Eucharist

but since we have nothing of value to offer God in return,

It is more like being offered a free gift that we can accept or reject. And we can.

We know that, even though you post as if you agree with what Johan has posted, we all know, that the above two statements are NOT what the rcc teaches or even remotely teaches. Because if it were so, it would not teach infusion, and the eating and drinking of real human flesh and blood as a requirement to become righteous through our own merits before we can even begin to receive God's grace.

In other words, the rcc teaches one must become righteous through his/her own power, strength and will. Scripture teaches otherwise. I can't speak for others, but I don't believe you when you say you agree with something posted by a non-rc, because those of us who are non-rc's already know what the rcc teaches. And no, we are NOT on common ground. And will NEVER be on common ground.

And discussing free will is not going to change those who fully trust God ALONE to give them eternal life and are grounded firmly in God's word and cause them to move over to the rcc. Those who join and follow the rcc, have severed themselves from Christ. And are lost, because their hope, faith and trust is elsewhere.
 
We know that, even though you post as if you agree with what Johan has posted, we all know, that the above two statements are NOT what the rcc teaches or even remotely teaches. Because if it were so, it would not teach infusion, and the eating and drinking of real human flesh and blood as a requirement to become righteous through our own merits before we can even begin to receive God's grace.

In other words, the rcc teaches one must become righteous through his/her own power, strength and will. Scripture teaches otherwise. I can't speak for others, but I don't believe you when you say you agree with something posted by a non-rc, because those of us who are non-rc's already know what the rcc teaches. And no, we are NOT on common ground. And will NEVER be on common ground.

And discussing free will is not going to change those who fully trust God ALONE to give them eternal life and are grounded firmly in God's word and cause them to move over to the rcc. Those who join and follow the rcc, have severed themselves from Christ. And are lost, because their hope, faith and trust is elsewhere.
Like I have always said, the rcc has painted itself in a corner so many times they don't know what to say anymore. It is nothing but a lot of contradictions fighting other contradictions. The ccc has been rewritten how many times? Now they are saying some of the canons of the council of Trent should be reworded to make plain what they really meant to say. The rcc has been fully exposed for what it really is. An idolatrous false religion leading countless thousands of souls to an eternal hell! The reformation was because the rcc had diveated so far from scripture, and so in defiance the rcc began instituting, creating, and allowing more doctrines of demons to permeate their false religion which systematically denies the BIBLICAL gospel of Jesus Christ, the central focus of God's Holy Word found in the Holy Bible!
 
If free will does not matter to the interpretation of John 6, then I hold that those that left Jesus after the bread of life discourse did so because they could not accept what Jesus said by their choice, not because they were constrained by fate. Since this is true,
Ur perspective on free will gives no credit to ur understanding of this passage.


Jesus would have called them back and explained to them they were simply misunderstanding him
They may have not misunderstood Him
when he meant to speak symbolically a saying that was much easier to accept.
They may have understood what He was saying was symbolic but could not trust Him this much. Not because they misunderstood but because they did understand what He was saying was symbolic and yet still did not trust Him in this way.

The fact that Jesus did not call them back is evidence that they did not misunderstand him.
Right maybe they didn’t
Now if someone wants to challenge that interpretation on the basis of those disciples not really having a choice, then they are the ones who are bringing lack of free will into the discussion. But as long as people use that kind of challenge, the issue of free will is applicable to this discussion.
I am challenging your interpretation on the basis that your interpretation is wrong while still using your understanding of Free Will. Ur belief in free Will does not necessarily mean at all that ur interpretation is right. Ur belief in Free Will in reality has no help for your interpretation. I say so in Love, I am praying for you that God would give you a clear understanding of the passage.
 
They may have understood what He was saying was symbolic but could not trust Him this much. Not because they misunderstood but because they did understand what He was saying was symbolic and yet still did not trust Him in this way.
That does not make sense because the symbolic understanding would have been right in line with what disciples would have an easy time accepting. It is not a "hard saying" at all. Explain why anyone who had been following Jesus up to that point and had no trouble calling themselves his disciples would suddenly balk at a symbolic interpretation of the bread of life? In verse 52 we see the Jews saying "How can he give us his flesh to eat?" Then in verse 60 we see "This sort of talk is hard to endure! How could anyone take it seriously?". These are exactly the kind of responses we would expect to a radically new teaching expressed by the literal interpretation of "eat my body and drink my blood." These disciples obviously thought he was taking about eating his real body. And so they left. They left because they did understand what he meant and they could not take it seriously. There is no way one could see this sort of response from those who were his disciples up until that point if the understanding was merely symbolic.
 
