John 6:63-64

[anixx]

I’ve read the first four books on, “On Christian Doctrine” and I’m absolutely loving it. It’s hard to add such a length of books into my library when I’m so busy with other things, but I’m working on it.

I believe Augustine is saying it’s our own mystery and is not making a definite proclamation of how the Sacrament works.

But for the sake of the topic, I have shown that Augustine looks at John 6 differently than some Catholics here.

You do understand that Augustine is saying that the bread on the Altar is the Body of Christ, don’t you? As do all the other Church Fathers. There is no doubt in the history of the Church about the Eucharist for 1500 years. Can you show me the point where the Catholic Church changed it’s opinion on Eucharist in 2000 years of history, because I can show you where it changed in the minds of others.
As for the others Fathers of the Church, they all share the same faith: bread and wine become body and blood of Christ on the altar. It’s the ancient faith that goes back to the apostles.

 

[Milasol]

If I was a protestant I would be terrified to get these precise passages wrong.

The gravity of getting the interpretation wrong on this one is beyond imaginable.

 

[dronald]

You do understand that Augustine is saying that the bread on the Altar is the Body of Christ, don’t you? As do all the other Church Fathers. There is no doubt in the history of the Church about the Eucharist for 1500 years. Can you show me the point where the Catholic Church changed it’s opinion on Eucharist in 2000 years of history, because I can show you where it changed in the minds of others.
As for the others Fathers of the Church, they all share the same faith: bread and wine become body and blood of Christ on the altar. It’s the ancient faith that goes back to the apostles.

Why should I in this thread, as it is about John 6?

 

[dronald]

If I was a protestant I would be terrified to get these precise passages wrong.

The gravity of getting the interpretation wrong on this one is beyond imaginable.

Catholics have a different view of God than Evangelicals on things like this.

We don’t believe that babies can go to hell/limbo/wherever because they weren’t Baptized. Although this is not an official Catholic teaching and Catholics say “we don’t know” it’s still an odd position to hold.

We don’t believe that because we haven’t come up with words like “transubstantiation” that somehow we’re damned forever.

We don’t believe in abstaining from foods on certain days.

We don’t believe in regarding some days as greater than others.

We trust in God, as do you; and don’t condemn you for believing this, that or the other thing about whatever.

 

[dronald]

Tertullian on John 6:

They thought His discourse was harsh and intolerable, supposing that He had really and literally enjoined on them to eat his flesh, He, with the view of ordering the state of salvation as a spiritual thing, set out with the principle, It is the spirit that quickens; and then added, The flesh profits nothing — meaning, of course, to the giving of life. He also goes on to explain what He would have us to understand by spirit: The words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life. In a like sense He had previously said: He that hears my words, and believes in Him that sent me, has everlasting life, and shall not come into condemnation, but shall pass from death unto life. Constituting, therefore, His word as the life-giving principle, because that word is spirit and life, He likewise called His flesh by the same appellation; because, too, the Word had become flesh, We ought therefore to desire Him in order that we may have life, and to devour Him with the ear, and to ruminate on Him with the understanding, and to digest Him by faith. (On the Resurrection of the Flesh 37)

 

[Milasol]

Tertullian on John 6:

They thought His discourse was harsh and intolerable, supposing that He had really and literally enjoined on them to eat his flesh, He, with the view of ordering the state of salvation as a spiritual thing, set out with the principle, It is the spirit that quickens; and then added, The flesh profits nothing — meaning, of course, to the giving of life. He also goes on to explain what He would have us to understand by spirit: The words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life. In a like sense He had previously said: He that hears my words, and believes in Him that sent me, has everlasting life, and shall not come into condemnation, but shall pass from death unto life. Constituting, therefore, His word as the life-giving principle, because that word is spirit and life, He likewise called His flesh by the same appellation; because, too, the Word had become flesh, We ought therefore to desire Him in order that we may have life, and to devour Him with the ear, and to ruminate on Him with the understanding, and to digest Him by faith. (On the Resurrection of the Flesh 37)

"Then, having taken the bread and given it to His disciples, He made it His own body, by saying, “This is my body,” that is, the figure of my body. A figure, however, there could not have been, unless there were first a veritable body. (Tertullian, Against Marcion, 4.)

