John 6:53 -- need a REAL answer!

  • Thread starter Thread starter javelin
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
J

javelin

Guest
I’m having trouble finding a good answer to this very critical question: How can Jesus in John 6 be talking about His literal flesh and blood in the Eucharist when we don’t take 6:53 literally as well?

Jim Blackburn answered this question in an AAA post, but I don’t think his response is compelling at all:
The Eucharist unites us with Christ which is necessary for salvation. But, similar to Church teaching on Baptism, one may obtain this union with Christ by desire. A Catholic Commentary on Holy Scripture explains: “That necessity is absolute, in the sense that without the ‘thing’ or grace of the Eucharist there is no salvation, for the Eucharist signifies, effects, and perfects the unity of Christ’s mystic body, outside of which no one can be saved. Total deliberate refusal to eat the flesh of Christ would exclude from supernatural life and entail damnation. But the grace of union can be obtained by desire – personal desire, in the case of adults, and the maternal desire of the Church in the case of baptized infants.”
Click to expand...
Specifically, this explanation actually seems to strengthen the Protestant position, for Mr. Blackburn seems to be saying that though Christ said “Unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink His blood…”, Jesus really meant “Unless you partake of my Grace…”, which is what Protestants in general believe the entirety of John 6 to be saying (that “eat my flesh and drink my blood” is symbolic of coming to Jesus and receiving His Grace).

I’ve heard (and regurgitated) the usual arguments for a literal interpretation, which I think are very compelling, but the fact that the Church denies any need to eat the flesh and drink the blood of Jesus seems to completely contradict this pasage, which is also in the heart of the passages that are primarily used in arguing the Real Presence.

So my question is twofold: how does the Church reconcile this apparent contradiction in teaching, and how can one reasonably explain it without reading too much into what is not explicit in the text, or falling into a symbolic meaning of “eat my flesh and drink my blood”, which would deny Catholic assertions about the meaning of John 6 completely?

Please don’t fill this discussion with various defenses of the True Presence–I am specifically looking for reasonable ways to defend Catholic teaching in light of John 6:53.

Peace,
javelin
 
40.png
javelin:
I’m having trouble finding a good answer to this very critical question: How can Jesus in John 6 be talking about His literal flesh and blood in the Eucharist when we don’t take 6:53 literally as well?

Jim Blackburn answered this question in an AAA post, but I don’t think his response is compelling at all:

Specifically, this explanation actually seems to strengthen the Protestant position, for Mr. Blackburn seems to be saying that though Christ said “Unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink His blood…”, Jesus really meant “Unless you partake of my Grace…”, which is what Protestants in general believe the entirety of John 6 to be saying (that “eat my flesh and drink my blood” is symbolic of coming to Jesus and receiving His Grace).

I’ve heard (and regurgitated) the usual arguments for a literal interpretation, which I think are very compelling, but the fact that the Church denies any need to eat the flesh and drink the blood of Jesus seems to completely contradict this pasage, which is also in the heart of the passages that are primarily used in arguing the Real Presence.

So my question is twofold: how does the Church reconcile this apparent contradiction in teaching, and how can one reasonably explain it without reading too much into what is not explicit in the text, or falling into a symbolic meaning of “eat my flesh and drink my blood”, which would deny Catholic assertions about the meaning of John 6 completely?

Please don’t fill this discussion with various defenses of the True Presence–I am specifically looking for reasonable ways to defend Catholic teaching in light of John 6:53.

Peace,
javelin
Click to expand...
I think you are creating a false dichotomy here between what you think the Church teaches and what Jesus said. The key to your dilemma is this sentence from Jim Blackburn’s explanation:

“Total deliberate refusal to eat the flesh of Christ would exclude from supernatural life and entail damnation.”

If one is not able to partake of the Eucharist one will not be damned for that. God is not unjust. But, “total deliberate refusal” is another matter. No Catholic ought to refuse to partake of the Eucharist based on their unbelief in the teaching of the Church on the Eucharist. Does that help?
 
If there was only one church on earth in christianity today as Jesus intended then, yes every christian would have to partake of the eucharist in order to have spiritual life in them. However, that’s obviously not the case. Now, the people who seperated themselves from the catholic church, knowing that they also seperated themselves from the eucharist (I would say) did not have life in them. But when there are children born into a non-catholic family who are raised outside of the church, they cannot be held accountable for abstaining from the eucharist. (They don’t know any better). They must follow Jesus the best they know how. If they sometime later in life do become aware in their heart and mind that it is Jesus in the eucharist and still choose to believe because of lack of faith, then they too will be held accountable. These are just my opinions.
 
We’re not Feeneyites here, but we do take 6:53 quite literally.

