Unless you eat my FLESH and drink my BLOOD you have no life in you.

[Mannyfit75]

You don’t have real presence either; you have transubstantiation; that’s two different things.

We do. Transubstantiation when properly understood, the bread and wine during the consecration is no longer bread and wine, but the Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of Jesus Christ. Though the accident remains (appearance) the same, Jesus Christ remains hidden in these form.

sandusky, it’s pretty clear you do not understand it.

John 6:56 clearly states this as well.

52 The Jews then disputed among themselves, saying, “How can this man give us his flesh to eat?” 53 So Jesus said to them, "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood, you have no life in you; 54 he who eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day. 55 For my flesh is food indeed, and my blood is drink indeed. 56* He who eats my flesh and drinks my blood abides in me, and I in him. 57 As the living Father sent me, and I live because of the Father, so he who eats me will live because of me. 58* This is the bread which came down from heaven, not such as the fathers ate and died; he who eats this bread will live for ever." 59* This he said in the synagogue, as he taught at Capernaum.
35* Jesus said to them, "I am the bread of life; he who comes to me shall not hunger, and he who believes in me shall never thirst. John 6:35

Furthermore in 1 Corinth 11:23-32 Paul wrote,

23 * For I received from the Lord what I also delivered to you, that the Lord Jesus on the night when he was betrayed took bread, 24 and when he had given thanks, he broke it, and said, "This is my body which is for * you. Do this in remembrance of me." 25* In the same way also the cup, after supper, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in my blood. Do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of me.” 26* For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death until he comes.

27 Whoever, therefore, eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of profaning the body and blood of the Lord. 28 Let a man examine himself, and so eat of the bread and drink of the cup. 29 For any one who eats and drinks without discerning the body eats and drinks judgment upon himself. 30 That is why many of you are weak and ill, and some have died. * 31 But if we judged ourselves truly, we should not be judged. 32* But when we are judged by the Lord, we are chastened * so that we may not be condemned along with the world.
*
Even the Apostolic Father St. Ignatius (Disciple of St. John the Apostle) wrote in his Letters to the Smyrneans in 110 AD.

2 Pay close attention to those who have wrong notions about the grace of Jesus Christ, which has come to us, and note how at variance they are with God’s mind. They care nothing about love: they have no concern for widows or orphans, for the oppressed, for those in prison or released, for the hungry or the 7 thirsty. They hold aloof from the Eucharist and from services of prayer, because they refuse to admit that the* Eucharist is the flesh of our Saviour Jesus Christ**, 20 which suffered for our sins and which, in his goodness, the Father raised [from the dead]. Consequently those who wrangle and dispute God’s gift face death. They would have done better to love and so share 2 in the resurrection. The right thing to do, then, is to avoid such people and to talk about them neither in private nor in public. Rather pay attention to the prophets and above all to the gospel. There we get a clear picture of the Passion and see that the resurrection has really happened.

8 Flee from schism as the source of mischief. You should all follow the bishop as Jesus Christ did the Father. Follow, too, the presbytery as you would the apostles; and respect the deacons as you would God’s law. Nobody must do anything that has to do with the Church without the bishop’s approval. You should regard that Eucharist as valid which is celebrated either by the bishop or by someone he authorizes. Where the 2 bishop is present, there let the congregation gather, just as where Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church. Without the bishop’s supervision, no baptisms or love feasts are permitted. On the other hand, whatever he approves pleases God as well. In that way everything you do will be on the safe side and valid. 9 It is well for us to come to our senses at last, while we still have a chance to repent and turn to God. It is a fine thing to acknowledge God and the bishop. He who pays the bishop honor has been honored by God. But he who acts without the bishop’s knowledge is in the devil’s service.*

 

[guanophore]

I am going to repost something I posted in another thread in this one:

John 6:51-58 is to be interpreted literally and is one of the strongest passages that testify to the Real Presence in the Eucharist. In the Gospel of John, there is a certain pattern that helps to shed light on John 6. Whenever Jesus makes an ambiguous statement, it is usually followed by a misunderstanding/question, and this, in turn, is followed by a clarification either by Jesus or the Evangelist. So, this is the basic outline of this pattern:

1. **Ambiguous Statement by Jesus **
2. Misunderstanding/ Question
3. Clarification

Now here are some examples from the Gospel of John:

John 2:19-21

Jesus answered them, “Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up.” The Jews then said "It took forty-six years to build this temple, and you will raise it up in three days? But He was speaking of the temple of His body."

