The sacraments are the ordinary and sure means of obtaining sacramental graces. However, if He chooses the Spirit can certainly give sacramental graces to whomever He wants in an extraordinary manner apart from the sacrament, as the *Catechism of the Catholic Church *states in paragraph 1257, “God has bound salvation to the sacrament of Baptism, but he himself is not bound by his sacraments.”This is an excellent response and it does make a lot of sense. Like I said I just wish to understand a little more fully the content of the gospel. However in regards to this is the flesh necessary for the spirit to be profitable? Can the Spirit work without the flesh? Can I receive the spirit without the flesh (the visible)? For it is the spirit that we desire for by the spirit we are renewed.
If so, how do you reconcile the fact that you have just declared Baptism as irrelevant and unnecessary?Well I hate to break it to you but that is wrong. IF you accept the testimony contained with acts.
‘‘44While Peter was yet speaking these words, the Holy Ghost fell on all them that heard the word. 45And the faithful of the circumcision, who came with Peter, were astonished, for that the grace of the Holy Ghost was poured out upon the Gentiles also. 46For they heard them speaking with tongues, and magnifying God. 47Then Peter answered: Can any man forbid water, that these should not be baptized, who have received the Holy Ghost, as well as we?’’
So reception occurs upon hearing, not through the sacrament.
Thank you for your reply. I am glad to get to the core of the matter. Now while this explanation is good it still is missing key aspects that I addressed earlier. Specifically why would Jesus preface the statement "‘It is the Spirit that quickeneth, the flesh profiteth nothing. My words are truth and life.’’ with ‘‘Doth this scandalize you? If then you shall see the Son of man ascend up where he was before?’’ Now in regards to the term flesh. Flesh can be used to refer to 3 things (as far as I can discern) First off flesh in a general ‘‘all flesh’’. secondly in an actual flesh manner ‘‘the flesh on my bones’’, thirdly in reference to a weak nature ‘‘the flesh is weak but the mind is willing’’. Now here Christ is talking about the second one. Flesh as flesh and bone. He would not try and explain the concept of his actual flesh and blood sermon with another use, like weak nature. It would have to remain conceptually the same otherwise it would be pointless to try and make an explantion. So we must assume that ‘‘flesh’’ in this case is literal flesh.In verse 63, Jesus said:
“The Spirit gives life; the flesh counts for nothing. The words I have spoken are spirit and they are life.” (John 6:63)
Some people claim that these words prove that Jesus was speaking metaphorically because he said “the words I have spoken are spirit”. They take this to mean that Jesus was not speaking literally when he commanded us to eat his body and drink his blood. However, this would be a misunderstanding of what Jesus meant when he said, “the flesh counts for nothing.”
First, notice that whenever Jesus referred to his own body and blood, he said “my flesh” or “the flesh of the Son of Man”. Here are the examples:
“This bread is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world.” (John 6:51)
"Jesus said to them, “I tell you the truth, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you. Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day. For my flesh is real food and my blood is real drink. Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me, and I in him.” (John 6:53-56)
At this point, the narrative explains that the disciples were on the verge of revolt over this teaching. Jesus tells them that they cannot understand this teaching with their natural minds. Here is the verse in context: “On hearing it, many of his disciples said, ‘This is a hard teaching. Who can accept it?’ Aware that his disciples were grumbling about this, Jesus said to them, ‘Does this offend you? What if you see the Son of Man ascend to where he was before! The Spirit gives life; the flesh counts for nothing. The words I have spoken to you are spirit and they are life.’” (John 6:60-63)
In John 6:63, Jesus uses the phrase “the flesh” instead of “my flesh” or “the flesh of the Son of Man” because he is not talking about his own body; he is referring to man’s natural, unenlightened rational intellect.
Jesus tells the grumbling Jews (who can’t understand how he would give them his flesh to eat) that they cannot grasp it with their natural minds because it is a mystery beyond the ability of “the flesh” to understand. This is the same manner of speaking used by Paul in 1 Corinthians 2 & 3 when he is distinguishing between fleshly or carnal Christians and those who are discern the things of God with their spirits.
Second, it might be worth noting the obvious fact that Jesus cannot be saying that HIS own flesh “counts for nothing”; otherwise, his death upon the cross would be meaningless. Instead, we know that his own body, his flesh, was broken and pierced for our sake; no Christian would deny that. Therefore, since HIS flesh does count for something, he must have been referring to “flesh” other than his own in v. 63.
Thus, the one verse that many non-Catholics cling to as an argument against the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist does not mean what they falsely claim it means. Ironically, their “proof text” points out precisely why they cannot understand the Eucharist: they are using their own flesh or human reasoning instead of their spirits to discern the things of God. Unfortunately, their flesh “counts for nothing”.
