So many Catholics leaving the church

[fasolislithuan]

Because understanding it literally would violate Levitical Law which came from & was prohibited from God (Leviticus 17:10-14). Saying “I am the gate” doesn’t. Saying “before Abraham was, I AM” certainly does, which is why they tried to stone Him, because He was declaring Himself to be God.

Again, Jesus explained parables to His followers who He knew who “hear” Him, not just “The 12.” Those who walked away in John Ch.6 who (mis)understood Him to be speaking literally, likewise Jesus knew their hearts. And “that” is why they walked away.

You repeat something that is false. John 6** is not a parable**. You need to make it look is a parable to justify a presumed allegorical meaning of the text, but the text is not a parable, therefore your assumption is wrong. You will have to support the symbolic argument on another reason more solid than an inexistent parable.

 

[thetazlord]

And how do you know of it conflicted with scripture? Different Protestant groups have different interpretations of the bible. How can you know for certain which interpretation is right?

And that’s because those “Protestant groups” are conflicting with Scripture. Obviously, if they conflict with one another, than can’t all be right. For instance, Lutherans base their understanding of Scripture from Luther, who believed in the literal presence of Jesus in the Eucharist. Only they believe in “consubstantiation” not “transubstantiation.” But, when you think about it, since Jesus is God Who is “ever-present,” then either belief (trans- or con-) would imply Jesus wasn’t “present” in the Eucharist before the “sustantiation” took place, which would mean that Jesus isn’t really “ever-present” which conflicts with Scripture. And if you’re saying that Jesus is still “ever-present” even before that, just that He’s “in” communion bread & wine afterwards, then that becomes a form of pantheism that God is “in” His creation, which is unbiblical. Plus, in John Ch.6, Jesus is performing communion. So, if His disciples who remained with Him understood Him to be speaking literally, they would have had to have started gnawing on Him right then & there. But they didn’t, because they understood Him to be speaking figuratively, not literally, just like He was in those other “I AM” statements.

In the Catholic Catechism it says it is the body and blood of Christ and that he is present.

I respect that. But that’s just circular reasoning. Using a “A” source to back up “A” belief doesn’t necessarily make it true, even if it is true. That’s like saying “I believe the moon is made of swiss cheese,” & to back it up, “here’s an article written by an organization I belong to that says the moon is made of swiss cheese. So, that’s good enough for me.” I guess I’m looking for a Scriptural argument “why” you suddenly go from Jesus saying “I AM” to mean figurative in those other passages, to Jesus speaking literally when He says “I AM” in John Ch.6.

 

[YADA]

You repeat something that is false. John 6** is not a parable**. You need to make it look is a parable to justify a presumed allegorical meaning of the text, but the text is not a parable, therefore your assumption is wrong. You will have to support the symbolic argument on another reason more solid than an inexistent parable.

 

[thetazlord]

But if it was only a metaphor it wouldn’t violate Levitical law right? To violate Levitical law you have to do it literally. Why would they think it literal?

Yes, if it was a metaphor, & Jesus’ disciples understood it to be a metaphor, then - no - it wouldn’t violate Levitical Law & they wouldn’t have walked away. That’s the point. They walked away because they (mis)understood Jesus to be speaking literally when He said “I AM the bread of life.” You think the ones who walked away did so because they wouldn’t accept that He was speaking literally, which is why the ones who stayed did because the accepted Jesus speaking literally. It’s actually backwards. Those who walked away (mis)understood Him TO be speaking literally, when in reality, He was speaking figuratively & spiritually, which is why His other disciples, like Peter, remained. They understood Jesus (correctly) to be speaking figuratively. Therefore, a figurative understanding wouldn’t violate Levitical Law like a literal one does, which I’ve explained to you numerous times. Seriously, read Leviticus 17:10-14 & compare it to John 6.

 

[fasolislithuan]

Because understanding it literally would violate Levitical Law which came from & was prohibited from God (Leviticus 17:10-14). Saying “I am the gate” doesn’t. Saying “before Abraham was, I AM” certainly does, which is why they tried to stone Him, because He was declaring Himself to be God.

You’re contradicting yourself.

If to speak literally on that way would violate Levitical Law, why does Jesus insist on speaking without clarify the alleged symbolic and innocuous context AFTER He hears like the jews argue with incredulity about his words?

“The Jews therefore strove among themselves, saying: How can this man give us his flesh to eat? 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.
He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath everlasting life: and I will raise him up in the last day. For my flesh is meat indeed: and my blood is drink indeed.”

