Transubstantiation and John 6

[janxharris]

John 6:53-56
Jesus said to them, “Very truly I tell you, 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 them 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 them.

Quoting these verses on their own without reference to Jesus’ previous statements can lead to the Catholic position on the Eucharist, but we must look at the whole chapter.

In verse 35, Jesus says:
I am the bread of Life: he that cometh to me shall never hunger; and he that believeth on me shall never thirst

At verse 40, he says further:
For my Father’s will is that everyone who looks to the Son and believes in him shall have eternal life, and I will raise them up at the last day.”

Verse 47:
Very truly I tell you, the one who believes has eternal life.

(my emphasis added throughout)

Jesus makes it clear that belief is the what is required for eternal life. There is no mention here that anything else is needed. Please look again at verse 35:
“I am the bread of life. Whoever comes to me will never go hungry, and whoever believes in me will never be thirsty.

Obviously, Jesus is using the words ‘hungry’ and ‘thirsty’ symbolically in this verse; we all know that believers in Jesus still get hungry and thirsty for real food and drink. Jesus is saying that, when it comes to our eternal life, belief in Christ will satisfy us (in our spiritual hunger and thirst). So since Jesus is not using these words literally here, we can understand the scriptures that follow it are to be understood in this light. For instance, verse 51:
I am the living bread that came down from heaven. Whoever eats this bread will live forever. This bread is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world.”

Jan

 

[MarcoPolo]

Jesus makes it clear that belief is the what is required for eternal life.

If it was clear, then why was there confusion in the audience of John 6, and why did Jesus let the people who refused to “believe” he could be referring to his flesh walk away? It was the people who refused to take him literally that walked away. I think that belies your interpretation

 

[janxharris]

Is it not possible that they never actually took Jesus literally - that they knew he was speaking figuratively? In verse 41 is says:
At this the Jews there began to grumble about him because he said, “I am the bread that came down from heaven.”

It could be that they were only ever offended by Jesus claiming to be the bread of life - that eternal life only came to those who took this food (by believing in Him). If Jesus understood that this was the case, then there was no need to correct them.

In verse 61 & 62 it says:
*Aware that his disciples were grumbling about this, Jesus said to them, “Does this offend you? Then what if you see the Son of Man ascend to where he was before! *

The ‘this’ in ‘Does this offend you’ could be referring Jesus as ‘the bread of life’ rather than any requirement that his flesh and blood be literally consumed. Would it not make more sense if ‘this’ meant ‘bread of life’ in view of the the next statement he makes i.e. ‘what if you see the Son of Man ascend to where he was before’ thereby proving he did come down as the real manna from heaven because he will retrurn.

Jan

 

[InJesusItrust]

Why did the first Christians believe it then?

 

[po18guy]

Is it possible that a single person’s private interpretation of scripture is more enlightened, more correct, more righteous than that of:

**Simon Peter
Andrew
James
John
Philip
Bartholomew
Thomas
Matthew
James the Less
Thaddeus
Simon the Zealot
Matthias

Saint Paul

The early Church fathers:

Alexander of Alexandria
Alexander of Lycopolis
Ambrose
Aphrahat/Aphraates (c. 280-367)
Archelaus
Aristides the Philosopher
Arnobius
Athanasius
Athenagoras
Augustine of Hippo
Bardesanes (154-222)
Barnabas
Basil the Great
Caius
Clement of Alexandria
Clement of Rome
Commodianus
Cyprian of Carthage
Cyril of Jerusalem
Dionysius of Rome
Dionysius the Great
Ephraim the Syrian
Eusebius of Caesarea (c. 265-c. 340)
Gennadius of Marseilles
Gregory the Great, Pope
Gregory Nazianzen
Gregory of Nyssa
Gregory Thaumaturgus [SAINT]
Hermas
Hilary of Poitiers
Hippolytus
Ignatius of Antioch
Irenaeus of Lyons
Jerome
John of Damascus
John Cassian (c. 360-c. 435)
John Chrysostom
Julius Africanus
Justin Martyr
Lactantius
Leo the Great, Pope (c. 395-461)
Malchion
Mar Jacob (452-521)
Mathetes
Methodius
Minucius Felix
Moses of Chorene (c. 400-c. 490)
Novatian
Origen
Pamphilus
Papias
Peter of Alexandria
Polycarp
Rufinus
Socrates Scholasticus (c. 379-c. 450)
Sozomen (c. 375-c. 447)
Sulpitius Severus (c. 363-c. 420)
Tatian
Tertullian
Theodoret
Theodotus
Theophilus
Venantius
Victorinus
Vincent of Lérins (d. c. 450)