Furthermore, one of the issues Tertullian addressed in Chapter 19 of On Prayer was whether we should receive Communion on fast days (called “Station” days). He says yes, because it’s the Lord’s Body, and that’s Who we’re striving for. He also notes, as many of the above Fathers before him noted, that the Eucharist is truly a Sacrifice offered to the Father:

Similarly, too, touching the days of Stations, most think that they must not be present at the sacrificial prayers, on the ground that the Station must be dissolved by reception of the Lord’s Body. Does, then, the Eucharist cancel a service devoted to God, or bind it more to God? Will not your Station be more solemn if you have withal stood at God’s altar? When the Lord’s Body has been received and reserved each point is secured, both the participation of the sacrifice and the discharge of duty. (Prayer Tertullian in Between 200 and 206 A.D.)

 

[dronald]

"Then, having taken the bread and given it to His disciples, He made it His own body, by saying, “This is my body,” that is, the figure of my body. A figure, however, there could not have been, unless there were first a veritable body. (Tertullian, Against Marcion, 4.)

Tertullian affirms that Jesus means communion was a figure of His body, and yet for a figure to exist a veritable body must exist as well. I don’t know how this supports your position and you have in no way addressed John 6 as I have; seeing as the topic is about such.

I’m only showing ECF’s on John 6, everyone else is quoting me the last supper. That’s great, and an old debate; but we’re discussing John 6.

Furthermore, one of the issues Tertullian addressed in Chapter 19 of On Prayer was whether we should receive Communion on fast days (called “Station” days). He says yes, because it’s the Lord’s Body, and that’s Who we’re striving for. He also notes, as many of the above Fathers before him noted, that the Eucharist is truly a Sacrifice offered to the Father:

Similarly, too, touching the days of Stations, most think that they must not be present at the sacrificial prayers, on the ground that the Station must be dissolved by reception of the Lord’s Body. Does, then, the Eucharist cancel a service devoted to God, or bind it more to God? Will not your Station be more solemn if you have withal stood at God’s altar? When the Lord’s Body has been received and reserved each point is secured, both the participation of the sacrifice and the discharge of duty. (Prayer Tertullian in Between 200 and 206 A.D.)

Like you, we have a Bible where Jesus says “this is my body/blood” and the ECF’S would speak likewise. Although, if their other writings claim He meant it as a metaphor, then they’re lucky they weren’t claiming so in the 12th century.

 

[Milasol]

Tertullian affirms that Jesus means communion was a figure of His body, and yet for a figure to exist a veritable body must exist as well. I don’t know how this supports your position and you have in no way addressed John 6 as I have; seeing as the topic is about such.

It certainly supports the real presence. Are you saying that Tertullian didn’t think there was a veritable body of Christ?

Here is something that might help you:
1131 The sacraments are efficacious signs of grace, instituted by Christ and entrusted to the Church, by which divine life is dispensed to us. The visible rites by which the sacraments are celebrated signify and make present the graces proper to each sacrament. They bear fruit in those who receive them with the required dispositions.

I’m only showing ECF’s on John 6, everyone else is quoting me the last supper. That’s great, and an old debate; but we’re discussing John 6.

Like you, we have a Bible where Jesus says “this is my body/blood” and the ECF’S would speak likewise. Although, if their other writings claim He meant it as a metaphor, then they’re lucky they weren’t claiming so in the 12th century.

As to John 6. Let’s not forget Jesus Himself clarifying this IS my body to those complaining of cannibalism.

And…
“The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not a participation in the blood of Christ? The bread which we break, is it not a participation in the body of Christ? Because there is one bread, we who are many are one body, for we all partake of the one bread.”

-1 Cor. 10:16-17

“For I received from the Lord what I also delivered to you, that the Lord Jesus on the night when he was betrayed took bread, and when he had given thanks, he broke it, and said, ‘This is my body which is for you. Do this in remembrance of me.’ In the same way also the cup, after supper, saying, ‘This cup is the new covenant in my blood. Do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of me.’ For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death until he comes. Whoever, therefore, eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of profaning the body and blood of the Lord.”

-1 Cor. 11:23-27

Let’s see what the ECF’s said:

THE DIDACHE

The Didache or “The Teaching of the Twelve Apostles” is a manuscript which was used by 2nd century bishops and priests for the instruction of catechumens. Many early Christian writers have referenced it making this document relatively easy to date.

“Let no one eat and drink of your Eucharist but those baptized in the name of the Lord; to this, too the saying of the Lord is applicable: ‘Do not give to dogs what is sacred’”.

