John 6:25-59 The Bread of Life

[SnakeMauler]

I don’t see a “change in style” here. Both seem to be figurative language to me. Eating his flesh and drinking his blood seem to be figurative language for believing in him. No one actually takes this passage “literally,” since to literally eat flesh and drink blood would, by any definition, be cannibalism. And surely he wasn’t talking about that.

Note, I’m not saying that you can’t have a “sacramental” understanding of these words. I just don’t think you can take them “literally.”

If it was “figurative” why would it amount to his disciples leaving him? I didn’t see any people get wierded out and leave him when he spoke in other parables.

 

[SnakeMauler]

Let me get this straight. You claim that you “eat flesh” and “drink blood” in the Eucharist? How is this not cannibalism?

Second, where are you getting the idea of the Eucharist from John 6? The one place you’d expect to find John/Jesus talking about the Eucharist is at the Last Supper–but in John’s gospel, there’s a foot-washing, no Eucharist. This is odd given what we see in John. For example, when Jesus looks forward to something in John’s gospel–it actually takes place IN John’s gospel. So when he says, for example, “the Son of Man must be lifted up,” guess what–there’s actually a CRUCIFIXION to which this prediction corresponds. So where’s the Eucharist in John? There isn’t one. And if not, then how can you be sure that’s what John 6 is talking about?

I’m confused. You want to say, on the one hand, Jesus was speaking literally about eating flesh and drinking blood, but on the other hand, that you’re not cannibalizing him. Your definition of “literally” sounds like what I mean by “metaphorical.” (Which makes me wonder what “metaphorical” means to you.)

Yes. And so far, no one has given me a reason to take Jesus “literally” in John 6:51-58. I think you’re failing to recognize that he’s speaking figuratively here, as was his custom (John 16:25).

I never said otherwise. But “more often” does mean “usually,” as in “most of the time.” So the burden rests with you to show why this isn’t one of those “usual” times.

It wouldn’t be cannibalism because it wouldn’t be eating just a guy’s regular flesh and organs. It’d be eating something with the visual appearance of bread, but the underlying reality of Jesus’s body. DUHHHHHHHHHHHHH.

Oh c’mon, you know we’re right.

 

[spockrates]

Summary of the debate so far…

It seems to me that the few of us continuing this thread have pretty much “fleshed out” (yes, that was bad, sorry) the major interpretative issues in John 6. Here’s my take of the Catholic perspective:

The Catholic argument as I understand it:

1. Keep the big picture in mind: Passover. Passover sheds light on what it means to “eat flesh,” since in order to escape God’s wrath, one had to “eat” the Passover lamb. Thus the “flesh” we eat is actually the flesh of the “lamb.”
2. The multiplication of the loaves is a “type” of the Eucharist.
3. Jesus is the bread of life, which is identified as his flesh, which we literally eat. So when we “eat of this bread,” we’re actually eating Jesus.
   4a. When the Jews objected and asked, “how can he give us his flesh to eat,” Jesus does not correct their misunderstanding because they didn’t misunderstand.
   4b. If they had misunderstand, then Jesus would have corrected them. But since he did not, we can be sure that they in fact understood him correctly.
4. Jesus was speaking literally and they took him literally. The problem is that they didn’t believe him. They didn’t believe that he was requiring his followers to literally eat his flesh and drink his blood in order to have eternal life.
5. Catholics claim to be taking Jesus at his word (i.e., literally). But they categorically reject the notion that this entails cannibalism.
6. So even though eating flesh/drinking blood isn’t cannibalism, they nevertheless insist that they are literally eating his flesh and drinking his blood in the Eucharist.
7. Catholics believe that the only legitimate interpretation of “eating flesh” and “drinking blood” requires a belief in the real presence (and specifically, the theory of transubstantiation) of Jesus in the Eucharist.
8. The “unbelief” of those in John 6 lies in their rejection of the doctrine of the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist.
9. Those who decided not to follow Jesus any longer did so because they didn’t believe in Jesus’ theology of the Eucharist.

Am I leaving anything out?

Yes, I think you have left out this:

4c. If anyone misunderstands, then there *must *be a correct interpretation somewhere in the Bible.

Don’t you agree?