Why does He turn the screw harder to make indigerible the presumed allegoric teaching? First is illogical. And second is perverse, I would even say sinful.

Your argument, this fundamentalist protestant way of argue this passage is nonsensical. If you want to persuade us the allegoric explanation you will need to explain why Jesus, who is perfect God,** leads people astray**.

 

[thetazlord]

Why do you insist that Jesus could ONLY be speaking Metaphorically OR Literally BUT NOT both?

You see everything as an either or … that is not necessary …

The Israelites received Manna - the Heavenly Bread … God could have fed them in many ways … this bread was consumed by the people … They also had the Passover - a meal that they had to consume and which became a “Memorial” they participated in every year thereafter … not a ‘new’ Passover. The Hebrew people - to this day - participate in that one Passover as a memorial … and they do not understand that as being a symbolic representation, a re-presentation nor a new event but a real participation in that one Passover when they were freed from slavery …

Yes, but the Manna was real physical & literal bread, both at the first Passover, as well as numerous Passovers celebrated afterwards. There was nothing “symbolic” about the actual bread. However, when Jesus contrasts the literal bread that came down out of Heaven that the Israelites literally ate, to Himself - the “true” Bread - doesn’t leave you literally “hungry” (John 6:35), Jesus isn’t speaking about His body “turning into” literal bread. If He was, they would have had to start gnawing at Him right then & there, since Jesus wasn’t having communion. Plus, the crucifixion hadn’t happened yet & Jesus was still alive. So, although Jesus is fully God - even in human form - He was also fully Man & allowed Himself to have human limitations (as Paul said, He "emptied Himself’), except when He performed miracles to glorify the Father - and being fully Man, Jesus being in human form couldn’t be at two places at the same time - even at the Last Supper - in the communion bread and in bodily form. Otherwise, Jesus would be eating Himself! But, again, in John 6, Jesus wasn’t having communion, & the Last Supper & the crucifixion were long away. So, “if” Jesus was speaking literally, they would have to be physically eating Jesus right then & there!

You can present your novel understanding - and argue all you want - but it does not make sense in relation to the clear meaning of John and all of the other scriptural passages …

It’s not a “novel understanding.” It’s acknowledging the actual consequences of your argument that are not supported by other Biblical passages, both in the OT as well as Jesus’ Omnipresence as well as His Manhood. It’s also consistent theology with understanding that when Jesus says “I AM” metaphorically in these other passages, that He’s also speaking metaphorically in John 6 when He also says “I AM,” which is obvious if you read John 6:35, rather than “skipping over” it & going to John 6:53.

 

[YADA]

Yes, if it was a metaphor, & Jesus’ disciples understood it to be a metaphor, then - no - it wouldn’t violate Levitical Law & they wouldn’t have walked away. That’s the point. They walked away because they (mis)understood Jesus to be speaking literally when He said “I AM the bread of life.” You think the ones who walked away did so because they wouldn’t accept that He was speaking literally, which is why the ones who stayed did because the accepted Jesus speaking literally. It’s actually backwards. Those who walked away (mis)understood Him TO be speaking literally, when in reality, He was speaking figuratively & spiritually, which is why His other disciples, like Peter, remained. They understood Jesus (correctly) to be speaking figuratively. Therefore, a figurative understanding wouldn’t violate Levitical Law like a literal one does, which I’ve explained to you numerous times. Seriously, read Leviticus 17:10-14 & compare it to John 6.

No - Peter [and the others] did not understand that Jesus was speaking metaphorically … Jesus’ question and Peter’s response do not indicate that they understood this as a parable nor symbolic or any such condition … They were troubled BUT they also understood that Jesus was the Messiah - that Jesus had the Words of Eternal Life - there was no where else they could go no matter how “hard the saying was” … you want to down play that response to - oh yeah … no problem - we know how you tell stories to confuse people - but we get it because you have often explained your parables to us after the others leave … no Peter does not indicate that they believed this was any thing other then the chew and gnaw …

And Jesus himself took this beyond parable, symbol or metaphor when he emphatically said Amen, Amen [which means This is the absolute truth] My [Jesus’] Flesh is TRUE FOOD and My BLOOD is True Food in deed …

A picture of a hamburger may look very delicious … a description of a Whooper may sound very delicious But they are not truly a real hamburger - real food

How can something like the eating of bread and wine that St Paul describes make one sick or even cause death IF it is merely done as a symbol of ones faith in Christ?

