John 6

  • Thread starter Thread starter Britta
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
KEVAN,

I would wish to say it again WHAT jESUS SAID,

"Jesus said to them, “Amen, amen, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you do not have life within you. Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him on the last day. For my flesh is true food, and my blood is true drink. Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me and I in him. If you don’t eat the Flesh of the Son of Man and drink His Blood you have no life in you.”(John 6:53-56)

Pio
 
Thanks, HL. I appreciate your sincerety. But are you sure that you’re not disagreeing with the Magisterium?
 
KEVAN,

To support the truth about the Eucharist, Paul said:

For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the death of the Lord until he comes…Therefore whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord unworthily will have to answer for the body and blood of the Lord.(1 Cor 11:26-27)

There was no Bible yet at this time. And he didn’t mean just to eat the word of God, but the real Jesus in the Eucharist.
 
40.png
Kevan:
This has got to be the oldest debate since the advent of Protestantism 🙂

The original question asked for info about what Protestants do with Jn 6. The short answer is that they focus on v. 63 “It is the spirit who gives life. The flesh profits nothing. The words that I speak to you are spirit, and are life.” I’m not defending it; I’m just answering the question.

But I have a follow-up question for Catholics. Jesus said in v. 53 that if one doesn’t eat his flesh and drink his blood, that one has no life in him. Now, according to you, I don’t eat his flesh and drink his blood. Yet, since I’m a devout separated brother, you would concede that I have life nevertheless. How can both of these things be true?

I presume that this is a very old question with a very old answer, but I’ve not yet come across the answer and I have wondered about it for years. :confused:
Click to expand...
Jesus’ Eucharistic talk ends with verse 58. The dialogue of verses 60 to 70 occurs later and deals with faith, not the Eucharist. The word “spirit” is nowhere used in the Bible to mean “symbolic.” In verse 63, Jesus is contrasting the natural or carnal man (“the flesh”) with the spiritual or faith-filled man. St. Paul gives a good explanation of what is meant by “the flesh” in 1 Corinthians 2:14-3:4. When discussing the Eucharist, Jesus uses the term, “my flesh.” In contrast, Jesus uses “the flesh” to refer to the carnal man who will not believe anything beyond his senses and reason. No Christian believes that Jesus’ flesh is of no avail, for his flesh was the means of our redemption.
 
40.png
hlgomez:
To support the truth about the Eucharist, Paul said…
Click to expand...
As I said a few days ago, I think that your position makes sense. The reason I raised this question is that I thought the general Catholic position didn’t make sense. But your position did make sense to me.

From what’s been posted here, you seem to be putting your interpretation of John 6 above that of the Church. You understand John 6 to mean that sincere Protestants are lost, since we don’t partake of the Catholic Eucharist. But the other writers say that sincere Protestants aren’t lost, even though we don’t partake of the Eucharist. And the other writers seem to have the Church on their side.

If the other posters are reflecting the true teaching of the Church, then you and the Church disagree. As I understand Catholicism, that means that you need to stop understanding Jn 6 the way you do, and start believing it the way the Church says to.

But maybe I don’t understand Catholicism correctly on this point, that is, when I say that you have to submit your own intellect to the interpretation that the Church puts on Jn 6. I certainly am no expert on these details. Or perhaps the other posters are not expressing the Church’s teaching correctly? Maybe somebody can correct them?
 
40.png
Kevan:
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?
Click to expand...
In this regard, I would have to agree that Catholics should have a closer walk with Jesus and through the Eucharist we are given that opportunity. As a result, we will haae much to account for when we die for “to much is given, much is expected.” Unfortunately, in our fallen state, however, that does not always happen. We still have the free will to go against the graces we have received.

As a convert, however, I know for a fact that through the graces available to each of us through the sacraments Jesus established, I have been healed in so many ways. We all deal with sin and temptation and I am no different. What I see as a difference with the sacraments is that while I was previously praying for strength to deal with various sins and temptations, I am now praying in thanks for Him having completely removed these temptations. What I cannot do, He can do in a instant. There is power in all the sacraments.
 
