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

[benhur]

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.

Hi rc,

Part of me says hold on here a minute. What ended the discourse in John 6 ? It is not unity in the understanding of Eucharist, but the unity" in faith that He is the Son of God, the Way, the Truth and the Life, as uttered by Peter.

Now communion may be our most recognized sign of unity, but you make the means an end.The sign is never greater and only, symbolically an equal to the reality that it represents. So a sign of unity in what? The exact methodology of “communion” or the belief that Christ died for our sins? . Now you might say it is both, but so it is for our view of communion. *We do not cast aside the unity that is signified in the One Loaf. *We have read Augustine and concur on this . I do concur also with C.S. Lewis who says it it unfortunate for the divisions of the "how to " commune, for it is a common "sign’’ that we all participate in to the outside world .

Blessings

 

[benhur]

So you do understand “gnaw” as being literal rather than figurative then?

By itself gnawing is all and or neither. That is gnawing *on what *leads to a literal, or figurative, or symbolic, or spiritual understanding. “Chew on that”.

Blessings

 

[Peter_J]

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. **

Hi benhur. This ^^ wasn’t directed to me but I think I should take a moment to clarify about Catholics. I don’t see that it is “moving away from the literal”, because we never believed that everything said should be taken literally. For example, transubstantiation (cf Aquinas) makes it clear that “I am the bread of life” does not mean that Christ is literally bread.

 

[otjm]

Paul is speaking about the Eucharist, Jesus is not speaking about the Eucharist in John 6. It wouldn’t make any sense if he was, since the Eucharist wouldn’t exist until about 2 years after John 6. Why would Jesus be telling them to do something that was impossible?

The Eucharist was standing right in front of them speaking. Christ is the Eucharist. The Eucharist is Christ.

What we hae is what Christ instituted at the Last Supper; but in John 6 He is not saying that they had to eat His flesh right then; He said what they had to do, not when they had to do it.

 

[JMM1957]

The Eucharist was standing right in front of them speaking. Christ is the Eucharist. The Eucharist is Christ.

What we hae is what Christ instituted at the Last Supper; but in John 6 He is not saying that they had to eat His flesh right then; He said what they had to do, not when they had to do it.

Yes, and the disciples who disbelieved and left, did so because they were not willing to stick around and learn the fulfillment of what Jesus meant, which would come later at the Last Supper.

Another interesting thing, Jesus celebrated the Passover, The Last Supper, with just the twelve Apostles. Only with them did he institute the Eucharist. Surely Jesus had more than just twelve disciples who believed in him, but only the twelve were chosen to be with him at that moment in the upper room. This is because the twelve were to be the first of the new priesthood, and only they and their ordained successors can consecrate the bread and wine to become the body and blood as Jesus instructed, in memory of him.

 

[eddie_too]

what is the point of eating bread and wine while imagining they represent the Lord’s Body and Blood?

why would anyone who eats the Body and Blood of the Lord give them up for a mere symbol?

why would a rational person think they could persuade those who possess the Real Presence to give it up?

for nearly two millennium, millions of people have believed in the Real Presence. now, out of the blue, a few protestors think the millions were wrong and they think that eating bread and wine while pretending it has special significance is better than eating the actual Body and Blood of the Lord.

even the original protestors did not reject the Real Presence, from what I have read of Henry VIII, john calvin and martin luther.

 

[clem456]

…
even the original protestors did not reject the Real Presence, from what I have read of Henry VIII, john calvin and martin luther.

This is a point that is often overlooked. The protesters believe they have a solid and continuous Tradition when in fact not even their own progenitors affirmed what they do not believe.
Of course, the assertion is that such doctrines are malleable.

 

[JMM1957]

what is the point of eating bread and wine while imagining they represent the Lord’s Body and Blood?

why would anyone who eats the Body and Blood of the Lord give them up for a mere symbol?

why would a rational person think they could persuade those who possess the Real Presence to give it up?

for nearly two millennium, millions of people have believed in the Real Presence. now, out of the blue, a few protestors think the millions were wrong and they think that eating bread and wine while pretending it has special significance is better than eating the actual Body and Blood of the Lord.

even the original protestors did not reject the Real Presence, from what I have read of Henry VIII, john calvin and martin luther.

