John 6

[TommyWommy]

How can I reconcile the idea of baptism giving new life with Christ’s statement that those who do not eat His flesh and drink His blood have NO life within them? Does not the Church consider even baptized Protestants to have “some” life of God in them? John 6 makes it sound pretty cut and dry. Life or no life. Eat His flesh, have life. Don’t eat His flesh, have no life. What am I not considering?

 

[UponTheAltar]

Well, seeing as Christ IS life, it would make sense that when Christ is truly in us, we literally have life in us. Baptism repairs our fallen nature and makes us right again with God along with opening us up to the sacraments. Do you see how there is a difference in the “life” given? Sorry if my explanations are crude and incomplete but, one makes us alive to God again and one is true life within us.

 

[WatchfulPilgrim]

How can I reconcile the idea of baptism giving new life with Christ’s statement that those who do not eat His flesh and drink His blood have NO life within them? Does not the Church consider even baptized Protestants to have “some” life of God in them? John 6 makes it sound pretty cut and dry. Life or no life. Eat His flesh, have life. Don’t eat His flesh, have no life. What am I not considering?

There is a commonality between baptism and communion. One of which (as the previous poster mentions) is continuance in the faith (“opening us up to the sacraments”).

I may be criticized for saying this, but I believe that even non-Catholics have a “sacramental” nature to their “ordinances/sacraments/traditions/etc…”. I think much of our division is based on misunderstanding of definitions and titles…

I do believe (as does the Catholic Church teach if you really dig in…) that there is a two-fold teaching in John 6.
I think this verse (as Catholics) is often overlooked:
“He who comes to me will never go hungry, and he who believes in me will never be thirsty”
Does this mean that coming to Jesus in faith is all that is needed to have life? No… But the following verses about eating and drinking the flesh and blood of Christ likewise do not mean that all that is required for salvation is to receive Communion.

I think the answer to your question is that there are many things required of us, and all of them are rooted in the very same things: faith, humility, and love for God.

It’s all about disposition. Think about it… How many Catholics/Protestants have you known that were baptized, but fell away? How many do you know that have received Communion and fell away? There are no guarantees… We still have free-will.

The reconciliation between the two teachings that you present rests in the very fact that there is a root to all teachings, and even in the days that Christ walked this earth there were those that could(would) not follow Him - NOT for lack of doctrine or clarity about the teachings, or lack of example… but for lacking the proper disposition to follow after Him.

Catholics and Protestants are all in the same boat. Baptism (given the proper disposition) gives new life, as does Communion (given the proper disposition). Let’s not forget other Scripture that proves that neither Baptism, nor Communion are a magic potion for human depravity.

1 Cor 11:27 whoever eats this bread or drinks the Lord’s cup in a way unworthy of the Lord will be guilty of the body and the blood

So then, does eating and drinking His flesh bring life? NOT ALWAYS! It CAN bring life (provided you are properly disposed to receive it…) or it can bring damnation (if you are not properly disposed/do not have the proper disposition…).

The essence of Christs teachings are the heart of man. Catholics and Protestants often argue over what is necessary, and often, it all boils down to mans heart.

I do believe that graces are more abundant in the Catholic Church, but we cannot use the Sacraments as a magic potion. Sanctity is our goal, and it will not be obtained by going through the motions of being Catholic or the motions of any other Christian denomination (or any other religion for that matter…).The best thing we can do to ensure our salvation is to seek to know ourselves and to know God, and to live only for Him, b/c nothing this world offers can give us greater Joy!

 

[TommyWommy]

Thanks for your responses. What initially triggered this question in my mind was an imaginary dialogue between me and a Protestant friend regarding the Eucharist. I can imagine him saying to me, “So are you saying that if I reject transubstantiation that I become like those who walked away from Christ in John 6 and that I have no life in me?”

I’m not sure how I would respond to him at that point because I see him as a Christian, a believer, a “separated brother” according to the CC. At the same time, I see him as one who rejects the words of Christ, and it results in a sense of urgency within me.

Maybe what I’m really asking is: when does the rejection of “My flesh is real food” and “My blood is real drink” become mortal to a soul? In John 6, those who rejected it ceased to follow Christ. Others maybe didn’t understand it, but they took His word for it and stayed with Christ. Today it seems one can have it both ways (i.e. reject Christ’s words yet still follow Christ). In my mind this creates a THIRD group of people that were not present in John 6, and I’m not sure how to regard them.

There was no “third group” in Scripture who said, “This is a hard saying, so we reject it as real, but we’ll still follow Christ.”

Granted, there are many who are ignorant of Christ’s meaning through no fault of their own, yet this cannot possibly cover everyone that rejects transubstantiation. Are Catholics being urgent enough about this issue? Are there more souls in danger than we are willing to acknowledge? Am I being too picky about all of this?

Catholics, please chime in with your thoughts. Thanks.

 

[promethius]

How can I reconcile the idea of baptism giving new life with Christ’s statement that those who do not eat His flesh and drink His blood have NO life within them? Does not the Church consider even baptized Protestants to have “some” life of God in them? John 6 makes it sound pretty cut and dry. Life or no life. Eat His flesh, have life. Don’t eat His flesh, have no life. What am I not considering?

Let me rephrase your question and let me see if it clears up, via analogy, the situation a bit:

“How can I reconcile the idea of being born with the statement that those who do not eat or drink anything will not continue to survive?”

Did that make it any clearer than mud?

 

[grannymh]

How can I reconcile the idea of baptism giving new life with Christ’s statement that those who do not eat His flesh and drink His blood have NO life within them? Does not the Church consider even baptized Protestants to have “some” life of God in them? John 6 makes it sound pretty cut and dry. Life or no life. Eat His flesh, have life. Don’t eat His flesh, have no life. What am I not considering?

Just curious.

John Chapter 6 begins with Jesus going across the Sea of Galilee and continues for 71 verses. What verses are being referring to? And isn’t Baptism an enabling sacrament?

 

[TommyWommy]

Let me rephrase your question and let me see if it clears up, via analogy, the situation a bit:

“How can I reconcile the idea of being born with the statement that those who do not eat or drink anything will not continue to survive?”

Did that make it any clearer than mud?

Actually, that does help make the distinction between life in baptism and life in Eucharist more clear for me, thanks.

 

[TommyWommy]

Just curious.

John Chapter 6 begins with Jesus going across the Sea of Galilee and continues for 71 verses. What verses are being referring to? And isn’t Baptism an enabling sacrament?

John 6:53-58. Yes, baptism as an enabling sacrament has thankfully been made more clear to me.

I’m still confused about certain aspects of the Eucharist in terms of how it applies to separated bretheren, but it is being discussed in my other thread on “Separated Bretheren”

 

[duffyk4]

Maybe what I’m really asking is: when does the rejection of “My flesh is real food” and “My blood is real drink” become mortal to a soul? In John 6, those who rejected it ceased to follow Christ. Others maybe didn’t understand it, but they took His word for it and stayed with Christ. Today it seems one can have it both ways (i.e. reject Christ’s words yet still follow Christ). In my mind this creates a THIRD group of people that were not present in John 6, and I’m not sure how to regard them.

There was no “third group” in Scripture who said, “This is a hard saying, so we reject it as real, but we’ll still follow Christ.”

Not sure how exactly this applies to what you’re looking for, but if I’m not mistaken, Judas Iscariot did reject this teaching yet continued to follow Christ. Again, not sure if this applies, but this may be the “third group” you’re looking for.