-Ch. 9:5

“On the Lord’s own day, assemble in common to break bread and offer thanks; but first confess your sins, so that your sacrifice may be pure. However, no one quarreling with his brother may join your meeting until they are reconciled; your sacrifice must not be defiled. For here we have the saying of the Lord: ‘In every place and time offer me a pure sacrifice; for I am a mighty King, says the Lord; and my name spreads terror among the nations.’”

-Ch 14

ST. CLEMENT OF ROME (Alt)

St. Clement was the third successor of Peter as Bishop of Rome; otherwise known as the third Pope.

“Since then these things are manifest to us, and we have looked into the depths of the divine knowledge, we ought to do in order all things which the Master commanded us to perform at appointed times. He commanded us to celebrate sacrifices and services, and that it should not be thoughtlessly or disorderly, but at fixed times and hours. He has Himself fixed by His supreme will the places and persons whom He desires for these celebrations, in order that all things may be done piously according to His good pleasure, and be acceptable to His will. So then those who offer their oblations at the appointed seasons are acceptable and blessed, but they follow the laws of the Master and do not sin. For to the high priest his proper ministrations are allotted, and to the priests the proper place has been appointed, and on Levites their proper services have been imposed. The layman is bound by the ordinances for the laity.”

Source: St. Clement, bishop of Rome, 80 A.D., to the Corinthians

“Our sin will not be small if we eject from the episcopate those who blamelessly and holily have offered its Sacrifices.”

Source: Letter to the Corinthians, [44,4]

To read more click on therealpresence.org/eucharst/father/a5.html

 

[Milasol]

Cont’d

ST. IGNATIUS OF ANTIOCH (Alt)

St. Ignatius became the third bishop of Antioch, succeeding St. Evodius, who was the immediate successor of St. Peter. He heard St. John preach when he was a boy and knew St. Polycarp, Bishop of Smyrna. Seven of his letters written to various Christian communities have been preserved. Eventually, he received the martyr’s crown as he was thrown to wild beasts in the arena.

“Consider how contrary to the mind of God are the heterodox in regard to the grace of God which has come to us. They have no regard for charity, none for the widow, the orphan, the oppressed, none for the man in prison, the hungry or the thirsty. They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer, because they do not admit that the Eucharist is the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ, the flesh which suffered for our sins and which the Father, in His graciousness, raised from the dead.”

“Letter to the Smyrnaeans”, paragraph 6. circa 80-110 A.D.

“Come together in common, one and all without exception in charity, in one faith and in one Jesus Christ, who is of the race of David according to the flesh, the son of man, and the Son of God, so that with undivided mind you may obey the bishop and the priests, and break one Bread which is the medicine of immortality and the antidote against death, enabling us to live forever in Jesus Christ.”

-“Letter to the Ephesians”, paragraph 20, c. 80-110 A.D.

“I have no taste for the food that perishes nor for the pleasures of this life. I want the Bread of God which is the Flesh of Christ, who was the seed of David; and for drink I desire His Blood which is love that cannot be destroyed.”

-“Letter to the Romans”, paragraph 7, circa 80-110 A.D.

“Take care, then who belong to God and to Jesus Christ - they are with the bishop. And those who repent and come to the unity of the Church - they too shall be of God, and will be living according to Jesus Christ. Do not err, my brethren: if anyone follow a schismatic, he will not inherit the Kingdom of God. If any man walk about with strange doctrine, he cannot lie down with the passion. Take care, then, to use one Eucharist, so that whatever you do, you do according to God: for there is one Flesh of our Lord Jesus Christ, and one cup in the union of His Blood; one altar, as there is one bishop with the presbytery and my fellow servants, the deacons.”

-Epistle to the Philadelphians, 3:2-4:1, 110 A.D.

ST. JUSTIN MARTYR (Alt)

St. Justin Martyr was born a pagan but converted to Christianity after studying philosophy. He was a prolific writer and many Church scholars consider him the greatest apologist or defender of the faith from the 2nd century. He was beheaded with six of his companions some time between 163 and 167 A.D.

“This food we call the Eucharist, of which no one is allowed to partake except one who believes that the things we teach are true, and has received the washing for forgiveness of sins and for rebirth, and who lives as Christ handed down to us. For we do not receive these things as common bread or common drink; but as Jesus Christ our Savior being incarnate by God’s Word took flesh and blood for our salvation, so also we have been taught that the food consecrated by the Word of prayer which comes from him, from which our flesh and blood are nourished by transformation, is the flesh and blood of that incarnate Jesus.”

