John 6: Many left him - but why? (Faith & Trust vs Understanding)

[JoyToBeCatholic]

Btw, in light of what I just said, I have no problem with Catholics who sincerely believe in what they are doing, nor do I think God has a problem with it. I do think there is an absolute truth; I don’t think there is a plurality of truths - and to a great extent it certainly matters - but we do not have perfect judgement. We just have to strive to do what we best understand to be right. Many people do not. That is what God condemns; selfishness or disregard for truth. I think the RCC recognizes and agrees with this, hence the statement (where is it btw? - anyone?) that salvation is obtainable outside the RCC if, like the Gentiles, we are properly disposed.

 

[po18guy]

Also, my issue here isn’t really transubstantiation. Perhaps it is true, perhaps not.

For the sake of your immortal soul, do not partake of the Eucharist until you understand and believe. Please seek a spiritual director, preferably a priest, who can teach you. Saint Paul warned of partaking unworthily - thus eating and drinking damnation unto yourself. You cannot be confused or have doubts about the Eucharist and remain healthy in your faith. Stop listening to those Christians who walked away from the Eucharist. Call them to it! To quote Christ: “Do not persist in your unbelief, but believe!”

 

[JoyToBeCatholic]

For the sake of your immortal soul, do not partake of the Eucharist until you understand and believe. Please seek a spiritual director, preferably a priest, who can teach you. Saint Paul warned of partaking unworthily - thus eating and drinking damnation unto yourself. You cannot be confused or have doubts about the Eucharist and remain healthy in your faith. Stop listening to those Christians who walked away from the Eucharist. Call them to it! To quote Christ: “Do not persist in your unbelief, but believe!”

Right - as I said earlier in this thread, I have stopped receiving - yet again… I don’t have a problem with that. As soon as I am disturbed about it I stop receiving. When I feel at peace about the teaching then I feel I have enough faith to receive again, so I go to confession and come back to communion. I’ve been a yo-yo Catholic for about 3 or 4 years now. I think the priests I go to for confession are getting used to me. Pretty soon I’ll enter the confessional and just say “Yes, it’s me again. You know the story. Please keep praying for me…”

 

[mdcpensive1]

No, of course. That is why I’m here. But what I meant is that it seems unlikely I will ever have peaceful certainty about this, and if that is the case, I cannot remain at home to worship alone - I have to make a choice. I am not basing my choice on the people (that was a bonus!). What I see scripturally jives completely with the Mennonite and like faiths. That is why I sought them. I had no idea what they were like when I did this - I only knew what they believed and practiced - and that was what I based my decision on. But I still have doubts and so I go back and forth. I cannot do this forever. I will have to make a choice. I don’t know if I can ever in good conscience remain Catholic in light of what I see Scripturally, so it makes sense to me that God would have mercy on my inadequacy if I choose to leave for fear of commiting idolatry.

I empathize with your situation to discover the true church, the one started in the New Testament.

However, if we go back to the Old Testament we see God giving hope to Adam and Eve by promising redemption and the hope of being saved. From this time on He cared for us until He called Abraham to make him a great nation (Gen 12). He called Patriarchs to protect and guide His people and gave them Moses and the prophets to teach them about the One God and to wait for the savior promised by Him. This is the way that the people were prepared for the gospel.

When the savior came, the people (many anyway) knew Jesus because they had been taught by the past workings of the Lord in salvation history. This history continues not through a Moses figure or Judges or earthly kings, but through His Church that was established in His Name to guide the people the rest of the way. And what Church is that??? I am sorry, but the Menonites and others were not started back then as the continuation of the Hebrew Tradition. It is the Catholic Church that now assumes the role.
I hope this helps,

mdcpensive1

 

[tdgesq]

Also, my issue here isn’t really transubstantiation. Perhaps it is true, perhaps not. I question whether or not we need to claim to have an understanding of the Eucharist at all in order for God to do His work in us.

I’m afraid Jesus requires more of us than that:

53Jesus 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. 54Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day. 55For my flesh is real food and my blood is real drink. 56Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me, and I in him. 57Just as the living Father sent me and I live because of the Father, so the one who feeds on me will live because of me. 58This is the bread that came down from heaven. Your forefathers ate manna and died, but he who feeds on this bread will live forever."

John 6 (Emphasis added).

To try and say that our understanding of Jesus’ words here is not important is manifestly unscriptural. Whatever Jesus is saying, it is clearly important enough that it implicates our eternal salvation.

My Mennonite friends have a childlike faith (what we are all called to in fact) and they are content to just obey His command to “do this in memory of Me”. They do not see the necessity in trying to understand every aspect of it. They have beautifully enlightening things to say about it, but they do not confine themselves to a particular understanding. They are content to simply obey and remain open and contemplative about the deeper aspects of the Christian faith.

I also know some (former) Mennonites. I believe that they are Anabaptists. Do you have any problem with that?

It is true that they, like me, do not see Christ’s words as meaning to be taken literally, but they, like me (as far as I know anyway), certainly are not lacking in faith and trust in Jesus.

