John 6

[Kevan]

hlgomez:

Did I say that you have life in you? It was Jesus who said that if you don’t eat His Flesh and drink His Blood you have no life in you. I can’t contradict with what Jesus said. Therefore, you have no life in you if you don’t partake of the Eucharist.

Okay, it looks like I got one straight answer. HL says that Protestants like me do not have life in them. Makes sense.


Now, Space Ghost contradicted that. He said that folks like me who are sincere DO have life. That’s also what I hear just about whenever the topic is mentioned in Catholic circles.

How about the rest of you readers? What does Jn 6 teach about the damned Protestants?

 

[Britta]

Kevan:

Okay, it looks like I got one straight answer. HL says that Protestants like me do not have life in them. Makes sense.


Now, Space Ghost contradicted that. He said that folks like me who are sincere DO have life. That’s also what I hear just about whenever the topic is mentioned in Catholic circles.

How about the rest of you readers? What does Jn 6 teach about the damned Protestants?

I believe the answer lies in fully understanding the sacramental system. Jesus established sacraments which are defined as “outward signs of inward grace.” This is a way for us to receive grace directly from Him. We receive grace in all kinds of ways, through prayer, fasting, worshipping, etc. With the Eucharist, however, we directly receive the body, blood, soul, and divinity of Jesus Himself. That’s about as close as one can get on this earth.

Protestants profess belief and have other ways to receive grace. They have life within them through those other ways. They are just not receiving Him as directly as catholics are. It’s similar to the need to take vitamins - although even better. You can eat healthy, drink lots of water, and exercise. That is a healthy lifestyle. But many are healthiest when they also take vitamins. Not sure if that is the best analogy but close enough, I hope.

 

[Kevan]

Thank you, Britta. What you say resembles what I’ve heard other Catholics say. You and Space Ghost seem to be on one side, and HLGomez on the other.

But what you and Space Ghost say seems to me to contradict what the Church teaches about Jn 6. On the other hand, HLGomez seems consistent with the Church’s teaching regarding Jn 6 when he says that I and other sincere Protestants do not have life since we don’t receive the Catholic Eucharist.

Anyone else want to weigh in? The question is, are Catholics inconsistent when they say that, on the one hand, Jn 6 refers to the Eucharist and, on the other hand, that those of us who don’t take the Eucharist still have life in us? (Verse 53 says that those who don’t eat the flesh and drink the blood don’t have life).

Fundamentalists often tell one another that Catholics are ecumenical when they’re around us, but deep down the Catholics don’t believe a word of it. I’ve always thought that the Fundamentalists were wrong on that point.

What’s the real Catholic position? Does Jn 6 teach that Protestants are lost?

 

[Kevan]

Sure got quiet in here.

 

[Britta]

Kevan:

Sure got quiet in here.

Sorry for not catching your question to me, I’ve had a busy weekend.

Basically, without the Eucharist, one does not receive the fullness of Christ. Many have bits and pieces but not Christ Himself. The Eucharist is an eschatalogical sacrament and that is where purgatory comes in (although that could be another lengthy thread).

Everyone that believes in Christ has salvation through the Grace of God; however, upon death there is a purging process that must happen prior to entering into the glory of God’s presence. Until then, we are not worthy to be in His presence. Those who reject the Eucharist, though they do not fully understand what they are rejecting, are not necessarily damned to hell, but will have to be purified into the fullness of Truth upon death.

 

[Kevan]

Thank you, Britta. But please don’t apologize. I wasn’t directing the question to you specifically, since you’d already given me your view. I was asking the other readers to weigh in.

Everybody around here is so knowledgable and willing to chime in and instruct us Protestants about what the Church teaches, I just couldn’t believe that they’d go silent when I ask a specific question about the specific value of the Eucharist.

But they did.

 

[Britta]

The general consensus here is that John 6 is either symbolic or literal, i.e., Protetants vs. Catholics. However, I am still curious about the idea that Jesus was talking about eating and consuming the bible.

Does anyone else adhere to this understanding? And if so, I would love to hear your position.

Thanks.

 

[Kevan]

Yes, but my question refers to two things that Catholics say that they believe, but which seems inconsistent with one another.

They say that John 6 is literal, but they also say that sincere non-Catholics “have life.”

It appears to me that one of those beliefs has to go. HLGomez agrees.

But if no one wants to address this apparent contradiction, I guess I’ll just let it drop for now.

As for your question, I’ve had a pretty broad exposure to Protestant interpretations and I’ve never come across the idea that Jesus was talking about consuming the Bible. The standard interpretation is that he was talking about his approaching sacrificial death, the benefits of which are to be received through a spiritual transaction.

The “consume the Bible” interpretation sounds a lot like what emerges from a “Jesus and me” approach to Bible study: it sounds good and warms the heart and directs the learner toward some good thing (the Bible), but it really doesn’t have much to commend it when you actually look at the text in its context.

