John 6 and Eucharist?

[Mickey]

Philthy:

I don’t think such a comment is appropriate or constructive.
Are we really to be judging another?

You are correct Phil.

Please forgive me bene–and accept my deepest apologies due to my arrogance and pride.

Even if a person’s sin is not only obvious, but very grievous and comes from a hardened and unrepentant heart, do not condemn him, but raise your eyes to the wondrous and incomprehensible judgments of God; then you will see that many people, formerly full of iniquity, later repented and reached a high degree of sanctity, and that, on the other hand, others, who were on a high level of perfection, fell into a deep abyss. Take care, lest you also suffer this calamity through judging others.
St Theophan the Recluse

 

[sandusky]

Philthy:

Reaction 1: Comprehension of what He said and disbelief that it was possible for him to have meant what they understood him to mean based on their “reasoning” (those who walked away).

Reaction 2: Comprehension of what He said and belief that it was true DESPITE their inability to understand how it was “reasonably” possible for him to have meant what they understood him to mean(Peter, et al)

Philthy, I don’t have to time to get into this in detail right now, and probably won’t until after the weekend, but upon re-reading your two “reaction” statements, I believe that in reaction #2 you are “begging the question.”

Reaction #2 assumes the truth of your position.

Its wording is clever, but I do think you are begging the question.

 

[sandusky]

sandusky:

Philthy, I don’t have to time to get into this in detail right now, and probably won’t until after the weekend, but upon re-reading your two “reaction” statements, I believe that in reaction #2 you are “begging the question.”

Reaction #2 assumes the truth of your position.

Its wording is clever, but I do think you are begging the question.

Actually, I think both statements beg the question.

 

[Mickey]

sandusky:

Actually, I think both statements beg the question.

You are begging the question by setiing up a strawman. It is nothing but a red herring.

Sorry about that. I just had an attack of debate lingo flu!

 

[Trick]

mikeledes:

I have another related question regarding the Eucharist. How can the Bread and Wine at the Last Supper be the body and blood of Christ when Christ Himself was physically present? Also, if the Mass is the representation of the Sacrifice at Calvary, than was the Last Supper a represenation of the Sacrifice at Calvary, particularly since Christ had not died on the Cross yet?

God Bless

Because Jesus said it was His Body & Blood, I tend to believe Him.

As to how it happens, I don’t know, but I would say it is a miracle.

And I definitely believe in miracles.

Trick

 

[Mickey]

Trick:

Because Jesus said it was His Body & Blood, I tend to believe Him.

Me too. It’s really quite simple. We take Him at His Word.

 

[bene7]

ncgolf:

This is from the Catechism of the Catholic Church. I will quote a piece of 2837.
"The Eucharist is our daily bread. The power belonging to this divine food makes it a bond of union. Its effect is then understood as unity, so that, gathered into his Body and made members of him, we may become what we receive … This also is our daily bread: the readings you hear each day in church and the hymns you hear and sing. All these are necessities for our pilgramage. 13

"…so that, gathered into his Body and made members of him, we may become what we receive…"? This makes no sense. What is it do you think you’re “becoming” when you eat? In John six Jesus says nothing in regards to “becoming” anything. But instead:

“For this is the will of My Father, that everyone who behold the Son, and BELIEVES in Him may HAVE eternal life; and I Myself will raise Him up on the last day” (vs. 40).

“Truly, truly, I say to you, he who BELIEVES (i.e., in Him) HAS eternal life.”

“I am the bread of life” (vs. 48)

“I am the LIVING bread that came down out of heaven; if anyone eats of this bread, HE SHALL LIVE FOREVER, and the bread also which I shall give for the life of the world is My flesh” (vs. 51).

(For the metaphorical significance of “eats of this bread” see my post #220)

The Father in heaven urges us, as children of heaven, to ask for the bread of heaven. [Christ] himself is the bread who, sown in the Virgin, raised up in the flesh, kneaded in the Passion, baked in the oven of the tomb, reserved in churches, brought to altars, furnishes the faithful each day with food from heaven. 132

These, I must admit, are very clever words, but they in no way reflect accurately what Jesus communicates to His audience in John six regarding belief in Him and the believer receiving eternal life (His life) because of their faith.

