John 6 and the Eucharist

[bsroufek]

Is Eternal Life metaphorical or real? We believe it’s real.

How do we get it? “Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood will live forever.”

Would he use a symbolic thing to gain a real and eternal thing?

Also, Jesus said these verses in John 6 SEVEN TIMES IN A ROW if you count them. He only needs to say things once to make them eternally true (my words will never pass away).

That’s what I call emphasis on the REAL means to REAL eternal life. It’s not a symbol.

 

[CaptFun]

Is Eternal Life metaphorical or real? We believe it’s real.

How do we get it? “Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood will live forever.”

Would he use a symbolic thing to gain a real and eternal thing?

Also, Jesus said these verses in John 6 SEVEN TIMES IN A ROW if you count them. He only needs to say things once to make them eternally true (my words will never pass away).

That’s what I call emphasis on the REAL means to REAL eternal life. It’s not a symbol.

This chapter would be a finalist in a “What Chapter contains Jesus’ most insistently taught, repeated and emphasized doctrine?” contest.

Nowhere is He more insistent, prefacing his remarks with “Amen, Amen” or “Truly, Truly I tell you …”

Even smaller and more humble than His coming into the world as a poor infant in Bethlehem (House of Bread) and being laid in a manger (literally a place where animals eat) – His becoming the Eucharist for us is a testament to His love for us. And His desire for intimacy and a complete unity with His bride (the Church, us).

Yes He is REAL. And REALLY loves and saves us. May we REALLY believe in Him, love Him and one another.

 

[onmyknees]

There is an early Christian writing called the Didache(Greek for Teaching) in a manual like a missal. The Didache claims to be the collected “Teaching of the apostles.” The Didache was probably put together in Antioch,Syria, sometime during 50-100 A.D.

The Didache uses the word sacrifice four times to describe the Eucharist. In the Didache it says that the usual day of the liturgy was “the Lords day” and that it was usual to repent of one’s sins before receiving the Eucharist.

“On the Lord’s own day gather yourselves together and break bread and give thanks, first confessing your transgressions, that your sacrifice may be pure.”

The Didache has Beautiful Eucharistic prayer which is in liturgies and hymns of Christians today.

As this broken bread was scattered upon the mountains and, gathered together, became one so may Your Church be gathered together from the ends of the earth into Your kingdom; for Yours is the glory and the power through Jesus Christ for ever and ever. But let no one eat or drink of this Eucharistic thanksgiving, except those who have been baptized into the name of the Lord…

Almighty Master, You created all things for Your name’s sake, and gave food and drink to men for enjoyment, that they might give thanks to You; but You bestowed upon us spiritual food and drink and eternal life through Your son…

Remember, Lord, Your Church. Deliver it from all evil and perfect it in Your love; and gather it together from the four winds- the Church that has been sanctified- into Your kingdom which You have prepared for it.

Sounds familiar huh! From way back in Ancient times.

 

[Zekariya]

“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.” - St Ignatius of Antioch (disciple of the Apostle John), Epistle to Smyrnaeans, Ch 7

“…being under the guidance of the Comforter, in obedience to the bishop and the presbytery with an undivided mind, breaking one and the same bread, which is the medicine of immortality, and the antidote which prevents us from dying, but a cleansing remedy driving away evil, that we should live in God through Jesus Christ.” - St Ignatius of Antioch (disciple of the Apostle John), Epistle to the Ephesians, Ch 20

Note: St Ignatius of Antioch was ordained a bishop the year Sts Peter and Paul were martyred (AD 67). St Ignatius died a martyr about (c. AD 108) ten years after the Apostle John passed away.

 

[Evan]

In John 6, Jesus speaks of Moses and the manna. Then he speaks of himself as the bread of life.

If it is just metaphor, Moses receiving manna miraculously each day, would be a greater miracle than Jesus asking us to eat ordinary bread while we remember His life.

BUT IF the bread is the BODY of CHRIST, then Jesus in greater than Moses in that His miracle is greater, and continuing, not 40 years but throughout the life of the Church.