The standard interpretation has gained the endorsement of great Protestant scholars. The Catholic interpretation has gained the endorsement of great Catholic scholars. The “consume the Bible” interpretation probably will always remain out on the fringes.

 

[Britta]

Kevan:

Yes, but my question refers to two things that Catholics say that they believe, but which seems inconsistent with one another.

They say that John 6 is literal, but they also say that sincere non-Catholics “have life.”

It appears to me that one of those beliefs has to go. HLGomez agrees.

But if no one wants to address this apparent contradiction, I guess I’ll just let it drop for now.

Why does it have to be one or the other? Jesus said that we have life if we eat His body and drink His blood. As Catholics we believe that, By partaking of the Eucharist, we have the complete Jesus. However, in the full context of scripture, that does not mean this is the only way that Jesus makes Himself available, although it is the only way we can receive Him completely.

Scripture also states “he who does not work, let him also not eat” (don’t have the exact scripture reference). Does this mean that every person who cannot work should not eat? What about handicapped or mentally challenged people? What about the elderly or those in comas? Many of these people cannot work, should we just let them starve? For that matter, people in comas cannot participate in the Eucharist? Are they without life? It really depends on where they are at with Jesus, as well as His unending love and mercy for us. It is His desire that all be saved.

He was making a statement to his disciples which challenged them greatly. It challenges us to this day. We still find it “difficult and hard to accept.”

I hope that makes more sense to your question.

 

[IoA]

Perhaps I can help as well.

Vatican II calls the Eucharist the “source and summit of the Christian life.” It is, in short, the fulfilling of the Christian experience, the perfection of the Christian vocation. The Catechism of the Catholic Church says: Holy Communion augments our union with Christ (1391). Does one need the Eucharist in order to obtain graces? No, and we can point to the fact that Catholics under the age of reason (~7-8 years old) don’t receive the Body and Blood. By the rite of baptism, they still merit Eternal Salvation should they die before receiving the Eucharist.

So, a Protestant who knows nothing about the Eucharist or has been taught in error can still have “life within him,” but not to the fullest extent possible. It’s the spiritual equivalent of making it to the major leagues vs. becoming an All-Star.

 

[ralphinal]

There is another answer to Kevin’s question. I’ve heard this many times from many orthodox, intellegent Catholic apologists. Look first at Jesus’ answer to Nicodemus. Man must be born again of water and the Spirit to be saved. By that alone, all that you MUST have for eternal life is baptism. Now, Jesus says that unless you eat his flesh and drink his blood you will not have eternal life. But, he did not amend the earlier statement to say that consuming his flesh was required. What could that mean? Well, first, the life he is talking about is not exactly the same as the eternal life of salvation. It is more like the spiritual life that we need to assist us on our journey through this earth. That is echoed all through the teachings of our Church. The Euchirist is our food needed to preserve us, help us, feed us, and nourish us. Second, the life we reveive is the very living Christ himself. By ingesting our Living God, we become more fully a part of the Living Body of Christ. We can also look at the rules set forth for us as Catholics. If the Church understood that we had to receive the Eucharist as a requirement for salvation, we would be obligated to recieve it at least every week, if not more often. The Church teaches that the Eucharist is one of the Sacraments that we can recieve more than once in our lives, but we are not obligated to recieve more that once a year! Think about that.

All that said, Christians who do not “eat my flesh and dring my blood” do have life in them, as they were Baptised into the Body of Christ. They do not have the fulness of life in them as desired by Jesus Himself

 

[MariaG]

And Kevan,
please remember, if you want an “official teaching” of the CC, go to a Catechism, (not bits and snips from different sites, the whole thing.) We here give opinions. Some reflect the official teachings of the church, others do not. Even though there are many different views among practicing Catholics, there is ONE official view of the Catholic Church.

I think the Pope expressed it best when he said we should not (nor will God) hold it against our separated brethren who through no fault of their own, do not have the fullness of the truth which resides in the teachings of the Catholic Church.

God Bless

 

[oldschoolcath23]

This may be a bit off the subject, but one of the reasons that the early Christians were persecuted by the Romans was because they had heard through the grapevine that the Christians were hiding in the catacombs literally eating people’s flesh and drinking their blood!
Why? Because the priest would say, “Hoc est enim corpum meam”, or “this is my body”. The Romans thought Christians were cannibalistic barbarians that needed to be killed. This of course was not the only reason for persecution, but one of many.

It’s pretty clear to me that even though Protestants claim to be most like the early Christians, you can see that in reality they practiced like us Catholics today who take a literal interpretation of John 6.

