John 6 and Eucharist?

[trogiah]

57 As the living Father hath sent me, and I live by the Father: so he that eateth me, even he shall live by me.

I ask that you consider the following from Chapter 4 of John in light of the verse above.

"Meanwhile, the disciples urged him, “Rabbi, eat.” 32 But he said to them, “I have food to eat of which you do not know.” 33 So the disciples said to one another, “Could someone have brought him something to eat?” 34 Jesus said to them, "My food is to do the will of the one who sent me and to finish his work."I believe that, just as Jesus was fed by doing the will of the Father, we are fed by living as Jesus directed us to live.

I think this is a statement that all Christians, Catholic or otherwise could agree to - that we should live as Jesus taught us to live.

Also consider the statement of Pope John XXIII, strongly reemphasized by Pope John Paul II, “That which seperates us as believers in Christ is far less than that which unites us”

Discussions about the “true” meaning of the phrase “eat my flesh and drink my blood” can so easlily and needlessly divide people. The Eucharist is intended to be a symbol of unity among Christians, not a source of division.

To Protestants or Catholics who ask you what the real meaning of the phrase is, why not say, “It means exactly what Jesus wanted it to mean.” and leave it at that. A clear and eloquent description of that meaning does not make us better or worse followers of Jesus commandments.

peace

-Jim

 

[Flopfoot]

I’ve got a question, it may not be a very good one, but -

Is there any reason why this verse (John 6:53) shouldn’t be taken literally? Any reason why when Jesus said that we needed to eat His flesh and drink His blood, he actually meant something else? Why would He say it in such a confusing and controversial way, instead of just saying that people should believe in Him if that’s what He really meant? That would be a lot easier to understand you know… Jesus spoke figuratively and in parables when He had a point to prove, or when He wanted to make it simpler, but never to try to distort the message of God.

 

[SPOKENWORD]

trogiah:

I ask that you consider the following from Chapter 4 of John in light of the verse above.

"Meanwhile, the disciples urged him, “Rabbi, eat.” 32 But he said to them, “I have food to eat of which you do not know.” 33 So the disciples said to one another, “Could someone have brought him something to eat?” 34 Jesus said to them, "My food is to do the will of the one who sent me and to finish his work."I believe that, just as Jesus was fed by doing the will of the Father, we are fed by living as Jesus directed us to live.

I think this is a statement that all Christians, Catholic or otherwise could agree to - that we should live as Jesus taught us to live.

Also consider the statement of Pope John XXIII, strongly reemphasized by Pope John Paul II, “That which seperates us as believers in Christ is far less than that which unites us”

Discussions about the “true” meaning of the phrase “eat my flesh and drink my blood” can so easlily and needlessly divide people. The Eucharist is intended to be a symbol of unity among Christians, not a source of division.

To Protestants or Catholics who ask you what the real meaning of the phrase is, why not say, “It means exactly what Jesus wanted it to mean.” and leave it at that. A clear and eloquent description of that meaning does not make us better or worse followers of Jesus commandments.

peace

-Jim

Thanks Jim for bringing up this scripture. If we are truly to be like Christ then we should EAT like he does. This is the REAL FOOD we should be feasting on,doing the will of the Father. We need to feed our spirit as well as our natural bodies. Jesus came to do the will of the Father and His mission was to bring in the lost. Thats what we should be doing as followers of Jesus Christ. God Bless

 

[martino]

If “eating and drinking” was only meant to symbolize “believing” then what is the purpose of bread and wine?

If Jesus did not mean to literally “eat and drink” then why are all these Protestants eating and drinking their communion?

How can we be guilty of [profaning] the body and blod of our Lord by taking Communion unworthily (as St. Paul asserts) if there is no actual body and blood present?

 

[Anonymous_1]

trogiah

Also consider the statement of Pope John XXIII, strongly reemphasized by Pope John Paul II, “That which seperates us as believers in Christ is far less than that which unites us”

Discussions about the “true” meaning of the phrase “eat my flesh and drink my blood” can so easlily and needlessly divide people. The Eucharist is intended to be a symbol of unity among Christians, not a source of division.

To Protestants or Catholics who ask you what the real meaning of the phrase is, why not say, “It means exactly what Jesus wanted it to mean.” and leave it at that. A clear and eloquent description of that meaning does not make us better or worse followers of Jesus commandments.