That does not make sense because the symbolic understanding would have been right in line with what disciples would have an easy time accepting. It is not a "hard saying" at all. Explain why anyone who had been following Jesus up to that point and had no trouble calling themselves his disciples would suddenly balk at a symbolic interpretation of the bread of life? In verse 52 we see the Jews saying "How can he give us his flesh to eat?" Then in verse 60 we see "This sort of talk is hard to endure! How could anyone take it seriously?". These are exactly the kind of responses we would expect to a radically new teaching expressed by the literal interpretation of "eat my body and drink my blood." These disciples obviously thought he was taking about eating his real body. And so they left. They left because they did understand what he meant and they could not take it seriously. There is no way one could see this sort of response from those who were his disciples up until that point if the understanding was merely symbolic.
read on - below. He knew who believed and who didn't. those disciples weren't true believers. they were Jews who knew Jewish law.

did the12 leave Him?

63 The Spirit gives life; the flesh counts for nothing. The words I have spoken to you—they are full of the Spirit[e] and life. 64 Yet there are some of you who do not believe.” For Jesus had known from the beginning which of them did not believe and who would betray him. 65 He went on to say, “This is why I told you that no one can come to me unless the Father has enabled them.”

66 From this time many of his disciples turned back and no longer followed him.
 
read on - below. He knew who believed and who didn't. those disciples weren't true believers.
He knew the ones who could not believe what he was asking. Apparently you don't believe it either. So what?


they were Jews who knew Jewish law.
So?

did the12 leave Him?
No, they didn't. So?

63 The Spirit gives life; the flesh counts for nothing. The words I have spoken to you—they are full of the Spirit[e] and life. 64 Yet there are some of you who do not believe.” For Jesus had known from the beginning which of them did not believe and who would betray him. 65 He went on to say, “This is why I told you that no one can come to me unless the Father has enabled them.”

66 From this time many of his disciples turned back and no longer followed him.
You have made a lot of statements here, but none of them show that Jesus did not intend the Eucharist to be real.
 
He knew the ones who could not believe what he was asking. Apparently you don't believe it either. So what?

So?

No, they didn't. So?

You have made a lot of statements here, but none of them show that Jesus did not intend the Eucharist to be real.
yes they do, but sadly catholics believe the false teachings of the rcc - instead of His truth. If you do want His truth, then you'll learn to read and study His word instead of words of men.
 
yes they do, but ....
If you cannot explain in logical terms why Jesus' knowing what they would do implies something about literal vs. symbolic interpretations, but fall back on accusations of what Catholics do wrong, then you don't really have an argument. You just have an unsupported statement.
 
If you cannot explain in logical terms why Jesus' knowing what they would do implies something about literal vs. symbolic interpretations, but fall back on accusations of what Catholics do wrong, then you don't really have an argument. You just have an unsupported statement.

Mica explained perfectly, it is you that does not want to accept the fact that Jesus in verse 63 corrected the disciples misunderstanding. In verse 63, Jesus further clarified His meaning. And mica and I both understand verse 63 perfectly. For it points to worshiping God in spirit and in truth. Not in location.
 
Mica explained perfectly, it is you that does not want to accept the fact that Jesus in verse 63 corrected the disciples misunderstanding. In verse 63, Jesus further clarified His meaning. And mica and I both understand verse 63 perfectly. For it points to worshiping God in spirit and in truth. Not in location.
“It is the spirit that gives life, the flesh is of no avail” —John 6:63

Verse 63 of John 6 presents the major objection to transubstantiation to be accounted for since it gives the impression, through drawing opposition between flesh and spirit, that Christ’s prior words are symbolic and not literal if the flesh is of no avail.

Ulrich Zwingli is perhaps the most well-known proponent of this interpretation, having argued against any physical presence of Christ in the Eucharist on the basis that His flesh was of no avail. No doubt, a contrast is drawn between flesh and Spirit, but closer study of these words in Scripture shows that this does not negate the importance of Christ’s flesh.

