Over bread? Is Jesus not the "bread of heaven"? Why the false choice -- having to choose between "body" and "bread?" Did not Jesus use the word "bread" to describe Himself 11 times between John 6:32-58? What? Isn't "Bread" as a Jesus self-description good enough for you?
However, and very ironically, most of the people shouting that Catholics deny the Bible in believing that not every sentence of the Bible must be "literally true," would say this single sentence is actually not literally true.
Look @ John 6:51-55. Jesus uses the word "real" twice in v. 55: "This bread is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world.”...For my flesh is real food and my blood is real drink." (John 6:51,55)
If you're going to focus on "being Biblical"...then let's use the words Jesus used to describe Himself, which I have no qualms with as you contend: His flesh is indeed the Bread of heaven; we consume Him; and His flesh is "REAL food"...
Real = true; authentic; genuine...you're the one tossing in the word "literal" into Jesus' verbiage of John 6 as a reaction vs. those who symbolize. I don't symbolize it; but neither do I attach a literal biting-into-the knuckles of Jesus. Jesus didn't use the word "literal"; He said "real" -- and I believe Him as knowing what He was talking about.
What the Holy Father is talking about here is actually what 99% of Christians do every time they read the Bible.
Sorry. Not so. A high % of Christians do not try to "symbolize" or "spiritualize" away the reality of John 6. This shows your utter poverty of studying the history of the Reformation; elsewise you'd realize the nuanced positions of the major Catholic breakaway groups & their stance on John 6 (Lutherans; Anglicans; Episcopalians, etc.).
Some want to make things controversial, but nothing said here actually is.
Well, you just "shot" yourself in the foot here.
First...
...you condemn Protestants for not reading John 6 as "real." (Yeah, I know you use the word "literal" -- but your implication is that we don't think Jesus flesh & blood is real food & drink; sorry, but many do).
Second...
...Your very words above seem to indicate that you didn't realize the initial controversy arising among Jesus' "second wave" of less-intimate disciples...
...which indicates you haven't read John 6:66-67:
66 From this time many of his disciples turned back and no longer followed him. 67 “You do not want to leave too, do you?” Jesus asked the Twelve.
So Jesus' words in John were "controversy-free," eh?
Please, it's certainly OK if you're partially ignorant on this subject as it's revealed in John 6. (Hey, we're all ignorant or partially ignorant on MANY subjects). But please don't try to export that ignorance as something other than what it is.
Over bread? Is Jesus not the "bread of heaven"?
Why sidestep the actual point for disputations about the Eucharist? Most Protestants differ from Catholics in how literally we believe the Lord intended his words referencing the bread during the Last Supper to be understood, and that is the issue.
Sorry. Not so. A high % of Christians do not try to "symbolize" or "spiritualize" away the reality of John 6.
No, this is incorrect. I actually said that what the Holy Father is talking about as quoted in the article is what 99% of people do, meaning reason about whether any particular statement in scripture is meant to be seen as literally true " or not. But, I never implied that any particular percentage of people have any particular view of John 6. I also didn't suggest that anybody "spiritualizes" or "symbolizes" anything. I don't believe I ever used any such words and so it intrigues me how much time you spend debating with things I didn't say. What I actually said was that many people do not see it as a literal truth. The other side of literal truth is not necessarily "spiritualizing," whatever that may be. As the spirit and Spirit are literal truths I am a little confused by your strange choice of opposition here.
Well, you just "shot" yourself in the foot here. First... ...you condemn Protestants for not reading John 6 as "real."
Condemn? That is patently untrue. I never even so much as hinted at condemnation.
So Jesus' words in John were "controversy-free," eh?
No, I was not referring there to the Lord's words, but those of the pope as referenced in the article. His statements about not trying to make every single utterance of scripture "literally true" is not controversial. We all do it all the time. Some sentences of scripture are literally true, some figuratively true, some theologically true, some spiritually true, and on and on. We have to use context to come to an informed conclusion regarding which applies. The only way his comments are controversial is if somebody believes that no word of scripture, from front to back, was ever meant to be seen as figurative in meaning. I find that extremely hard to believe, and so see nothing controversial here (from the Holy Father) except what people want to assume and imply.
I am saddened that you chose to ignore the points here to argue things that I never said or what you assume I must really mean by using the word "literal." You falsely say I condemned others, which would be a serious sin on my part. And, in your haste to judge me for my ignorance, which you only infer entirely from your assumptions of what I really mean rather than what I actually say, you entirely ignore the fact that you were entirely, not partially, ignorant regarding how the Church and Catholics view the authority of the pope. Unfortunate that you have taken the approach you did.