That should say John 6. Sorry for the mistake. It’s being taken care of.
A timely topic since we will hear one more Gospel on John 6.
“Christ’s followers here – the non-believing ones – could not accept that He meant His words literally. So, He repeated himself four times – four times He stated directly that one must “eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood” to “have live” (eternal live, that is).
When these disciples responded with incredulity or doubt, asking for clarification, He only repeated His words, more strongly (adding “drink his blood”).
Some of His disciples “walked no more with Him” as a result of this teaching. He did not attempt to keep them from going, as He surely would have if they had merely misunderstood the words. No, it is even more obvious that His words meant exactly what He said, literally, for if not the teaching was not “hard” and would not have resulted in disciples who could not accept it. In fact, this is the only instance recorded in the Gospels of Christ losing followers over a doctrinal matter – because they could not accept a teaching as given.
The literal meaning of the Greek word used for “eats” (trogon) actually means “chewing” or “gnawing” – a very graphic word that would not be used in metaphor.”
Christ specifically states that faith in Him will grant eternal life:
John 5:24 Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that heareth my word, and believeth on him that sent me, hath everlasting life, and shall not come into condemnation; but is passed from death unto life.
He repeats this many times, including in the chapter you were quoting. In fact, Christ uses the imagry of eating and drinking and connects it with Belief:
John 6:35 And Jesus said unto them, I am the bread of life: he that cometh to me shall never hunger; and he that believeth on me shall never thirst.
So belief will eternally satisfy thirst? Or will drinking the Roman wine satisfy thirst? Hmmmmm?
In fact, this is how Christ begins his discourse on what you claim is the teaching of the Eucharist.
He then concludes with this in the same chapter when speaking to His apostles:
Joh 6:63 It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life.
Not only does the flesh profit nothing, the words that He speaks “are spirit, and they are life.” Salvation, therefore, is a spiritual act, with a spiritual significance. No Roman ritual can possibly replace it.
It is metaphor. Note John 6:63, "The Spirit gives life; the flesh counts for nothing. The words I have spoken to you are Spirit and they are life." God Himself says the flesh counts for nothing right there in John 6 to explain, so why does the Church insist on claiming that it does?
Too bad that many of the issues that differ with the teachings of the Church were addressed in your original post. I guess it is asking too much for people to read it before they post though.
Keep up the good work Salvation!
“After Christ consecrated and distributed His Body and Blood, He commanded the apostles to “Do this in remembrance of Me.” That word - remembrance - is very important, because the Greek word it is translated from refers to a deep and complex concept that has no proper word or even short phrase in modern languages. That word is anamnesis, and, according to the best evidence, means a type of memorial sacrifice. What is a memorial sacrifice? Note that it’s not the memorial of a sacrifice but rather a sacrifice that is itself a memorial - a critical distinction.
Because there is some contention regarding the meaning of anamnesis, we will look at how it is used elsewhere in the New Testament and the Septuagint (the Greek translation of the Old Testament).
In the Old Testament, anamnesis is used to refer to either a bread sacrifice or a blood sacrifice - a memorial sacrifice, that is. Lev 24, full of the same terminology of priests, eating, memorial sacrifice, incense and bread that surrounds the Eucharist, speaks of the anamnesis of Aaron’s priesthood. And Numbers 10 speaks of the burnt offerings of anamnesis offered to God to atone for sin. The parallels with the New Covenant Sacrifice are plentiful.
Anamnesis is used only once in the New Testament outside of the Last Supper narratives, in Heb 10, where Paul speaks of the Levitical sacrifices.
So, the concept of anamnesis existed in the Hebrew culture (religion): as mentioned in the Introduction the Passover itself has always been regarded by Jews as not just a remembrance of the Exodus, but as a re-living or “making present” of those events. And so it is with the Eucharist: It is the making-present, in a mystical way, of Christ’s sacrificial death. When Christ said “Do this anamnesis” He literally said “Celebrate this memorial sacrifice”. And so the Church has always done:”
This is pure Roman invention. The word Anamnesis does not literally mean “memorial sacrifice” at all. It means “remembrance,” and is always translated as such, but there is no sense of the meaning of “memorial sacrifice” in the word at all.