Flesh, Spirit, and Faith

Scripturally, the Spirit gives life to man as its vital principle of supernatural life. Contrastingly, flesh is associated with sin. John uses flesh in two ways, be it the Word made flesh (1:14, 18) essential for life (6:51-56) or the human flesh below God (1:13; 3:6) that superficially judges things based on physical observance (8:15). The two words take certain meaning when opposed in Scripture, for flesh represents all that is natural, earthly, and human, while spirit signifies all that is supernatural, heavenly, and divine. Their opposition is always a figurative expression contrasting sinful human nature—flesh—with grace-filled humanity—spirit (Matthew 26:41; Romans 7:5; 8:1-14; 1 Corinthians 5:5; 2 Corinthians 7:1; Galatians 3:3; 4:29; 5:13-26; 1 Peter 4:18; 4:6). In other words, those of the flesh without grace cannot assimilate the discourse.

Rather than indicating opposition between literal and symbolic, the contrast between flesh and spirit indicates that transubstantiation is supernatural, and hence the need for faith. Scott Hahn and Curtis Mitch write that this opposition is “between the Spirit’s ability to enlighten our minds (14:25) and human reason’s inability to comprehend revealed truths apart from faith (8:15). It is this earthbound perspective that is profitless in the face of divine mysteries” (Ignatius Catholic Study Bible, comment on John 6:63).

Faith is needed because transubstantiation occurs in a supernatural, invisible way, with the Eucharist to foster the supernatural life akin to physical bread that fosters the physical. Faith is eminent because “in the Eucharist we do not eat the Flesh of Christ by visibly cutting and masticating it, as the Capharnaites supposed, but under a sacrament, i.e., sacramentally and invisibly, lying hid under the species of bread and wine” (Cornelius Lapide). That the disciples who leave Christ are noted for hardness of heart confirms interpretation of the flesh-spirit opposition as faith, for such is at the root of faithlessness (Matthew 13:13, 19; Luke 5:21-22; John 8:27, 43-47; 12:37-40).

Without faith, Christ’s objectors interpret Him in purely materialistic terms, evoking a recurring theme in John seen with Nicodemus and the Samaritan woman, who interpreted Christ’s doctrine in reference to physical, rather than spiritual, rebirth and water, respectively. Understood correctly, Christ’s teaching that the flesh is of no avail is, indeed, true, so long as this is considered graceless flesh.

Additionally, Christ cannot be referring to His own flesh in verse 63. Firstly, He says “the flesh,” not “my flesh,” evoking previous uses of the word (John 1:14; 3:6). Secondly, were Christ’s flesh truly of no avail, then He would be reneging every statement about His flesh previously made: His flesh as bread for the life of the world (v. 51), its promise towards eternal life and resurrection (v. 54), its promise towards abidance in Christ (v. 56), and the necessity of consuming His flesh and blood (v. 53). Thirdly, the reality of the Incarnation would be questioned otherwise because, in accordance with the adage of the Fathers that “what was not assumed was not saved,” Christ’s flesh necessarily avails toward the redemption of our own, being hypostatically united to the Word as its instrument.

Thus, rather than speaking of His own flesh as being of no avail, Christ’s proclamation is in reference to the “fleshly” approach of the crowd. Christ’s words are not a revelation of purely symbolic meaning behind His flesh, thereby disproving transubstantiation. Rather, merely fleshly nature—faithless life of ordinary flesh without the Spirit—is what is truly of no avail.

The Scandal of Speaking Literally

Verse 66 records Christ losing disciples over His allegedly scandalous doctrine. This is further exegetical support for transubstantiation because such is only possible if His commands were interpreted literally. The Jews need not question how He could give His flesh to eat had He been exhorting them to faith, but only if they sensed impossibility in having to literally feed upon Him. Only a literal interpretation would lead to thinking of Christ’s doctrine as cannibalism and cause enough scandal for Christ to lose disciples.

That Jesus does not correct them and relate to them that He is speaking figuratively proves that the literal interpretation is correct. As Wiseman writes, such is unusual if Christ is speaking figuratively, for His practice is to explain His words to listeners who incorrectly interpret them literally (Matthew 16:6; John 3; 4; 11). The opposite is likewise true: Christ stands firm when correctly interpreted literally, even when opposed (Matthew 9; John 8). Two rules thus emerge: misinterpretation of Christ’s words as literal when they should be taken figuratively leads to further explanation, while correct interpretation of His words as literal leads to further affirmation.