John 3:3-5

**Jesus answered and said to him, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born again he cannot see the kingdom of God.” Nicodemus said to him, "How can a man be born when he is old? He cannot enter a second time into his mother’s womb and be born, can he?**Jesus answered, “Truly Truly I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit he cannot enter the kingdom of God.”

John 4:32-34

**“But He said to them, “I have food to eat that you do not know about.” So the disciples were saying to one another, 'no one brought Him anything to eat, did he? ** Jesus said to them, " My Food is to do the will of Him who sent me and to accomplish His work.”

John 8:31-34

So Jesus was saying to those Jews who believed in Him, “If you continue in My word, then you are truly disciples of Mine; and you will know the truth, and the truth will make you free.” They answered Him, "We are Abraham’s descendants and have never been enslaved to anyone; how is it that You say, “You will become free.” Jesus answered them, "Truly, Truly I say to you, everyone who commits sin is the slave of sin.

Now let’s look at John 6:51-53 and see if it fits the Ambiguous Statement/Question/Clarification pattern:

"I am the living bread that came down out of heaven; if anyone eats this bread, he will live forever; and the bread also which I will give for the life of the world is My flesh." Then the Jews began to argue with one another, saying, "How can this man give us His flesh to eat? So Jesus said to them, Truly, Truly, I say to you unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink His blood you have no life in yourselves.

So, following the established pattern, verse 53 is a clarification of verses 51-52. If he were merely speaking figuratively, then we would have expected the literal meaning of the “figurative” langauge he used, as it happens in the verses I gave above and in many other places in the Bible. Instead, what we see in verse 53 is a reaffirmation of what the Jews understood Jesus to mean. So the clarification is that Jesus was speaking literally, not figuratively. If he were speaking figuratively, He would have indicated that in verse 53.

God Bless,
Michael

The OP does take this literally, Michael. She believes that she is experiencing the real presence during Anglican Eucharist, and that the Anglican priests are in the Apostolic succession. The practice of the early fathers to be in union with the bishop of Rome is of no value to Anglicans.

 

[PaulDupre]

]John 6:63

63 It is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh profits nothing. The words that I speak to you are spirit, and they are life

Hi Michael,
The New Living Translation (Catholic Reference Edition) renders this verse as

It is the Spirit who gives eternal life. Human effort accomplishes nothing. And the very words I have spoken to you are spirit and life.

I like that.

God bless,
Paul

 

[dbacks5439]

Let me ask you something. Right here. Did Jesus take a chunk of Himself and feed it to the disciples? Did He prick Himself and and pour the blood into the cup and pass it around?

No, right?

Jesus spoke in parables so that those around Him would understand what He was talking about. He even says, plain as day:

One minute He is calling it His blood and the very next breath He is calling it wine. Why would He tell them it was blood and then say it’s wine? Because calling it blood was saying what the wine represented. The blood that He was about to spill - His own blood. He wants us to partake in that sacrifice so we eat the bread and drink the wine to remember the sacrifice He made in a VERY real way.

When He says “Unless you eat my FLESH and drink my BLOOD you have no life in you.” He is saying that you have to remember and partake of the sacrifice. Even symbolism can be heavy. Just look at the parables!

Didn’t Jesus called Himself the vine in another parable? If so, then the fruit of the vine is still the Blood of Christ, for the Vine is Christ. What is His fruit? The Eucharist.

