John 6

[RedGolum]

DennisS:

.

"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.

Thanks, I asked because a friend gave me a copy of “Windswept House”, and one of the sub plots was that there was a shortage of priests do to in valid oridination. Also, I have heard some Catholics comment that such and such bishop is a heritic, and therefore probably does not have the intent or abiltiy to ordain someone.

 

[milimac]

Just found this article on Catholic Answers that is very apropos to this discussion: catholic.com/library/Christ_in_the_Eucharist.asp

 

[Lamb100]

Hi–as a former Presbyterian (joined Catholic church last October–and because God gave me faith in the Eucharist)–I can sort of speak to this issue. Really, you all are making it more complicated and diabolical than it is! I had never heard of the Catholic view before–really. I mean, we studied transubstantiation, consubstantiation, etc. in college religion class, but it went right past me. If I thought about it at all, all it meant to me was various theories on the Lord’s Supper. Transubtantiation was just a quaint, medieval literal view modern people didn’t believe.

Does this make sense? No…but I didn’t give it any thought, that’s why. I really didn’t know any Catholics except a couple of kids in my neighborhood, growing up. I had no idea you have Jesus in a tabernacle in your churches–no one told us, in all my 50 years of living, and I’m an educated person!

It’s just that–the symbolic meaning is so ingrained that we thought, if we thought at all–“of course he’s speaking symbolically, just like the part about the vine and branches, and all the other symbolic sayings Jesus said.” In other words, we didn’t give it much thought–certainly didn’t dissect passages.

Obviously there are many Protestants who do apologetics, and protest the Catholic church and her authority and all that, but I wasn’t one of them. I never read John 6 as opposed to Catholic teaching or anything. I just read it as another of Jesus’ teachings.

The big thing for us was–we would explain the reason his disciples all left him as the fact that He was claiming to be equal to God. That’s how it’s explained in the Presbyterian church. Made sense to me.

And it never occurred to me that I could actually become Catholic, really–I guess I assumed you were born Catholic or something.

To be honest, though, in recent years, I had picked up studies of the Catholic faith and rejected one doctrine or another, like "What? You need baptism for salvation? I can’t believe that! lol! My conversion last year consisted of multiple instances of the above, with changing objectional doctrines, until I wised up and realized Peter had the keys, and bowed to Christ’s authority! And then, there was His incredible grace…

You know–I really think coming to Eucharistic faith is a gift of God’s grace. You can read that passage in John 6 over and over, and totally miss it. Now–I can’t believe we missed it!

In short, we just assumed that of course it couldn’t be literal–that would be nonsense! Sorta like his listeners at the time…

My Eucharistic Lord is the most important Person, thing, event, in the world–God willing (in humility, remembering Peter), I’d die for Him. I’d die for It.

Just wanted to let you know all Protestants aren’t out to attack the Church. We really didn’t know.

 

[Lamb100]

Kevan–as one who has always put myself into confusion trying to understand “what must we do to be saved”, maybe I can help a little. Like someone said, different things Jesus said sometimes appear to contradict each other if we just look objectively at the statements. But if we let God speak to us individually, they can make sense. For instance, sometimes I think about that story where Jesus said something implying John would live forever; I think it was right after He told Peter the manner in which he (Peter) would die. Then Peter goes, “But what about him!” (gotta love Peter!) and the Lord basically says, never mind about him, you follow Me! Sometimes I feel like I have to dot all the i’s and cross all the t’s before I can follow Him–I get all anxious and worried, when He really says His yoke is easy and His burden light.