Thus, Christ must be speaking literally, for opposition bore affirmation, and further still with the added emphasis in the switch from esthio to trogo. Christ let His disciples leave without correcting a false literal interpretation, indicating that they were correct in interpreting so. Given that Christ knew that there would be deserters (6:64), one must question why He used such grotesque imagery to explain Himself. There is no end to the more amenable metaphors Christ could have used had He only been speaking figuratively, and nothing but an absolute need of using such imagery—a need brought upon by the literal nature of His words in order to teach transubstantiation—would have demanded their recurring inclusion.

In Conclusion

To conclude these posts on the Bread of Life discourse, the Catholic tradition does not assert there to be nothing metaphorical in the Bread of Life discourse. Rather, the metaphorical nature does not make the discourse solely an invitation to faith, the invitation needing to be seen in light of the invitation to the Eucharist. It is the invitation to faith that prepares for assent to transubstantiation.

That Christ teaches such is first seen in the literary context situating the discourse within three aspects relevant to the doctrine: (1) two preceding miracles that prove Christ’s ability to account for transubstantiation; (2) a comparison of the Eucharist with the wilderness manna that necessitates transubstantiation in order that the former may exceed the latter; and (3) correlations to the Last Supper that give Eucharistic overtones against objections that the discourse carries no sacramental significance.

Furthermore, exegetically speaking, five arguments come out in verses 51-66 that clearly point to the doctrine of transubstantiation: (1) the Greek words used, with trogo demanding Christ be speaking literally and not figuratively; (2) the calumnious connotation of figuratively speaking of eating the flesh of a person, further demanding Christ be speaking literally; (3) the scandalous introduction of drinking blood, wholly unnecessary and imprudent were Christ only speaking metaphorically; (4) the contrast between flesh and spirit that points to faithless life as being of no avail, and not Christ’s flesh itself; and (5) the desertion of disciples over the literal nature of Christ’s words.

With all this in mind, transubstantiation is unquestionably a biblically based doctrine.
 
Verse 63 of John 6 presents the major objection to transubstantiation to be accounted for since it gives the impression, through drawing opposition between flesh and spirit, that Christ’s prior words are symbolic and not literal if the flesh is of no avail.

Ulrich Zwingli is perhaps the most well-known proponent of this interpretation, having argued against any physical presence of Christ in the Eucharist on the basis that His flesh was of no avail. No doubt, a contrast is drawn between flesh and Spirit, but closer study of these words in Scripture shows that this does not negate the importance of Christ’s flesh.

Flesh, Spirit, and Faith

Scripturally, the Spirit gives life to man as its vital principle of supernatural life. Contrastingly, flesh is associated with sin. John uses flesh in two ways, be it the Word made flesh (1:14, 18) essential for life (6:51-56) or the human flesh below God (1:13; 3:6) that superficially judges things based on physical observance (8:15). The two words take certain meaning when opposed in Scripture, for flesh represents all that is natural, earthly, and human, while spirit signifies all that is supernatural, heavenly, and divine. Their opposition is always a figurative expression contrasting sinful human nature—flesh—with grace-filled humanity—spirit (Matthew 26:41; Romans 7:5; 8:1-14; 1 Corinthians 5:5; 2 Corinthians 7:1; Galatians 3:3; 4:29; 5:13-26; 1 Peter 4:18; 4:6). In other words, those of the flesh without grace cannot assimilate the discourse.

Rather than indicating opposition between literal and symbolic, the contrast between flesh and spirit indicates that transubstantiation is supernatural, and hence the need for faith. Scott Hahn and Curtis Mitch write that this opposition is “between the Spirit’s ability to enlighten our minds (14:25) and human reason’s inability to comprehend revealed truths apart from faith (8:15). It is this earthbound perspective that is profitless in the face of divine mysteries” (Ignatius Catholic Study Bible, comment on John 6:63).

