The Eucharist - Consubstantiation? Symbolic? I don't think so

  • Thread starter Thread starter NotWorthy
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Code:
It is self-explanatory after reading this.  The words are “spirit”!  Christ, in his wisdom, even throws in that “some of you that believe not”.  He does not say, “Some of you do not understand” as Catholic apologists like to say was the case.   Christ knew “from the beginning” who did not believe!
They left because they “believe not”. There is nothing that indicates they left because they did not comprehend the message.
Could you please explain a little further. I think you are going in the wrong direction, but I’d like to be sure. What is self-explanatory about John 6:63?

And where do Catholics ever teach that the Spirit is not what gives life? That is central to all Catholic Sacramental teaching.
 
Could you please explain a little further. I think you are going in the wrong direction, but I’d like to be sure. What is self-explanatory about John 6:63?

And where do Catholics ever teach that the Spirit is not what gives life? That is central to all Catholic Sacramental teaching.
That people left because they did not understand.
 
Unfortunately, this is where you quit reading the text because Christ gives the most specific and concise summary of what he just said next:

Jhn 6:63 It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, [they] are spirit, and [they] are life…
Code:
It is self-explanatory after reading this. ..
.
Hi Rightlydivide, and all.
Code:
         Since we're at John  6:63, let me offer a couple of quotations, in case we could see anything helpful there.
"It is the Spirit that quickens; the flesh profits nothing. Let us say to Him …, O Lord, good Master, in what way does the flesh profit nothing, while You have said, Except a man eat my flesh, and drink my blood, he shall not have life in him? Or does life profit nothing? And why are we what we are, but that we may have eternal life, which Thou dost promise by Your flesh? Then what means the flesh profits nothing? It profits nothing, but only in the manner in which they understood it. They indeed understood the flesh, just as when cut to pieces in a carcass, or sold in the shambles; not as when it is quickened by the Spirit. Wherefore it is said that the flesh profits nothing, in the same manner as it is said that knowledge puffs up. Then, ought we at once to hate knowledge? Far from it! " (St. Augustine Tractate 27 on John)

“What then, is not His flesh, flesh? Most certainly. How then says He, that the flesh profits nothing? He speaks not of His own flesh, (God forbid!) but of those who received His words in a carnal manner. But what is understanding carnally? It is looking merely to what is before our eyes, without imagining anything beyond. This is understanding carnally. But we must not judge thus by sight, but must look into all mysteries with the eyes within. This is seeing spiritually. He that eats not His flesh, and drinks not His blood, has no life in him. How then does the flesh profit nothing, if without it we cannot live? Do you see that the words, the flesh profits nothing, are spoken not of His own flesh, but of carnal hearing?” (St. John Chrysostom, Homily 47 in the Gospel of John)
 
Teflon93;4455977:
If I answer, will you answer mine? Deal?
I’ll answer any question you have beyond your vulgar bowel movement question (which you can use the Search feature to answer anyway, it being the obsession of many an anti-Catholic and so appearing many times on the Forums and Ask An Apologist).
 
40.png
teachccd:
Yup, the Catholic Church that acknowledged and maintained the Scriptures for you throughout the centuries. You are so silly…
However, the question didn’t pertain to that, but to what I would think were I to see T93 throw a bible in the trash—my first thought would be, “he must be a Catholic.”
40.png
teachccd:
When the Jews found Jesus’ words hard to accept in John 6:66 and decided to leave, why would Jesus’ disciples find it so hard to accept a symbolic meal?
Assumes, without merit, that Jesus was teaching about, and, that the disciples would connect what Jesus was teaching at that time, with the yet future, final Passover Supper.
40.png
teachccd:
Did they not react because they thought that Jesus truly meant that they must eat His flesh and drink His blood?
I think so.
40.png
teachccd:
And if this were so, why would Jesus not only let them leave on a misunderstanding but then turn to the remaining twelve and ask them if they’d like to leave as well?