For me, who always dissects scripture endlessly (except, curiously, the passages about the Eucharist)–at least passages dealing with salvation in Paul’s letters, it came as a complete surprise when, after exploring the Catholic faith for several months, and being in RCIA exactly one month, I picked up John 6, read it, and thought, I have to do this–He says I must do this to have life, and I have to do it now–and I called my RCIA teacher, told her that, and within 2 weeks, I was a Catholic! It was strange–pure grace–individually tailored to me in God’s timing–because ordinarily I would have done what you’re doing–questioned why this is so necessary, what about other Christians who aren’t Catholic, isn’t this being legalistic and harsh, why, why, why? But I had no inner guilt, or doubt, or any feeling that Jesus was being unkind. It was just a direct command from Him to me in that moment. Like He was speaking to me in person. Crystal clear, and not difficult to follow. (You know that verse–I forget–is it in Jeremiah?–where God says, “the things I’m asking you to do today are not too difficult, or beyond your reach.” It was so easy. Not like the way I usually approach things at all.) It was like Jesus was saying, OK, that’s enough of this, it’s time for you to receive Me fully, now.

Anyway–I think I probably confused you more–but still–hope it helps. God is personally interested in each one of us. He loves you so much and is speaking to you now–keep searching!
In Christ,
Donna

 

[DennisS]

Britta:

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).

Those who left were offended, not just confused. They left because they could not accept what Jesus said. Those who stayed were likely more confused than offended by what Jesus said. They may have found it difficult

As to the second paragraph of your comment: this is better discussed on a different forum. From your post, I don’t think you really understand how I view communion. I do not believe that communion is a symbolic eating of the body and blood. But I’m not certain that this is the thread for a fuller discussion of this topic, because it will certainly include much more Scripture than John 6. If there are enough interested in that conversation, and it is not already discussed in another forum, then let’s start a new topic.

 

[Britta]

DennisS, I have been away for awhile and just now getting back to some of the disucssions.

I accept Jesus’ explanation as sufficient. Jesus is the Word, come down from Heaven. We feed upon the Word, and are spiritually nourished, enlivened.

As you said, John 1:1 states “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God.” John 1:14 goes on to say “And the word was made 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.”

So to read this in context, it would seem to me that the “word” is Jesus. Therefore, we must eat the Word (Jesus) to have life in us.

From your post, I don’t think you really understand how I view communion. I do not believe that communion is a symbolic eating of the body and blood.

You’re right, I don’t understand. What is your view of communion?

 

[shannin]

Kevan,

It’s not up to us Catholics to judge whether if our Protestant brothers and sisters have “life”(as you say). We are not called to judge anyone, we are only called to embrace the fullness of our faith and defend it when necessary. As Catholics, are held to a higher accountability. As someone else on this site said, “When Catholics get to Heaven, we will be surprised at how many Budhists, Protestants, etc. are there and how few Catholics”.

Blessings,
Shannin

 

[SpiritualSon]

Pio
The Lord’s flesh, means His Divine Good.The Lord’s blood, means His Divine Truth. Good is of charity and truth is of faith.Charity and faith from the Lord in man makes the church. This a Holy Communion.
**
The Lord’s flesh and the bread mean the Divine Good of His love and also all the good of charity; and the Lord’s blood and the wine mean the Divine Truth of His wisdom and also all the truth of faith. Eating means making one’s own.

** The reason why the Lord’s blood means His Divine Truth and that of the Word is that His flesh means in the spiritual sense the Divine Good of love, and these two are made one in the Lord.

It is well known that the Lord is the Word; and there are two things to which everything in the Word has reference, Divine Good and Divine Truth. If therefore the Word is substituted for the Lord, it is plain that it is these two which are meant by His flesh and blood.

It is established from many passages that blood means the Divine truth of the Lord or of the Word. For instance, from blood being called the blood of the covenant, since a covenant is a link, and linking is effected by the Lord by means of His Divine Truth.

Also:
Jesus taking the cup gave it to them, saying, This is my blood, the blood of the new covenant. Matt. 26:27,28 (Mark 14:24) (Luke 22:20).