Peter uses the verb form Anamnesko (bracketed) here:
Mr 11:21
And Peter [calling to remembrance] saith unto him, Master, behold, the fig tree which thou cursedst is withered away.
And here:
Mr 14:72
And the second time the cock crew. And Peter [called to mind] the word that Jesus said unto him, Before the cock crow twice, thou shalt deny me thrice. And when he thought thereon, he wept.
So, was Peter performing a memorial sacrifice right there?
Plato uses the word Anamnesis as a name for Socrates’ theory that the soul possessed full knowledge before birth, but the “shock” of birth erased it all; thus, the human soul was only in the process of “Anamnesko” (remembering) throughout life.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anamnesis_(philosophy)
So is Plato performing a “Memorial Sacrifice” by so naming his philosophical theory?
“This passage makes it extremely clear that Paul – who received his understanding of it directly from Jesus Christ, as he declares – regards the Eucharist as truly the Body and Blood of Christ.”
It does no such thing. The entire chapter is discussing good conduct within the Church of God. For example, hair length for men, coverings for women. Paul was speaking of the Lord’s Supper, which is obviously an actual supper, and not a ritual where one gets a wafer and a sip of wine. The Corinthians were abusing it with gluttony and drunkenness, or eating separately from one another, before all were gathered, so that some would starve and another would be drunk. For that cause God was punishing them. Here is the preceding scripture:
1Co 11:19-22 For there must be also heresies among you, that they which are approved may be made manifest among you. (20) When ye come together therefore into one place, this is not to eat the Lord’s supper. (21) For in eating every one taketh before other his own supper: and one is hungry, and another is drunken. (22) What? have ye not houses to eat and to drink in? or despise ye the church of God, and shame them that have not? What shall I say to you? shall I praise you in this? I praise you not.
“Melchisedech was made a priest by God directly, not via bloodline (as with the Levitical priesthood); and his priesthood was eternal as well. This foreshadowed Christ and His New Testament priests, who acquire their priesthood via an oath (sacramentum).
There is no scripture which makes this claim, that priesthood is acquired through an “oath”. It is pure Roman invention. We are made Kings and Priests in the sight of God. There are no special classes:
Rev 5:10 And hast made us unto our God kings and priests: and we shall reign on the earth.
Gal_3:28 There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus.
We are called lively stones, a peculiar people, made saints by the blood of the lamb:
1Pe 2:9-10 But ye are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, an holy nation, a peculiar people; that ye should shew forth the praises of him who hath called you out of darkness into his marvellous light: (10) Which in time past were not a people, but are now the people of God: which had not obtained mercy, but now have obtained mercy.
This is because we are saved not by our works, but by the works of Christ which we have put on through faith. We are worthy because HE is worthy:
Gal_2:20 I am crucified with Christ: nevertheless I live; yet not I, but Christ liveth in me: and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by the faith of the Son of God, who loved me, and gave himself for me.
Rom 3:21-28 But now the righteousness of God without the law is manifested, being witnessed by the law and the prophets; (22) Even the righteousness of God which is by faith of Jesus Christ unto all and upon all them that believe: for there is no difference: (23) For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God; (24) Being justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus: (25) Whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood, to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins that are past, through the forbearance of God; (26) To declare, I say, at this time his righteousness: that he might be just, and the justifier of him which believeth in Jesus. (27) Where is boasting then? It is excluded. By what law? of works? Nay: but by the law of faith. (28) Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law.
...love http://catholicthinker.net/ , thanks.
We gotta help our brothers and sisters in Christ come to
believe in the pinnacle of the faith. If they could just
accept Our Lord’s presence in the Eucharist, all other misunderstanding about the faith will fall away.
