John 6:25-59 The Bread of Life

[teachccd]

I quite agree. It would be illogical to require Jesus to speak metaphorically every single time. Yet the text I quoted suggests, at the very minimum, that he more often spoke in figures of speech prior to his “hour.” Since his “hour” had not yet come when he gave the Bread of Life discourse, we would justified in claiming that, pending evidence to the contrary, Jesus was more likely to have spoken in figures of speech than literally. So while it is illogical to say he necessarily spoke in figures of speech, it isn’t illogical to say that he probably did. In other words, I think I’ve given a good argument for assuming that Jesus’ words about “eating flesh” and “drinking blood,” are *probably *metaphorical.

I haven’t read through all of the posts so please forgive me if I am being redundant. I just wish to pose one question. If the “bread from heaven” (manna) in the OT sustained the Israelites until they reached the promised land then wouldn’t the “bread from heaven” promised here sustain the Church until we reach the promised land (heaven)? Now, assuming that this is the case (and there should be no assumption that Jesus sustains us), then would the bread that we receive at communion be as symbolic as the manna?

Let me show where I am going with this. Everything that happens in the Old Testament is elevated (fulfilled) in the New Testament. For example the priesthood was elevated by Christ as the Eternal High Priest whereby He sacrifices Himself as the victim for the redemption of all the world. So we know that the priesthood was fulfilled and thus elevated in the person of Jesus Christ. Lets take the Prophets. All of the OT prophets pointed to Jesus who is prophecy fulfilled. Thus the prophets are now elevated in Christ. Look at Kingship. Jesus is the King of kings. Again we see that elevation of what was foreshadowed in the Old Testament.

So, in the sixth chapter of the Gospel of John, we find Jesus expressing the gift of Himself for all generations. This “bread from heaven” is none less than Jesus Himself. Now if we take the Eucharist to be symbolic then we set up a deficiency to all of the other typological revelations in the Old Testament. This “bread” would not have elevated nor would we see any fulfillment of the Exodus (which is what the Last Supper fulfills in the Passover meal).

When we receive the Eucharist we are consuming the entire Christ. If one were to look up the aramaic word that Christ used for “body” one would find the word “basar” which means “all or everything of me”. We consume the passion, death and resurrected Christ. We are not gnawing on flesh and blood in the sense that we eat a hamburger but in reality we find that the substance of bread and wine is now Jesus in His Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity.

This saying is hard who can accept it? Many of His followers left to their former way of life. Remember these were already followers who saw His miracles but this miracle was just too much for them to comprehend. So Jesus let them go…“Do you also want to leave?”… teachccd

 

[Philthy]

I quite agree. It would be illogical to require Jesus to speak metaphorically every single time. Yet the text I quoted suggests, at the very minimum, that he more often spoke in figures of speech prior to his “hour.” Since his “hour” had not yet come when he gave the Bread of Life discourse, we would justified in claiming that, pending evidence to the contrary, Jesus was more likely to have spoken in figures of speech than literally. So while it is illogical to say he necessarily spoke in figures of speech, it isn’t illogical to say that he probably did. In other words, I think I’ve given a good argument for assuming that Jesus’ words about “eating flesh” and “drinking blood,” are *probably *metaphorical.

The problem with your approach, friend, is to assume that a “good” argument - or even the best one (based on fallible, variable standards) - represents the TRUEST argument. The method of following best arguments approach is a necessary flaw in the Evangelical approach based on the notion of Sola Scriptura, and although it gives you intellectual comfort, it does not enable you to know which argument actually represents the truth. It is simply of no use to have faith in what appears to be the best - now - when that “good” argument is, during a later point in time, relegated to the trash pile.
Need proof? Review the arguments from the first 1500 years of the Church. Is your “good” argument on the “Bread of Life” discourse anywhere to be found? Will it be anywhere to be found 100 years from now? For all those who adhere to SS, it’s anyone’s guess. The very foundation that you use to venture off and form an opinion (ie the truth can be known through man-made criteria and discernment of what is “good”) is, in itself, a house built on sand.