The blood of the new covenant or testament cannot mean anything but the Word, which is called an old and a new covenant or testament, and so the Divine truth it contains. It is because blood has this meaning that the Lord gave them wine, saying, ‘This is my blood’; and wine stands for Divine truth. For this reason it is also called ‘the blood of grapes’ (Gen. 49:11)(Deut. 32:14). This is plainer still from the Lord’s words:

Truly, truly, I tell you: if you do not eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you will not have life in you. For my flesh is truly food, and my blood is truly drink. He who eats my flesh and drinks my blood, remains in me and I in him. John 6:50-58.

It is perfectly obvious that blood here means the Divine Truth of the Word, because it is said that he who drinks it has life in himself, and remains in the Lord, and the Lord remains in him. It ought to be well known in the church that this is the effect of Divine Truth and living in accordance with it, and that the Holy Supper strengthens this effect.

It is because blood stands for the Lord’s Divine Truth, which is also the Divine Truth of the Word, and because this is what the old and new covenants and testaments are, that blood was the holiest representative of the church among the Children of Israel. (Exod. 12:7,13,22).

Harry

---

 

[Kevan]

shannin:

It’s not up to us Catholics to judge whether if our Protestant brothers and sisters have “life”(as you say).

I know. My question had to do with the seeming difficulty of taking this passage literally when it would seem to imply damnation for Protestants. If such an implication were correct, it would argue against taking the passage literally, since, after all, nobody wants to say that Protestants are damned when the Catechism says that we, for the most part, are not.

I’ve never thought of myself as a damned Protestant, but a literal reading of Jn 6 seemed to imply it to me. But other writers have shown me a couple of ways to get around the plain language of the text, so I feel better now.

 

[Britta]

Harry,

I appreciate your position and am glad to hear this side. It helps to understand where others are coming from. I like to try and understand the thinking of other interpretations and found this one interesting.

It is well known that the Lord is the Word; and there are two things to which everything in the Word has reference, Divine Good and Divine Truth. If therefore the Word is substituted for the Lord, it is plain that it is these two which are meant by His flesh and blood.

With all due respect, it is not plain to me. How is the body and blood Divine Good and Divine Truth?

I understand this - the Word is not substituted for Jesus, the Word IS Jesus. He IS the Word. He did not come to abolish the law but to fulfill it.

What was the old covenant? They sacrificed a lamb in atonement for our sins. What is the new covenant? Jesus gave His life for us in atonement for our sins.

In the old covenant, they had to eat the lamb. In the new covenant, we need to eat the lamb - Jesus. He IS the lamb that takes away the sin of the world.

My other question is this - if the body and blood is meant to represent the Divine Good and Divine Truth then why were the disciples so offended? Why would this have been so hard to accept (John 6:60)?

Thanks again for sharing.
God Bless

 

[jimmy]

DennisS:

Those who left were offended, not just confused. They left because they could not accept what Jesus said. Those who stayed were likely more confused than offended by what Jesus said. They may have found it difficult

As to the second paragraph of your comment: this is better discussed on a different forum. From your post, I don’t think you really understand how I view communion. I do not believe that communion is a symbolic eating of the body and blood. But I’m not certain that this is the thread for a fuller discussion of this topic, because it will certainly include much more Scripture than John 6. If there are enough interested in that conversation, and it is not already discussed in another forum, then let’s start a new topic.

They left because they could not accept that they had to eat the body of Jesus Christ.

 

[flameburns623]

I posted a number of comments about this topic here:

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=1015.

Oddly, responses seem to be languishing. I figured I’d have sparked a real firestorm of controversy by now–not that I’m here just to make trouble mind you–but folks seem largely uninterested or unable to formulate a Catholic answer to my comments.

 

[Britta]

flameburns623:

If one totally resists any temptation to draw an untoward parallel between John 6 and the last supper, and if one does not presuppose that communion is the central act of Christian worship, what I have just said falls into place. Catholics value the service of communion so highly however that it is difficult for them do do so, in my opinion.

I read your (name removed by moderator)ut on the other thread and have to disagree as a result of personal experience. Upon converting to the Catholic faith, I have to admit that I did not believe in the idea of transubstantiation for many years. I respected what the Church taught, but like many, I would pick and choose that which made the most sense to me.

