John 6:63-64

[anixx]

All you say is ironic considering you haven’t quoted the words of Augustine and Tertullian that I have and explained them.

Great! We have your explanation. It doesn’t hold much water, though. I will say with Tertullian: We Catholics stand with Peter on this. By the way, Tertullian lived in the 2nd century.

Ignatius was referring to those who didn’t believe a real, true, physical Jesus was crucified.

Can you give a source for this explanation, please. Or is it your own, personal opinion?
And if he lived in these days he would address those who didn’t believe in a real, true, physical Jesus present in the Eucharist, with the exact same words.

 

[zz912]

That was exciting to read!

But Augustine certainly looked at John 6 as symbolic.

He did huh?

“Christ was carried in his own hands when, referring to his own body, he said, ‘This is my body’ [Matt. 26:26]. For he carried that body in his hands” (Exp. of the Psalms 33:1:10)

“No one partakes of this Flesh before he has adored it.”

“Recognize in this bread what hung on the cross, and in this chalice what flowed from His side… whatever was in many and varied ways announced beforehand in the sacrifices of the Old Testament pertains to this one sacrifice which is revealed in the New Testament.”

• from the writings of St. Augustine, Sermon 3, 2; circa A.D. 410 {original translation}

 

[Robyn_p]

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.

Ok. I figured that you were referring to Berengar, I was just confused on why you thought Augustine and Tertullian would be condemned with him as well. That’s why I asked if you believed that Augustine and Tertullian rejected the Real Presence. You never really answered. Do you?

That’s the only way they would get in trouble with the Church like Berengar did. The Church doesn’t have a problem with saying the Eucharist is a symbol, if you didn’t know.

There’s a difference, after all, between saying the Eucharist is symbolic and that it is only symbolic, do you agree? That’s what Berengar of Tours taught, and that’s what got him condemned. Neither Augustine nor Tertullian ever did that, as far as I can tell.

I don’t have a problem saying those two interpreted John 6 symbolically. We tend to use John 6 as apologetic proof, but the teaching itself doesn’t depend on that. I’ve personally always found 1 Cor 11 more convincing scripturally. I don’t agree when people say Jn 6:63 proves Jesus was only speaking symbolically, because it doesn’t fit the context in my mind. But I’m open to different interpretations, if they are valid.

Maybe those two did view John 6 strictly symbolically. Or maybe they saw a symbolic element to it and that’s what they were commenting on, without denying the literal meaning. It’s hard to tell from those quotes on their own. I’d like to study on that a little more. Read the whole context.

I’m willing to have my mind changed on the matter with John 6 though, if that’s where the evidence leads.

 

[anixx]

More aptly and naturally, the flesh, i.e., the carnal understanding, by which in sooth ye suppose that My Flesh is to be visibly cut and eaten like the flesh of sheep, profits nothing for the bestowal of everlasting life: but the spirit and the spiritual intelligence, by which we believe that the Flesh of Christ united to His spiritual Divinity, i.e., in a sacramental manner, veiled and hidden in the Eucharist under the species of bread and wine, is to be eaten - this gives life to soul and body. So S. Chrysostom, &c. No otherwise is S. Augustine’s meaning on the 98th Ps. (Vulg.), if he be carefully read: He says, “It is not this body which ye see nor the blood which those who crucify Me will shed, that ye are about to eat and drink. I commend unto you a sacrament which spiritually understood will quicken you. And although it be necessary that it be visibly celebrated, yet it ought to be understood in an invisible sense.” These words the Calvinists understood thus, that in the Eucharist we eat the Flesh of Christ not really, but figuratively and mystically by faith. But they are in error. For the meaning of S. Augustine is, In the Eucharist we do not eat the Flesh of Christ by visibly cutting and masticating it as the Capharnaites supposed, but under a sacrament, i.e., sacramentally and invisibly, lying hid under the species of bread and wine. For if understood otherwise, S. Augustine would conflict with himself (Serm. 1. in Ps. xxxiii. and Lib. 22, Civit. c. 8, and elsewhere), where he manifestly upholds the truth of Christ’s Body in the Eucharist.