Just curious…
Why wouldn’t He let them leave? The Gospel was, afterall, being withheld from heart-hardened Jews (cf Is 6:8-13 < Jn 12:38-43; Mt 13:10ff), but as to eleven of the twelve, they were a definite part of the future dissemination of the Gospel.
 
However, the question didn’t pertain to that, but to what I would think were I to see T93 throw a bible in the trash—my first thought would be, “he must be a Catholic.”
This response says more about your anti-Catholic prejudices than it does about the reverence most Catholics have for the word of God.

On the other hand, if we were to see YOU throw a rosary into the trash…
 
This response says more about your anti-Catholic prejudices than it does about the reverence most Catholics have for the word of God.
I agree Randy. And it is quite an odd thing for Sandusky to think. Why would Catholics of all people throw Holy Scripture in the trash? Catholics revere and love God’s Word. For crying out loud we carry it triumphantly in procession! We enthrone it on our altars!

Once again, I find it very odd that someone would equate disrespect of Holy Scripture with Catholicism. It seems like to do so evidences some sort of detachment from reality or woeful misinformation?

VC
 
It is self-explanatory after reading this. The words are “spirit”! Christ, in his wisdom, even throws in that “some of you that believe not”. He does not say, “Some of you do not understand” as Catholic apologists like to say was the case. Christ knew “from the beginning” who did not believe!

They left because they “believe not”. There is nothing that indicates they left because they did not comprehend the message.
Ah…this must be the famous “perspicuity” of scripture that makes sola scriptura possible. John 6:63 is “self-explanatory” and there is no misunderstanding or disagreement about this passage. Why, ALL Protestants are in full agreement that Jesus was speaking symbolically…oh, wait…some Protestants believe that Jesus is literally present in the Eucharist. So much for that theory. :rolleyes:

But it is true that many have left Christ because they “believe not”…all of Protestantism falls into that category.

Now, about John 6:63:

Grasping at Straws: John 6:63

“The Spirit gives life; the flesh counts for nothing. The words I have spoken are spirit and they are life.”(John 6:63)

These words were spoken by Jesus shortly after delivering his teaching on the Eucharist, and some people claim that they indicate that Jesus was speaking figuratively when he commanded us to eat his body and drink his blood. However, this would be a misunderstanding of what Jesus meant when he said,“the flesh counts for nothing.”

First, notice that whenever Jesus referred to his own body and blood, he said"my flesh"or"the flesh of the Son of Man". Here are the examples:

“This bread is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world.” (John 6:51)

"Jesus said to them, “I tell you the truth, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you. Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day. For my flesh is real food and my blood is real drink. Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me, and I in him.” (John 6:53-56)

At this point, the narrative explains that the disciples were on the verge of revolt over this teaching. Jesus tells them that they cannot understand this teaching with their natural minds. Here is the verse in context: “On hearing it, many of his disciples said, ‘This is a hard teaching. Who can accept it?’ Aware that his disciples were grumbling about this, Jesus said to them, ‘Does this offend you? What if you see the Son of Man ascend to where he was before! The Spirit gives life; the flesh counts for nothing. The words I have spoken to you are spirit and they are life.’” (John 6:60-63)

In John 6:63, Jesus uses the phrase “the flesh” instead of “my flesh” or “the flesh of the Son of Man” because he is not talking about his own body; he is referring to man’s natural, unenlightened rational intellect.

Jesus tells the grumbling Jews (who can’t understand how he would give them his flesh to eat) that they cannot grasp it with their natural minds because it is a mystery beyond the ability of “the flesh” to understand. This is the same manner of speaking used by Paul in 1 Corinthians 2 & 3 when he is distinguishing between fleshly or carnal Christians and those who are discern the things of God with their spirits.

Second, it might be worth noting the obvious fact that Jesus cannot be saying that HIS own flesh “counts for nothing”; otherwise, his death upon the cross would be meaningless. Instead, we know that his own body, his flesh, was broken and pierced for our sake; no Christian would deny that. Therefore, since HIS flesh does count for something, he must have been referring to “flesh” other than his own in v. 63.