It was not until I had a true conversion experience to Catholicism that I saw the Truth. This is not something easy to accept. For many, it is just plain crazy.

You mention resisting the temptations and presuppositions in order to see more clearly your point and that is true. It is easier to see different sides when we disregard certain factors. However, that leads to faulty conclusions. It would be much like taking the syrup out of soda and saying, “see, it is really just water.” The early Church believed this as the central part of the mass then and it is so today.

 

[Kinsman]

There is a definite continuity in John’s Gospel account. And what is interesting is that, of the four Gospel accounts, only John’s does not record the words of the Last Supper, *“This is my body,”…“this is the cup of the New Covenant.” *Point being, John himself does not link what Jesus said to the unbelieving crowd in Capernaum about “eating His flesh and drinking His blood” with what He said to His disciples, those who were His, regarding the bread and the cup. Now conversely, the other three Gospel accounts that do record what Jesus said regarding the bread and cup in the upper room do not record what Jesus said to the Capernaum crowd as He being the *“Bread of life.” *

The two events, and what was said at each are not connected.

 

[jimmy]

Kinsman:

There is a definite continuity in John’s Gospel account. And what is interesting is that, of the four Gospel accounts, only John’s does not record the words of the Last Supper, *“This is my body,”…“this is the cup of the New Covenant.” *Point being, John himself does not link what Jesus said to the unbelieving crowd in Capernaum about “eating His flesh and drinking His blood” with what He said to His disciples, those who were His, regarding the bread and the cup. Now conversely, the other three Gospel accounts that do record what Jesus said regarding the bread and cup in the upper room do not record what Jesus said to the Capernaum crowd as He being the *“Bread of life.” *

The two events, and what was said at each are not connected.

They deal with two separate events but the same matter, Jesus,'s body and blood. There is nowhere that says otherwise. In 1 cor 11 it talks about the eucharist and it says;

Therefore whosoever shall eat this bread, or drink the chalice of the Lord unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and of the blood of the Lord. 28 But let a man prove himself: and so let him eat of that bread, and drink of the chalice. 29 **For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh judgment to himself, not discerning the body of the Lord. **30 Therefore are there many inform and weak among you, and many sleep. 1Cor11;27-29

How can you drink judgement upon yourself or eat it unworthily if it is only a symbol. You can not. This passage here shows what the apostles believe about the body and blood of Christ.

 

[SpiritualSon]

Britta:

Harry,

I appreciate your position and am glad to hear this side. It helps to understand where others are coming from. I like to try and understand the thinking of other interpretations and found this one interesting.

With all due respect, it is not plain to me. How is the body and blood Divine Good and Divine Truth?

The flesh and blood or bread and wine represents the Divine Good and the Divine Truth in the Lord. Good is of Charity,and truth is of faith. The host represents Charity and faith from the Lord in man.

I understand this - the Word is not substituted for Jesus, the Word IS Jesus. He IS the Word. He did not come to abolish the law but to fulfill it.

**Jehovah God descended as Divine Truth, which is the Word, although He did not separate from it the Divine Good. **

What was the old covenant? They sacrificed a lamb in atonement for our sins. What is the new covenant? Jesus gave His life for us in atonement for our sins.

In the old covenant, they had to eat the lamb. In the new covenant, we need to eat the lamb - Jesus. He IS the lamb that takes away the sin of the world.

My other question is this - if the body and blood is meant to represent the Divine Good and Divine Truth then why were the disciples so offended? Why would this have been so hard to accept (John 6:60)?

Because they,like yourself didn’t understand.They heard His words with their natural ears, which you read the Word with your natural eyes, not with the spirit. The Lord had called the Disciples men of little faith,and because of this they could not do miracles in His name.The Disciples believe the Lord was the Son of God, but they, like yourself did not know what was meant by the Son of God. The Son means the Father in the Human.The Divine and Human in Jesus Christ is one God.