 

[Marc_Anthony]

The reason we rejct it as cannibalism is because cannibalism would involve the eating of the PHYSICAL flesh and blood of Jesus. While it is the ACTUAL flesh and blood clearly it is not the PHYSICAL flesh and blood or else the accidents would be transformed.

 

[ncgolf]

They in deed took him literally. But that was precisely the problem. They misunderstood him because he was speaking metaphorically, not literally. Besides, it’s not clear that the reason they left him was because they took him literally. John 6:66 says they left him.

“these sayings are hard” doesn’t give you a clue?

But read the previous verse (no really, read it). Here Jesus tells them that no one can come to him unless the Father ordains it. That’s what we call unconditional election coupled with efficacious grace. A lot of people have trouble with that doctrine. So when we see–in the next verse–some of his disciples walking away, what is the nearest antecedent? (Answer: the previous verse).

From that passage you make an assumption that they were never of the elect. You don’t know for sure. At that time … maybe … maybe not but your assumption that they were never of the elect is way beyond what Scripture says.

So as you can see, you’re begging a huge question, because you’re assuming at the outset that Jesus/John have the Eucharist in mind here. That has to be argued from the text, not assumed.

That is part of the problem. You look at John 6 alone but Scripture is about the entire book. Nothing Cathlolics believe about the Eucharist is not supported by all of Scripture. I agree if the only reference to the Eucharist was John then the argument would be weaker … ie. no Passover, no Manna, no Road to Emmaus, no Lamb of God reference, no Last Supper discourses.

But as I see it, there is no clear connection between eating flesh/drinking blood and the Lord’s Supper in John.

Think about it … If Jesus is consumed and lives … what constitutes a living body. Flesh and blood.

This is called “special pleading.” You’re narrowly defining your terms so as to exclude any possible objections. I’m using the generally accepted idea that cannibalism refers to eating the flesh of your own species, whether dead or alive. You may find the term “distasteful,” (pun intended), but it’s exactly the right term for describing the Jews’ misunderstanding of Jesus’ words–if they were taking him literally.

Yes … the Jews understood him to be speaking of cannibilzation … we know now that now that is not the case so for you to say it that term should be used is wrong. He was speaking literally and he was not describing canniblization. That is where Catholics reside … in that space.
You cannot cannibilize something living and have it continue living … it cannot be done. That is why your use of this term cannibilzation today is incorrect, by definition if you cannibilized something living … it is no longer living after ingestion. Jesus lives and continues to live so how is this canniblization? By definition cannibilzation results in death. That is why I say you must find another term for what Jesus is talking about? It can happen but it cannot be canniblization. If Jesus can share his divinity (grace) why cannot he share his body (Eucharist). What precludes that from happening?

And yet there is no reference to Jesus as the sacrificial “lamb” in John 6. We do know from 1:29, for example, that he is the “lamb of God.” But we’re never told to “eat” the lamb, nor is there any place in John where people “eat” the lamb. What we are told is to “follow” the lamb.

Anyone of Jewish faith or reads the Bible knows what eventually happens to the unblemished lamb. It’s purpose is for sacrifice … and if at Passover … for consumption. Why would John state something already know by practicing Jews for 2000 years.

If you’re going to use the Passover to control the entire interpretation of John 6 (which is highly dubious) how do you explain the command to “drink” blood?

One does not use it to control but to put a contexual understanding around some very confusing text. This is just the Bible explaining the Bible. This “drink blood” is a clue about the nature of Christ’s body. I say again “flesh and blood” constitute a living body … the lamb in the Passover was dead and roasted. As the sign says “Jesus lives”.

I can see the eating of lamb. But what about the drinking of blood? Was part of the Passover does this refer to?

See comment above about what constitutes a living body.

I’m not sure. Perhaps he’s just telling us when the bread of life discourse took place. Or maybe we are intended to understand the whole discourse in terms of the Passover. But what aspect of the Passover are we supposed to detect here?

This is where you must do the exegesis necessary to find this out. Exodus is important. The reasons for Passover are important. Remember the Passover had been celebrated close to 2000 years already. John does not write something without a reason, why would John tie Passover to the feeding of the 5000 and to the Bread of Life Discourse, remember he does this at the beginning of John 6.

