Transubstantiation and John 6

[GraceSofia]

In verse 29 we have:
Jesus answered, “The work of God is this: to believe in the one he has sent.”

Jesus, in his ministry, emphasises again and again that belief in him is the key. 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 it would seem to negate the importance of simple belief without ceremony (and in particular the Eucharist).
Jesus said to them, “Very truly I tell you, unless you partake of the Catholic Eucharist, you have no life in you.

But what does belief entail? Jesus also said, "If you love me, you will obey what I command. (John 14:15)
“Whoever has my commands and obeys them, he is the one who loves me. He who loves me will be loved by my Father, and I too will love him and show myself to him.” (John 14: 21)

So, in summary, you would say that all those that refuse the Eucharist are not saved?

Yes, because that is what Jesus says: “if you do not eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink His blood, you will not have life in you.” (John 6:53) Jesus did NOT say “if you do not get together and share bread with each other, you will not have life in you.”

Father Hardon said it well:

Like Baptism, the Eucharist is necessary for salvation to be received either sacramentally or in desire. Christ’s words, “if you do not eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink His blood, you will not have life in you” (John 6:53), means that Holy Communion is necessary to sustain the life of grace in a person who has reached the age of reason. Those who, through no fault of their own, do not realize this can receive the necessary grace to remain in God’s friendship through other means. This is similar to what happens with the baptism of desire to first receive the state of grace.

At the Last Supper, Christ simply declared that He was giving the disciples His Body and Blood. Nothing in the context of His words indicates He was speaking figuratively, whereas everything shows He meant it to be taken literally (cf. Matthew 26:26-28; Mark 14:22-25; Luke 22:19-20). In the Gospel of John, when Christ foretold He would give His Body to eat and His Blood to drink, many of His disciples left Him because they would not believe this. Yet, instead of taking back what He said or qualifying His statement, He repeated the promise and even asked the Apostles if they also wanted to leave Him (cf. John 6:47-67).

Sacred Tradition from the earliest times teaches the Real Presence. St. Ignatius of Antioch wrote in A.D. 107, “The Eucharist is the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ” (Smyrneans, 6:2). And St. Justin wrote in A.D. 145, “As Jesus Christ our Savior was made incarnate by the word of God and had both flesh and blood for our salvation, so too, as we have been taught, the food which has been made into the Eucharist by the Eucharistic prayer set down by Him …is both the flesh and the blood of that incarnate Jesus” (I Apology, 66).

From The Eucharist

 

[JRKH]

Hi James,
Before I reply please tell me how important is the Eucharist to you? Is it an absolute necessity for salvation? How literally do you take Jesus’ words in 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.

Jan

I normally don’t like have my questions diverted by other questions, but in the interest of charity I will answer your questions…and then I expect that you will answer mine. Deal??

The Eucharist is VERY important to me. It is what drew me home to the Church after 35 years away. Christ in the flesh, the blood, His soul and divinity, under the appearance of bread and wine.
Is it an absolute necessity for salvation? In my understanding - yes it is. But I offer this with the Caveat that I also take Jesus at His word that “all things are possible with God”.

As for any additional discussion on these points I think that you and Po18guy are well into that discussion. So now I will ask you to answer my previous post…
for convenience, I will re-present it here…
Jan -
Why do you require that Jesus reinforce this at the last supper? This WAS clarified between Jesus and the 12 already in John 6…there was no need for Him to repeat Himself at that time…
In John 6…When many disciples left over what he was saying, Jesus turned to the 12 and asked if they were going to leave as well. Peter, speaking for all said, “Where shall we go, you have the words of eternal life”. They did not fully understand (just as we don’t fully understand even today) but they were going to stay with Jesus.
So at the last supper, when Jesus said “This is my Body” and “This is my Blood”, they who were with him at the time of John 6 could hardly have missed the significance of what he was saying…No need to repeat it…

AND - as at least a couple of us have pointed out to you…The idea of the presence being symbolic is foreign to the faith from the time of Paul, who wrote of it in his first letter to the Corinthians, all the way down to the time of Luther (who also believed in the Real presence).
East and West agreed that Christ is truly present in the Holy Eucharist - Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity.
So Two questions here.
One is, why you feel it necessary that Jesus repeat himself at the last supper?
Second, what do you do with the fact that the real presence was universally accepted for more than 1500 years?

