Catholic Caucus: The Holy Sacrifice of the Mass

You said, Jesus said "It is finished" and it is !

You are right, but only as far as you go. He also said:

"Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood, you have no life in you; he who eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day. For my flesh is food indeed, and my blood is drink indeed. He who eats my flesh and drinks my blood abides in me, and I in him. As the living Father sent me, and I live because of the Father, so he who eats me will live because of me. This is the bread which came down from heaven, not such as the fathers ate and died; he who eats this bread will live for ever." (John 6:54-59)

Oh Angelique, my father died, and he died in the peace of Christ in the most wonderful way. I posted a thread about it. And I'm sorry I must have failed to flag you to it.

He clearly isn't perfect. He is an amazing man, a bundle of contradictions imho.

Your opinion is incorrect.

You keep returning to that when that was not my point. You have my permission to believe anything you like. It is a free country

My observation was on the validity of a daily repeat of the sacrifice that was once for all. My observation was it it's like the sacrifice of cain..no blood no remission of sin. A man made sacrifice not pleasing to God...

Jesus said It is finished..the sacrifice is complete for the remission of sin..there is no more sacrifice to be offered.

For those that come to that cross with a repentant heart He promises eternal life.

Sola Gracia ..no works ...no repeated sacrifice...He paid the price we could not pay..it insults Him , and His sacrifice that men think He could not get it right and they have to keep repeating it..

He ignores (John 6:54-59) and other similar words of Our Lord.

I am so sorry, but I knew he was very ill, and I am so glad he died in peace, as he should. He was a wonderful man.

You may have posted to me. There was a period I did not post since I had dislocated my shoulder. Special prayers for you and your family.

"For those that come to that cross with a repentant heart He promises eternal life."

Really? What about (John 6:54-59)?

What about:

Jesus said to them: "I am the bread of life. Your fathers ate the manna in the wilderness, and they died. This is the bread which comes down from heaven, that a man may eat of it and not die. I am the living bread which came down from heaven; if any one eats of this bread, he will live for ever; and the bread which I shall give for the life of the world is my flesh." (John 6:48-52)

Thank you for your kind words. Is your shoulder mending well? I will say a prayer for you too.

Dear sinkspur,

Our Holy Father will not go down in history as a great judge of character. ;-)

If you're asking my personal opinion, here it is. There are 3,000 dioceses in the world. The pope can't personally pick 'em all. He relies on others to do most of the work for him. It can't be avoided.

The system for picking bishops had broken down before John Paul got here. He didn't realize how badly broken it was, and he depended on it, as his predecessors did. It has not produced the results that he desired.

So it goes.

He has done many great things, but he is only the Vicar of Christ, not Christ Himself. It will be left to others to excel where he has been weak.

That's my take on it.

sitetest

Christ does not suffer again or die again in the Mass

Christ's suffering and sacrifice is in the eternal Now of Love exchanged between Father, Son and Holy Spirit. We intersect that Eternity at the Mass, the most Blessed Sacarament is our union, our touchpoint, briefly as time bound, as creatures, with the Eternal and Immortal. The Transubstantation is a revelation, an opening if you will, of that Eternal moment of Sacrifice out of which shines the Divine Mercy.

That I find so true. People reaching two or three pews over to shake hands. I think this particular segment is getting a bit out of hand. Caught the priest today observing it all, he had to wait for the revelry to be over so that he could continue the Mass...A little more decorum is necessary for the Sign of Peace to have great meaning.

Well said.

You really don't get it.

In verse 53 we read: “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat of the flesh of the Son of Man and drink His blood, you have no life in yourselves.” Here it appears that Jesus is using highly evocative language to express the necessity of belief in Him. This interpretation gains plausibility in light of what Jesus has already said in verse 47: “Truly, truly, I say to you, he who believes has eternal life.” Further confirmation can be found back in verse 35: We already know that Jesus is “the bread of life.” But the rest of the verse tells us: “he who comes to me will not hunger, and he who believes in me will never thirst.” This language strongly suggests that “eats my flesh” should most likely be taken as a metaphor for coming to Jesus, while “drinks my blood” is most likely a metaphor for belief in Jesus. Further confirmation for this is found in John 7: 37-38, where coming to belief in Jesus is metaphorically expressed as drinking: “If anyone is thirsty, let him come to me and drink. He who believes in me, as Scripture said, ‘From his innermost being will flow rivers of living water.’”(Michael Taylor )

I used to :>)

Dear sitetest,

He has done many great things, but he is only the Vicar of Christ, not Christ Himself. It will be left to others to excel where he has been weak.