The Doctors of the Church (some included above)

St. Albert
St. Alphonsus Liguori
St. Ambrose
St. Anselm
St. Anthony of Padua
St. Athanasius
St. Augustine
St. Basil
St. Bede, the Venerable
St. Bernard of Clairvaux
St. Bonaventure
St. Catherine of Siena
St. Cyril of Alexandria
St. Cyril of Jerusalem
St. Ephraem of Syria
St. Francis de Sales
St. Gregory Nazianzus
St. Gregory the Great
St. Hilary of Poitiers
St. Isidore
St. Jerome
St. John Chrysostom
St. John Damascene
St. John of the Cross
St. Lawrence of Brindisi
St. Leo the Great
St. Peter Canisius
St. Peter Chrysologus
St. Peter Damian
St. Robert Bellarmine
St. Teresa of Avila
St. Therese of Lisieux
St. Thomas Aquinas

And every Pope,
Cardinal,
Bishop,
Monsignor,
Priest,
Abbot,
Mother Superior,
Monk,
Religious Brother,
Religious Sister,
Nun,
Deacon,
sub-Deacon,
1.2 Billion living Catholic laity…

…not to mention 300 million Eastern Orthodox,
tens of millions of Oriental Orthodox,
Church of the East Christians,
Martin Luther,
John Wesley,
Lutherans,
Anglicans,
Episcopalians,
Methodists…

…and our Lord Jesus Christ?**

It appears to me that Eucharist deniers are seriously outgunned here, as each and everyone of the foregoing believed or believes in the true Presence of Christ in the Holy Eucharist.

Once again, the absolute tragedy of sola scriptura combined with private interpretation of scripture is demonstrated.

 

[harrisrose77]

Why did the first Christians believe it then?

Hi.
It’s true what you say on ‘sham love’. However True Agape Love is the Love of God and, yes it’s a sacrificial Love. A regenerative believer can obtain this Love through Jesus by the Holy Spirit’s leading. All that man/woman has to understand is that True Love is sacrificial. We have to remember that we love, not to ‘receive’, but to ‘give’. Jesus’ Final Sacrifice was through blood shed for us ALL.

Sharron.

 

[harrisrose77]

Is it possible that a single person’s private interpretation of scripture is more enlightened, more correct, more righteous than that of:

**Simon Peter
Andrew
James
John
Philip
Bartholomew
Thomas
Matthew
James the Less
Thaddeus
Simon the Zealot
Matthias

Saint Paul

The early Church fathers:

Alexander of Alexandria
Alexander of Lycopolis
Ambrose
Aphrahat/Aphraates (c. 280-367)
Archelaus
Aristides the Philosopher
Arnobius
Athanasius
Athenagoras
Augustine of Hippo
Bardesanes (154-222)
Barnabas
Basil the Great
Caius
Clement of Alexandria
Clement of Rome
Commodianus
Cyprian of Carthage
Cyril of Jerusalem
Dionysius of Rome
Dionysius the Great
Ephraim the Syrian
Eusebius of Caesarea (c. 265-c. 340)
Gennadius of Marseilles
Gregory the Great, Pope
Gregory Nazianzen
Gregory of Nyssa
Gregory Thaumaturgus [SAINT]
Hermas
Hilary of Poitiers
Hippolytus
Ignatius of Antioch
Irenaeus of Lyons
Jerome
John of Damascus
John Cassian (c. 360-c. 435)
John Chrysostom
Julius Africanus
Justin Martyr
Lactantius
Leo the Great, Pope (c. 395-461)
Malchion
Mar Jacob (452-521)
Mathetes
Methodius
Minucius Felix
Moses of Chorene (c. 400-c. 490)
Novatian
Origen
Pamphilus
Papias
Peter of Alexandria
Polycarp
Rufinus
Socrates Scholasticus (c. 379-c. 450)
Sozomen (c. 375-c. 447)
Sulpitius Severus (c. 363-c. 420)
Tatian
Tertullian
Theodoret
Theodotus
Theophilus
Venantius
Victorinus
Vincent of Lérins (d. c. 450)