Then you have made a decision about these words. Your motives may or may not make any difference. All I can tell you is that the decision is an important one, because Jesus says that it is.

They way I feel about it is that if that is what Jesus meant, I’m okay with it. I’ve no problem with literally consuming Jesus if that is what He wants. If not, I’ve no problem with that either. I just don’t know that I have to be Catholic b/c it is possible that it was meant literally. I would rather be with those with humble and trustful dispositions who don’t believe than with those who believe but don’t live like they do.

You can have a humble and trustful disposition and also believe what Christ literally proclaimed - that he has given his flesh and blood to consume. In fact, it takes a more trustful disposition to take Jesus at his word, not less. It isn’t an either/or proposition. You can live like Jesus requires and take him at his word. No understanding of transubstantiation is necessary. Just believe what He says in Scripture.

 

[JoyToBeCatholic]

I empathize with your situation to discover the true church, the one started in the New Testament.

Thank you.

However, if we go back to the Old Testament we see God giving hope to Adam and Eve by promising redemption and the hope of being saved. From this time on He cared for us until He called Abraham to make him a great nation (Gen 12). He called Patriarchs to protect and guide His people and gave them Moses and the prophets to teach them about the One God and to wait for the savior promised by Him. This is the way that the people were prepared for the gospel.

When the savior came, the people (many anyway) knew Jesus because they had been taught by the past workings of the Lord in salvation history. This history continues not through a Moses figure or Judges or earthly kings, but through His Church that was established in His Name to guide the people the rest of the way. And what Church is that???

The one established by the Apostles. And how can I determine which of the 30 something thousand denominations which claim this to actually be that church? What rule of measure ought I to use?

I am sorry, but the Menonites and others were not started back then as the continuation of the Hebrew Tradition. It is the Catholic Church that now assumes the role.

I have learned from the OT that the truth is not popular. I have learned that at times the church of God consisted of one small family. I have learned from the NT that Jesus’ flock is small. I’m sorry but popularity does not validate apostolic origins.

I hope this helps,

Thankfully, I do have hope

 

[JoyToBeCatholic]

I’m afraid Jesus requires more of us than that:

53Jesus 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. 54Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day. 55For my flesh is real food and my blood is real drink. 56Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me, and I in him. 57Just as the living Father sent me and I live because of the Father, so the one who feeds on me will live because of me. 58This is the bread that came down from heaven. Your forefathers ate manna and died, but he who feeds on this bread will live forever."John 6 (Emphasis added).

To try and say that our understanding of Jesus’ words here is not important is manifestly unscriptural.

Only if you interpret the sin in rejecting Jesus’ saying being that they couldn’t accept His saying vs. the sin being that they didn’t trust Jesus no matter what His saying meant.

I also know some (former) Mennonites. I believe that they are Anabaptists. Do you have any problem with that?

Not at all. I can totally identify with them. When I say Mennonites and like faiths, I primarily mean Anabaptists. I actually don’t see much difference between the Catholic practice of infant baptism, confirmation & confession being much different from believers baptism. I think they both confirm the importance of being raised in the faith, repenting of sin and choosing to live their life for Christ. It all looks very much the same to me. I think Christians of various denominations waste too much time arguing about how things should be done and miss the fact that WHY they do them is all very much the same - and that is what is most important. Conversion is the answer, period. Whether Catholic, Anabaptist or otherwise. No one is getting into Heaven w/out acknowledging their sins and choosing to live for Christ.

Then you have made a decision about these words. Your motives may or may not make any difference.

I’m not sure what you mean by this. I have not made a decision at all. I wouldn’t be here if I had. I am simply stating how I see the passages - and so far I do not see it as the CC does. But I do not place my faith in the Eucharist in this passage - never have in fact. It was experience that led me to believe. I had a hunger to receive communion before I ever learned what it was supposed to be. I experienced Christ’s presence in the Eucharist (or at least I thought I did) for many years. But experience/feelings can be deceptive. Since I have studied Scripture, most of that hunger has ceased and most of the experience too. Maybe the Celiac situation made it worse - I honestly can’t say - it has been many years now and I don’t know what came first.

All I can tell you is that the decision is an important one, because Jesus says that it is.

That is what I am trying to prove (if it can be proven or if it even needs to be)

You can have a humble and trustful disposition and also believe what Christ literally proclaimed - that he has given his flesh and blood to consume. In fact, it takes a more trustful disposition to take Jesus at his word, not less. It isn’t an either/or proposition.

Yes I realize that. And yes it probably does take more faith to believe the Catholic position, but what is most difficult does not mean it is right. It would actually be more difficult for me to convert to this ultra-conservative, almost Amish, Mennonite church to the dismay of my entire family, but that does not mean that is right either.

You can live like Jesus requires and take him at his word. No understanding of transubstantiation is necessary. Just believe what He says in Scripture.

I do. I believe we must do as He says. He said to “do this in rememberance of me.” The Mennonites do this. I would not be disobeying. You have to believe that IF the Eucharist contains the RP, that it is only available through the CC, or that the benefits of it are only dispensed through the CC.