How does one participate in Christ’s Sacrifice by eating symbolic bread and wine?

How does one discern the death ad resurrection of Christ by eating symbolic bread and wine?

 

[thetazlord]

You repeat something that is false. John 6** is not a parable**. You need to make it look is a parable to justify a presumed allegorical meaning of the text, but the text is not a parable, therefore your assumption is wrong. You will have to support the symbolic argument on another reason more solid than an inexistent parable.

In context, I was answering another poster’s question about parables & why Jesus didn’t answer them. John Ch.6 is no different. Throughout Scripture, whether Jesus is speaking metaphorically or using allegorically, He only explains what He’s saying to those who “has ears to hear.” The ones who walked away, obviously didn’t, so that’s why He didn’t explain it to them. The disciples who stayed, when He asked them “will you walk away too?” they didn’t, because they understood Him to be speaking metaphorically, & not literally. If they understood Him literally, they would have walked away too. But they didn’t. And if they stayed because they understood Him to be speaking literally, they would have started gnawing on Jesus right then & there. But, again, they didn’t, which proves they didn’t understand Him in literal terms, because they accepted what He said earlier:

“I AM the bread of life. He who comes to Me will not hunger; he who believes in Me will not thirst” (John 6:35)

Nothing in this verse says anything about the “hunger” & “thirst” to be literal hunger & literal thirst. Jesus is speaking metaphorically here, just as He is when He says “I AM the bread of life,” just as He speaks metaphorically in His other “I AM” analogies, also in the Gospel of John. This is consistent theology, not “changing” one’s theology to “fit” a preconceived religious belief.

 

[fasolislithuan]

Double post

 

[fasolislithuan]

In context, I was answering another poster’s question about parables & why Jesus didn’t answer them. John Ch.6 is no different. Throughout Scripture, whether Jesus is speaking metaphorically or using allegorically, He only explains what He’s saying to those who “has ears to hear.” The ones who walked away, obviously didn’t, so that’s why He didn’t explain it to them. The disciples who stayed, when He asked them “will you walk away too?” they didn’t, because they understood Him to be speaking metaphorically, & not literally. If they understood Him literally, they would have walked away too. But they didn’t. And if they stayed because they understood Him to be speaking literally, they would have started gnawing on Jesus right then & there. But, again, they didn’t, which proves they didn’t understand Him in literal terms, because they accepted what He said earlier:

“I AM the bread of life. He who comes to Me will not hunger; he who believes in Me will not thirst” (John 6:35)

Nothing in this verse says anything about the “hunger” & “thirst” to be literal hunger & literal thirst. Jesus is speaking metaphorically here, just as He is when He says “I AM the bread of life,” just as He speaks metaphorically in His other “I AM” analogies, also in the Gospel of John. This is consistent theology, not “changing” one’s theology to “fit” a preconceived religious belief.

But I repeat: The problem with your reasoning is that John 6 is not a parable. Your argument is based on a false assumption, therefore is not a valid argument.

 

[thetazlord]

Your argument, this fundamentalist protestant way of argue this passage is nonsensical. If you want to persuade us the allegoric explanation you will need to explain why Jesus, who is perfect God,** leads people astray**.

First, God isn’t leading people astray. Second, I have explained it to you - Biblically. But you’re ignoring that Biblical explanation. If Jesus was speaking literally in John 6, then Jesus is saying that “coming” to Him & eating Him literally would satisfy literal hunger (John 6:35) & “believing” in Him by drinking His literal blood would literally quench our literal thirst. If this is true, then there would no reason to ever have communion again, because Jesus also states, “Your fathers ate the manna in the wilderness, and they died. This is the bread which comes down out of heaven, so that one may eat of it and not die” (John 6:49-50). So, if Jesus is speaking in literal terms here, He’s saying that if you eat His literal body - right then & there - you’ll literally never die. So, there’d be no literal reason to literally “eat” Him again. That’s why He says “believing in Him” leads to eternal life (John 6:47), not literally eating His literal flesh - which refers back to what Jesus said in John 6:35 “he who believes in Me will never thirst.” So, the WHOLE passage is metaphorical, not literal. You have to look at EVERY verse, not just “certain ones” - otherwise, you become like His disciples who walked away because they (mis)understood Him to be speaking literally, rather than metaphorically.

