So, i hear...

[wisdomseeker]

John 6:37 Everyone whom my Father gives me will come to me. I will never turn away anyone who comes to me.

Someone ought to tell the Church then to open up Communion to all who come to Christ.

the Church is opened to everyone. she cannot force anyone to believe. the Church cannot simple give what is Sacred to the umbelievers. they are all invited but they do not want to come. you cant have both ways. you cannot say i dont believe the Church but i can come to the Communion if i wish to do so. that is insanity.

 

[wisdomseeker]

Well literally Christ said everyone whom His Father gives to Him will come to Him. But the Church prevents plenty of people who believe he is Christ from receiving Him

do you who they are? how can you tell?

the Church does not prevent no one from coming to Comunion, they are the ones who refused to believe. besides why would one want to come the Church which they dont believe in.

you seem to be trying to create a whole new church.

 

[Lapey]

Yes I know the Church’s interpretation of Paul and what she says she is doing. But if Jn 6:37 is literal as you said it is, I believe the Church should do what Jesus said to do in Jn 6:37 and then leave it to Him to judge whether another’s heart is worthy or not. You know the prayer, Lord I am not worthy to receive but only say the word and I shall be healed? You or I or the priest can’t determine if someone has been healed. Plenty of people discern the body or His sacrifice of His body and yet are denied.

CMatt,
You misunderstand this verse and you use it against the Church you say you belong. This verse is not talking about the Eucharist, this discourse does not begin until verse 50.

These early verses are referring to the revelation God the Father gives us in scripture about the “bread of life,” Jesus.

Look at verse 45,
“It is written in the prophets: ‘They shall all be taught by God.’ Everyone who listens to my Father and learns from him comes to me.”

He brings us through the Word or teachings of old, then the Eucharist, look familiar?

John 6:37 does not refer to the Eucharist what so ever, read your commentary in the NAB and you will see the explanation.

Jesus is talking to disciples, hundreds or even thousands, who had just witnessed Him feed thousands with 2 loaves and 5 fish. They saw him as there free meal ticket, at least most of them.

When they catch up with Him they want more, and He chastises them because He knows they are superficial. God gave them the writings of the Old Testament and they still didn’t recognize Him as the Messiah. He knows they will run; after the tongue lashing He gives us the new, the Eucharist.

If your preacher preaches on the Eucharist when the Gospel reading is taken before verse 50, he leads you astray, and many do. If Jesus had meant what you say He meant, He would have stopped the hundereds or thousands when they walked away, but thankfully He did not. That is the importance of the Sacrament of the Eucharist, one must partake of the Body and Blood of Christ worthily, or he shall call judgment upon himself. That is literal.

 

[CMatt25]

what does it matter? what matters is what Jesus said.

they were expecting the Messisah. there is no mention they were expecting the Son of God. until St Peter had the revelation. until then no one had such. what are you trying to prove anyway?

Wisdom, of course it matters what Jesus said. Do you believe Jesus said to John to write about how Andrew told Peter that Christ was the Messiah, the Lamb of God? You don’t think Jesus knew Messiah was the Son of God? You don’t think God’s Holy Spirit informed Andrew?

 

[CMatt25]

the Church is opened to everyone. she cannot force anyone to believe. the Church cannot simple give what is Sacred to the umbelievers. they are all invited but they do not want to come. you cant have both ways. you cannot say i dont believe the Church but i can come to the Communion if i wish to do so. that is insanity.

Wisdom, did anyone say the Church was not open to anyone? How is it insanity for a believer in Christ to want to commune with Him? Just because someone might not believe everything the CC teaches does not mean they do not believe Jesus is there.

 

[CMatt25]

do you who they are? how can you tell?

the Church does not prevent no one from coming to Comunion, they are the ones who refused to believe. besides why would one want to come the Church which they dont believe in.

you seem to be trying to create a whole new church.

Wisdom, you know there are Christians, who may come to worship but who are told not to come forth.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

Wisdom, of course it matters what Jesus said. Do you believe Jesus said to John to write about how Andrew told Peter that Christ was the Messiah, the Lamb of God? You don’t think Jesus knew Messiah was the Son of God? You don’t think God’s Holy Spirit informed Andrew?

Are you really having this much trouble understanding this, or having this much trouble finding a way to reject it?

Jesus didn’t tell anyone to write anything, according to the absence of any specific writings of the scriptures.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

Wisdom, you know there are Christians, who may come to worship but who are told not to come forth.

If there are believers of Christ being the Son of God, but reject His teaching that the bread IS His body and the cup IS His blood, then they shouldn’t receive what we believe it is. What are they missing from the perspective of their belief, bread and wine…

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

Wisdom, did anyone say the Church was not open to anyone? How is it insanity for a believer in Christ to want to commune with Him? Just because someone might not believe everything the CC teaches does not mean they do not believe Jesus is there.

How can one ‘commune’ with Him if they don’t believe communion is what He taught it was?