I look forward to your answers.

Peace
James

 

[janxharris]

He was speaking to those who believed His every word - as He intended it. Read Luke 12:42-48. We receive according to our knowledge of the truth. For those of us who know much, much will be required of us. Those of us who know little, little will be required of us. Our reward or punishment is according to what has been given us, and what we have done with it. Those who misunderstand and who do not carry out Jesus’ commands will receive less of a beating.

Yet, we are not talking technicalities here, but seeking the truth as best we know how and always relying on the Lord’s mercy. For those of us who trust that Jesus is present in the Eucharist, it is worth dying for. Yet, if you do not, or cannot believe this, but still love the Lord, His mercy is still there for the asking on that Day.

What we are called to do is to give ourselves fully to the Lord, and so receive the fulness of life in return. If we stop short of seeking the full truth, we cannot have the fulness of life within us. Whether you ever believe in the Eucharist or not, it is what the Apostles believed and handed on. For my part, I cannot leave my Lord in the Eucharist, as I know He is there. He has revealed that to me in unmistakable ways.

From the most simple to the most profound faith, it is all God’s grace.

I am impressed by your answer po18guy

 

[GraceSofia]

If ‘Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you.’ are meant literally, then their importance could not and cannot be overstated. For me, Jesus would have said as much at the Last Super - that we ‘must’ take the bread and wine in this way or ‘we would have no life in us’. Jesus does not.

Matthew 26: 26
Mark 14: 22
Luke 22:19

These accounts all stressed the importance of the Body and Blood of Christ; maybe Jesus didn’t NEED to repeat it again on the Thursday night of the Last Supper. He did tell them to do it.

Also, 1 Corinthians 11 doesn’t make sense if Jesus was speaking figuratively.

[26] For as often as you shall eat this bread, and drink the chalice, you shall shew the death of the Lord, until he come. [27] Therefore whosoever shall eat this bread, or drink the chalice of the Lord unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and of the blood of the Lord. [28] But let a man prove himself: and so let him eat of that bread, and drink of the chalice. [29] For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh judgment to himself, not discerning the body of the Lord. [30] Therefore are there many infirm and weak among you, and many sleep.

It seems clear that Jesus was talking about the Real Presence.

 

[Cinette]

So, in summary, you would say that all those that refuse the Eucharist are not saved?

*God is the Judge and he is merciful. Your salvation will depend on how you respond to revelation - you need to keep knocking, seeking, asking… always pursue the truth. *

 

[GraceSofia]

*God is the Judge and he is merciful. Your salvation will depend on how you respond to revelation - you need to keep knocking, seeking, asking… always pursue the truth. *

Ah, good answer. I want to change my answer now.
We can’t say “all” who refuse the Eucharist will not be saved. God has revealed to us the normative way of salvation, but He can save whomever he likes.

(Qualifications are important).

 

[po18guy]

I am impressed by your answer po18guy

From Saint Augustine: “Understanding is the reward given by faith. Do not try to understand in order to believe, but believe in order to understand.”

It is a grace in the manner of Peter confessing that Jesus was the Christ, the Son of the living God.

 

[Cinette]

So, in summary, you would say that all those that refuse the Eucharist are not saved?

I would like to add that to “refuse the Eucharist”- Jesus’ greatest gift to us - which demonstrates his love and caring is so terribly sad. We are privileged to receive this great gift. Do we understand what Jesus means by “for my flesh is real food and my blood is drink” ? No, this is beyond our understanding but since we love and trust God we believe all that he says and teaches.

Do we understand the Trinity? Do we understand the Incarnation? Do we understand the whole of revelation? No. We need Faith to believe and would not need Faith if we understood all that the Bible teaches. Also remember that our faith extends beyond the Bible, it includes the whole of tradition - Jesus instructed the Apostles to spread the good news as He had taught them: this is Oral Tradition from which the Bible emanated and and which does not encompass ALL of revelation.

In times of electronic information available and the wealth of information transmitted to us we need to be like little children and trust God with all our hearts and believe all he has revealed with love. We are not powerful like God - we are little creatures he loves.

