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

[Nicene]

malachi_a_serva:

I would think that if Jesus said something, it would mean something. From another Thread, I understand Catholic teaches it does interpret “Whoso eats my flesh, and drinks my blood” as being the bread and wine in communion (transubstantiation), then why leave out the last part. From what I gather, your answer as put forth, is because of Tradition.

Actually the last part isn’t left out at all, some may argue it for brevity sake. However, in the verses above, if we are to get into a full discusion on it:

The word trogon is used 5 times in scripture, 4 times in the immediate passages you cite. Trogon means to “gnaw my flesh”, it occurs in vs 54-58. The last part of v54 refers escatologically to the end time. However Christ is the one in eternity so we are partaking of His eternity, the last part is the eternity promised to us. If we eat the son of man we have eternal life (His, not ours) Ours comes later, if we hold true to the rest of His commands and accept His graces and mercy.

In v53 and 54 the statements are negative (v53) and positive (v54) it is a play on words, referring to a midrashic play on the verb to eat in exodus v31.

I’ll try to link something I wrote a while ago, but it is quite a bit longer than 5000 words (I forgot my password and meant to place it on a blog my wife made for me, but haven’t yet had the opportunity.)

Peace and God Bless
Nicene

 

[malachi_a_serva]

onesimplemind:

Actually I totally agree with you. There is no way I can understand the truth about Christianity by reading the Bible. I can know every word in the Bible, recite it all forward and backwards, but I am still a human being with all my built in biases. The truth isn’t about whatever I think it is, I need a teaching authority, and that teaching authority has to have been there since the time of Jesus.

There can only be one.

Yes, then that goes in another direction of debate…

 

[Unexpected_Dawn]

I’m not a Bible scholar, nor am I the most knowledgeable Catholic (yet). But I don’t really understand the debate about this scripture.

To me, it makes sense in light of the Real Presence… when we receive the Eucharist, Jesus and His immortal life become part of us, body and soul. It’s pretty simple. But it’s a two-way street, a mutual agreement, as described in verse 56: “Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me and I in him.”

Unfortunately, it’s a fact of human nature that we don’t always choose to remain in Jesus. That whole free will thing, you know. We are sinful creatures, and by our sin, we reject Jesus. We break the covenant, give up our commitment to Him. That is why it is such a mortal sin to receive the Eucharist when in a state of mortal sin. We can’t expect to have Jesus and his immortal life within us, if we choose not to remain in Him. A soul in mortal sin is not worthy to be in Him, and have Him in it.

Since we are always capable of sinning, we have to work constantly to maintain our purity and our commitment to the covenant. On the other hand, the more often we receive the Eucharist, the stronger we become spiritually. But there’s no easy way about it. After all Jesus went through for us, we ought to be willing to work hard for Him.

 

[Nicene]

From what I gather, your answer as put forth, is because of Tradition.

Not really, the text is pretty plain in greek. It proves itself directly from scripture, but some choose still not to believe. However we have the added benefit that the early church fathers attest to it as well, which is why the catholic position is so strong, both bible and tradition support it. Particularly in greek.

Peace and God Bless
Nicene

 

[onesimplemind]

malachi_a_serva:

Yes, then that goes in another direction of debate…

Yes I apologize for that, I just needed to respond to a question posed earlier.

 

[Elzee]

malachi_a_serva:

I am not trying to prove OSAS (I just learnt what those initials meant by the way), just trying to decifer why a few prior words are taken literally and not explained out from other text quotes but this part is?

I’m sorry, I wasn’t very clear. I think I understand what you are asking, but maybe not. My point was that you could ask this same question about a lot of verses in the Bible (1 Tim 2:5 for example: For there is one God. There is also one mediator between God and the human race, Christ Jesus, himself human, who gave himself as ransom for all.). Taking this verse as ‘plainly’ as it’s written I would have to say Jesus is only human. It doesn’t say he is God. But doing that would ignore the rest of Scripture. The verse you are quoting Catholics take entirely literally - but you can’t do that to the exclusion of the rest of Scripture since Scripture cannot contradict itself.

I used to struggle with the very same question you are asking by the way - it seems to say so clearly that once you receive Communion you’ve go it made in the shade! (Kind of like the verse that says 'call no man father’ - it seems so clear!) Then I started reading and studying more of Scripture and these verses made sense. Others on this forum are much more knowledgeable than I am - I have such a long way to go in my bible studies - but hopefully this will help you some. I think it’s a very legitimate question, by the way.

 

[vern_humphrey]

malachi_a_serva:

I would think that if Jesus said something, it would mean something. From another Thread, I understand Catholic teaches it does interpret “Whoso eats my flesh, and drinks my blood” as being the bread and wine in communion (transubstantiation), then why leave out the last part. From what I gather, your answer as put forth, is because of Tradition.