 

[thetazlord]

But I repeat: The problem with your reasoning is that John 6 is not a parable. Your argument is based on a false assumption, therefore is not a valid argument.

You’re creating a Red Herring now, and throwing the baby out with the bathwater. Focus on my argument, not whether it’s a parable or an allegory.

 

[YADA]

In context, I was answering another poster’s question about parables & why Jesus didn’t answer them. John Ch.6 is no different. Throughout Scripture, whether Jesus is speaking metaphorically or using allegorically, He only explains what He’s saying to those who “has ears to hear.” The ones who walked away, obviously didn’t, so that’s why He didn’t explain it to them. The disciples who stayed, when He asked them “will you walk away too?” they didn’t, because they understood Him to be speaking metaphorically, & not literally. If they understood Him literally, they would have walked away too. But they didn’t. And if they stayed because they understood Him to be speaking literally, they would have started gnawing on Jesus right then & there. But, again, they didn’t, which proves they didn’t understand Him in literal terms, because they accepted what He said earlier:

“I AM the bread of life. He who comes to Me will not hunger; he who believes in Me will not thirst” (John 6:35)

Nothing in this verse says anything about the “hunger” & “thirst” to be literal hunger & literal thirst. Jesus is speaking metaphorically here, just as He is when He says “I AM the bread of life,” just as He speaks metaphorically in His other “I AM” analogies, also in the Gospel of John. This is consistent theology, not “changing” one’s theology to “fit” a preconceived religious belief.

No - it is not consistent - there is not one iota of John Chapter 6 that screams Parable … many times in passages that are clearly parables - we are informed - as in Jesus spoke this parable …

Jesus is seen explaining parables that even his followers failed - not to know they were parables - but what the parables meant … John Chapter 6 is not a parable … it is not presented as a parable … in fact when Jesus re-emphasizes that he is the Bread and that they must eat … he states unequivocally that His Flesh is TRUE FOOD and His Blood is TRUE DRINK … that is not speaking symbolically, metaphorically nor a parable story … you can assert that all day long …but that does not make it so.

I am a person who reads and studies scripture and I am educated … I am not saying this passage is not a parable because the Church says it is not … it clearly is not a parable … you have to force that belief onto the passage to make it so.

 

[YADA]

First, God isn’t leading people astray. Second, I have explained it to you - Biblically. But you’re ignoring that Biblical explanation. If Jesus was speaking literally in John 6, then Jesus is saying that “coming” to Him & eating Him literally would satisfy literal hunger (John 6:35) & “believing” in Him by drinking His literal blood would literally quench our literal thirst. If this is true, then there would no reason to ever have communion again, because Jesus also states, “Your fathers ate the manna in the wilderness, and they died. This is the bread which comes down out of heaven, so that one may eat of it and not die” (John 6:49-50). So, if Jesus is speaking in literal terms here, He’s saying that if you eat His literal body - right then & there - you’ll literally never die. So, there’d be no literal reason to literally “eat” Him again. That’s why He says “believing in Him” leads to eternal life (John 6:47), not literally eating His literal flesh - which refers back to what Jesus said in John 6:35 “he who believes in Me will never thirst.” So, the WHOLE passage is metaphorical, not literal. You have to look at EVERY verse, not just “certain ones” - otherwise, you become like His disciples who walked away because they (mis)understood Him to be speaking literally, rather than metaphorically.

Jesus tell us that His Flesh is REAL FOOD … tell me - how does one take that and make it something else …

The Jews quarreled among themselves, saying, “How can this man give us [his] flesh to eat?” 53 Jesus said to them, “Amen, amen, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you do not have life within you. 54 Whoever eats* my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him on the last day. 55 For my flesh is true food, and my blood is true drink. 56 Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me and I in him.

I am sorry that this great mystery is so hard for you to understand … but one cannot assert that something is truly what they are asserting and have that same ‘thing’ be a symbol, metaphor or other then what it Truly is …

I accept Jesus’ words -

I accept St Paul’s words that this is truly the Body and Blood of Christ

and 1500 years of Christian belief …

I accept my own ability to read and understand the scriptures - the parables, the metaphors, the symbols and the testimonies and the Truths - even if I cannot fully comprehend - like the Trinity, the Virgin Birth, resurrection of the dead and the Eucharist.