 

[Miguel_Sastre]

I haven’t read through all of the posts so please forgive me if I am being redundant. I just wish to pose one question. If the “bread from heaven” (manna) in the OT sustained the Israelites until they reached the promised land then wouldn’t the “bread from heaven” promised here sustain the Church until we reach the promised land (heaven)?

If heaven stands in typological relationship to the promised land, then, yes, I agree with you. Does that mean, however, that the “bread from heaven” is the Eucharist? I ask, because Jesus identifies the bread from heaven with himself. What John calls the “word made flesh” (1:14), Jesus calls in John 6, “the bread of life.” I’m not saying there is nothing Eucharistic about this. I am saying that Jesus himself is the bread of life and that if the Eucharist is in the picture at all, it’s in the background, not the foreground. So while I agree with your logic, I suspect I don’t agree with your interpretation of “bread of life.”

Now, assuming that this is the case (and there should be no assumption that Jesus sustains us), then would the bread that we receive at communion be as symbolic as the manna?

That’s two questions. And my answer is, I’m not sure I understand your point here.

Let me show where I am going with this. Everything that happens in the Old Testament is elevated (fulfilled) in the New Testament. For example the priesthood was elevated by Christ as the Eternal High Priest whereby He sacrifices Himself as the victim for the redemption of all the world. So we know that the priesthood was fulfilled and thus elevated in the person of Jesus Christ. Lets take the Prophets. All of the OT prophets pointed to Jesus who is prophecy fulfilled. Thus the prophets are now elevated in Christ. Look at Kingship. Jesus is the King of kings. Again we see that elevation of what was foreshadowed in the Old Testament.

Okay, I’m on board with this…

So, in the sixth chapter of the Gospel of John, we find Jesus expressing the gift of Himself for all generations. This “bread from heaven” is none less than Jesus Himself.

My point exactly.

Now if we take the Eucharist to be symbolic then we set up a deficiency to all of the other typological revelations in the Old Testament. This “bread” would not have elevated nor would we see any fulfillment of the Exodus (which is what the Last Supper fulfills in the Passover meal).

You lost me. I agree that antitypes are superior, or greater fulfillments of the original type. Thus, Jesus-the-bread-from-heaven, is greater on an order of magnitude to the manna. John says as much since those that ate the manna “died.” That’s as far as I’m willing to go with this. There may or may not be a secondary reference to the Eucharist here, but if there is, it’s strange that Jesus nowhere mentions this in John’s gospel, leading me to wonder if John left out the institution on purpose–perhaps to refocus his community on the person of Christ so that they might come to a more Christocentric focus on the Eucharist. This is speculation, but it would explain why there’s no Institution in John.

When we receive the Eucharist we are consuming the entire Christ. If one were to look up the aramaic word that Christ used for “body” one would find the word “basar” which means “all or everything of me”.

Interesting. But how do we know for sure which Aramaic word Jesus used?

This saying is hard who can accept it? Many of His followers left to their former way of life. Remember these were already followers who saw His miracles but this miracle was just too much for them to comprehend. So Jesus let them go…“Do you also want to leave?”… teachccd

Most scholars have noticed seven signs in John’s gospel and that this is probably no accident. John seems to have deliberately focused on seven. I find it interesting that John doesn’t mention the Eucharist as one of those signs. In Catholic theology there are actually two miracles in the Eucharist–substantial change and accidents existing without their substance. If this Catholic conception of the Eucharistic miracle is derived organically from John, then I think we’d have to posit 7 + 2 = 9 miracles in John, wouldn’t you agree?

 

[nuntym]

+AJPM+

If you’re correct that the Ascension is in view (and you might be, as you make a good case) then I’d say “literal.” Does that require us to see “eating flesh” as literal? If so, do explain. And if so, how would this not be “cannibalism?” If your argument is:

1. Jesus literally ascends to heaven (John 6:62).
   (2. Hidden premise: If Jesus is speaking literally in one place, he must be speaking literally in the other.)
   Therefore we must literally “eat flesh” and “drink blood.”