If Jesus said something, it does mean something – but that doesn’t mean a single verse can be taken out of context and expanded to amount to His whole message.

And it certainly doesn’t grant license to root through the Bible, and pull out all sorts of out-of-context verses to make Jesus appear to mean something He clearly did not mean.

The people who were there – who heard Him say it – did not interpret it that way. They understood it in the total context of His message. They understood that through sin, salvation can be lost – as He explained elsewhere. That is the consistent, unchanging Tradition of the Church, expressed through the Magisterium down to this day.

 

[vern_humphrey]

Unexpected Dawn:

I’m not a Bible scholar, nor am I the most knowledgeable Catholic (yet). But I don’t really understand the debate about this scripture.

To me, it makes sense in light of the Real Presence… when we receive the Eucharist, Jesus and His immortal life become part of us, body and soul. It’s pretty simple. But it’s a two-way street, a mutual agreement, as described in verse 56: “Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me and I in him.”

Unfortunately, it’s a fact of human nature that we don’t always choose to remain in Jesus. That whole free will thing, you know. We are sinful creatures, and by our sin, we reject Jesus. We break the covenant, give up our commitment to Him. That is why it is such a mortal sin to receive the Eucharist when in a state of mortal sin. We can’t expect to have Jesus and his immortal life within us, if we choose not to remain in Him. A soul in mortal sin is not worthy to be in Him, and have Him in it.

Since we are always capable of sinning, we have to work constantly to maintain our purity and our commitment to the covenant. On the other hand, the more often we receive the Eucharist, the stronger we become spiritually. But there’s no easy way about it. After all Jesus went through for us, we ought to be willing to work hard for Him.

Very well put.

 

[JaneFrances]

Hey Malachi! Good to see you again. . .

I hope I can help you in some way!

First, we must always realize that eternal life is a free gift of grace. Our salvation is a function of God’s merciful initiative through the life, death, and resurrection of His Son, our Lord, Jesus Christ.

Now, we know that Christ has given us numerous ways in which we can accept this gift.

We must believe in Him (Jn. 3:16, Acts 16: 30).

We must reform our lives and be baptized (Acts 2: 37-38).

We must deny ourselves. (Mark 8:24-35).

We must take up the cross and follow him (Matt. 16: 24-27).

We must do the will of the Father (Matt. 7:21).

We must eat his flesh and drink his blood (Jn. 6:54).

We must perform charitable and merciful works in the name of the Lord (Matt. 25: 31-46).

We must suffer (Philip. 3:10-11).

We must “strive for glory, honor, and immortality by patiently doing right” (Rom. 2: 5-13).

These are all, according to Scripture, ways in which Christ calls us to accept his gift. However, Christ makes our acceptance of that gift a function of our own free will. We can choose to or not to do all of the above mentioned things and thus accept or refuse his invitation to eternal life.

So, one might say: I have believed. I have reformed. I have been baptized. I have denied myself. I have taken up the cross. I have done the will of the Father. I have eaten his flesh and drunk of his blood. I have performed charitable and merciful works. I have suffered. I have strived. I HAVE eternal life. . .

Yet, there is still another thing Christ asks of us:

“But whoever holds out till the end will escape death.” (Matt. 10:22)

So, while we may certainly point to a specific time in our lives when indeed we HAVE done all those things that the Gospel insists are necessary, we must always bear in mind that our salvation is a journey of perseverance. Once, twice, three times, or for 30 years even is simply not enough. We must accept his grace every single day of our lives–as often as possible. And we have the choice, as with all gifts, to refuse it initially or even get rid of it down the road. That’s up to us. That’s the point of perseverance.

Jesus Christ, in His infinite love and mercy, has given us very tangible ways in which we can show our love for Him. . .believe in Him. . .follow Him. . .and thereby constantly persevere in accepting his amazing gift of eternal life. It’s never a one time deal.

So, for the average Christian (those of us who are weak and fail from time to time) to say “I’ve received Jesus Christ in the Eucharist once, so I’m saved” is as preposterous as saying “I believed once, so I’m saved” . . .or “I suffered once for Christ, so I’m saved.” Christ isn’t asking for once. He’s asking for everything.

We receive the Body and Blood of our Lord continually because, in our weakness, he saves us continually. He tells us: “He who feeds on my flesh and drinks my blood has life eternal” (Jn. 6:54). He does not say: “He who has fed once on my flesh and had one sip of my blood has life eternal, no matter what.”

We persevere. He saves.

 

[Unexpected_Dawn]

vern humphrey:

Very well put.

Thank you!