But that is another thread…

 

[mdcpensive1]

JoyToBeCatholic
The one established by the Apostles. And how can I determine which of the 30 something thousand denominations which claim this to actually be that church? What rule of measure ought I to use?

Quote: mdcpensive1
I am sorry, but the Menonites and others were not started back then as the continuation of the Hebrew Tradition. It is the Catholic Church that now assumes the role.

JoyToBeCatholic
I have learned from the OT that the truth is not popular. I have learned that at times the church of God consisted of one small family. I have learned from the NT that Jesus’ flock is small. I’m sorry but popularity does not validate apostolic origins.

JoyToBeCatholic, I believe you misunderstood my post #44. I am asking you to look to the Church started by the apostles at the beginning of the New Testament times. I am not asking you to look at the 30,xxx started in the last few hundred years. I know you know these are not apostolic because they do not have the direct line of continuance of the apostles. Anyway, I did not mention anything about popularity. This should not have anything to do with the question at hand.

Keep searching and studying,
mdcpenisve1

 

[JoyToBeCatholic]

JoyToBeCatholic, I believe you misunderstood my post #44.

Possibly

I am asking you to look to the Church started by the apostles at the beginning of the New Testament times.

I have. That is why I felt I needed to leave the CC.

I am not asking you to look at the 30,xxx started in the last few hundred years.

Well, when I saw that the CC didn’t seem at all to be that same apostolic church from the NT times, I figured I must look elsewhere, or consider, as I have (and which seems most plausible) that Christ’s church (although it may have at one time been 1 visible church) may not be so visible and unified as a literal congregation, but rather a body of believers - perhaps from many denominations - who actually walk with Jesus and aren’t simply content to believe that they are saved b/c they belong to such and such a church (btw - I am not implying that Catholics, or an particular church, believe this, although certainly some do and I will not presume to be saved b/c I belong to a specific church).

I know you know these are not apostolic because they do not have the direct line of continuance of the apostles.

I don’t believe in apostolic succession as Catholics do. I don’t think that b/c someone was appointed after someone else that there is a guarantee of faithfulness. Jesus emphasized faithfulness and not successorship. He left a promise and authority with the Apostles, but did not define how the preservation of the church and truth would come about.

Anyway, I did not mention anything about popularity. This should not have anything to do with the question at hand.

I’m sorry if I misunderstood you. Many Catholics seem to believe that b/c the Catholic church spread far and wide so quickly that we can only logically conclude that it is the One Apostolic Church that Christ established.

Keep searching and studying,

Will do.
I’ve got to give this up now for the night. I make less and less sense as I get more tired

 

[tdgesq]

Only if you interpret the sin in rejecting Jesus’ saying being that they couldn’t accept His saying vs. the sin being that they didn’t trust Jesus no matter what His saying meant.

Joy, you aren’t dealing with the issue. Jesus’ words are unambiguous. He states that unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you. Jesus is saying that you have to doing something or else you have no life in you. Whether that something means the literal consumption of his body and blood or something symbolic - faith, good works, spiritual communion - whatever it is, it must be done or we have no life in us. It is no answer to tell us that “the sin being that they didn’t trust Jesus.” Fine. That may have been their sin. The question is: what is the “something” that we must do or we have no life in us that Jesus refers too in John 6?

Not at all. I can totally identify with them. When I say Mennonites and like faiths, I primarily mean Anabaptists. I actually don’t see much difference between the Catholic practice of infant baptism, confirmation & confession being much different from believers baptism.

They believe not just in adult baptism, but in multiple baptisms. In contravention of the Nicene Creed where we confess “one baptism for the forgiveness of sins.” The earliest ecumenical council in Church history. The Anabaptist practice is a heresy within the Catholic Church and all of the other apostolic churches with which I am familiar.

I think Christians of various denominations waste too much time arguing about how things should be done and miss the fact that WHY they do them is all very much the same - and that is what is most important. Conversion is the answer, period. Whether Catholic, Anabaptist or otherwise. No one is getting into Heaven w/out acknowledging their sins and choosing to live for Christ.

Conversion to what. You say conversion, but conversion to what? A conversion that involves faith in Christ? A conversion that leads to belief in what Christ teaches? Like the very straightforward and obvious declaration in John 6 that we must consume his flesh and blood or else have no life in us. The one who does not acknowledge this is not acknowledging their sins. They are not choosing to live for Christ.

I’m not sure what you mean by this. I have not made a decision at all. I wouldn’t be here if I had. I am simply stating how I see the passages - and so far I do not see it as the CC does. But I do not place my faith in the Eucharist in this passage - never have in fact.

My point was that you’ve made a decision about John 6 and the discourse on the bread of life without providing any alternative explanation that makes sense. If your belief in the Real Presence was based upon a feeling, then I can see why you are struggling. Just have simple faith in what the Gospels teach. That is enough.

That is what I am trying to prove (if it can be proven or if it even needs to be) Yes I realize that. And yes it probably does take more faith to believe the Catholic position, but what is most difficult does not mean it is right.

