Phil---

Before doing my searching into Catholicism, (mainly during the last half year), John 6, as a whole, seemed pretty plain to me.

I can give my Protestant understanding of it, and I'm interested in a real Catholic commentary on it. I've read St. Augustine's commentary, (which I can find online again, but it's really long) and it was very good. I don't know that I'd consider Augustine to be linking John 6 strongly with the Lord's Supper---if I remember correctly, he may loosely link them, but that didn't seem to be what he thought it was mainly about. And I know during another sermon St. Augustine gives reasons why the "eats My flesh" discourse of John 6 is an example of a saying of Jesus that is not to be taken literally. Sorry for not having that citation on hand---I was studying this things without an expectation to need to talk things over with someone.

Anyway, to focus on John 6 as if I'm wearing Protestant "glasses"---it all makes pretty much sense to me, with some minor questions held in reserve. (posting this before I lose it, more to follow...)

---Adding what I've read from Catholic apologists regarding John 6---

Okay, here is my feedback of what I think I've heard from them (Catholic apologists):

John 6 is absolutely about the Eucharist, (although, adding here my own thoughts, I have to note that John has no Eucharist discourse from the night Jesus was betrayed) and the entire "eats My flesh" discourse is be taken literally, especially the verses clustered around verse 53.

Okay--putting on my best attempt at Catholic glasses here: "Very 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"...both Catholics and Protestant see here that Jesus is making an emphatic, not to missed statement (posting a part again...sorry)

Continuing from above---

(Still wearing my attempt at a Catholic viewpoint) A very traditional Catholic would say (and I've actually seen this quite a bit at CAF)--" Only Catholics and Orthodox have valid sacraments. Jesus very clearly and emphatically said we must literally eat His real flesh and blood in the Eucharist, so... Protestants, Jews, all others, do not really eat Christ's flesh and drink His blood so they don't have the eternal life of verse 54. " And then they may buy a black t-shirt imprinted with "Extra Ecclessian Nulla Salus".

This is what I hear from more modern Catholics--"Yes, in John 6:53 Jesus is commanding us to literally eat His flesh and drink His blood in the Eucharist. It's found in the Eucharist and nowhere else, so you should really become Catholic or you're missing out on His greatest means of imparting grace to us." This is usually said kindly. And I take it as a kind thing, and maybe it's true.

But it isn't what Jesus said. He didn't say "or you're missing out on His greatest means of imparting grace to us". He said "...or you have no life (eternal life in verse 54) in you." So, it seems to me that verse 53 is taken very literally until the second part, where it feels to me they are saying the words but disconnecting from the implications...unless they return to a more traditional exclusivist stance.

Meanwhile, my Protestant commentary says "This absolute statement of verse 53 precludes this being a reference to Holy Communion, because nowhere else does Jesus say partaking of Communion is a requirement for eternal life".

Ariel et al, I've written a couple of posts here today that I hope haven't gotten lost in the ongoing discussion.

quote:

Meanwhile, my Protestant commentary says "This absolute statement of verse 53 precludes this being a reference to Holy Communion, because nowhere else does Jesus say partaking of Communion is a requirement for eternal life".

No Scripture passage can be properly interpreted apart from the entire message of Scripture, and it is indeed true that no Scripture, nor any of the early Fathers, ever said anything about receiving Communion as essential to salvation. What I'm wondering, however, is why take such a focus? Exegetical issues notwithstanding, it's pretty clear that Jesus is offering to us a very great gift that does, indeed, communicate his life to us. Are you bothered by what those "uber-Catholics" on other forums are saying about Real Presence?

So, well, I'm puzzled. No obnoxiousness is intended from me about this. John 6 just makes more sense to me, at this point, from a Protestant viewpoint (and noting that I haven't attempted here to give any thorough Protestant understanding of John 6), which is allows room for inclusivist thought.

Phil---

I did read your post about transubstantiation and the possibility of Christ's Real Presence in some manner in Protestant sacraments. It was helpful---but as I think you said, that possibility doesn't appear to be the official Catholic viewpoint?