It is the deliberate refusal to partake that excludes one from salvation. That’s why it is oh so important to evangelize fallen-away Catholics and get them back into the Church!

The Protestants and Evangelicals and all the rest may well have invincible ignorance on their side (that’s not an attack; it’s a term of art), but few fallen away Catholics could rely on it.
 
Javelen, consider this:

Jesus said to them, ***“Amen, amen, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you do not have life within you.” ***

First of all, let’s not forget that the word He used for eating “trogon” is not the word usually meant for human eating (“phagon”). Trogon means to much, chew or gnaw, like an animal eats.

Secondly, Jesus never explains Himself to His disciples when they turn away from Him in shock and horror (as He does everwhere else in Scripture when His teachings are brought into question).

Lastly, Protestants love to rebut this (out of context, I might add) with the verse Jn-6:63:
“It is the spirit that gives life, while the flesh 22 is of no avail. The words I have spoken to you are spirit and life.” They use this to illustrate that Jesus was merely speaking of grace and spirituality. However, this doesn’t make sense at all.
It makes no sense to tell them, “You MUST eat my flesh and drink my blood”, over and over, only to add, “I only meant that figuratively!” His Disciples NEVER would have left. They KNEW what he said - they just didn’t have the faith to follow through - like Protestants.

For more on the subject, refer to this link. No need to reinvent the wheel:
http://www.catholic.com/library/Christ_in_the_Eucharist.asp

“Ignorance of Scripture is ignorance of Christ” - St. Jerome
 
St Ignatius was a bishop of Antioch who learned the faith from the Apostle John and who was martyred in Rome circa 110 AD. On his way to Rome, he wrote seven letters, and some passages he has a very Eucharistic tone.

In his epistle to the Ephesians, he writes:
Let no one be under any illusion; a man who excludes himself from the sanctuary excludes himself from the bread of God… Anyone who absents himself from the congregation convicts himself at once of arrogance and comes self-excommunicate.
Click to expand...
Towards the end of the epistle he refers to the Eucharist as
…the medicine of immortality, and the sovereign remedy by which we escape death and live in Jesus Christ for evermore.
Click to expand...
In his epistle to the Smyrneans he says of heretics:
They even absent themselves from the Eucharist and the public prayers, because they will not admit that the Eucharist is the self-same body of our Savior Jesus Christ which suffered for our sins, and which the Father in His goodness afterwards raised up again.
Click to expand...
Keep in mind that St Ignatius is condemning those who KNOWINGLY reject the truth. Pope Pius IX (I think) used the term invincible ignorance to those, who through no fault of their own are separated from the Church but still love Christ.
 
This is just a little interjection, and I don’t know if it could be used, but the Church does actually require us to receive Holy Communion under pain of Mortal Sin once a year during the Easter Season. So perhaps, I wouldn’t quite say that “the Church denies any need to eat the flesh and drink the blood of Jesus.”
 
Just a thought…

The scriptures are full of language that is often understood in the concept of an idiom…
example… where scripture says if you don’t work you won’t be fed
is understood … if you CAN work, and don’t work, you won’t be fed.
Children, invalids etc have to be considered, as they can’t work, but don’t starve them…

so… “if you can eat of the flesh …” but you choose not to…

Heretical teaching gets the same break… if you KNOW the truth, and then teach other than the truth, you become heretical.

If you don’t know any better, … know that God is merciful

MrS
 
In John 3:5, Jesus said, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God.”
Accordingly, the Church teaches that baptism is necessary for salvation but the Church also acknowledges three kinds of baptism. Perhaps the same applies to Holy Communion.

The Baltimore Catechism on Baptism:
154. Q. Is Baptism necessary to salvation?
A. Baptism is necessary to salvation, because without it we cannot enter into the kingdom of heaven.
…
157. Q. How many kinds of Baptism are there?
A. There are three kinds of Baptism: Baptism of water, of desire, and of blood.
158. Q. What is Baptism of water?
A. Baptism of water is that which is given by pouring water on the head of the person to be baptized, and saying at the same time: I baptize you in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit.
159. Q. What is Baptism of desire?
A. Baptism of desire is an ardent wish to receive Baptism, and to do all that God has ordained for our salvation.
160. Q. What is Baptism of blood?
A. Baptism of blood is the shedding of one’s blood for the faith of Christ.
161. Q. Is Baptism of desire or of blood sufficient to produce the effects of Baptism of water?
A. Baptism of desire or of blood is sufficient to produce the effects of the Baptism of water, if it is impossible to receive the Baptism of water.
 