After all, there’s no mention of “lamb” in the bread of life discourse. But there is mention of “manna.” This alludes to the Exodus. There certainly are a lot of allusions to Old Testament motifs in John 6. But there doesn’t seem to be any allusion to the Eucharist.

It’s all about the Eucharist. John ties in Moses, the Exodus and Passover all in one. You must read this as 1st century Jews would have seen it. Jesus is the fulfillment of the OT as he is now the Paschal Lamb. Read this as Jews would have seen it … don’t read it as an Evangelical.

 

[Miguel_Sastre]

Oh c’mon, you know we’re right.

Now that’s the best Catholic argument I’ve heard yet! The Bluff. LOL.

 

[spockrates]

Summary of the debate so far…

It seems to me that the few of us continuing this thread have pretty much “fleshed out” (yes, that was bad, sorry) the major interpretative issues in John 6. Here’s my take of the Catholic perspective:

The Catholic argument as I understand it:

… 5. Jesus was speaking literally and they took him literally. The problem is that they didn’t believe him. They didn’t believe that he was requiring his followers to literally eat his flesh and drink his blood in order to have eternal life.
6. Catholics claim to be taking Jesus at his word (i.e., literally). But they categorically reject the notion that this entails cannibalism. …

Am I leaving anything out?

I like you, Miguel!



You remind me so much of myself when I first came to the Catholic Answers Forum under a different user name. I once even asked if God was a loaf of bread! (nearly got me booted off the forum). I used to be Evangelical, too, and am (in many ways) still Evangelical at heart. Please correct me if I’m wrong, but it seems to me that your reasonable logic goes something like this:

1. 
   *]Cannibalism is a serious sin.
   
   *]Catholics believe that the bread of the Eucharist is Jesus’ literal flesh.
   
   *]If Jesus were teaching that we should eat His flesh, He’d be teaching us to commit cannibalism.
   
   *]Jesus does not tempt anyone to sin.
   
   Therefore,
   
   a. Jesus was not teaching that we should eat His flesh
   
   and
   
   b. Catholics are wrong in thinking the bread of the Eucharist is Jesus’ literal flesh.
   
   Am I understanding where you’re coming from? If I am, and there are no factual errors, nor logical errors, in your reasoning, then I’d have to admit that you have shown me good reasons to not begin RCIA classes and become a Catholic.
   
   

 

[Miguel_Sastre]

I If I am, and there are no factual errors, nor logical errors, in your reasoning, then I’d have to admit that you have shown me good reasons to not begin RCIA classes and become a Catholic.

I’ll I’m saying is that if you claim to be taking Jesus “literally,” on the one hand, but this is NOT cannibalism on the other, (and if we’re defining “literally” and “cannibalism” in their usual sense), then you would have an inconsistency.

I do NOT think the Catholic Church teaches cannibalism (in the literal sense of the word). But I am saying that the arguments some here are using regarding the interpretation of John 6 seem to entail cannibalism.

In point of fact, the Catholic Church teaches “metaphysical” rather than “physical” change, because the change occurs at the level of “substance,” rather than “accident”. So under the microscope, we will find that the bread and wine are still, as far as the physicist is concerned, bread and wine. But the meta-physicist, would see (with the microscope of faith), Jesus Christ. (There are actually 2 miracles here: The miracle of substantial change and the miracle of accidents continuing in existence apart from the original substance to which they were bound. On this reading of John, there would be not seven signs, but 7 + 2 = 9 signs!)

If the above analysis is correct, then this would make Catholics “metaphysical cannibals,” because they’re still “eating flesh” and “drinking blood.” And because in scholastic thinking ultimate reality lies at the metaphysical level, one could argue that Catholics are even more cannibalistic than were the indigenous tribes of the Caribbean that Columbus claims to have been flesh-eaters. That’s why I’m impressed by this particular brand of cannibalism. I’m just a mere “metaphorical cannibal.”

If you want to argue that you truly “eat flesh” and “drink blood” in the Eucharist, then I think you need to either admit that you’re interpreting John 6 in a “non-literal” manner, or come clean and confess your cannibalism.

The “way out,” it seems to me, would be to posit a “super-literal” or “metaphysical-literal” interpretation of the words–one that avoids the extremes of “crass literalism,” on the one hand, and “mere symbolism” on the other.

