Saint John, New Testament, Chapter Six...

[Hisalone]

In America, perhaps, though I doubt it now. Melanie said the world at large.
btw, the crucifix does not violate any commandment.

Jon

Graham is very well known in the 3rd world.
You would not understand the violation unless you knew the holiness of God.

 

[JonNC]

Graham is very well known in the 3rd world.
You would not understand the violation unless you knew the holiness of God.

I think it was the second ecumenical council that answered the question of iconoclasm. I think the whole Church understood the holiness of God at the time.
Jon

 

[MelanieAnne]

JonNC ~

see ~ I told you! We didn’t have to go too far huh? Found one right here in the thread!

The Ignore list grows again!

 

[Hisalone]

I think it was the second ecumenical council that answered the question of iconoclasm. I think the whole Church understood the holiness of God at the time.
Jon

God has reserved a remnant for Himself who are faithfull to His statutes.

 

[NonCatholic]

No, this is not the case. There may be apoint in some people’s lives, a moment in time where one has a “Damascus” type encounter, but often there is not. It is a lifestyle, called in the NT “The Way”. It is this lifestyle that is preserved in the Sacred Tradition. The life of Christ present in the Church.

The fact that he did not have to cling to his religious practices does not equate to them “dying off”. He was willing to give up all for Christ - to count it as garbage. However, he did not count it as garbage. He kept the traditions of his forefathers consistently, knowing that His salvation was not in them, but in Christ.

Well, this is a nice paraphrase of Scripture. Perhaps you will consider publishing the NonCatholic version of scripture, so you can apply this method throughout? No doubt you will garner quite a following.

However, I am compelled to remain with what the text actually says, which is that Paul practiced Jewish rituals and ceremonies, just as Jesus did. He did not see a contradiction between them and being Christian. You rendition seems to imply that one cannot come to know Christ through ritual, but in fact, we can, and we do.

Jesus created humanity with a predilection for ritual. Either we will adopt His, or we will invent our own.

Protestants have rituals and traditions too, they just don’t like to call them that. Sounds too Catholic.

In God’s time, a thousand words is one day. However, Catholics believe that Jesus is God, and that everything is created through Him, and for Him. He was in the begining with God. When God said, “let there be light” it was so, “let the waters be divided” and it was so, etc. When He says “this is my body”, it was so. When He said “receive my Spirit” it was so.

It is interesting that the main times that Protestants disagree with Catholics is when we take the scripture literally.

So we can be in agreement that Scriptures do not save, as you stated?

Even you signature is completely out of context. I would love to here your testimony. I feel sorry that that you live without any real assurance, which at this point is a good thing because it tells me there is hope. Please don’t take that as condemning because it is not. I’m just saddened and heart broken over you. I see you are well intentioned and smart; I really enjoy the dialogue with you. :hug1: :bighanky:

 

[guanophore]

Unless you are blind to the truth. Jesus clearly explained what he meant in previous and subsequent versus. All one has to do, which no one is willing to do, is look at the Lords Supper as presented in Luke and 1 Corinthians and see exactly what Jesus said.

You sound frustrated Non. It is not that we are not “willing”, but that we are constrained. We are not to go beyond the Apostolic Teaching in understanding what is written. It is written in the context of the Catholic Church, and harmonizes with the Catholic faith.

If we were to jettison what was taught to us by our Apostles:

2 Peter 3:1-2

This is now, beloved, the second letter I am writing to you; in them I am trying to arouse your sincere intention by reminding you 2 that you should remember the words spoken in the past by the holy prophets, and the commandment of the Lord and Savior spoken through your apostles,

and adopt the perspective concocted by the Reformers 1500 years later, this would constitute “a different gospel”.

John 6 is the message of salvation and shows there are the many who disbelieve and the few that do, which is consistent with the New and Old Testaments.

Yes.