Faith is needed because transubstantiation occurs in a supernatural, invisible way, with the Eucharist to foster the supernatural life akin to physical bread that fosters the physical. Faith is eminent because “in the Eucharist we do not eat the Flesh of Christ by visibly cutting and masticating it, as the Capharnaites supposed, but under a sacrament, i.e., sacramentally and invisibly, lying hid under the species of bread and wine” (Cornelius Lapide). That the disciples who leave Christ are noted for hardness of heart confirms interpretation of the flesh-spirit opposition as faith, for such is at the root of faithlessness (Matthew 13:13, 19; Luke 5:21-22; John 8:27, 43-47; 12:37-40).

Without faith, Christ’s objectors interpret Him in purely materialistic terms, evoking a recurring theme in John seen with Nicodemus and the Samaritan woman, who interpreted Christ’s doctrine in reference to physical, rather than spiritual, rebirth and water, respectively. Understood correctly, Christ’s teaching that the flesh is of no avail is, indeed, true, so long as this is considered graceless flesh.

Additionally, Christ cannot be referring to His own flesh in verse 63. Firstly, He says “the flesh,” not “my flesh,” evoking previous uses of the word (John 1:14; 3:6). Secondly, were Christ’s flesh truly of no avail, then He would be reneging every statement about His flesh previously made: His flesh as bread for the life of the world (v. 51), its promise towards eternal life and resurrection (v. 54), its promise towards abidance in Christ (v. 56), and the necessity of consuming His flesh and blood (v. 53). Thirdly, the reality of the Incarnation would be questioned otherwise because, in accordance with the adage of the Fathers that “what was not assumed was not saved,” Christ’s flesh necessarily avails toward the redemption of our own, being hypostatically united to the Word as its instrument.

Thus, rather than speaking of His own flesh as being of no avail, Christ’s proclamation is in reference to the “fleshly” approach of the crowd. Christ’s words are not a revelation of purely symbolic meaning behind His flesh, thereby disproving transubstantiation. Rather, merely fleshly nature—faithless life of ordinary flesh without the Spirit—is what is truly of no avail.

The Scandal of Speaking Literally

Verse 66 records Christ losing disciples over His allegedly scandalous doctrine. This is further exegetical support for transubstantiation because such is only possible if His commands were interpreted literally. The Jews need not question how He could give His flesh to eat had He been exhorting them to faith, but only if they sensed impossibility in having to literally feed upon Him. Only a literal interpretation would lead to thinking of Christ’s doctrine as cannibalism and cause enough scandal for Christ to lose disciples.

That Jesus does not correct them and relate to them that He is speaking figuratively proves that the literal interpretation is correct. As Wiseman writes, such is unusual if Christ is speaking figuratively, for His practice is to explain His words to listeners who incorrectly interpret them literally (Matthew 16:6; John 3; 4; 11). The opposite is likewise true: Christ stands firm when correctly interpreted literally, even when opposed (Matthew 9; John 8). Two rules thus emerge: misinterpretation of Christ’s words as literal when they should be taken figuratively leads to further explanation, while correct interpretation of His words as literal leads to further affirmation.

Thus, Christ must be speaking literally, for opposition bore affirmation, and further still with the added emphasis in the switch from esthio to trogo. Christ let His disciples leave without correcting a false literal interpretation, indicating that they were correct in interpreting so. Given that Christ knew that there would be deserters (6:64), one must question why He used such grotesque imagery to explain Himself. There is no end to the more amenable metaphors Christ could have used had He only been speaking figuratively, and nothing but an absolute need of using such imagery—a need brought upon by the literal nature of His words in order to teach transubstantiation—would have demanded their recurring inclusion.

In Conclusion

To conclude these posts on the Bread of Life discourse, the Catholic tradition does not assert there to be nothing metaphorical in the Bread of Life discourse. Rather, the metaphorical nature does not make the discourse solely an invitation to faith, the invitation needing to be seen in light of the invitation to the Eucharist. It is the invitation to faith that prepares for assent to transubstantiation.

That Christ teaches such is first seen in the literary context situating the discourse within three aspects relevant to the doctrine: (1) two preceding miracles that prove Christ’s ability to account for transubstantiation; (2) a comparison of the Eucharist with the wilderness manna that necessitates transubstantiation in order that the former may exceed the latter; and (3) correlations to the Last Supper that give Eucharistic overtones against objections that the discourse carries no sacramental significance.