Once you do that, then all that is left to show is that this interpretation is related organically to John 6. If you can do that, then I’d say that you would have successfully overcome this particular objection to joining the RCIA class.

But there may be all kinds of OTHER reasons not to become Roman Catholic. For example, do you believe in the inspiration of the Bible based on the infallible teaching authority of the Catholic Church?

Many use a “spiral” argument to justify this belief, that I’ll sketch here.

1. Start with the historical reliability of the New Testament, backed by first-rate manuscript evidence.
2. Look at the claims of Christ, which include his intention to found a Church and endow this same church with the charism of infallibility. (Numerous texts cited to this effect.)
3. The hinge: If Jesus rose from the dead, then you have to believe his claims, and so premise 2 is secure. If he did not, well, there’s always Buddhism to consider…
4. Since there are good reasons to believe that Jesus rose from the dead, then on His authority, you can believe the infallible Church he founded.
5. Since this Church tells us scripture is inspired, you can believe this claim on the strength of Jesus’ own authority.
   QED.

Premise 1 is problematic because there’s good manuscript evidence for the writings of Dr. Seuss. Good manuscript evidence does not entail historical reliability since you could have good manuscript evidence for fiction. But let’s assume premise 1 to be true for the sake of argument.

Premise 2 is the problem. How does the individual Catholic know–at this stage in the spiral argument–that he/she is interpreting the texts correctly? If we consider the same texts (considered only to be history at this point and not scripture), then UNLESS we’re presupposing our own personal infallibility in interpreting these texts, HOW can we be sure they don’t admit of another interpretation? What if they only mean that Jesus intended to found a FALLIBLE church? If this is true, then we could not arrive at the conclusion that we believe in the inspiration of scripture on the authority of the church, since, for all we know, the church might be wrong on this point, being a fallible church. If that’s the case, then we’d have to come to belief in the inspiration some other way.

 

[spockrates]

I’ll I’m saying is that if you claim to be taking Jesus “literally,” on the one hand, but this is NOT cannibalism on the other, (and if we’re defining “literally” and “cannibalism” in their usual sense), then you would have an inconsistency.

I do NOT think the Catholic Church teaches cannibalism (in the literal sense of the word). But I am saying that the arguments some here are using regarding the interpretation of John 6 seem to entail cannibalism.

In point of fact, the Catholic Church teaches “metaphysical” rather than “physical” change, because the change occurs at the level of “substance,” rather than “accident”. So under the microscope, we will find that the bread and wine are still, as far as the physicist is concerned, bread and wine. But the meta-physicist, would see (with the microscope of faith), Jesus Christ. (There are actually 2 miracles here: The miracle of substantial change and the miracle of accidents continuing in existence apart from the original substance to which they were bound. On this reading of John, there would be not seven signs, but 7 + 2 = 9 signs!)

If the above analysis is correct, then this would make Catholics “metaphysical cannibals,” because they’re still “eating flesh” and “drinking blood.” And because in scholastic thinking ultimate reality lies at the metaphysical level, one could argue that Catholics are even more cannibalistic than were the indigenous tribes of the Caribbean that Columbus claims to have been flesh-eaters. That’s why I’m impressed by this particular brand of cannibalism. I’m just a mere “metaphorical cannibal.”

If you want to argue that you truly “eat flesh” and “drink blood” in the Eucharist, then I think you need to either admit that you’re interpreting John 6 in a “non-literal” manner, or come clean and confess your cannibalism.

The “way out,” it seems to me, would be to posit a “super-literal” or “metaphysical-literal” interpretation of the words–one that avoids the extremes of “crass literalism,” on the one hand, and “mere symbolism” on the other.

Once you do that, then all that is left to show is that this interpretation is related organically to John 6. If you can do that, then I’d say that you would have successfully overcome this particular objection to joining the RCIA class.

But there may be all kinds of OTHER reasons not to become Roman Catholic. For example, do you believe in the inspiration of the Bible based on the infallible teaching authority of the Catholic Church?

Many use a “spiral” argument to justify this belief, that I’ll sketch here.

