Whoso eats my flesh, and drinks my blood, has eternal life..is this OSAS?

[ReformedCatholic]

Nicene:

Just to play devils advocate for a minute, a negative non answer would pi** me off too. He asked a sincere question. It’s better to not answer or say I don’t know than not answer the why of the question.

Sorry for the rant, the go study and in another thread (go look it up) comments are a pet peeve. People can’t learn without hearing from other people the gospel - that’s the biggest part of oral tradition.

Peace and God Bless
Nicene

Well said.

 

[scylla]

I think this is a legitimate question based on the point of view of belief being based off of the Bible.

So Malachi is saying that why is one part literal of the phrase and one part conditional? Is that right?

I would first say to answer the question from a Bible only point of view is difficult and that is the limitation, and we must approach this and sort of try to relate the answer to someone coming from that point of view.

Kinda like answering what books are in the Bible to a non-christian who sees conflict between different Bibles. We need to approach the answer from the non-catholic point of view. Or else we are just convincing ourselves that we answered the question, but if it makes no sense to the questioner then it is a waste.
Is this correct Malachi?

Here is my attempt to answer clearly…
The whole phrase is conditional. It is not all an absolute or else then we wouldn’t even need to believe in Him. It is literal in that He is describing what we need to do as followers of Him, yet it is conditional since that is not the only part of the Gospel dealing with Salvation.
Is that clear enough. I tried to keep it a couple sentences.

------This must not be looked at as a Bible only point of view since He was saying this before the Bible was compiled—

Since Jesus’s words are the most important of the Bible, as Christians we first look to Him to see how to be saved and follow Him. We look to the rest of the Bible for clarification but since the Bible clearly describes St Stephen being saved without the Bible then we need to look at the faith understanding of the Apostles first. Since the Bible is not necessary for Salvation but useful in understanding it is used to back up belief already understood, not reinvent belief. So we must look to the faith and understanding of the Apostles.

In Christ
Scylla

 

[trumpet152]

I think it might help to bring up that the Greek language is a little different than the English. In Greek (if I am not mistaken), present is a continuing action. Therefore the phrase could be traslated: Whoso continues to eat my flesh and continues to drink my blood continues to have eternal life. This puts a different spin on it.

Note: I’m just a beginner in Greek, so if I’m in error here, feel free to point it out.

 

[KimM]

A better question to ask, I think, is why do protestants take the first part of the scripture figuratively and the second part literally?

 

[trogiah]

I think it is worth considering the following from Chapter 4 of John.

"Meanwhile, the disciples urged him, “Rabbi, eat.” 32 But he said to them, “I have food to eat of which you do not know.” 33 So the disciples said to one another, “Could someone have brought him something to eat?” 34 Jesus said to them, “My food is to do the will of the one who sent me and to finish his work.”

Consider the verse from Chapter 6

56 “Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me and I in him. 57 Just as the living Father sent me and I have life because of the Father, so also the one who feeds on me will have life because of me.”

In chapter 4 Jesus states in plain language that he feeds on the Father by doing his Father’s will. In Chapter 6 He says we are to feed on him in the same way. It is both a metaphor and a literal statement. We are to feed on him in the Eucharist because we are commanded to by Jesus and we are to feed on him by doing his will. Leaving out any of it would result in an unbalanced diet.

-Jim

 

[KimM]

What I mean is this… most protestant denominations say during a communion service that this is only a symbol of the body and blood. They also say that if you accept and recieve Jesus as your personal savior then you have eternal life and that your salvation is secure…
If all that is true, what DID Jesus mean by this particular scripture verse? It seems the Catholic explaination of the Eucharist is correct.

 

[x4us]

Jesus says, “Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life.” The verb is present tense - and at that present moment in time, the person has eternal life. Notice that Christ didn’t use any type of future tense in the verb. He did* not* say, “Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood will have eternal life.” The distinction is extremely significant. We must look at the whole of scripture - and we know that we can loose our salvation. Look carefully at what Jesus is saying - this verse gives no promise of future eternal life.