 

[Montalban]

BUMP
"Singinbeauty:

Let me ask you something. Right here. Did Jesus take a chunk of Himself and feed it to the disciples? Did He prick Himself and and pour the blood into the cup and pass it around?

No, right?

Jesus spoke in parables so that those around Him would understand what He was talking about

Not everything Jesus said was a parable. That’s why, when he said his flesh is real food the people hearing ask him for clarification. And what does he say? He confirms its really this!

John 6:55
For my flesh is real food and my blood is real drink

How much plainer do you want it put?

Paul says that if you come together for the ‘bread’ don’t think of it as food,

1 Corinthians 11:22
Don’t you have homes to eat and drink in? Or do you despise the church of God and humiliate those who have nothing? What shall I say to you? Shall I praise you for this? Certainly not!

He even ties this back to the Last Supper.

So if you’re gathering just for ‘bread’ stay at home and have a meal.

Sorry, I has to bump this as some seem to have ignored it.
Jesus is asked for clarification and he repeats that he’s speaking literally! His flesh is REAL food.

 

[mikeledes]

The OP does take this literally, Michael. She believes that she is experiencing the real presence during Anglican Eucharist, and that the Anglican priests are in the Apostolic succession. The practice of the early fathers to be in union with the bishop of Rome is of no value to Anglicans.

I was really responding to those who are opposed to a literal translation of John 6, such as Sandunksy.

God Bless,
Michael

 

[sandusky]

mikeledes:

I was really responding to those who are opposed to a literal translation of John 6, such as Sandunksy.

The literal translation of the flesh statements in John 6 is that they are figurative statements—eating Christ’s flesh means believing in Him—of a spiritual reality—believing in Him is eternal life.

If what you mean by “literal translation” is that Jesus meant His flesh was to be literally consumed, then you can easily prove that by citing just one verse in which we see the literal consuming of Christ’s flesh by anyone; with that, you’ll have demonstrated your point.

 

[Singinbeauty]

Didn’t Jesus called Himself the vine in another parable? If so, then the fruit of the vine is still the Blood of Christ, for the Vine is Christ. What is His fruit? The Eucharist.

So Jesus drank His own blood? I am really not trying to be awful. I am just trying to understand this concept…

 

[Montalban]

So Jesus drank His own blood? I am really not trying to be awful. I am just trying to understand this concept…

You could also argue that he sacrificed himself on the Cross!

 

[Singinbeauty]

**The Vine and the Branches **

1"I am the true vine, and my Father is the gardener. 2He cuts off every branch in me that bears no fruit, while every branch that does bear fruit he prunes[a] so that it will be even more fruitful. 3You are already clean because of the word I have spoken to you. 4Remain in me, and I will remain in you. No branch can bear fruit by itself; it must remain in the vine. Neither can you bear fruit unless you remain in me.

5"I am the vine; you are the branches. If a man remains in me and I in him, he will bear much fruit; apart from me you can do nothing. 6If anyone does not remain in me, he is like a branch that is thrown away and withers; such branches are picked up, thrown into the fire and burned. 7If you remain in me and my words remain in you, ask whatever you wish, and it will be given you. 8This is to my Father’s glory, that you bear much fruit, showing yourselves to be my disciples.

Ok, so I found the parable that you speak of. From the looks of it, yes, Jesus is the vine but look closer and you will see that WE are the branches that bear the fruit. So Jesus couldn’t have been referring to this because if WE bear the fruit then it is not Jesus’ blood that is the result in the form of wine since the wine is made of the fruit produced. He would be drinking OUR fruit that is an indication of our Faith.

 

[Mannyfit75]

So Jesus drank His own blood? I am really not trying to be awful. I am just trying to understand this concept…

Yes he did during the Last Supper.

 

[Isa_Almisry]

Funny how Protestants believe every literal word of the Bible, except when it comes to this.