As for the uber-Catholics--yes and no regarding being bothered by them. I can see that they are devout and sincere, and trying to defend what they believe to be true and consistent with the faith. I've seen fundamentalists among Protestants, so I'm hardly shocked. I think they believe their intentions are good. (posting now while i try to pinpoint where I'm having the problem)

quote:

Originally posted by Phil:

Exegetical issues notwithstanding, it's pretty clear that Jesus is offering to us a very great gift that does, indeed, communicate his life to us.

Phil, yes, I think all Christians would agree with this.

I added a sentence to the second paragraph of my post above yours. I'm meaning to say that if we interpret Jesus as speaking literally about eating His flesh in the first part of John 6:53, and it seems He confirms in verse 54 that the life He's talking about is eternal, then what does He say follows if we don't literally eat His flesh in the Eucharist? ..."you have no life in you".

I don't believe non-Catholics, who don't partake of His literal body and blood, have no life in them...so it makes more sense to me to interpret "eating the flesh of the Son of Man" as something all Christians, even non-Christians, can partake of. I'm not ruling out Real Presence as some sort of reality, I'm just saying John 6 makes more sense to me if I don't look to it to support RP.

Ariel, Perhaps we can look at it a slightly different way. I think the central focus of the passage is not on the Eucharist since this was not yet instituted and the hearers would have no way to conceptualize this in terms of the Eucharist.

So yes, first and foremost it is speaking of consuming the body and blood of Jesus by putting faith in Him and remaining in relationship with Him and His Way. In this was the passage links eternal life to union with Christ and keeps the way open and inclusive.

But, even if the hearers had no idea that Jesus may have been referring to the Eucharist, Jesus certainly knew that He would be instituting the Eucharist as a central reality within the community that He was forming.

In fact, at the Last Supper every one of His disciples must have thought back to this incident when Jesus broke the bread and shared the cup. And so even though this passage in John 6 is not directly about Real Presence, it becomes part of the greater Eucharistic message and reality speaking together with all the other passages in Scripture and going beyond these passages to the lived experience of the Church Universal.

Since everything we do in relationship with Jesus is immersed in the reality of God it seems to me that Real Presence is true. All of life is saturated and baptized in the Living God - Communion included. How can we take bread and wine, which Jesus instituted we take, and which He connected with His own Body and Blood and say this is simply a good way to remember Him. If He is Inside me in the Holy Spirit, Around me in the Creation, Inside Others in my Neighbor, then surely He is also in the Communion Elements of Bread and Wine (I don't say this to lessen the special nature of the Eucharist, since how can anything pertaining to God be lessened by other realities that also pertain to God).

Like I've mentioned, I neither accept nor reject transubstantiation at this point in my life, but I still feel justified in affirming all of the above without needing to.

Phil, I really appreciated your thoughts regarding Real Presence in Protestantism. I too feel that it comes down to the faith of the believer. Even Jesus was limited in his ability to perform miracles based on the faith of the people. If holy power and miracles can happen or not happen based on the faith of the people, then this gives good basis for the view that it is the faith of the people that results in the miracle of Real Presence - especially in those cases where the Pastor or Priest does not believe in Real Presence himself but the recipient does.

Here is St. Augustine using John 6:53 to illustrate one of his rules for when to take something literally or figuratively--www.newadvent.org/fathers/12023.htm
--see Chapter 16

St. Augustine does seem to have believed in Real Presence in some way, so I don't mean to imply otherwise. But it seems really clear here that he took John 6:53 to mean that Jesus' emphatic statement referred to something figurative.

All,

Well, we are having fun here.

Ariel,

Truly, I do not know exactly what Lutheran ministers say and think. Yet, I doubt they have the same sense of Real Presence (meaning sense of transubstantiation) that Catholics do. Catholic belief has a different reality to it. If that were not so, then Eucharistic adoration would exist within Protestantism. There is a reality distinction that Eucharistic adoration attests to. That distinction is what we are endeavoring to address it seems to me. Certainly it is encompassed in mystery; and how it all comes to pass none of us can describe.

Nevertheless, we do have difference in understanding of that reality of Real Presence. Adoration brings that to focus. Catholics’ sense of transub indicates that the once-transubstantiated-host remains a transubstantiated host (and thereby suitable for subsequent adoration and benediction). (I believe that this is not your sense, nor the sense of Protestants. Correct me if I am wrong in that.