Thank you. Another great post from you.

Colleen

"This language strongly suggests that “eats my flesh” should most likely be taken as a metaphor for coming to Jesus, while “drinks my blood” is most likely a metaphor for belief in Jesus."

I don't think so.

Jesus Himself said that It is His Body and Blood:

And as they were eating, He took bread, and blessed, and broke it, and gave it to them, and said, "Take; this is My body." And he took a cup, and when He had given thanks he gave it to them, and they all drank of it. And He said to them, "This is My blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many". -Mark 14:22-24

Jesus says "This is My Body". Not "This symbolizes my body", or "This represents my body", or "This is an emblem of my body", or even "This contains my body". No, He said "This IS My Body", and since He is God whatever He speaks becomes so: "So shall my word be that goes forth from my mouth; it shall not return to me empty, but it shall accomplish that which I purpose, and prosper in the thing for which I sent it" (Isaiah 45:10-11).

If God Incarnate picks up a piece of bread and proclaims "This is My Body" it becomes His Body! Whether we can understand how it happens or not doesn't matter. We cannot understand how God created the universe out of nothing, but we believe it because the Bible says He did (Gen 1:1). So why can't we believe that the same God can change bread into His Body and Blood? We must take God at His word.

Jesus said to them: "I am the bread of life. Your fathers ate the manna in the wilderness, and they died. This is the bread which comes down from heaven, that a man may eat of it and not die. I am the living bread which came down from heaven; if any one eats of this bread, he will live for ever; and the bread which I shall give for the life of the world is my flesh." (John 6:48-52)

Here He says "I AM the living Bread"; not "My word is the living bread", not "Your belief in Me is the living bread". Then He says that the bread He will give is His Flesh! He does not say "The bread which I shall give for the life of the world is My written word". He says that the living bread, the Bread of Life, is His Flesh! Catholics take Jesus on His word here.

Then Our Lord gets even more explicit:

"Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood, you have no life in you; he who eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day. For my flesh is food indeed, and my blood is drink indeed. He who eats my flesh and drinks my blood abides in me, and I in him. As the living Father sent me, and I live because of the Father, so he who eats me will live because of me. This is the bread which came down from heaven, not such as the fathers ate and died; he who eats this bread will live for ever." (John 6:54-59)

Jesus could not have been speaking symbolically here, for His listeners took him literally and left, but He never corrected their literal interpretation. He let them go, then turned to His apostles and said "Will you also go away?" Surely, if they misunderstood, He would have corrected them as He had earlier corrected Nicodemus (John 3:3-8) and the Samaritan Woman (John 4:10-14) when they misunderstood His words. The fact that He did not correct anyone in this case shows that those who left understood Him, but could not accept it (John 6:60).

Another reason why He could not have meant it figuratively is that, in that culture, the term "to eat ones flesh" figuratively means slandering or falsely accusing someone (see Psalm 27:2). Was Jesus saying "He who slanders me will have eternal life"? Of course not! So He must be speaking literally; He wants Christians to partake of His Risen Body and Blood, so that we might abide in Him and He in us (vs 57). This is how we become one Body in Him and with Him:

"The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not a participation in the blood of Christ? The bread which we break, is it not a participation in the body of Christ? Because there is one bread, we who are many are one body, for we all partake of the one bread" (I Cor 10:16-17)

The Bible says that the Eucharist is a "participation" in the Body and Blood of Christ! How can that be if it's "just a symbol"? You cannot actually participate in something by partaking of a mere symbol of it, and not the real thing. And how can a mere symbol of Jesus' Body actually make us one Body in Him? The "symbolic" interpretation of the Eucharist is anti-biblical!

How about this verse: "Whoever, therefore, eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of profaning the body and blood of the Lord" (I Cor 11:27). If Jesus Body and Blood are not truly present then we cannot become "guilty of profaning His Body and Blood" by receiving Communion unworthily. But if the Eucharist is truly Jesus' Body and Blood, then receiving Him unworthily is definitely a profanation! Some of the Corinthians were getting sick and dying (vs. 30) because they were receiving Jesus' Body and Blood unworthily, not because they were receiving mere symbols unworthily.

Or how about this one: "For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh damnation to himself, not discerning the Lord's body" (I Cor 11:29). This verse is self-explanatory. Christians must discern the Lord's Body in the Eucharist. We must recognize Him in the breaking of the bread (Luke 24:35).