Thus, the one verse that many Protestants cling to as an argument against the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist does not mean what they falsely claim it means. Ironically, their “proof text” points out precisely why they cannot understand the Eucharist: they are using their flesh instead of their spirits to discern the things of God. Unfortunately, their flesh “counts for nothing”.
 
This response says more about your anti-Catholic prejudices than it does about the reverence most Catholics have for the word of God.

On the other hand, if we were to see YOU throw a rosary into the trash…
Sandusky is best kept on Ignore.

But keep that post handy for the next time he waxes indignant over being called anti-Catholic.
 
THANK YOU ALL!

Hope I have enough paper to print this thread out 😉

…because it is exactly what I need to fill in the gaps in the obvious link between the ills of society and the low attendance at the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass. Seems to me, that Catholics need a better understanding of Transubstantiation before they can address today’s problems with courage.

Questions: How many times have you heard the word Transubstantiaion explained in the last eight months?

Think back to the Feast of Corpus Christi. Was the Real Presence preached in depth?

Observing the way Holy Communion is received by some people, do you think they consider it a metaphor of the Last Supper?

Did you know that St. Thomas Aquinas (scholastic thought, especially its metaphysics) is now obsolete due to modern physics? This announcement was on the internet. So who is going to correct it?

Action needed: Perhaps the suggestion that should be made to our dear priests is that clear, precise preaching is needed on Transubstantiation and why the Real Presence is not consubstantiation, symbolic, a metaphor or most importantly not obsolete.

Special note: If your dear priest has preached on Transubstantiaion recently, thank him profusely. Then ask that it be repeated. Maybe a point needs to be expanded. Maybe your son or daughter is visiting and would like to hear this topic. Maybe you were sleeping during the homily.😉

Again thank you.

P.S. My “senior moments” abound on this website. Do hope the winks are in the right place!
 
(in reference to John 6:63)
It is self-explanatory after reading this. The words are “spirit”! Christ, in his wisdom, even throws in that “some of you that believe not”.
The words that Jesus spoke are “spirit” yes, you are correct in this, they are words from God himself and take a supernatural belief to accept them…
But what are the words that Jesus is speaking of in John 6:63?
Well, I would go back just a few verses to John 6:53-58 which immediately precede this statement.

John 6:53-58
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. Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him on the last day. For my flesh is true food, and my blood is true drink. Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me and I in him. Just as the living Father sent me and I have life because of the Father, so also the one who feeds on me will have life because of me. This is the bread that came down from heaven. Unlike your ancestors who ate and still died, whoever eats this bread will live forever.”

To pass by John 6:53-58 which is immediately before that comment by Jesus and go to verse 38 which is a verse a half of a chapter away, and point to that verse as the one that Jesus was referring to is manipulating the truth to suit your needs.

You should rightly divide scripture to get the correct interpretation, or else you will be led astray with false teachings, like the one you somehow have come up with here.
 
Ah…this must be the famous “perspicuity” of scripture that makes sola scriptura possible. John 6:63 is “self-explanatory” and there is no misunderstanding or disagreement about this passage. Why, ALL Protestants are in full agreement that Jesus was speaking symbolically…oh, wait…some Protestants believe that Jesus is literally present in the Eucharist. So much for that theory. :rolleyes:

But it is true that many have left Christ because they “believe not”…all of Protestantism falls into that category.

Now, about John 6:63:

Grasping at Straws: John 6:63

“The Spirit gives life; the flesh counts for nothing. The words I have spoken are spirit and they are life.”(John 6:63)

These words were spoken by Jesus shortly after delivering his teaching on the Eucharist, and some people claim that they indicate that Jesus was speaking figuratively when he commanded us to eat his body and drink his blood. However, this would be a misunderstanding of what Jesus meant when he said,“the flesh counts for nothing.”