It is not the most difficult path! I wish I could convince you of that. And it is important to figure this out. You have doubts as to whether it is, but Jesus asserts whatever eating his flesh and drinking his blood means, if you don’t do it, you have no life in you. There isn’t anyway to interpret yourself out of that one.

He said to “do this in rememberance of me.” The Mennonites do this.

So do Catholics, every Mass during the Eucharistic Prayer. You know that. We do eat his body and blood, and we do it in rememberance of Him - every time.

You have to believe that IF the Eucharist contains the RP, that it is only available through the CC, or that the benefits of it are only dispensed through the CC. But that is another thread…

Both untrue statements. I am saddened that you are so badly misinformed about this aspect of our faith. I sincerely mean that. I don’t think it’s off-topic. If you want some discussion about these issues, I would be glad to write about them.

 

[JoyToBeCatholic]

Joy, you aren’t dealing with the issue.

why do you say that? b/c I don’t agree? I started the thread afterall - so I think I am trying to deal with it

Jesus’ words are unambiguous. He states that unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you.

Ok - but the crux of the issue is what it means to eat and drink…

Jesus is saying that you have to doing something or else you have no life in you.

agreed…

Whether that something means the literal consumption of his body and blood or something symbolic - faith, good works, spiritual communion - whatever it is, it must be done or we have no life in us.

Amen! Are you telling me this b/c I said something that made you think I thought otherwise???

The question is: what is the “something” that we must do or we have no life in us that Jesus refers too in John 6?

I have answered this numerous times. Jesus tells us in vs 40: “…every one which seeth the Son, and believeth on him, may have everlasting life.” Previously in vs 35 He tells us how to quench our hunger and thirst: “he that cometh to me shall never hunger; and he that believeth on me shall never thirst.” And also in vs 47: “47Verily, verily, I say unto you,** He that believeth on me hath everlasting life**.”. Should I forget these verses as I read on about eating and drinking? The rest of the gospels are full of the same - the focus being on faith in Christ, repentance for sin, and a life of self-denial, obedience, cross-bearing, love for neighbor…

They believe not just in adult baptism, but in multiple baptisms

No, they don’t. They believe in one baptism - the baptism of one who humbly recognizes his sin and need for God, repents of His sin, and resolves to live His life in self-less obedience to, and love for God. The do not believe in baptizing babies b/c babies cannot repent, cannot have that conversion of heart, and cannot choose for themselves to live for Christ. The re-baptism you are referring to is the baptizing of believers who had never personally chosen Christ but rather were baptized as infants through the Catholic church. I know - I was baptized as an infant, and in my mid-20s I had a conversion experience/born-again/what-have-you and wondered “what now?”. Of course I went to confession and the rest is history… But After infant baptism, I had never made that choice to live for Christ. I lived my life for me, period. That is not the transformed, regenerated life Christ speaks of all over the gospels! But I’m not scrupulous about the issue of baptism either. I know God abides in me b/c of my conversion. And if I definitively decide to leave the CC I will receive believers baptism as a confession of faith and obedience to God. Mennonites don’t see baptism as “efficacious” and I don’t either so far.

Conversion to what. You say conversion, but conversion to what? A conversion that involves faith in Christ?

Of course!

A conversion that leads to belief in what Christ teaches? Like the very straightforward and obvious declaration in John 6 that we must consume his flesh and blood or else have no life in us.

Absolutely! The only problem I see is how one interprets what that means.

The one who does not acknowledge this is not acknowledging their sins. They are not choosing to live for Christ.

I am acknowledging it - I’m just not agreeing that it means I must literally eat flesh and drink blood.

My point was that you’ve made a decision about John 6 and the discourse on the bread of life without providing any alternative explanation that makes sense.

…to you. It makes perfect sense to me, and apparently, from last night reading through another ongoing thread right now on the eucharist, I am obviously not the only one who sees what I see as making sense.

Just have simple faith in what the Gospels teach. That is enough.

That is what I am trying to do. I see it as I’ve already explained, and I would like to simply have peace about that and move on.

It is not the most difficult path!

I agree! That was my point! Perhaps you misunderstood me. Remaining Catholic would be easy in many ways. I wouldn’t be opposing my family, I wouldn’t have to travel as much, I wouldn’t have to stick out like a sore thumb… I said it would be more difficult b/c taking a literal interp. of John 6 would be difficult (for me), but the level of difficulty in something - especially in matter of faith - should not affect my decision.

And it is important to figure this out. You have doubts as to whether it is, but Jesus asserts whatever eating his flesh and drinking his blood means, if you don’t do it, you have no life in you.

I absolutely agree. It is important. I believe I am already doing whatever Jesus meant by eating and drinking. And if He meant it in reference to the Lord’s supper, I will still be doing it - regardless of my understanding of it - regardless of where I am doing that, b/c I would never worship anywhere that did not celebrate the Lord’s supper.

So do Catholics… do it in rememberance of Him - every time.

Yes, I know Catholics also view it as a memorial, but also as a re-presentation.

If you want some discussion about these issues, I would be glad to write about them.