An honest reading of all the verses regarding Communion proves that the Bible teaches that the Eucharist is the true Body and Blood of Jesus. Nowhere does the Bible say "the bread we break is just a symbol" or "the bread and wine are emblems of His Body and Blood". That's an unbiblical, anti-biblical heresy fabricated by Ulrich Zwingli less than five centuries ago! Christians before then believed the Scriptural truth that Jesus Christ is truly, objectively present in the Blessed Sacrament.

Dear Colleen,

Thanks.

sitetest

“Then the Jews began to argue with one another, saying, “How can this man give us his flesh to eat?” (John 6:52)

In order to prove that Jesus was speaking literally rather than metaphorically about eating his flesh and drinking his blood in John 6:53-58, Catholic apologists argue that Jesus would have corrected the misunderstanding of his hearers, if in fact his hearers had misunderstood him. Karl Keating’s version of the argument goes as follows:

There was no attempt to soften what was said, no attempt to correct ‘misunderstandings’, for there were none. His listeners understood him quite well. No one any longer thought he was speaking metaphorically. If they had, why no correction? On other occasions, whenever there was confusion, Christ explained what he meant. Here, where any misunderstanding would be catastrophic, there was no effort to correct. Instead, he repeated what he said (Karl Keating, Catholicism and Fundamentalism, [San Francisco: Ignatius, 1988], 233-234).

Stephen Ray argues similarly:

Couldn’t John have made an explanation to clarify these words (as he was wont to do, e.g., John 1:42; 21:19)? He could have told his readers that this was all symbolism and did not mean what the first generation Christians thought it meant. John wrote a sacramental Gospel and knew exactly what he was writing, and why (Stephen K. Ray, Crossing the Tiber, [San Francisco: Ignatius, 1997], 200 n. 13).

Scott Hahn likewise argues:

Clearly, Jesus wasn’t speaking figuratively or merely using a metaphor. If that’s all he was doing, it would have been very easy—and absolutely essential—for him to have clarified his point. And if he had done so, his Jewish listeners would’ve easily understood; in which case, there’d have been no cause for offense (Scott Hahn, A Father Who Keeps His Promises [Ann Arbor: Servant, 1998], 236).

The Catholic apologist argues that either Jesus or John would have, could have, or should have corrected the misunderstanding of his hearers. But since there is no correction, then there is no misunderstanding.   There are several problems with this argument.

The Equivocation Fallacy and the Definition of “Literally.”

The first problem with this argument concerns the definition of the word “literally.” What exactly does it mean?    For example, Karl Keating, citing Hugh Pope, writes:

[Jesus’ listeners] had understood Him literally and were stupefied; but because they had understood Him correctly, He repeats His words with extraordinary emphasis, so much so that only now does He introduce the statement about drinking His blood” (Keating, 233).

Notice the claim that Jesus’ listeners understood him both “literally” and“correctly.” But what exactly does “literally” mean in this context? Keating answers our question:

He warned them not to think carnally, but spiritually: “Only the spirit gives life; the flesh is of no avail; and the words I have been speaking to you are spirit, and life” (John 6:64)…John 6 was an extended promise of what would be instituted at the Last Supper—and it was a promise that could not be more explicit (Keating, 234).

Since Jesus instituted the sacrament of the Eucharist at the Last Supper, we can surmise that “literally” is to be understood in a spiritual (and specifically a sacramental) sense rather than a carnal sense.   Since Keating also holds that there were no “misunderstandings” on the part of Jesus’ hearers, it seems that Keating is saying they had correctly understood Jesus to be speaking of the sacrament of the Eucharist. At least the logic of his argument seems to commit him to this conclusion.   I rather suspect that Keating would not want to go so far as to say that the Jews and the disciples were thinking of the eucharist when Jesus spoke of eating his flesh and drinking his blood, especially since the sacrament had not yet been instituted!   But if Jesus was alluding to the eucharist, as Keating claims, and if there were no “misunderstandings,” then I don’t see how we can avoid the conclusion that Jesus’ hearers had correctly detected his allusion to the eucharist.

