“Brother, these words of Christ are plain. They are like rocks rolled on top of us. We need no exquisite spiritual sensibility to tease out their hidden meaning.”
Indeed, lets read them plain, like Augustine:
Commenting on these following verses:
“Labour not for the meat which perisheth, but for that meat which endureth unto everlasting life, which the Son of man shall give unto you: for him hath God the Father sealed. Then said they unto him, What shall we do, that we might work the works of God? Jesus answered and said unto them, This is the work of God, that ye believe on him whom he hath sent.”
(Joh 6:27-29)
“They said therefore unto Him, What shall we do, that we may work the works of God?” For He had said to them, “Labor not for the meat which perisheth, but for that which endureth unto eternal life.” “What shall we do?” they ask; by observing what, shall we be able to fulfill this precept? “Jesus answered and said unto them, This is the work of God, that ye believe on Him whom He has sent.” This is then to eat the meat, not that which perisheth, but that which endureth unto eternal life. To what purpose dost thou make ready teeth and stomach? Believe, and thou hast eaten already. (Augustine, Tractate 25)
Catholics always beat the drum on reading these things literally, and yet they can’t literally read a few verses down when Christ explains how one might eat and drink Him.
I also notice none of the Catholics in this thread have explained why Christ ate and drank Himself, if what they say is true, or why they do not have a sacrament of blessed water that they should drink which is necessary for eternal life.
Christ instituted the sacrament of the Eucharist - the Bread and Wine becoming His Body and Blood - at the Last Supper.
However He did not institute a sacrament of drinking Living Water.
If He had, we would certainly carry it out. But He didn't, so we don't.
(In passing, we could certainly regard Baptism as being a sacrament of living water, but we don't drink it).
Just to remind the thread about the institution of the Eucharist, and to show its provenance in the early Church.
From Luke:
And he took bread, and when he had given thanks, he broke it and gave it to them, saying, “This is my body, which is given for you. Do this in remembrance of me.” And likewise the cup after they had eaten, saying, “This cup that is poured out for you is the new covenant in my blood."
If any corroborating evidence were needed, St Paul speaks about the Eucharist in Corinthians.
And when he had given thanks, he broke it, and said, “This is my body which is for you. Do this in remembrance of me.” In the same way also he took the cup, after supper, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in my blood. Do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of me.”
For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the Lord's death until he comes. Whoever, therefore, eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty concerning the body and blood of the Lord.
Which I quote at length because it shows that the Eucharist was celebrated in the extremely early Church.
In summary: Christ didn't only command us to eat His Body and drink His Blood: He also commanded us to re-enact the Eucharist.
However He didn't command us to carry out a specific sacrament where living water is drunk.
This other matter - about Christ effectively eating His own Body and Blood at the Last Supper?
Why would that be a stumbling block? After all, He is giving us His own living Body and Blood to eat and drink.
If God can so deploy Himself that He is eaten, whole and entire, by millions of people at the same time, why would the concept of God becoming reunited with Himself be some extraordinary contradiction?
Rather it says something about the Real Presence. He is present at a thousand altars at once - but that isn't to be thought of a thousand different Christs. It is all Him. And at the same 'time' He is seated at the right hand of the Father.