But once again, this raises the problem of cannibalism, because then it means to “literally” eat flesh and drink blood.

I think you can defend premise 1 above, though I still think the context makes it more likely that Jesus is speaking of his crucifixion. It seems difficult to understand why a literal ascension to heaven would be scandalous. But a crucifixion of their Messiah and King. Yes, that would be scandalous. But I’ll grant you that you have good reasons for connecting this to Jesus’ physical ascension to heaven. Let me think about this more.

Premise 2 is the problem. I think you’d have to make the case that if Jesus is speaking about a literal ascension in one place, he must be speaking about a literal eating of flesh in the other. How does that follow, exactly?

Finally, your conclusion raises more problems than it solves. For now you have to show how a “literal” eating of flesh isn’t cannibalism. In the Old Testament, “eating flesh” is often associated with cities under siege, with the result that people would result to cannibalism in order to survive.

And again, I will answer you with Jesus’ words: “It is the spirit that gives life, the flesh is of no avail; the words that I have spoken to you are spirit and life.” (John 6:63)

As I asked you before, why do you use your own wisdom, the wisdom “of the flesh”, to understand this great mystery? That is what Jesus is saying: He affirmed the literal meaning of what He was saying about eating His flesh and drinking His blood by mentioning His Ascension to heaven (John 6:61-62); now (John 6:63) He wants us to **believe **in His words about eating His body and drinking His blood, **not **in our own understanding! When Jesus’ disciples saw His own Ascension later, they would have understood this.

St. Peter’s answer to Jesus is how we should answer: “Lord, to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life; and we have believed, and have come to know, that you are the Holy One of God” (John 6:68-69). In other words, believe and have faith in Jesus’ words! Stop denying its literary meaning and believe it to be so, even if you do not understand, as all faithful Catholics and Orthodox do, as all faithful Christians before the Protestant Reformation had.

Besides, there is another interpretation of John 6:60-63 that is equally valid that will shed more light into the question of “cannibalism” in the Holy Eucharist. I post the passages again below:

[60]Many of his disciples, when they heard it, said, “This is a hard saying; who can listen to it?”
[61] But Jesus, knowing in himself that his disciples murmured at it, said to them, “Do you take offense at this?
[62] Then what if you were to see the Son of man ascending where he was before?
[63] It is the spirit that gives life, the flesh is of no avail; the words that I have spoken to you are spirit and life.”

If you read the above more carefully, Jesus is actually assuring the disciples that what He had just said about the Holy Eucharist is not cannibalism. For when He said “Then what if you were to see the Son of man ascending where he was before?” Jesus was saying that He will ascend to heaven intact, recognizable still as the Son of Man, and not as left-over scraps of bone and inedible tissues. They, and us, will eat the Body and drink the Blood of Christ in a mystical, bloodless, but still literal way. This is affirmed by the next line: “It is the spirit that gives life, the flesh is of no avail.” That is, we will not eat the dead flesh of Christ, flesh that is devoid of His Spirit and Life (that is, cannibalism) which is exactly what would happen if Jesus’ disciples ate His dead corpse from the Cross. No, they, and we, will eat the whole Body and Blood, Soul and Divinity of our Lord Jesus Christ, which is not cannibalism.

Why is this not cannibalism? Because cannibalism only gives nourishment to the physical body of the eater. In contrast, the Holy Eucharist nourishes the souls of those who partake in It.

Therefore, if we have faith in Jesus’ words about this, then we will have “spirit and life.”

(continued)

 

[nuntym]

Is it possible that Jesus is using the terms “eating flesh” and “drinking blood,” in a non-literal way?

I’ll ask this again. Are Catholics required by dogma to take these words “literally?”