It seems to me that the Catholic understanding encompasses more somehow than what the ‘communicating of Jesus’ life’ that Phil has stated Protestants believe, gets communicated during their liturgy when the body of believers are present (and the bread and wine are changed by their consecration prayers).

Correct me if I am wrong, since I do not know what all, most, or any Lutheran ministers believe. My current impression is that the communicating of Jesus’ life to their (/ your) way of thinking addresses what graces become existent because of the gathering of believers and what happens in the liturgical moments of that specific service. Beyond the service of the moment, what communion and/or transub remains in your / their understanding?

How are non-consumed consecrated hosts and wine handled subsequent to Protestant services? I am ignorant of that.


Phil, you wrote:
_______________________________________________________________________________
“Having journeyed with many Protestant ministers in spiritual direction, however, I can share that a number of traditions very much do believe that Jesus communicates his life with them through the bread and wine in communion.”
________________________________________________________________________________

I understand (I believe) what you are saying here, but to me it’s dilute. God communicates his life to us in myriad ways – his word, a raindrop, the sun, food, Shalom Place. I am sure that Protestant ministers believe that Jesus communicates his life to them through the bread and wine in their communion services. And I am sure God does. I think though, that that understanding is nonetheless a different understanding. Real Presence as understood (imo) by Catholics is different. Certainly, and of course, mystery is involved in all this that we are discussing; but certainly too, different are our beliefs. Adoration, as I mentioned above, attests to that. Indeed if our beliefs were truly the same, we would not be having this discussion.

And I agree, yes, certainly the holiness of the priest has nothing to do with the efficacy of transub occurring. I agree with that.

And the priest’s intentionality may not come into play – though ordination and God’s endorsement of the priestly function and the mass prayers may address intentionality – certainly they address efficacy in the Church’s view. My thoughts reflect my man-on-the-street lack of theological training. (An Uber man?) …

Yet, to me (street-wise), if a Protestant minister does not have the same transub intentionality / belief I don’t see how his prayer can effect (produce) the same transubstantiation that we are endeavoring to describe in our discussions here regarding Real Presence.


Ariel,

I would enjoy hearing your understanding of 1 Cor 11 too, when you’ve finished with your response to Jn 6.

Arie & Jacques,

In other regards, two thoughts: 'trying to be inclusive' during the development of one's thought or reading of scripture might bias understanding in an erroreous way.

The other thought is Scott Hahn's mention that the Passover Meal of the OT required the complete consumption of the sacrificial lamb not just the painting of the lintel with blood. The flesh had to be eaten. He sees this as supporting the eating of real flesh (of Christ the Paschal Lamb of God). Non-Christians and inclusivism take us out of focus I think. (imo -uber-o)



Pop-pop
(Hopefully not: Uberly yours, -- though, if you’re ordering T-shirts, XL)

p.s. When I first came to SP I posted on the kundalini thread of a substantial gusto that I received while on a retreat and present before the exposed Blessed Sacrament during the lunch break. That experiential knowledge underlies a reality that, while not many (very few) perhaps experience, I cannot deny. Certainly I realize that it would be unconvincing to Protestants; and likely, most Catholics too would dismiss my gusto and chalk it up to my imagination. I wish Ariel could experience that. But maybe, as Phil has mentioned, efficacy has its basis in the faith of the believer. …. Though, is everything subjective? Will we be starting a thread on relativism next?

This message has been edited. Last edited by: pop-pop,

quote:

Originally posted by Jacques:
How can we take bread and wine, which Jesus instituted we take, and which He connected with His own Body and Blood and say this is simply a good way to remember Him.

Jacques--

Those seem like some good thoughts to me in several ways, but it also makes me think maybe it's dancing around this issue a bit more than necessary? While leaving a lot of room for mystery, unknowing, and the reality that God is not bound by us, I think more can be done to discuss where the Bible may or may not be speaking of a real bodily presence of Christ in Communion. (Not saying that I want to do it, necessarily. )

Regarding the memorial aspect of the Lord's Supper--do the words "mere" and "simply" need to belong to the idea of a memorial? I believe not. I said something about taking part in a Passover Seder that really brought home to me the reality of the Lord's Supper. In the following years I learned about why memorials are so important in Judaism, and how there's nothing mere in Jesus' command to "Do this in remembrance of Me". I'm not sure how well I can communicate what I know, by I'll try at some time.