The Doctors of the Church (some included above)

St. Albert
St. Alphonsus Liguori
St. Ambrose
St. Anselm
St. Anthony of Padua
St. Athanasius
St. Augustine
St. Basil
St. Bede, the Venerable
St. Bernard of Clairvaux
St. Bonaventure
St. Catherine of Siena
St. Cyril of Alexandria
St. Cyril of Jerusalem
St. Ephraem of Syria
St. Francis de Sales
St. Gregory Nazianzus
St. Gregory the Great
St. Hilary of Poitiers
St. Isidore
St. Jerome
St. John Chrysostom
St. John Damascene
St. John of the Cross
St. Lawrence of Brindisi
St. Leo the Great
St. Peter Canisius
St. Peter Chrysologus
St. Peter Damian
St. Robert Bellarmine
St. Teresa of Avila
St. Therese of Lisieux
St. Thomas Aquinas

And every Pope,
Cardinal,
Bishop,
Monsignor,
Priest,
Abbot,
Mother Superior,
Monk,
Religious Brother,
Religious Sister,
Nun,
Deacon,
sub-Deacon,
1.2 Billion** living Catholic laity…

…not to mention 300 million Eastern Orthodox,
tens of millions of Oriental Orthodox,
Church of the East Christians,
Martin Luther,
John Wesley,
Lutherans,
Anglicans,
Episcopalians,
Methodists…

…and our Lord Jesus Christ?

It appears to me that Eucharist deniers are seriously outgunned here, as each and everyone of the foregoing believed or believes in the true Presence of Christ in the Holy Eucharist.

Once again, the absolute tragedy of sola scriptura combined with private interpretation of scripture is demonstrated.

 

[janxharris]

Hi po18guy,

Could you show me where Simon Peter (taking the first in your list) confirms the Catholic understanding of the Eucharist please?

Thanks

 

[janxharris]

If John 6:53:
Jesus said to them, “Very truly I tell you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you.
is to be taken literally, then only those that partake of the Eucharist are saved and will live forever. This cannot be true. Surely the Catholic Church does not teach this?

Jan

 

[fred_conty]

If John 6:53:
Jesus said to them, “Very truly I tell you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you.
is to be taken literally, then only those that partake of the Eucharist are saved and will live forever. This cannot be true. Surely the Catholic Church does not teach this?

Jan

Jan,
In baptism we are given the life of Jesus Christ that is true. For that is what Jesus said to Nichodemous. “Unless you be born of water and of the Holy Spirit, you cannot enter the kingdom of heaven.” Jesus’ baptism is different that John the Baptist’s baptism. John only baptised with water, but Jesus’s baptism is also of the holy Spirit. A person is given birth by baptism.

But once a person is born, they also need to be fed to maintain their strength and life.

A mother gives birth, but the next step is to feed the infant lest it die. Feeding is absolutely necessary if it is to stay alive.

Jesus said toward the end of his life, “unless you eat my flesh and drink my blood, you cannot have life in you.” Unless we feed this new life thru baptism, we cannot stay alive. And the food that he gives us is “I am the true bread that has come down from heaven.” His real body and blood is our spiritual nourishment of his very divine life within our soul started in baptism.

May you be blessed.

 

[minkymurph]

I remember reading a commentary on these verses and transubstantiation. The discussion was of course much more invloved than what I am saying here, but in brief -

When Jesus offered prayer and broke bread, something miraculous happened - feeding of the 5 000, Road to Emmaus. I don’t think I need mention something miraculous happened at the Last Supper. In addition, miracle at Cana, (wine) Pentcost - all prefigured by the celebration of the Passover, God’s saving power on behalf of his people. in addition to being signs something happened involving the action of the Holy Spirit, something miracualous. The Holy Spirit appeared as a dove at Jesus baptism, hence the link with the action of the Holy Spirit. Similarly, in his conversation with Nicodemus Jesus was not speaking literally in his use of the term ‘born again,’ signified by the fact that Nicodemus questions the literal meaning.

