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

[timmo]

Hi
I’m a Catholic and. I hope you’ll excuse me butting in to make an observation.
I think this problem comes down to authority to interpret scripture. I would also humbly submit that the Catholic Church was very clear on the meaning of John:6 before the New Testament was even written!
The Church Fathers seemed to be very clear, and insistent.

I just include some quotes from the Early Church Fathers: but there are many, many many more upholding the interpretation that the Catholic Church has maintained up to the present day.

Ignatius romans
I have no delight in corruptible food, nor in the pleasures of this life. I desire the bread of God, the heavenly bread, the bread of life, which is the flesh of Jesus Christ, fire in me desiring to be fed;(1) but there is within me a water that liveth and speaketh,(2) saying to me inwardly, Come to the Father. I have no delight in corruptible food, nor in the pleasures of this life. I desire the bread of God, the heavenly bread, the bread of life, which is the flesh of Jesus Christ, the Son of God, who became afterwards of the seed of David and Abraham; and I desire the drink of God, namely His blood, which is incorruptible love and eternal life. The Son of God, who became afterwards of the seed of David and Abraham; and I desire the drink, namely His blood, which is incorruptible love and eternal life.

Ignatius phildelphians
Take ye heed, then, to have but one Eucharist. For there is one flesh of our Lord Jesus Christ, and one cup to [show forth(1)] the unity of His blood; one altar; as there is one bishop, along with the presbytery and deacons, my fellow-servants: that so, whatsoever ye do, ye may do it according to [the will of] God.
Ignatius smyrnians
CHAP. VII.–LET US STAND ALOOF FROM SUCH HERETICS.
They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer,(7) 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. Those,therefore, who speak against this gift of God,…

Justin Martyr
CHAP. LXVI.–OF THE EUCHARIST.
And this food is called among us Eukaristia(5) [the Eucharist], of which no one is allowed to partake but the man who believes that the things which we teach are true, and who has been washed with the washing that is for the remission of sins, and unto regeneration, and who is so living as Christ has enjoined. For not as common bread and common drink do we receive these; but in like manner as Jesus Christ our Saviour, having been made flesh by the Word of God, had both flesh and blood for our salvation, so likewise have we been taught that the food which is blessed by the prayer of His word, and from which our blood and flesh by transmutation are nourished, is the flesh and blood of that Jesus who was made flesh…

Iraneus against heresies 5.2.2
CHAP. II.-- EXHIBITING TO US HIS TRUE FLESH IN THE EUCHARIST, HE CONFERRED UPON OUR FLESH THE CAPACITY OF SALVATION.
…
2. …… But if this indeed do not attain salvation, then neither did the Lord redeem us with His blood, nor is the cup of the Eucharist the communion of His blood, nor the bread which we break the communion of His body.(1) For blood can only come from veins and flesh, and whatsoever else makes up the substance of man, such as the Word of God was actually made. By His own blood he redeemed us, as also His apostle declares, “In whom we have redemption through His blood, even the remission of sins.”(2) And as we are His members, we are also nourished by means of the creation (and He Himself grants the creation to us, …. He has acknowledged the cup (which is a part of the creation) as His own blood, from which He bedews our blood; and the bread (also a part of the creation) He has established as His own body, from which He gives increase to our bodies.(4)
3. ……even as the blessed Paul declares in his Epistle to the Ephesians, that “we are members of His body, of His flesh, and of His bones.”(6) He does not speak these words of some spiritual and invisible man, for a spirit has not bones nor flesh;(7) but [he refers to] that dispensation [by which the Lord became] an actual man, consisting of flesh, and nerves, and bones,–that [flesh] which is nourished by the cup which is His blood, and receives increase from the bread which is His body.
Best regards

Tim

 

[sandusky]

guanophore:

Then your objection has no merit. There are many Catholics that behave in an abominable manner, and the church is full of sinners. Futhermore, there are grossly uneducated Catholics who do not understand the faith, much less demonstrate an ability to explain or defend it. If they don’t correctly understand what scripture teaches, then they are only a poor reflection of what their faith proclaims. It is not appropriate to judge the teaching of the church by their error, though not uncommon.

You still miss my point.

Everyone who has the least understanding of the Kingdom, wants to be in it; but many who want to be in it, will never make it; that is because entrance into the Kingdom is by the will of God, and not by the will the wanting (Rom 9; etc.).