In the gospels, Jesus is sitting at a table with lamb, matza, wine, etc. When he was reaching for something to symbolize his body and blood, why did he take bread, and not lamb. He claimed to be the Lamb of God, why bread? There is a significance that goes beyond simple symbolism. There is truth in what he said: this is my Body/Blood.

 

[CaptFun]

In John 6, Jesus speaks of Moses and the manna. Then he speaks of himself as the bread of life.

If it is just metaphor, Moses receiving manna miraculously each day, would be a greater miracle than Jesus asking us to eat ordinary bread while we remember His life.

BUT IF the bread is the BODY of CHRIST, then Jesus in greater than Moses in that His miracle is greater, and continuing, not 40 years but throughout the life of the Church.

In the gospels, Jesus is sitting at a table with lamb, matza, wine, etc. When he was reaching for something to symbolize his body and blood, why did he take bread, and not lamb. He claimed to be the Lamb of God, why bread? There is a significance that goes beyond simple symbolism. There is truth in what he said: this is my Body/Blood.

 

[Gwillym]

Wow! Thanks for the many replies, everyone! John 6:60 really is where I am with this. This IS a hard teaching. And its one that’s rather offensive to my pious protestant ears. Though truth be told there are protestants that believe in the real presence. Luther had his famous “IS means IS” argument with Zwingly. Calvin says he is truly present but only spiritually.

When I learned that the Catholic Church teaches Christ is truly present Body, Blood Soul and Divinity, I nearly had an aneurism! After my tantrum, my wife pointed out: we already believe he is spiritually present, but that isn’t the language the bible uses. It says this “IS my body”, Paul says if you eat of it in an unworthy manner you will be guilty of the “body and blood” of Jesus. So the bible says it is his body and blood, but OUR church says it is his spirit. So how is it that you can be angry about the Catholics saying it is his body, blood AND spirit! And if you have all three how can you not also have his divinity? If the Catholics are wrong, then so are we. And how can you separate Jesus’ body from his spirit anyway?

To which I replied something about “Dern Catholics and their logic and they won’t stop quotin my bible!”

The real problem I have though is, if John 6 is literally talking about the Eucharist then I must take the Eucharist in order to abide in Christ (verse 56). And anyone who does not abide in Christ will not produce fruit and whoever does not produce fruit is cut off and thrown into the fire (John 15:1-8).

And suddenly Sola Fide just took a direct hit on her port nacelle and is venting plasma! (to use a star trek metaphor)

Sola Fide! The grand protestant tradition! The lens through which we interpret every verse of scripture. That really is the crux of the matter isn’t it. I suppose that’s a post for a different forum though.

Thanks guys.

 

[zab]

Wow! Thanks for the many replies, everyone! John 6:60 really is where I am with this. This IS a hard teaching. And its one that’s rather offensive to my pious protestant ears. Though truth be told there are protestants that believe in the real presence. Luther had his famous “IS means IS” argument with Zwingly. Calvin says he is truly present but only spiritually.

When I learned that the Catholic Church teaches Christ is truly present Body, Blood Soul and Divinity, I nearly had an aneurism! After my tantrum, my wife pointed out: we already believe he is spiritually present, but that isn’t the language the bible uses. It says this “IS my body”, Paul says if you eat of it in an unworthy manner you will be guilty of the “body and blood” of Jesus. So the bible says it is his body and blood, but OUR church says it is his spirit. So how is it that you can be angry about the Catholics saying it is his body, blood AND spirit! And if you have all three how can you not also have his divinity? If the Catholics are wrong, then so are we. And how can you separate Jesus’ body from his spirit anyway?

To which I replied something about “Dern Catholics and their logic and they won’t stop quotin my bible!”

The real problem I have though is, if John 6 is literally talking about the Eucharist then I must take the Eucharist in order to abide in Christ (verse 56). And anyone who does not abide in Christ will not produce fruit and whoever does not produce fruit is cut off and thrown into the fire (John 15:1-8).

And suddenly Sola Fide just took a direct hit on her port nacelle and is venting plasma! (to use a star trek metaphor)

Sola Fide! The grand protestant tradition! The lens through which we interpret every verse of scripture. That really is the crux of the matter isn’t it. I suppose that’s a post for a different forum though.

Thanks guys.

