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

[Isa_Almisry]

hELLO

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.

What metaphor are you speaking of? (btw, I’m not Latin).

No, I don’t think the Latin Church anything as a metaphor when offense of the literal meaning is challenged John 6.60-6.

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.

No, like heretics, they didn’t accept the authority that the Apostles gave to St. Ignatius to interpret the Apostles words, to their loss (I Timothy 4.12-6, 6.20-1, II Timothy 2.1-2, 14-9; 3.10-4.5).

Who are “they?” We have some of the “various opinions” at the time. Which “other opinion” do you want to document from the first century and claim?

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

No, on St. Ignatius faithfulness to the Gospels, espeically St. John who tells us (and told St. Ignatius face to face) that the Word took flesh and dwelt among, which flesh He gave us to eat when St. John saw blood coming out of it (or is the piecing also a metaphor? or do you think St. John’s testimony is not true). Since they entrusted the word to St. Ignatius, I’m going to take his word over any first century figure with itching ears (II Tim. 4.3) who have died out, or any late second guessers a thousand or two thousand years later.

Read the rest of the letters.

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

You will find that St. Ignatius would be going to any Orthodox Church of today, be in symphony with the Latin Church, and would have no time for Protestants.

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.

Why do you think St. John wrote the discourse in chapter 6?

St. Paul “Whoever eats this bread or drinks this cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of the Body and Blood of the Lord…For this reason many are weak and sick among you, and many have died.” I Corinthians 11.27-30 (or perhaps it’s metaphorical death).

It is recorded in our earliest sources, that St. John was once seen running out of a public building. He was asked why and he replied that he saw the leader of the gnostics coming in and he wanting to get out of the same building, in case God wanted to punish the leader on the spot by collapsing the building-like Samson and the Philistines.

 

[Singinbeauty]

Yes he did during the Last Supper.

Why did you completely ignore the post right above yours?

 

[Steve40]

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!

If He said It Is His Body who are you to say it is not. Why didn’t he stop those who walked away from Him and said this is too hard. Well, if you want to walk away like they did it is your choice. But, as Peter, the first Pope said Lord to whom shall we go you have the words of eternal life. I believe Jesus and what He said, not you.

 

[Singinbeauty]

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

Who said we take everything literal? I know that Jesus spoke in parables. There are several indicators. He did this because He wanted to stress the importance of certain matters.
John 4:13:

13Jesus answered, “Everyone who drinks this water will be thirsty again, 14but whoever drinks the water I give him will never thirst. Indeed, the water I give him will become in him a spring of water welling up to eternal life.”

Now, what ‘water’ was Jesus talking about here? Is this figurative or literal? He doesn’t say ‘the water I give is LIKE’ He says ‘the water I give him will never thirst’. Jesus wasn’t always literal.

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

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

But we haven’t turned from Him. There were those who listen to His parables that just don’t understand. Their hearts are way too hard.
Matthew 13:12:

12 To those who listen to my teaching, more understanding will be given, and they will have an abundance of knowledge. But for those who are not listening, even what little understanding they have will be taken away from them. 13 That is why I use these parables,

 

[Singinbeauty]

If He said It Is His Body who are you to say it is not. Why didn’t he stop those who walked away from Him and said this is too hard. Well, if you want to walk away like they did it is your choice. But, as Peter, the first Pope said Lord to whom shall we go you have the words of eternal life. I believe Jesus and what He said, not you.

That’s just the thing… I HAVEN’T walked away. But thanx for judging my Faith…

 

[Mannyfit75]

Why did you completely ignore the post right above yours?

I have but what does have to do with the Flesh and Blood of the Lord?

 

[Singinbeauty]

I have but what does have to do with the Flesh and Blood of the Lord?

In the quote I responded to you suggested that Christ drank His own blood at the first supper. But in my post above that one I was trying to figure that out regarding to Christ being the vine and such… So why didn’t you respond to that?