I think the stumbling block for many is the word “transubstantiation”. I’m sure benhur will correct me if I’m wrong about his view, but I believe that he looks at it as the body and blood of Our Lord being side by side with the Eucharistic elements of bread and wine. The elements are still there, unchanged, but the body and blood are like “hovering” (my word) nearby. The bread and wine still look like bread and wine and taste like bread and wine, but they are not changed in their substance, they are still bread and wine, in his view. That makes it (the bread and wine) just a symbol and nothing more. Jesus clearly calls the bread and wine his body and blood, not a symbol of it. Jesus doesn’t say, John 6:53-56 (paraphrased) “whoever eats this bread and drinks this wine”, he actually says, “whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood”. Jesus speaks the Truth.

 

[benhur]

Hi benhur. This ^^ wasn’t directed to me but I think I should take a moment to clarify about Catholics. I don’t see that it is “moving away from the literal”, because we never believed that everything said should be taken literally. For example, transubstantiation (cf Aquinas) makes it clear that “I am the bread of life” does not mean that Christ is literally bread.

Hi Pete,

Ok . Then it is a mix . I think that is still moving “away” from full literal. I suppose we also have a mix, for we would say it is a literal spiritual eating but symbolic,figurative flesh in a literal elements of bread and wine.

Thank you for the Aquinas comment. Just as Christ is not literally bread we would also say the bread is not literally Christ.

Blessings

 

[benhur]

Paul is speaking about the Eucharist, Jesus is not speaking about the Eucharist in John 6. It wouldn’t make any sense if he was, since the Eucharist wouldn’t exist until about 2 years after John 6. Why would Jesus be telling them to do something that was impossible?

Hi SS,
Good point and it has been bantered about. The primary “lesson” was not about future “communion”, but about faith in His Messiahship and being drawn, and not drawn, by the Father, to the Son. It was the necessary separation of the sheep and the goats, and not over future transubstantiation, but believers from non believers.

I will say that part of the discourse was not intended to teach but separate as mentioned. In that regard Jesus was "futuristic’’ about His death, even ascension. And of course it would seem impossible for folks to understand, but that was not the goal. It definitely pricked the balloon of the false followers who wanted a kingly Messiah, to sit on the throne of David (Jesus could not do that if He died and went back to heaven). Remember even the apostles had a hard time accepting His eminent death. But they had enough proper faith that He was the Christ.

Again, it was about how this new covenant was to be "founded’’, and that by the Calvary, in veiled terms at this point. And of course now we remember that by the communion and its elements, til His return as King of Kings to sit on the Davidic throne. We know this because we have been drawn by the Father and "gnaw’’ on His words.

Blessings

 

[benhur]

Yes, and the disciples who disbelieved and left, did so because they were not willing to stick around and learn the fulfillment of what Jesus meant, which would come later at the Last Supper.

Another interesting thing, Jesus celebrated the Passover, The Last Supper, with just the twelve Apostles. Only with them did he institute the Eucharist. Surely Jesus had more than just twelve disciples who believed in him, but only the twelve were chosen to be with him at that moment in the upper room. This is because the twelve were to be the first of the new priesthood, and only they and their ordained successors can consecrate the bread and wine to become the body and blood as Jesus instructed, in memory of him.

Hi JMM,

I was ready to leave and then read your post. I said "ikes’, but understand. The CC and it’s Eucharist and priesthood go hand in hand. One needs the other.

As you might guess I do not like the exclusionary aspect to it. It is OT in a bad sense. It is the “heirus” system all over again. The system was originally set up because of the sin of the people . Sin separates. Hence priesthood only from Aron and one one tribe, not all twelve as originally destined (a nation of priests) . Jesus came to do away with this division, the middle wall of partition being done away with, the veil into the holy of holies being torn asunder so that we *all *may go in boldly.

Thanks for letting me banter.Gotta go.