John 6 has nothing at all to do with the Lord’s Supper,

no. It is all about the Lord’s supper. How do we know this? because this is the teaching we have received from the Apostles!

which wasn’t instituted until later

Think about what you are saying here, Non. This chapter was written after the Apostle John had been celebrating Eucharist with the Church for at least 50 years, probably more. He had plenty of time to reflect on what Jesus said, and what He meant.

and than there was no cannibalization of Jesus at that supper or any other meal Jesus ate. Wouldn’t you think if they were going to eat Jesus, that would have been the perfect time while He was still fresh?

You are using your carnal mind, Non. Jesus says, if you do that, you can’t “get it”.

John 6:63-64
63 It is the spirit that gives life; the flesh is useless. The words that I have spoken to you are spirit and life. 6

It is a spiritual mystery. The flesh (human rational mind) is useless in apprehending it. I know you know this principle, because you have applied it to Scripture. Try it here.

Does anyone out there know that “eat” was a common Jewish euphemism?

Yes, and when they were confused, he upped the ante. He went from eat and drink to “gnaw” and “crunch”. These words were used metaphorically to refer to slandering someone.

 

[guanophore]

So why don’t the very ones who administer them follow them? Isn’t marriage one of them? Vow of chastity doesn’t mean you can’t get married does it? Do you know the when and why of the elimination of marriage among illegitimate priests? I give you a hint: Power, greed and corruption is the history.

You seem so intent on attacking the Catholic Church, it is hard for you to stay focused on the topic at hand. If you wish to criticize the celibacy of the priesthood, let’s start another thread, shall we?

Actually if you understand English and actually read what is there, you will come to the opposite conclusion, but your mind cannot conceive of this,can it?

This post sounds a little frustrated too. Actually it can. After many discussions with Reformed persons on CAF I did finally get to where I could see it from their point of view. Perhaps you will try this yourself? It is good intellectual excercise.

I hope you are kidding; monasteries producing holier priests? I guess that no one wants to be holy anymore, since they are and have been in sharp decline. Furthermore some of the horrible stories that come out of there would explain the decline.

Now you want to bash on the corruption in the priesthood? That is another thread too. However, since your perceptions are in error here, let me note that you seem to be confusing seminary with monastery.

Hey..at least you admit the history, which I commend you for.

Men are prone to corruption. Being in the church does not prevent this.

Jesus also said it wasn’t for everyone, which by the obvious scandals within the …would confirm this.

You are right, it is not for everyone. However, the Latin Rite prefers to select for priests those who are called to celibacy.

Violation of vows and unchaste behavior is not related to whether one is celibate or not, or a priest or not. If a person is going to violate a vow, they are going to violate any vow, whether it is a marriage vow, or some other kind. Being faithless irresponsible, and corrupt is what causes the scandal, not the gift of celibacy.

Anyhow, lest we get too far afield, if those priests who were behaving scandalously had believed in the Real Presence, this would not have happened. As it was, they ate and drank condemnation upon themselves. do you realize it is impossible to profane someone who is not present to be profaned?

Yes I’m familiar with this one and it gets posted on these forums all the time. It seems to be the only one that ever gets talked about. As stated above I take them with a grain of salt. Similar to statues crying, toast looking like Mary etc.and whatever else you may want to throw into the mix. Now how do we know it is GOD and not Satan??

This is a very good question. This is one reason that Jesus appointed a Magesterium, so that people will not be led astray by winds.

 

[guanophore]

No you worship a piece of bread you believe the Priest has literally turned into a piece of flesh of Jesus.

This statement is a contradiction in terms. SInce we believe the bread and wine become Jesus, then how is it we are worshipping " a piece of bread"?

Actually, we believe that Jesus does what He said He would do. The priest does what Jesus told them to do “do this in rememberance of me”.

You need to re-read scripture. Christ asks does this offend you. Then what if you saw the son of man return from whence he came. It is the spirit that gives life the flesh profits nothing. Meaning eating my flesh does nothing, it’s believing ME in the spirit that gives life.

