Protestant Explanation of John 6

[Ani_Ibi]

Here is an interesting discussion on Pope Gelasius’s words in another Catholic forum:catholic-forum.com/forums/printthread.php?t=4994&pp=25

God Bless,
Michael

I can’t get this link to work. Can you give me the name of the forum and the title of the thread please? And can you wrap some quote tags around a relevant excerpt? Thank you.

Note to self: Self, St. Gelasius I (492-96)

 

[mikeledes]

This is one post:

(12) Did Pope Gelasius deny the doctrine of transubstantiation?

Here is the relevant passage often foisted by critics of the Catholic faith:
“Sacred Scripture, testifying that this Mystery[ie. The Incarnation] began at the start of the blessed Conception, says; ‘Wisdom has built a house for itself’(Prov 9:1), rooted in the solidity of the sevenfold Spirit. This Wisdom ministers to us the food of the Incarnation of Christ through which we are made sharers of the divine nature. Certainly the sacraments of the Body and Blood of Christ that we receive are a divine reality, because of which and through which we ‘are made sharers of the divine nature’(1 Pt 1:4). Nevertheless the substance or nature of bread and wine does not cease to exist. And certainly the image and likeness of the Body and Blood of Christ are celebrated in the carrying out the Mysteries.” Pope Gelasius I[regn A.D. 492-496],Tract on the two natures against Eutchyes & Nestorius.

First, Pope Gelasius categorically affirms the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist. This is denied by White. Second, Pope Gelasius was concerned in defending the nature of Christ not the Eucharist. So he was not so concerned in giving his understanding of the Eucharist as he was in explaining the mystery of the Incarnation. Remember, the Church was concerned with various Christological heresies at this time which denied the two natures, the two wills, and the one [divine]personhood of Christ. At this point in time, the mystery of the Eucharist had not so developed in the mind of the Church to force upon the mind of Pope Gelasius an expression of the Eucharist in the terms of transubstantiation. The Church had to develop a theological language to express the mind of the Church on various matters of faith. The Church was just beginning to express its thoughts to describe the change of the bread and wine into the body and blood of Christ. There was no question regarding a Real Presence in the Eucharist; however, it is another matter regarding the type of change(consubstantiation, transubstantiation etc.). At best, Pope Gelasius was simply saying that the appearance[accidents] of bread/wine remain alongside the Real Presence in an attempt to explain the mystery of the Incarnation, since Christ humanity remains alongside His divinity. Some scholars interpret the above passage to refer to the accidents of the bread and wine. Even this analogy has some holes in it. At worst, Pope Gelasius was simply incorrect in his Eucharistic theology. I tend to believe the Pope was somewhere in the middle. That is, Pope Gelasius was not so concerned with explaining the doctrine of the Eucharist, but wanted to explain the Incarnation via an analogy. As with most analogies, they are imperfect. In addition, his theological vocabulary did not allow him to express the mystery of the Eucharist with any more precision.

Therefore, do not base your understanding of the Eucharist during this time on one single passage from Pope Gelasius. Instead cull the passages from contemporaries of Pope Gelasius which speak directly on the Eucharist. Here you will find a clear and broad witness on behalf of Transubstantiation.

For more info see:

James T. O’Connor’s “The Hidden Manna” pgs 71-73
Ludwig Ott’s “Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma” p. 382

You wonder why critics of the Faith don’t downplay the divinity of Christ by citing Fathers prior to Nicea that seemingly subordinate the nature of Christ. Prior to definition, the Fathers are developing a theological vocabulary as they reflect on the mystery of the Incarnation, so it is no surprise to see some Fathers prior to Nicea seemingly downplay the divinity of Christ. This is the nature of development. Prior to definition, the Fathers are all over the theological landscape as they attempt to explain a divine mystery, and as time goes on the mystery becomes a little more clearer and more defined.

God bless,
Bill

God Bless,
Michael

 

[mikeledes]

Here is another post from thar forum:

Maybe it’ll help to remember the difference between essences and accidents. An essence is what makes someone or something what he or it consists of. If you lose any essential property, you’ll stop existing. But you can still have accident, properties you might or might not have. Say you have brown hair. You might have had black hair instead. Someday your hair may turn gray when you get old. Today, you may have a suntan. If you have one now, it may go away weeks from today. Whether you’re black-haired. brown-haired, gray-haired, or suntanned, you still have the properties that make you Raymond the human person. Without those essential properties that make you what you consist of, again, you’d cease to exist.