I spent a great deal of the past 2 years discussing that. I am pretty settled on the matter. I simply don’t believe the church was preserved the way the CC claims it was (apostolic succession, infallible authority, etc.). Perhaps I’ll be open to the discussion again someday, but right now I feel I’ve exhausted that avenue. But that you for the offer!

Blessings~

 

[tdgesq]

why do you say that? b/c I don’t agree? I started the thread afterall - so I think I am trying to deal with it

No. You can disagree with me all you want. But when I assert this:

I’m afraid Jesus requires more of us than that:

53Jesus 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. 54Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day. 55For my flesh is real food and my blood is real drink. 56Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me, and I in him. 57Just as the living Father sent me and I live because of the Father, so the one who feeds on me will live because of me. 58This is the bread that came down from heaven. Your forefathers ate manna and died, but he who feeds on this bread will live forever."

John 6 (Emphasis added).

To try and say that our understanding of Jesus’ words here is not important is manifestly unscriptural. Whatever Jesus is saying, it is clearly important enough that it implicates our eternal salvation.

And your answer is this:

Only if you interpret the sin in rejecting Jesus’ saying being that they couldn’t accept His saying vs. the sin being that they didn’t trust Jesus no matter what His saying meant.

I didn’t mention anyone’s sin. Maybe they didn’t trust Jesus. So what. You refuse to deal with the issue I raised, which is that Jesus means something when he says that you must eat my flesh and drink my blood or you have no life in you. What is it?

Ok - but the crux of the issue is what it means to eat and drink… agreed… Amen!

Hurray! We are on the same page now.

Are you telling me this b/c I said something that made you think I thought otherwise??? I have answered this numerous times. Jesus tells us in vs 40: “…every one which seeth the Son, and believeth on him, may have everlasting life.” Previously in vs 35 He tells us how to quench our hunger and thirst: “he that cometh to me shall never hunger; and he that believeth on me shall never thirst.” And also in vs 47: “47Verily, verily, I say unto you,** He that believeth on me hath everlasting life**.”.

I ask again; believe in what? What do you think it means to believe in Jesus, or trust him, or come to him? If it doesn’t mean you trust and believe what he teaches in Scripture, then I don’t know what it means. You use the word “believe” as if it can be separated from what he teaches. What exactly is it you believe Jesus means when he says that we must eat his flesh and drink his blood?

Should I forget these verses as I read on about eating and drinking? The rest of the gospels are full of the same - the focus being on faith in Christ, repentance for sin, and a life of self-denial, obedience, cross-bearing, love for neighbor… No, they don’t.

I see, so now all of these things faith, repentance, self-denial, obedience, love for neighbor, etc. Are what Christ means by eating his flesh and drinking his blood. I’d like to see the scriptural support for that, specifically where Jesus equates eating his body and drinking his blood with all of these things. I don’t think you can do it.

The re-baptism you are referring to is the baptizing of believers who had never personally chosen Christ but rather were baptized as infants through the Catholic church.
. . .
Mennonites don’t see baptism as “efficacious” and I don’t either so far.

Not just the Catholic Church. Any infant baptism regardless of denomination. If you don’t see it as efficacious, then your belief is condemned by the Catholic Church, as well as the earliest Church council in history.

I am acknowledging it - I’m just not agreeing that it means I must literally eat flesh and drink blood. …to you. It makes perfect sense to me, and apparently, from last night reading through another ongoing thread right now on the eucharist, I am obviously not the only one who sees what I see as making sense.

It can only make sense once you can show scripturally what Jesus means when he says to eat my flesh and drink my blood. If it’s faith, then faith in what, and how does that equal eating his flesh? Same with drinking his blood. By the way, you will find some here who would agree with the proposition that God is not three Persons in one Godhead, just like you will find those who deny the real presence.

I simply don’t believe the church was preserved the way the CC claims it was (apostolic succession, infallible authority, etc.). Perhaps I’ll be open to the discussion again someday, but right now I feel I’ve exhausted that avenue. But that you for the offer!

Ahh… well, apostolic succession and infallible teaching authority are non-negotiable within the Catholic Church. Same with the Orthodox and the Anglicans when it comes to apostolic succession and authority. I can also say with some confidence that you do not have an accurate understanding of who can validly administer the Eucharist and how it can be validly dispensed. Before you reject the Catholic Church as a viable option, I would urge you to make an effort as to what it teaches.

 

[JoyToBeCatholic]

Ok, I’m sorry. I was slow to pick up on exactly what you wanted me to define. I didn’t realize it wasn’t very well put. I’ve kind of alluded to it throughout the thread, but I’ll put it plainly:

Jesus means something when he says that you must eat my flesh and drink my blood or you have no life in you. What is it?

33For the bread of God is he which cometh down from heaven, and giveth life unto the world.
34Then said they unto him, Lord, evermore give us this bread.
35And Jesus said unto them, I am the bread of life: he that cometh to me shall never hunger; and he that believeth on me shall never thirst.

40And this is the will of him that sent me, that every one which seeth the Son, and believeth on him, may have everlasting life: and I will raise him up at the last day.