If His flesh did nothing, why offer it on the cross? I agree, we are to have faith. However, the flesh that profits nothing is the carnal mind trying to understand this Divine Mystery. As you have demonstrated, it does not work.

It wasn’t until after Jesus made this statement many left. Verses 60-65 Jesus clarifies HIS teaching. Verse 66 is when they start leaving yet you try to make the poor argument that Christ never clarified HIMSELF.

No, we see that he clarified HImself. He was even more emphatic on the same point. Those that went away understood exactly what He meant. They went away because they could not accept it.

Partaking in communion is a Christian’s outward expression of their belief in Christ. It’s professing that you believe in the new covenant that Christ established during passover. As Augustine stated if you believe you have already eaten.

Yes, but it would be a mistake to separate this from all his other comments on Eucharist.

Believing in Christ is what feeds our soul not eating a piece of HIS literal flesh.

For Catholics, there is no separation between the two.

Try studying the Jewish Seder meal to really understand what was happening the night Christ instituted HIS supper.  You will find that Christ used the 3rd cup of redemption which SYMBOLIZED the blood of the lambs slain prior to the exodus to now SYMBOLIZE HIS Blood.  The 3rd cup taken after the Seder meal was red wine mixed with warm water and was never believed to be real blood.

This is good advice. The Lords’ supper makes so much more sense. Jesus held up the blood cup, and said “this is the blood of the New Covenant, which is shed for you”. That is why we believe it. He did not give his “symbolic” blood, but his real blood.

Unfortunately you believe in a man mad doctrine that completely counters a command from GOD to not eat the blood of any living being.

The command was given because the Life is in the blood. The commandment foreshadowed what was to come. Jesus gives His blood (Life) for us. We commemorate this by taking His Life (blood) into ourselves.

Before accusing me of not believing in Christ's teachings please check the origin of your beliefs then we can do a valid comparison.

It is clear you believe what you have been taught. I will venture to guess that you have been separated from the Apostolic Succession through no fault of your own. Since you were separated from the Apostolic Teaching, there was no way for you to apprehend it. You are doing the best you can by gleaning from the part of the Revelation that was written.

No Christ IS the bread from Heaven but as Christ stated not like the bread the Jews ate in the desert and still died. HE’s trying to tell the Jews eating bread that gives physical nourishment does not give eternal life, even the bread that GOD sent when they were in the dessert. Believing in Christ is what gives eternal life and is the will of the Father as outlined in John 6. Somehow you want to skip the entire message and cherry pick verses that support your ridiculous claim.

Not at all! We just don’t separate the eating of the Body and Blood from faith.

Even leading RC scholars admit that scripture in no way states anything close to the doctrine of transubstantiation.

Do we have to go there?

 

[guanophore]

You’ll need to ask a Protestant that question,

You know, Non, your theology is Protestant.

I dont’ know why you can’t be proud of that.

Your username is also. Protestants define themselves by what it is about Catholicism they do not embrace.

 

[guanophore]

according to the Bible and the Roman Catholic Church (who compiled the books of the Bible).

Actually, at the time the Scripture Canon was closed, there was no separate Latin Rite in the Church. The Catholic Church is not “Roman”.

 

[guanophore]

By your examples, there would be no figurative language or metaphors or analogies; yet many of the parables are just that.

No. the presence of literal statements does not preclude the use of metaphors. Why do Protestants suffer from so much either/or thinking?

Unless you can understand how to properly interpret something, then put it to practice; you will not come to an understanding.

This is true. Scripture must be interpreted in context, which is the Catholic Church.

Why do you worship, oh excuse me venerate, Mary, dead saints, the Pope etc

Try to keep your anticatholic hostility on topic there Non.

Oh that’s right He was at only one, never to be repeated…what does that matter it is only Jesus word’s; but nothing wrong with picking and choosing which words count and which one’s don’t.

The Catholic Church teaches that Jesus was sacrificed once for sins.