That’s one reason we distinguish between a person and a corpse. A corpse isn’t a person. It’s what’s leftover after the person dies. The corpse has the hair the person had. Its eyes belonged to the person. The corpse’s height is the same as the person’s height . . . The corpse has the essence of a corpse, instead of the essence of a person. The corpse also has some accidents, some inessential properties, that the person had. To be ha human person, you need two things: a human body and a human soul. Since a human corpse has no soul, a human corpse is not a human person. It’s not a person of any sort.

Bread and wine lose their essences when bread and wine transubstantiate. So the bread and the wine stop existing. But their accidents, their inessential properties remain. The consecrated host still tastes, feels, looks, and maybe even smells like bread. But it’s not bread. The precious blood tastes, smells, and looks like wine, and it can even make you drunk. But Our Blessed Lord’s essence has replaced the essences of both bread and wine.

Maybe we can say that although the essences of bread and wine have gone away, their accidents, the properties that might or might not have, are still real and still there. If we can do that, we can say that although the bread and the wine no longer exist, their properties exist along with Our Lord’s body, His blood, His soul, and His divinity. Saint Thomas Aquinas teaches that God is identical with His essence, If Saint Thomas is right, a consecrated host literally is Our Lord, and that’s what, or rather who, we believe the consecrated host is and who the precious blood is. Each time I receive Holy Communion, I receive the whole Chirst, even if I get only a tiny crumb or a minute drop of the precious blood or both.

Let me thow in another example of when you have a some accidens of a thing, but not that thing’s essence. On the Food Network’s Japanese Iron Chef program, an actor exclaims “flam-ola” when a chef ignites some wine that’s in an entre he’s preparing. The fire burns the alcohol away. But the tasters can still notice the wine’s flavor when they eat the food. The wine is gone because the alcohol is gone. Alcohol is an ingredient of every wine, even of a so-called non-alcoholic one. Just read a non-alcoholic wine’s label.

If you don’t distinguish between essences and accidents, it’s natural to think that the bread and will remain after consecration. Some people may ignore essences because they don’t know anything about metaphysics or because they believe that only bread can have the properties that bread has.

But consider, say, an egg substitute. It looks, tastes, smells, and feels like eggs. It probably contains many of the nutrients that an egg contains. But it’s still not an egg. It’s an imposter that has properties that eggs have.

Our Eucharistic Lord seems to be bread because He keeps bread’s properties. He has an excellent reason to do that, too. If the host looked, tasted, smelled, and felt like skin, we wouldn’t eat it. It would disgust us too much.

I’m delighted that you study what the Church’s Fathers wrote. If you wouldn’t mind, please study Saint Thomas Aquinas’s writings, too. He’s the most brilliant theologian the Catholic Church has ever produced.

God bless,
Bill

God Bless,
Michael

 

[mikeledes]

And here is another post from that forum, Ani Ibi.

The doctrine of transubstantiation was developed following the introduction of the Aristotelian notion of substance into the philosophical language of the west, which happened under S. Thomas in the 13th century. Before his time, the whole vocabularly of being and essence was different. Indeed, early in his career, S. Thomas presented one of the most profound and challenging of treatises on ontology, De Esse et Essentia, in which he proposed a complex vocabulary including ens (a being), esse (literally “to be”, but also used as a noun to describe a being, substantia (literally a “standing-under”, a supporting or possessing of properties, quidditas (literally “what-ness”), essentia essence, and so on. This vast new philosophical vocabulary made it possible to say things that were not sayable before.

S. Gelasius, when he used the word “substantia”, did not use it - nor could he have used it - to mean what S. Thomas and the later scholastic philosophers meant by “substantia”. In particular - and this is why the mistranslation quoted by anheirofchrist is so important - S. Gelasius wrote “substance or nature”. This very choice of words would show that S. Gelasius was using “substance” in a sense quite different from the sense in which it is used in the doctrine of transubstantiation, and perhaps indicate Gelasius’s deliberate desire not to pretend to philosophical accuracy.

God Bless,
Michael

 

[mtr01]

Remember that this scenario is opened by Jesus specifically saying that the disciples are not looking for symbols. So if He knew they were not looking for symbols then why would he offer them a symbol?

When a child asks for bread, does the Father give him a snake or a stone?

So while the Eucharist may, in the correct sense of the word, be metaphoric it is definitely not symbolic.

What Jesus is offering the disciples when he says that they must eat his flesh is

REAL !

Excellent points as always, Ani. Personally, I can find only one true metaphor in John 6:

35 And Jesus said to them: I am the bread of life: he that cometh to me shall not hunger: and he that believeth in me shall never thirst.

This is the metaphor: Jesus is the Bread of Life (or Bread from Heaven). Now notice what happens next:

41 The Jews therefore murmured at him, because he had said: I am the living 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 then saith he, I came down from heaven?