The early Christians, particularly the Johannine community, believed Jesus continues to be with us eternally, and is present in the third person of the Holy Trinity. I don’t want to go into that belief any more than that as I find it impossible to talk about the Holy Trinity without straying into heresy. Suffice to say, the belief that breaking of bread, wine, baptism were accompanied by the action of the Holy Spirit, and Jesus is made present to us by the power of the Spirit developed. This was believed prior to the writing of the Gospel of John, estimated around 90AD. As such, the belief came before the words of Jesus were written down. This is significant in determining how the early Christians understood and interpreted Jesus words.

I would also like to add believe is necessary. Without belief in Jesus, transubstantiation would be pretty meaningless.

 

[504Katrin]

Is it possible that a single person’s private interpretation of scripture is more enlightened, more correct, more righteous than that of:

**Simon Peter
Andrew
James
John
Philip
Bartholomew
Thomas
Matthew
James the Less
Thaddeus
Simon the Zealot
Matthias

Saint Paul

The early Church fathers:

Alexander of Alexandria
Alexander of Lycopolis
Ambrose
Aphrahat/Aphraates (c. 280-367)
Archelaus
Aristides the Philosopher
Arnobius
Athanasius
Athenagoras
Augustine of Hippo
Bardesanes (154-222)
Barnabas
Basil the Great
Caius
Clement of Alexandria
Clement of Rome
Commodianus
Cyprian of Carthage
Cyril of Jerusalem
Dionysius of Rome
Dionysius the Great
Ephraim the Syrian
Eusebius of Caesarea (c. 265-c. 340)
Gennadius of Marseilles
Gregory the Great, Pope
Gregory Nazianzen
Gregory of Nyssa
Gregory Thaumaturgus [SAINT]
Hermas
Hilary of Poitiers
Hippolytus
Ignatius of Antioch
Irenaeus of Lyons
Jerome
John of Damascus
John Cassian (c. 360-c. 435)
John Chrysostom
Julius Africanus
Justin Martyr
Lactantius
Leo the Great, Pope (c. 395-461)
Malchion
Mar Jacob (452-521)
Mathetes
Methodius
Minucius Felix
Moses of Chorene (c. 400-c. 490)
Novatian
Origen
Pamphilus
Papias
Peter of Alexandria
Polycarp
Rufinus
Socrates Scholasticus (c. 379-c. 450)
Sozomen (c. 375-c. 447)
Sulpitius Severus (c. 363-c. 420)
Tatian
Tertullian
Theodoret
Theodotus
Theophilus
Venantius
Victorinus
Vincent of Lérins (d. c. 450)

The Doctors of the Church (some included above)

St. Albert
St. Alphonsus Liguori
St. Ambrose
St. Anselm
St. Anthony of Padua
St. Athanasius
St. Augustine
St. Basil
St. Bede, the Venerable
St. Bernard of Clairvaux
St. Bonaventure
St. Catherine of Siena
St. Cyril of Alexandria
St. Cyril of Jerusalem
St. Ephraem of Syria
St. Francis de Sales
St. Gregory Nazianzus
St. Gregory the Great
St. Hilary of Poitiers
St. Isidore
St. Jerome
St. John Chrysostom
St. John Damascene
St. John of the Cross
St. Lawrence of Brindisi
St. Leo the Great
St. Peter Canisius
St. Peter Chrysologus
St. Peter Damian
St. Robert Bellarmine
St. Teresa of Avila
St. Therese of Lisieux
St. Thomas Aquinas

And every Pope,
Cardinal,
Bishop,
Monsignor,
Priest,
Abbot,
Mother Superior,
Monk,
Religious Brother,
Religious Sister,
Nun,
Deacon,
sub-Deacon,
1.2 Billion** living Catholic laity…

…not to mention 300 million Eastern Orthodox,
tens of millions of Oriental Orthodox,
Church of the East Christians,
Martin Luther,
John Wesley,
Lutherans,
Anglicans,
Episcopalians,
Methodists…

…and our Lord Jesus Christ?

It appears to me that Eucharist deniers are seriously outgunned here, as each and everyone of the foregoing believed or believes in the true Presence of Christ in the Holy Eucharist.