 

[Cinette]

If they know and believe in the Eucharist, and reject it, they are rejecting Christ. That is clear. Yet, for those who do not yet believe in His presence, but who love the Lord, of course salvation is possible. Yet, do not be tricked into believing that one is saved while yet on earth. We are saved once we enter heaven. Paul wrote of those Christians who “are being saved.” He admonished us to work out our salvation “with fear and trembling.” He told us to run the race that is set before us. Jesus told us to “persevere to the end” to be saved. It is not a one-time event, but an entire life in Christ.

*I fail to understand the OSAS concept which makes no sense. These people totally ignore what you have pointed out that St Paul said. **We must work out our salvation with fear and trembling and persevere to the end! ***

 

[Cinette]

From Saint Augustine: “Understanding is the reward given by faith. Do not try to understand in order to believe, but believe in order to understand.”

It is a grace in the manner of Peter confessing that Jesus was the Christ, the Son of the living God.

*Oh man! I used to question everything I came across with my “yes buts” and then one day a friend quoted St Augustine and I stopped dead in my tracks… From that day I pause and believe more readily.

It is 3am here!*

:yup::yup:

 

[po18guy]

*I fail to understand the OSAS concept which makes no sense. These people totally ignore what you have pointed out that St Paul said. **We must work out our salvation with fear and trembling and persevere to the end! ***

OSAS/Sola scriptura and all such novel beliefs are ego-driven. And, when the ego senses danger to self, it stops searching for truth and settles for comfort.

 

[BrunoMaria]

He who doubts the Transubstantiation; - that Jesus Himself, in flesh is with us when we eat this host -
doubts God, since Jesus Himseld said that this is so for instance in Joh 6,56.
It means and is distrusting God.
Consequently he (automatically) ceases to be a Christian.
Nobody can say: I WANT TO BE WITH YOU, BUT I DON’T BELIEVE YOU
This means the definite end of all connections.

Yours
Bruno

 

[janxharris]

Hi spockrates,
There does seem to be a degree of ambiguity, yes. I believe that if one is a believer in Christ, one would take the bread and wine and remember Christ in doing so. To have eternal life we must accept that Jesus was who he said he was and that he gave his life - his flesh and blood - for us. It is obvious to me that Jesus defines the ‘eating of the flesh of the Son of Man and drinking of his blood’ in the earlier verses as I have already outlined. In John 4, ‘The woman at the well’, a similar metaphor is used by Jesus (verses 10-14):
Jesus answered her, “If you knew the gift of God and who it is that asks you for a drink, you would have asked him and he would have given you living water.” “Sir,” the woman said, “you have nothing to draw with and the well is deep. Where can you get this living water? Are you greater than our father Jacob, who gave us the well and drank from it himself, as did also his sons and his livestock?” Jesus answered, “Everyone who drinks this water will be thirsty again, but whoever drinks the water I give them will never thirst. Indeed, the water I give them will become in them a spring of water welling up to eternal life.”

John 8:12; 10:9; 15:1:
When Jesus spoke again to the people, he said, “I am the light of the world. Whoever follows me will never walk in darkness, but will have the light of life.”
I am the gate; whoever enters through me will be saved
“I am the true vine, and my Father is the gardener.

The words of Jesus at John 6:63 can be taken to mean that his preceding words were not meant literally:
The Spirit gives life; the flesh counts for nothing. The words I have spoken to you—they are full of the Spirit and life.

Speaking plainly, I find the idea of transubstantiation repugnant. I don’t believe for one moment that Jesus ever taught it.

Jan

 

[janxharris]

James,
If the Eucharist is central to salvation then it need to be plainly stated. For me, Jesus would have spent more time and words on it than we see in scripture; the Last Supper would have been a good opportunity to do so. Jesus would have emphasised the importance of the eating of the bread and wine if it was as central as the Catholic Church makes it. He does not.

I accept you may have a point with regard to the early church fathers. I will come back on that.

Take care,
Jan

 

[minkymurph]

The words of Jesus at John 6:63 can be taken to mean that his preceding words were not meant literally:
The Spirit gives life; the flesh counts for nothing. The words I have spoken to you—they are full of the Spirit and life.