Blessings

 

[JMM1957]

Hi SS,
Good point and it has been bantered about. The primary “lesson” was not about future “communion”, but about faith in His Messiahship and being drawn, and not drawn, by the Father, to the Son. It was the necessary separation of the sheep and the goats, and not over future transubstantiation, but believers from non believers.

I will say that part of the discourse was not intended to teach but separate as mentioned. In that regard Jesus was "futuristic’’ about His death, even ascension. And of course it would seem impossible for folks to understand, but that was not the goal. It definitely pricked the balloon of the false followers who wanted a kingly Messiah, to sit on the throne of David (Jesus could not do that if He died and went back to heaven). Remember even the apostles had a hard time accepting His eminent death. But they had enough proper faith that He was the Christ.

Again, it was about how this new covenant was to be "founded’’, and that by the Calvary, in veiled terms at this point. And of course now we remember that by the communion and its elements, til His return as King of Kings to sit on the Davidic throne. We know this because we have been drawn by the Father and "gnaw’’ on His words.

Blessings

I see Jesus’ entire ministry as trying to draw people into “communion” with him. That is what this is all about, having that intimate closeness with our Lord and Savior. And there is not a greater closeness for us believers, with him, on this planet, than partaking of the Eucharist, which “IS” the body and blood of Jesus, as he himself tells us. Making a mere symbol of it, is not what Jesus meant to do for us.

 

[JMM1957]

Hi SS,
Good point and it has been bantered about. The primary “lesson” was not about future “communion”, but about faith in His Messiahship and being drawn, and not drawn, by the Father, to the Son. It was the necessary separation of the sheep and the goats, and not over future transubstantiation, but believers from non believers.

I will say that part of the discourse was not intended to teach but separate as mentioned. In that regard Jesus was "futuristic’’ about His death, even ascension. And of course it would seem impossible for folks to understand, but that was not the goal. It definitely pricked the balloon of the false followers who wanted a kingly Messiah, to sit on the throne of David (Jesus could not do that if He died and went back to heaven). Remember even the apostles had a hard time accepting His eminent death. But they had enough proper faith that He was the Christ.

Again, it was about how this new covenant was to be "founded’’, and that by the Calvary, in veiled terms at this point. And of course now we remember that by the communion and its elements, til His return as King of Kings to sit on the Davidic throne. We know this because we have been drawn by the Father and "gnaw’’ on His words.

Blessings

The separation of sheep from goats goes on throughout the Gospels. There were always those who questioned Jesus’ authority and “difficult sayings” throughout his ministry, John 6 is just one of those examples.

 

[JMM1957]

The separation of sheep from goats goes on throughout the Gospels. There were always those who questioned Jesus’ authority and “difficult sayings” throughout his ministry, John 6 is just one of those examples.

Just to add, I agree, John 6 is not specifically focused on transubstantiation, there are many other theological issues being presented. But, you cannot deny that there is a direct connection between parts of John 6 and the Eucharistic meal, The Lord’s Supper, that eventually came to be instituted by Jesus in all three of the synoptic’s. The wording that Jesus uses to describe himself in John 6; bread that comes down from heaven, bread of life, living bread, they all point towards Jesus as the flesh and blood that gives eternal life, and who we must “feed on”. We feed on him, in his memory, in the Eucharistic meal, where Jesus gives us his body and blood.

 

[rcwitness]

Hi SS,
Good point and it has been bantered about. ****The primary “lesson” was not about future “communion”, but about faith in His Messiahship and being drawn, and not drawn, by the Father, to the Son.

It was the necessary separation of the sheep and the goats, and not over future transubstantiation, but believers from non believers. Again, I strongly feel that you are seeing “Communion” as something apart from things like “faith in His Messiahship”, and “being drawn… by the Father”, and being fed as His sheep, etc. We consider partaking in His Eucharist offering as a most holy aspect of these very things.

I will say that part of the discourse was not intended to teach but separate as mentioned. In that regard Jesus was "futuristic’’ about His death, even ascension. And of course it would seem impossible for folks to understand, but that was not the goal. It definitely pricked the balloon of the false followers who wanted a kingly Messiah, to sit on the throne of David (Jesus could not do that if He died and went back to heaven). Remember even the apostles had a hard time accepting His eminent death. But they had enough proper faith that He was the Christ.