Actually my priest deserves the credit. A couple of weeks ago, at a scripture study, he was talking about covenants. And I think it’s very important to remember that the Eucharist is the sign of a covenant between Jesus and ourselves. A covenant by definition requires the assent of both parties to uphold it. And we, unfortunately, mess up quite a bit on our part, don’t we! We’re just fortunate that Jesus is never willing to give up on us.

 

[JaneFrances]

vern humphrey:

If Jesus said something, it does mean something – but that doesn’t mean a single verse can be taken out of context and expanded to amount to His whole message.

And it certainly doesn’t grant license to root through the Bible, and pull out all sorts of out-of-context verses to make Jesus appear to mean something He clearly did not mean.

The people who were there – who heard Him say it – did not interpret it that way. They understood it in the total context of His message. They understood that through sin, salvation can be lost – as He explained elsewhere. That is the consistent, unchanging Tradition of the Church, expressed through the Magisterium down to this day.

This, too, is an important point. . .We know that those in the early Church celebrated the Eucharist more than once, so obviously they understood the message to mean something other than “once is enough.”

 

[vern_humphrey]

JaneFrances:

This, too, is an important point. . .We know that those in the early Church celebrated the Eucharist more than once, so obviously they understood the message to mean something other than “once is enough.”

Absolutely!

Clearly those who heard it from Christ’s lips knew that the eucharist was to be celebrated continuously – and that we must avoid sin to benefit from it.

 

[Elzee]

Unexpected Dawn:

Thank you!

Actually my priest deserves the credit. A couple of weeks ago, at a scripture study, he was talking about covenants. And I think it’s very important to remember that the Eucharist is the sign of a covenant between Jesus and ourselves. A covenant by definition requires the assent of both parties to uphold it. And we, unfortunately, mess up quite a bit on our part, don’t we! We’re just fortunate that Jesus is never willing to give up on us.

This is an excellent point I’ll have to remember. Sounds like you have a great priest!

 

[Nicene]

Disregarding the OSAS arguement for a moment, as I think that has been answered sufficiently concerning whose eternal life is being spoken of, Christs, not ours, I finally got the password for the blog (I very rarely use it) and posted something from a while ago, it should aid you in understanding:

The Eucharist: Flesh and Blood

I hope it helps. Keep asking questions, the one you posed is pretty insightful and honest. Beginning with the correct premise is important though.

Peace and God Bless
Nicene

 

[ReformedCatholic]

vern humphrey:

What you have there is called “garage sale theology” – based on the implicit assumption the Bible was just discovered (at a garage sale) and people who have no background or training or tradition can interpret it for the rest of us.

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

 

[ReformedCatholic]

onesimplemind:

I always thought it would be the “have it your way” ‘Burger King theology.’ Now I see a deeper meaning.

It’s a very simple question. Is the statement to be taken literally or not? Yes, or no?

Your characterization of our friend’s attempt to learn about this does not flatter you.

 

[ReformedCatholic]

vern humphrey:

A variant of the Weather Report theory of biblical exegesis (as in tabloid headlines in the supermarket saying, “Bible Predicts Coldest Winter on Record.”)

Your apparent need to berate and denigrate the thought process behind the question, without having any legitimate answer to the question, suggests that there is not as easy an answer as your ridicule would imply.

Is the statement to be taken literally or not?

 

[ReformedCatholic]

Fredricks:

Very well done Malachi.
IF the phrase was literal like Catholicism contends it would assure us of eternal life. You are absolutely correct. I, in a way, wish it could be true. I am greatly saddened when I think about the invevitable consequences of sin being Hell for those who do not accept Christ.

I agree. An excellent perception. I will be interested to explore the “answers” and their reasoning.

 

[ReformedCatholic]

vern humphrey:

Can a person who has not mastered arithmetic understand Quantum Mechanics?

If you seek to understand, you must study. Simply stumbling across a verse in the Bible and interpreting it out of context doesn’t qualify.

Jesus’ discourses on salvation are fround throughout the Gospels. He clearly discusses sin – and gives Peter and the Apostles the power to loose and bind. The Apostles, who did not learn about Christianity by reading, but who were taught by Christ, Himself, did not accept OSAS.

Instead of deciding they were wrong, you’d be better off trying to undestand why they were right.

The question remains a legitimate one. I still haven’t seen an answer. Is the statement to be taken literally, yes or no?

 

[Nicene]

ReformedCatholic:

Your apparent need to berate and denigrate the thought process behind the question, without having any legitimate answer to the question, suggests that there is not as easy an answer as your ridicule would imply.

Is the statement to be taken literally or not?

The question has already been answered some time ago in the thread. Yes it is. Catholics view most things both/and whereas protestants see it as either/or.

Pertaining to this particular question it was misunderstanding the nature of whose eternity was being addressed. Christ is the subject of the eternal we partake of, not we who are the eternal as the subject.

Peace and God Bless
Nicene