Edit--Jacques, in my first paragraph I meant all of what you posted, not just the part I quoted.

Pop-pop, dear feisty Pop-pop --

Okay, how about giving a commentary, either from you or a respected Catholic teacher, on the parts of John 6 under discussion? No gauntlets are being thrown down, I'm just sincerely asking.

But I also have to say that I think "feisty" meant "farty" in Old English (or some such archaic language).

I love you too.

Oops, Pop-pop, I read back over my post, and if it seems rude, I'm sorry. Quite by accident I came across the etymology of feisty, and I've been longing ever since to tell someone. Sorry, I got carried away in the thrill of the moment as an opportunity to fulfill a long-held dream presented itself .

Pop Pop, you bring up an important point regarding Eucharistic adoration. While by and large you are quite correct that Protestants don't practice Eucharist adoration, this is not universally so.

The Anglican church is an important exception, especially Anglo-Catholics who are Catholic in almost every regard except that they are not in communion with Rome.

Interestingly Luther himself was in favor of Eucharistic Adoration and wrote a treatise in defense of it, though he stated that the issue should not be pushed (probably indicating that people should follow conscience). Some other leaders of the Lutheran Protest also supported the practice. Nowadays some Lutherans do practice Eucharistic Adoration and other do not.

In both Anglicanism and Lutheranism the general practice is to consume all the host during the service. Some may be left over for future use in a Eucharistic service, but the general practice is to consume all. This pattern is very similar in the Eastern Orthodox Church.

It is thought that this general practice of consuming all would have restricted the development of Eucharist Adoration on a larger scale in these traditions.

Eastern Orthodoxy and Roman Catholicism share so many emphases and practices that developed in the Church before the 1054 split. It may thus be evidence that Eucharistic Adoration, though present before the split (hence the practice existing in EO) evolved in depth and significance during the Middle Ages and beyond.

Ariel,

Slap me then say you love me? Then slap me and say you love me? Then slap me and say you love me? ??? Am I supposed to believe in your contrition after 70 times 7 such slaps?

AH! Operant Conditioning --- right? That's what this is! Now I recall! You did say you were going to think on that and get back to me.

Truly, truly, this is female uber-protestantism at its most savage -- and as for having saved it all up just for me (so it would be some sort of vintage slapping?) That I would be your special occasion to fulfill your dreams?

-- An ambassador of the Emergent church, she is! -- and of Pennsylvania even...The FRIENDS State. Tsk!

BTW, The scripture reference I stated was in 1 Cor 11 I mistakenly said 12 (made the top of the page mistake).

p.s. In New England where they no longer speak Old English -- they say FAT. Smells like FAT in here they say.

Pop-pop--

All right, I'll keep my etymological treasures to myself. Sorry.

I'm still laughing at your p.s.

quote:

Originally posted by pop-pop:

Truly, truly, this is female uber-protestantism at its most savage -- and as for having saved it all up just for me (so it would be some sort of vintage slapping?) That I would be your special occasion to fulfill your dreams?

No vintage slapping, Pop-pop...my long-held dream was to share the funny original meaning of a fairly common word...so, here in all its glory, is the etymology of feisty:

...from "feist"; feist: a small dog of mixed ancestry [Shortening and variation from obsolete fisting(dog), from obsolete fist, to break wind, from Middle English fisten, from Old English fistan

I take it you're not a small flatulant mongrel, so I will be careful not to call you feisty again.

quote:

But maybe, as Phil has mentioned, efficacy has its basis in the faith of the believer. …. Though, is everything subjective?

No, Pop, not at all. I think you misunderstood my point about "ex opere' operato." The wiki page I linked to does state that, for Catholics, this means that, on an objective level, Jesus is truly present in the Eucharist regardless of the faith and holiness of the priest. The faith and openness of the recipient is necessary for him/her to benefit from this grace, however, so that part is "subjective" if that's a proper term to apply to faith. How could it be otherwise?

The wiki page on "Real Presence" pointed out that a number of Protestant traditions do indeed believe in Real Presence in an objective sense, only they don't use the transubstantiation explanation to articulate their belief. Lutherans and Anglicans, for sure, consider the Eucharist to be a Sacrament, and Methodists call it "Holy Mystery." See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Real_Presence for a good summary of how a number of Protestant churches view the Eucharist. They don't all view it as a only symbolic memorial or "love feast."