Well the implication will be what they will be. Yet I reconcile it thusly. Some need assurances of faith. Outward signs that they are faithful. Reminders of it. Not that that is wrong. We are all given different measures of faith according to the dispensation of Christ (Rom 12:3). Baptism is just a reminder of the actual work done by the Spirit of Christ within us. Now if I never get baptized would Christ’s Spirit’s work be nullified? No. To say somwould be preposterous. I think baptism came about because most understood water in John 3:5 to mean physical water. Yet the next time Jesus talks about water, to the lady at the well, he speaks of an entirely different kind of water. And it is this water that we must be born from. ‘‘Whosoever drinketh of this water, shall thirst again; but he that shall drink of the water that I will give him, shall not thirst for ever: But the water that I will give him, shall become in him a fountain of water, springing up into life everlasting.’’ John 4:13-14If so, how do you reconcile the fact that you have just declared Baptism as irrelevant and unnecessary?
Grace is always referred to as singular within scripture. Grace is the action of the Holy Spirit sanctifying/working within us.The sacraments are the ordinary and sure means of obtaining sacramental graces. However, if He chooses the Spirit can certainly give sacramental graces to whomever He wants in an extraordinary manner apart from the sacrament, as the *Catechism of the Catholic Church *states in paragraph 1257, “God has bound salvation to the sacrament of Baptism, but he himself is not bound by his sacraments.”
The part in red is the old heresy of Monophysitism or Eutychianism. This heresy separated Christ’s humanity from his divinity and said that his divine status as God was superior to, overwhelmed and rendered unimportant his humanity. This was universally condemned very early in Christianity and is where you make a very big mistake.You are missing the point of what I am saying. And those that walked away were under a misconception about what Christ meant BECAUSE of the Old Law. They believed they would have to literally consume His flesh and blood if they wanted to become like him and they couldn’t stomach that. Yet Christ tried to show that who he was was contained entirely in his Spirit and it is by that that we can be reborn into life. It is by the waters of his words (doctrine) that we have eternal life. Not by a carnal consumption of flesh. Not to say that Jesus’s flesh and blood are not contained in the Eucharist. However what does his flesh and blood profit? If I already have his spirit within me, do I need the Eucharist? His spirit is already sanctifying me through grace. So is his flesh and blood sanctifying in any way? It seems unnecessary (for one whom has the Holy Spirit) is all I’m saying basically
How did the highlighted part separate his humanity from his divinity? Here’s a good analogy. I have a body. Correct. Now just seeing my body and not talking to me, do you know who I am? No. What if I have a twin? So simply based on my flesh you know next to nothing about me. Why? Because I’m me and I’m unique. What makes up me is my spirit and what I choose to do and say. Not the frame that holds it. So no it’s not a heresy. Christ and his Father are one. I do not deny that. And Christ was born into flesh much like my own so I also can say he was the son of man. I do not belittle Christ. If any thing I exalt him in my life by trying to understand what his words mean and the implications. By eating of his doctrine per say I become better able to apply his word to my life.The part in red is the old heresy of Monophysitism or Eutychianism. This heresy separated Christ’s humanity from his divinity and said that his divine status as God was superior to, overwhelmed and rendered unimportant his humanity. This was universally condemned very early in Christianity and is where you make a very big mistake.
You also make a mistake when you read “the flesh profits nothing” out of context of the rest of verse 63.
I’ve already said that you can try to live the life of Christ apart from his very clear words that unless you consume his flesh and blood in the Eucharist you will have no life in you. I hope you can and God isn’t bound by the sacraments, but I’m sure it will not be easy.
-Tim-
I do not deny the Real Presence, Emily. I know the Living God is there, under the appearance of bread and wine. Yet the main issue is… Is it necessary? profitable? If it helps you get closer to God then by all means. You should definitely do so. I’m not saying it’s wrong or that it’s not helpful in your spiritual life. But if someone like myself sees no spiritual enrichment in my own personal view then why am I de facto excommunicated by my non reception?Have in the past been told by Protestants that “Catholics must be cannibals if they believe they are eating real flesh and drinking real blood”. No doubt others have been similarly challenged. Yes it is possible and obviously popular with posters to analyse Biblical passages, but, lacking their in-depth knowledge of theology, I prefer to accept such Miracles as a basic tenet of my Faith. The Sacrament of the Eucharist fills us with Grace. At the moment of Consecration, That which we consume, becomes the Living God. I believe that unquestioningly.
Depends on the translation you use.Grace is always referred to as singular within scripture. Grace is the action of the Holy Spirit sanctifying/working within us.