THE GREAT BIBLICAL COMMENTARYOF CORNELIUS À LAPIDE, John 6,64

 

[ezeekl]

Ignatius was referring to those who didn’t believe a real, true, physical Jesus was crucified.

How did you arrive at that? Ignatius never mentioned anything about people not believing in a crucified Jesus. Is that what this all boils down to, that you have to lie to yourself to perpetuate this charade it is He is speaking of the Eucharist and says those who abstain from it (people like you) do so, “… **because they do not confess that the Eucharist is the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ, flesh which suffered for our sins and which that Father, in his goodness, raised up again. They who deny the gift of God are perishing in their disputes” **

Here is the quote again:

"Take note of those who hold heterodox opinions on the grace of Jesus Christ which has come to us, and see how contrary their opinions are to the mind of God. . . . They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer because they do not confess that the Eucharist is the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ, flesh which suffered for our sins and which that Father, in his goodness, raised up again. They who deny the gift of God are perishing in their disputes" (Letter to the Smyrnaeans 6:2–7:1 [A.D. 110]).

Now you have been shown your error. To continue to discuss this is a waste of time. I shake your dust from my sandals and I am moving on. Continue in your denial if you wish.and perish in your dispute.

 

[dronald]

He did huh?

“Christ was carried in his own hands when, referring to his own body, he said, ‘This is my body’ [Matt. 26:26]. For he carried that body in his hands” (Exp. of the Psalms 33:1:10)

“No one partakes of this Flesh before he has adored it.”

“Recognize in this bread what hung on the cross, and in this chalice what flowed from His side… whatever was in many and varied ways announced beforehand in the sacrifices of the Old Testament pertains to this one sacrifice which is revealed in the New Testament.”

• from the writings of St. Augustine, Sermon 3, 2; circa A.D. 410 {original translation}

John wrote all that too?

I don’t have a problem saying those two interpreted John 6 symbolically. We tend to use John 6 as apologetic proof, but the teaching itself doesn’t depend on that. I’ve personally always found 1 Cor 11 more convincing scripturally. I don’t agree when people say Jn 6:63 proves Jesus was only speaking symbolically, because it doesn’t fit the context in my mind. But I’m open to different interpretations, if they are valid.

Thank you; and I agree with all written within this paragraph. It’s relieving to see someone take the time to read and respond. I was really beginning to lose hope.

Maybe those two did view John 6 strictly symbolically. Or maybe they saw a symbolic element to it and that’s what they were commenting on, without denying the literal meaning. It’s hard to tell from those quotes on their own. I’d like to study on that a little more. Read the whole context.

I’m willing to have my mind changed on the matter with John 6 though, if that’s where the evidence leads.

Perhaps. Even though Augustine believed the Eucharist similarly to that of Catholics he still wrote about John 6 as a symbolic only sense. Notice my quote of him he refers to how to know if something is symbolic or not, quotes John 6, and says it’s symbolic and not not symbolic.

How did you arrive at that? Ignatius never mentioned anything about people not believing in a crucified Jesus.

Chapter 5
For they think also the same thing regarding us. For what does any one profit me, if he commends me, but blasphemes my Lord, not confessing that He was [truly] possessed of a body? But he who does not acknowledge this, has in fact altogether denied Him, being enveloped in death.

 

[anixx]

Perhaps. Even though Augustine believed the Eucharist similarly to that of Catholics he still wrote about John 6 as a symbolic only sense. Notice my quote of him he refers to how to know if something is symbolic or not, quotes John 6, and says it’s symbolic and not not symbolic.