 

[Church_Militant]

In the quote I responded to you suggested that Christ drank His own blood at the first supper. But in my post above that one I was trying to figure that out regarding to Christ being the vine and such… So why didn’t you respond to that?

Hey Sister of mine!
Did ya see my latest little project that might help you with this a bit?

 

[guanophore]

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.

This is a gross misunderstanding of Catholic teaching.

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.

Ignatius was not the only Apostolic successor. There were many, all over Christendom. the fact that the concept is of the Real Presence was preserved is a testimony to the fact that they were all well educated, and that, in spite of the gates of hell, the truth has prevailed. yes, there were many respective opinions, and the one that has persisted is the Apostolic one!

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

No, indeed, there are many heresies that include the non-belief in the Real Presence, Gnosticism being only one.

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.

That was only one of the issues. The main one was that Jesus did not, finding Himself in the form of God, took on human flesh. Once that truth is denied, then the concept of the Real Presence is moot. How could Jesus give a body he did not really have?

 

[guanophore]

But we haven’t turned from Him. There were those who listen to His parables that just don’t understand. Their hearts are way too hard.

Well, that is good, I guess. It is to be hoped that the heart will soften.

 

[myfavoritmartin]

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

Transubstantiation or real presence?

 

[sandusky]

guanophore:

This is a gross misunderstanding of Catholic teaching.

There is nothing in my post concerning Catholic teaching; rather, it is an observation of Catholic behavior, in this instance, recognizing a grammatical construction in every case, except one.

guanophore:

That was only one of the issues. The main one was that Jesus did not, finding Himself in the form of God, took on human flesh. Once that truth is denied, then the concept of the Real Presence is moot. How could Jesus give a body he did not really have?

In your statement is the very false assumption that Gnosticism is the basis of one’s rejection of real presence, and transubstantiation; nothing could be further from the truth.

Your understanding comes from the usual Catholic method of working backwards to support a position, rather than, working from the beginning. From the beginning, the basis of Gnosticism is concerned with the person of Christ, and not with the eucharist.

While one must believe that Christ came in the flesh in order to be saved (1 Jn 4), which most protestants do believe, there is no requirement to believe in the notion of either real presence, or transubstantiation, as there is no mention of either in scripture; the assertion that one must hold to either of those two notions as a requirement of true faith, is peculiar only to those who IMO, believe it from self-deception.

 

[guanophore]

There is nothing in my post concerning Catholic teaching; rather, it is an observation of Catholic behavior, in this instance, recognizing a grammatical construction in every case, except one.

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.

In your statement is the very false assumption that Gnosticism is the basis of one’s rejection of real presence, and transubstantiation; nothing could be further from the truth.

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.

Your understanding comes from the usual Catholic method of working backwards to support a position, rather than, working from the beginning. From the beginning, the basis of Gnosticism is concerned with the person of Christ, and not with the eucharist.

Acutally, I think you are making an erroneous assumption in my case. My understanding comes from spending three years in an evangelical protestant seminary where I undertook the study of historical theology. However, I do agree with you about the gnostic concern with the person of Christ. The Eucharistic understanding is a corollary.

While one must believe that Christ came in the flesh in order to be saved (1 Jn 4), which most protestants do believe, there is no requirement to believe in the notion of either real presence, or transubstantiation, as there is no mention of either in scripture; the assertion that one must hold to either of those two notions as a requirement of true faith, is peculiar only to those who IMO, believe it from self-deception.

We just see it differently. Catholics and Orthodox believe that John 6 does speak of a requirement to believe in the bread and wine as His body and blood. You have much company in thinking it is unnecesary or crazy, and your company is originally mentioned in that passage of scripture, so you can claim an early source for turning away from this teaching.

 

[Montalban]

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.

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

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

 

[fellowChristian]

Genesis 1
3 And God said, “Let there be light,” and there was light.

**Wow! The word of God is so powerful! He says “Let there be light” and there was light! Then God says… **

John 6
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."