Your interpretation does not make sense - it is contrived - it starts with a premise and forces the interpretation upon it - bad exegesis IMHO

 

[cena]

And that’s because those “Protestant groups” are conflicting with Scripture. Obviously, if they conflict with one another, than can’t all be right. For instance, Lutherans base their understanding of Scripture from Luther, who believed in the literal presence of Jesus in the Eucharist. Only they believe in “consubstantiation” not “transubstantiation.” But, when you think about it, since Jesus is God Who is “ever-present,” then either belief (trans- or con-) would imply Jesus wasn’t “present” in the Eucharist before the “sustantiation” took place, which would mean that Jesus isn’t really “ever-present” which conflicts with Scripture. And if you’re saying that Jesus is still “ever-present” even before that, just that He’s “in” communion bread & wine afterwards, then that becomes a form of pantheism that God is “in” His creation, which is unbiblical. Plus, in John Ch.6, Jesus is performing communion. So, if His disciples who remained with Him understood Him to be speaking literally, they would have had to have started gnawing on Him right then & there. But they didn’t, because they understood Him to be speaking figuratively, not literally, just like He was in those other “I AM” statements.

I respect that. But that’s just circular reasoning. Using a “A” source to back up “A” belief doesn’t necessarily make it true, even if it is true. That’s like saying “I believe the moon is made of swiss cheese,” & to back it up, “here’s an article written by an organization I belong to that says the moon is made of swiss cheese. So, that’s good enough for me.” I guess I’m looking for a Scriptural argument “why” you suddenly go from Jesus saying “I AM” to mean figurative in those other passages, to Jesus speaking literally when He says “I AM” in John Ch.6.

The Trinity is omnipresent everywhere spiritually whereas it takes a consecration prayer from an ordained to priest to turn flatbread and wine into Jesus’s body and blood. He isn’t in the bread, after the prayer it still looks like bread but it’s Jesus’s body under the appearance of bread
How do you know for certain your interpretation is right?
Just said that last part because you kept emphasizing that the “Catholic” source said other wise
What is eating and drinking a metaphor for in your opinion?
Before the 1500s transubstantion was believed by Christians and there was no sola scriptura. Why would God let the Christians be wrong for 1500 years?

 

[fasolislithuan]

You’re creating a Red Herring now, and throwing the baby out with the bathwater. Focus on my argument, not whether it’s a parable or an allegory.

Nop. Your argument is that this text is like a parable. But it’s a fact that it’s not. And all your argument is riddle of speculations without facts. For example:

thetazlord:

The disciples who stayed, when He asked them “will you walk away too?” they didn’t, because they understood Him to be speaking metaphorically, & not literally. If they understood Him literally, they would have walked away too.

Especulation. How do you know the apostles would have walked away? That’s not an argument only your conjecture.

 

[CuriousAlways]

Seems to me the folks who leave are not really searching for the Truth in Christ, but rather a social club where they find entertainment that makes them feel warm and fuzzy and perhaps an “easy” religion? Just my guess. Many are church hoppers - so when they get bored with one church, they go looking for another. Their happiness and peace is never truly satiated.

Catholicism is the real thing! Not a social club. Not easy. The Mass is not entertainment. Catholicism requires accountability and effort and true faith. It requires continuous study as there is so much richness in the Catholic Church and Catholicism. There is a unity beyond “social club” mentality - it is the unity in Christ and communion with the saints. It is the Holy Eucharist - the True Presence.

If folks really wanted to search for Christ, they would seek help through RCIA classes and perhaps talk with one of the priests to help answer their questions and doubts? And, I believe we Catholics should arm ourselves with deeper knowledge of our faith so we can talk with folks who may be searching for the Truth.

Just say-in.

 

[fasolislithuan]

First, God isn’t leading people astray.

If Jesus speaks symbolically in this passage, as you hypothesize, and He doesn’t warn to His disciples (that term is the key), who are struggling about his words, and He allows they leave Him, then, Jesus is leading people astray. It would be a perverse behaviour, unnaceptable in God, who is sinless. Remember:

“After this many of his disciples went back; and walked no more with him.”

the people who are leaving are not the pharisees, but many of His disciples, precisely to those who “has ears to hear”

 

[fasolislithuan]