Furthermore, exegetically speaking, five arguments come out in verses 51-66 that clearly point to the doctrine of transubstantiation: (1) the Greek words used, with trogo demanding Christ be speaking literally and not figuratively; (2) the calumnious connotation of figuratively speaking of eating the flesh of a person, further demanding Christ be speaking literally; (3) the scandalous introduction of drinking blood, wholly unnecessary and imprudent were Christ only speaking metaphorically; (4) the contrast between flesh and spirit that points to faithless life as being of no avail, and not Christ’s flesh itself; and (5) the desertion of disciples over the literal nature of Christ’s words.

With all this in mind, transubstantiation is unquestionably a biblically based doctrine.
are all of the words in your copy/paste from Scott Hahn and Curtis Mitch?
 
Verse 63 of John 6 presents the major objection to transubstantiation to be accounted for since it gives the impression, through drawing opposition between flesh and spirit, that Christ’s prior words are symbolic and not literal if the flesh is of no avail.

Ulrich Zwingli is perhaps the most well-known proponent of this interpretation, having argued against any physical presence of Christ in the Eucharist on the basis that His flesh was of no avail. No doubt, a contrast is drawn between flesh and Spirit, but closer study of these words in Scripture shows that this does not negate the importance of Christ’s flesh.

Flesh, Spirit, and Faith

Scripturally, the Spirit gives life to man as its vital principle of supernatural life. Contrastingly, flesh is associated with sin. John uses flesh in two ways, be it the Word made flesh (1:14, 18) essential for life (6:51-56) or the human flesh below God (1:13; 3:6) that superficially judges things based on physical observance (8:15). The two words take certain meaning when opposed in Scripture, for flesh represents all that is natural, earthly, and human, while spirit signifies all that is supernatural, heavenly, and divine. Their opposition is always a figurative expression contrasting sinful human nature—flesh—with grace-filled humanity—spirit (Matthew 26:41; Romans 7:5; 8:1-14; 1 Corinthians 5:5; 2 Corinthians 7:1; Galatians 3:3; 4:29; 5:13-26; 1 Peter 4:18; 4:6). In other words, those of the flesh without grace cannot assimilate the discourse.

Rather than indicating opposition between literal and symbolic, the contrast between flesh and spirit indicates that transubstantiation is supernatural, and hence the need for faith. Scott Hahn and Curtis Mitch write that this opposition is “between the Spirit’s ability to enlighten our minds (14:25) and human reason’s inability to comprehend revealed truths apart from faith (8:15). It is this earthbound perspective that is profitless in the face of divine mysteries” (Ignatius Catholic Study Bible, comment on John 6:63).

Faith is needed because transubstantiation occurs in a supernatural, invisible way, with the Eucharist to foster the supernatural life akin to physical bread that fosters the physical. Faith is eminent because “in the Eucharist we do not eat the Flesh of Christ by visibly cutting and masticating it, as the Capharnaites supposed, but under a sacrament, i.e., sacramentally and invisibly, lying hid under the species of bread and wine” (Cornelius Lapide). That the disciples who leave Christ are noted for hardness of heart confirms interpretation of the flesh-spirit opposition as faith, for such is at the root of faithlessness (Matthew 13:13, 19; Luke 5:21-22; John 8:27, 43-47; 12:37-40).

Without faith, Christ’s objectors interpret Him in purely materialistic terms, evoking a recurring theme in John seen with Nicodemus and the Samaritan woman, who interpreted Christ’s doctrine in reference to physical, rather than spiritual, rebirth and water, respectively. Understood correctly, Christ’s teaching that the flesh is of no avail is, indeed, true, so long as this is considered graceless flesh.

Additionally, Christ cannot be referring to His own flesh in verse 63. Firstly, He says “the flesh,” not “my flesh,” evoking previous uses of the word (John 1:14; 3:6). Secondly, were Christ’s flesh truly of no avail, then He would be reneging every statement about His flesh previously made: His flesh as bread for the life of the world (v. 51), its promise towards eternal life and resurrection (v. 54), its promise towards abidance in Christ (v. 56), and the necessity of consuming His flesh and blood (v. 53). Thirdly, the reality of the Incarnation would be questioned otherwise because, in accordance with the adage of the Fathers that “what was not assumed was not saved,” Christ’s flesh necessarily avails toward the redemption of our own, being hypostatically united to the Word as its instrument.