John 6:66 (interesting number), the Biblical Protestants.

St. Ignatius, who knew the Apostles and was ordained by the Apostles to succeed them in heading the Church in Antioch in 69, where “the disciples were first called Christians” wrote in 104

They [the gnostics] abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer,because they confess not the Eucharist to be the flesh of our Saviour Jesus Christ, which suffered for our sins, and which the Father, of His goodness, raised up again.

ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf01.v.vii.vii.html

The gnostics believed Christ didn’t REALLY take flesh, it just appeared so, and that He REALLY didn’t die on the Cross (the rest of St. Ignatius’ letters, and other show that, including the Gnostics own writings, btw including the Gospel of Judas).

So EITHER admit the Presence of Christ in the Eucharist

OR deny that the Word took flesh and dwelt among us.

 

[Isa_Almisry]

The literal translation of the flesh statements in John 6 is that they are figurative statements—eating Christ’s flesh means believing in Him—of a spiritual reality—believing in Him is eternal life.

If what you mean by “literal translation” is that Jesus meant His flesh was to be literally consumed, then you can easily prove that by citing just one verse in which we see the literal consuming of Christ’s flesh by anyone; with that, you’ll have demonstrated your point.

Then what was the problem for the Biblical Protestants of John 6:66?

 

[Mannyfit75]

Funny how Protestants believe every literal word of the Bible, except when it comes to this.

John 6:66 (interesting number), the Biblical Protestants.

St. Ignatius, who new and was ordained by the Apostles to succeed them in heading the Church in Antioch, where “the disciples were first called Christians” wrote in 104

They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer,because they confess not the Eucharist to be the flesh of our Saviour Jesus Christ, which suffered for our sins, and which the Father, of His goodness, raised up again.

ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf01.v.vii.vii.html

The gnostics believed Christ didn’t REALLY take flesh, it just appeared so, and that He REALLY didn’t die on the Cross (the rest of St. Ignatius’ letters, and other show that, including the Gnostics own writings, btw including the Gospel of Judas).

So EITHER admit the Presence of Christ in the Eucharist

OR deny that the Word took flesh and dwelt among us.

That’s the only think I find odd about Protestants. That is why I would never become one. Their doctrine are so erroneous and some even heretical.

 

[Paisius]

Catholics in the know, are always quick to point out that when Jesus talks about belief in Himself, He is not talking about a one-time event, but in continuous belief—24 hours a day, 7 days a week—as the Greek present tense indicates.

It never ceases to amaze me that a person who is living almost 2000 years after the fact thinks they have a better interpretation of what was meant in Greek than the people who were alive at the time, spoke and wrote in Greek, and were responsible for compiling the text of the New Testament.

 

[Nella]

Funny how Protestants believe every literal word of the Bible, except when it comes to this.
.

This is not even close to true.

 

[Mannyfit75]

This is not even close to true.

Then why do some of your Protestant brothers and sisters deny the Real Presence of Jesus Christ in the Eucharist?

 

[Isa_Almisry]

Donny, you are confusing two different events.

Your question: ”Unless you eat my FLESH and drink my BLOOD you have no life in you,” does not pertain to the eucharist/Christ’s Passover/the Lord’s supper, but to belief in Christ—read John 6 in context.

Catholics in the know, are always quick to point out that when Jesus talks about belief in Himself, He is not talking about a one-time event, but in continuous belief—24 hours a day, 7 days a week—as the Greek present tense indicates.

The same is true of John 6:54—it is about belief, and it is in the present tense (continuous action); in order to be consistent with the Catholic teaching of this verse as the literal eating of the Lord’s flesh, and blood, Catholics should be consuming the eucharist 24 hours a day, 7 days a week until they die; are you doing that?

If not, why not? :ehh:

When you read the account of the true Lord’s Supper, which again, is not found in John 6,
Christ gives no command as to how often that Supper is to be celebrated; He merely says “do this in remembrance of Me.”