 

[MyRdmrLvs]

You’re right, ‘spin’ was unkind, and I apologize. It’s a new interpretation…

Please read the post I quoted and you’ll see I was responding to the creative idea that Christ let those disciples in John 6:66 leave Him and walk with Him no more because He was not ready to reveal Himself.

.

I was not insulted, I try to assume that if something my brother says sounds insulting that it wasnt meant that way, and I hope you would do the same for me. I wasnt trying to be creative. when I was desperately seeking God I read through the Bible cover to cover with as few outside influences as I could. I did this because I wanted to know which of the churches that use the Bible follow it as it is written instead of putting their own spin(to use your word) on it. this even riled my protestant friends when I asked “what else besides grace and forgiving others must we do to be saved?” “NO! grace alone” they said And I said Jesus clearly taught that we must in turn offer grace to others or we will not receive grace from him. The way I explained the previous passage was the honest impression I got while reading it. Does that make it absolute in my mind? no, but any other explanation would have to flow easily from Gods word without major explanation. It is often sighted that the eunuch needed an interpretor to understand scripture. This is not a good example because he was reading prophecy, prophecy is often unclear until it is fulfilled. The gospels and Pauls letters are not in any such form that they are hard to understand. I do think that to focus too closely on one verse is like missing the Forrest threw the trees. or looking at one thread in a tapestry, you fail to discern the big picture.
I think the Calvinists are the best example of this. taken verse by verse TULIP can be supported however looking at Gods word as a whole TULIP is an abomination that truly makes God evil by any standard of decency.

 

[MyRdmrLvs]

Are you of the belief it’s plausible or does your rejection of a Catholic interpretation, that supports doctrine, hang on it?

If you wish to discuss John 6 in detail, start a new thread. I’ll join it, but I will not stay in a discussion where I spend time explaining point by point only to receive a response of ‘no, that’s wrong’. Oh, and be warned, I will post many scriptures on the subject, from all parts of the Bible. Remember, I say to read in context, one must read scriptures within scriptures. If that’s too much a waste of your time, you might as well not start the thread.

Ill pass I have no dog in that race. I dont think I said you were wrong I only offered my impression of the verse. see my previous post.

 

[larkin31]

How can one ‘commune’ with Him if they don’t believe communion is what He taught it was?

He taught that bread and wine were metaphors for body and blood. Who doesn’t think that?

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

He taught that bread and wine were metaphors for body and blood. Who doesn’t think that?

I think He taught differently.

There were times that Christ spoke symbolically about food, but each time He explained the symbolism. In John 6, He explained no symbolism, He let many of His disciples leave Him and walk with Him no more, then He turned to the Apostles and asked would they go away also.

**Joh 4:31 In the mean time, the disciples prayed him, saying: Rabbi, eat.
Joh 4:32 But he said to them: I have meat to eat which you know not.
Joh 4:33 The disciples therefore said one to another: Hath any man brought him to eat?
Joh 4:34 Jesus saith to them: My meat is to do the will of him that sent me, that I may perfect his work.

Mat 16:5 And when his disciples were come over the water, they had forgotten to take bread.
Mat 16:6 Who said to them: Take heed and beware of the leaven of the Pharisees and Sadducees.
Mat 16:7 But they thought within themselves, saying: Because we have taken no bread.
Mat 16:8 And Jesus knowing it, said: Why do you think within yourselves, O ye of little faith, for that you have no bread?
Mat 16:9 Do you not yet understand, neither do you remember the five loaves among five thousand men, and how many baskets you took up?
Mat 16:10 Nor the seven loaves, among four thousand men, and how many baskets you took up?
Mat 16:11 Why do you not understand that it was not concerning bread I said to you: Beware of the leaven of the Pharisees and Sadducees?
Mat 16:12 Then they understood that he said not that they should beware of the leaven of bread, but of the doctrine of the Pharisees and Sadducees.**

 

[Lapey]

I know despite all the words discouraging people from coming forward, the saving grace is they can if they are called. I only pray people know this and are not discouraged by the rhetoric.

It is not about discouraging others, it is just the opposite. Instead of showing how you want to change the Eucharist and His Church to invite people up to receive, you need to be able to show people how He and His Church have changed you and that’s why you crave the Eucharist for all. It’s not a right you have to go up and receive worthily, it is a burning desire!!! The more I learn about the Church and its Head, Jesus, the more I crave Him. But I submit to doing it His way, as the Church is asking of you and all.

This is not rhetoric; this is the calling of the Church, Christ as the Head. To believe otherwise is contrary to the teachings of Christ. One is called to come forward only if one is properly disposed to do so. Everyone is invited up to receive a blessing, not the Holy Eucharist.

This is not exclusionary doctrine, it is most definitely “inclusionary”, we want everyone to come up and receive, but not on your terms, but God’s!