And I’ll ask you back: Is there any bishop who has made a statement against the literal interpretation of John chapter 6 by faithful Catholics? The acceptance of John 6 as literal by Catholics is so prevalent, so universal not just now but throughout the ages, that even in the Catechism of the Catholic Church the literal interpretation of and association with the Eucharist of John Chapter 6 is affirmed:

1336 The first announcement of the Eucharist divided the disciples, just as the announcement of the Passion scandalized them: “This is a hard saying; who can listen to it?” (Jn 6:60) The Eucharist and the Cross are stumbling blocks. It is the same mystery and it never ceases to be an occasion of division. “Will you also go away?”(Jn 6:67): the Lord’s question echoes through the ages, as a loving invitation to discover that only he has “the words of eternal life” (Jn 6:68) and that to receive in faith the gift of his Eucharist is to receive the Lord himself.

1338 The three synoptic Gospels and St. Paul have handed on to us the account of the institution of the Eucharist; St. John, for his part, reports the words of Jesus in the synagogue of Capernaum that prepare for the institution of the Eucharist: Christ calls himself the bread of life, come down from heaven. (Cf. Jn 6)

1355 In the communion, preceded by the Lord’s prayer and the breaking of the bread, the faithful receive “the bread of heaven” and “the cup of salvation,” the body and blood of Christ who offered himself “for the life of the world” (Jn 6:51)

1384 The Lord addresses an invitation to us, urging us to receive him in the sacrament of the Eucharist: “Truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood, you have no life in you.” (Jn 6:53)

1391 Holy Communion augments our union with Christ. The principal fruit of receiving the Eucharist in Holy Communion is an intimate union with Christ Jesus. Indeed, the Lord said: “He who eats my flesh and drinks my blood abides in me, and I in him.”(Jn 6:56) Life in Christ has its foundation in the Eucharistic banquet: “As the living Father sent me, and I live because of the Father, so he who eats me will live because of me.” (Jn 6:57)

1406 Jesus said: “I am the living bread that came down from heaven; if any one eats of this bread, he will live for ever; . . . he who eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life and . . . abides in me, and I in him” (Jn 6:51, 54, 56)

Link source

Therefore, silence against this interpretation by all the bishops of the Universal Church means there is universal assent to it by these bishops.

And why is this important? It is because of this article from the infallible statements of the First Vatican Council:

“Wherefore, by divine and Catholic faith all those things are to be believed which are contained in the word of God as found in Scripture and tradition, and which are proposed by the Church as matters to be believed as divinely revealed, whether by her solemn judgment or in her ordinary and universal Magisterium.” Dei Filius 8

which is clarified and affirmed by this article from the Second Vatican Council:

“Although the individual bishops do not enjoy the prerogative of infallibility, they nevertheless proclaim Christ’s doctrine infallibly whenever, even though dispersed through the world, but still maintaining the bond of communion among themselves and with the successor of Peter, and authentically teaching matters of faith and morals, they are in agreement on one position as definitively to be held.” Lumen Gentium 25

Therefore yes, Catholics are required by dogma to take these words literally…but not only literally. Catholics may glean more truths from John chapter 6 based on their reading of it, provided that they do not deny its literal aspect.

 

[teachccd]

If heaven stands in typological relationship to the promised land, then, yes, I agree with you. Does that mean, however, that the “bread from heaven” is the Eucharist? I ask, because Jesus identifies the bread from heaven with himself. What John calls the “word made flesh” (1:14), Jesus calls in John 6, “the bread of life.” I’m not saying there is nothing Eucharistic about this. I am saying that Jesus himself is the bread of life and that if the Eucharist is in the picture at all, it’s in the background, not the foreground. So while I agree with your logic, I suspect I don’t agree with your interpretation of “bread of life.”

What you don’t agree with is what is misunderstood. In Catholic theology the Eucharist IS Jesus. The Eucharist has no background or foreground in relationship to Jesus since this is the very essence of Jesus. So, there can only be one bread of life not one real and one symbolic. The question on the table is whether or not the bread and wine used at the Last Supper really became the body and blood of Jesus. That is where the typology helps us to understand that the “bread from heaven” (manna) which was a symbolic representation of a saving food is now elevated to the REAL “bread from heaven”; Jesus himself.

