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

[rcwitness]

A proper devotion to His Eucharist recognizes that the Holy Spirit did not just one day descend upon us without the Son of God who became flesh, to descend so that God then was able to count us worthy of forgiveness. Our High priest, Jesus, made atonement for all sin in His body, by subduing His flesh to the will of the Spirit.

So a valid Eucharist is not in division with those who profess a proper faith. If the Catholic Eucharist arose in later times of the Christian faith, then other communion would have grounds for their separate communion. However, there was only one, united Eucharist in the first several centuries, and then came separate communions.

I believe the problem of division in the Christian faith is a direct result in separate communions. And the claim is now attempting to demonize the Catholic “closed Communion”. But it’s only closed because other communions came long after it, causing wounds to His call to unity in one body, who is one body because we partake of one bread.

And I will go as far as proposing that separate communions were fashioned in order to avoid suffering against abuses from properly ordained leaders who were in valid communion with the Bishop of Rome. So leaving His Eucharist is actually passing a cross to bear. Not doctrinally, but standing up against abuse in a submissive and suffering servant manner.

 

[rcwitness]

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

But did they have the proper faith that He must die for their sins?

Mark 8

32*And he said this plainly. And Peter took him, and began to rebuke him.33But turning and seeing his disciples, he rebuked Peter, and said, “Get behind me, Satan! For you are not on the side of God, but of men.”

 

[benhur]

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.

Yes communion with Him, as in one spirit to another. God is Spirit and when drawn and resuscitated by the Father our spirits fellowship with Him. Understand the C aspect of Eucharist and “closeness”. It must be unique for you apart from other methods of closeness. However I would add that for others, the other methods of closeness suffice and fills their cup. Even Catholic saints and Mystics testify of the richness and depth that can be had in these other ways( prayer, fasting,meditating on His word, etc. ) .Even the macho David speaks of fellowship so dear and the desire for more that his pillow is wet with tears. Again one spirit with Another, apart from any “ritual”.

But yes, your communion sacrament seems richer for you than ours. And as you kindly say ours is not what was meant to be, or in full spirit and truth. We conversely would say the same about yours. Regardless, there is enough profundity in the remembrance of Calvary to fill everyone’s cup, to overflowing, even to glorious Thanksgiving.

Blessings

 

[benhur]

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.

agreed

 

[benhur]

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

Well we are referencing John 6. Good to see then that some things are taken literally and some not, although I would think things be one thing or the other in the same discussion/topic. Hence I would say Jesus is not literally the bread and we do not literally gnaw at His flesh.

 

[clem456]

Well we are referencing John 6. Good to see then that some things are taken literally and some not, although I would think things be one thing or the other in the same discussion/topic. Hence I would say Jesus is not literally the bread and we do not literally gnaw at His flesh.

Simply, the bible is meant to be taken literally, where it is meant by God to be taken literally.

For instance, we know from science that there is not a dome over the earth holding back the waters. God reveals himself not only through scripture, but also through common sense observation of nature. We can observe that there is not a dome over the earth, so the passage was never meant to be taken in a literalist sense. Still, God’s word is inerrantly conveyed.

 

[zz912]

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.

Where do you get the claim that there was not a priesthood in the New Covenant? It’s pretty clear from Paul’s letters that the priesthood and who was ordained was severely limited. Paul is firm when teaching that they (Titus and Timothy) must be diligent about who they ordain.

The partition is done away with, and ALL can come forward and receive God directly in the Eucharist. That doesn’t mean the priesthood was ended.

 

[benhur]

Where do you get the claim that there was not a priesthood in the New Covenant? It’s pretty clear from Paul’s letters that the priesthood and who was ordained was severely limited. Paul is firm when teaching that they (Titus and Timothy) must be diligent about who they ordain.

The partition is done away with, and ALL can come forward and receive God directly in the Eucharist. That doesn’t mean the priesthood was ended.

sorry you can not receive God directly thru the Elements of remembrance.The Catholic’s ultimate communion with Christ needs be go thru a priest.

Blessings

 

[benhur]

Where do you get the claim that there was not a priesthood in the New Covenant? It’s pretty clear from Paul’s letters that the priesthood and who was ordained was severely limited. Paul is firm when teaching that they (Titus and Timothy) must be diligent about who they ordain.

The partition is done away with, and ALL can come forward and receive God directly in the Eucharist. That doesn’t mean the priesthood was ended.

Timothy and Titus were not “heirus” priests.

 

[benhur]

Simply, the bible is meant to be taken literally, where it is meant by God to be taken literally.

For instance, we know from science that there is not a dome over the earth holding back the waters. God reveals himself not only through scripture, but also through common sense observation of nature. We can observe that there is not a dome over the earth, so the passage was never meant to be taken in a literalist sense. Still, God’s word is inerrantly conveyed.

Agree,exactly.