Perhaps Keating only means to claim that they were correct only insofar as they understood him “literally.” If so, then the strategy here would be to shroud the word “literally” in vagueness by leaving it undefined. In this case, if the Jews correctly understood Jesus to be speaking “literally” (in some vague, undefined sense), then essentially Keating would be saying that the Jews were right without knowing they were right. But is this really “correct understanding”? Consider the following analogy: A stopped clock tells the right time twice a day. If Jesus said it was 12:00 and the Jews were to check their clock (that happened to stop at 12), would this mean that the Jews had correctly verified the time? Obviously not. In this scenario the stopped clock would be correct—not the Jews.   In other words, unless Keating is willing to claim that Jesus’ hearers were thinking of the eucharist, then there is no way to claim that there were no “misunderstandings”—that they had “correctly” understood Jesus to be speaking “literally.”

If this point is still unclear, consider yet another analogy: If you took, say, French in high school, you may know French well enough to know when it is being spoken without necessarily knowing what is being said. In other words, you may correctly know that French is being spoken and at the same time misunderstand what the speaker is saying. Similarly, perhaps the Catholic argument is only intended to claim that the Jews “literally” heard Jesus to be speaking of eating his flesh and drinking his blood (without really understanding what Jesus “literally” meant by those words.)   Be that as it may, the only definition of “literally” that Keating gives us, is one that implies sacramental realism—a definition that neither Jesus’ disciples nor the unbelieving Jews were likely to have understood at the time. Contrast Keating’s sacramental definition of “literally” to that of Stephen Ray:

In this discourse [John 6:43, 51-55, 66-88] it seems as if Jesus is being overly difficult and desires to scare off his disciples unnecessarily. He speaks extremely hard words to them, seemingly asking them to be cannibals, and, as a result, most of them turn away in disgust and leave him (Ray, 199, n. 13).

It seems that Ray would define “literally” in the sense of a crass cannibalism, which makes sense in light of the question “How can this man give us his flesh to eat?” So far, Ray’s position seems to be far more reasonable than Keating’s. Nevertheless, like Keating, Ray still believes that Jesus was speaking literally—not because his hearers at the time had correctly understood, but rather because his readers at a later date—the “first generation of Christians” (Ray, 200, n. 13) had understood to be speaking literally.   And since Ray believes “John wrote a sacramental gospel and new exactly what he was writing, and why” (Ibid.), we can safely infer that “literally,” for Ray, is also sacramental, or else surely John would have clarified or explained Jesus’ words, “as he was wont to do” (Ibid.)

The fallacy of equivocation occurs when a single term is given more than one meaning in an argument without acknowledging the change in meaning. Catholic apologists, such as Ray and Keating, seem to be guilty of this fallacy with respect to the word “literally.” With a little definitional sleight of hand, “literally” can carry a sacramental or crassly carnal meaning in the same argument without a specific acknowledgement of its change in meaning. So on the one hand, the Catholic apologists will claim that Jesus’ hearers correctly understood Jesus because he was speaking “literally.” Yet, on the other hand, these same apologists will acknowledge that Jesus’ hearers had misunderstood him precisely because they had taken him “literally.” It appears that Keating and Ray are trying to have it both ways.

Argumentative Dishonesty

In reality, the Catholic apologist is disguising an inductive argument as a deductive argument. Any argument of the would-have, could-have, or should-have variety is based on probability, not logical necessity. The Catholic apologist, however, thinks there are no ands, ifs, or buts about it. Jesus definitely would have corrected any misunderstandings, because he does so in other places (e.g., Mark 4:34) and because so much was at stake. But in reality, the most the Catholic apologist can claim is that Jesus probably would have corrected their misunderstanding. It would be far more honest to simply state this up front. Such a concession, however, would significantly weaken the argument, which is why Catholics seldom make the concession. To admit that Jesus would not necessarily correct his hearers is to concede the possibility that they had misunderstood Jesus and, worse yet, to concede the possibility that Jesus wasn’t speaking literally at all.

Jesus Never Corrects the Misunderstanding of Unbelievers in John

What about Hahn’s claim, that it would have been “absolutely essential” for Jesus to correct his hearers, as if Jesus had some kind of moral obligation to clarify any misunderstandings? Hahn is wrong on two accounts. First, he wrongly supposes that Jesus’ hearers had correctly understood him in the first place.

Did Jesus backpedal when he heard their objections and say, “I’m just speaking figuratively?” No. He said, in effect: ‘You’ve got it right. If you drink my blood, you’ll be cut off from all your kinsmen in the old Israel, and cut off from the entire natural family of the old Adam as well. Only then can I unite you to myself, in my flesh and blood, and make you a part of the supernatural family of the New Adam, the new Israel of God (see Gal 6:16). This is what I came to do, to form God’s New Covenant family in my own eucharistic flesh and blood” (Hahn, 236).