Be careful my friend, although it is easy to be tempted to use this as an escape hatch the truth is you are treading in the dangerous and murky waters of relativism…

If Jesus really meant If you do not eat my flesh and drink my blood you have no life within you…do you want to be mistaken about something so serious… or are you interested in truth no matter where it leads you?

Well how can we arrive at the truth.besides Biblical exegesis? The fact is that Jesus did not write the Bible He founded a church. For three years He surrounded Himself with disciples, and formed relationships. There were twelve with whom He had formed special relationships with, His Apsotles. It was to these twelve that the truths of the Kingdom were entrusted to. And these twelve having gone out to procleaim the Gospel founded Parishes(at Corinth and Phillipi and Ephesus, Jerusalem, etc). The Twelve Apostles laid hands upon men like Timothy, Polycarp, Titus, Clement, etc. And the Apostolic succesion continued. The truths of the Kingdom were entrusted to them. If you want to know the truth, besides what the Bible says, look at what the Early Church Fathers say about the Eucharist.Anyway it seems the Catholic Church is indeed that Historical Church that has persevered from generation unto generation fromt he time of Christ Himself.

In theory what you say is true. Holy Eucharist is also Communion…There are lyrix from a hymn that I love…

“As grain once scattered on the hill, now gathered forms one bread, so may we become one body in the Lord.”

Howvever, there are serious differences in the theology between Protestants and Catholics…to pretend they were not here would be denial. How can we be in communion if we are not United in Mind, Faith and Spirit? In fact, even among Protestants there is HUGE dvision and discordance regarding even “critical” doctrine…If you think about it…we can’t all be right…so who is?

 

[trogiah]

Anonymous_1:

trogiah

Be careful my friend, although it is easy to be tempted to use this as an escape hatch the truth is you are treading in the dangerous and murky waters of relativism…

If Jesus really meant If you do not eat my flesh and drink my blood you have no life within you…do you want to be mistaken about something so serious… or are you interested in truth no matter where it leads you?

I appreciate your concern.

I am very strongly convinced that eating the flesh of Jesus and drinking his blood means most prominently that we should do his will as He did his Father’s will. I believe this is what the Church teaches.

To quote the scripture again.

Jesus said to them, “My food is to do the will of the one who sent me and to finish his work.”

Part of his will is that we participate in the physical church that he left to us, to follow the directives of Peter and his successors and to observe all the Holy Days as the Church commands. But that is only part.

As he says in Matthew chapter 5

"Amen, I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest letter or the smallest part of a letter will pass from the law, until all things have taken place. 19 Therefore, whoever breaks one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do so will be called least in the kingdom of heaven. But whoever obeys and teaches these commandments will be called greatest in the kingdom of heaven. 20 I tell you, unless your righteousness surpasses that of the scribes and Pharisees, you will not enter into the kingdom of heaven."I note from this passage that practicing observance of the law is not the factor that keeps one in or out of God’s kingdom, but only how great one is in God’s kingdom. On the other hand, living a righteous life, which much other scripture tells me means following Jesus’s example in daily living, determines whether or not one gets into God’s kingdom.

Anonymous_1:

Howvever, there are serious differences in the theology between Protestants and Catholics…to pretend they were not here would be denial. How can we be in communion if we are not United in Mind, Faith and Spirit? In fact, even among Protestants there is HUGE dvision and discordance regarding even “critical” doctrine…If you think about it…we can’t all be right…so who is?

this is very true. Certainly we cannot pretend that the differences are not there or that they don’t matter. Pope John Paul II made enormous efforts to reach out to non-Catholic Christians but he did not pretend the differences didn’t exist. In one case he was visiting the bishop of another church (I can’t remember which one) and celebrated part of a service with the bishop but did not celebrate communion with him because “we were not yet worthy”

I continue to maintain that there are many important areas of agreement that we can focus on if we would rather see and work for unity than for division. It seems like the greatest irony to use the Eucharist itself as an idea to divide people who all claim to be following Jesus.

peace

-Jim

 

[trogiah]

SPOKENWORD:

Thanks Jim for bringing up this scripture. If we are truly to be like Christ then we should EAT like he does. This is the REAL FOOD we should be feasting on,doing the will of the Father. We need to feed our spirit as well as our natural bodies. Jesus came to do the will of the Father and His mission was to bring in the lost. Thats what we should be doing as followers of Jesus Christ. God Bless

You are welcome.