 

[malachi_a_serva]

x4us:

Jesus says, “Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life.” The verb is present tense - and at that present moment in time, the person has eternal life. Notice that Christ didn’t use any type of future tense in the verb. He did* not* say, “Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood will have eternal life.” The distinction is extremely significant. We must look at the whole of scripture - and we know that we can loose our salvation. Look carefully at what Jesus is saying - this verse gives no promise of future eternal life.

This is a good answer. However Jesus continues to say, “and I will raise him up at the last day.” If he were to raise him up to condemnation, not congruent to what he was saying. Yet if one assume eternal security…that would then carry forward to, “and I will raise him up at the last day.”

 

[MichaelTDoyle]

If you participate in the life of the eucharist you will be raised up on the last day as promised. Goodness, your question was properly answered by Vocimike early on. Please pray on it. There is no contradiciction. Jesus is offering us the Way in this discourse not an e-ticket ride.

This is very serious; it is your salvation and also your fulfillment today to participate in this life. Please, think on this. You have come so close to seeing there is no contradiction. Then once you start, bear fruit:

VociMike Will a human being live to a ripe old age by just eating once? No, a human (any living thing, actually) must continue to eat again and again. It can therefore be understood, by analogy to natural food and natural life, that Christ’s words are a call for continued participation in the Eucharist, not just a one time participation. Further, as Paul points out, one must partake of the Eucharist in a worthy manner, which includes both recognizing the Eucharist for what it is (Christ), and being free of major sin. If one thus lives a life of partaking in the Eucharist while being free of major sin (either through non-commission or by confessing major sins when committed), then one does have the continual assurance of eternal life.

 

[SemperJase]

malachi_a_serva:

This is a good answer. However Jesus continues to say, “and I will raise him up at the last day.” If he were to raise him up to condemnation, not congruent to what he was saying. Yet if one assume eternal security…that would then carry forward to, “and I will raise him up at the last day.”

Well, “eats” is a present tense verb. Jesus didn’t say “he who has eaten, I will raise on the last day.” His words imply continued action. If you stop eating his body and blood, you won’t remain in the state of grace to be raised up.

This fits in with catholic theology in that you are not to take the Eucharist if you are in a state of mortal sin.

 

[vern_humphrey]

ReformedCatholic:

Our friend is asking a legitimate question. It does not sound like you have the answer. Or do you?

Read the title of the thread:

Whoso eats my flesh, and drinks my blood, has eternal life…is this OSAS?

The answer is no, this is not OSAS.

To suggest that one can read a verse in the Bible and use that to “prove” such a concept as OSAS is nonsense at best, and trolling at worst.

 

[malachi_a_serva]

SemperJase:

Well, “eats” is a present tense verb. Jesus didn’t say “he who has eaten, I will raise on the last day.” His words imply continued action. If you stop eating his body and blood, you won’t remain in the state of grace to be raised up.

This fits in with catholic theology in that you are not to take the Eucharist if you are in a state of mortal sin.

Showing the verb tense, good. However that being said, the present tense verb is followed by an “eternal” reward. For instance if Jesus said, "If you “eat” you have eternal health…only than to find out your eternal health can be taken away and you become sick…would make Jesus’ statement incorrect or a lie. Because even thought you ate (present tense “eat”) you would not have “eternal” anything. That would make his statement incorrect.

 

[Nicene]

malachi_a_serva:

Showing the verb tense, good. However that being said, the present tense verb is followed by an “eternal” reward. For instance if Jesus said, "If you “eat” you have eternal health…only than to find out your eternal health can be taken away and you become sick…would make Jesus’ statement incorrect or a lie. Because even thought you ate (present tense “eat”) you would not have “eternal” anything. That would make his statement incorrect.

Again you are assuming He is talking about your eternal life: which is egocentric. The eternal life you partake of is His.