1. Start with the historical reliability of the New Testament, backed by first-rate manuscript evidence.
2. Look at the claims of Christ, which include his intention to found a Church and endow this same church with the charism of infallibility. (Numerous texts cited to this effect.)
3. The hinge: If Jesus rose from the dead, then you have to believe his claims, and so premise 2 is secure. If he did not, well, there’s always Buddhism to consider…
4. Since there are good reasons to believe that Jesus rose from the dead, then on His authority, you can believe the infallible Church he founded.
5. Since this Church tells us scripture is inspired, you can believe this claim on the strength of Jesus’ own authority.
   QED.

Premise 1 is problematic because there’s good manuscript evidence for the writings of Dr. Seuss. Good manuscript evidence does not entail historical reliability since you could have good manuscript evidence for fiction. But let’s assume premise 1 to be true for the sake of argument.

Premise 2 is the problem. How does the individual Catholic know–at this stage in the spiral argument–that he/she is interpreting the texts correctly? If we consider the same texts (considered only to be history at this point and not scripture), then UNLESS we’re presupposing our own personal infallibility in interpreting these texts, HOW can we be sure they don’t admit of another interpretation? What if they only mean that Jesus intended to found a FALLIBLE church? If this is true, then we could not arrive at the conclusion that we believe in the inspiration of scripture on the authority of the church, since, for all we know, the church might be wrong on this point, being a fallible church. If that’s the case, then we’d have to come to belief in the inspiration some other way.

Miguel:

I’m not much of a theologian, though I am an amateur logician. I try to make up for my lack of intelligence by being careful to examine each premise and whether it supports the conclusion. Some of what you said went over my head, but I think I get the gist. What I’m still fuzzy about is what you are clearly thinking is the reason for not believing that the Eucharist is Christ.

 

[spockrates]

Is your reason this: If the Eucharist is Christ, then eating it is, in some way, the sin of cannibalism? Or do you have a more compelling reason to why not to believe?

 

[ncgolf]

Am I understanding where you’re coming from? If I am, and there are no factual errors, nor logical errors, in your reasoning, then I’d have to admit that you have shown me good reasons to not begin RCIA classes and become a Catholic.

How does Miguel support his arguments? How do you know his logic is without flaw and how do you know it is consistent over time. If indeed if what Miguel says is true he should be able to provide writings not of his own that support his understanding.

Here are a few Early Catholics (there are many more) and their understanding on the Eucharist from the 100’s thru the 400’s. You will find them consistent with our understanding today and answering the same objections Miguel raises … his objections are nothing new. Ask him for historical support for his viewpoint … his objections should have spilled as much ink as those with the Catholic understanding.

Ignatius of Antioch, Epistle to the Smyrnaeans, Chapter 6, 110 A.D.:
Take note of those who hold heterodox opinions on the grace of Jesus Christ which has come to us, and see how contrary their opinions are to the mind of God … They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer because they do not confess that the Eucharist is the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ, flesh which suffered for our sins and which that Father, in his goodness, raised up again. They who deny the gift of God are perishing in their disputes.

St. Cyprian of Carthage, the Lord’s Prayer, 252 A.D., chapter 18:
As the prayer proceeds, we ask and say: ‘Give us this day our daily bread.’ This can be understood both spiritually and simply, because either understanding is of profit in divine usefulness for salvation. For Christ is the bread of life and the bread here is of all, but is ours. And as we say ‘Our Father,’ because He is the Father of those who understand and believe, so too we say ‘our Bread,’ because Christ is the bread of those of us who attain to His body. Moreover, we ask that this bread be given daily, lest we, who are in Christ and receive the Eucharist daily as food of salvation, with the intervention of some more grievous sin, while we are shut off and as non-communicants are kept from the heavenly bread, be separated from the body of Christ as He Himself declares, saying: ‘I am the bread of life which came down from heaven. If any man eat of my bread he shall live forever. Moreover, the bread that I shall give is my flesh for the life of the world.’ Since then He says that, if anyone eats of His bread, he lives forever, as it is manifest that they live who attain to His body and receive the Eucharist by right of communion, so on the other hand we must fear and pray lest anyone, while he is cut off and separated from the body of Christ, remain apart from salvation, as He Himself threatens, saying: ‘Unless you eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink His blood, you shall not have life in you.’ And so we petition that our bread, that is Christ, be given us daily, so that we, who abide and live in Christ, may not withdraw from His sanctification and body.

