B
Bill_Pick
Guest
Whoever eats My flesh and drinks My blood has eyernal life,and I will raise him on the last day John 6:54
- Status
T
TriuneUnity
Guest
That whoever eats the body and blood of Christ by faith in the eucharist will have the forgiveness of sins. Traditionally Lutherans have called John 6 the passage that is about the Lord’s Supper and is not about the Lord’s Supper.
Most other Protestants would interpret it to be non eucharistic, I would imagine.
C
CMatt25
Guest
Some I believe take “eat” or knawing or whatever and “drink” to be symbolic for believe. And thus take it to mean whoever believes I gave up my flesh and blood on the cross as a sacrifice for you, will have eternal life.
R
Roy5
Guest
Jesus often spoke in symbolic terms. He spoke of himself, for example, as a door, a gate, the good shepherd, the light of the world, etc. When he told us to eat his body and drink his blood he was speaking symbolically as well. That’s what most Protestants would say.The idea that certain words recited by a priest changes the bread into flesh and the wine into blood seems simply too pagan for many. To think of it symbolically makes sense to them.
Code:
Protestants surely believe in the real presence in that Jesus promised that "I will be with you always, even unto the end of the world." The dogma of transubstantiation seems too much like the mystery religions and perhaps the mind-set of the superstitious ancient and medieval world. Some mystery religions used to teach - as certain primitive tribes did, too - that if you consumed the body and blood of a god you would inherit that god's powers or virtues. That notion was also believed by some who practiced cannibalism, too.
Many people find it difficult to believe that the sacrifice of Christ is being reenacted each Sunday during mass. That seems to be what many Catholics believe. They are offering up the sacrifice of Christ's body and blood again - over and over. Now, if that is seen as theatre only, perhaps okay. But it seems to mean much more than that. To conceal that behind the word 'mystery' as is often done is inadequate and confusing.
God bless Christians of all varieties - and those of every faith, color, nation and tongue!
P
Palaeologos
Guest
Not re-enacted; re-presented. Big difference. No informed Catholic really believes that Jesus is being sacrificed anew at each Mass. It was a “one oblation of himself once offered”. But consider that God is eternal, and for him all time is now. In some sense, that Sacrifice is still continuing, and we call it to mind (anamnesis) in offering the Mass, just as we call to mind his Passion, Death, Resurrection, Ascension, and Second Coming. An act of remembrance which is not merely a mental exercise but a spiritual reality.
I saw a commentary in a Baptist-edited KJV regarding this verse that tried to claim it was about feeding on the Word of God (i.e. the Bible). No cigar for them…!
M
MarkBrown
Guest
Palaeologos;6410894 said:Ummmm…when I was a baptist we were not allowed to smoke.
Fr.Mark
C
CMatt25
Guest
You explained it well. And if I understand correctly but correct me if I am wrong, Protestants say the reason Jesus did not stop those from walking away in Jn 6 is because even after Jesus had explained the difference, they were still focused on eating bread as was done in the dessert with manna or to fill their stomachs and not believing in His Sacrifice for us. Is this correct?
And as to your last sentence…
S
Spencerian
Guest
Hi, Roy.
Jesus was *not *speaking symbolically here. To understand, we need to see most of John 6, specifically, verses 26 to 71.
When the crowd finds and gathers around Christ for another miracle, as if he were some mere magician, Christ tells them that their forefathers received mere food in the desert from God: manna. Yet their forefathers are dead. Christ tells them that He is the bread of eternal life (verse 41).
When the crowd asks him to clarify, knowing of his parents and cousins, he repeats himself (verse 48), emphasizing that His own Flesh was the bread (verse 51). With more murmuring, He repeats again in more specific words (verse 55).
To this, the crowd was aghast. Why wouldn’t they be? Christ, without equivocation, told them that they must eat of his Flesh and his Blood, literally. The people there were astonished because they believed him speaking literally as well, not symbolically at all (verse 60)
And at the moment, many of Christ’s followers left him (verse 66), but the Apostles stayed–even though Christ’s word were confusing to them as well.
Christ spoke often in parables. Here, He made sure the meaning was clear and not at all a symbol or representation.
T
TriuneUnity
Guest
LOL.Yeah, but on the boards here, our interpretation isn’t as much fun.
Jon
G
Greenbrier
Guest
6:47 tells us what Jesus is talking about. Even Luther didn’t believe that John 6 referred to the Eucharist, it had not yet been instituted. Our Lord is clearly talking about personal faith.
P
Palaeologos
Guest
Of all times to become a stickler for chronology…!
St John’s Gospel is filled with the Scriptural equivalents of the funeral oration of Pericles–words which Jesus perhaps never said as they’re recorded, but which encapsulate his teaching in nicely formed rhetorical periods (minus interruptions, repetitions for the benefit of his auditors, digressions, etc.).
That the Eucharist had not yet been instituted wouldn’t prevent Jesus from alluding to it, typologically or prophetically. The feeding(s) of the multitudes prefigures the Eucharist, as do the parables of the wedding feasts. And certainly, “he that believeth on me hath everlasting life” is in no way incompatible with either Catholic or Reformed teaching concerning the Eucharist (I mean classically Reformed, not the devolved Zwinglianism so common in modern American Protestantism).