The claim of apostolic authority, and historical pedigree is attractive to the sinful heart; but what must be discerned is truth, and the discernment of truth, and correct belief, comes only from the grace of God through the HS; that is the point Jesus is making in John 6, and that is on that point that those listening to Jesus leave:**John 6:65-66

65 And He was saying, “For this reason I have said to you, that no one can come to Me unless it has been granted him from the Father.”

66 As a result of this many of His disciples withdrew and were not walking with Him anymore.**With respect to metaphor, while not everyone can properly define it, everyone recognizes it. Every Catholic recognizes that when Jesus says, “I am the door,” that He is not literally claiming to be a door; when He says, “I am the vine,” Catholics recognize that He is not literally claiming to be a vine; when He says, “I am the Good Shepherd,” Catholics recognize that He is not literally claiming to be a shepherd of sheep; however, when He says, “this is my body…” Catholic recognition of the figure of speech takes flight; IMO, that is because in order to be Catholic, one must believe in the literal consuming of Christ’s flesh and blood in the eucharist through transubstantiation; it is the focal point of your worship—the sacrifice of the mass.

The same thing is seen with Jesus’ siblings; if one didn’t have a commitment to a tradition, and an additional commitment to a de fide dogma concerning the perpetual virginity of Mary, then one could allow the text to speak for itself, so that, when the statement, “His mother, and His brothers, and His sisters,” is read, the natural meaning of the words are quickly understood.

So then, since transubstantiation must be believed, then every text set forth to “prove” it, must be accepted as proof, and must be interpreted in a manner that aligns with church teaching.

guanophore:

Acutally, I was not the one that made the statement about gnosticism and rejection of real presence. I said that the Gnostic, along with the Protestant, concept of the Real Presence is not consistent with the Apostolic teaching.

That assumes that RCC teaching is apostolic; transubstantiation, Marian doctrines, celibacy, and many more of the RCC’s teaching are not apostolic teachings, but teachings of the church. Were those apostolic teachings, I would expect the apostles to have articulated them on the pages of scripture.

God doesn’t fool His people, but His Spirit teaches them truth, so that they would recognize error.

guanophore:

We just see it differently.

An understatement; and, one of us is very wrong.

 

[sandusky]

Montalban:

That’s because in John 6:55 Jesus says it’s REAL.

You assume that in John 6, Jesus is speaking of the Eucharist; there is no indication of that, whatsoever; the events of John 6 are at least a year prior to the crucifixion—you have a commitment to tradition.

Montalban:

So when Jesus says it’s really food, you think “Oh, he must be talking through a metaphor!”

No; what Jesus says in John 6, with respect to eating His flesh, and drinking His blood, though it is figurative language, it is not a metaphor.

A metaphor is a declaration that one thing is (or represents) another; or, comparison by representation.

Met´-a-phor. Greek, metaphora, a transference, or carrying over or across. From meta, beyond or over, and pherein, to carry.

The figure is a “Representation” or “Transference.” It is recognized by some form of the verb,
***to be.***I am the door

I am the vine; you are the branches

This is my body…this is my blood

All flesh is grass

We are the sheep of His pasture

The Lord God is a Sun and Shield

His truth is a shield and buckler

You are the salt of the earthAnd so on.

 

[sandusky]

Sandusky:

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.

We have no biblical record of anyone eating Christ’s flesh, and drinking His blood; so what was said by the Lord in John 6 must not be taken literally.

In fact, we see Christ continue to the crucifixion, be put in the grave, rise from the grave,
appear for 40 days—uneaten—and then ascend into heaven, at which time two men clothed in
white said:**Acts 1:11

…“Men of Galilee, why do you stand looking into the sky? This Jesus, who has been taken up from you into heaven, will come in just the same way as you have watched Him go into heaven."**Christ will return one more time, in the same way that He ascended into heaven (cf vv9, 10).

Until then, He sits at the right hand of the Father, until His enemies are made His footstool.

 

[Singinbeauty]

Romans 14:5-9:

5 In the same way, some think one day is more holy than another day, while others think every day is alike. You should each be fully convinced that whichever day you choose is acceptable. 6 Those who worship the Lord on a special day do it to honor him. Those who eat any kind of food do so to honor the Lord, since they give thanks to God before eating. And those who refuse to eat certain foods also want to please the Lord and give thanks to God. 7 For we don’t live for ourselves or die for ourselves. 8 If we live, it’s to honor the Lord. And if we die, it’s to honor the Lord. So whether we live or die, we belong to the Lord. 9 Christ died and rose again for this very purpose—to be Lord both of the living and of the dead.