40.png
elvisman:
Javelen, consider this:

Jesus said to them, ***“Amen, amen, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you do not have life within you.” ***

First of all, let’s not forget that the word He used for eating “trogon” is not the word usually meant for human eating (“phagon”). Trogon means to much, chew or gnaw, like an animal eats.

Secondly, Jesus never explains Himself to His disciples when they turn away from Him in shock and horror (as He does everwhere else in Scripture when His teachings are brought into question).

Lastly, Protestants love to rebut this (out of context, I might add) with the verse Jn-6:63:
“It is the spirit that gives life, while the flesh 22 is of no avail. The words I have spoken to you are spirit and life.” They use this to illustrate that Jesus was merely speaking of grace and spirituality. However, this doesn’t make sense at all.
It makes no sense to tell them, “You MUST eat my flesh and drink my blood”, over and over, only to add, “I only meant that figuratively!” His Disciples NEVER would have left. They KNEW what he said - they just didn’t have the faith to follow through - like Protestants.

For more on the subject, refer to this link. No need to reinvent the wheel:
http://www.catholic.com/library/Christ_in_the_Eucharist.asp

“Ignorance of Scripture is ignorance of Christ” - St. Jerome
Click to expand...
Very nice post, elvisman. Could you help me here? When Jesus says “…the words I speak are spirit and life…” doesn’t He mean that the words He speaks are true? In other words, when you receive His Precious Body and Blood, you are receiving spirit and life too? Body, blood, soul and divinity? I know many protestants try to use this statement to refute the Real Presence, but it is clear that Jesus is elaborating on what He already said. Not contradicting or backtracking.

Also, when He says “…it is the spirit that gives life while the flesh is of no avail…” He doesn’t say “MY flesh” here, He says “THE flesh”. Isn’t He saying that our spirit will live forever and our bodies (THE flesh) will not? So therefore, feed your spirit with His Body and Blood.

Comments?🙂
 
I want to explain the 3 types of baptism that Todd has shared with us from the Baltimore Catechism.
Todd Easton:
Accordingly, the Church teaches that baptism is necessary for salvation but the Church also acknowledges three kinds of baptism. Perhaps the same applies to Holy Communion.
Click to expand...
That may be.

Baptism of water is the standard Baptism.

Baptism of desire.
A true pagan converts to Christianity, and his baptism is going to take place on Sunday.
On Friday, driving home from work, he dies in a car accident.

At the Pearly Gates, he will not be turned away because he was not baptised in the standard way. it is not his fault that he died 2 days before the standard water style.

Baptism of blood. The shedding of one’s blood for the faith of Christ.
In countries where Christianity is outlawed, a person finds the illegal Bible and God revelas Himself to this person through the written word.
The government finds out that someone ha been littering the country ith illegal Bibles and does a house to house search.

They go to the person’s home and he does not admit to having the Bible, and he shelters a neighbor who has also come to believe in the Lord Jesus Christ.

The government learns that this person has lied to them: that he not only had the illegal book, but he was hiding a known criminal (the neighbor).
So the government kills him.

But, this person is not turned away at the pearly gates, though he had not been baptized in the standard manner by water.
Todd Easton:
Accordingly, the Church teaches that baptism is necessary for salvation but the Church also acknowledges three kinds of baptism. Perhaps the same applies to Holy Communion.
Click to expand...
I return to this statement of Todd’s.

In the scenario, with the person who had been killed in the car accident. he had never received Holy Eucharist.
Yet, it was not through his own fault.

In the scenario, with the person in the country where Christianity is illegal, he had never received Holy Eucharist.
Yet, it was not his fault.

The bottom line is this: God is merciful. He is the just Judge.

WE are bound by God’s mandates to us. God is NOT bound by His mandates to us. Recall that Jesus broke the sabbath when he and his Apostles walked though that field and picked food and ate.
The Sabbath was made for man, man was not made for the Sabbath.

Similarly, God’s rules for us were made for us. The rules were not made for God.
 
What do you mean…"that even WE dont take 6:53 serious/literal??? :confused:

Here’s how I jive 6:53 with Protestant thought…I dont give ANY thought to what their interpretaion is.

You arent a Catholic in proper standing if you dont take those words LITERAL.
 
The Barrister:
We’re not Feeneyites here, but we do take 6:53 quite literally.

It is the deliberate refusal to partake that excludes one from salvation. That’s why it is oh so important to evangelize fallen-away Catholics and get them back into the Church!