 

[Britta]

oldschoolcath23:

This may be a bit off the subject, but one of the reasons that the early Christians were persecuted by the Romans was because they had heard through the grapevine that the Christians were hiding in the catacombs literally eating people’s flesh and drinking their blood!
Why? Because the priest would say, “Hoc est enim corpum meam”, or “this is my body”. The Romans thought Christians were cannibalistic barbarians that needed to be killed. This of course was not the only reason for persecution, but one of many.

It’s pretty clear to me that even though Protestants claim to be most like the early Christians, you can see that in reality they practiced like us Catholics today who take a literal interpretation of John 6.

This is a great point. I was thinking it myself. I do have one question, though. I thought “hoc est corpus” is the translation (but my memory is shaky). The reason being is I always understood that “hocus pocus” was eventually derived from it, which of course relates to magic. The idea being that the Non-Christians knew something magical was happening but didn’ t understand it???

 

[Kevan]

Early Christians were also accused of holding orgies since outsiders heard that they “loved one another.” And again, they were accused of incest because outsiders heard that they “loved their brothers and sisters.”

Thanks for your answers regarding Protestants and John 6. It sounds like the general consensus does not agree with the earlier post that said we are lost. And you handle the apparent contradiction to the language in John 6 by understanding Jesus’ words “you have no life in you” to mean (1) it’s a different kind of life than eternal life or (2) Jesus’ words should not be absolutized.

If this isn’t off-topic, I’d like to ask a little more about the value of the Eucharist. You are saying something to the effect that, by receiving the Eucharist, you have a “fullness of life” that I don’t have.

Offhand, it sounds like Catholics (on average) should have a closer walk with God than Protestants do; they should manifest more of the fruit of the Spirit; they should be more closely conformed to the image of Christ and, therefore, walk in holiness more consistently.

Would this be a fair description of the outward manifestations of the value of the Eucharist? Are there other tangible, observable things that might be added?

 

[ralphinal]

Kevan:

Early Christians were also accused of holding orgies since outsiders heard that they “loved one another.” And again, they were accused of incest because outsiders heard that they “loved their brothers and sisters.”

Thanks for your answers regarding Protestants and John 6. It sounds like the general consensus does not agree with the earlier post that said we are lost. And you handle the apparent contradiction to the language in John 6 by understanding Jesus’ words “you have no life in you” to mean (1) it’s a different kind of life than eternal life or (2) Jesus’ words should not be absolutized.

If this isn’t off-topic, I’d like to ask a little more about the value of the Eucharist. You are saying something to the effect that, by receiving the Eucharist, you have a “fullness of life” that I don’t have.

Offhand, it sounds like Catholics (on average) should have a closer walk with God than Protestants do; they should manifest more of the fruit of the Spirit; they should be more closely conformed to the image of Christ and, therefore, walk in holiness more consistently.

Would this be a fair description of the outward manifestations of the value of the Eucharist? Are there other tangible, observable things that might be added?

The key word is should. Catholics should more closely emulate Christ, but we don’t always do it. We are humans, we have free will. In general, the more often one recieves the Eucharist (and confession), the more likely they are to turn away from sin and lead a holy life. There are other observable things that I have seen. Daily communicants seem to me to be more at peace, less stressed, more centered, and more content than those that are not. Find a good book on some of the saints and read their stories, or find something by Father Corapi on the EWTN website.

There is a funny thing though. The Catholic Church has always taught that Christ was wholly present in the Eucharist, but many Catholics do not believe it anymore. I do not want to get into why, but they are not correct.

 

[chemcatholic]

Kevan:

Offhand, it sounds like Catholics (on average) should have a closer walk with God than Protestants do; they should manifest more of the fruit of the Spirit; they should be more closely conformed to the image of Christ and, therefore, walk in holiness more consistently.

The comparison shouldn’t be made between one who partakes of the Eucharist and one who doesn’t. It should be made for the same person when he does partake and when he doesn’t partake. Everyone is at a different stage of his spiritual journey, and to compare two separate people doesn’t really accomplish much.

Peace

 

[jjanderson]

bengal_fan:

actually, the oldest debate is probably the authority of the church since martin luther believed in transubstantiation. anyway…

Martin Luther denied transubstantiation, and instead taught something new called consubstantiation, which means there are four things present, the body, blood, bread and wine. Catholics believe that the actual substance of the bread and wine is changed into the body, blood, soul and divinity of Jesus. Lutherans believe that Jesus is “really” present but becomes present by the faith of the person receiving him, and it has sort of evolved into a presence in the spiritual sense. Lutheran communion also isn’t valid because of invalid ordination.

Peace in Christ +

 

[ralphinal]

IN reguards to Jesus meaning that we were to ingest his Word, i.e. the Bible, why did he let them walk away? If he meant it as eating his flesh and drinking his blood was to learn, know, and live his teachings, he would have told them that instead of letting them leave.

 

[hlgomez]

KEVAN,

I don’t wish to change what Christ has said and what He meant about it. That’s all I can say.

Pio