"The Eucharist and the Cross are stumbling blocks.

The “Eucharist” truly is a stumbling block, prohibiting men from ever coming to understand the FREE GIFT of eternal life through faith in Jesus Christ, when they, like His unbelieving “disciples” interpret His words about eating and drinking literally.

It’s sort of like the Jews and the Law. Rather than understanding the spiritual purpose behind the Law and the impossibility of perfectly keeping those Commandments, therefore driving them to faith in Christ alone in order to be forever justified before God, they devised ways by which it seemed to them that they were keeping those Commandments and therefore could claim their own righteousness before God (Gal. 3:24). Rejecting the righteousness which comes from God on the basis of FAITH alone in Christ alone (Phil. 1:9) They actually corrupted the righteousness of the Law, bringing it down to their own level. Their corrupting the Law and seeking their own righteousness came at a great price.

By refusing to see (accept) the spiritual significance of what Jesus said in John six, that of believing in Him for eternal life, the church devised a way to take Him literally, but at a very dear price. And, you, by thinking you can literally eat His body and drink His blood, you blind yourself to His clear message in John six (and throughout the Gospel of John) that through BELIEF in Christ, the believer receives (“has”) at the moment of his belief, HIS LIFE in him, which is, “eternal life.”

Those who took His words literally, then, stumbled then. Those who take His words literally, now, still stumble now.

“It is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh profits nothing; the words that I have spoken to you are spirit and are life.”

For this reason, contray to the literal words (message) of Christ, no Catholic believes (nor is able to believe) he HAS, or can have, in this lifetime, eternal life. You may take Christ’s words about eating and drinking literally, but it comes with a great cost, or more accurately, a great loss for you. Good luck on your “prilgrimage.” But while you’re walking (to what destination I have no idea) take some time to reflect on, or meditate on, what Jesus says in John 6:47. If there’s a place to take Him literally in John six, that’s it. But you’re required to “believe” it.

Blessings to you,
Bene

 

[jim1130]

"…so that, gathered into his Body and made members of him, we may become what we receive…"? This makes no sense. What is it do you think you’re “becoming” when you eat? In John six Jesus says nothing in regards to “becoming” anything. But instead:

“For this is the will of My Father, that everyone who behold the Son, and BELIEVES in Him may HAVE eternal life; and I Myself will raise Him up on the last day” (vs. 40).

“Truly, truly, I say to you, he who BELIEVES (i.e., in Him) HAS eternal life.”

“I am the bread of life” (vs. 48)

“I am the LIVING bread that came down out of heaven; if anyone eats of this bread, HE SHALL LIVE FOREVER, and the bread also which I shall give for the life of the world is My flesh” (vs. 51).

(For the metaphorical significance of “eats of this bread” see my post #220)These, I must admit, are very clever words, but they in no way reflect accurately what Jesus communicates to His audience in John six regarding belief in Him and the believer receiving eternal life (His life) because of their faith.The “Eucharist” truly is a stumbling block, prohibiting men from ever coming to understand the FREE GIFT of eternal life through faith in Jesus Christ, when they, like His unbelieving “disciples” interpret His words about eating and drinking literally.

It’s sort of like the Jews and the Law. Rather than understanding the spiritual purpose behind the Law and the impossibility of perfectly keeping those Commandments, therefore driving them to faith in Christ alone in order to be forever justified before God, they devised ways by which it seemed to them that they were keeping those Commandments and therefore could claim their own righteousness before God (Gal. 3:24). Rejecting the righteousness which comes from God on the basis of FAITH alone in Christ alone (Phil. 1:9) They actually corrupted the righteousness of the Law, bringing it down to their own level. Their corrupting the Law and seeking their own righteousness came at a great price.

By refusing to see (accept) the spiritual significance of what Jesus said in John six, that of believing in Him for eternal life, the church devised a way to take Him literally, but at a very dear price. And, you, by thinking you can literally eat His body and drink His blood, you blind yourself to His clear message in John six (and throughout the Gospel of John) that through BELIEF in Christ, the believer receives (“has”) at the moment of his belief, HIS LIFE in him, which is, “eternal life.”

Those who took His words literally, then, stumbled then. Those who take His words literally, now, still stumble now.