We see in the feeding of the five thousand (which appears in all four gospels) that Jesus TOOK bread, said the BLESSING, BROKE the bread and GAVE it to the disciples who in turn fed the people. Had there been 10,000 people there Jesus would have fed them all. Had there been all of the people from creation to the end of time there he would have fed them all. Then at the Last Supper Jesus TAKES bread, BLESSES it, BREAKS it and GIVES it to the disciples. What connection would Jesus have with the feeding of the five thousand and the Last Supper if it was not indicative of a continual feeding? Why would Jesus use bread for this revelation if not connecting it with the feeding of those in the desert? Can Jesus not do this? If using matter is so contrary to spirituality then why did Jesus take on human flesh? Is Jesus’ flesh (to use your point) in the background while His divinity is in the foreground? There’s a heresy that directs to that but that’s for another post…

That’s two questions. And my answer is, I’m not sure I understand your point here.

Sorry if I got carried away. Two thousand years of Christianity is hard to contain in snapshopts…

Okay, I’m on board with this…

Cool!

My point exactly.

We’re doing quite well here!

You lost me. I agree that antitypes are superior, or greater fulfillments of the original type. Thus, Jesus-the-bread-from-heaven, is greater on an order of magnitude to the manna. John says as much since those that ate the manna “died.” That’s as far as I’m willing to go with this. There may or may not be a secondary reference to the Eucharist here, but if there is, it’s strange that Jesus nowhere mentions this in John’s gospel, leading me to wonder if John left out the institution on purpose–perhaps to refocus his community on the person of Christ so that they might come to a more Christocentric focus on the Eucharist. This is speculation, but it would explain why there’s no Institution in John.

I knew that there was that darn fork in the road!

Jesus did not need to “refocus” anyone who is focused on the Eucharist since the Eucharist IS Himself. John’s gospel (unlike the synoptics) does polarize to the divinity of Jesus since the other three accounts give plenty of the human aspect of Christ. This is not to say that all four accounts do not include both. However, John’s gospel emphasizes the relationship within the Godhead and fills in the gaps that the synoptics leave out. This does not mean that we are to segment the gospels to allow for one to have a greater influence on the Eucharist than the others. ALL four accounts give us the life of Jesus and the revelation of who Jesus is.

Interesting. But how do we know for sure which Aramaic word Jesus used?

Well two of the apostles that wrote the gospels were sitting with Jesus at the Last Supper. We would have to rely on the same Apostolic Tradition that brought us the Scriptures since many things like what Jesus said to Pilate would have been unknown. There are private prayers of Jesus to His Father that would have not been known unless a lot of oral tradtion (paradosis = handing down) was being utilized.

Most scholars have noticed seven signs in John’s gospel and that this is probably no accident. John seems to have deliberately focused on seven. I find it interesting that John doesn’t mention the Eucharist as one of those signs. In Catholic theology there are actually two miracles in the Eucharist–substantial change and accidents existing without their substance. If this Catholic conception of the Eucharistic miracle is derived organically from John, then I think we’d have to posit 7 + 2 = 9 miracles in John, wouldn’t you agree?

That all depends of the focus of what is explicit and what is implied. Jesus taking on human form was indeed a miracle but not one of the seven signs. In fact, everything that God does is a miracle so there would be hundreds of implied miracles in John’s gospel. Yes, the seven signs are those with particular emphasis but definitely not inclusive. So, yes, I would have to agree that 7 + all the wonders of God would = infinity… teachccd

 

[spockrates]

The problem with your approach, friend, is to assume that a “good” argument - or even the best one (based on fallible, variable standards) - represents the TRUEST argument. The method of following best arguments approach is a necessary flaw in the Evangelical approach based on the notion of Sola Scriptura, and although it gives you intellectual comfort, it does not enable you to know which argument actually represents the truth. It is simply of no use to have faith in what appears to be the best - now - when that “good” argument is, during a later point in time, relegated to the trash pile.
Need proof? Review the arguments from the first 1500 years of the Church. Is your “good” argument on the “Bread of Life” discourse anywhere to be found? Will it be anywhere to be found 100 years from now? For all those who adhere to SS, it’s anyone’s guess. The very foundation that you use to venture off and form an opinion (ie the truth can be known through man-made criteria and discernment of what is “good”) is, in itself, a house built on sand.