The 7th Day, the millennial reign, the new time is
Christ’s spiritual reign, ALL hearts united in belief in the Eucharist.
a sample, read what the prophets have heard:
“The time for the end to this most evil age has come. The era of peace will no longer be delayed.”35
“I knew that this meant (a vision) that the Catholic Church would convert the whole world and would reign in the coming era of peace.”36
“The Holy Eucharist is ALL. The triumph of the Hearts of Jesus and Mary will come and there will be peace on earth. When it happens, you will gaze at my presence in the huge Eucharist, you will see what I have been revealing. You will see me in the form of bread and wine in a huge Host, for I am alive and whoever believes in me and in My Father who has sent me, will have eternal life in heaven.”37
“Evil begets evil (reference abortion). Your country (USA) will be cleansed and purged until one day I shall reign in a new era of peace and love.”38
“The great awakening (warning) is near. This great event will begin the march to the great era of peace. To the time when paradise will be restored.”39
“I wish as soon as I can to restore earth to its former glory, the reinstitution of Paradise where those who sought Me and My Son Jesus with their hearts shall dwell. But this privilege has to be earned by each person yearning to see and live in the new era which the Spirit of I Am revealed to My servants the prophets.”40
“I saw a glorious vision of the era of peace. I am in total awe of all that our Lord revealed to me: pure air, crystal clear water, beautiful trees and shrubs, even grass all in various luscious shades of green, etc. Flowers that were of such true vibrant hues and the earth’s soil appeared to be dark and rich in nutrients. Animals and man were living in complete harmony. Peace, joy, love in all creatures was so apparent. Every man, woman, child and animal was living to please God and to do only His Will. My tiny remnant will then live in my era of peace. All things will be made anew. Although some of my remnant will not live to see this new era, they will rest in peace with me.”41
“When the time comes, a new Jerusalem will come upon the land and the seas, and an era of peace will settle upon the earth.”42
“A new day will then dawn and I will reign as your Eucharistic King for the millennium of peace.”43
“My faithful and true remnant who listens to our/My every word and cherishes them and takes them to heart living them will be our people in the new era, which is not too far off in the distant future.”44
“There will no longer be abortion and the sounds of My little ones will triumph. There will be no more adultery, no more stealing. My Commandments, dear children, will be restored into the hearts of man. The era of peace will prevail upon my people.”45
“My Father’s era of peace will then be upon the earth and peace will reign in the HEARTS of those chosen to live during these times which will be called The Greater Testament and will be a time of great peace and love will exist in the hearts of all men.”46
35 Message 763, (01/11/2010), to Littlest of Servants from Jesus
36 Message 622, (12/22/2008, to Littlest of Servants from Jesus
37 Message 466, (06/14/2008), to Luz Diaz from Jesus
38 Message 334, (07/03/2005), to Ann Marie White from Jesus
39 Message 307, (03/16/2006), to James from the Holy Trinity
40 Message 228, (08/17/2007), to Lec from God the Father
41 Message 163, (03/13/2005), to Louise Tomkiel from Jesus
42 Message 434, (05/01/2008), to Ned Dougherty from Jesus
43 Message 104, (04/07/2005), to Louise Tomkiel from God the Father
44 Message 317, (05/01/2005), to Meriam from Jesus
45 Message 321, (06/11/2005), to Jennifer from Jesus
46 Message 337, (about 07/03/2005), to Meriam from Jesus
archives at Seers 2 ~
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/seers2/message/29467
“- Melchisedech offered an unbloody sacrifice of bread and wine, a thanksgiving (eucharistein) for God’s deliverance of Abram from his enemies. “As Melchisedech offered his sacrifice of behalf of Abram, Jesus would offer His sacrifice on Abram/Abraham’s [spiritual] offspring those who are members of His Church” (Salza).
- Melchisedech is greater than Abram, one of the holiest men in all of Scripture. This is made evident by the fact that Melchisedech blesses Abram.
- Since Melchisedech was called a priest but made no bloody offering, his bread and wine offering must have been a sacrifice (this is sometimes contested by Protestant apologists trying to wiggle out of the plain interpretation of the text). This also makes clear (as do many other things), that Christ’s Last Supper offering was a sacrifice since Christ’s priesthood is “in the order of Melchisedech”. “Further, because Scripture says Jesus made a ‘single sacrifice’ and ‘single offering’, this means that the Last Supper sacrifice and the sacrifice of the Cross are the same sacrifice” (Salza, and the emphasis is his).” “
There is no evidence that Melchizedek performed any “memorial sacrifice” by offering bread and wine. Here is the scripture in question:
Gen 14:17-20 And the king of Sodom went out to meet him after his return from the slaughter of Chedorlaomer, and of the kings that were with him, at the valley of Shaveh, which is the king’s dale. (18) And Melchizedek king of Salem brought forth bread and wine: and he was the priest of the most high God. (19) And he blessed him, and said, Blessed be Abram of the most high God, possessor of heaven and earth: (20) And blessed be the most high God, which hath delivered thine enemies into thy hand. And he gave him tithes of all.