“First Apology”, Ch. 66, inter A.D. 148-155.

“God has therefore announced in advance that all the sacrifices offered in His name, which Jesus Christ offered, that is, in the Eucharist of the Bread and of the Chalice, which are offered by us Christians in every part of the world, are pleasing to Him.”

“Dialogue with Trypho”, Ch. 117, circa 130-160 A.D.

Moreover, as I said before, concerning the sacrifices which you at that time offered, God speaks through Malachias, one of the twelve, as follows: ‘I have no pleasure in you, says the Lord; and I will not accept your sacrifices from your hands; for from the rising of the sun until its setting, my name has been glorified among the gentiles; and in every place incense is offered to my name, and a clean offering: for great is my name among the gentiles, says the Lord; but you profane it.’ It is of the sacrifices offered to Him in every place by us, the gentiles, that is, of the Bread of the Eucharist and likewise of the cup of the Eucharist, that He speaks at that time; and He says that we glorify His name, while you profane it."

-“Dialogue with Trypho”, [41: 8-10]

To read more click on therealpresence.org/eucharst/father/a5.html

 

[Milasol]

Tertullian affirms that Jesus means communion was a figure of His body, and yet for a figure to exist a veritable body must exist as well. I don’t know how this supports your position and you have in no way addressed John 6 as I have; seeing as the topic is about such.

He reaffirms it is the spirit that feeds the flesh.

Check this out:

“[T]here is not a soul that can at all procure salvation, except it believe whilst it is in the flesh, so true is it that the flesh is the very condition on which salvation hinges. And since the soul is, in consequence of its salvation, chosen to the service of God, it is the flesh which actually renders it capable of such service. The flesh, indeed, is washed [in baptism], in order that the soul may be cleansed . . . the flesh is shadowed with the imposition of hands [in confirmation], that the soul also may be illuminated by the Spirit; the flesh feeds [in the Eucharist] on the body and blood of Christ, that the soul likewise may be filled with God” (The Resurrection of the Dead 8 [A.D. 210]).

 

[dronald]

I’ve read those before my friend. I appreciate you posting them and again they’ve been debated at length. But I just wanted to show what even Augustine and some ECF’s had to say about John 6 specifically. While beliefs differed on what communion meant (and they certainly did not all agree with the CC’s official definition) I have provided what the ECF’s said about John 6 specifically for the sake of this thread.

 

[Milasol]

I’ve read those before my friend. I appreciate you posting them and again they’ve been debated at length. But I just wanted to show what even Augustine and some ECF’s had to say about John 6 specifically. While beliefs differed on what communion meant (and they certainly did not all agree with the CC’s official definition) I have provided what the ECF’s said about John 6 specifically for the sake of this thread.

Except that they did agree with the CC official teaching. So much so that I don’t even see a difference.

Yes, John 6

I am still waiting to see how anyone can reconcile the fact that Jesus had to explain himself to the Jews who were shocked at what He was saying

And I still wait for anyone to tell me why didn’t Jesus say His Flesh was of not avail.

Our flesh profits nothing, but our spirits do. And I think the grave error to misinterpret the verse to say that he meant His flesh was of no avail when He meant our flesh profits nothing but our spirits do.

 

[Milasol]

That was exciting to read!

But Augustine certainly looked at John 6 as symbolic.

"

I really doubt that dronald and this is why.

St. Ignatius of Antioch
“They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer, because they confess not the Eucharist to be the flesh of our Saviour Jesus Christ, which suffered for our sins, and which the Father, of His goodness, raised up again. Those, therefore, who speak against this gift of God, incur death in the midst of their disputes. But it were better for them to treat it with respect, that they also might rise again. It is fitting, therefore, that you should keep aloof from such persons, and not to speak of them either in private or in public, but to give heed to the prophets, and above all, to the Gospel, in which the passion [of Christ] has been revealed to us, and the resurrection has been fully proved. But avoid all divisions, as the beginning of evils.”

 

[Robyn_p]

Tertullian affirms that Jesus means communion was a figure of His body, and yet for a figure to exist a veritable body must exist as well. I don’t know how this supports your position and you have in no way addressed John 6 as I have; seeing as the topic is about such.