Belief in the doctrine of transubstantiation is not the telling factor with regard to whether Jesus is present in the eucharistic celebration of a community, Catholic or Protestant. The Catholic doctrine of "ex opere' operato" makes it clear that Christ's objective presence to us in the Eucharist does not hinge on the faith or holiness of the priest, but on the fact that he stands "in persona Christi" when celebrating a Sacrament. We also say that this role can be fulfilled only by those whose ordination is in the lineage of apostolic succession, which is also a matter of objectivity: either one is in such lineage, or one is not (though it's a somewhat confusing situation with regard to Anglican/Episcopal clergy, an even with some branches of Lutheranism). So that's the Catholic position, and it pains me to see Catholics using this to disparage Protestants because "we have valid Eucharist and you don't." (Sung to "naney naney booo boo".) For one thing, we don't know if that's true, for, as noted above, the Anglicans and Lutherans may well have some connection to apostolic succession and they certainly DO believe in the Real Presence. As for the Methodists and other traditions that take this very seriously, I don't know if we can really say for sure that the Lord refuses to honor their prayer and desire to encounter him in their Eucharistic celebrations. We do not know. (Everyone repeat this 50 times: we do not know. ) They believe they do. Why bother them about it?

Re. Jn. 6:53 -- Jesus is speaking of "supernatural Life," not biological or psychological life. There are lots of ways we open ourselves to his gift of Life, the greatest being receiving him in the Eucharist. He certainly does not mean to be saying that those who do not receive him in the Eucharist cannot come to know the new Life he offers. See http://www.helium.com/items/74...--john-653-explained and other commentaries.

Phil--

Thanks for understanding about the "naney naney boo boo" thing. It doesn't get to me so much on a "we Catholics have a valid Eucharist and you Protestants don't" front because I do believe we do not know that. I've gotten more irritated by other things, though, and I wish I could say I'm above letting my irritation affect my willingness to listen and consider new things.

Thanks Phil,
I really respect your commitment to your Church and Tradition while remaining open and gracious to others on so many levels.

I don't know many Catholics, but I can tell you that you have been the biggest influence in my remaining open to Catholicism and what the R.C. church teaches and practices.

As I mentioned on the Baptism thread I still struggle with my fundamentalist influences and I've had really trying times of wanting to write Catholicism off as wrong, even evil. But every time I reach that point I think to myself, "What about Phil?"

It might seems strange, and I hope you don't mind me complimenting you on such an open forum, but I really do thank you for reflecting Christ and Christianity in such a way that it has really helped me keep a human face in mind when I think about Catholicism. All this also applies to my up an down relationship with Kundalini and Eastern Mysticism, you remain my human face that I consider when I'm wondering about these things.

What a great, affirming post, Jacques. Thank you. It's heartening to hear how the forum has made a difference in your life. You might consider it the fruit of a lot of good, knowledgeable Catholic people in my own life.

- - -

Ariel, what kinds of irritations are you talking about in your post above? If it's not about Catholic teaching on the Eucharist, maybe you could start another discussion on it?

quote:

Originally posted by Phil:
... There are lots of ways we open ourselves to his gift of Life, the greatest being receiving him in the Eucharist. ...

This is what I'm discovering, Phil, and why I started this thread. And I learned a lot from the exchanges. Thank you all for your contributions and open hearts.

I'm smiling because it's so wonderful to be part of a group of folks who are so Uber real and wise and fun...

quote:

Originally posted by Phil:

- - -

Ariel, what kinds of irritations are you talking about in your post above? If it's not about Catholic teaching on the Eucharist, maybe you could start another discussion on it?

Phil, I've thought before about starting a thread on this, since I've been surprised at some of my negative reactions to fellow Christians. And I'm not talking about anyone here, especially not Pop-pop, who I fundamently like.

So I have been thinking about starting another thread to explore this. Thanks for the invitation.

Shasha, repeating the "bear with me" thing again, I hope I haven't felt rude to you.

Though on other websites and from books I've sometimes gotten fed up enough to close my heart off to listening to other people, I do have some trust built up in all the people here. So I'm trying not to import my attitude from one website to another...if I fail at that sometimes, I'm sorry.