Thus, rather than speaking of His own flesh as being of no avail, Christ’s proclamation is in reference to the “fleshly” approach of the crowd. Christ’s words are not a revelation of purely symbolic meaning behind His flesh, thereby disproving transubstantiation. Rather, merely fleshly nature—faithless life of ordinary flesh without the Spirit—is what is truly of no avail.

The Scandal of Speaking Literally

Verse 66 records Christ losing disciples over His allegedly scandalous doctrine. This is further exegetical support for transubstantiation because such is only possible if His commands were interpreted literally. The Jews need not question how He could give His flesh to eat had He been exhorting them to faith, but only if they sensed impossibility in having to literally feed upon Him. Only a literal interpretation would lead to thinking of Christ’s doctrine as cannibalism and cause enough scandal for Christ to lose disciples.

That Jesus does not correct them and relate to them that He is speaking figuratively proves that the literal interpretation is correct. As Wiseman writes, such is unusual if Christ is speaking figuratively, for His practice is to explain His words to listeners who incorrectly interpret them literally (Matthew 16:6; John 3; 4; 11). The opposite is likewise true: Christ stands firm when correctly interpreted literally, even when opposed (Matthew 9; John 8). Two rules thus emerge: misinterpretation of Christ’s words as literal when they should be taken figuratively leads to further explanation, while correct interpretation of His words as literal leads to further affirmation.

Thus, Christ must be speaking literally, for opposition bore affirmation, and further still with the added emphasis in the switch from esthio to trogo. Christ let His disciples leave without correcting a false literal interpretation, indicating that they were correct in interpreting so. Given that Christ knew that there would be deserters (6:64), one must question why He used such grotesque imagery to explain Himself. There is no end to the more amenable metaphors Christ could have used had He only been speaking figuratively, and nothing but an absolute need of using such imagery—a need brought upon by the literal nature of His words in order to teach transubstantiation—would have demanded their recurring inclusion.

In Conclusion

To conclude these posts on the Bread of Life discourse, the Catholic tradition does not assert there to be nothing metaphorical in the Bread of Life discourse. Rather, the metaphorical nature does not make the discourse solely an invitation to faith, the invitation needing to be seen in light of the invitation to the Eucharist. It is the invitation to faith that prepares for assent to transubstantiation.

That Christ teaches such is first seen in the literary context situating the discourse within three aspects relevant to the doctrine: (1) two preceding miracles that prove Christ’s ability to account for transubstantiation; (2) a comparison of the Eucharist with the wilderness manna that necessitates transubstantiation in order that the former may exceed the latter; and (3) correlations to the Last Supper that give Eucharistic overtones against objections that the discourse carries no sacramental significance.

Furthermore, exegetically speaking, five arguments come out in verses 51-66 that clearly point to the doctrine of transubstantiation: (1) the Greek words used, with trogo demanding Christ be speaking literally and not figuratively; (2) the calumnious connotation of figuratively speaking of eating the flesh of a person, further demanding Christ be speaking literally; (3) the scandalous introduction of drinking blood, wholly unnecessary and imprudent were Christ only speaking metaphorically; (4) the contrast between flesh and spirit that points to faithless life as being of no avail, and not Christ’s flesh itself; and (5) the desertion of disciples over the literal nature of Christ’s words.

With all this in mind, transubstantiation is unquestionably a biblically based doctrine.
you don't really have an argument. You just have an unsupported statement.
 
are all of the words in your copy/paste from Scott Hahn and Curtis Mitch?
genetic fallacy? It should not matter who first wrote these words. The words either make sense or they don't. Where I got them makes no difference unless I am quoting that source as an authority, which is something I am not doing. This is similar to how you might quote Got Questions on the grounds that (you say) the words make sense scripturally, not on the grounds of their being an authority. So with that in mind, how about reading it as my response? Take for example the simplest and most obvious point to be made: Jesus says "the flesh" is of no avail. He does not say "my flesh" is of no avail. If he were correcting his disciples in verse 63, then he would have said "my flesh" is of no avail, since he had just said in verse 54-56: "He who feeds on my flesh and drinks my blood has life eternal ....my flesh is real food....the man who feeds on my flesh....remains in me". After all those uses of "my flesh", it would seem odd for Jesus to suddenly switch to "the flesh" unless he were speaking of something else and not his previous mentions of his own flesh.
 