Actually, Augustine believed the Eucharist, not similarly, but exactly what we believe. His faith is the Church’s faith. I suggest you read the following, this is what Catholics believed. Though I doubt that you will understand, since you so blatantly refuse to accept the facts and proof brought before you.

catholic.com/magazine/articles/what-catholics-believe-about-john-6

 

[dronald]

Actually, Augustine believed the Eucharist, not similarly, but exactly what we believe. His faith is the Church’s faith. I suggest you read the following, this is what Catholics believed. Though I doubt that you will understand, since you so blatantly refuse to accept the facts and proof brought before you.

catholic.com/magazine/articles/what-catholics-believe-about-john-6

Actually, that’s you. Lol.

You still haven’t explained the quote I’ve brought you from Augustine.

Feel free also to show me where Augustine says “transubstantiation.”

 

[anixx]

Actually, that’s you. Lol.

You still haven’t explained the quote I’ve brought you from Augustine.

Feel free also to show me where Augustine says “transubstantiation.”

I have shown you already where he talks about the Eucharist, the transformation or transubstantiation, whatever you want to call it, it’s the same thing. And you are misinterpreting Augustine. I showed you that, too. Not only me, but many on the thread, the Catholic Answer to this, the commentary to John 6. Still you are ignorant.
If you want to talk about transubstantiation, maybe you want to talk about incarnation, the trinity? None of these are in the Bible, yet you believe in them. Yet, the Eucharist is openly spoken about in the Scripture, and you refuse to accept the words of Jesus.

 

[Robyn_p]

Thank you; and I agree with all written within this paragraph. It’s relieving to see someone take the time to read and respond. I was really beginning to lose hope.

Yeah, I could tell. It seems like most of this thread has been people talking past each other. Which is unfortunate, because what you’ve presented is interesting.

Perhaps. Even though Augustine believed the Eucharist similarly to that of Catholics he still wrote about John 6 as a symbolic only sense. Notice my quote of him he refers to how to know if something is symbolic or not, quotes John 6, and says it’s symbolic and not not symbolic.

Yes. I find that intriguing.

Feel free also to show me where Augustine says “transubstantiation.”

I would be careful with that line of argument. Obviously Augustine is not going to say transubstantiation, because that word didn’t exist in his day. We’re also not going to find any examples of “homoousios” (consubstantial) being used by anyone in reference to Christ prior to the Nicea council. Coining theological terms to more accurately explain and define concepts is something the Church has always done.

What we should be looking for is whether or not Augustine believed in the concept of the bread and wine being transformed into the Body and Blood of Christ. I think that’s more relevant.

 

[dronald]

.

I would be careful with that line of argument. Obviously Augustine is not going to say transubstantiation, because that word didn’t exist in his day. We’re also not going to find any examples of “homoousios” (consubstantial) being used by anyone in reference to Christ prior to the Nicea council. Coining theological terms to more accurately explain and define concepts is something the Church has always done.

What we should be looking for is whether or not Augustine believed in the concept of the bread and wine being transformed into the Body and Blood of Christ. I think that’s more relevant.

Yes, that’s why I said similarly seeing that it would be impossible for Augustine to believe precisely as the CC does today. Different wordings, phrases and explanations are used now which are considered dogma that Augustine would have never heard of.

But hey; I’m an Evangelical posting on a Catholic forum, I’m bound to get torn apart here. It’s the CAF way.

 

[dronald]

I have shown you already where he talks about the Eucharist, the transformation or transubstantiation, whatever you want to call it, it’s the same thing. And you are misinterpreting Augustine. I showed you that, too. Not only me, but many on the thread, the Catholic Answer to this, the commentary to John 6. Still you are ignorant.
If you want to talk about transubstantiation, maybe you want to talk about incarnation, the trinity? None of these are in the Bible, yet you believe in them. Yet, the Eucharist is openly spoken about in the Scripture, and you refuse to accept the words of Jesus.

All I did was quote him and say “This is what he says about John 6.”

 

[juliamajor]

Yes, that’s why I said similarly seeing that it would be impossible for Augustine to believe precisely as the CC does today. Different wordings, phrases and explanations are used now which are considered dogma that Augustine would have never heard of.