I’m only showing ECF’s on John 6, everyone else is quoting me the last supper. That’s great, and an old debate; but we’re discussing John 6.

Like you, we have a Bible where Jesus says “this is my body/blood” and the ECF’S would speak likewise. Although, if their other writings claim He meant it as a metaphor, then they’re lucky they weren’t claiming so in the 12th century.

I’m not really sure what the bold line is supposed to mean, can you clarify? Are you trying to say the Early Church fathers denied the Real Presence? Because seeing symbolism in Jesus’ words and commenting on that isn’t quite the same as saying he was only speaking symbolically. Which is what the article in the OP claimed. We can understand Christ’s words on two different levels, literal and spiritual, without excluding or denying the other.

I assume that is the reason why Milasol and anixx are quoting these other sayings on the Eucharist by the ECF’s. Because it does sound like you are implying by these quotes that Augustine and Tertullian did not believe in the Real Presence. Which obviously isn’t the case, as demonstrated by their other quotes.

 

[dronald]

I’m not really sure what the bold line is supposed to mean, can you clarify? Are you trying to say the Early Church fathers denied the Real Presence? Because seeing symbolism in Jesus’ words and commenting on that isn’t quite the same as saying he was only speaking symbolically. Which is what the article in the OP claimed. We can understand Christ’s words on two different levels, literal and spiritual, without excluding or denying the other.

I assume that is the reason why Milasol and anixx are quoting these other sayings on the Eucharist by the ECF’s. Because it does sound like you are implying by these quotes that Augustine and Tertullian did not believe in the Real Presence. Which obviously isn’t the case, as demonstrated by their other quotes.

I was referring to men such as Berengar of Tours who would get in a lot of trouble for saying some of the things the ECF’s did.

 

[dronald]

Except that they did agree with the CC official teaching. So much so that I don’t even see a difference.

Yes, John 6

I am still waiting to see how anyone can reconcile the fact that Jesus had to explain himself to the Jews who were shocked at what He was saying

And I still wait for anyone to tell me why didn’t Jesus say His Flesh was of not avail.

Our flesh profits nothing, but our spirits do. And I think the grave error to misinterpret the verse to say that he meant His flesh was of no avail when He meant our flesh profits nothing but our spirits do.

So if I made Augustine or Tertullian’s words of John 6 my own, you would agree with me? If I said exactly what Augustine said about John 6, every Catholic layperson who didn’t know it was from Augustine would agree?

 

[Milasol]

So if I made Augustine or Tertullian’s words of John 6 my own, you would agree with me? If I said exactly what Augustine said about John 6, every Catholic layperson who didn’t know it was from Augustine would agree?

I know exactly what Augustine said. He along with ALL Church fathers believed in the real presence.

The evidence is there. And the fact that some protestants solely to be anti-catholic would take their words to fit their agenda does not prove at all that the early Church Fathers believed in the real presence.

The evidence is overwhelming…

 

[Milasol]

So if I made Augustine or Tertullian’s words of John 6 my own, you would agree with me? If I said exactly what Augustine said about John 6, every Catholic layperson who didn’t know it was from Augustine would agree?

And what is this supposed to mean?
even if the early fathers didn’t exist I would still believe in the real presence because Jesus Himself said it was His body, His blood and to eat.

It is food from heaven Jesus said.

 

[Milasol]

I’m not really sure what the bold line is supposed to mean, can you clarify? Are you trying to say the Early Church fathers denied the Real Presence? Because seeing symbolism in Jesus’ words and commenting on that isn’t quite the same as saying he was only speaking symbolically. Which is what the article in the OP claimed. We can understand Christ’s words on two different levels, literal and spiritual, without excluding or denying the other.

I assume that is the reason why Milasol and anixx are quoting these other sayings on the Eucharist by the ECF’s. Because it does sound like you are implying by these quotes that Augustine and Tertullian did not believe in the Real Presence. Which obviously isn’t the case, as demonstrated by their other quotes.

It is denial.

I was just reading the other day how early Christians used to have Eucharistic assemblies.

The evidence is so overwhelming that someone would have to be so much in denial to even refute it.

And to say that Augustine didn’t believe in the real presence is beyond nuts.

 

[dronald]

And to say that Augustine didn’t believe in the real presence is beyond nuts.

Good thing your reading comprehension is poor because now I can better decide if I should take your previous rants seriously.