St. John Chrysostom, Homilies on the Gospel of Matthew, 82, 4, 370 A.D.:
Let us submit to God in all things and not contradict Him, even if what He says seems contrary to our reason and intellect; rather let His words prevail over our reason and intellect. Let us act in this way with regard to the (eucharistic) mysteries, looking not only at what falls under our senses but holding on to His words. For His word cannot lead us astray. . . When the word says, This is My Body', be convinced of it and believe it, and look at it with the eyes of the mind. . . How many now say, I wish I could see His shape, His appearance, His garments, His sandals.’ Only look! You see Him! You touch Him! You eat Him!

St. Cyril of Alexandria, “Catecheses,” 22, 9; “Myst.” 4; d. 444 A.D.:
We have been instructed in these matters and filled with an unshakable faith, that that which seems to be bread, is not bread, though it tastes like it, but the Body of Christ, and that which seems to be wine, is not wine, though it too tastes as such, but the Blood of Christ . . . draw inner strength by receiving this bread as spiritual food and your soul will rejoice.

 

[RBK]

1. 
   *]Cannibalism is a serious sin.
   
   *]Catholics believe that the bread of the Eucharist is Jesus’ literal flesh.
   
   *]If Jesus were teaching that we should eat His flesh, He’d be teaching us to commit cannibalism.
   
   *]Jesus does not tempt anyone to sin.
   
   Therefore,
   
   a. Jesus was not teaching that we should eat His flesh
   
   and
   
   b. Catholics are wrong in thinking the bread of the Eucharist is Jesus’ literal flesh.

1. 
   The command not to drink blood was a discipline, like the dietary laws, the laws for purification, etc. With this reasoning, then you must argue that we are still required to obey ALL of those disciplines.
   
   Unlike the permanent, divine laws given on Mount Sinai (The 10 Commandments),** the disciplinary laws of the Old Testament were temporary in nature, awaiting their fulfillment through the revelation of Christ**. Having in view the New Covenant of Jesus’ Blood, these old disciplines were designed by God to prepare Israel for the New Covenant (Gal. 3:26-29). This prohibition (not consuming blood) was a disciplinary law abolished by Christ when He initiated the new and everlasting covenant in His Blood.
   
   According [to the Old Covenant], gifts and sacrifices are offered which cannot perfect the conscience of the worshiper, but deal only with food and drink and various ablutions, regulations for the body imposed until the time of reformation…Indeed, under the law almost everything is purified with blood, and without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness of sins.
   
   But when Christ appeared as a high priest of the good things that have come, then through the greater and more perfect tent (not made with hands, that is, not of this creation) he entered once for all into the Holy Place, taking not the blood of goats and calves but his own blood, thus securing an eternal redemption.
   
   Bringing the fullness of revelation to man, Jesus completes the Old Law and brings in the New. No longer does the blood of animals signify life for man, but rather the Blood of Jesus Himself, poured out in the New Covenant, gives us new life. What the blood of animals signified, the Blood of Christ provides. Because His Blood provides redemption, He commands us to drink it (Jn. 6:54).
   
   God gave Noah the animals of the earth for food. This food was perishable and only provided for man’s bodily needs. Under the New Covenant, God gives us Jesus as our imperishable food (Jn. 6:27), and commands that we eat His flesh and drink His Precious Blood. Those who do so partake in eternal life (Jn. 6:54). Furthermore,** this commandment to drink His blood proves the completion of the Old Law. As those who ate blood under the Old Law were cut off, so now those who drink the Blood of Christ are cut off from the Old Law and incorporated into the New.**
   
   Because of the New Law, the blood of an animal has no significance, for life is in the Blood of Christ. In Mark 7:18-23 (see also Mt. 15:17-20), Jesus declares that all foods, **including animal blood, are “clean” and that to eat them is not a sin. **
   
   Given the New Law, why is blood prohibited to Gentile converts in Acts 15:28-29, especially after Peter’s dream in Acts 10? Animal blood was prudently prohibited at that time in the Church out of deference to the converts from Israel who found it offensive. To avoid an association of Christianity with pagan rituals, the temporary discipline was maintained. In short, the purpose of the discipline was not theological – as in the Old Testament – but social. When the danger of scandal to Christianity ceased, this temporary discipline was abolished.
   