“It is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh profits nothing; the words that I have spoken to you are spirit and are life.”

For this reason, contray to the literal words (message) of Christ, no Catholic believes (nor is able to believe) he HAS, or can have, in this lifetime, eternal life. You may take Christ’s words about eating and drinking literally, but it comes with a great cost, or more accurately, a great loss for you. Good luck on your “prilgrimage.” But while you’re walking (to what destination I have no idea) take some time to reflect on, or meditate on, what Jesus says in John 6:47. If there’s a place to take Him literally in John six, that’s it. But you’re required to “believe” it.

Blessings to you,
Bene

I have enjoyed reading the well thought out, intellectual, philosophical, and sophisticated threads provided by Bene; unfortunately, you strip it all away and it comes right back to the “once saved, always saved” argument so, really, we are at an impasse, again.

 

[Mickey]

bene7:

For this reason, contray to the literal words (message) of Christ, no Catholic believes (nor is able to believe) he HAS, or can have, in this lifetime, eternal life. You may take Christ’s words about eating and drinking literally, but it comes with a great cost, or more accurately, a great loss for you.

Christ said indicating (the bread and wine): ‘This is My Body,’ and “This is My Blood,” in order that you might not judge what you see to be a mere figure. The offerings, by the hidden power of God Almighty, are changed into Christ’s Body and Blood, and by receiving these we come to share in the life-giving and sanctifying efficacy of Christ.
St. Cyril of Alexandria, Commentary on the Gospel of Matthew 26,27, 428 A.D.

 

[ThomasMore1535]

sandusky:

The Eucharist is not a miracle.

Where in scripture does God work invisible miracles?

He doesn’t.

Invisible miracles. Sheesh!

Excuse me? You are now blaspheming God as much as any rationalist, materialist atheist does. The Eucharist is not “invisible.” It is an objective reality, which is something that your secularist-influenced, rationalist mind does not seem to understand. God is so loving that He humbles himself under the form of bread and wine for us. And how about the Incarnation itself? How about the miracle of His conception? Nobody exactly saw Him get conceived in her womb, did they? That seems like a pretty “invisible” miracle, wouldn’t you say?

Nobody could see His Divinity when they looked at Him, could they? Other than the Transfiguration, Our Lord appeared as a normal, everyday man. His Divinity, while there, was “hidden” from us. Could we see His Divinity during His Most Sorrowful Passion, when He sweated His Most Precious Blood, when He was scourged over and over again, spilling His Most Precious Blood (which I recieve at every mass, by the way) upon the crown? Could we see His Divinity when the pagans crowned His swollen, beaten, bruised head with thorns that tore into His Flesh? Could we see His Divinity when they clothed Him in purple and beat Him on His Head with a reed while mocking Him?

Finally, could we see His Divinity when His Most Sacred Hands and Feet were pierced with nails to His Glorious Cross? Could we see His Divinity then? Please tell me. Was His Divinity, or was it not, invisible at this time? Was this, or was this not, a miracle?

I pray for you, that you will see the Truth one day. I hope you realize just how much your arguments against the Real Presence parallel those made by secular materialists. Like them, you scoff at the idea that Our Lord could humble himself for us under the appearances of Bread and Wine.

You know who you sound like? Some people talking to Our Lord many centuries ago…

“This saying is hard, and who can hear it?” But Jesus, knowing in himself, that his disciples murmured at this, said to them: “Doth this scandalize you?”
John 6:61-62.

Like them, you are scandalized by this miracle. I pray that you will one day have the grace to accept it as the wonderful gift that it is.

They understood Him literally, He knew that they understood Him literally, and by saying “Doth this scandalize you?” He made it quite clear that they understood Him correctly.

 

[mikeledes]

Thank you all for your responses. They were very helpful. I still have another question. Is the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass a sin offering? If so, how do you reconcile that with the once and for all sacrifice of Jesus on the Cross? Where in the Bible can I find references to the Mass being sacrificial in nature?