They did not understand the metaphor. How can this be, they ask. So what does Our Lord do? He explains the metaphor to them:

49 Your fathers did eat manna in the desert, and are dead. 50 This is the bread which cometh down from heaven; that if any man eat of it, he may not die. 51 I am the living bread which came down from heaven. 52 If any man eat of this bread, he shall live for ever; and the bread that I will give, is my flesh, for the life of the world.

This is the basic form of our Lord’s teaching: metaphor, confusion, explanation. Now, the people begin quibbling about the explanation:

53 The Jews therefore strove among themselves, saying: How can this man give us his flesh to eat?

They understood that Jesus meant for us eat his flesh, but they did not know how this could be. They were confused. But what does Our Lord do? Instead of correcting a misunderstanding (which He did before because he was using a metaphor), he reiterates the meaning of the metaphor with stronger words!:

54 Then Jesus said to them: Amen, amen I say unto you: Except you eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, you shall not have life in you. 55 He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath everlasting life: and I will raise him up in the last day.

Really, it’s not hard to figure out. Our Lord didn’t explain “eat my flesh, drink my blood” as a metaphor precisely because it IS the explanation to the metaphor in John 6.

 

[mikeledes]

This is from a Protestant website on the Eucharist;

stjohnadulted.org/eucharist3.htm#Augustine

God Bless,
Michael

 

[Ani_Ibi]

And here is another post from that forum, Ani Ibi. God Bless,Michael

Yes this distinction between ‘a being’ and ‘I am’ing’ if you will carries through to contemporary thought.

So here we are asking the question, What is real?

I have to go out until this evening. Who wants to pm cpayne, Truthstalker, heisenburg, John Doran and get them on this thread. They are our resident philosophers.

 

[Ani_Ibi]

mtr01:

Really, it’s not hard to figure out.

Ah! mtr appears out of nowhere. Felicity and I have missed you.

The one important thing that gets left out frequently of these John 6 discussions is the Real Presence itself.

1. Jesus could not let the disciples walk away without the disciples understanding fully what they were walking away from. Otherwise they would be abandoning Jesus out of ignorance, not free choice. God does not force.
2. The Real Presence Itself ensured that the disciples understood exactly what Jesus was saying when he said I am the Bread of Life.
3. The Real Presence is not text. It is personal. Ergo Christian faith is not textual; it is personal.
4. Given the personal nature of the Christian faith, why would Jesus then turn around and fly in the face of how He had run things during His mission, by giving authority to the Bible rather than a person? Or to an invisible church rather than a Visible Church of persons?

I really have to go now. See yall later.

 

[Ani_Ibi]

Our Lord didn’t explain “eat my flesh, drink my blood” as a metaphor precisely because it IS the explanation to the metaphor in John 6.

OK, here is a question: what is the metaphor in John 6? What is the first entity and what is the second entity into which the first entity is transferred?

 

[DJim]

People don’t reveal truth, the Holy Spirit does.

Eph 1:13 And you also were included in Christ when you heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation. When you believed, you were marked in him with a seal, the promised Holy Spirit,

I’ve been marked with THAT seal my friend.

So being marked with THAT seal can make you the pillar and foundation of truth??

I thought that was the Church…

DJim

 

[DJim]

Regarding Gelasius and his terminology:

“The Scholastics, who accepted Aristotle’s definition, also distinguished primary substance (substantia prima) from secondary substance (substantia secunda): the former is the individual thing – substance properly so called; the latter designates the universal essence or nature as contained in genus and species.”

This from the Catholic Encyclopedia article on “substance”.

From context, Gelasius clearly refers to “substance or nature”, and would seem to me to be referring to “secondary substance” by doing so. He does not, for instance, say “substance and nature”…

I’m confident that transsubstantiation involves “primary substance” and that his actual quote and actual understanding are quite orthodox, according to an Aristotelean use of terms.

DJim

 

[Sean_Boyle]

People don’t reveal truth, the Holy Spirit does.

Eph 1:13 And you also were included in Christ when you heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation. When you believed, you were marked in him with a seal, the promised Holy Spirit,

I’ve been marked with THAT seal my friend.

Really… me to.

The Holy Spirit does work in mysterious ways. You came to evangelize but you are getting the Truth. God is great! He’s guiding you to Truth right now.

Welcome to the process.