Second, I have explained it to you - Biblically. But you’re ignoring that Biblical explanation. If Jesus was speaking literally in John 6, then Jesus is saying that “coming” to Him & eating Him literally would satisfy literal hunger (John 6:35) & “believing” in Him by drinking His literal blood would literally quench our literal thirst. If this is true, then there would no reason to ever have communion again, because Jesus also states, “Your fathers ate the manna in the wilderness, and they died. This is the bread which comes down out of heaven, so that one may eat of it and not die” (John 6:49-50). So, if Jesus is speaking in literal terms here, He’s saying that if you eat His literal body - right then & there - you’ll literally never die. So, there’d be no literal reason to literally “eat” Him again. That’s why He says “believing in Him” leads to eternal life (John 6:47), not literally eating His literal flesh - which refers back to what Jesus said in John 6:35 “he who believes in Me will never thirst.” So, the WHOLE passage is metaphorical, not literal. You have to look at EVERY verse, not just “certain ones” - otherwise, you become like His disciples who walked away because they (mis)understood Him to be speaking literally, rather than metaphorically.

Sorry, this is only your explanation, not a supposed Biblical explanation. However, I appreciate your attention and your intellectual efforts. In my humble opinion you can keep building around this subject all what you want but at the end of the day it’s pretty clear to me that this verse:

“For my flesh is meat indeed: and my blood is drink indeed.”

demolishes any attempt to reduce John 6 to an allegoric,symbolic or “parabolic” meaning. There is no way to harmonize this words with any symbolic explanation.

 

[Randy_Carson]

Yet, you believe Jesus is literally the bread at communion. Could you explain this inconsistency in your theology?

At the consecration, the bread becomes the body, blood, soul and divinity of Jesus Christ.

Yeah, I read it, but it still doesn’t address my question why you suddenly change your theology that Jesus is speaking “figuratively” & “literally” when He compares Himself to literal things when He says “I AM the vine,” yet not when He says “I AM the bread of life.”

I’m not changing my theology. What does that even mean?

My theology is that sometimes Jesus spoke metaphorically (I am the vine). I might even be willing to say that “I am the bread of life” is both metaphor and literally true in the Eucharist. But when Jesus changes gears in John 6, everyone understood that He was NOT speaking metaphorically, and those folks went home. Jesus didn’t stop them.

And the reason many of His disciples walked away was because after hearing ALL of His speech, which included Him saying “I AM the bread of life” & “unless you eat the flesh and drink the blood of the Son of Man you have no life in you,” They (mis)understood Jesus “thinking” that Jesus was speaking literally, which is “why” they said “how He give us His flesh to eat?” Those who walked away didn’t realize that when Jesus said “I AM the bread of life” that He was speaking figuratively & spiritually, not literally. They walked away, because of their misunderstanding, because they thought (incorrectly) that Jesus was asking them to break Levitical Law that prohibited eating the blood of any flesh (Leviticus 17:10-14).

All Jesus had to do was to correct their misunderstanding, Theta. But he didn’t.

1. They understood that Jesus was asking them to break a Levitical law.
2. They walked away from the savior of the world because of their understanding.
3. Jesus desires that none should be lost.
4. He was not able to correct their understanding because they had not misunderstood.
5. Jesus was asking them to eat His body and drink His blood.
6. He did it again in the Upper Room at the Last Supper.

But Jesus wasn’t speaking literally when He said “I AM the bread of life,” anymore than He was when He made those other “I AM” statements in the Gospel of John. And there’s no indication that when He made these other “I AM” statements that “everybody” understood what He meant because not “everybody” followed Him when He said them, anymore than “everybody” continued to follow Him when He said “I AM the bread of life.” Those who didn’t follow Him (mis)understood Him to be speaking literally, rather than figuratively & spiritually. And “that” is “why” they “no longer walked with Him.”

The Gospel of John was written around AD 95…more than 60 years AFTER the events we are currently discussing. If John felt that the early Christian Church was teaching erroneously about the literal presence of Jesus in the Eucharist, he could have EASILY written John 6 differently to clarify and to correct anything. Instead, John 6 provides powerful support for the synoptic Gospels’ accounts of the Last Supper.

The Early Church Fathers are unanimous in their understanding that the bread and the wine become the body and blood of Christ. Some of them also recognize the metaphorical richness of the symbolism, but that is both/and and not either/or.

This is very hard for you, Theta, because as a fallen-away Catholic, you have made some really big life decisions that require you to argue on the losing side of this debate.

When you stop to consider that Catholics, Orthodox, Anglicans and Lutherans all agree that the Lord’s Supper is not purely symbolic, that Jesus is really and truly present in the Eucharist, and that this has been the orthodox belief of Christians for nearly two millennia, it should become clear to you that you are in very small company, indeed.