First, notice that whenever Jesus referred to his own body and blood, he said"my flesh"or"the flesh of the Son of Man". Here are the examples:

“This bread is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world.” (John 6:51)

"Jesus said to them, “I tell you the truth, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you. Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day. For my flesh is real food and my blood is real drink. Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me, and I in him.” (John 6:53-56)

At this point, the narrative explains that the disciples were on the verge of revolt over this teaching. Jesus tells them that they cannot understand this teaching with their natural minds. Here is the verse in context: “On hearing it, many of his disciples said, ‘This is a hard teaching. Who can accept it?’ Aware that his disciples were grumbling about this, Jesus said to them, ‘Does this offend you? What if you see the Son of Man ascend to where he was before! The Spirit gives life; the flesh counts for nothing. The words I have spoken to you are spirit and they are life.’” (John 6:60-63)

In John 6:63, Jesus uses the phrase “the flesh” instead of “my flesh” or “the flesh of the Son of Man” because he is not talking about his own body; he is referring to man’s natural, unenlightened rational intellect.

Jesus tells the grumbling Jews (who can’t understand how he would give them his flesh to eat) that they cannot grasp it with their natural minds because it is a mystery beyond the ability of “the flesh” to understand. This is the same manner of speaking used by Paul in 1 Corinthians 2 & 3 when he is distinguishing between fleshly or carnal Christians and those who are discern the things of God with their spirits.

Second, it might be worth noting the obvious fact that Jesus cannot be saying that HIS own flesh “counts for nothing”; otherwise, his death upon the cross would be meaningless. Instead, we know that his own body, his flesh, was broken and pierced for our sake; no Christian would deny that. Therefore, since HIS flesh does count for something, he must have been referring to “flesh” other than his own in v. 63.

Thus, the one verse that many Protestants cling to as an argument against the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist does not mean what they falsely claim it means. Ironically, their “proof text” points out precisely why they cannot understand the Eucharist: they are using their flesh instead of their spirits to discern the things of God. Unfortunately, their flesh “counts for nothing”.
The problem IS they are interpreting it literally. That is how some of them understood it. You cannot have it both ways. You cannot say that they understood it to be literal in one sense and then say they do not when Jesus rebukes their understanding.
Jhn 6:63 It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, [they] are spirit, and [they] are life.
 
The words that Jesus spoke are “spirit” yes, you are correct in this, they are words from God himself and take a supernatural belief to accept them…
But what are the words that Jesus is speaking of in John 6:63?
Well, I would go back just a few verses to John 6:53-58 which immediately precede this statement.

John 6:53-58
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. Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him on the last day. For my flesh is true food, and my blood is true drink. Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me and I in him. Just as the living Father sent me and I have life because of the Father, so also the one who feeds on me will have life because of me. This is the bread that came down from heaven. Unlike your ancestors who ate and still died, whoever eats this bread will live forever.”

To pass by John 6:53-58 which is immediately before that comment by Jesus and go to verse 38 which is a verse a half of a chapter away, and point to that verse as the one that Jesus was referring to is manipulating the truth to suit your needs.

You should rightly divide scripture to get the correct interpretation, or else you will be led astray with false teachings, like the one you somehow have come up with here.
Another one trying to have it both ways. Jesus was rebuking their failure to accept what he taught. For interpreting it INCORRECTLY. They were taking him literally. It foreshadows, like many things in the Bible, the incorrect understanding of Catholicism.
 
Rightlydivide;4456883:
I’ll answer any question you have beyond your vulgar bowel movement question (which you can use the Search feature to answer anyway, it being the obsession of many an anti-Catholic and so appearing many times on the Forums and Ask An Apologist).
You know very well that I am not talking about the Catholic view of what happens to the Eucharist. You know that because I have said that over 5 times on this thread. You know very well that the symbolic interpretation is not going to be on “Ask an Apologist”.
My question has absolutely nothing to do with YOUR view of what happens to the host in YOUR theology or in YOUR Mass. You know that I am referring to what is happening to a piece of bread in a SYMBOLIC view. A Protestant service. Not a Catholic service. You refuse to answer that question because you do not like the answer.
I am not talking about the host in the Eucharist. Once again, let me explain. We hold a symbolic view of the bread we use. You also believe what we have is just a piece of bread. You do not believe that we can turn the bread into anything…but bread. So it is bread. Based upon that fact, the bread IN A SYMBOLIC view, has two fates. Sewer or trash can. That is a fact. You refuse to say why the sewer is a better place for a symbolic piece of bread.
Your avoidance and games are noted.
 