Philthy:

Would you say there are no good arguments (or sound logical reasons) to believe in the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist?

 

[spockrates]

There are 7 “I AM” statements. Three of them can be understood literally with little or no qualifications:
I AM the good shepherd. (having called us “sheep”, his relationship is literally that of a shepherd as He goes on to define it)
I AM the resurrection and the life.
I AM the way, the truth and the life.

That leaves 4:
I AM the bread of life.
I AM the light of the world.
I AM the door/gate.
I AM the true vine.

There is one MAJOR difference between these 4 – between the first one and the remaining three. Only with the “bread of life” exposition does Jesus later take literal/real bread, pray over it, and pronounce “This is My Body”; “Take and eat”

For eg.,
He never takes a source of physical light (torch/lamp/sun), prays and says “That is Me/my light; take it to light your way.” “Do this as a memorial”
He never takes a real door/gate, prays over it, and declares “This is Me; take it; and enter by it in order to be saved”. “Do this…”
He never takes a real vine, prays over it, and declares “This is Me; abide in it as a branch abides in the vine - graft yourself to it/Me so you can bear fruit”, (or perhaps, “eat it”). “Do this…”

If Jesus had ever taken a real torch, a real gate, a real vine, and said the above words, then we would have to conclude that they were more than metaphors.

And, IF JESUS HAD NEVER TAKEN REAL BREAD AND SAID THOSE WORDS at some point, we would conclude that He meant the Bread of Life discourse metaphorically. There would be no sacrament of the Eucharist.

Nita:

Are you saying that when Jesus said this,

While they were eating, Jesus took bread, gave thanks and broke it, and gave it to his disciples, saying, “Take and eat; this is my body.”

Then he took the cup, gave thanks and offered it to them, saying, “Drink from it, all of you. This is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins. I tell you, I will not drink of this fruit of the vine from now on until that day when I drink it anew with you in my Father’s kingdom.”

(Matthew 26:26-29)

He was saying that the bread He held in His hands was His own flesh, and that the wine in the cup He held in His hands was His own blood?

 

[teachccd]

Nita:

Are you saying that when Jesus said this,
While they were eating, Jesus took bread, gave thanks and broke it, and gave it to his disciples, saying, “Take and eat; this is my body.”

Then he took the cup, gave thanks and offered it to them, saying, “Drink from it, all of you. This is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins. I tell you, I will not drink of this fruit of the vine from now on until that day when I drink it anew with you in my Father’s kingdom.”

(Matthew 26:26-29)
He was saying that the bread He held in His hands was His own flesh, and that the wine in the cup He held in His hands was His own blood?

He can’t do that??

 

[Murphs10]

Nita:

Are you saying that when Jesus said this,

He was saying that the bread He held in His hands was His own flesh, and that the wine in the cup He held in His hands was His own blood?

Indeed! Or, to quote St. Augustine:
"Christ bore Himself in His hands, when He offered His body saying: “this is my body.” {Enarr. in Ps. 33 Sermo 1, 10; on p.377}

 

[spockrates]

He can’t do that??

That He can! If He can make light both a particle and a wave, I suppose He can do the same with His own flesh. I suppose that when He says this,

“I am the light of the world.”

(John 8:12)

He could also make Himself the sun of our solar system, and the flames of the burning bush that spoke to Moses might be His flesh as well. The question I’m exploring is not “Can He?” but “Did He?”