Kevan: Another possible reading is that those who partake of the Eucharist enjoy the Life with God here on Earth, and that is what is meant. Remember, we Catholics believe that God really becomes material and joins with us during Communion, and that is a large part of what Heaven is generally considered to be. I suppose it could be said that Protestants do not have the Life in them in any way on Earth, but they might when they die do to their faith. In a way it’s like saying that their First Communion with God will be at the time of their mortal death, whereas Catholics partake of the same essential quality (or at least a good part of it) here on Earth. Protestants, then, have no “true Life” in them at this time, but may at some later point through their faith.

I know that when I take Communion it is not a salvific feeling I get, but rather a sense of literally and physically being with God, a sort of Heaven on Earth. I feel like I’m enjoying the fruits of Heaven in the here and now. Christs death brought us Salvation, but the Eucharist, I believe, is a sort of “taste of the life to come” that Jesus’ sacrifice opened for us. It is a wonderful feeling, and one that I pray everyone can experience. As a convert, it’s my favorite part of the Church.

I think it comes down to the fact that Catholics are often a lot more “material” in our theology. Heaven will not be some place in the sky at the end of time, but rather a perfect and eternal life in which our souls will be reunited with our physical bodies. God will be directly present with us at that time, in full physical and spititual nature, and we will be united with God. The Eucharist is our own glimpse at Heaven in a very real way; it allows us to literally walk in the presence of God before the final reckoning.
 
Kevan,

I do not even wish to go againsty the teachings of the Catholic Church. Enlightened by the Cathecism regarding issues like “who can be saved?”, I would like to quote from the Cathecism itself:

Basing itself on Scripture and Tradition, the Council teaches that the Church, a pilgrim now on earth, is necessary for salvation: the one Christ is the mediator and the way of salvation; he is present to us in his body which is the Church. He himself explicitly asserted the necessity of faith and Baptism, and thereby affirmed at the same time the necessity of the Church which men enter through Baptism as through a door. Hence they could not be saved who, knowing that the Catholic Church was founded as necessary by God through Christ, would refuse either to enter it or to remain in it.

This affirmation is not aimed at those who, through no fault of their own, do not know Christ and his Church:

Those who, through no fault of their own, do not know the Gospel of Christ or his Church, but who nevertheless seek God with a sincere heart, and, moved by grace, try in their actions to do his will as they know it through the dictates of their conscience—those too may achieve eternal salvation.
**
*Therefore–*If one knows and enlightened by grace that indeed Jesus refers to the Eucharist as His true Body and Blood and refuses to accept it, then the guilt will be upon that person who refuses to accept it.

Pio
 
Okay, so you’re agreeing with the others. Until now I thought that you were disagreeing.
 
40.png
Britta:
I would like to ask a question of Protestants. Basically, how do you interpret the 6th chapter of John, and more specifically John 6:52-59?
Click to expand...
The same way a Catholic would. I think you need to specify which Protestants. As a Lutheran I have more in common Theologically with Catholics thanI do with Baptists.

In Peace,

Mel
 
40.png
Britta:
I would like to ask a question of Protestants. Basically, how do you interpret the 6th chapter of John, and more specifically John 6:52-59?
Click to expand...
Coming from a Fundamentalist, Baptist background, up until this last year (currently converting to Catholicism), I grew up with the grape juice and piece of Matzo cracker. I read John 6 probably 100 times, and heard it during communion, and it’s weird, but you read it and there’s a little twinge of wonder (not knowing that Catholics believe it literally is the body/blood of Christ) because you know it’s symbolic, but it kind of sounds like something else. But you are so conditioned in thinking this way, that it can’t expand beyond this thought process. One of the main reasons I am converting is…that I was forced by a Catholic friend I had met months earlier, to read it over and over again with the Catholic belief in mind, and it was literally like something went off in my brain and my eyes were opened for the first time. It was an amazing experience. Now I can’t imagine how I could have read it as anything but his literal body and blood. That friend is now my sponsor! :love:
 
Suzi,

I know exactly what you mean! It was through reading the Bible that I came to believe in the Real Presence of Christ. I can still remember some of the discusssions I had with my fundamental friends, who take the Bible literally. The Real Presence is so clearly Biblical and literal it is hard to see how I used to fool myself otherwise.