But hey; I’m an Evangelical posting on a Catholic forum, I’m bound to get torn apart here. It’s the CAF way.

Really?I’ve been on evangelical sites as a Catholic.Next to those remarks I got, CAF is downright civil.

 

[juliamajor]

What you see on God’s altar, you’ve already observed during the night that has now ended. But you’ve heard nothing about just what it might be, or what it might mean, or what great thing it might be said to symbolize. For what you see is simply bread and a cup - this is the information your eyes report. But your faith demands far subtler insight: the bread is Christ’s body, the cup is Christ’s blood. Faith can grasp the fundamentals quickly, succinctly, yet it hungers for a fuller account of the matter. As the prophet says, “Unless you believe, you will not understand.” [Is. 7.9; Septuagint] So you can say to me, “You urged us to believe; now explain, so we can understand.” Inside each of you, thoughts like these are rising: “Our Lord Jesus Christ, we know the source of his flesh; he took it from the virgin Mary. Like any infant, he was nursed and nourished; he grew; became a youngster; suffered persecution from his own people. To the wood he was nailed; on the wood he died; from the wood, his body was taken down and buried. On the third day (as he willed) he rose; he ascended bodily into heaven whence he will come to judge the living and the dead. There he dwells even now, seated at God’s right. So how can bread be his body? And what about the cup? How can it (or what it contains) be his blood?” My friends, these realities are called sacraments because in them one thing is seen, while another is grasped. What is seen is a mere physical likeness; what is grasped bears spiritual fruit. So now, if you want to understand the body of Christ, listen to the Apostle Paul speaking to the faithful: “You are the body of Christ, member for member.” [1 Cor. 12.27] If you, therefore, are Christ’s body and members, it is your own mystery that is placed on the Lord’s table! It is your own mystery that you are receiving! You are saying “Amen” to what you are: your response is a personal signature, affirming your faith. When you hear “The body of Christ”, you reply “Amen.” Be a member of Christ’s body, then, so that your “Amen” may ring true! From Sacred texts site St. Augustine sermon on the Eucharist

 

[dronald]

What you see on God’s altar, you’ve already observed during the night that has now ended. But you’ve heard nothing about just what it might be, or what it might mean, or what great thing it might be said to symbolize. For what you see is simply bread and a cup - this is the information your eyes report. But your faith demands far subtler insight: the bread is Christ’s body, the cup is Christ’s blood. Faith can grasp the fundamentals quickly, succinctly, yet it hungers for a fuller account of the matter. As the prophet says, “Unless you believe, you will not understand.” [Is. 7.9; Septuagint] So you can say to me, “You urged us to believe; now explain, so we can understand.” Inside each of you, thoughts like these are rising: “Our Lord Jesus Christ, we know the source of his flesh; he took it from the virgin Mary. Like any infant, he was nursed and nourished; he grew; became a youngster; suffered persecution from his own people. To the wood he was nailed; on the wood he died; from the wood, his body was taken down and buried. On the third day (as he willed) he rose; he ascended bodily into heaven whence he will come to judge the living and the dead. There he dwells even now, seated at God’s right. So how can bread be his body? And what about the cup? How can it (or what it contains) be his blood?” My friends, these realities are called sacraments because in them one thing is seen, while another is grasped. What is seen is a mere physical likeness; what is grasped bears spiritual fruit. So now, if you want to understand the body of Christ, listen to the Apostle Paul speaking to the faithful: “You are the body of Christ, member for member.” [1 Cor. 12.27] If you, therefore, are Christ’s body and members, it is your own mystery that is placed on the Lord’s table! It is your own mystery that you are receiving! You are saying “Amen” to what you are: your response is a personal signature, affirming your faith. When you hear “The body of Christ”, you reply “Amen.” Be a member of Christ’s body, then, so that your “Amen” may ring true! From Sacred texts site St. Augustine sermon on the Eucharist

Thanks Julia; but I’m looking for more on what Augustine said on John 6 and how it relates to the Eucharist. Also what I quoted from “On Christian Doctrine” as well.