''1WHAT shall we say, then? shall we continue in sin, that grace may abound? ‘’ Rom 6:1
‘‘We have different gifts, according to the grace given to each of us’’ Rom 12:6
‘‘for it is God who works in you to will and to act in order to fulfill his good purpose.’’ Phil 2:13
They had seen Jesus perform many miracles and heard him teach wondrous things. But this was too much even for them.Specifically why would Jesus preface the statement "‘It is the Spirit that quickeneth, the flesh profiteth nothing. My words are truth and life.’’ with ‘‘Doth this scandalize you? If then you shall see the Son of man ascend up where he was before?’’
This is really important: Which verse are you referring to when you say He is referring to the second meaning?Now in regards to the term flesh. Flesh can be used to refer to 3 things (as far as I can discern) First off flesh in a general ‘‘all flesh’’. secondly in an actual flesh manner ‘‘the flesh on my bones’’, thirdly in reference to a weak nature ‘‘the flesh is weak but the mind is willing’’. Now here Christ is talking about the second one. Flesh as flesh and bone. He would not try and explain the concept of his actual flesh and blood sermon with another use, like weak nature. It would have to remain conceptually the same otherwise it would be pointless to try and make an explantion. So we must assume that ‘‘flesh’’ in this case is literal flesh.
Wow. Lots of questions there. I want to focus mostly on the question I asked above for now.Now in reference to Christ delivering up His flesh on the cross for us… Was it his flesh that delivered it up to die? or Christ? look at john 10:18. Now Christ’s sacrifice is very important but his flesh was not the reason it happened. It happened because the powers of the world at the time wished to see him dead (1 Cor 2:8), according to God’s plan still though of which they were ignorant of, So he could humble those powers and take the place at the right hand of God. Now in terms of doctrine I just don’t see the Eucharist as being the correct interpretation to draw from this. Not saying that the real presence within the Eucharist isn’t there, more so I believe it is, rather is it profitable? Because I thought it was the Holy Spirit that sanctified us and worked within us… So why, as a Catholic, does one have to receive the Eucharist? If I fail to receive it within Easter time I am excommunicated for it (de facto). So it is required… why? What does it do that the Holy Spirit does not?
Thank you for showing me these. They help paint a better understanding of Grace. While I love the Douay I think gifts would be a little more appropriate. Seeing as it still is grace working in the person manifesting these gifts. Which I think is what Paul means here. While the gifts have different attributes they come from the same source; mainly Christ’s Spirit. Now with you last comment on sacramental graces, do different sacraments confer different types of grace?Depends on the translation you use.
“Now there are diversities of graces, but the same Spirit;” (1 Cor 12:4, Douay-Rheims)
"And God indeed hath set some in the church; first apostles, secondly prophets, thirdly doctors; after that miracles; then the graces of healing, helps, governments, kinds of tongues, interpretations of speeches. (1 Cor 12:28, Douay-Rheims)
The plural *graces *also seems an acceptable usage, as John 1:16b refers to receiving grace upon grace or one grace after another.
In any case, “sacramental graces” is Catholic-speak for to those gifts granted by the Holy Spirit that are proper to the different sacraments.
So for your first I fail to see how the flesh Christ mentions here; ''56 For my flesh is meat indeed: and my blood is drink indeed.They had seen Jesus perform many miracles and heard him teach wondrous things. But this was too much even for them.
“Aware that his disciples were grumbling about this, Jesus said this to them, “Does this offend you? What if you see the Son of Man ascend to where he was before! The Spirit gives life; the flesh counts for nothing. The words I have spoken to you are spirit and they are life. Yet there are some of you who do not believe.” Jn 6:61-64
Not only does Jesus continue to uphold the literal meaning of his teaching, but also he presses even further by asking that if this bothers them, what will they do when they see him ascend to heaven? Protestants do not deny the ascension of the resurrected Jesus, yet here Jesus places two key truths side by side. He is saying, in effect, “If eating my flesh causes you theological problems, just wait until you see what else I have planned…you ain’t seen nothing yet!” He is referring, of course, to His resurrection from the dead.
This is really important: Which verse are you referring to when you say He is referring to the second meaning?
Wow. Lots of questions there. I want to focus mostly on the question I asked above for now.