Ulrich Zwingli is perhaps the most well-known proponent

Perhaps other people are interested in what people in the years after the Apostles died thought and did. But it does not have my undivided attention. Interesting reads I'm sure, but not that important. As if our salvation depended on their opinions.

All of Scripture points to faith and trust in Jesus, to worship Him in spirit and in truth..... not in the rcc and its description of cannibalism. If rc's truly believed in and trusted Jesus, then the rcc would not be directing adherents to mary worship, institution worship, pope worship, relic worship, scapular worship, purgatory, indulgences, wafer worship, dead people worship, and the list goes on, and on. None of this stuff is even hinted at in Scripture.
 
genetic fallacy? It should not matter who first wrote these words. The words either make sense or they don't. Where I got them makes no difference unless I am quoting that source as an authority, which is something I am not doing.
yes, it does make a difference whose words they are - if I'm gonna read 'em. if they support what you claim those verses mean then there is no reason for me to read more false teachings from the rcc.

This is similar to how you might quote Got Questions on the grounds that (you say) the words make sense scripturally, not on the grounds of their being an authority. So with that in mind, how about reading it as my response? Take for example the simplest and most obvious point to be made: Jesus says "the flesh" is of no avail. He does not say "my flesh" is of no avail. If he were correcting his disciples in verse 63, then he would have said "my flesh" is of no avail, since he had just said in verse 54-56: "He who feeds on my flesh and drinks my blood has life eternal ....my flesh is real food....the man who feeds on my flesh....remains in me". After all those uses of "my flesh", it would seem odd for Jesus to suddenly switch to "the flesh" unless he were speaking of something else and not his previous mentions of his own flesh.
no, when I post from GQ - it's a link and clearly identified. the rest of your post clearly shows you don't understand those verses in Jn 6.
 
mica said:
yes they do, but .
If you cannot explain in logical terms why Jesus' knowing what they would do implies something about literal vs. symbolic interpretations, but fall back on accusations of what Catholics do wrong, then you don't really have an argument. You just have an unsupported statement.
If you can't quote the whole 2 lines of my post then I can't respond to your reply to it because I can't read what it is that you are replying to.
 
[[[[[

The Scandal of Speaking Literally

Verse 66 records Christ losing disciples over His allegedly scandalous doctrine. This is further exegetical support for transubstantiation because such is only possible if His commands were interpreted literally. The Jews need not question how He could give His flesh to eat had He been exhorting them to faith, but only if they sensed impossibility in having to literally feed upon Him. Only a literal interpretation would lead to thinking of Christ’s doctrine as cannibalism and cause enough scandal for Christ to lose disciples.

LifeIn says

The Scandal of Speaking Literally

Verse 66 records Christ losing disciples over His allegedly scandalous doctrine. This is further exegetical support for transubstantiation because such is only possible if His commands were interpreted literally. The Jews need not question how He could give His flesh to eat had He been exhorting them to faith, but only if they sensed impossibility in having to literally feed upon Him. Only a literal interpretation would lead to thinking of Christ’s doctrine as cannibalism and cause enough scandal for Christ to lose disciples.
==========================================================
Buzz replies
It is now easy to understand why a savage should desire to partake of the flesh of an animal or man whom he regards as divine. By eating the body of the god he shares in the gods attributes and powers. And when the god is a corn-god, the corn is his proper body; when he is a vine-god, the juice of the grape is his blood; and so by eating the bread and drinking the wine the worshipper partakes of the real body and blood of his god. Thus the drinking of wine in the rites of a vine-god like Dionysus is not an act of revelry, it is a solemn sacrament. Yet a time comes when reasonable men find it hard to understand how any one in his senses can suppose that by eating bread or drinking wine he consumes the body or blood of a deity. When we call corn Ceres and wine Bacchus, says Cicero, we use a common figure of speech; but do you imagine that anybody is so insane as to believe that the thing he feeds upon is a god? 10

yep, it is a solemn sacrament.

Gen.3:3​
But of the fruit of the tree which is in the midst of the garden,​
God hath said,​
Ye shall not eat of it, neither shall ye touch it, lest ye die.​

ah yes;
that One Tree in the mist of the Garden

Isaiah 66:17​
They that sanctify themselves, and purify themselves in the gardens behind one tree in the midst,​
eating swine's flesh, and the abomination, and the mouse,​
shall be consumed together, saith the Lord.​
 
Back
Top