   The purpose of man and his life on earth is to bring glory to God. All we do must point to Him and draw others to Him. Consequently, all disciplines and rituals of the Church must reflect the fullness of revelation given by Christ. Eating blood is no longer associated with impurity, and there is no prohibition in force to refrain from eating blood. Most importantly, we are commanded to drink the Precious Blood of Jesus Christ for our salvation. Living in this way, we do not become slaves of the old, but fulfill the New Covenant in Charity and act as proper stewards of creation.
   
   Taken from: cuf.org/faithfacts/details_view.asp?ffID=26

 

[spockrates]

How does Miguel support his arguments? How do you know his logic is without flaw and how do you know it is consistent over time. If indeed if what Miguel says is true he should be able to provide writings not of his own that support his understanding. …

Well, at the moment, I’m not certain what Miguel’s reasoning is, but I’m willing to learn!



I proposed this:

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=6780015&postcount=87

but perhaps I’m wrong. So I’m waiting for a response.

 

[spockrates]

… Here are a few Early Catholics (there are many more) and their understanding on the Eucharist from the 100’s thru the 400’s. You will find them consistent with our understanding today and answering the same objections Miguel raises … his objections are nothing new. Ask him for historical support for his viewpoint … his objections should have spilled as much ink as those with the Catholic understanding.

Ignatius of Antioch, Epistle to the Smyrnaeans, Chapter 6, 110 A.D.:
Take note of those who hold heterodox opinions on the grace of Jesus Christ which has come to us, and see how contrary their opinions are to the mind of God … They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer because they do not confess that the Eucharist is the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ, flesh which suffered for our sins and which that Father, in his goodness, raised up again. They who deny the gift of God are perishing in their disputes.

St. Cyprian of Carthage, the Lord’s Prayer, 252 A.D., chapter 18:
As the prayer proceeds, we ask and say: ‘Give us this day our daily bread.’ This can be understood both spiritually and simply, because either understanding is of profit in divine usefulness for salvation. For Christ is the bread of life and the bread here is of all, but is ours. And as we say ‘Our Father,’ because He is the Father of those who understand and believe, so too we say ‘our Bread,’ because Christ is the bread of those of us who attain to His body. Moreover, we ask that this bread be given daily, lest we, who are in Christ and receive the Eucharist daily as food of salvation, with the intervention of some more grievous sin, while we are shut off and as non-communicants are kept from the heavenly bread, be separated from the body of Christ as He Himself declares, saying: ‘I am the bread of life which came down from heaven. If any man eat of my bread he shall live forever. Moreover, the bread that I shall give is my flesh for the life of the world.’ Since then He says that, if anyone eats of His bread, he lives forever, as it is manifest that they live who attain to His body and receive the Eucharist by right of communion, so on the other hand we must fear and pray lest anyone, while he is cut off and separated from the body of Christ, remain apart from salvation, as He Himself threatens, saying: ‘Unless you eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink His blood, you shall not have life in you.’ And so we petition that our bread, that is Christ, be given us daily, so that we, who abide and live in Christ, may not withdraw from His sanctification and body.

St. John Chrysostom, Homilies on the Gospel of Matthew, 82, 4, 370 A.D.:
Let us submit to God in all things and not contradict Him, even if what He says seems contrary to our reason and intellect; rather let His words prevail over our reason and intellect. Let us act in this way with regard to the (eucharistic) mysteries, looking not only at what falls under our senses but holding on to His words. For His word cannot lead us astray. . . When the word says, This is My Body', be convinced of it and believe it, and look at it with the eyes of the mind. . . How many now say, I wish I could see His shape, His appearance, His garments, His sandals.’ Only look! You see Him! You touch Him! You eat Him!

St. Cyril of Alexandria, “Catecheses,” 22, 9; “Myst.” 4; d. 444 A.D.:
We have been instructed in these matters and filled with an unshakable faith, that that which seems to be bread, is not bread, though it tastes like it, but the Body of Christ, and that which seems to be wine, is not wine, though it too tastes as such, but the Blood of Christ . . . draw inner strength by receiving this bread as spiritual food and your soul will rejoice.