I’m glad you agree He was referencing His Sacrifice. And remember, His Sacrifice on Calvary was the summit of His love towards us, but it was this same love which, all along, compelled Him to gather His sheep through Teaching, encouraging, defending, commanding, etc. He was always always the Suffering Servant of God.

Again, it was about how this new covenant was to be "founded’’, and that by the Calvary, in veiled terms at this point. And of course now we remember that by the communion and its elements, til His return as King of Kings to sit on the Davidic throne. We know this because we have been drawn by the Father and "gnaw’’ on His words.

Again, splitting hairs, where it should be bringing together. He was definitely revealing something none of them were accepting with the reference to His death. This is paramount in understanding why He then instituted His Eucharist meal. At this point of John 6, He is alive and they were able to gather to Him in person. After His death and departure, we would gather to Him in Communion.

 

[Peter_J]

Hi Pete,

Ok . Then it is a mix . I think that is still moving “away” from full literal.

Well, I don’t really see that, BC I don’t think there was a time when Christians took everything said literally.

 

[JMM1957]

Hi JMM,

I was ready to leave and then read your post. I said "ikes’, but understand. The CC and it’s Eucharist and priesthood go hand in hand. One needs the other.

As you might guess I do not like the exclusionary aspect to it. It is OT in a bad sense. It is the “heirus” system all over again. The system was originally set up because of the sin of the people . Sin separates. Hence priesthood only from Aron and one one tribe, not all twelve as originally destined (a nation of priests) . Jesus came to do away with this division, the middle wall of partition being done away with, the veil into the holy of holies being torn asunder so that we *all *may go in boldly.

Thanks for letting me banter.Gotta go.

Blessings

Yes, you are absolutely correct. Do you think that’s somehow a bad thing?

 

[JMM1957]

Hi JMM,

I was ready to leave and then read your post. I said "ikes’, but understand. The CC and it’s Eucharist and priesthood go hand in hand. One needs the other.

As you might guess I do not like the exclusionary aspect to it. It is OT in a bad sense. It is the “heirus” system all over again. The system was originally set up because of the sin of the people . Sin separates. Hence priesthood only from Aron and one one tribe, not all twelve as originally destined (a nation of priests) . Jesus came to do away with this division, the middle wall of partition being done away with, the veil into the holy of holies being torn asunder so that we *all *may go in boldly.

Thanks for letting me banter.Gotta go.

Blessings

How is it “exclusionary”? Who is being excluded?

Why you continue to see the priesthood of today’s CC as being exclusionary,(as in the OT priesthood) I can’t understand. There is a clear difference. We as Catholic’s, certainly don’t feel excluded because of the priesthood, so you will have to expound on what you mean.

 

[JMM1957]

Again, I strongly feel that you are seeing “Communion” as something apart from things like “faith in His Messiahship”, and “being drawn… by the Father”, and being fed as His sheep, etc. We consider partaking in His Eucharist offering as a most holy aspect of these very things.

I’m glad you agree He was referencing His Sacrifice. And remember, His Sacrifice on Calvary was the summit of His love towards us, but it was this same love which, all along, compelled Him to gather His sheep through Teaching, encouraging, defending, commanding, etc. He was always always the Suffering Servant of God.

Again, splitting hairs, where it should be bringing together. He was definitely revealing something none of them were accepting with the reference to His death. This is paramount in understanding why He then instituted His Eucharist meal. At this point of John 6, He is alive and they were able to gather to Him in person. After His death and departure, we would gather to Him in Communion.

Agreed. “Communion” is the high point of our sharing in the “Body of Christ”. What else can bring us into closer union with Jesus than in the Eucharist? This is why we do not reduce it to a symbol of unity as some do.

 

[rcwitness]

But they had enough proper faith that He was the Christ.

Yes they did. And this is properly trusting that He would fulfill His promise to feed us through real, and Spiritual, food.

Proper understanding of His eucharist is equally important as faith that He is who He said He is. Just as our veneration of the Scriptures should be equal to our veneration of His Eucharist.