Jesus makes a relationship between believing in Him and eating bread.

Jesus’ flesh and blood are His sacrifice.

Unless we share in His sacrifice/His death, we cannot have life.

Sound familiar?

Romans 6:3 "Know ye not, that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ were baptized into his death? **
4Therefore we are buried with him by baptism into death**: that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life.
5For if we have been planted together in the likeness of his death, we shall be also in the likeness of his resurrection:
6Knowing this, that our old man is crucified with him, that the body of sin might be destroyed, that henceforth** we should not serve sin.**
7For he that is dead is freed from sin.
8Now** if we be dead with Christ**, we believe that **we shall also live with him: **
9Knowing that Christ being raised from the dead dieth no more; death hath no more dominion over him.
10For in that he died, he died unto sin once: but in that he liveth, he liveth unto God. 11Likewise reckon ye also yourselves to be dead indeed unto sin, but alive unto God through Jesus Christ our Lord. "

I see, so now all of these things faith, repentance, self-denial, obedience, love for neighbor, etc. Are what Christ means by eating his flesh and drinking his blood. I’d like to see the scriptural support for that, specifically where Jesus equates eating his body and drinking his blood with all of these things. I don’t think you can do it.

See above. It is totally scriptural. Faith & repentance are necessary for baptism, and the rest (self-denial, love, etc.) are the result of walking in newness of life and no longer serving sin.

Not just the Catholic Church. Any infant baptism regardless of denomination. If you don’t see it as efficacious, then your belief is condemned by the Catholic Church, as well as the earliest Church council in history.

So be it then, b/c if the CC isn’t following Apostolic Tradition (which is in the Bible) then it can condemn me all it wants. I’ve no interest in a church that isn’t true to the original teachings.

By the way, you will find some here who would agree with the proposition that God is not three Persons in one Godhead, just like you will find those who deny the real presence.

Yes, I know - I wasn’t trying to say that b/c others believe it that it must be true, just that it isn’t impossible to see. My point in that was that I do see why the CC teaches what it does, I just don’t agree with it. I was hoping that you could at least see this p.o.v., regardless of whether or not you agree with it. I’m also not very good at articulating things, so I felt a little relieved to see it was demonstrated by someone else more or less the same way I had.

Ahh… well, apostolic succession and infallible teaching authority are non-negotiable within the Catholic Church. Same with the Orthodox and the Anglicans when it comes to apostolic succession and authority. I can also say with some confidence that you do not have an accurate understanding of who can validly administer the Eucharist and how it can be validly dispensed. Before you reject the Catholic Church as a viable option, I would urge you to make an effort as to what it teaches.

I have, as I already told you. You assume that b/c someone doesn’t believe it, that they must misunderstand it or never have studied it. I think it sounds possible, but I don’t think it can be proven and I don’t think it is Scriptural. I’ve seen the supposed Scripture support for it but I don’t think it is good. In fact, I think Scripture disproves that succession guarantees faithfulness.

If you are interested in what I believe about that you can look through my old threads on authority. I am truly not interested in rehashing that issue. I’ve exhausted that avenue and am exploring others (like this one).

Peace

 

[JoyToBeCatholic]

I should say also, btw, that I don’t deny that Jesus was making a connection between His discourse in John 6 and Christian Communion/Lord’s Supper, but it doesn’t mean we are literally eating His flesh and drinking His blood. I would see it as a memorial of Christ’s sacrifice and of our sharing in it.

A symbolic meaning doesn’t take away from the sacred nauture of communion. Afterall, do we literally die and get resurrected when we are baptized?

 

[mikeledes]

John 6:51-58 is to be interpreted literally and is one of the strongest passages that testify to the Real Presence in the Eucharist. In the Gospel of John, there is a certain pattern that helps to shed light on John 6. Whenever Jesus makes an ambiguous statement, it is usually followed by a misunderstanding/question, and this, in turn, is followed by a clarification either by Jesus or the Evangelist. So, this is the basic outline of this pattern:

1. **Ambiguous Statement by Jesus **
2. Misunderstanding/ Question
3. Clarification

Now here are some examples from the Gospel of John:

John 2:19-21

Jesus answered them, “Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up.” The Jews then said "It took forty-six years to build this temple, and you will raise it up in three days? But He was speaking of the temple of His body."

John 3:3-5

Jesus answered and said to him, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born again he cannot see the kingdom of God.” Nicodemus said to him, "How can a man be born when he is old? He cannot enter a second time into his mother’s womb and be born, can he?Jesus answered, "Truly Truly I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit he cannot enter the kingdom of God."

John 4:32-34

"But He said to them, “I have food to eat that you do not know about.” So the disciples were saying to one another, 'no one brought Him anything to eat, did he? Jesus said to them, " My Food is to do the will of Him who sent me and to accomplish His work."

John 8:31-34

So Jesus was saying to those Jews who believed in Him, “If you continue in My word, then you are truly disciples of Mine; and you will know the truth, and the truth will make you free.” They answered Him, "We are Abraham’s descendants and have never been enslaved to anyone; how is it that You say, “You will become free.” Jesus answered them, "Truly, Truly I say to you, everyone who commits sin is the slave of sin.

