John 6:58

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

Jonni

Guest
When Jesus said that they are dead does that mean that they will never get eternal life?
Thanks in advance.
 
Good question!
I have wondered this in regards to the Eucharist/Word of God…because we continue to receive them both.

I tend to take it as meaning this Manna from Moses did not sustain their spiritual life. Christ and His life giving revelation was not revealed in their Manna. In the Eucharist, we have the endless depths of Jesus, the Word made flesh, to minister to our hearts and to draw us together with the whole body of His people. This is the life of the Church. We have the fulfilment of God in Jesus. Therefore, God continues to bring His people into His glory, through the eternal Word of Jesus.

The Manna in the wilderness was food for temporal survival. It in itself did not possess nor contain the grace of the gospel…the means that was neccessary for the eternal God to dwell with us.

I hope I’ve helped. I like your question. We should all consider its meaning.
Michael
 
Jonni said:
When Jesus said that they are dead does that mean that they will never get eternal life?
Thanks in advance.
Click to expand...
Are you sure you have the correct verse?

John 6:58 As the living Father hath sent me, and I live by the Father: so he that eateth me, the same also shall live by me.
 
thistle said:
Are you sure you have the correct verse?

John 6:58 As the living Father hath sent me, and I live by the Father: so he that eateth me, the same also shall live by me.
Click to expand...
She’s got it…?
 
Here is the footnote from the Douay-Rheims Study Bible on that verse…

58. He that eats this bread. By this place the holy council proves, that for the grace and effect of this Sacrament, which is the life of the soul, there is no difference whether a man receive both kinds or one. Because our Savior, who before at tributed life to the eating and drinking of his body and blood, does here also affirm the same effect, which is life everlasting, to come of eating only under one form. Therefore the heretics are seditious calumniators, that would make the people believe the Catholic Church and priests to have defrauded them of the grace and benefit of one of the kinds in this Sacrament. No, it is they that have defrauded the world, by taking away both the real substance of Christ, and the grace from one kind and both kinds, and from all other Sacraments. The Church does only (by the wisdom of God’s Spirit, and by instruction of Christ and his apostles, according to time and place, for God’s most honor, the reverence of the Sacrament, and the people’s most profit thereby), dispose of the manner, and order how the priest, how the people shall receive, and all other particular points which himself (said St. Augustine) did not take order for, that he might commit that to the apostles, by whom he was to dispose his Church’s affairs. Though both he and the apostles, and the Fathers of the primitive Church, left us example of receiving under one kind. Christ at Emmaus, Luke 24:15. The Apostles, Acts 2:42. The primitive Church in giving the blood only to children, St. Cyprian (li. de lapsis, nu. 10). In reserving most commonly the body only, Tertullian, (li. 2. ad uxo. nu. 4). St. Cyprian (de lapsis, nu. 10). In communicating the sick therewith, Eusebius (Eccl. Hist. li. 6. c. 36). In the holy hermits also that received and reserved it commonly, and not the blood, in the wilderness. St. Basil (ep. ad Caesariam Patritiam), and in divers other cases, which were too long to rehearse. Whereby the Church being warranted, and in the regulating of such things fully taught by God’s Spirit, as well for the reproving of certain heresies, which maintained that Christ, God and man, was not whole and in every part of the Sacrament, as especially for that the Christian people, being now enlarged, and the communicants often so many at once, that neither so much wine could be conveniently consecrated, nor without manifold accidents of shedding or abusing, be received (whereof the Protestants have no regard, because it is but common wine which they receive, but the Church knowing it to be Christ’s own blood, must have all awful regard); therefore I say she has decreed, and for some hundred years put in use, that the priest saying Mass should always both consecrate and also receive both kinds; because he must express lively the passion of Christ, and the separation of his blood from his body in the same, and to imitate the whole action and institution as well in sacrificing as receiving, as to whom properly it was said, Do this; for that was spoken only to such as have power hereby to offer and consecrate: but the laymen, and the clergy also, when they do not execute or say Mass themselves, should receive in one kind, being thereby no less partakers of Christ’s whole person and grace, than if they received both. For, as. St. Paul said, He that eats the hosts, is partaker of the altar. He that eats, said he; for though commonly there were drink-offerings or libaments joined to every sacrifice, yet it was enough to eat only of one kind to be partaker of the whole.
 