I think this fits here as well as other places. Here it states CLEARLY that if you are doing what you are doing to please God then you are RIGHT because you are doing it solely for HIM.
Romans 14:10-13:

10 So why do you condemn another believer[a]? Why do you look down on another believer? Remember, we will all stand before the judgment seat of God. 11 For the Scriptures say,

“‘As surely as I live,’ says the Lord,
‘every knee will bend to me,
and every tongue will confess and give praise to God.**’”

12 Yes, each of us will give a personal account to God. 13 So let’s stop condemning each other.** Decide instead to live in such a way that you will not cause another believer to stumble and fall.

Protestants AND catholics would do well to heed these words.
Romans 14:17:

17 For the Kingdom of God is not a matter of what we eat or drink, but of living a life of goodness and peace and joy in the Holy Spirit. 18 If you serve Christ with this attitude, you will please God, and others will approve of you, too.

Truer words have never been spoken!

 

[happygal]

How can Protestants ignore this command from Jesus? Many Perotestant churchs don’t even celebrate the Eucharist symbolically more than a few times a year,or maybe once a month. Just how far from the One True Faith have many Protestant sects gotten? How does this happen? Any thoughts? Thanks.

My hometown church have HC once a mth. So what is your thoughts about?? Are you saying the faith of the members are lesser then those who partake HC daily??

 

[Isa_Almisry]

You still miss my point.

Everyone who has the least understanding of the Kingdom, wants to be in it; but many who want to be in it, will never make it; that is because entrance into the Kingdom is by the will of God, and not by the will the wanting (Rom 9; etc.).

The claim of apostolic authority, and historical pedigree is attractive to the sinful heart; but what must be discerned is truth, and the discernment of truth, and correct belief, comes only from the grace of God through the HS; that is the point Jesus is making in John 6, and that is on that point that those listening to Jesus leave:John 6:65-66

65 And He was saying, “For this reason I have said to you, that no one can come to Me unless it has been granted him from the Father.”

66 As a result of this many of His disciples withdrew and were not walking with Him anymore.With respect to metaphor, while not everyone can properly define it, everyone recognizes it. Every Catholic recognizes that when Jesus says, “I am the door,” that He is not literally claiming to be a door; when He says, “I am the vine,” Catholics recognize that He is not literally claiming to be a vine; when He says, “I am the Good Shepherd,” Catholics recognize that He is not literally claiming to be a shepherd of sheep; however, when He says, “this is my body…” Catholic recognition of the figure of speech takes flight; IMO, that is because in order to be Catholic, one must believe in the literal consuming of Christ’s flesh and blood in the eucharist through transubstantiation; it is the focal point of your worship—the sacrifice of the mass.

The same thing is seen with Jesus’ siblings; if one didn’t have a commitment to a tradition, and an additional commitment to a de fide dogma concerning the perpetual virginity of Mary, then one could allow the text to speak for itself, so that, when the statement, “His mother, and His brothers, and His sisters,” is read, the natural meaning of the words are quickly understood.

So then, since transubstantiation must be believed, then every text set forth to “prove” it, must be accepted as proof, and must be interpreted in a manner that aligns with church teaching.

That assumes that RCC teaching is apostolic; transubstantiation, Marian doctrines, celibacy, and many more of the RCC’s teaching are not apostolic teachings, but teachings of the church. Were those apostolic teachings, I would expect the apostles to have articulated them on the pages of scripture.

God doesn’t fool His people, but His Spirit teaches them truth, so that they would recognize error.

An understatement; and, one of us is very wrong.

The problem with the door example (and the others) is that we don’t have an example of anyone claiming on the basis of the text that Jesus was a bunch of planks with a door knob. We do have, cited above, early records of those who knew the apostles and their disciples who believed that John 6 meant real Body, etc. And Saint paul in Corinthians specifically says “is it not the Body…?” and not a metaphor. Most people don’t die from metaphors.