I love these conversion stories. The original conversion story of Deacon Alex Jones is so moving but here is good update after he has been a Catholic for 9 years
youtube.com/watch?v=JmXzbl6Smr0

 

[concretecamper]

This took place after He fed the 5000. Pretty much all left Him. If he woould have been speaking methephorically then He would have been obligated morally as a teacher to correct their misunderstanding. But no…he did not. Also…this is where He lost Judas. Judas could not accept the Eucharist and Satan pounced on that!!!

 

[Zekariya]

Also…this is where He lost Judas. Judas could not accept the Eucharist and Satan pounced on that!!!

Judas’ betrayal of Christ was not related to John 6. Judas left during the Lord’s Supper in order to bring the authorities in order to receive thirty pieces of silver. Judas’ greed caused him to betray Christ (also he had been pocketing money for the poor).

 

[concretecamper]

Judas’ betrayal of Christ was not related to John 6. Judas left during the Lord’s Supper in order to bring the authorities in order to receive thirty pieces of silver. Judas’ greed caused him to betray Christ (also he had been pocketing money for the poor).

Read the end of chapter 6.

 

[Zekariya]

Read the end of chapter 6.

This has nothing to do with the Eucharist. Judas wanted silver.

“Jesus answered them: Have not I chosen you twelve? And one of you is a devil. Now he meant Judas Iscariot, the son of Simon: for this same was about to betray him, whereas he was one of the twelve.”

 

[Zekariya]

Here is a Church Father and Doctor of the Church speaking on John 6 with regards to why Judas left:

For I will tell you; none of those who from lightness have now fallen back, did I choose as I have done you who were good (for as God, I knew what was in you) yet did Satan get hold of one of you through greed of gain, and My Judgment was surely not deceived. For in man is free-will and choice to go to both, either to the right hand, or to the left, i. e., to virtue or vice." - St Cyril of Alexandria, On the Gospel of John, Book 4
Source: tertullian.org/fathers/cyril_on_john_04_book4.htm

 

[concretecamper]

This has nothing to do with the Eucharist. Judas wanted silver.

“Jesus answered them: Have not I chosen you twelve? And one of you is a devil. Now he meant Judas Iscariot, the son of Simon: for this same was about to betray him, whereas he was one of the twelve.”

So it is by chance that Jesus said this immediately after His teaching on eating His flesh and drinking His blood. OK then…

 

[Zekariya]

So it is by chance that Jesus said this immediately after His teaching on eating His flesh and drinking His blood. OK then…

Here is a Church Father and Doctor of the Church speaking on John 6 with regards to why Judas left:

For I will tell you; none of those who from lightness have now fallen back, did I choose as I have done you who were good (for as God, I knew what was in you) yet did Satan get hold of one of you through greed of gain, and My Judgment was surely not deceived. For in man is free-will and choice to go to both, either to the right hand, or to the left, i. e., to virtue or vice." - St Cyril of Alexandria, On the Gospel of John, Book 4
Source: tertullian.org/fathers/cyril_on_john_04_book4.htm

Another Doctor:

“Hearing therefore these things, learn we always to be sober and to watch. For if when he who was reckoned among that holy band, who had enjoyed so great a gift, who had wrought miracles, (for he too was with the others who were sent to raise the dead and to heal lepers,) if when he was seized by the dreadful disease of covetousness, and betrayed his Master, neither the favors, nor the gifts, nor the being with Christ, nor the attendance on Him, nor the washing the feet, nor the sharing His table, nor the bearing the bag, availed him,” - St John Chrysostom, Homilies on John, Homily XLVII (on John 6)
Source: ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf114.iv.xlix.html

 

[concretecamper]

Here is a Church Father and Doctor of the Church speaking on John 6 with regards to why Judas left:

For I will tell you; none of those who from lightness have now fallen back, did I choose as I have done you who were good (for as God, I knew what was in you) yet did Satan get hold of one of you through greed of gain, and My Judgment was surely not deceived. For in man is free-will and choice to go to both, either to the right hand, or to the left, i. e., to virtue or vice." - St Cyril of Alexandria, On the Gospel of John, Book 4
Source: tertullian.org/fathers/cyril_on_john_04_book4.htm