 

[juliamajor]

friendsofaugustine.org/augustine-for-today/friendship-community/st-augustine-the-eucharist

 

[juliamajor]

therealpresence.org/eucharst/father/a5.html

 

[Robyn_p]

Yes, that’s why I said similarly seeing that it would be impossible for Augustine to believe precisely as the CC does today. Different wordings, phrases and explanations are used now which are considered dogma that Augustine would have never heard of.

True. Still, it doesn’t mean he would disagree with them.

But hey; I’m an Evangelical posting on a Catholic forum, I’m bound to get torn apart here. It’s the CAF way.

Aww come on, we ain’t that bad. Besides, this place would get boring without some healthy disagreement.

 

[dronald]

True. Still, it doesn’t mean he would disagree with them.

You could very well be right; I’m not sure.

Aww come on, we ain’t that bad. Besides, this place would get boring without some healthy disagreement.

As long as it’s healthy!

 

[Randy_Carson]

I read an article by an evangelical which was a detailed response to Catholics using John 6 to show the real presence. He emphasizes Jesus saying that the work of God is to believe the son and that verses 63-64 Jesus says that the flesh profit nothing and his words are spirit and life and that shows its not the physical flesh he’s talking about. Can someone read this article and help me through it? How to challenge his claims?

jesus-is-lord.com/john6pt2.htm

Grasping at Straws: John 6:63

But first, let’s examine another common misunderstanding that arises from the text we just read. In verse 63, Jesus said:

“The Spirit gives life; the flesh counts for nothing. The words I have spoken are spirit and they are life.” (John 6:63)

Some people claim that these words prove that Jesus was speaking metaphorically because he said “the words I have spoken are spirit”. They take this to mean that Jesus was not speaking literally when he commanded us to eat his body and drink his blood. However, this would be a misunderstanding of what Jesus meant when he said, “the flesh counts for nothing.”

First, notice that whenever Jesus referred to his own body and blood, he said “my flesh” or “the flesh of the Son of Man”. Here are the examples:

“This bread is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world.” (John 6:51)

"Jesus said to them, “I tell you the truth, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you. Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day. For my flesh is real food and my blood is real drink. Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me, and I in him.” (John 6:53-56)

At this point, the narrative explains that the disciples were on the verge of revolt over this teaching. Jesus tells them that they cannot understand this teaching with their natural minds. Here is the verse in context: “On hearing it, many of his disciples said, ‘This is a hard teaching. Who can accept it?’ Aware that his disciples were grumbling about this, Jesus said to them, ‘Does this offend you? What if you see the Son of Man ascend to where he was before! The Spirit gives life; the flesh counts for nothing. The words I have spoken to you are spirit and they are life.’” (John 6:60-63)

In John 6:63, Jesus uses the phrase “the flesh” instead of “my flesh” or “the flesh of the Son of Man” because he is not talking about his own body; he is referring to man’s natural, unenlightened rational intellect.

Jesus tells the grumbling Jews (who can’t understand how he would give them his flesh to eat) that they cannot grasp it with their natural minds because it is a mystery beyond the ability of “the flesh” to understand. This is the same manner of speaking used by Paul in 1 Corinthians 2 & 3 when he is distinguishing between fleshly or carnal Christians and those who are discern the things of God with their spirits.

Second, it might be worth noting the obvious fact that Jesus cannot be saying that HIS own flesh “counts for nothing”; otherwise, his death upon the cross would be meaningless. Instead, we know that his own body, his flesh, was broken and pierced for our sake; no Christian would deny that. Therefore, since HIS flesh does count for something, he must have been referring to “flesh” other than his own in v. 63.

Thus, the one verse that many non-Catholics cling to as an argument against the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist does not mean what they falsely claim it means. Ironically, their “proof text” points out precisely why they cannot understand the Eucharist: they are using their own flesh or human reasoning instead of their spirits to discern the things of God. Unfortunately, their flesh “counts for nothing”.