The Lord be with you
Harry

 

[Kinsman]

jimmy:

They deal with two separate events but the same matter, Jesus,'s body and blood.

Like we’ve discussed before Jimmy, in the Bible the meaining is always determined by context. Let’s take a look at it:

In chapters five and six of John’s Gospel account we see that the opposition of the Jewish leaders against Christ was increasing (see 5:18). In chapter five Jesus healed a man who had been ill for thirty-eight years. Not only did Jesus heal him but He even had the audacity to tell that man to pick up his pallet (considered “work” on the Sabbath) and walk, inciting the Jews. But Jesus answered them by saying, “My Father is
working until now, and I Myself am working” (5:17). Here His challengers rightly understood that by uniquely calling God, “My Father,” Jesus was making Himself to be equal with God (5:18). And in His words to follow He goes on to develop this truth by saying that the purpose of His coming was the same as His Father’s, and that *“as the Father has LIFE in Himself,
even so He gave the Son also to have LIFE in Himself” *(5:19-47, cf. vss. 21, 26). The word “life” being the underlying principle in both chapters five and six.

In chapter five Jesus discloses the truth that He Himself is the giver and the source of spiritual and eternal life to all who would believe in Him. *“Truly, truly, I say to you, he who hears My word, and believes Him who sent Me, has eternal life, and does not come into judgment, but has passed out of death into life” *(Jn. 5:24). And it is this fundamental truth that sets up the context for what He expresses figuratively and spiritually of Himself in chapter six, specifically in regards to eating His flesh and drinking His blood. As the underlying principle in chapters five and six is “LIFE,” the operative word is “BELIEVE” (5:39-40,43,46; 6:29-30,35,36,40,47).

Chapter six records the remarkable miracle of the feeding of the five thousand with only five barley loaves and two fish. The crowd was so effected by this wonder that they intended to take Him by force and make Him king. But knowing their carnal motives and intentions Jesus withdrew from them, and after sending His disciples across the lake to Capernaum He went up into the mountain by Himself. Later that night He joined His storm distressed disciples in their boat by way of walking on the water.

The next day the crowd was waiting for Jesus to come down from the mountain, but realizing that He was not there they crossed over to Capernaum knowing that His disciples had gone there previously. There they astonishingly found Jesus and He again entered into a dialog with them exposing their true motive in following Him by saying, *“Truly, truly, I say to you, you seek Me, not because you saw signs, but because you ate of the loaves and were filled” *(6:26). That is to say, they followed Him not because the “sign” (attesting miracle) of feeding the five thousand demonstrated who He was (the Word become flesh) and the true purpose of His coming (eternal life through faith in Him), but it satisfied their immediate, material sustenance. The very reason they wanted to make Him king. But Jesus rebuked their fleshly motive and said to them, “Do not work for the food that perishes, but for the food which endures to eternal life, which the Son of Man will give you, for on Him the Father, God, has set His seal” (6:27). Desiring this “food” they asked Him what they should do so that they may work the works of God. And Jesus replied, “This is the work of God, that you BELIEVE in Him whom He has sent” (vs. 29).
Continued…

 

[Kinsman]

In a defiant response they disregarded the sign of the feeding of the five thousand experienced just the day prior, and demanded that Jesus perform a sign worthy enough so that they would “see” and *“believe” *Him. After all, Moses fed their fathers for forty years in the wilderness with bread out of heaven (manna) - could he do that? But Jesus knew that seeing does not
produce believing, and believing is never based on seeing. So from that point on He works to take their focus off the physical and onto the spiritual.

He flatly contradicts their basic assumption that it was Moses that gave them bread out of heaven, but it is His Father who gives them the TRUE bread out of heaven (6:32). Manna fed their physical need only temporarily, for many eventually died in the wilderness, and the manna itself ceased when they entered the land (6:49). In contrast, He revealed to them that the Bread of God which comes down out of heaven gives life to the world so that one may eat of it and not die (6:33,50). They asked to
be given that bread and Jesus replied that He Himself is that bread of life. What He says next in the context of the sixth chapter is key to understanding the spiritual and figurative environment of all that He says regarding the eating of His flesh and drinking of His blood.