And since we don’t have any record of those who denied the real presence until the reformation, you have a problem with Christ saying the gates of Hell will never prevail…that He is with us all the days until the end of the world. Because if real presence is wrong, then Hell prevailed right after He left. And the invisible church won’t help you, it’s anotehr innovation. The Church is His Body, and He is not the invisible man. And what did He say about putting your light under a bushel, which is, if you are right, what happened for over a thousand years.

 

[Montalban]

You assume that in John 6, Jesus is speaking of the Eucharist; there is no indication of that, whatsoever; the events of John 6 are at least a year prior to the crucifixion—you have a commitment to tradition.

No. What I’m pointing to is the fact Jesus is asked if he’s serious and he says yes his body is real food.

No; what Jesus says in John 6, with respect to eating His flesh, and drinking His blood, though it is figurative language, it is not a metaphor.

It’s not a metaphor, indeed. It’s a literal truth.

That’s why Jesus says it, and repeats it and notes it’s true.

And Paul later says if you want a communal meal, stay home, 1 Corinthians 11:17 ff

 

[Scarecrow]

Jesus didnt use his real blood and flesh though. So can it be taken literally??

 

[Montalban]

Jesus didnt use his real blood and flesh though. So can it be taken literally??

He did, because the bread and wine become his body and blood

That’s why Paul says it’s not just bread - if you’re hungry, stay at home!

 

[fellowChristian]

In Genesis 1 we see how powerful the word of God is

3 And God said, “Let there be light,” and there was light.

In John 6 again we see how powerful the word of God is when He says

51 I am the living bread that came down from heaven. If anyone eats of this bread, he will live forever. This bread is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world."

55 For my flesh is real food and my blood is real drink.

It is a statement. Jesus said “This bread is my flesh”

A metaphor is when someone says “it is raining cats and dogs outside” We know cats and dogs don’t fall from the sky. We understand it means it is raining hard.

Jesus did not say the bread **is like **my flesh.

He said it IS!

The miracle of the bread and the fish was a foreshadow of what was to come!

Jesus feeding all of us!

Having us share His Flesh and Blood like a real family!

Jesus is the Passover meal that we share!

Don’t you see the connection?

The Jewish people took the blood of an unblemished lamb (Jesus) and took some of the blood and put it on the two doorposts (made of wood = the cross) Then they shall eat it with unleavened bread and bitter herbs. Exodus 12

All sacrifices were to be eaten!

Anything is possible for God!!

C.S Lewis said Jesus said to eat the flesh of the Son of Man, not eat the flesh and understand!!!

52 Then the Jews began to argue sharply among themselves, **“How can this man give us his flesh to eat?” **

60 On hearing it, many of his disciples said, **“This is a hard teaching. Who can accept it?” **

61 Aware that his disciples were grumbling about this, **Jesus said to them, "Does this offend you? **

66 From this time many of his disciples turned back and no longer followed him.

They took what Jesus said as a statement!! Because it was!!!

 

[fellowChristian]

**Jesus was born in Bethlehem. The old Hebrew name bêth lehem, means “house of bread.”

It is interesting that Jesus was born in a city that was called the “house of bread” and Mary laid Jesus in a manger, which is where you place food.

Jesus later said, “I am the bread of life…unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man you will have no life within you.” (Jn 6) **

 

[LSK]

Christ is talking of individual consuming (HE who eats My flesh, etc.), not collective consuming; therefore, you, blessedtoo, are not obeying Christ with respect to your sects assertions that Christ is speaking of the eucharist in John 6:54; neither are the rest of your
sect’s members.

We believe that he is speaking in a collective sense as well as an individual sense - we, Catholics, are one with one another. That is why the Sacrament of Reconcilliation is so important. When one of us commits a sin it hurts all of us. We may not be held culpable for each other’s specific sins but we are all wounded. Whenever Mass is celebrated, and it is celebrated 24/7 here and in heaven, we are all united. Therefore, we are obeying Our Lord.

You must also realize that whenever Jesus WAS speaking in Parables those listenning to Him knew it…and when He wasn’t they knew it.

And we are not a sect - we are The Church.