However by insinuating that this is OSAS which other parts of the gospel shall we remove? Possibly this:

Mt 7:21: "Not every one who says to me, Lord, Lord,' shall enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. 22: On that day many will say to me, Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and cast out demons in your name, and do many mighty works in your name?’ 23: And then will I declare to them, `I never knew you; depart from me, you evildoers.’

and this:

Mt 25:41: Then he will say to those at his left hand, Depart from me, you cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels;42: for I was hungry and you gave me no food, I was thirsty and you gave me no drink, 43: I was a stranger and you did not welcome me, naked and you did not clothe me, sick and in prison and you did not visit me.' 44: Then they also will answer, Lord, when did we see thee hungry or thirsty or a stranger or naked or sick or in prison, and did not minister to thee?’ 45: Then he will answer them, `Truly, I say to you, as you did it not to one of the least of these, you did it not to me.’ 46: And they will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life."

Can’t be both ways, if the scripture must be taken in isolation, as OSAS is proposing, there is no choice but to delete the above (among many others) to make the doctrine work. If it is proposed as you have said, Jesus lied in these Mt 8 and 25. These are Christians He is talking about, people who believed in him and said Lord, Lord didn’t we do this in your name. They know who He is. It’s the only way it can fit the OSAS doctrine.

Did Jesus lie?
Are you willing to remove those sections of Mt?
By what authority do you remove them or declare them null?

Peace and God Bless
Nicene

 

[malachi_a_serva]

Nicene:

Mt 7:21: "Not every one who says to me, Lord, Lord,' shall enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. 22: On that day many will say to me, Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and cast out demons in your name, and do many mighty works in your name?’ 23: And then will I declare to them, `I never knew you; depart from me, you evildoers.’

This scripture I have come to realize is a good example demonstrating the difference between a “Christian” and a “Born Again Christian”. (Not to argue about this though). Someone can claim to be a “Christian” acknowledge Jesus as “Lord” however miss the boat and end up in not getting in to the Kingdom of Heaven. They are missing something…the “rebirth”.

Nicene:

Mt 25:41: Then he will say to those at his left hand, Depart from me, you cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels;42: for I was hungry and you gave me no food, I was thirsty and you gave me no drink, 43: I was a stranger and you did not welcome me, naked and you did not clothe me, sick and in prison and you did not visit me.' 44: Then they also will answer, Lord, when did we see thee hungry or thirsty or a stranger or naked or sick or in prison, and did not minister to thee?’ 45: Then he will answer them, `Truly, I say to you, as you did it not to one of the least of these, you did it not to me.’ 46: And they will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life."

“You cursed”…when I read the Bible I hear/read Jesus talking to allot of people about bieng disobedient, the children of the devil, children of wrath…and only at a certain point do they become “children of God”. Hence again, the rebirth.

You make a good point about other scripture verses…as it relates to allot of issues. i.e. baptism, OSAS, to name a few…people claim verses prove one or the other position, yet reconcile the other’s objection, but I hear ya. The Holy Spirit cannot lead us astray, our own mortal thinking can.

 

[Elzee]

malachi_a_serva:

You make a good point about other scripture verses…as it relates to allot of issues. i.e. baptism, OSAS, to name a few…people claim verses prove one or the other position, yet reconcile the other’s objection, but I hear ya. The Holy Spirit cannot lead us astray, our own mortal thinking can.

…and with those last few statements, malachi, I believe you’ve made a step - even if just a small one - towards home. (By the way, I really enjoy reading your posts and have learned a lot from your questions and responses. You ask good questions that make us all think. Thank you).

 

[slyboots]

Here’s an interesting part of that chapter:
John 6:53
Jesus said to them, "Amen, amen, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you do not have life within you.

If you’re eating crackers and Welches grape juice you do not have life within you.

 

[malachi_a_serva]

Elzee:

…and with those last few statements, malachi, I believe you’ve made a step - even if just a small one - towards home. (By the way, I really enjoy reading your posts and have learned a lot from your questions and responses. You ask good questions that make us all think. Thank you).