• “I am the bread of life; he who comes to Me (by faith) will not hunger, and he who believes in Me will never thirst”* (6:35, emphasis mine). *"For this is the will of My Father, that everyone who beholds the Son *(with the eyes of faith) and believes in Him will have eternal life, and I will raise Him up on the last day" (6:40; cf vs. 50; emphasis mine).

"For this is the will of My Father, that everyone who beholds the Son (with the eyes of faith) and believes in Him will have eternal life, and I will raise Him up on the last day" (6:40; cf vs. 50; emphasis mine).

Making a spiritual reference to His future crucifixion He said, “I am the living bread that came down out of heaven; if anyone eats of this bread, he will live forever; and the bread also which I will give for the life of the world is My flesh” (6:51).

But the people were not able to grasp the spiritual substance of what He was declaring and applied His words literally, deliberating among themselves as to how this man could possibly give them his flesh to eat (6:52). Their literal interpretation of His words exposed their state of unbelief, and as a result many of His disciples (not the twelve) withdrew
and no longer walked with Him (6:59-66).
Continued…

 

[Kinsman]

Taking Christ’s words literally not only hindered those whom Jesus was speaking to from understanding the spiritual significance and eternal realities of what He was saying in regards to belief in Him, but it still remains the fundamental error of those today who teach a mystical, physical transformation of common bread into the actual body and blood of Jesus Christ through the “sacrament” of the “Eucharist.” Tragically, the people failed then, as they do now, to comprehend the spiritual import of what Jesus was teaching in presenting Himself as the true Bread of Life. That is, it is the spiritually hungry and thirsty soul that willfully turns from unbelief to belief in Him that is forever satisfied. And by that act of personal faith in Him, the spiritually hungry and thirsty soul receives “eternal life.” The only hope of Adam’s sinful race, dead in trespasses and sins.

Merrill C. Tenny expresses eloquently the spiritual truth behind the metaphor Jesus applied to Himself in regards to the eating and drinking of His body and blood for eternal life:

“The metaphor of eating and drinking is the best possible figure that can be employed to express the assimilation of one body by another, the method whereby life is transferred from the eaten to the eater. The literal eating of Jesus’ flesh and the drinking of His blood were not demanded” (John, The Gospel Of Belief).

Clearly it was not the literal eating and drinking of His flesh and blood that Jesus was requiring of the multitude at Capernaum. Essentially what He was communicating, metaphorically, is that just as the life of the bread which is eaten is transferred to the eater, so the life of the resurrected Christ (Who, like the Father, has life in Himself) is transferred to the believer. It’s really that simple. In reference to eating His flesh and drinking His blood Jesus clarified, “it is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh profits nothing; the words that I have spoken to you are spirit and are life” (6:63).

 

[Britta]

Kinsman:

…but it still remains the fundamental error of those today who teach a mystical, physical transformation of common bread into the actual body and blood of Jesus Christ through the “sacrament” of the “Eucharist.” Tragically, the people failed then, as they do now, to comprehend the spiritual import of what Jesus was teaching in presenting Himself as the true Bread of Life.

I guess we’ve had it wrong for 2000 years.

SpiritualSon:

Because they,like yourself didn’t understand.They heard His words with their natural ears, which you read the Word with your natural eyes, not with the spirit. The Lord had called the Disciples men of little faith,and because of this they could not do miracles in His name.The Disciples believe the Lord was the Son of God, but they, like yourself did not know what was meant by the Son of God. The Son means the Father in the Human.The Divine and Human in Jesus Christ is one God.

Seems to me it takes more than our natural eyes and ears to see and believe that the bread and wine are His body and blood. It takes faith.