God Bless you and your sponsor!
 
40.png
Suzi:
Coming from a Fundamentalist, Baptist background, up until this last year (currently converting to Catholicism), I grew up with the grape juice and piece of Matzo cracker. I read John 6 probably 100 times, and heard it during communion, and it’s weird, but you read it and there’s a little twinge of wonder (not knowing that Catholics believe it literally is the body/blood of Christ) because you know it’s symbolic, but it kind of sounds like something else. But you are so conditioned in thinking this way, that it can’t expand beyond this thought process. One of the main reasons I am converting is…that I was forced by a Catholic friend I had met months earlier, to read it over and over again with the Catholic belief in mind, and it was literally like something went off in my brain and my eyes were opened for the first time. It was an amazing experience. Now I can’t imagine how I could have read it as anything but his literal body and blood. That friend is now my sponsor! :love:
Click to expand...
Praise God. It is a gift when we see the Truth. Welcome home!!!
 
To consider John 6, begin at John 1:1.

“In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God. All things came into being through him, and without him not one thing came into being. What has come into being in him was life…He was in the world, and the world came into being through him; yet the world did not know him. He came to what was his own, and his own people did not accept him. But to all who received him, who believed in his name, he gave power to become children of God, who were born, not of blood or the will of the flesh or of the will of man, but of God. And the Word became flesh and lived among us, and we have seen his glory, the glory as of a father’s only son, full of grace and truth.”

Then, proceed to the explanation Jesus gives to his parable, beginning immediately after what was spoken to the Jews (6:52-59 which are the verses mentioned on this thread), which are Jesus words to the disciples (6:60-69).

“When many of his disciples heard it, they said, ‘This teaching is difficult; who can accept it?’ But Jesus, being aware that his disciples were complaining about it, said to them, ‘Does this offend you? Then what if you were to see the Son of Man ascending to where he was before? It is the spirit that gives life; the flesh is useless. The words that I have spoken to you are spirit and life. But among you there are some who do not believe.’ …‘Do you also wish to go away?’ Simon Peter answered him, ‘Lord, to whom can we go? You have the words of eternal life. We have come to believe and know that you are the Holy One of God.’”

Jesus explains, “It is the spirit that gives life; the flesh is useless. The words that I have spoken to you are spirit and life.” I accept Jesus’ explanation as sufficient. Jesus is the Word, come down from Heaven. We feed upon the Word, and are spiritually nourished, enlivened.
 
40.png
jjanderson:
. Lutheran communion also isn’t valid because of invalid ordination.

Peace in Christ +
Click to expand...
Quick question on this. I have often heard from Catholic relatives that since Lutheran’s don’t have valid “orders” (is that the right word?), then the communion is not valid, and hence all Lutherans go to hell.

Now I know that the last part is not what many Catholics believe, but I have a question about valid oridination.

In the last few decades, there has has been massive scandals in the Roman Catholic church, which has led to many thinking that a small number of bishops are not true Christians. My question is can a heriticial bishop give a valid ordination? If not, then how can any priest or parish member be sure that the celebrant has valid “orders”?

I am not trying to start a mudslinging match, but I am curious.
 
40.png
RedGolum:
Now I know that the last part is not what many Catholics believe, but I have a question about valid oridination.

In the last few decades, there has has been massive scandals in the Roman Catholic church, which has led to many thinking that a small number of bishops are not true Christians. My question is can a heriticial bishop give a valid ordination? If not, then how can any priest or parish member be sure that the celebrant has valid “orders”?
Click to expand...
Sinfulness does not invalidate a priest’s or bishop’s ability to confer the Sacraments. Since ordination is a Sacrament (Holy Orders), the question of the validity of a priest’s ‘orders’ doesn’t really come up.