Christ does do what He say’s, which is John 6:47 "Truly, truly, I say to you, he who believes has eternal life. 48 “I am the bread of life.”

It is beyond me, except what the Scriptures says, how anyone is blind to the fact that the flesh and blood is referring to the cross; death, burial and resurrection and the way of salvation which is by faith

It is very Catholic of you to say this!

and not cannibalization and has zippo to do with the Lords Supper.

You are right. This is just a spurious accusation from the enemies of Christ.

We consume His glorified body, not His dead body.

Interesting, though, that you should bring this up, as it was one of the earliest charges against the Christians by Pagans, with whom you have sided on this matter.

I know a church in California, that more than 1/2 the congregation are former Catholics, that would be about 8K former Catholics in one church alone. When you hear their testimonies; they almost always state after receiving the truth, they never knew Christ. And you can’t unless God the Father reveals Him.

I believe this. If they had recognized Him in the breaking of the bread, they never would have left.

There you said it;“the Church is the truth.” I live in Christ and He in me. I’ll keep on praying for you.

Seems remarkably similar to what you said the other day about Scripture saving us.

However, Jesus does not separate Himself from His Church, His Bride, His Body. When Paul is persecuting the Church, Jesus confronts Him, saying “why are you persecuting ME”.

When we are in Christ, and He in us, we are members of HIs Body, the Church.

I see no Scriptural evidence for such an institution as the Catholic Church.

What has this got to do with the topic?

Try to channel your apparently boundless anti-catholicism so that we can stay on topic, ok? This belongs on another thread. I know there is so much there that it just comes oozing out the pores into the keyboard, I guess.

The church used in the passage you sited is the body, made of individual believers, each with a specific function preordained by God.  The church referred to in Scripture has always been this assembly of individuals and never an institution.

If you wish to start a thread, or join one on this topic, of which there have been many, we can show you how Jesus instituted His Church, and designed for the functioning of it. It is bigger than the collection of believers.

You can slice anyway you want, but the Biblical record will stand forever and those that preach and teach another gospel and those that fall into the web, will perish. If the blind follows the blind guide, then both will fall into a pit. Do you not have any concern about being part of the “many” as Matthew 7:13-14 describes?

I am not concerned about it, because I am not one. However, the biblical record shows that Jesus appointed authority over His church. I suspect it is this “institution” to which you object. It is by that authority that we have a Bible, and it is by that authority we know that John 6 in that Bible is talking about Eucharist.

 

[guanophore]

Even you signature is completely out of context. I would love to here your testimony. I feel sorry that that you live without any real assurance, which at this point is a good thing because it tells me there is hope. Please don’t take that as condemning because it is not. I’m just saddened and heart broken over you. I see you are well intentioned and smart; I really enjoy the dialogue with you. :hug1: :bighanky:

Don’t be sad for me, my brother, but I do thank you for your beautiful prayers. I have died, and my life is hidden with Christ in God. I set my thoughts where He is, sitting at the right hand of the Father. I look for His coming, at which time I shall see Him as He really is. In Him do I live, and move, and have my being, for I have died with Him in baptism, and been raised to a new life. he has sealed me with His promised Holy Spirit, and by the life of that Spirit am I daily conformed to HIs image.

The fact that I have fallen away in the past, and can do so again, has seasoned me. I have chosen to adopt the “mature” attitude spoken of by the Apostle:

Phil 3:12-16

Not that I have already obtained this or have already reached the goal; but I press on to make it my own, because Christ Jesus has made me his own. 13 Beloved, I do not consider that I have made it my own; but this one thing I do: forgetting what lies behind and straining forward to what lies ahead, 14 I press on toward the goal for the prize of the heavenly call of God in Christ Jesus. 15 Let those of us then who are mature be of the same mind; and if you think differently about anything, this too God will reveal to you. 16 Only let us hold fast to what we have attained.