You can certainly pretend that Abram kneeled down and received communion right then and there. (Of course, the New Testament believers didn’t even practice it like that, as other scriptures show it was an actual supper.) Or you can see it as a gift from him to refresh Abram after a significant battle. Whatever the case, the Romans read far more into it than what is actually there.
“I am the living bread that came down from heaven. If anyone eats of this bread, he will live forever. This bread is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world.”
My Knights of Columbus license plate # - JN651
the Douay-Rheims translation of Scripture “is a word-for-word translation of the Latin Vulgate (compiled by St. Jerome from the original Hebrew and Greek under Pope St. Damasus), which is the official translation of the Catholic Church (the Vulgate has been universally used in the Latin Rite for over 1,600 years).”
Once again this finds contradiction, as,
There is only one English text currently approved by the Church for [liturgical] use in the United States. This text is the one contained in the Lectionaries approved for Sundays & Feasts and for Weekdays by the USCCB and recognized by the Holy See. These Lectionaries have their American and Roman approval documents in the front. The text is that of the New American Bible with revised Psalms and New Testament (1988, 1991), with some changes mandated by the Holy See where the NAB text used so-called vertical inclusive language (e.g. avoiding male pronouns for God). Since these Lectionaries have been fully promulgated, the permission to use the Jerusalem Bible and the RSV-Catholic at Mass has been withdrawn.” http://www.ewtn.com/expert/answers/bible_versions.htm
And in fact the DRB does not even appear on the Bishop’s list of approved translations,(http://www.usccb.org/bible/approved-translations) though that does not mean RCs cannot use it.
the Douay-Rheims translation of Scripture “is a word-for-word translation of the Latin Vulgate
his is not so, unless you have the 1609, which presents its own problems due to the issues with the Vulgate:
• Catholic Answers: The Douay-Rheims currently on the market is also not the original, 1609 version. It is technically called the "Douay-Challoner" version because it is a revision of the Douay-Rheims done in the mid-eighteenth century by Bishop Richard Challoner [who corrected it according to the Clementine edition of the Vulgate]. He also consulted early Greek and Hebrew manuscripts, meaning that the Douay Bible currently on the market is not simply a translation of the Vulgate (which many of its advocates do not realize). — http://www.catholic.com/tracts/bible-translations-guide (with official stamps)
Also from Catholic Answers, which states, among other criticisms of the Douay only sect,
• ...as Pius XII pointed out (DAS 20), this does not mean that the Vulgate always reflects accurately what is in the original texts. Sometimes it doesn't...
Even then, the Douay is not simply a translation of Jerome's original. There is no pure edition of the Vulgate available, any more than there is a single, pure edition of the original Greek and Hebrew. When the Douay was translated, there were a number of editions of the Vulgate that differed from each other in varying degrees.
Furthermore, the editions of the Douay now in circulation are the Douay-Challoner version (or even more properly, revisions of the Douay-Challoner version), which has been corrected in light of the original Greek and Hebrew manuscripts, meaning that it is not a pure translation of the Vulgate.
Challoner's revisions were extensive — more than Douay-Rheims Onlyists commonly admit. They were not limited to updating spelling and punctuation. Regarding the extent of the revisions, Bernard Ward notes, "The changes introduced by him were so considerable that, according to Cardinal Newman, they 'almost amounted to a new translation.' So also, Cardinal "Wiseman wrote, 'To call it any longer the Douay or Rheimish Version is an abuse of terms. It has been altered and modified until scarcely any sense remains as it was originally published'" (Catholic Encyclopedia, 1910 ed.,s.v., "Douay Bible").
Free Of Protestant Bias?
While translator bias is a fact to be contended with, Douay-Rheims Onlyists often accuse contemporary translations of being tainted by Protestant translations.
But there's another side to that story. Just as the original Douay came to influence the KJV, the KJV itself came to influence the Douay. Ward notes: "In nearly every case Challoner's changes took the form of approximating to the Authorized [i.e., King James] Version."