I enjoy being a part of this community for the learning and thinking as well.

 

[petra]

malachi_a_serva:

Showing the verb tense, good. However that being said, the present tense verb is followed by an “eternal” reward. For instance if Jesus said, "If you “eat” you have eternal health…only than to find out your eternal health can be taken away and you become sick…would make Jesus’ statement incorrect or a lie. Because even thought you ate (present tense “eat”) you would not have “eternal” anything. That would make his statement incorrect.

Hi Malachi,

When I was a Protestant, I used to get tripped up about the word eternal, too. Think about it this way:

1. If you eat…then you have “something”.
2. “Something” (if you have it) = eternal life
3. It is possible to lose that something if we turn from God.

It isn’t that having that “something” is eternal…it is that the nature of this “something” is eternal, if we have it.

Does that make sense?

I know where you’re coming from. I used to argue the same thing with Mormons. (I’d still argue with them, but not about the use of this word!)

But the Catholic understanding is really the only way to reconcile the whole of scripture.

 

[malachi_a_serva]

petra:

Does that make sense?

Yes it does. Thank you for that perspective.

 

[JSmitty2005]

Is the Eucharist necessary for salvation?

St. Thomas Aquinas states the following in his Summa Theologica:

*Objection 1. It seems that this sacrament is necessary for salvation. For our Lord said (John 6:54): “Except you eat the flesh of the Son of Man, and drink His blood, you shall not have life in you.” But Christ’s flesh is eaten and His blood drunk in this sacrament. Therefore, without this sacrament man cannot have the health of spiritual life.

Objection 2. Further, this sacrament is a kind of spiritual food. But bodily food is requisite for bodily health. Therefore, also is this sacrament, for spiritual health.

Objection 3. Further, as Baptism is the sacrament of our Lord’s Passion, without which there is no salvation, so also is the Eucharist. For the Apostle says (1 Corinthians 11:26): “For as often as you shall eat this bread, and drink the chalice, you shall show the death of the Lord, until He come.” Consequently, as Baptism is necessary for salvation, so also is this sacrament.

On the contrary, Augustine writes (Ad Bonifac. contra Pelag. I): “Nor are you to suppose that children cannot possess life, who are deprived of the body and blood of Christ.”

I answer that, Two things have to be considered in this sacrament, namely, the sacrament itself, and what is contained in it. Now it was stated above (1, Objection 2) that the reality of the sacrament is the unity of the mystical body, without which there can be no salvation; for there is no entering into salvation outside the Church, just as in the time of the deluge there was none outside the Ark, which denotes the Church, according to 1 Pt. 3:20,21. And it has been said above (68, 2), that before receiving a sacrament, the reality of the sacrament can be had through the very desire of receiving the sacrament. Accordingly, before actual reception of this sacrament, a man can obtain salvation through the desire of receiving it, just as he can before Baptism through the desire of Baptism, as stated above (68, 2). Yet there is a difference in two respects. First of all, because Baptism is the beginning of the spiritual life, and the door of the sacraments; whereas the Eucharist is, as it were, the consummation of the spiritual life, and the end of all the sacraments, as was observed above (63, 6): for by the hallowings of all the sacraments preparation is made for receiving or consecrating the Eucharist. Consequently, the reception of Baptism is necessary for starting the spiritual life, while the receiving of the Eucharist is requisite for its consummation; by partaking not indeed actually, but in desire, as an end is possessed in desire and intention. Another difference is because by Baptism a man is ordained to the Eucharist, and therefore from the fact of children being baptized, they are destined by the Church to the Eucharist; and just as they believe through the Church’s faith, so they desire the Eucharist through the Church’s intention, and, as a result, receive its reality. But they are not disposed for Baptism by any previous sacrament, and consequently before receiving Baptism, in no way have they Baptism in desire; but adults alone have: consequently, they cannot have the reality of the sacrament without receiving the sacrament itself. Therefore this sacrament is not necessary for salvation in the same way as Baptism is. *