Peace
 
40.png
DennisS:
To consider John 6, begin at John 1:1.

“In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God. All things came into being through him, and without him not one thing came into being. What has come into being in him was life…He was in the world, and the world came into being through him; yet the world did not know him. He came to what was his own, and his own people did not accept him. But to all who received him, who believed in his name, he gave power to become children of God, who were born, not of blood or the will of the flesh or of the will of man, but of God. And the Word became flesh and lived among us, and we have seen his glory, the glory as of a father’s only son, full of grace and truth.”

Then, proceed to the explanation Jesus gives to his parable, beginning immediately after what was spoken to the Jews (6:52-59 which are the verses mentioned on this thread), which are Jesus words to the disciples (6:60-69).

“When many of his disciples heard it, they said, ‘This teaching is difficult; who can accept it?’ But Jesus, being aware that his disciples were complaining about it, said to them, ‘Does this offend you? Then what if you were to see the Son of Man ascending to where he was before? It is the spirit that gives life; the flesh is useless. The words that I have spoken to you are spirit and life. But among you there are some who do not believe.’ …‘Do you also wish to go away?’ Simon Peter answered him, ‘Lord, to whom can we go? You have the words of eternal life. We have come to believe and know that you are the Holy One of God.’”

Jesus explains, “It is the spirit that gives life; the flesh is useless. The words that I have spoken to you are spirit and life.” I accept Jesus’ explanation as sufficient. Jesus is the Word, come down from Heaven. We feed upon the Word, and are spiritually nourished, enlivened.
Click to expand...
Do I understand that you agree with the idea that this passage is related to consuming the word (Bible)? I find this interpretation interesting and if it is true, how do you explain why the disciples were so offended?

Thanks for sharing.
 
Disciples offended? No, more like confused. The teaching, like many, was difficult to understand.

Consuming the Word? This does not mean physically eating Bible pages. It does refer to taking in the Word of God, as in more fully knowing and experiencing Jesus. In Jesus we have life.

Thoughtful questions Britta. Thank you for taking the time to clarify.
 
40.png
RedGolum:
I have often heard from Catholic relatives that since Lutheran’s don’t have valid “orders” (is that the right word?), then the communion is not valid, and hence all Lutherans go to hell.

…massive scandals in the Roman Catholic church…many thinking that a small number of bishops are not true Christians…can a heriticial bishop give a valid ordination?
Click to expand...
The Church crossed this bridge many, many years ago (400’s AD?). The efficacy of sacraments does not depend upon “human agency,” but solely upon God. God’s presence and the receiving of God’s grace does not depend upon the purity of the one(s) administering the sacrament. This understanding applies to the Catholic Church, as well as the Protestant churches with which I am aware. Each church has their own proceedures for administration of sacraments, but those with restrictive rules also allow for emergency administration.

For instance, Baptism can be administered to an infant likely to die (perhaps by a nurse, EMT, or parent), and the sacrament will be recognized by the Catholic Church and the Protestant churches which accept infant baptism.

"can a heriticial bishop give a valid ordination? " Depends upon whether or not the church recognizes the bishop as acting under church authority at the time.
 
40.png
DennisS:
Disciples offended? No, more like confused. The teaching, like many, was difficult to understand.

Consuming the Word? This does not mean physically eating Bible pages. It does refer to taking in the Word of God, as in more fully knowing and experiencing Jesus. In Jesus we have life.

Thoughtful questions Britta. Thank you for taking the time to clarify.
Click to expand...
It seems to me that if they were just confused and not offended, so many would not have left. This would not have been the first time the disciples were confused. Jesus had to clarify many things throughout scripture. The fact that they left shows the degree of their adversion. Why did they leave?

I do see, however, that it would be hard to understand in the diea of actually eating vs. taking in the Word of God. It is much like the idea of actually vs. symbolically eating the body and blood Jesus (which is a whole other interpretation).
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top