Once again, the absolute tragedy of sola scriptura combined with private interpretation of scripture is demonstrated.

I lol’ed at the emoticon behind St Paul haha

 

[EricFilmer]

Although the thread topic states “transubstantiation,” this discussion is really about whether or not John 6 supports the doctrine of the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist. After all, there are many Christians who interpret John 6 as a teaching concerning the Real Presence, but who do not accept the Catholic idea of transubstantiation.

With this in mind, I think it is important to point out that the following branches of Christianity have historically interpreted John 6 as supporting the doctrine of the Real Presence:

Catholics
All the various Eastern Orthodox Churches
All the various Oriental Orthodox Churches
All the various Anglican denominations (i.e., Church of England, Episcopalians, Anglican Catholics, etc.)
Lutherans
Methodists

…and possibly a few more Protestant denominations that I have forgotten at the moment.

Moreover, I am not aware of any Christian prior to the Reformation who interpreted the Bread of Life passages of John 6 in a manner distinctly different from a Eucharistic one.

In light of all this, the clearest and most readily understood interpretation of the Bread of Life spoken of in John 6 is that it is the Eucharist. Not only is this the literal interpretation, it is also the historical and most prevalent interpretation. If someone presents an alternative interpretation and claims it is clearer and more accurate, then naturally I wonder why no one managed to spot it for the first 1500 years of Christian history.

 

[Dubay]

some points in common as well. For example, we concur that Communion is biblical, since Christ instituted it and commanded His followers to continue the practice in His remembrance (Luke 22:19). We also affirm that Jesus identified Himself with the elements — namely, the bread and wine — used in Communion (Matt. 26:26-28; Mark 14:22-24). And then, of course, with Catholics we recognize Communion as a time of special fellowship with Christ when we commemorate and are strengthened by His sacrifice and by His spiritual presence (1 Cor. 11:26-27). But despite these common grounds there remain serious areas of disagreement as well.

with the doctrine of transubstantiation, which teaches that the substance of the bread and wine is actually transformed into the literal body, blood, soul, and even the divinity of Jesus Christ during the Mass. While the bread and wine take on special significance during Communion, they certainly do not change — either visibly or invisibly —into Christ’s actual body and blood. When Jesus referred to the bread and wine as His body and blood, He wasn’t talking about this in a literal sense at all. We believe that Christ is truly present during Communion, but we certainly cannot go along with the doctrine of transubstantiation.

 

[JRKH]

Hi po18guy,

Could you show me where Simon Peter (taking the first in your list) confirms the Catholic understanding of the Eucharist please?

Thanks

I’m sure PO will give excellent answer himself, but I just wanted to comment on the fact that what his list represents is that all through the Early Church and down through the centuries - East and West inclusive is the firm and unshakable belief in the real presence in the Eucharist.
So those who wish to reinterpret John 6 have an uphill battle considering that the idea of “symbolic” presence was a foreign concept in the universal Church before the reformation and indeed for sometime thereafter since Martin Luther Himself beleived in the Real presence.

Sorry - I think that we will stick to the ancient, Christ revealed, time honored and consistent teaching of the Holy Spirit through the Church on this one…

Peace
James

 

[YoungCatholic86]

some points in common as well. For example, we concur that Communion is biblical, since Christ instituted it and commanded His followers to continue the practice in His remembrance (Luke 22:19). We also affirm that Jesus identified Himself with the elements — namely, the bread and wine — used in Communion (Matt. 26:26-28; Mark 14:22-24). And then, of course, with Catholics we recognize Communion as a time of special fellowship with Christ when we commemorate and are strengthened by His sacrifice and by His spiritual presence (1 Cor. 11:26-27). But despite these common grounds there remain serious areas of disagreement as well.

with the doctrine of transubstantiation, which teaches that the substance of the bread and wine is actually transformed into the literal body, blood, soul, and even the divinity of Jesus Christ during the Mass. While the bread and wine take on special significance during Communion, they certainly do not change — either visibly or invisibly —into Christ’s actual body and blood. When Jesus referred to the bread and wine as His body and blood, He wasn’t talking about this in a literal sense at all. We believe that Christ is truly present during Communion, but we certainly cannot go along with the doctrine of transubstantiation.