Now let’s look at John 6:51-53 and see if it fits the Ambiguous Statement/Question/Clarification pattern:

"I am the living bread that came down out of heaven; if anyone eats this bread, he will live forever; and the bread also which I will give for the life of the world is My flesh." Then the Jews began to argue with one another, saying, "How can this man give us His flesh to eat? So Jesus said to them, Truly, Truly, I say to you unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink His blood you have no life in yourselves.

So, following the established pattern, verse 53 is a clarification of verses 51-52. If he were merely speaking figuratively, then we would have expected the literal meaning of the “figurative” langauge he used, as it happens in the verses I gave above and in many other places in the Bible. Instead, what we see in verse 53 is a reaffirmation of what the Jews understood Jesus to mean. So the clarification is that Jesus was speaking literally, not figuratively. If he were speaking figuratively, He would have indicated that in verse 53.

God Bless,
Michael

 

[mikeledes]

The point of the above post is that when Jesus is speaking figuratively, either Jesus Himself or the Gospel writer explains what He means. He often uses progressive revelation as a teaching method, going from ambiguity to greater clarity. There are numerous examples of this in the 4 Gospels. Here are some more:

John 4:10-14

**10Jesus answered and said to her, “If you knew the gift of God, and who it is who says to you, ‘Give Me a drink,’ you would have asked Him, and He would have given you living water.”
11She said to Him, “Sir, You have nothing to draw with and the well is deep; where then do You get that living water?
12"You are not greater than our father Jacob, are You, who gave us the well, and drank of it himself and his sons and his cattle?”
13Jesus answered and said to her, “Everyone who drinks of this water will thirst again;
14but whoever drinks of the water that I will give him shall never thirst; but the water that I will give him will become in him a well of water springing up to eternal life.” **

John 8:56-58

**56"Your father Abraham rejoiced to see My day, and he saw it and was glad."
57So the Jews said to Him, “You are not yet fifty years old, and have You seen Abraham?” 58Jesus said to them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, before Abraham was born, I am.” **

John 10:1-10

**1"Truly, truly, I say to you, he who does not enter by the door into the fold of the sheep, but climbs up some other way, he is a thief and a robber.
2"But he who enters by the door is a shepherd of the sheep.
3"To him the doorkeeper opens, and the sheep hear his voice, and he calls his own sheep by name and leads them out.
4"When he puts forth all his own, he goes ahead of them, and the sheep follow him because they know his voice.
5"A stranger they simply will not follow, but will flee from him, because they do not know the voice of strangers."
6This figure of speech Jesus spoke to them, but they did not understand what those things were which He had been saying to them.
7So Jesus said to them again, "Truly, truly, I say to you, I am the door of the sheep.
8"All who came before Me are thieves and robbers, but the sheep did not hear them.
9"I am the door; if anyone enters through Me, he will be saved, and will go in and out and find pasture.
10"The thief comes only to steal and kill and destroy; I came that they may have life, and have it abundantly. **

John 7:38-39

38"He who believes in Me, as the Scripture said, ‘From his innermost being will flow rivers of living water.’"
39But this He spoke of the Spirit, whom those who believed in Him were to receive

John 12:32-33

**32 And I, if I am lifted up from the earth, will draw all peoples to Myself.” 33 This He said, signifying by what death He would die. **

John 21:18-19

**18 Most assuredly, I say to you, when you were younger, you girded yourself and walked where you wished; but when you are old, you will stretch out your hands, and another will gird you and carry you where you do not wish.” 19 This He spoke, signifying by what death he would glorify God. **

Matthew 16:6-12

6 Then Jesus said to them, “Take heed and beware of the leaven of the Pharisees and the Sadducees.” 7 And they reasoned among themselves, saying, “It is because we have taken no bread.”
8 But Jesus, being aware of it, said to them, “O you of little faith, why do you reason among yourselves because you have brought no bread?[a] 9 Do you not yet understand, or remember the five loaves of the five thousand and how many baskets you took up? 10 Nor the seven loaves of the four thousand and how many large baskets you took up? 11 How is it you do not understand that I did not speak to you concerning bread?—but to beware of the leaven of the Pharisees and Sadducees.” 12 Then they understood that He did not tell them to beware of the leaven of bread, but of the doctrine of the Pharisees and Sadducees.

This does not happen in John 6.

God Bless,
Michael

 

[mikeledes]

John 6:63

63 It is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh profits nothing. The words that I speak to you are spirit, and they are life

This verse does not mean that Jesus was speaking figuratively. The word “Spirit” is used to refer to those things that pertain to God and the word “flesh” refers to those things that pertain to sin. We constantly see the Spirit vs. flesh construct thorughout the Bible:

Galatians 5:16

16 I say then: Walk in the Spirit, and you shall not fulfill the lust of the flesh. 17 For the flesh lusts against the Spirit, and the Spirit against the flesh; and these are contrary to one another, so that you do not do the things that you wish.