— 2002 by Catholic Answers, Inc.; http://www.catholicculture.org/culture/library/view.cfm?id=4300&CFID=45541857&CFTOKEN=30609021
Moreover, while Trent did establish the Vulgate as the official Bible for that time, it did not specify which edition, nor elevate it above the original language manuscripts (though some disagree). The lack of uniformity among Vulgate editions and problems with that translation resulted in the embarrassing Sistine Vulgate.
Correction of its many errors resulted in the first edition of the Clementine Vulgate (official version till 1979) which was presented as a Sixtine edition (with a preface in which Bellarmine charitably attributed the problem of the previous version to being that of copyist errors, rather than being the fault of Sixtus). In 1592, Pope Clement VIII published this revised edition of the Vulgate, referred to as the Sixto-Clementine Vulgate. He moved three books, 3 and 4 Esdras and the Prayer of Manasses (commonly found in medieval MSS of the Vulgate, immediately after 2Chronicles, and not found in the canon of the Council of Trent) from the Old Testament into an appendix "lest they utterly perish" (ne prorsus interirent). — (http://sacredbible.org/vulgate1861/scans/817-Apocrypha.jpg)
Also of interest,
In the spring of 1907 the public press announced that Pius X had determined to begin preparations for a critical revision of the Latin Bible... In spite of the care which during forty years had been bestowed upon the text of the present authentic edition issued by Clement VIII, in 1592, it had been recognized from the first that the text would have to be revised some day, and that in some ways this Clementine revision was inferior to the Sixtine version of 1590, which it had hastily superseded. — Catholic Encyclopedia>Revision of Vulgate; http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15515b.htm
In addition, Vulgate manuscripts included prologues that clearly identified certain books of the Vulgate Old Testament as apocryphal or non-canonical (Prologues of Saint Jerome, Latin text )
Concerning which see this and linked threads.
All Christians know what "the Eucharist" is - virtually all celebrate it in some form...
So begins 8,000+ words which provides another example of the plethora of promotions of often prolix papist propaganda practiced by her parishioners here, though such have been often dealt with already. Perhaps it earns an indulgence.
Christ was not speaking in a metaphor or allegory here. Otherwise, why did he say at the Last Supper, "This is my Body." "This is my Blood."
Or “drink this cup.” Likewise David was literally speaking when he said, “is not this the blood of the men that went in jeopardy of their lives? therefore he would not drink it,” in referring to the water his mighty men sacrificially obtained. (2Sam. 23:15-17) And in many other like examples, shown here in examination of this doctrine (and here on 1Cor. 11), to which little should need to be added.
Yet this is not necessarily a salvific issue unless one believes that no one can actually have no life in them unless they believe the elements are the real body and blood of the Lord as per Rome, versus “living” as Christ explained. (Jn. 6:57,63; 4:34; Mt. 4:4) In which case Protestants cannot be saved (and no one else before they received the elements), in contradiction to Vatican Two, which some Catholics here seem to reject, at least in part.
This is excellent! Thanks so much. I know people who have been converted simply by reading and re-reading John 6.
;-)
On the other hand, he commanded: "That you love one another, as I have loved you, that you also love one another." How did he love us? He gave his whole life for the salvation of all. At the last supper, Jesus said "..do this in remembrance of me." What did Jesus DO? He gave thanks to God for the gifts he had received which sustain life, and he gave them away.
The Eucharist is gratitude to God for the gifts we receive which sustain life, and charity with same. You can make it yourself in every moment of every day. When someone else makes it and gives it to you, the value is primarily for them. The value is in giving it away.
We perform the ceremony with bread and wine to commemorate this teaching. The bread and wine are symbols, but the underlying teaching is very real.
I think the thing that bothers me the most about some of the responses on this thread is that for those of us who have experienced the overwhelming joy associated with the Real Presence the suggestion that we did not witness what we witnessed and did not experience what we experienced is beyond preposterous. We are also told that we as Catholics do and cannot think if we accept Church teachings on this. I can't see this as anything other than a finessed way of calling us liars and idiots.
“If the world hates you, keep in mind that it hated me first." - John 15:18
Peace be with you