Dubay,

Your profile states that you are Catholic but you reject transubstantiation. You are by no means Catholic if you reject the actual Catholic teaching on the Eucharist which is the “source and summit of our faith.” (CCC 1324) That’s like me stating that I am a math teacher but reject 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, and 8 as numbers.

 

[ProdglArchitect]

Dubay,

Your profile states that you are Catholic but you reject transubstantiation. You are by no means Catholic if you reject the actual Catholic teaching on the Eucharist which is the “source and summit of our faith.” (CCC 1324) That’s like me stating that I am a math teacher but reject 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, and 8 as numbers.

He already started a topic about it, and we’ve been trying to fix his misconception, but he refuses to listen or to engage in intelligent discussion.

@504Katrin

You’re post made me happy inside. Thank you for that.

@The OP

If you’re going to post trying to use scripture to denounce a teaching of the Church, use the entire verse, not just snippets. You’ll find that, if you read the entire segment, and not just a few lines from it, the Catholic teaching is -ALWAYS- supported.

 

[Bballer32]

Funny thing. I just gave a talk on this last week.

Christ explains what he is saying THREE times with each time getting more aggressive.

He first says “whoever comes to me shall not hunger…whoever believes in me shall not thirst…I am the bread of life.”

Then the Jews murmured in disbelief.

Jesus then said in response to the murmuring “I am the bread of life…this bread i give you is my flesh.”

The Jews then said “how can this man give us his flesh to eat?”

Christ then said with more aggression, "I am the bread of life whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life within them for my BLOOD IS TRUE DRINK AND MY FLESH IS TRUE FOOD! "

St. Paul also says “Is the bread we eat not the flesh of Christ? is not the blood we drink not the Blood of Christ?”

Its pretty simple. But even the apostles at the end when everyone leaves says “This is a hard teaching. Who can believe in it?”

This is soooooooo true. I think it requires more faith to understand the Eucharist than to merely believe in God.

 

[minkymurph]

Obviously, Jesus is using the words ‘hungry’ and ‘thirsty’ symbolically in this verse; we all know that believers in Jesus still get hungry and thirsty for real food and drink. Jesus is saying that, when it comes to our eternal life, belief in Christ will satisfy us (in our spiritual hunger and thirst). So since Jesus is not using these words literally here, we can understand the scriptures that follow it are to be understood in this light. For instance, verse 51:
I am the living bread that came down from heaven. Whoever eats this bread will live forever. This bread is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world.”

I would also like to add there is a difference between a ‘symbolic’ sense and a ‘spiritual
sense.’

As you say, he is referring to spiritual hunger and thirst, not physical hunger and thirst. However, a symbol is something that is used to represent something else. The object of hunger and thirst in this passage, spirituality, is literal. As such, the ‘hunger’ and thirst’ are interpreted accordingly. Jesus was not suggesting we can live on the Host alone to satisfy physical hunger. He was saying it satisfies the object to the hunger - our spiritual condition not our physical. To illustrate further, ‘Happy are those who hunger and thirst for righteousness.’ The righteousness is literal, and the terms hunger and thirst are used in reference to desire for the object - righteouness, and not physical satisfaction. Jesus uses the terms hunger and thirst in a similar sense in this passage. As such, hunger and thirst are not symbols of something else, but rather something we can actually become, spiritually ‘hungry’ and ‘thirsty’.

A symbol is something that is used to represent something else. For example, 'the Kingdom of God is like; a dragnet, a pearl, a field etc. When Jesus speaks of the bread he says, ‘‘this bread is,’ not ‘this bread is like,’ or this bread represents.’ His ‘flesh’ is literal and is literally to be given on hehalf of the world. At the Last Supper he repeats this, ‘this is my body.’

 

[MarcoPolo]

I would also like to add there is a difference between a ‘symbolic’ sense and a ‘spiritual
sense.’

If I could dovetail on this point, I think it’s worthwhile that accepting spiritual senses throughout John 6, as the OP is arguing exclusively, does not preclude the literal sense of “those who eat my flesh”––a literal consumption spoken by Christ in comparison with the Jews eating manna from heaven (6:31,49,58).