God Bless

 

[ThomasMore1535]

And I hope you aren’t going to try and argue that what Our Lord says immediately after that, “It is the spirit that givith life, the flesh profitith nothing. The words I have spoken to you are spirit and truth,” somehow proves that He is speaking symbolically, under the idea that even if He were to give us His flesh, it would be no good, because, as flesh it would “profit us nothing.” I know that a lot of Protestants, ever since the days of Ulrich Zwingli, have tried this interpretation.

In case you were thinking about using it, though, allow me to respond: If “the flesh profits us nothing” in the sense that “flesh” means Christ’s actual, physical flesh, then Christ died for nothing. The Incarnation, His death, and His Resurrection are all for nothing, because His “flesh profits [us] nothing.” That is what in effect this argument is saying.

Now, obvioulsy, that is not what Our Lord means by the term “flesh.” Rather, what does He mean? He means “flesh” in the sense of our natural, carnal ability to understand things. Transubstantiation cannot be understood through reason, through “the flesh,” any more than can the fact that Our Lord was born of a Virgin. This is the only consistent interpretation of this verse. Interpreting “flesh” to mean Our Lord’s physical flesh in this instance is to blaspheme the Incarnation.

 

[Mickey]

mikeledes:

Thank you all for your responses. They were very helpful. I still have another question. Is the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass a sin offering? If so, how do you reconcile that with the once and for all sacrifice of Jesus on the Cross? Where in the Bible can I find references to the Mass being sacrificial in nature?

God Bless

It would be wise to start a separate thread for this.

 

[ThomasMore1535]

mikeledes:

Thank you all for your responses. They were very helpful. I still have another question. Is the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass a sin offering? If so, how do you reconcile that with the once and for all sacrifice of Jesus on the Cross? Where in the Bible can I find references to the Mass being sacrificial in nature?

God Bless

The mass is the exact same sacrifice as the sacrifice Jesus offered up on the Cross Once and For All. It does not add anything to that sacrifice. Rather, what it does is make present in time Jesus’s one sacrifice, and applys it to you at mass. Jesus does not die again in the mass. He is now glorified in heaven. However, there still remains the matter of HOW Jesus’s once-and-for-all sacrifice is applied to us. The answer is the Mass. As I said, the Mass makes present in space and time Jesus’s once-and-for-all sacrifice, and applies its saving effects to believers who take part at mass. This, of course, is done through faith. You can’t just “go through the motions” at mass and expect it to apply to you. You have to firmly believe in Jesus, have faith in Him, in everything that He taught. You also have to be eternally grateful to Him for giving you such a wonderful gift to you–His death, that you may live.

So, yes, the mass is a sin offering. It applies Jesus’s sacrifice on the cross to specific situations and circumstances, and the “work of our redemption” is carried out. Read the earliest Christians, they were very clear about this.

As for specific scriptural references, aside from the plain words that Our Lord used at the Last Supper, such a belief is part of the Church’s Oral Tradition, which is mentioned in 2 Thess. 2:15.

Hope that helps.

If you want a great explanation of it, read the encyclical on the Eucharist that the last John Paul II wrote. Here’s a link to it. I hope you find it useful.

God bless.

catholic.com/library/ecclesia_de_eucharistia.asp

 

[ncgolf]

bene7:

Truly, truly, I say to you, he who BELIEVES

(i.e., in Him) HAS eternal life." Only one quick response to a post I am sure will generate a few responsees. Why do you change scripture. Christ did not say “believes [in Him]”. It would have been much easier if He did but He did not. He just said “believes”. You need to put something that was not there, to ensure that what you say fits. You are changing Christ’s words and that changes the meaning so it will fit your theology.
You need to read the whole of John 6 to the end to find out what the BELIEVES is.

Your explanation sounds like a good PR man, like you are making an excuse for something a client said. Well he really didn’t mean it. It was just figurative.

Well, no matter what, the words are there in black and white.

Catholic theology fits its belief around the words Christ actually spoke, yours is built around what you think Christ should have said.

 

[Kurt_G]

bene7:

Those who took His words literally, then, stumbled then. Those who take His words literally, now, still stumble now.

Nice try, Bene. Actually, your position has more in common with those disciples who walked away, not ours…
For yours to have any merit, you must establish that the apostles who stayed with Jesus took him symbolically, which we all know by now is a debatable point (look at the length of this thread!)