-Jim

 

[dal11]

Did the early church think it was his real body and real blood?

 

[Anonymous_1]

dal11:

Did the early church think it was his real body and real blood?

In the early Church, the Real Presence of Christ in the elements of Communion was universally believed. Ignatius was the second bishop of Antioch and died a martyr at about the same time the apostle John died. Speaking of the Docetist heretics who denied the humanity of Jesus, he wrote: “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”. (Ignatius of Antioch, Epistle to the Smyrneans, 7). Ignatius equated the flesh of the Eucharist with the flesh of the Cross just as John had done in John 6.

---

Irenaeus was a disciple of Polycarp who remembered Polycarp’s firsthand stories about the apostle John. He used the real presence in the Eucharist to prove the resurrection of the Christian dead: “The Eucharist becomes the Body of Christ” (Irenaeus, Against Heresies 5, 2, 3). “How can they say that the flesh which is nourished with the Body of the Lord and with his blood passes into corruption and partakes not of life?” (4. 18. 5).

There are other Early Church Fathers and Doctors of the Faith like Augustine and Jerome that also have written on the topic…

I am very strongly convinced that eating the flesh of Jesus and drinking his blood means most prominently that we should do his will as He did his Father’s will. I believe this is what the Church teaches.

 

[trogiah]

martino:

If “eating and drinking” was only meant to symbolize “believing” then what is the purpose of bread and wine?

If Jesus did not mean to literally “eat and drink” then why are all these Protestants eating and drinking their communion?

How can we be guilty of [profaning] the body and blod of our Lord by taking Communion unworthily (as St. Paul asserts) if there is no actual body and blood present?

I would like to suggest the following scenario for the institution of the Eucharist, just because I have been occasionally curious about why any person would say something like “eat my flesh and drink my blood.”

The Passover has been a very important feast for the Jews since their departure from Egypt. It was and is both a celebration of thanksgiving and a celebration of freedom. It marked in a special way their covenant with God.

The Passover involved a lamb, whose blood was painted on the door frame of their house to protect them from the spirit of death that struck the first born, and whose flesh was eaten as part of meal the Jews were instructed to have to celbrate the Passover annually.

Jesus was very eager (scripture tells us) to celebrate the Passover with his disciples - very near the time he was to be put to death. He was also very aware of the importance of such a celebration in maintaining the faith of God’s children. So he considered what he might leave to his disciples, something reminiscent of the Passover since this was the beginning of a New Covenant, something they could remember him by frequently and easily, and he reached for the loaf of bread on the table and the glass of wine and gave them a way to remember him.

I realize this is enormously speculative and I don’t intend and don’t believe that I am diminishing the Eucharist in any way because I value it very much, but I think people don’t need long explainations or fancy words to value the gift Jesus left us. He is present in the Eucharist - metaphorically, spiritually, physically, actually and really. And he gives us the Eucharist to strengthen us as we seek to follow him. That is what it means.

I don’t know if I am anywhere close to what he was actually thinking of at the time, but I do believe, as I stated in another post, that any Christian - Catholic or otherwise - should not use the ‘true nature’ of the Eucharist as a starting point for divisive discussion. God knows there are plenty of other topics that we can argue about.

peace

-Jim

 

[Anonymous_1]

I do not disagree that we need to do seek to do the will of God. However…This is quoted from the Council of Trent

Canon 1. If anyone denies that in the sacrament of the most Holy Eucharist are contained truly, really and substantially the body and blood together with the soul and divinity of our Lord Jesus Christ, and consequently the whole Christ, but says that He is in it only as in a sign, or figure or force, let him be anathema.

Can. 2. If anyone says that in the sacred and holy sacrament of the Eucharist the substance of the bread and wine remains conjointly with the body and blood of our Lord Jesus Christ, and denies that wonderful and singular change of the whole substance of the bread into the body and the whole substance of the wine into the blood, the appearances only of bread and wine remaining, which change the Catholic Church most aptly calls transubstantiation, let him be anathema.

Can. 3. If anyone denies that in the venerable sacrament of the Eucharist the whole Christ is contained under each form and under every part of each form when separated, let him be anathema.

Can. 4. If anyone says that after the consecration is completed, the body and blood of our Lord Jesus Christ are not in the admirable sacrament of the Eucharist, but are there only in usu, while being taken and not before or after, and that in the hosts or consecrated particles which are reserved or which remain after communion, the true body of the Lord does not remain, let him be anathema.