 

[fellowChristian]

“The devil knows that, according to the promise of Jesus Christ, they who receive Holy Communion worthily will not fall into his power, but will obtain eternal life, and on this account he either tempts men to disbelieve the mystery, or he suggests every sort of pretext to keep them from receiving it. But he himself believes it and trembles. Would to God that all men had so strong a faith!”

by Fr. Michael Muller

A non-Catholic website showing

Eucharistic Miracles
livingmiracles.net/Eucharist.html

 

[Montalban]

“The devil knows that, according to the promise of Jesus Christ, they who receive Holy Communion worthily will not fall into his power, but will obtain eternal life, and on this account he either tempts men to disbelieve the mystery, or he suggests every sort of pretext to keep them from receiving it. But he himself believes it and trembles. Would to God that all men had so strong a faith!”

by Fr. Michael Muller

A non-Catholic website showing

Eucharistic Miracles
livingmiracles.net/Eucharist.html

For Orthodox we take Jesus upon us. Satan is urging Christians to deny Jesus’ gift to us in the Eucharist

See this article

 

[Montalban]

We have no biblical record of anyone eating Christ’s flesh, and drinking His blood; so what was said by the Lord in John 6 must not be taken literally.

Then you ignore Paul’s gospel
1 Corinthians 11:17 ff

Also, this Protestant site shows that the pagans observing early Chrisitans thought that they were cannibals

This is because they were ‘drinking blood’ and ‘eating flesh’.

St. Ignatius of Antioch
Epistle to the Smyrnaeans
6:2 But mark ye those who hold strange doctrine touching the grace of Jesus Christ which came to us, how that they are contrary to the mind of God. They have no care for love, none for the widow, none for the orphan, none for the afflicted, none for the prisoner, none for the hungry or thirsty. They abstain from Eucharist (thanksgiving) and prayer, because they allow not that the Eucharist is the flesh of our Saviour Jesus Christ, which flesh suffered for our sins, and which the Father of His goodness raised up.
earlychristianwritings.com/text/ignatius-smyrnaeans-lightfoot.html

 

[Scarecrow]

like the Pagans say, “Merry meat!” :lol:

At any rate, maybe the Pagans heard the doctrine and just assumed such.

 

[Montalban]

At any rate, maybe the Pagans heard the doctrine and just assumed such.

Indeed, because there was a doctrine of the Eucharist!

It was one of the charges pagans used in saying Christianity was a ‘strange’ religion.

Many Protestants here want to deny history (confusing it with ‘tradition’) but this evidence from the pagans shows what Christians were doing - albeit through pagan eyes

 

[Mannyfit75]

like the Pagans say, “Merry meat!” :lol:

At any rate, maybe the Pagans heard the doctrine and just assumed such.

No they haven’t. In fact during the early days of Christianity, the Pagans then accused Christians as Cannibals for eating their “God”

Athenagoras the Athenian: Philosopher and Christian, wrote in his Apologetic Letter to the Roman Emperor Marcus Arelius Antonius called “The Plea for the Christians states,”

What man of sound mind, therefore, will affirm, while such is our character, that we are murderers? For we cannot eat human flesh till we have killed some one. The former charge, therefore, being false, if any one should ask them in regard to the second, whether they have seen what they assert, not one of them would be so barefaced as to say that he had. And yet we have slaves, some more and some fewer, by whom we could not help being seen; but even of these, not one has been found to invent even such things against us. For when they know that we cannot endure even to see a man put to death, though justly; who of them can accuse us of murder or cannibalism? Who does not reckon among the things of greatest interest the contests of gladiators and wild beasts, especially those which are given by you? But we, deeming that to see a man put to death is much the same as killing him, have abjured such spectacles. How, then, when we do not even look on, lest we should contract guilt and pollution, can we put people to death? And when we say that those women who use drugs to bring on abortion commit murder, and will have to give an account to God for the abortion, on what principle should we commit murder? For it does not belong to the same person to regard the very fœtus in the womb as a created being, and therefore an object of God’s care, and when it has passed into life, to kill it; and not to expose an infant, because those who expose them are chargeable with child-murder, and on the other hand, when it has been reared to destroy it. But we are in all things always alike and the same, submitting ourselves to reason, and not ruling over it.

newadvent.org/fathers/0205.htm

You wonder why Pagans then accused us of being cannibals? Well, its because we eat the flesh of the Son of Man and Drink His Blood.

 

[Mannyfit75]

Indeed, because there was a doctrine of the Eucharist!

It was one of the charges pagans used in saying Christianity was a ‘strange’ religion.

Many Protestants here want to deny history (confusing it with ‘tradition’) but this evidence from the pagans shows what Christians were doing - albeit through pagan eyes

Protestants, most of them are ignorant of Christian history