Firstly, do you believe we become Christ (At the resurrection) or just like him but different? If so how much? Secondly, As for why the Word became flesh is evident. The world was broken. He came to take away the cause of that. Sin. ''The next day, John saw Jesus coming to him, and he saith: Behold the Lamb of God, behold him who taketh away the sin of the world. ‘’ (John 1:29) So Christ had to deal with first, the rulers of this world whom had revolted against the authority of God. ‘‘7But we speak the wisdom of God in a mystery, a wisdom which is hidden, which God ordained before the world, unto our glory : 8Which none of the princes of this world knew; for if they had known it, they would never have crucified the Lord of glory.’’ 1 Cor 2:7-8 Now whom were the princes? The Jews? The Romans? Indirectly yes, but whom gave them authority? Satan. Hence why he could offer the world to Jesus. Jesus didn’t deny his ability to do so, He simply stated that only before God do you bow. Saying Love God above all else. Now because of this He was given the highest place… the man (not angel) who was innocent by the angelic standard… put to death by their failing to yield rule to god (having violated that by entering the garden). It was to serve to humiliate them, and to show us how much love He has. The good Shepard laying down his life for the sheep, the world. Knowing full well the consequences of being the sole light in a world of darkness and the cruel punishment that would mean. And by that His Spirit comes. ‘‘9But, as it is written: That eye hath not seen, nor ear heard, neither hath it entered into the heart of man, what things God hath prepared for them that love him. 10But to us God hath revealed them, by this Spirit.’’ 1 Cor 2:10GodILove-- I still don’t see how you can separate Christ’s “Flesh” from His “Spirit”, as if He just kind of ‘put on flesh’ for 33 years and then abandoned it and is now somehow ‘only’ Spirit. He is both, and that is why it is so important for us to eat and drink His Body and Blood, because they are also His Spirit and Divinity.
How else can we become united to Him? We ourselves are Spirit and Body, and at the Judgment we will assume our glorified bodies to be forever united with our Spirit. This is the kind of body or ‘flesh’ that Jesus has.
I notice you have not fully addressed why Jesus’ incarnation– literally the Word becoming Flesh–was the method of salvation chosen by God. If the ‘flesh’ means nothing, why not send Christ as only Spirit? Certainly angels (who are pure spirit) were ‘seen’, and often assumed to be ‘mere men’, by humans. . .why didn’t Jesus simply ‘seem’ to be a man? Because a spirit cannot die, and Christ did die for us? Wasn’t His death in the Flesh the cause of our release from the bonds of death?
My view is that Jesus has just said YOUR flesh will not profit from the Eucharist, YOUR flesh will still die its natural course. But the soul (the immaterial aspect of man) will profit because that soul will have spirit and life from the body and blood of Jesus Christ.''But Jesus, knowing in himself, that his disciples murmured at this, said to them: Doth this scandalize you? 63 If then you shall see the Son of man ascend up where he was before? 64 It is the spirit that quickeneth: the flesh profiteth nothing. The words that I have spoken to you, are spirit and life. ‘’ John 6:62-64
The disciples were just murmuring about eating his flesh and blood.
Are you suggesting that because Jesus ascended bodily into heaven, we can receive his flesh in the Eucharist?So for your first I fail to see how the flesh Christ mentions here; ''56 For my flesh is meat indeed: and my blood is drink indeed.
57 He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, abideth in me, and I in him.
‘’
Is different than the one in the verse in context? I think it is the same flesh, and since this was his explanation for their scandal it stands to reason they are one and the same. Now earlier He says this: ‘’ For the bread of God is that which cometh down from heaven, and giveth life to the world.’’ (John 6:33) So Christ came to give us life through His Holy Spirit which we receive upon hearing the doctrine of Christ. Unless you deny the apostles accounts. Now is the Eucharist what gives the life? Or Christ Spirit? Do I have Christ Spirit without the Eucharist? Because the flesh He gave on the cross he took with Him. That’s what Jesus is saying here. His Spirit will become our waters of life and we will be fed by God. Hence with His spirit indwelling within us we never thirst or hunger for we have our fill. Let me ask you, does the crucifixion power the miracle in the Eucharist? Or is it Christ’s own power? His own Spirit?
Jn 6:61-64So for your first I fail to see how the flesh Christ mentions here; ''56 For my flesh is meat indeed: and my blood is drink indeed.
57 He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, abideth in me, and I in him.
‘’
Is different than the one in the verse in context? I think it is the same flesh, and since this was his explanation for their scandal it stands to reason they are one and the same.
Yes, each sacrament confers different graces or gifts of grace. The following quotes are from the indicated paragraphs in the Catechism of the Catholic Church.Now with you last comment on sacramental graces, do different sacraments confer different types of grace?
Have not had a chance to read all the responses, so if anyone has already said this my apologies.''But Jesus, knowing in himself, that his disciples murmured at this, said to them: Doth this scandalize you? 63 If then you shall see the Son of man ascend up where he was before? 64 It is the spirit that quickeneth: the flesh profiteth nothing. The words that I have spoken to you, are spirit and life. ‘’ John 6:62-64
The disciples were just murmuring about eating his flesh and blood.