The fact that Jesus never actually says what Hahn wants him to say is hardly an obstacle: With the words “in effect,” Hahn puts his own ideas on the lips of Jesus, turning Jesus into a spokesman for his own theology of the New Covenant that is formed in Jesus’ “eucharistic flesh and blood”. Hahn not only gratuitously assumes (without any kind of supporting argument) that Jesus was speaking literally rather than figuratively, but he also assumes (without any kind of supporting argument) that the eucharist is in view.   Now, let us imagine that Hahn’s alter ego were to put his own thoughts on the lips of Jesus, only with the assumption that Jesus was speaking figuratively, rather than literally. What might such an argument look like?

Did Jesus backpedal when he heard their objections and say, “I’m just speaking figuratively?” No. In fact, he made it even more difficult for them to understand, when in addition to claiming that they had to metaphorically eat his flesh (that is, come to him), they also had to metaphorically drink his blood (that is, believe in him). In effect, Jesus was saying to them, “Unless you come to believe in me—unless you come to believe that I am—you have no life in you.” But in his own mind Jesus was thinking this: “You hard-hearted Jews are as blinded by your unbelief as Isaiah said you would be (see Isaiah 6:9-10; John 9:39; 12:40). The fact that you do not understand only shows that you do not believe, which tells me plainly that you are not drawn by my Father—that you are not those whom the Father has given me. So in order to confound your understanding further—in order to blind you in righteous judgment so that you will not turn and be healed, I speak to you figuratively rather than plainly. An hour is coming when I will speak plainly of the Father, but that hour has not yet come. For now, I speak in metaphor and parable, so that you unbelievers may not understand and be healed and thus you shall be condignly condemned for your unbelief because you prefer to hide your evil deeds in the dark of night.   But if only you would believe in me and reform your lives by stepping into the light, if only you would figuratively eat my flesh and drink my blood, then you would belong to the New Covenant that I will literally establish with my own flesh and blood when you lift me up on the cross and I draw all men to myself.”

You see, we can put almost anything on the lips of Jesus. Only in this case, Hahn’s “alter ego” has limited himself to what is clearly stated or to what can be plausibly inferred from John’s gospel interpreted in place. Hahn, himself, however, has clearly twisted John in such a way as to fit into his own a priori commitments to Catholic eucharistic theology.

Hahn’s second mistake is to wrongly suppose that Jesus would have and should have (“absolutely essential”) corrected his hearers. But one will look in vain in John’s gospel to find any unambiguous example of Jesus correcting the misunderstanding of unbelievers. Only rarely does Jesus correct the misunderstanding of his own believing disciples (John 4:34; 6:63; 11:14; 16:19, 25). Frequently, however, John himself will clarify the metaphorical or spiritual intent of Jesus’ words for the benefit of the reader (John 2:21-22; 7:39; 8:27; 10:6-7; 11:13; 12:33; 13:28-29; 21:23). Catholics who argue that John could have clarified Jesus’ words in John 6:53-58 are right—John could have done this. But we cannot infer from John’s silence that Jesus was therefore speaking literally. In fact, John’s silence may imply just the opposite—that Jesus’ words about eating flesh and drinking blood were so obviously metaphorical that no explanation was required!   Since Jesus goes on to explain to his disciples that he was speaking spiritually rather than carnally (cf. John 6:63), John would hardly need to add any further explanation.

In order to see why Jesus did not correct the misunderstanding of unbelievers, we need only look at previous examples of misunderstanding in John’s gospel. For example: “The Jews then said, ‘It took forty-six years to build this temple, and you will raise it up in three days?’” (John 2:20)   In context, the temple is clearly a metaphor for Jesus’ resurrected body. The Jews, however, understood Jesus to be speaking literally about the Herodian Temple. While John does explain to the reader what Jesus meant (John 2: 21-22), Jesus himself never gives the unbelieving Jews an explanation. Their misunderstanding is never corrected.

“Nicodemus said to him, ‘How can a man be born when he is old? He cannot enter a second time into his mother’s womb and be born, can he?’” (John 3:4). Jesus has just stated that one must be born again or born from above (John 3:3). Nicodemus takes Jesus’ double entendre in the first sense and asks how a man can literally be born a second time. His question how, expects an explanation as an answer. Jesus, however, never gives an explanation. Instead he answers with an ultimatum: “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit he cannot enter the kingdom of God” (3:5). At this point, Nicodemus is an unbeliever. He misunderstands the metaphors that convey the spiritual intent of Jesus’ words. But Jesus does not give him an explanation. Nor does John clarify Jesus’ words for the benefit of the reader.