 

[spockrates]

Indeed! Or, to quote St. Augustine:
"Christ bore Himself in His hands, when He offered His body saying: “this is my body.” {Enarr. in Ps. 33 Sermo 1, 10; on p.377}

Yes, as I said to Miguel, Saint Augustine was not Evangelical.



In fact, I’ve been quite impressed at the ancient history lesson I’ve received here at CAF. There seems to be a great deal of consensus regarding this topic in the early Church.

 

[teachccd]

That He can! If He can make light both a particle and a wave, I suppose He can do the same with His own flesh. I suppose that when He says this,
“I am the light of the world.”

(John 8:12)
He could also make Himself the sun of our solar system, and the flames of the burning bush that spoke to Moses might be His flesh as well. The question I’m exploring is not “Can He?” but “Did He?”

He said that He did. It has been the teaching since the apostolic era that He did. It has been the teachings of the patristic era that He did. Two thousand years later the Catholic and Orthodox Churches continue to proclaim that He did. So did He? Yes, He absolutely did…

 

[teachccd]

Yes, as I said to Miguel, Saint Augustine was not Evangelical.



In fact, I’ve been quite impressed at the ancient history lesson I’ve received here at CAF. There seems to be a great deal of consensus regarding this topic in the early Church.

Yes, to read the writings of the Early Church Fathers is to cease to find Protestant theology in the early Church. I’ve yet to find anyone mentioning crackers and grape juice when referencing the Eucharist. Nor have I found the ECF’s to believe that the Eucharist is a symbolic gesture of some past event…

The Early Church Fathers are the best kept secret that we Catholics have. As you said, we just cannot make them out to be Protestant… teachccd

 

[Tim_in_MI]

I haven’t read through all of the posts so please forgive me if I am being redundant. I just wish to pose one question. If the “bread from heaven” (manna) in the OT sustained the Israelites until they reached the promised land then wouldn’t the “bread from heaven” promised here sustain the Church until we reach the promised land (heaven)? Now, assuming that this is the case (and there should be no assumption that Jesus sustains us), then would the bread that we receive at communion be as symbolic as the manna?

Interesting question. Old Testament types always point to a New Testament “greater” reality - e.g., the Word on Stone Tablets in the Ark point to the Word made flesh, Jesus Christ.

The Manna was miraculous in that it appeared each day, and if it is a type pointing to the Eucharist, the Eucharist must be greater. If the Eucharist is just a piece of bread, even though it is symbolizing Christ, it still is “just bread” in some people’s eyes.

The Manna, it seems in this case, would be the “greater”. It doesn’t “appear” in the church tabernacle or chalice each day, etc. If the Eucharist were “just bread”, even bread that symbolizes Christ, this would be the only Old Testament type that points to a “lesser” New Testament reality. The Manna would point to a symbol, which then in turn points to Christ - the “double jump” does not fit with OT to NT typology.

 

[Philthy]

Philthy:

Would you say there are no good arguments (or sound logical reasons) to believe in the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist?

No, I wouldnt say that at all, but I would say that my own fallible opinion regarding the soundness or goodness of those arguments can not ultimately be what reveals the truth to me. That was my point. I happen to believe that the Scriptural Real Presence arguments combined with the unanimous witness of the ECFs (as well as the Orthodox Church) form the soundest, most logical approach to unifying John 6 with the doctrine of transubstantiation and the Real Presence…

 

[teachccd]

Interesting question. Old Testament types always point to a New Testament “greater” reality - e.g., the Word on Stone Tablets in the Ark point to the Word made flesh, Jesus Christ.

The Manna was miraculous in that it appeared each day, and if it is a type pointing to the Eucharist, the Eucharist must be greater. If the Eucharist is just a piece of bread, even though it is symbolizing Christ, it still is “just bread” in some people’s eyes.