I do not consider that I have already attained, but I lay hold of that which has laid hold of me. Having been justified by His blood, I now stand in His presence with joy, and am eager to do all that He has commanded, for His commandments are not burdensome.

You have been wrongly taught about Catholicism, Non. I understand this, because the same thing happened to me. As a teen, I left the faith into which I was baptized as an infant. I sojourned in various Protestant communities for the better part of 20 years before I found my way back to the fullness of the faith.

Even since coming to CAF I have learned much more about my faith. I hope that you will be willing to learn about the Catholic faith while you are here, and that your hostility toward Catholicism will not prevent you from discovering that what you were given to beleive is incorrect.

Thank you for your kind words.

 

[Benadam]

I hope that you will be willing to learn about the Catholic faith while you are here,.

In reference to what guanapore said
I want to add this for my noncatholic brother because I like him.

I strayed so very far from the faith that honesty forces me to admit I must have been retrieved because the only scrap of faith that was left in me was a hidden piece in me that could say’ what the church teaches , isn’t impossible"…I thank the Lord for letting me know what power was in the truth that all things are possible with God and for keeping me.

 

[mdstanzel]

Read John 6:63 where Jesus in no uncertain terms tells us the manner in which He spoke.

They are the “religious” many Jesus spoke of int Matthew 7:13-14 and many other places. I am part of the “few”.

Brother, read the Bible and pray to God for understanding and don’t just assume you have the truth because of a religious association, this is the grand mistake the Scribes, Pharisees, and their followers made and Jesus rebuked.

Non-Catholic friend. You assume far to much. Have you no idea with whom you are speaking? I’m am a former fundamentalist evangelical Christian…Bible only. Grew up that way. It was studying scripture since I was knee high to a mosquito that brought me about to realizing some simple truths that is only taught by the one holy catholic and apostolic church that we all love to love and hate at the same time. Well, I used to until I had multiple epiphanies…that I won’t bother you with. Go on believe what you will, in the end you will see. Life is just a bleep of time. I had been preparing to become a preacher, could have been one without even going to bible school. I used to dig deep into the word of God in bible sparing with preachers. Any one I came across…still do. But not on a board. …such a waste of engergy… It is only charity and a reminder from where I came that brings me to speak to folks like you. I wouldn’t give you the time of day unless you really took the time to read, study, and kick it around. I know that the truth can only be received by those that are prepared to receive it. Open you heart to God and fight off you natural anti-Catholic ways so that you can come to truly know Him.

Nothing else makes sense. It’s either this or God is not true. I’ve come to that and that is how it is for me. No need to hear my arogant speeches assuming I know more than you. I’ve only studied scripture for just a little while, about 32 years now. Learn something new all the time.

Hope you find what you are looking for here on a Catholic forem. Must have doubts about your own faith to bother interacting with us.

 

[Benjamin8o8]

Again my friend you have read into scripture what you want it to say.
You will not get from me by mocking me.
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=305682

I wasn`t trying to mock you nor insult you. If I did, I apologize:blush:

 

[CHESTERTONRULES]

God has reserved a remnant for Himself who are faithfull to His statutes.

Ahh…

There’s where you are missing the whole point, we are to be faithful to his statues!

 

[Hisalone]

I wasn`t trying to mock you nor insult you. If I did, I apologize:blush:

Your apologie accepted.

 

[Hisalone]

Ahh…

There’s where you are missing the whole point, we are to be faithful to his statues!

Someone stole a “T”.

 

[catholic_daddy]

This statement is a contradiction in terms. SInce we believe the bread and wine become Jesus, then how is it we are worshipping " a piece of bread"?

Actually, we believe that Jesus does what He said He would do. The priest does what Jesus told them to do “do this in rememberance of me”.

If His flesh did nothing, why offer it on the cross? I agree, we are to have faith. However, the flesh that profits nothing is the carnal mind trying to understand this Divine Mystery. As you have demonstrated, it does not work.