Can. 5. If anyone says that the principal fruit of the most Holy Eucharist is the remission of sins, or that other effects do not result from it, let him be anathema.

Can. 6. If anyone says that in the holy sacrament of the Eucharist, Christ, the only begotten Son of God, is not to be adored with the worship of latria, also outwardly manifested, and is consequently neither to be venerated with a special festive solemnity, nor to be solemnly borne about in procession according to the laudable and universal rite and custom of holy Church, or is not to be set publicly before the people to be adored and that the adorers thereof are idolaters, let him be anathema.

11. If anyone says that faith alone is a sufficient preparation for receiving the sacrament of the most Holy Eucharist, let him be anathema. And lest so great a sacrament be received unworthily and hence unto death and condemnation, this holy council ordains and declares that sacramental confession, when a confessor can be had, must necessarily be made beforehand by those whose conscience is burdened with mortal sin, however contrite they may consider themselves. Moreover, if anyone shall presume to teach, preach or obstinately assert, or in public disputation defend the contrary, he shall be eo ipso excommunicated

 

[trogiah]

Anonymous_1:

I do not disagree that we need to do seek to do the will of God. However…This is quoted from the Council of Trent

I read the quote carefully and I don’t think I have said anything that warrants excommunication or anathema. For I do believe Jesus is present in the Eucharist.

I don’t know anything about the historic context of the Council of Trent, were there particular heresies they had to address? were the faithful in need of this particular kind of instruction? I accept the words used by the Church to define the meaning of the Eucharist and all the terms that concern it because I believe it is the place of the church to define such things.

I would not present this document to a non-Catholic Christian or a non-Christian as a reason to see the Eucharist the way the Catholic Church sees it because being anathema from a church they are not a part of would not mean anything and being excommunicated from a church they are not a part of does not mean anything.

peace,

-Jim

 

[Aaron_I]

trogiah:

It seems like the greatest irony to use the Eucharist itself as an idea to divide people who all claim to be following Jesus.

yes, Satan has a sense of humor.

Let’s look at a verse that has been brought to our attention: “Meanwhile, the disciples urged him, “Rabbi, eat.” 32 But he said to them, “I have food to eat of which you do not know.” 33 So the disciples said to one another, **“Could someone have brought him something to eat?” 34 Jesus said to them, “My food is to do the will of the one who sent me and to finish his work.”**I believe that, just as Jesus was fed by doing the will of the Father, we are fed by living as Jesus directed us to live.”

Now let’s look at John 6:
51 I am the living bread that came down from heaven; whoever eats this bread will live forever; and the bread that I will give is my flesh for the life of the world."

52 The Jews quarreled among themselves, saying, “How can this man give us (his) flesh to eat?”
53 Jesus said to them, "Amen, amen, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you do not have life within you."

Examine the parts in bold. In John 4, the disciples clearly didn’t understand the symbolism, so Jesus laid it out pretty explicitly. Now let’s look at John 6. Again a reference to food is taken quite literally, so does Jesus correct them? No, he reinforces the idea! Now some of you have said that the food referred to in John 4 must be what he is referring to, but I would beg to differ. Look at John 6:55 " For my flesh is true food, and my blood is true drink." He states it again just for you.

The Eucharist is the centrality of the faith, this is why Satan attacks it so hard. I think I answered the only arguments against the True Presence (though maybe I missed something) and there are still other arguments uncountered that support it, such as “How can we be guilty of [profaning] the body and blod of our Lord by taking Communion unworthily (as St. Paul asserts) if there is no actual body and blood present?”

One last thing to keep in mind is that the early Church believed in the True Presence. You are going against the earliest Christians unless you find evidence of the eucharist being doubted.

 

[NotWorthy]

When you have two opposing views that never bend or budge, i.e. this topic, infant baptism, etc., I look to the Early Church Fathers and what they wrote about the topics, as well as study history.

My friends, if you studied what the Early Church taught about the Eucharist, then you would believe in the Real Presence in the Eucharist. Its something the Church has taught since before the end of the first century. But I can’t see how you could get past Paul’s Epistles and not see the Church’s teachings.