COPLAND_3 said:
Here is the footnote from the Douay-Rheims Study Bible on that verse…

58. He that eats this bread. By this place the holy council proves, that for the grace and effect of this Sacrament, which is the life of the soul, there is no difference whether a man receive both kinds or one. Because our Savior, who before at tributed life to the eating and drinking of his body and blood, does here also affirm the same effect, which is life everlasting, to come of eating only under one form. Therefore the heretics are seditious calumniators, that would make the people believe the Catholic Church and priests to have defrauded them of the grace and benefit of one of the kinds in this Sacrament. No, it is they that have defrauded the world, by taking away both the real substance of Christ, and the grace from one kind and both kinds, and from all other Sacraments. The Church does only (by the wisdom of God’s Spirit, and by instruction of Christ and his apostles, according to time and place, for God’s most honor, the reverence of the Sacrament, and the people’s most profit thereby), dispose of the manner, and order how the priest, how the people shall receive, and all other particular points which himself (said St. Augustine) did not take order for, that he might commit that to the apostles, by whom he was to dispose his Church’s affairs. Though both he and the apostles, and the Fathers of the primitive Church, left us example of receiving under one kind. Christ at Emmaus, Luke 24:15. The Apostles, Acts 2:42. The primitive Church in giving the blood only to children, St. Cyprian (li. de lapsis, nu. 10). In reserving most commonly the body only, Tertullian, (li. 2. ad uxo. nu. 4). St. Cyprian (de lapsis, nu. 10). In communicating the sick therewith, Eusebius (Eccl. Hist. li. 6. c. 36). In the holy hermits also that received and reserved it commonly, and not the blood, in the wilderness. St. Basil (ep. ad Caesariam Patritiam), and in divers other cases, which were too long to rehearse. Whereby the Church being warranted, and in the regulating of such things fully taught by God’s Spirit, as well for the reproving of certain heresies, which maintained that Christ, God and man, was not whole and in every part of the Sacrament, as especially for that the Christian people, being now enlarged, and the communicants often so many at once, that neither so much wine could be conveniently consecrated, nor without manifold accidents of shedding or abusing, be received (whereof the Protestants have no regard, because it is but common wine which they receive, but the Church knowing it to be Christ’s own blood, must have all awful regard); therefore I say she has decreed, and for some hundred years put in use, that the priest saying Mass should always both consecrate and also receive both kinds; because he must express lively the passion of Christ, and the separation of his blood from his body in the same, and to imitate the whole action and institution as well in sacrificing as receiving, as to whom properly it was said, Do this; for that was spoken only to such as have power hereby to offer and consecrate: but the laymen, and the clergy also, when they do not execute or say Mass themselves, should receive in one kind, being thereby no less partakers of Christ’s whole person and grace, than if they received both. For, as. St. Paul said, He that eats the hosts, is partaker of the altar. He that eats, said he; for though commonly there were drink-offerings or libaments joined to every sacrifice, yet it was enough to eat only of one kind to be partaker of the whole.
Click to expand...
Did that answer the op? Its the part B of the verse. As the fathers ate and died.
 
Not really, Im a little confused now. What i read in the NJB was that the people who ate the manner and are now dead. I just wanted to know if they who are dead from the desert, will they too have eternal life as they were before Jesus came to save us?
 
SOrry that I didn’t tackle the op first, here is an explanation by St. Thomas Aquinas in his commentary on that passage
One might wonder what kind of death God is speaking of here. If he is speaking of physical death, there will be no difference between the bread the Jews had in the desert and our bread, which came down from heaven, because even Christians who share the latter bread die physically. But if he is speaking of spiritual death, it is clear that both then among the Jews and now among the Christians, some die spiritually and others do not. For Moses and many others who were pleasing to God did not die, while others did. Also, those who eat this bread [of the Christians] unworthily, die spiritually: “He who eats and drinks unworthily, eats and drinks judginent upon himself” (1 Cor 11:29).
Click to expand...
We may answer this by saying that the food of the Jews has some features in common with our spiritual food. They are alike in the fact that each signifies the same thing: for both signify Christ. Thus they are called the same food: “All ate the same spiritual food” ( 1 Cor 10:3). He calls them the same because each is a symbol of the spiritual food. But they are different because one [the manna] was only a symbol; while the other [the bread of the Christians] contains that of which it is the symbol, that is, Christ himself. Thus we should say that each of these foods can be taken in two ways. First, as a sign only, i.e., so that each is taken as food only, and without understanding what is signified; and taken in this way, they do not take away either physical or spiritual death. Secondly, they may be taken in both ways, i.e., the visible food is taken in such a way that spiritual food is understood and spiritually tasted, in order that it may satisfy spiritually. In this way, those who ate the manna spiritually did not die spiritually. But those who eat the Eucharist spiritually, both live spiritually now without sin, and will live physically forever. Thus, our food is greater than their food, because it contains in itself that of which it is the symbol.
Click to expand...
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top