The “flesh and blood” discourse in John 6 cannot be divorced from the Eucharist, which was universally celebrated. It’s possible to make a case that it’s metaphor (although I don’t think it is), but to say that no reference to the Eucharist was intended is incredible.
C
CMatt25
Guest
Or He was speaking of eating and drinking symbolically for believing. And He is present in Spirit to give life until He comes again. And those who left did not believe In Him. Jesus knew they were not believing in Him, did not believe He came down from heaven to save the world. So they were allowed to leave.
29
Jesus answered and said to them, “This is the work of God, that you **believe in the one **he sent.”
35
Jesus said to them, “I am the bread of life; whoever comes to me will never hunger, and whoever **believes in me **will never thirst.
36
But I told you that although you have seen (me), you do not believe.
37
Everything that the Father gives me will come to me, and I will not reject anyone who comes to me,
40
For this is the will of my Father, that everyone who sees the Son and believes in him may have eternal life, and I shall raise him (on) the last day.”
47 Amen, amen, I say to you, whoever believes has eternal life.
63
It is the spirit that gives life, while the flesh 22 is of no avail. **The words I have spoken to you are spirit and life. **
64
But there are some of you who do not believe." Jesus knew from the beginning the ones who would not believe and the one who would betray him.
66
As a result of this, many (of) his disciples returned to their former way of life and no longer accompanied him.
67
Jesus then said to the Twelve, “Do you also want to leave?”
68
Simon Peter answered him, “Master, to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life.
69
**We have come to believe and are convinced that you are the Holy One of God.” **
Disclaimer: Before anyone gets bent out of shape. I write this not to defend but just to answer the OP’s question in hopes my fellow Catholics might come to a better understanding of our brothers and sisters who believe symbolically. Peace.
S
Sarah_Angel
Guest
1 Corinthians 11:23-27:
Just thought I’d throw some questions out there.
For those of you who don’t believe in the True Presence, I more-or-less wonder why Paul would make a big deal out of receiving a mere symbol in an ‘unworthy manner.’ To be guilty of profaning something seems rather intense to me. Also, why use the words body and blood in this passage if that’s not what they actually are?
Just thought I’d throw some questions out there.
C
CMatt25
Guest
Could unworthily mean receiving without believing in or discerning or remembering His sacrifice on the cross for us all? Not distinguishing how He gave up His body for us? I don’t know just throwing that out there as a possible Protestant answer.
T
TriuneUnity
Guest
Indeed. Since we know that the basis for the forgiveness of sins is the atoning work of Christ in the cross, if God acted chronologically, He would not have been able to forgive sins until Christ was crucified. Nor could Jesus have announced the forgiveness of sins during His ministry (or forgiveness in the Old Testament, through the offering of lambs, for that matter).
S
Spencerian
Guest
Thanks, CMatt.
I’ll counter with further points and then leave others to help the OP, for your assertion is a crucial part of Catholic faith that cannot be left in error for the point of this thread.
Later, the Lord says to his followers again, as he breaks bread, “This is my body.”
He did not say, “This represents my body,” or “This is a symbol of my body.” He said “This is my body.”
He also told his disciples, “Do this in memory of me,” meaning that he expected his followers to repeat the actions he showed them as part of their worship (there was precedent for this use of bread and wine as sacrifice to God with Melchizedek in the Old Testament).
And if Christ does not direct his followers to eat of the Blessed Eucharist, why do we have many, many authentic writings from the earliest Christians in the 1st, 2nd and later centuries that speak of the Eucharist, of its importance and how it was not a mere symbol of Christ, but Christ himself?
The nature of Christ among us is more than just a mere bit of thought. He meant to make Himself present for us to adore, knowing how weak our faith would be sometimes in believing but not seeing.
Thanks for your answers to help with the OP’s question. God bless.
F
fbl9
Guest
What you seem to be describing here is a later creature, know as the social christian. At that time it was social suicide, at the least, to be a christian At that time it would be nearly impossible not to know these things.Could unworthily mean receiving without believing in or discerning or remembering His sacrifice on the cross for us all? Not distinguishing how He gave up His body for us? I don’t know just throwing that out there as a possible Protestant answer.
C
CMatt25
Guest
Spenserian, no problem. I’m all about ecumenicism and our unity in Christ. I never said anything about this is Catholic teaching though. In fact I thought I made it clear I was simply helping the OP and my fellow Catholics understand another view. That was the original question. How Protestants interpret a verse. But of course the symbolic view is not what the Catholic Church or even some Protestants teach.
Anyway as to your further points, my thinking is they might say Christ hadn’t died yet @ the Last Supper and to do this in remembrance meant just that. In memory of His Sacrifice for us, while present in Spirit since He has ascended into heaven, is seated at the right hand of the Father, and hasn’t returned yet for His 2nd Coming. I’ll have to let Protestants answer the ECF question as I am less familiar with their answer to that. Perhaps they just don’t think the ECFs were inspired writings as Scripture and might not necessarily have had everything infallibly right?
I’ll be interested as well in their answers. God bless you too and peace.
C
CMatt25
Guest
Not to know He gave up His body for us? I suppose if you were actually @ the Crucifixion or heard by word of mouth and believed. But either way still when they “broke bread” in the Eucharist, it would not have been simply eating a piece of bread without remembering the Sacrifice on the cross.
- Status