So Jesus was saying that his flesh profiteth nothing?

St Paul didn’t think so:

1 Corinthians 11:

23": For I have received of the Lord that which also I delivered unto you, That the Lord Jesus the same night in which he was betrayed took bread:

“24”: And when he had given thanks, he brake it, and said, Take, eat: this is my body, which is broken for you: this do in remembrance of me.

“25”: After the same manner also he took the cup, when he had supped, saying, This cup is the new testament in my blood: this do ye, as oft as ye drink it, in remembrance of me.

“26”: For as often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do shew the Lord’s death till he come.

“27”: Wherefore whosoever shall eat this bread, and drink this cup of the Lord, unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord.

“28”: But let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of that bread, and drink of that cup.

“29”: For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh damnation to himself, not discerning the Lord’s body.

“30”: For this cause many are weak and sickly among you, and many sleep.

But surely there could be no trouble approaching mere bread and wine unworthily, much less grape juice, right?
 
Another one trying to have it both ways. Jesus was rebuking their failure to accept what he taught. For interpreting it INCORRECTLY. They were taking him literally. It foreshadows, like many things in the Bible, the incorrect understanding of Catholicism.
No, they interpreted it correctly, but what they couldn’t accept was this teaching because it went against their understanding of the deuteronomic law in regards to drinking blood. That is why they all left, and that is why when Jesus asked Peter if he also wants to leave, Peter replies: “Master, to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life. We have come to believe and are convinced that you are the Holy One of God.”

Peter also would have had a hard time with this teaching, but he trusted and believed in Jesus, and decided to stay.
 
Teflon93;4457945:
You know very well that I am not talking about the Catholic view of what happens to the Eucharist. You know that because I have said that over 5 times on this thread. You know very well that the symbolic interpretation is not going to be on “Ask an Apologist”.
My question has absolutely nothing to do with YOUR view of what happens to the host in YOUR theology or in YOUR Mass. You know that I am referring to what is happening to a piece of bread in a SYMBOLIC view. A Protestant service. Not a Catholic service. You refuse to answer that question because you do not like the answer.
I am not talking about the host in the Eucharist. Once again, let me explain. We hold a symbolic view of the bread we use. You also believe what we have is just a piece of bread. You do not believe that we can turn the bread into anything…but bread. So it is bread. Based upon that fact, the bread IN A SYMBOLIC view, has two fates. Sewer or trash can. That is a fact. You refuse to say why the sewer is a better place for a symbolic piece of bread.
Your avoidance and games are noted.
Oh, please. You mentioned the sewer in several places in context of the Eucharist, which is something we get around here all the time.

You still haven’t answered the question regarding what you would think if I threw a Bible in the trash.

So who’s avoidance and games will you note down in that case?
 
The problem IS they are interpreting it literally. That is how some of them understood it. You cannot have it both ways. You cannot say that they understood it to be literal in one sense and then say they do not when Jesus rebukes their understanding.
You are incorrect.

The Jews correctly understood that Jesus was telling them that they must literally eat His flesh and drink His blood. This is evident from their question, “How can this man give us his flesh to eat?” which echoes their earlier question, “How can he now say ‘I came down from heaven.’” (cf. John 6:42)

Unfortunately, they weren’t asking an honest question in good faith: “Wow, Jesus, that’s amazing…could you please explain for us how you will give your flesh as real food to everyone assembled here?”

Instead, they were asking a rhetorical question which really meant, “What this man is saying is impossible.” But Jesus did not back off or correct their understanding for there was nothing for Him to correct…they understood Him perfectly. It was only after they REJECTED His teaching (“This is a hard teaching. Who can accept it?” Jn 6:60).

And that, my friend, is where their human reasoning, their “flesh”, failed them.

You have the same problem. 👍
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top