You seem to miss the point that there must be a formal action in both Covenants to become part of the Covenant. You aren’t part of the covenant until you complete the action.
It was wine. Grape juice naturally ferments automatically. You have to stop it to keep it grape juice, the process to do so wasn’t invented for another 18 centuries.
And as a former Baptist, I wish I could express how much of the Christian faith you are missing with this understanding of the Last Supper and Calvary. Imagine the difference between watching the Super Bowl on a 15 inch black-and-white tv from the 50’s, versus standing in the huddle in the game with the team as they play.
Jesus meant for us to ACTUALLY participate in the Last Supper and Calvary. We ACTUALLY do this in the Mass. We participate in the ONE event when Jesus becomes present and we consume Him.
J
JMM1957
Guest
The masses were looking for bread, bread for their stomachs. What they really needed was the bread that came down from heaven, Jesus. “Do not work for the food which perishes, but for the food which endures to eternal life, which the Son of Man will give to you, for on Him the Father, God, has set His seal.” (John 6:27)
Jesus has life because of the Father, and we who believe in Jesus and “feed on Him”, will have life because of Him. Jesus gave us the Eucharist so that we could “feed on Him.” By partaking of His body and blood (not simply bread and wine anymore) we are united to the person of Christ through His humanity. “Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me and I in him” (John 6:56)
I really didn’t mean to “disqualify” the Remembrance or Thanksgiving that you partake in, I do realize that many non-Catholics, because of their interpretation of John 6, see it symbolically or figuratively, but nevertheless, they do it as the Lord asks, in memory of Him, and the sacrifice on Calvary which He accomplished for our sake.
R
rcwitness
Guest
They rejected the food that the Lord Jesus gives them “continually”. This meant staying with Him “forever”. If they stayed with Him, they would have been given His Eucharist, just like those who did stay with Him received. Then those who converted later, and joined the Church, also were given His Eucharist. Now, centuries later of this, we too receive His Eucharist. It is never removed from the veneration of the Written Word either. They both are from the Father in Heaven.
Yes! And in the consecrated Eucharist, these two are brought together through the Holy Spirit.
However, there is a huge aspect of His Eucharist communion which the denomination miss… Paul Taught us that we all partake of the one Loaf, because we are all members of His one body. The Eucharist is the most powerful sign of unity. This is cast aside by the denominations on the grounds that they are unified in faith that He is the Son of God, the Way, the Truth and the Life. This is suppose to be some sort of usurping dogma which renders the purpose of His Eucharist as secondary because it’s “mere ritual”. Well if that’s all they see it as, then that is their wound. Unfortunately it is all of our wound, because there is true communion in what they believe and accept. So while we must be happy for our separated brethren, we are also given a cross to bear. And then we are criticized for not bearing it well.
So to my separated brethren, I say sorry we do not bear our cross as we ought. We are grateful for your faith we have in common. Peace be with you who are not against us!
E
eddie_too
Guest
Jesus does compare Himself to the manna in the desert; and, the manna was real food for the body.
B
benhur
Guest
Partly disagree. Christ is very specific and picturesque on the “consuming” of His flesh. One can not escape, dismiss, the word "gnaw’’, otherwise you are moving away from the literal.
I agree that the context is not about how to consume the Eucharist because, as you know, I do not think He is talking about that at all (future Communion), but belief as you posted. That basic belief is in His messiahship, not in a future Last Supper and remembrance rite/sacrament. That is not “basic” at this point in His ministry .What is basic is resounded in Peter’s words at the end of the discourse. Jesus is the son of the true living God and has the words of eternal life. Quite basic but lacking in the folks that departed.
Blessings
J
JMM1957
Guest
So you do understand “gnaw” as being literal rather than figurative then?
B
benhur
Guest
Yes, but that body, that ate manna died. Christ promises this "gnawing’’ will prevent you from dying. Yet we all still die , like those in the wilderness. Of course we understand Christ to mean He is true spiritual food for the spirit/soul, not food for the body, as was manna. Hence i say a spiritual eating and not a physical eating of flesh and blood/manna.
- Status