 

[cpayne]

Here’s a previous post from MikeLedes: "The doctrine of transubstantiation was developed following the introduction of the Aristotelian notion of substance into the philosophical language of the west, which happened under S. Thomas in the 13th century. Before his time, the whole vocabularly of being and essence was different. Indeed, early in his career, S. Thomas presented one of the most profound and challenging of treatises on ontology, De Esse et Essentia, in which he proposed a complex vocabulary including ens (a being), esse (literally “to be”, but also used as a noun to describe a being, substantia (literally a “standing-under”, a supporting or possessing of properties, quidditas (literally “what-ness”), essentia essence, and so on. This vast new philosophical vocabulary made it possible to say things that were not sayable before.

S. Gelasius, when he used the word “substantia”, did not use it - nor could he have used it - to mean what S. Thomas and the later scholastic philosophers meant by “substantia”. In particular - and this is why the mistranslation quoted by anheirofchrist is so important - S. Gelasius wrote “substance or nature”. This very choice of words would show that S. Gelasius was using “substance” in a sense quite different from the sense in which it is used in the doctrine of transubstantiation, and perhaps indicate Gelasius’s deliberate desire not to pretend to philosophical accuracy."

This is right. Shouldn’t this explanation be the end of that particular argument? Translations of Aristotle weren’t even around in Latin to any great extent. Several centuries after Gelasius, Aquinas gets translations of Aristotle and significantly adapts them to Christian faith, in the process converting some terminology. The terminology “change in substance without change in accidents” might not even have been recognized as such by Gelasius, but the essential doctrine of transubstantiation certainly would have been recognized.

Why should one ambiguous quote count against centuries of clarity? As DJim puts it, above, the actual understanding of the quote is orthodox.

 

[VociMike]

Here’s a previous post from MikeLedes: "The doctrine of transubstantiation was developed following the introduction of the Aristotelian notion of substance into the philosophical language of the west, which happened under S. Thomas in the 13th century. Before his time, the whole vocabularly of being and essence was different. Indeed, early in his career, S. Thomas presented one of the most profound and challenging of treatises on ontology, De Esse et Essentia, in which he proposed a complex vocabulary including ens (a being), esse (literally “to be”, but also used as a noun to describe a being, substantia (literally a “standing-under”, a supporting or possessing of properties, quidditas (literally “what-ness”), essentia essence, and so on. This vast new philosophical vocabulary made it possible to say things that were not sayable before.

S. Gelasius, when he used the word “substantia”, did not use it - nor could he have used it - to mean what S. Thomas and the later scholastic philosophers meant by “substantia”. In particular - and this is why the mistranslation quoted by anheirofchrist is so important - S. Gelasius wrote “substance or nature”. This very choice of words would show that S. Gelasius was using “substance” in a sense quite different from the sense in which it is used in the doctrine of transubstantiation, and perhaps indicate Gelasius’s deliberate desire not to pretend to philosophical accuracy."

There’s a parallel here with how Protestants take one meaning of the word “petros” from one era, and try to apply that meaning to another era. They arrive at an incorrect understanding in that situation also.

 

[mtr01]

OK, here is a question: what is the metaphor in John 6? What is the first entity and what is the second entity into which the first entity is transferred?

I know! I know! The metaphor is:

35 And Jesus said to them: I am the bread of life

The first entity is Jesus, Our Lord Himself. The second entity, into which the reality of Jesus is transferred is…wait for it…bread

(sounds exactly like the Eucharist to me…)

 

[kaycee]

The one important thing that gets left out frequently of these John 6 discussions is the Real Presence itself.

1. Jesus could not let the disciples walk away without the disciples understanding fully what they were walking away from. Otherwise they would be abandoning Jesus out of ignorance, not free choice. God does not force.

That is certainly NOT the way Jesus taught. Jesus hid many things from non believers! It was His practice!

Mt 11:25 At that time Jesus said, "I praise You, Father, Lord of heaven and earth, that You have hidden these things from the wise and intelligent and have revealed them to infants.

Mt 13:35 This was to fulfill what was spoken through the prophet: “I WILL OPEN MY MOUTH IN PARABLES; I WILL UTTER THINGS HIDDEN SINCE THE FOUNDATION OF THE WORLD.”

Col 1:26 that is, the mystery which has **been hidden **from the past ages and generations, **but has now been manifested **to His saints,

Mt 13:13 - "Therefore I speak to them in parables; because while seeing they do not see, and while hearing they do not hear, nor do they understand.

Joh 8:43 "Why do you not understand what I am saying? It is because you cannot hear My word. Joh 8:47 “He who is of God hears the words of God; for this reason you do not hear them, because you are not of God.”