Romans 8:5-6

5 For those who live according to the flesh set their minds on the things of the flesh, but those who live according to the Spirit, the things of the Spirit. 6 For to be carnally minded is death, but to be spiritually minded is life and peace

So what Jesus meant in John 6:63 was not that he was speaking figuratively. Rather, that His words originate from God (i.e. Spirit) and they are life giving (i.e. life). He said this in response to the rejection of His teaching. Those who were “carnally minded” rejected His teaching, while those who were “spiritually minded” accepted it. If one is in the flesh, one cannot accept His words because the flesh wars against the Spirit, effectively cutting off the person from the source of life. Consequently, the flesh profits nothing because its end is death. Those who are in the Spirit receive life (Romans 8:6). To be “carnally minded” does not mean to be literally minded. It means to have a mind that is in rebellion against God. Those who were in such a state did not accept Jesus’s words.

God Bless,
Michael

 

[mikeledes]

When Jesus said that He would give His flesh for the life of the world, the Jews reponded (John 6:52):

**52 The Jews therefore quarreled among themselves, saying, “How can this Man give us His flesh to eat?” **

This is similar to an earlier response to Jesus’s claim that He is the Bread that came down from heaven (John 6:41-42):

**41 The Jews then complained about Him, because He said, “I am the bread which came down from heaven.” 42 And they said, “Is not this Jesus, the son of Joseph, whose father and mother we know? How is it then that He says, ‘I have come down from heaven’?” **

In the case of the latter, did the Jews understand Jesus correctly, namely, that He literally came down from heaven? They did! Jesus literally - not figuratively - came down from heaven. This is one instance where Jesus was speaking literally and the Jews understood Him to be speaking literally. The other example comes a couple of verses later in John 6. Jesus makes a statement that the Jews take literally and He reaffirms that their basic understanding of what He said is correct (John 6:51-58). Eating His Flesh and drinking His Blood is as literal as His coming down from Heaven. His return to Heaven (ascension) will reaffirm the truths of His origin and of what He said of His flesh and blood. That’s why He responds (John 6:61-62):

61 When Jesus knew in Himself that His disciples complained about this, He said to them, “Does this offend you? 62 What then if you should see the Son of Man ascend where He was before?

His ascension will vindicate His words and thus prove that the words He spoke are spirit and life, that is, that they are of God and are life-giving.

God bless,
Michael

 

[mikeledes]

If John 6:51-58 were talking about faith, then there would be no controversy because he just talked about faith in v.v. 29 -35. And as I have shown in two other posts, the established pattern in Jesus’s method of teaching/preaching is one of progressive revelation. He moves from ambiguity to greater clarity, not from clarity to greater ambiguity. So he would not start with the literal meaning first (i.e. faith) and then use the figure, as occurs in John 6. Also, when He does use figurative language difficult to understand, either He or the evangelist explains what He mean. Secondly, John 6:56 talks about “abiding.”

56"He who eats My flesh and drinks My blood abides in Me, and I in him.

Abiding occurs subsequent to incorporation into Christ, after one has believed.

John 15:3-4
**3"You are already clean because of the word which I have spoken to you.
4"Abide in Me, and I in you. As the branch cannot bear fruit of itself unless it abides in the vine, so neither can you unless you abide in Me. **

1 John 2:24,28

24As for you, let that abide in you which you heard from the beginning If what you heard from the beginning abides in you, you also will abide in the Son and in the Father.
28Now, little children, abide in Him, so that when He appears, we may have confidence and not shrink away from Him in shame at His coming.

So eating the Body of Christ and drinking His Blood is a means of abiding in Christ. Thus it was most appropriate for Him to start with faith in chapter 6 and then move to abiding in Christ through the Eucharist because coming to faith precedes abiding and one must believe* first *before partaking of the Eucharist. Only those who abide in Christ will continue to have eternal life and will be raised on the last day.

John 15:4-6

**4"Abide in Me, and I in you. As the branch cannot bear fruit of itself unless it abides in the vine, so neither can you unless you abide in Me.
5"I am the vine, you are the branches; he who abides in Me and I in him, he bears much fruit, for apart from Me you can do nothing.
6"If anyone does not abide in Me, he is thrown away as a branch and dries up; and they gather them, and cast them into the fire and they are burned. **

God Bless,
Michael

 

[mikeledes]

John 6:35

**35 And Jesus said to them, “I am the bread of life. He who comes to Me shall never hunger, and he who believes in Me shall never thirst. **

What does Jesus mean? He is basically saying that He is the source of all life giving spiritual nourishment. He is the only one that can satisfy our hunger and thirst for righteousness. Those who wish to partake of this spiritual nourishment must come to Him in faith.

In this verse, Jesus sets the stage for the greatest form of spiritual nourishment that He will give to those who believe in Him, namely, His own self in the Eucharist. So it makes sense that Jesus would first talk about faith (i.e. coming to Him) before talking about how He will feed the believer. You must go to your grocery or supermarket first before you can purchase the food. The wonderful thing is that the Eucharist is freely offered to the believer.

God Bless,
Michael