Another Doctor:

“Hearing therefore these things, learn we always to be sober and to watch. For if when he who was reckoned among that holy band, who had enjoyed so great a gift, who had wrought miracles, (for he too was with the others who were sent to raise the dead and to heal lepers,) if when he was seized by the dreadful disease of covetousness, and betrayed his Master, neither the favors, nor the gifts, nor the being with Christ, nor the attendance on Him, nor the washing the feet, nor the sharing His table, nor the bearing the bag, availed him,” - St John Chrysostom, Homilies on John, Homily XLVII (on John 6)
Source: ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf114.iv.xlix.html

Thanks for the Church Fathers quote. This however does not discount Fulton Sheen’s take on it. God Bless…

 

[friarpark]

Hi guys, I have been looking at biblical arguments for the Catholic view of the Eucharist. Besides the “verses of institution” ( Mathew, Mark and Luke and 1 Corinthians 11) every discussion quickly points to John 6. So I decided to look at the context a little and reading the whole chapter this is what I got:

In the first 50 verses he seems to be using a metaphor. I am the True bread of heaven, whoever believes in me shall have life. However the rest of the chapter he seems to be speaking literally and the people around him including the 12, understand him literally and are deeply offended by it. His statements in verses 61-65 do not make the previous 10 verses sound figurative, to me they make them sound even more literal. Also in verse 4. It says the Jewish passover is near. Which I find of note given the Lord Supper is the passover meal.

So I’m kind of left unconvinced… He is so clearly speaking in metaphor in the first part of the chapter, how can I be certain he isn’t in the rest of it? … besides the obvious… that it doesn’t sound metaphorical at all.

Is there anything else about this text, or other texts of scriptures that make it more clear that John 6 is meant to be applied to the Eucharist and taken Literal?

Feel free to link me to resources and/or tell me to “lurk more”.

Gwill.

Here’s a link for you to look over: therealpresence.org/eucharst/father/a5.html

 

[rfournier103]

There are many places in the Bible that tell us of Jesus using parables to teach His Apostles. Jesus teaches, and makes sure that all know that the story is a parable. In Matthew 21:28-45, and 22:1-14, these are parables, and Jesus says so.

In John 6, there is no parable… and Jesus never says; “Wait a minute, guys!!! Come back! I wasn’t being literal, it’s only a symbol!!!”

When you add that to 1 Corinthians 11:23-29, in MY opinion, that can only point to one thing…

The Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity in the Eucharist.

God bless.

 

[Gwillym]

Well, by my own measures of judging any doctrine (scripture, tradition and plain reason), I am forced to concede this point.

1. All direct references to the Eucharist in Scripture say it is the body and blood of Christ
   No references say it is not.
2. It seems to be what Christians (including Luther and Calvin (sort of)) have believed
   from the beginning.
3. Given that Miracles (including God becoming man) are possible then it is not unreasonable.

My only real complaint, to be honest, is that it isn’t what I was taught and I don’t understand it. Of course, that seems to be a theme lately now that I’m re-examining what I believe and why.

Question: What is the Catholic position on the Eucharist in non-catholic Churches? The traditional view from what I’m reading is that it becomes the body and blood when the words of institution are given. However, I read somewhere that, though the baptism of a “schismatic” is valid, the Eucharist is not. So is the Eucharist only really the body and blood if it is blessed by a Catholic priest?

What about the Eastern Orthodox? (not Eastern Catholic), Coptic, and other “ancient” churches.

Thanks,
Gwill

 

[Zekariya]

Question: What is the Catholic position on the Eucharist in non-catholic Churches? The traditional view from what I’m reading is that it becomes the body and blood when the words of institution are given. However, I read somewhere that, though the baptism of a “schismatic” is valid, the Eucharist is not. So is the Eucharist only really the body and blood if it is blessed by a Catholic priest?

What about the Eastern Orthodox? (not Eastern Catholic), Coptic, and other “ancient” churches.

Thanks,
Gwill

Eastern Orthodox and Oriental Orthodox (Copts, etc) have a valid priesthood and, therefore, a valid Eucharist. Protestant sects do not have a valid priesthood and, therefore, partake of plain bread and wine.