John 6:26 Jesus answered them and said, "Truly, truly, I say to you, you seek Me, not because you saw signs, but because you ate of the loaves and were filled **
These people dont believe, they want a free meal.**

John 6:36 "But I said to you that you have seen Me, and yet do not believe. 37 "All that the Father gives Me will come to Me, and the one who comes to Me I will certainly not cast out.
These people are not believers. They are not being drawn by the Father.

John 6:64 **“But there are some of you who do not believe.” **For Jesus knew from the beginning who they were who did not believe, and who it was that would betray Him. 65 And He was saying, “For this reason I have said to you, that no one can come to Me unless it has been granted him from the Father.” 66 As a result of this many of His disciples withdrew and were not walking with Him anymore.
Jesus knew that they were not believers and the Father was not drawing them. The metaphor of eating of Flesh and Blood was not understood and they turned away and left.

1. The Real Presence is not text. It is personal. Ergo Christian faith is not textual; it is personal.

Personal saving Faith is what is real, bread, vines, gates are metaphors.

 

[kaycee]

OK, here is a question: what is the metaphor in John 6? What is the first entity and what is the second entity into which the first entity is transferred?

40 "For this is the will of My Father, that everyone who beholds the Son and believes in Him will have eternal life, and
I Myself will raise him up on the last day

54 "He who eats My flesh and drinks My blood has eternal life, and
I will raise him up on the last day.

Believing is the reality and eating flesh and drinking blood is the clear metaphor.
The End Result is identicle.

 

[mikeledes]

40 "For this is the will of My Father, that everyone who beholds the Son and believes in Him will have eternal life, and
I Myself will raise him up on the last day

54 "He who eats My flesh and drinks My blood has eternal life, and
I will raise him up on the last day.

Believing is the reality and eating flesh and drinking blood is the clear metaphor.
The End Result is identicle.

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 appropraite 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

 

[DJim]

That is certainly NOT the way Jesus taught. Jesus hid many things from non believers! It was His practice!

Kaycee, read the text of John 6 again–they were disciples–those who broke away and would not remain with Jesus, who asked them if this shook their faith.

From Jesus’ own lips–they had faith and it was being shaken. They were disciples.

Personal saving Faith is what is real, bread, vines, gates are metaphors.

Faith isn’t what saves–grace does (well, and baptism, according to Peter…) In any case, I don’t think you’ll be able to convince anyone that at the Last Supper Jesus took a “metaphor” into his hands and blessed it and broke it.

Real bread, real wine, real water in the Samaritan woman’s well, real healings of ill people as a “metaphor” of their spiritual healing. But REAL. Incarnational.

That was the whole point of the Incarnation…

DJim

 

[mikeledes]

That is certainly NOT the way Jesus taught. Jesus hid many things from non believers! It was His practice!

Mt 11:25 At that time Jesus said, "I praise You, Father, Lord of heaven and earth, that You have hidden these things from the wise and intelligent and have revealed them to infants.

Mt 13:35 This was to fulfill what was spoken through the prophet: “I WILL OPEN MY MOUTH IN PARABLES; I WILL UTTER THINGS HIDDEN SINCE THE FOUNDATION OF THE WORLD.”

Col 1:26 that is, the mystery which has **been hidden **from the past ages and generations, **but has now been manifested **to His saints,

Mt 13:13 - "Therefore I speak to them in parables; because while seeing they do not see, and while hearing they do not hear, nor do they understand.

Joh 8:43 "Why do you not understand what I am saying? It is because you cannot hear My word. Joh 8:47 “He who is of God hears the words of God; for this reason you do not hear them, because you are not of God.”

John 6:26 Jesus answered them and said, "Truly, truly, I say to you, you seek Me, not because you saw signs, but because you ate of the loaves and were filled **
These people dont believe, they want a free meal**.

John 6:36 "But I said to you that you have seen Me, and yet do not believe. 37 "All that the Father gives Me will come to Me, and the one who comes to Me I will certainly not cast out.
These people are not believers. They are not being drawn by the Father.

John 6:64 **“But there are some of you who do not believe.” **For Jesus knew from the beginning who they were who did not believe, and who it was that would betray Him. 65 And He was saying, “For this reason I have said to you, that no one can come to Me unless it has been granted him from the Father.” 66 As a result of this many of His disciples withdrew and were not walking with Him anymore.
Jesus knew that they were not believers and the Father was not drawing them. The metaphor of eating of Flesh and Blood was not understood and they turned away and left.

Personal saving Faith is what is real, bread, vines, gates are metaphors.

Jesus or the Evangelist tells us when He speaks in metaphors. Moreover, either He or the evangelist explains the most difficult metaphors immediately after He uses them to His disciples. He does not do that in John 6.

God Bless,
Michael