No, we see that he clarified HImself. He was even more emphatic on the same point. Those that went away understood exactly what He meant. They went away because they could not accept it.

Yes, but it would be a mistake to separate this from all his other comments on Eucharist.

For Catholics, there is no separation between the two.

This is good advice. The Lords’ supper makes so much more sense. Jesus held up the blood cup, and said “this is the blood of the New Covenant, which is shed for you”. That is why we believe it. He did not give his “symbolic” blood, but his real blood.

The command was given because the Life is in the blood. The commandment foreshadowed what was to come. Jesus gives His blood (Life) for us. We commemorate this by taking His Life (blood) into ourselves.

It is clear you believe what you have been taught. I will venture to guess that you have been separated from the Apostolic Succession through no fault of your own. Since you were separated from the Apostolic Teaching, there was no way for you to apprehend it. You are doing the best you can by gleaning from the part of the Revelation that was written.

Not at all! We just don’t separate the eating of the Body and Blood from faith.

Do we have to go there?

I believe NDFan is correct and that his understanding is faithful to God’s Word. He of course is part of an enormous ‘cloud of witnesses’ living and departed. But notice that if you want to go literally, Jesus only said that the bread and wine He was holding in his hands THAT NIGHT was his body and blood. Then he said to perform a ceremony of ‘remembrance’. But He never stated that in those remembrance ceremonies there would be more than bread and wine. Show us that He said otherwise.

 

[ncgolf]

I believe NDFan is correct and that his understanding is faithful to God’s Word. He of course is part of an enormous ‘cloud of witnesses’ living and departed. But notice that if you want to go literally, Jesus only said that the bread and wine He was holding in his hands THAT NIGHT was his body and blood. Then he said to perform a ceremony of ‘remembrance’. But He never stated that in those remembrance ceremonies there would be more than bread and wine. Show us that He said otherwise.

Maybe it is a good idea to set the context of John 6 … this writing is written for Jews … so put yourself in John 6 as a first century Jew, not a modern day Christian … as those did not exist in way we understand Christians. This was not written specifically for the Gentiles so at the time if a Gentile would have read this … he would not have understood John’s imagery as a devout Jew would.

In the beginning are 2 details that are important … 1. John writes the time of Passover is nearing in John 6:4 and 2. Jesus walks across the water in John 6:21.

These 2 details would not have been overlooked by Jews at the time. They speak of Passover and of the exodus … reminding them of their deliverance from captivity. Moses parting of the sea, so they could cross would have come to mind in point 2.

Given that then the context of John 6 is in light of the Passover … the eating of the lamb required and the posting of blood on the door lentils. Jesus’s command to eat His flesh for it evokes the imagery of eating the Passover sacrificial lamb … but this is a man who makes this command to eat His flesh and this is confusing. They would have known the Passover sacrifice had to be eaten … if you don’t believe me go back and read the Passover passages in Exodus.

John, IMO, wants to evoke the imagery necessary to tie Jesus to the Passover … to the sacrifice that Passover is … John wants his audience to see this connection. Eventually the early Jewish Christians saw this and made this connection.

This imagery ties the Passion and death of Jesus to the Passover sacrifice … reminding us of John the Baptist’s claim …“Behold the Lamb of God” and even to Revelation 5:6 image of a “Lamb that seemed to be slain.”

Go back and read the Passover passages in Exodus … re-read Jesus’s words in the Gospel accounts of the Last Supper … both have commands … to eat the fruits of the sacrifice and commands to keep doing this.

God says in Exodus 12:24 “You shall observe this as a perpetual ordinance for yourselves and your descendents.” Jesus in Luke 22:19, “Do this in memory of me.”

Reading John 6 standalone does not work … reading John 6 with the Last Supper accounts doesn’t work … but reading John 6, the Last Supper accounts and understanding the Passover … ties this together making the case for Jesus meaning what He said about the eating of His body much more understandable for we can see in the Jewish context of sacrifice.