And it is!!! God says it and it happens!

He gives us flesh and blood!!!

C.S. Lewis said “eat the flesh of the Son of Man, not eat the flesh and understand.”

 

[Mannyfit75]

Transubstantiation or real presence?

They are the same, martin. Real Presence is Transubstantiation.

 

[Mannyfit75]

There is nothing in my post concerning Catholic teaching; rather, it is an observation of Catholic behavior, in this instance, recognizing a grammatical construction in every case, except one.

In your statement is the very false assumption that Gnosticism is the basis of one’s rejection of real presence, and transubstantiation; nothing could be further from the truth.

Holy cow, sandusky. Are you an expert in Catholicism because base on your replies you base all this in your observation? What I find lacking is the lack understanding transtubstantiation in its fullness. It is real presence. You cannot separate transtubstantiation and real presence because the two are One and the same.

In transtubstantiation, the bread and wine are no longer bread and wine. They become the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ. Though the accident (appearance) remain the same. This is Real Presence in its fullness.

Your understanding comes from the usual Catholic method of working backwards to support a position, rather than, working from the beginning. From the beginning, the basis of Gnosticism is concerned with the person of Christ, and not with the eucharist.

While one must believe that Christ came in the flesh in order to be saved (1 Jn 4), which most protestants do believe, there is no requirement to believe in the notion of either real presence, or transubstantiation, as there is no mention of either in scripture; the assertion that one must hold to either of those two notions as a requirement of true faith, is peculiar only to those who IMO, believe it from self-deception.

There is nothing Gnosticism about the belief of the Eucharist. Gnosticism believe that matter is evil. We Catholics or should I say the Catholic Church condemn Gnosticism.

 

[mikeledes]

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.

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

 

[mikeledes]

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 John 6:51-58 were talking about faith, then there would be no controversy because he just talked about faith in v.v. 29 -35. And as I have shown in two other posts, the established pattern in Jesus’s method of teaching/preaching is one of progressive revelation. He moves from ambiguity to greater clarity, not from clarity to greater ambiguity. So he would not start with the literal meaning first (i.e. faith) and then use the figure, as occurs in John 6. Also, when He does use figurative language difficult to understand, either He or the evangelist explains what He mean. Secondly, John 6:56 talks about “abiding.”

56"He who eats My flesh and drinks My blood abides in Me, and I in him.

Abiding occurs subsequent to incorporation into Christ, after one has believed.

John 15:3-4
**3"You are already clean because of the word which I have spoken to you.
4"Abide in Me, and I in you. As the branch cannot bear fruit of itself unless it abides in the vine, so neither can you unless you abide in Me. **

1 John 2:24,28

24As for you, let that abide in you which you heard from the beginning If what you heard from the beginning abides in you, you also will abide in the Son and in the Father.
28Now, little children, abide in Him, so that when He appears, we may have confidence and not shrink away from Him in shame at His coming.

So eating the Body of Christ and drinking His Blood is a means of abiding in Christ. Thus it was most appropraite for Him to start with faith in chapter 6 and then move to abiding in Christ through the Eucharist because coming to faith precedes abiding and one must believe first before partaking of the Eucharist. Only those who abide in Christ will continue to have eternal life and will be raised on the last day.

John 15:4-6

**4"Abide in Me, and I in you. As the branch cannot bear fruit of itself unless it abides in the vine, so neither can you unless you abide in Me.
5"I am the vine, you are the branches; he who abides in Me and I in him, he bears much fruit, for apart from Me you can do nothing.
6"If anyone does not abide in Me, he is thrown away as a branch and dries up; and they gather them, and cast them into the fire and they are burned. **

God Bless,
Michael

 

[mikeledes]

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.

1 Corinthians 10:16

16Is not the cup of blessing which we bless a sharing in the blood of Christ? Is not the bread which we break a sharing in the body of Christ?

God Bless,
Michael