BUT, we can connect you and the "disciples who walked away"directly, no assumptions or arguable points needed:

Both you and the disciples who abandoned Jesus agree that to take Jesus’ words literally is a whacko idea.

(Your format version was actually pretty good, please let me borrow it below for “another purpose”):

Those who would not believe His words literally, then, stumbled then. (It was just too preposterous).

Those who would not believe His words literally, now, stumble now. (It is just too preposterous).

Anyway, that’s the way it looks to me!
God Bless Us All!

 

[ThomasMore1535]

bene7:

For this reason, contray to the literal words (message) of Christ, no Catholic believes (nor is able to believe) he HAS, or can have, in this lifetime, eternal life.

You’re equivocating HAVING eternal life with ENJOYING eternal life. You yourself have said that eternal life is a free gift from God. I fully agree. Since you consider yourself “saved,” I also assume that you firmly believe that Christ has already given this gift of eternal life to you, correct? But you can’t enjoy it yet because you’re not in heaven yet. You have (or at least you think you have, I don’t judge the state of your soul) the present of eternal life. Christ has given it to you. But you can’t open it yet. You can’t tear the wrapping paper off (hey–it’s Christmas time! ) and actually enjoy your gift yet. But you still have the gift. Likewise, suppose your parents get you a brand-new car for Christmas, but you don’t turn 16 until January. You have the car, don’t you? But you can’t drive it yet. You have to wait to enjoy it fully.

So too, when I eat Our Lord’s Flesh and drink His Blood, when I receive into my unworthy body and my lowly soul, Christ’s Body and Blood, Soul and Divinity, I am receiving His gift of eternal life. I LITERALLY HAVE eternal life, as Jesus say I do. But I won’t actually enjoy this gift in its fullness until, with the help of His grace, I enter into heaven.

That’s a perfectly literal interpretation of the text, I would say. I would also say it makes sense in light of the fact that He says, “He that eateth my flesh and drinkith my blood, hath everlasting life: and I will raise him up in the last day.” He says that you already have eternal life by receiving the Eucharist. You already have his gift. When He raises you up, you will enjoy that gift to its fullest extent. There’s nothing “symbolic” about this.

I would also ask if you’re aware that for about eight hundred years, starting from the time in John 6, not a single solitary Christian interpreted John 6 in the way you do. Not one. Are you saying that you can interpret the Bible better than a man like St. Ignatius of Antioch, who knew St. John the Evangelist personally, who studied under him? Are you saying that the Holy Spirit did not inspire that man, a man who willingly submitted to death under the pagans at Rome rather than deny His Lord and Savior? And what of all the other Christians who suffered and died for Jesus, who all firmly believed in the literal interpretation of John 6? Are you saying that the Holy Spirit was not with those Christians?

Peace be with you.

 

[mercygate]

In this chapter, the multiplication of the loaves is separated from the Bread of Life Discourse by the pericope of Jesus’ walking on the sea. To my reading, this is how Jesus prepared the Twelve to receive his teaching in Capernaum. They had seen him “in the flesh” walking on water. Clearly, this walking-on-water flesh is not behaving the way flesh normally behaves, just as in the Eucharist, flesh behaves in a completely new way, being continually multiplied for our salvation until the end of time.

Thus, the Twelve have been specially prepared to respond in faith, not with understanding, to Jesus’ question “Do you also wish to go away?” Because they trust him, not because they understand him, they affirm with Peter: “To whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life.”

This is where we learn that Judas will betray him.

The more time I spend contemplating John 6, the better it gets.

 

[mercygate]

ThomasMore1535:

Are you saying that you can interpret the Bible better than a man like St. Ignatius of Antioch, who knew St. John the Evangelist personally, who studied under him? Are you saying that the Holy Spirit did not inspire that man, a man who willingly submitted to death under the pagans at Rome rather than deny His Lord and Savior?

In post #178, bene7 speculated that Ignatius misunderstood John. The fact that John evangelized Ignatius seems to have been news to him.

 

[jim1130]

mercygate:

In post #178, bene7 speculated that Ignatius misunderstood John. The fact that John evangelized Ignatius seems to have been news to him.

I learn so much when I read these posts in defense of Catholicism and feel inadequate among the knowledgeable people on this site. Thank you.