Is Jesus saying here it is not he who gives life but the Spirit? If the flesh is nothing, does this mean the sacrifice of his flesh is nothing?

Speaking plainly, I find the idea of transubstantiation repugnant. I don’t believe for one moment that Jesus ever taught it.

So did the crowd. Of course you don’t believe Jesus ever taught it, your not Catholic, so why would you believe it? If you did, you would probably consider becoming Catholic. However, that does not mean Jesus did not teach it, and there is evidence the early Christians understood the statement in question to be literal irrespective of any interpretation one puts on the written text or speculations we may have concerning what Jesus meant.

As such, when did people stop believing he meant it literally? If Jesus did not mean it literally, when did people start believing this and why?

 

[po18guy]

James,
If the Eucharist is central to salvation then it need to be plainly stated. For me, Jesus would have spent more time and words on it than we see in scripture; the Last Supper would have been a good opportunity to do so. Jesus would have emphasised the importance of the eating of the bread and wine if it was as central as the Catholic Church makes it. He does not.

I accept you may have a point with regard to the early church fathers. I will come back on that.

Take care,
Jan

Here is a huge part of the problem: Bible alone. Jesus did not base the faith on scripture, but on His own live, authoritative teaching that He gave to the Apostles. They passed on that oral teaching, which was complete to a degree that cannot be achieved in the bible.

We can read and study the bible our entire life and be absolutely wrong about much of it. That is why there is a living authority to teach and interpret. It is not a job for amateurs, or for individuals. Apostolic teaching (read the prologue to Luke, verses 1-4) was the gold standard on which the Church was founded and grew.

The vast majority of God’s revealed truth is not in the bible. It cannot be, since truth is alive and the bible is not - no words will ever be added to it. The bible can answer many of your questions, but the Church can answer all of therm.

 

[harrisrose77]

Is Jesus saying here it is not he who gives life but the Spirit? If the flesh is nothing, does this mean the sacrifice of his flesh is nothing?

So did the crowd. Of course you don’t believe Jesus ever taught it, your not Catholic, so why would you believe it? If you did, you would probably consider becoming Catholic. However, that does not mean Jesus did not teach it, and there is evidence the early Christians understood the statement in question to be literal irrespective of any interpretation one puts on the written text or speculations we may have concerning what Jesus meant.

As such, when did people stop believing he meant it literally? If Jesus did not mean it literally, when did people start believing this and why?

‘’ That which is born of flesh is flesh; and that which is born of The Spirit is Spirit.’’
John 3:3-6.

 

[janxharris]

Acts 17:11:
Now the Berean Jews were of more noble character than those in Thessalonica, for they received the message with great eagerness and examined the Scriptures every day to see if what Paul said was true.

I am only doing as much myself as we all do. I realise I could be very wrong.

 

[harrisrose77]

Here is a huge part of the problem: Bible alone. Jesus did not base the faith on scripture, but on His own live, authoritative teaching that He gave to the Apostles. They passed on that oral teaching, which was complete to a degree that cannot be achieved in the bible.

We can read and study the bible our entire life and be absolutely wrong about much of it. That is why there is a living authority to teach and interpret. It is not a job for amateurs, or for individuals. Apostolic teaching (read the prologue to Luke, verses 1-4) was the gold standard on which the Church was founded and grew.

The vast majority of God’s revealed truth is not in the bible. It cannot be, since truth is alive and the bible is not - no words will ever be added to it. The bible can answer many of your questions, but the Church can answer all of therm.

Now how tempting is that for those who want to know ALL. Seduction for the want of Worldly wisdom, and the Academic know-alls.

 

[po18guy]

Speaking plainly, I find the idea of transubstantiation repugnant. I don’t believe for one moment that Jesus ever taught it.

Jan

Repugnant? Those in John 6:66 also thought Jesus’ words to be repugnant. “Who can accept this saying?” Even though they believed in him and followed him - they were disciples, remember - they abandoned Him and He let them go. Why? They did not have the faith to believe that they could eat His Body and drink His blood. But, someone did have that faith:

“Lord, to whom can we go? You have the words of everlasting life”

Peter received the divine revelation about Who Christ was.