No matter how well meaning your misguided opinions are, Jesus gave the authority to bind and loose to the Church not me or you as an individual. If you truly are Catholic, please do the work and learn about His Church.

I hope you can see the charity in my words to you.

 

[Lapey]

He taught that bread and wine were metaphors for body and blood. Who doesn’t think that?

Sorry, but that is what you have been taught by men, not Jesus or the Gospels.

If you do not see the meaning of John’s Gospel as the Apostles did, then you too have left, “…Lord, to whom shall we go. You have the words of eternal life.”

Peter didn’t understand it but he most deffinately knew not to go against Jesus.

What would have happened if the twelve would have left Jesus too at that point? Would Jesus have stopped them, or would He have let them go and start over? Something to ponder…isn’t it?

 

[MyRdmrLvs]

Yes I amended my post I guess before you saw it and before I saw your response. I know the laity can’t. I don’t even know how a human priest at the altar can determine or read the worthiness or the state of someone’s heart and mind, who is siting 3 pews from the back, as that moment when they approach the altar for communion.

I agree we cant judge the heart but there are some actions that must be considered. the best example I can think of is the Catholic Senator that votes to block abortion regulation. He basicly has the power to save lives and refuses to do so. Should he not be admonished by the church?

 

[CMatt25]

Lapey, thank you. I do understand RCC teaching on this. And there are many things in the Bible I find difficult on first read to understand fully. But I am not sure we need a commentary on this one. I can’t fathom Jesus turning away a believer in Him and in what He did for us on the cross when they are called to His table.

Jn 6:28 So they asked him, What can we do in order to do what God wants us to do?

29 Jesus answered, What God wants you to do is to believe in the one he sent.

31 Our ancestors ate manna in the desert, just as the scripture says, He gave them bread from heaven to eat.

32 I am telling you the truth, Jesus said. What Moses gave you was not the bread from heaven; it is my Father who gives you the real bread from heaven.

33 For the bread that God gives is he who comes down from heaven and gives life to the world.

35 I am the bread of life, Jesus told them. Those who come to me will never be hungry; those who believe in me will never be thirsty.

36 Now, I told you that you have seen me but will not believe.

37 Everyone whom my Father gives me will come to me. I will never turn away anyone who comes to me

Now jump to verse 50 where you say the discourse changes to the Eucharist.

50 But the bread that comes down from heaven is of such a kind that whoever eats it will not die.

51 I am the living bread that came down from heaven. If you eat this bread, you will live forever. The bread that I will give you is my flesh, which I give so that the world may live.

Verses 33 and 35 are talking about the same bread as verses 50 and 51.

 

[larkin31]

I think He taught differently.

There were times that Christ spoke symbolically about food, but each time He explained the symbolism. In John 6, He explained no symbolism, He let many of His disciples leave Him and walk with Him no more, then He turned to the Apostles and asked would they go away also.

**Joh 4:31 In the mean time, the disciples prayed him, saying: Rabbi, eat.
Joh 4:32 But he said to them: I have meat to eat which you know not.
Joh 4:33 The disciples therefore said one to another: Hath any man brought him to eat?
Joh 4:34 Jesus saith to them: My meat is to do the will of him that sent me, that I may perfect his work.

Mat 16:5 And when his disciples were come over the water, they had forgotten to take bread.
Mat 16:6 Who said to them: Take heed and beware of the leaven of the Pharisees and Sadducees.
Mat 16:7 But they thought within themselves, saying: Because we have taken no bread.
Mat 16:8 And Jesus knowing it, said: Why do you think within yourselves, O ye of little faith, for that you have no bread?
Mat 16:9 Do you not yet understand, neither do you remember the five loaves among five thousand men, and how many baskets you took up?
Mat 16:10 Nor the seven loaves, among four thousand men, and how many baskets you took up?
Mat 16:11 Why do you not understand that it was not concerning bread I said to you: Beware of the leaven of the Pharisees and Sadducees?
Mat 16:12 Then they understood that he said not that they should beware of the leaven of bread, but of the doctrine of the Pharisees and Sadducees.**

By John 6 they have had their figurative faculties both scolded by Jesus and thus warmed up. John 6 seems to be about the spirit of heaven, not literal transubstantiation. Jesus even compares his living off his Father in the same way that they should live off of him. Some listeners in the crowd get it, some don’t.

 

[larkin31]

Sorry, but that is what you have been taught by men, not Jesus or the Gospels.

If you do not see the meaning of John’s Gospel as the Apostles did, then you too have left, “…Lord, to whom shall we go. You have the words of eternal life.”

Peter didn’t understand it but he most deffinately knew not to go against Jesus.

What would have happened if the twelve would have left Jesus too at that point? Would Jesus have stopped them, or would He have let them go and start over? Something to ponder…isn’t it?

??

I was talking about the metaphor of the Eucharist (ie not literal body and blood).

 

[CMatt25]

Jesus didn’t tell anyone to write anything

So the words were not inspired? I know you don’t believe that prod.