Thank you so much for those quotes from early Christian history! It seems to me that, since these were leaders in the early Church, the early Church must have held beliefs about the Eucharist similar to those of Catholics today. I suppose it should not be surprising that when I was an Evangelical I heard so little taught of ancient Church history after the book of Acts.

 

[spockrates]

… Because of the New Law, the blood of an animal has no significance, for life is in the Blood of Christ. In Mark 7:18-23 (see also Mt. 15:17-20), Jesus declares that all foods, **including animal blood, are “clean” and that to eat them is not a sin. **

Given the New Law, why is blood prohibited to Gentile converts in Acts 15:28-29, especially after Peter’s dream in Acts 10? Animal blood was prudently prohibited at that time in the Church out of deference to the converts from Israel who found it offensive. To avoid an association of Christianity with pagan rituals, the temporary discipline was maintained. In short, the purpose of the discipline was not theological – as in the Old Testament – but social. When the danger of scandal to Christianity ceased, this temporary discipline was abolished.

The purpose of man and his life on earth is to bring glory to God. All we do must point to Him and draw others to Him. Consequently, all disciplines and rituals of the Church must reflect the fullness of revelation given by Christ. Eating blood is no longer associated with impurity, and there is no prohibition in force to refrain from eating blood. Most importantly, we are commanded to drink the Precious Blood of Jesus Christ for our salvation. Living in this way, we do not become slaves of the old, but fulfill the New Covenant in Charity and act as proper stewards of creation.

Taken from: cuf.org/faithfacts/details_view.asp?ffID=26

Fascinating! So an objection to premise (3) that you share is that drinking blood is no longer a sin based on this passage?

9About noon the following day as they were on their journey and approaching the city, Peter went up on the roof to pray. 10He became hungry and wanted something to eat, and while the meal was being prepared, he fell into a trance. 11He saw heaven opened and something like a large sheet being let down to earth by its four corners. 12It contained all kinds of four-footed animals, as well as reptiles of the earth and birds of the air. 13Then a voice told him, “Get up, Peter. Kill and eat.”

14"Surely not, Lord!" Peter replied. “I have never eaten anything impure or unclean.”

15The voice spoke to him a second time, “Do not call anything impure that God has made clean.”

(Acts 10)

 

[RBK]

Fascinating! So an objection to premise (3) that you share is that drinking blood is no longer a sin based on this passage?

9About noon the following day as they were on their journey and approaching the city, Peter went up on the roof to pray. 10He became hungry and wanted something to eat, and while the meal was being prepared, he fell into a trance. 11He saw heaven opened and something like a large sheet being let down to earth by its four corners. 12It contained all kinds of four-footed animals, as well as reptiles of the earth and birds of the air. 13Then a voice told him, “Get up, Peter. Kill and eat.”

14"Surely not, Lord!" Peter replied. “I have never eaten anything impure or unclean.”

15The voice spoke to him a second time, “Do not call anything impure that God has made clean.”

(Acts 10)

Exactly. I may continue to enjoy Steak Tartare

 

[spockrates]

Exactly. I may continue to enjoy Steak Tartare

So much for Old Testament prohibitions against drinking blood. How about prohibitions against eating flesh? What I find fascinating is that there is no command to abstain from cannibalism!

gotquestions.org/cannibalism-Bible.html

So one might be able to make a rational argument that it is common sense that cannibalism is wrong, but one cannot reason that eating the flesh of Christ is forbidden by the the Old Testament. So there seems to be no biblical contradiction here. Not advocating Christian Cannibalism, just saying Christ was not breaking some Old Testament commandment when He said:

“Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day.”

(John 6:54)

 

[RBK]

So there seems to be no biblical contradiction here. Not advocating Christian Cannibalism, just saying Christ was not breaking some Old Testament commandment when He said:

“Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day.”

(John 6:54)

Right …I am off to Mass to receive my Lord - Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity, just as He commanded. Thanks be to God!!

 

[spockrates]

Right …I am off to Mass to receive my Lord - Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity, just as He commanded. Thanks be to God!!

Tell Him Spockrates says, “Hi!”

 

[RBK]

Tell Him Spockrates says, “Hi!”

He said that He wants to see you in RCIA, pronto.