Even Paul in 1 Cor 11 says of the eucharist, ”as often as you do this”—no specified frequency is given.

Well, it would seem to me that my sect is certainly closer to the truth of this than your sect.

If your sect were consistent with their literal belief of what John is teaching in John 6:54, they would be consuming the eucharist 24 hours a day, 7 days a week without stopping; since they are not doing this, they are inconsistent in what they maintain concerning that verse.

And if you are to be consistent with what it means according to you, then you should be doing your “Bible Studies” 24 hours a day, seven days a week. So I take it you never sleep.

Btw ever hear of daily mass?

Digestion also takes a while. No need to be gluttons.

How often? Let’s see:

Sunday of the Resurrection Luke 24.30-35 And as He took bread, blessed and broke it and gave it to them then their eyes were opened and they knew Him…and how He was known to them [was] in the breaking of the bread. [NOTE: not in the reading or preaching from Scripture, though (v. 32) it made their hearts burn].

Next Sunday: John 20.20 His disciples were again inside.

Pentacost Sunday: Acts 2.1 They were all with one accord in one place.

A Sunday a few decades later Acts 20.1, the day when the disciples came together to break bread. Hmmm, where’d they get that idea?

Rev. 1.10 The Lord’s Day (Greek Kyriake, the name of Sunday). Note also all those candles, incense, etc. and other “non-Biblical” worship.

Truth is we (Orthodox Catholic and the Latins) have been gathering to break break (“And he broke it saying 'Take, eat…”) on Sunday from the first Sunday of the Resurrection to four days ago.

 

[Isa_Almisry]

This is not even close to true.

Depends on which kind of Protestant you speak of.

Lutherans, definitely not true.

Episcopalians. Some yes, some no. Episcopelian has ceased to be indentifiable just by the label anymore, if they ever were.

Presbyterians, Methodists. Getting closer.

The posts I have seen on here, however, seem to be the invisible church group, for which my statement is very close to the truth. For which I say the Church is the Body of Christ (need I cite verses?), and unless Christ is the invisible man, your position has no foundation.

 

[sandusky]

Isa Almisry:

Funny how Protestants believe every literal word of the Bible, except when it comes to this.

Equally funny is the Catholic recognition of every metaphor in scripture—and every metaphor ever spoken, or written anywhere, for that matter—as a metaphor with the exception of one: “this is my body…this is my blood,” at that metaphor, the recognition stops.
Isa Almisry:

St. Ignatius, who knew the Apostles and was ordained by the Apostles to succeed them in heading the Church in Antioch in 69, where “the disciples were first called Christians” wrote in 104

They [the gnostics] abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer,because they confess not the Eucharist to be the flesh of our Saviour Jesus Christ, which suffered for our sins, and which the Father, of His goodness, raised up again.

Ignatius is not the only one who spoke of “presence” in the eucharist; various opinions were discussed and kicked around as to what occurred at the time of its celebration; clearly none of the others holding their respective opinions concerning what transpired viewed Ignatius as the expert “taught one;” it is not unreasonable, therefore, to conclude that though it is claimed that Ignatius was taught by the apostles, they either did not clearly educate him with respect to “real presence,” or, they didn’t educate him on the subject at all, thus, the introduction of all of the other opinions.
Isa Almisry:

The gnostics believed Christ didn’t REALLY take flesh, it just appeared so, and that He REALLY didn’t die on the Cross (the rest of St. Ignatius’ letters, and other show that, including the Gnostics own writings, btw including the Gospel of Judas).

So EITHER admit the Presence of Christ in the Eucharist

OR deny that the Word took flesh and dwelt among us.

You falsely assume that non-belief in real presence equals Gnosticism on the basis of one quote from Ignatius.

In the apostles’ battles against Gnosticism recorded in various of their epistles, the subject of “rejection of real presence, ” as a battle, is never mentioned.