The Protestants and Evangelicals and all the rest may well have invincible ignorance on their side (that’s not an attack; it’s a term of art), but few fallen away Catholics could rely on it.
Click to expand...
I think you hit the nail on the head. The word deliberate seems to be the operative word here. I do take John 6:53 quite literally as does the Church (from what I have always read). So I personally don’t see a problem here. But hey, that’s just me! 😉
 
40.png
javelin:
I’m having trouble finding a good answer to this very critical question: How can Jesus in John 6 be talking about His literal flesh and blood in the Eucharist when we don’t take 6:53 literally as well?
Click to expand...
We should take 6:53 in the way it was said. The words flesh and spirit, when opposed to each other in the New Testament, never mean literal and figurative, but always the corrupted dispositions of sinful human nature (flesh) contrasted with human nature enriched by the grace of God (spirit). Christ’s meaning, therefore, is clear: My words are such as the mere carnal man cannot receive, but only the man endowed with grace. St. Chrysostom says: “Why, therefore did He say: The flesh profiteth nothing? Not of His flesh does He mean this. Far from it; but of those who would understand what He said in a carnal sense…You see, there is question not of His flesh, but of the fleshly way of hearing” (*In Joan., *47, 2).
 
The Church does take John 6:53 literally. That is why it has celebrated the Eucharist from the beginning, --even before the Gospel of John was written! Jesus intended only One Church, and in that Church His followers could receive the Eucharist, thereby following John 6:53. But there are many in the world who do not know Christ, and who do not know the necessity of the Eucharist, or the necessity of Baptism. God’s mercy does provide for them. We should not view the scriptures as legal textbook, even when we take it literally.

JimG
 
Little Mary:
Also, when He says “…it is the spirit that gives life while the flesh is of no avail…” He doesn’t say “MY flesh” here, He says “THE flesh”. Isn’t He saying that our spirit will live forever and our bodies (THE flesh) will not? So therefore, feed your spirit with His Body and Blood.

Comments?🙂
Click to expand...
Touché, LittleMary!! VERY nice point.
That didn’t occur to me.
Isn’t it nice when you can learn something new about the faith from a brother or sister in Christ - even when you THOUGHT you were pretty knowledgeable on a particular subject?
Thanks!

“Ignorance of Scripture is ignorance of Christ” - St. Jerome
 
The Barrister:
We’re not Feeneyites here, but we do take 6:53 quite literally.

It is the deliberate refusal to partake that excludes one from salvation. That’s why it is oh so important to evangelize fallen-away Catholics and get them back into the Church!

The Protestants and Evangelicals and all the rest may well have invincible ignorance on their side (that’s not an attack; it’s a term of art), but few fallen away Catholics could rely on it.
Click to expand...
but fallen away catholics have partaken of the eucharist. jesus, in the book of john, doesn’t tell us how many times one must partake of the eucharist. he just says “do this as often as you eat the bread and drink the cup”. so the argument that it is more important to get fallen away catholics back doesn’t hold water. it is important for every Christian to experience the fullness of the faith and therefore cradle protestants are just as important to share with as fallen away catholics.
 
40.png
javelin:
So my question is twofold: how does the Church reconcile this apparent contradiction in teaching, and how can one reasonably explain it without reading too much into what is not explicit in the text, or falling into a symbolic meaning of “eat my flesh and drink my blood”, which would deny Catholic assertions about the meaning of John 6 completely?
Click to expand...
I think that to understand Jn 6:63 you have to put it in the context of Jn 6:61-62.
61 But Jesus, conscious that His disciples grumbled at this, said to them, "Does this cause you to stumble?
62 "What then if you should behold the Son of Man ascending where He was before?

The Church teaches that we receive Christ’s **RISEN **body in the Eucharist. This is a “spritual body” as described by St Paul in 1 Cor 15:44
44 it is sown a natural body, it is raised a spiritual body. If there is a natural body, there is also a spiritual body.

Jesus is relating belief in the real presence to belief in the physical resurrection (His and yours). They are both deep mysteries and if you don’t see with the eyes of faith, you cannot accept either one, but accepting both is necessary for the kind of relationship that leads to salvation.
 
40.png
Nate:
I think that to understand Jn 6:63 you have to put it in the context of Jn 6:61-62.
61 But Jesus, conscious that His disciples grumbled at this, said to them, "Does this cause you to stumble?
62 "What then if you should behold the Son of Man ascending where He was before?

The Church teaches that we receive Christ’s **RISEN **body in the Eucharist. This is a “spritual body” as described by St Paul in 1 Cor 15:44
44 it is sown a natural body, it is raised a spiritual body. If there is a natural body, there is also a spiritual body.

Jesus is relating belief in the real presence to belief in the physical resurrection (His and yours). They are both deep mysteries and if you don’t see with the eyes of faith, you cannot accept either one, but accepting both is necessary for the kind of relationship that leads to salvation.
Click to expand...
Beautiful! 👍
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top