John 6:53 Unless you eat the flesh . .

[Chrisx2ra]

“Unless you eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood, you have no life in you.” If we believe in the Real Presence, do these words require us to conclude that Christians who don’t belong to sacramental churches with a valid priesthood are devoid of the life of Christ? I know this conclusion (that Protestants can’t be saved) isn’t the teaching of the Church. Also, they receive the life of God (sanctifying grace) through baptism. How, then, is this verse to be interpreted? I’m the only Catholic in a Bible study on the gospel of John.

 

[dmar198]

“Unless you eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood, you have no life in you.” If we believe in the Real Presence, do these words require us to conclude that Christians who don’t belong to sacramental churches with a valid priesthood are devoid of the life of Christ?

No. Notice the words “Unless YOU eat.” Who does “You” refer to? It refers primarily to the members of the Church, and secondarily, to those who are being instructed in the faith, and thirdly, to those who are being evangelized. Those who, through no fault of their own, are not able to receive His Body and Blood in the Eucharist, are not meant.

Here’s a helpful principle for questions like this: A command is only meaningful if it obligates you in something that is actually possible for you to do. God does not command the impossible. There once was a king who commanded his subjects never to be hot or cold; but he was a fool. A command that obliges the impossible is meaningless. But it would be impossible for a man, who never knew that the Eucharist was real, to know that he must receive what He does not know. So this command does not include such people, until they are evangelized, and then, if they understand what the Eucharist is, and refuse it, the statement is very true: they have no life in them.

 

[Crumpy]

“Unless you eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood, you have no life in you.” If we believe in the Real Presence, do these words require us to conclude that Christians who don’t belong to sacramental churches with a valid priesthood are devoid of the life of Christ? I know this conclusion (that Protestants can’t be saved) isn’t the teaching of the Church. Also, they receive the life of God (sanctifying grace) through baptism. How, then, is this verse to be interpreted? I’m the only Catholic in a Bible study on the gospel of John.

The Protestants are going to give a non-Catholic interpretation, that the Eucharistic bread is only a symbol.

The best and most thorough explanation that I have run across is a book by Dr. Brant Pitre about the Jewish Roots of the Holy Eucharist. It examines the Eucharist from just about every angle, and covers the various objections. You can look this up at amazon.com and maybe even in the bookstore on this website.

One thing I don’t think I read in Pitre’s book is that the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist wasn’t rejected until the so-called Reformation. It was not doubted until then. Martin Luther taught a non-Catholic idea that Jesus existed along-side the bread, but the Catholic view is that the consecrated bread IS Jesus, as the words of Christ at the Last Supper testify.

I was in a non-Catholic Bible study for four years, until my very presence became an issue (other Catholics were present there). My suggestion, give it up, save yourself some time and grief. Don’t give a second thought to quitting. Get a good study bible like the Ignatius ($18) or the Navarre (around $75).

Take your time in reading and studying scripture. Sacrifice speed for quality, it is worth it.

I’ve been reading some Jewish commentaries on Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy. These are lengthy works, 300 to 500 pages on each of these books. I wish I know of some commentaries on the New Testament (Catholic).

 

[fred_conty]

“Unless you eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood, you have no life in you.” If we believe in the Real Presence, do these words require us to conclude that Christians who don’t belong to sacramental churches with a valid priesthood are devoid of the life of Christ? I know this conclusion (that Protestants can’t be saved) isn’t the teaching of the Church. Also, they receive the life of God (sanctifying grace) through baptism. How, then, is this verse to be interpreted? I’m the only Catholic in a Bible study on the gospel of John.

Hi, Jesus first preached the need for Baptism first in the Gospels, and the need for the Eucharist at the end of his life. It says in one of the Gospels, that the Apostles began to baptise people early on. Now He is saying that the God-life started by Baptism now must be fed by His Flesh and Blood to keep that new life growing and healthy. Just as a
newborn natural child, once given birth by its’ mother, must be fed for the baby to grow and be strong. So with regard to the Church, it continues to feed our God-life to make it strong and grow, otherwise without this supernatural food, our supernatural life will grow weary and even die. As for others without this divine food to feed themselves, that is really up to our Divine Saviour how this is handled. We know that Jesus will observe whatever he promised his church he would do: bind or loose, consecrate, make holy, and so on. But He is not limited to the Church and will work in the world any way He wishes for the betterment of all mankind. And tho other churches may not have the power of the priesthood handed down thru the centuries from the apostles and can not change bread into the Body of Christ, nevertheless, the piety and deep faith of the person may make up for what is missing, and thereby make a personal spiritual communion of great value.
The Church has always advocated this for its own people when the real Body of Christ is unavailable to them.​

“…love everyone, especially the brethern.” Paul, murderer and convert.