The Manna, it seems in this case, would be the “greater”. It doesn’t “appear” in the church tabernacle or chalice each day, etc. If the Eucharist were “just bread”, even bread that symbolizes Christ, this would be the only Old Testament type that points to a “lesser” New Testament reality. The Manna would point to a symbol, which then in turn points to Christ - the “double jump” does not fit with OT to NT typology.

Exactly my point!!

 

[Miguel_Sastre]

+AJPM+And again, I will answer you with Jesus’ words: “It is the spirit that gives life, the flesh is of no avail; the words that I have spoken to you are spirit and life.” (John 6:63)

Hmmmm. So if I understand you correctly, Catholics can appeal to John 6:63 to argue that the words of “spirit and life” mean “therefore not literal cannibalism.” But when Protestants appeal to the same verse to say that “spirit and life” mean “therefore Jesus wasn’t speaking literally,” we’re accused of “spiritualizing” a text that is “obviously literal”? How is that not special pleading on your part?

As I asked you before, why do you use your own wisdom, the wisdom “of the flesh”, to understand this great mystery?

Couldn’t I use that same kind of argument against you? What if you’re the one who is “still in the flesh?” Why couldn’t I cite this verse to prove that it is you who are unable to understand God’s word?

For the mind that is set on the flesh is hostile to God, for it does not submit to God’s law; indeed, it cannot (Romans 8:7)

Your argument above is what is called, “ad hominem,” only you’ve dressed it up in spiritual language. But it amounts to the same thing. But instead of questioning my spiritual status, would it not be more helpful to address my arguments?

That is what Jesus is saying: He affirmed the literal meaning of what He was saying about eating His flesh and drinking His blood by mentioning His Ascension to heaven (John 6:61-62);

You keep saying this but you haven’t shown how a literal ascension in one verse requires us to take “eating flesh” and “drinking blood” literally.

If you read the above more carefully, Jesus is actually assuring the disciples that what He had just said about the Holy Eucharist is not cannibalism.

Okay, just to set the record straight (again), I do NOT believe that Jesus was advocating cannibalism. NOR am I saying that the Catholic church teaches cannibalism. What I am saying is that a “literal” (please look up what that word means) interpretation of “eats flesh” and “drinks blood” entails cannibalism. That is why I believe that no church actually takes these words “literally.” I take them “metaphorically.” You take them “sacramentally.” But no one takes them “literally,” unless the word “literal” has lost all meaning.

They, and us, will eat the Body and drink the Blood of Christ in a mystical, bloodless, but still literal way.

If “eating flesh” and especially “drinking blood” is “bloodless,” then how is it still “literal?” You’re re-defining the word “literal,” so that it no longer has any meaning. You claim to drink bloodless blood and at the same time claim that you’re speaking “literally.” That makes no sense. (And please don’t call me “unspiritual” for saying so.)

 

[Nita]

Nita:

Are you saying that when Jesus said this,

While they were eating, Jesus took bread, gave thanks and broke it, and gave it to his disciples, saying, “Take and eat; this is my body.”

Then he took the cup, gave thanks and offered it to them, saying, “Drink from it, all of you. This is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins. I tell you, I will not drink of this fruit of the vine from now on until that day when I drink it anew with you in my Father’s kingdom.”

(Matthew 26:26-29)

He was saying that the bread He held in His hands was His own flesh, and that the wine in the cup He held in His hands was His own blood?

After He said the words “This is my body”, Yes, what He held in His hands was His own flesh, even tho it still had the appearance of bread.
It was just bread before He declared it to be His body. But once He declared “This is my body”, it was His body. Likewise with the wine/blood. God’s word has the power to effect what it proclaims.

 

[Miguel_Sastre]

Therefore yes, Catholics are required by dogma to take these words literally…but not only literally. Catholics may glean more truths from John chapter 6 based on their reading of it, provided that they do not deny its literal aspect.

Finally, an answer to this question. Thank you. So it sounds as if you believe the teaching of the ordinary magisterium is that John 6 is to be taken “literally,” even though there is no formal definition of what exegetes call the “literal sense” (the meaning the human author intended) for John 6.