“Sir, you have nothing to draw with and the well is deep; where then do you get that living water” (John 4:11)? The Samaritan woman’s question, where? expects a physical location as an answer. She too is thinking literally. Jesus, however, does not give her a direct answer to her question. He does not indicate “where” the living water comes from. Instead, he intensifies his metaphor of “living water,” now calling it “a well of water springing up to eternal life” (4:14). At this point, the Samaritan woman is still an unbeliever. She too misunderstands the metaphors that convey the spiritual intent of Jesus’ words. But Jesus does not give her an explanation. Nor does John clarify Jesus’ words for the benefit of the reader.

The disciples want Jesus to eat: “Rabbi, eat” (John 4:31). Jesus answers: “I have food to eat that you do not know about” (4:32). “So the disciples were saying to one another, ‘No one brought him anything to eat, did he” (John 4:33)? The disciples misunderstand Jesus to be speaking of literal, physical food. Jesus explains: “My food is to do the will of Him who sent me and to accomplish His work” (4:34). Jesus uses “food” as a metaphor for doing God’s will. The disciples, however, mistakenly take the metaphor literally. In this case, Jesus does correct their misunderstanding. But we hasten to emphasize that he is correcting his disciples—those who already believed him.

“Then the Jews began to argue with one another, saying, “How can this man give us his flesh to eat?” (John 6:52) As in every previous case of misunderstanding, Jesus is using metaphors in order to convey a spiritual message. In this case, Jesus’ hearers are unbelieving Jews, which is why Jesus gives them no explanation. Catholic apologists who argue that no explanation entails that Jesus was speaking literally have simply overlooked or deliberately ignored all previous cases of misunderstanding in John. The pattern that emerges is unmistakable. Jesus simply never corrects the misunderstanding of unbelievers, and only rarely corrects the misunderstanding of his believing disciples. (For other possible examples of misunderstanding, see John 7:33; 8:22, 25; 10:6; 11:12; 12:29; 13:29; 16:17-18).

Why Jesus Probably Would Not Correct the Misunderstanding of Unbelievers

Instead of correcting unbelievers, it is far more likely that Jesus would not have corrected them. After all, unbelievers are “already condemned” (John 3:18), whereas believers already possess eternal life (John 5:24). Why, then, would Jesus need to explain himself to those who are already condemned? Catholic apologists sometimes argue as if Jesus had a moral obligation to speak plainly. But Jesus did not come to explain himself to unbelievers: “For judgment I came into the world, so that those who do not see may see, and that those who see may become blind” (John 9:39). And again, “For this reason they could not believe, for Isaiah said again, ‘He has blinded their eyes and he hardened their heart, so that they would not see with their eyes and perceive with their heart, and be converted and I heal them’” (John 12:40). Unbelievers in John’s gospel do not understand because they cannot understand. They have been blinded by the very revelation they reject, which is why they frequently take his metaphors literally, missing the spiritual meaning of his words.
Furthermore, we know it was Jesus’ preference to use “figurative language.” And we know that the meaning behind Jesus’ figurative language was never intended to be obvious. “These things I have spoken to you in figurative language; an hour is coming when I will no longer speak to you in figurative language, but will tell you plainly of the Father” (John 16:25). If we consider the fact that both the events and discourse of John 6 take place chronologically before Jesus’ “hour,” then we should expect Jesus to be speaking more often in “figurative language” than “plainly.”

Consider the ultimatum in John 6:53: “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you.” Catholic apologists sometimes argue that “truly, truly,” precludes figurative language. Yet the parable of the Good Shepherd also begins with the words “Truly, truly” (John 10:1), and is clearly not to be taken literally: “This figure of speech Jesus spoke to them, but they did not understand what those things were which he had been saying to them” (John 10:6).   John 6:53, which likewise begins with “truly, truly,” is in all probability, a “figure of speech” as well.

Conclusion

The Catholic apologist rightly points out the fact that the Jews in John 6:52 understood Jesus to be speaking literally, but never proves that Jesus really was speaking literally. The Catholic apologist rightly acknowledges that Jesus made no attempt to “correct” his hearers, but never proves that his hearers had correctly understood Jesus in the first place. The best evidence points to the overwhelming probability that the unbelieving Jews had misunderstood the metaphorical and spiritual intent of Jesus’ words and that Jesus almost certainly would not have corrected their misunderstanding. ( Michael Taylor)