| Your Claim | My Response |
| Catholics adjust exegesis mid-stream in John 6, mixing literal and metaphysical interpretations, and spiritualize "hunger and thirst" while taking the rest literally, negating the necessity of believing in Christ (John 6:26-29). | Catholic exegesis is consistent, not contradictory. John 6:26-29 emphasizes belief in Christ as the foundation of salvation, which Catholics affirm (Catechism of the Catholic Church 161). Belief leads to participation in the Eucharist, the "true bread" (John 6:32). The "hunger and thirst" in John 6:35 are both spiritual and eschatological, fulfilled through the Eucharist, which nourishes believers for eternal life (John 6:54). The Jews' misunderstanding (John 6:30-34) parallels your symbolic view, as they sought physical bread, while Jesus offered His literal flesh (John 6:51-58, Greek trōgō, "to chew"). Catholics hold belief and the Eucharist together, not in opposition. |
| The Jews and Catholics err by thinking Jesus discusses "actual bread" (John 6:30-34). | The Jews misunderstood Jesus as offering physical bread like manna (John 6:31), but Jesus clarifies He is the "true bread" giving life to the world (John 6:32-33). Catholics recognize this as the Eucharist, not ordinary bread, based on Jesus’ explicit words: "The bread that I will give is my flesh" (John 6:51). The Fathers, like Ignatius of Antioch (Letter to the Smyrnaeans 7:1), affirm this as Christ’s real body, not a symbol. Your symbolic reading aligns with the Jews’ initial error, not Jesus’ teaching. |
| John 6:35-40 identifies Jesus as the bread of life, promising eternal life and security to believers, which Catholicism denies. | Catholics affirm that Jesus, the bread of life, grants eternal life through faith (John 6:35, 40). The Eucharist is the sacramental means by which believers abide in Christ (John 6:56). The "security" in John 6:37-39 refers to God’s fidelity, not an absolute guarantee of perseverance, as free will remains (CCC 162). Paul warns of falling away (1 Cor 10:12), and Catholics uphold both God’s grace and human cooperation. The Eucharist strengthens this union, fulfilling John 6:35’s promise of no hunger or thirst. |
| 1 Corinthians 11:26, per Paul’s revelation from the Lord, excludes transubstantiation and salvation, as it’s about proclaiming Christ’s death, not salvation, and is for believers only. | Paul’s words in 1 Cor 11:26 ("proclaim the Lord’s death") do not exclude salvation or transubstantiation. The Greek kataggellō ("proclaim") implies a participatory act in Christ’s sacrifice, not mere remembrance. 1 Cor 10:16 confirms the Eucharist as a real participation (koinōnia) in Christ’s body and blood. The warning against unworthy reception (1 Cor 11:27-29) implies a real presence, as one cannot profane a symbol. The Eucharist, for believers, applies Christ’s salvific sacrifice (CCC 1365-1367). Transubstantiation, articulated later, explains the change described by Paul and the Fathers (e.g., Ambrose, On the Mysteries 9.50). |
Your reading of John 6 and 1 Corinthians 11 reduces the Eucharist to a symbol, ignoring Jesus’ literal language (John 6:51-58), Paul’s teaching on real participation (1 Cor 10:16), and the unanimous testimony of the Early Church Fathers (e.g., Justin Martyr, First Apology 66). Catholic theology consistently integrates belief and the Eucharist as Christ’s real body and blood, fulfilling His promise of eternal life.
You had to read back into John 6 a metaphysical "spiritual" answer to my questions of do you get hungry or thirsty.
You steadfastly refuse to understand the overall context of the passage from John 6 in relation to what John wrote in his gospel and the overall NT.
You steadfastly refuse to understand the true meaning of the Lord's Supper even though Paul clearly articulated the purpose.....we proclaim the Lord's death....not for salvation.
You steadfastly ignore the message Peter preached at Pentecost. When asked what they must to do be saved what was his reply? Participate in the Lord's Supper to be saved? Nope.
What was Peter's reply when Jesus asked if they wanted to leave after the unbelieving disciples had left?
68Simon Peter answered Him, “Lord, to whom shall we go? You have words of eternal life. 69“We have believed and have come to know that You are the Holy One of God.”
He didn't say we've eaten/drunk you blood....but no....rather we have believed.
Which captures what Jesus began the passage with and is what Romans completely miss.