Notworthy

 

[Quatsch]

A question I’ve encountered has to do with John 6:63. Here is the context of the quote copied below:

John 6:60-66 RSV CE (Ignatius Bible)
60: Many of his disciples, when they heard it, said, “This is a hard saying; who can listen to it?”
61: But Jesus, knowing in himself that his disciples murmured at it, said to them, “Do you take offense at this?
62: Then what if you were to see the Son of man ascending where he was before?
63: It is the spirit that gives life, the flesh is of no avail; the words that I have spoken to you are spirit and life.
64: But there are some of you that do not believe.” For Jesus knew from the first who those were that did not believe, and who it was that would betray him.
65: And he said, “This is why I told you that no one can come to me unless it is granted him by the Father.”
66: After this many of his disciples drew back and no longer went about with him.

How is this to be understood? A protestant asked, “If ‘it is the spirit that gives life’ and ‘the flesh is of no avail,’ why then would Jesus mean for us to eat his flesh, if the flesh is of no avail?”

Can anyone help me to understand what Jesus means in this quote? I’ve tried to find resources touching on it, but haven’t done so successfully.

Blessings,

Kyle

 

[Aaron_I]

I’ve seen this before, but only recently, so I am also unsure about how to answer it. I have come up with one guess on my own. Take John 6:58: “This is the bread that came down from heaven. Unlike your ancestors who ate and still died, whoever eats this bread will live forever.” Perhaps he was contrasting the eucharist with its precursor, mannah. The latter is physical but the former contains the body, blood, soul, and divinity of Christ. Clearly the Eucharist would qualify as being of the spirit.

That may not be the best or proper response, but I’ve only just come across this quote for myself. I don’t think it would make sense for Christ to say 1) unless you eat my flesh you do not have life within you, and 2) the flesh means nothing. One of the two must be referring to something else. I propose that the former case refers to his literal flesh whereas the second refers to matter in general. Christ’s flesh will still avail you (avail is such a cool word!) because his divinity is linked to it.

 

[NotWorthy]

How do we translate these words?

63: It is the spirit that gives life, the flesh is of no avail; the words that I have spoken to you are spirit and life.

The spirit gives life, and Jesus’ words are spirit? Then I would follow Jesus’ words. What are Jesus’ words? To eat my body and drink my blood.

Why is this so difficult?

Notworthy

 

[Quatsch]

NotWorthy:

The spirit gives life, and Jesus’ words are spirit? Then I would follow Jesus’ words. What are Jesus’ words? To eat my body and drink my blood.

I understand that, but how do you explain the part of Jn 6:63 where Jesus says, “the flesh is of no avail”? Obviously he is not saying we should not eat his flesh, but what is he talking about?

He directly contrasts the “spirit that gives life” with “the flesh is of no avail.” This means that the flesh does not give life. He then says, “the words that I have spoken to you are spirit and life.” I understand this to mean that his words come from the spirit and not from the flesh (i.e. they are not human ideas void of divine inspiration). Since words of man, not coming from the spirit, do not give life, the flesh is of no avail.

I wish I were a little more eloquent (is there a patron saint for eloquency? ), but that’s kind of my take on this verse. Any feedback would be much appreciated!

Blessings,

Kyle

 

[Anonymous_1]

trogiah:

I read the quote carefully and I don’t think I have said anything that warrants excommunication or anathema. For I do believe Jesus is present in the Eucharist.

I don’t know anything about the historic context of the Council of Trent, were there particular heresies they had to address? were the faithful in need of this particular kind of instruction? I accept the words used by the Church to define the meaning of the Eucharist and all the terms that concern it because I believe it is the place of the church to define such things.

I would not present this document to a non-Catholic Christian or a non-Christian as a reason to see the Eucharist the way the Catholic Church sees it because being anathema from a church they are not a part of would not mean anything and being excommunicated from a church they are not a part of does not mean anything.

peace,

-Jim

Im sorry Jim, I thought you were saying it dosen’t matter what we believe.

It seems i have misunderstood you…

Im sorry…

 

[NotWorthy]

“It is the Spirit that gives life”? What happens when we receive Holy Communion. We receive Grace from the Holy Spirit don’t we? When we are baptized, we receive Grace from the Holy Spirit. When we do good works for the Lord? We receive Grace from the Holy Spirit. When our sins are forgiven in Confession and at Mass? We receive Grace from the Holy Spirit.

At least that’s my take on it. It’s a simple concept and I’m a simple kind of guy!

Notworthy