 

[Michael68]

Why hasn’t this thread been closed? Its just the same thing over and over. Protestants don’t get it and from this thread, imo, they never will. Although its amusing to watch them squirm on this issue

 

[pete_29]

sorry you can not receive God directly thru the Elements of remembrance.The Catholic’s ultimate communion with Christ needs be go thru a priest.

Blessings

They are not elements of remembrance, They are the Body and Blood of Christ. Jesus said so Himself. I don’t understand how anyone cannot believe Him.

 

[JMM1957]

sorry you can not receive God directly thru the Elements of remembrance.The Catholic’s ultimate communion with Christ needs be go thru a priest.

Blessings

Really? " Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me and I in him." Because we as Catholics believe that we are actually receiving the body and blood of Our Lord in the Eucharist, and it is not symbolic but literal, we can say that we remain in Him, while He remains in us.

“Is not the cup of blessing which we bless a sharing in the blood of Christ? Is not the bread which we break a sharing in the body of Christ? Since there is one bread, we who are many are one body; for we all partake of the one bread.” 1 Cor. 10:16-17.

BLESSING, CUP OF (τὸ ποτήριον τη̂ς εὐλογίας). This expression is found only in 1 Corinthians 10:16, and is best understood in light of the ancient Jewish custom of concluding meals with a prayer of thanksgiving over a cup of wine, “the cup of blessing.” This ritual act acknowledged God as the Giver of all good gifts, and consecrated the meal to the one who ate.

CONSECRATED is an adjective that means made or declared or believed to be holy. When something is consecrated it is declared to be sacred or holy.

ben, a symbol cannot be declared consecrated or holy, only the actual body and blood of Jesus is consecrated and holy. The Eucharist is not just a remembrance ritual, I really do hope that you can eventually come to the realization that it is much, much more than what you have believed up till now. Believe Jesus when he says “This IS my body and this IS my blood.”

 

[JonNC]

Why hasn’t this thread been closed? Its just the same thing over and over. Protestants don’t get it and from this thread, imo, they never will. Although its amusing to watch them squirm on this issue

Which protestants are you speaking of?

What part of the issue do you imagine them squirming about?

Jon

 

[JMM1957]

Why hasn’t this thread been closed? Its just the same thing over and over. Protestants don’t get it and from this thread, imo, they never will. Although its amusing to watch them squirm on this issue

Never say never Michael when it comes to the workings of the grace of God. Both sides, P’s and C’s have exhausted their scriptural resources to defend or back up their positions in this thread. That’s why it seems like the same thing over and over, which it is. All that is left is the Providence of God.

 

[Peter_J]

Since human nature is no respecter of affiliation, I believe you can find people in every denomination who want to see others “squirm”.

 

[Michael68]

Since human nature is no respecter of affiliation, I believe you can find people in every denomination who want to see others “squirm”.

The squirming is from the continual insistence of its a symbol. Nothing more. By now I think they have good idea we don’t believe its a symbol. That’s all I was saying. Imo sometimes we need to shake the dust off our sandals and move on

 

[Alex_H]

I am in RCIA right now. I told my dad, who is Methodist, about this verse and he responded by saying that it was meant to be taken symbolically and not literally. He said I read things too literally in the bible. He also said that the Thief on the Cross never took Communion and yet he was saved.

My response to him was that the thief on the cross was in a unique position due to his impending death and that Jesus can offer salvation even though someone has not taken the Eucharist before. I also said that for those of us who are not in extraordinary situations like that of impending death, we are commanded time and again to eat his flesh and drink his blood.

Was my response correct?

 

[Michael68]

I am in RCIA right now. I told my dad, who is Methodist, about this verse and he responded by saying that it was meant to be taken symbolically and not literally. He said I read things too literally in the bible. He also said that the Thief on the Cross never took Communion and yet he was saved.

My response to him was that the thief on the cross was in a unique position due to his impending death and that Jesus can offer salvation even though someone has not taken the Eucharist before. I also said that for those of us who are not in extraordinary situations like that of impending death, we are commanded time and again to eat his flesh and drink his blood.

Was my response correct?

Yes, i believe so. That poor thief has been used against Baptism, the Eucharist, Confession (even though he confessed), Good Works, with no knowledge of the special circumstance of imminent death.

 

[rcwitness]

I am in RCIA right now. I told my dad, who is Methodist, about this verse and he responded by saying that it was meant to be taken symbolically and not literally. He said I read things too literally in the bible. He also said that the Thief on the Cross never took Communion and yet he was saved.

My response to him was that the thief on the cross was in a unique position due to his impending death and that Jesus can offer salvation even though someone has not taken the Eucharist before. I also said that for those of us who are not in extraordinary situations like that of impending death, we are commanded time and again to eat his flesh and drink his blood.

Was my response correct?

I think you gave a very genuine answer.
It seems as though many Christians like to use this thief and apply his situation to their own. Yet, he was dying. We are alive and able to live out our faith and participate with the Universal Church. But we should not consider it a burden, but a privaledge!