What Jesus Teaches in John 6 About the Eucharist w/ Fr. Jonathan Meyer

-------------------------------- Sponsor --------------------------------

[richardcowart]

Father Meyer and his best friend Father Hollowell saved my life -" He drew me up from the desolate pit,
out of the miry bog, and set my feet upon a rock, making my steps secure." - Old soldiers need more priest like these superheroes !!!! God Bless you Fathers - The sacraments of the church are the "rock" when they are instituted by Priest like these men...

[bulucap]

It is a great mission you do for the church
Love your works

[clarissa]

Thank you! If God has said it, it is truth! God bless (:

[ctzenalien]

Honest questions, if someone wouldn't mind answering: what are the Catholic beliefs as far as the purpose of Jesus' death and resurrection in light of the Eucharist doctrine? In Catholicism, how do those connect with each other, or do they?
Also, if Jesus meant literally that the bread and wine were His body and blood, wouldn't it be the same for the disciples, in effect, if Jesus just offered them His physically body right there for them to eat and drink of instead of bringing bead and wine into the situation? I don't ask that disrespectfully or anything.
Just from reading John 6 a bit, it seems to me that Jesus was speaking more figuratively and the unbelievably disciples left in reaction the finding his statements to be outlandish and crazy, maybe, and to be taking them literally. I seem to recall elsewhere in the gospels how Jesus would speak in parables to sort of make it harder for unbelieving followers to understand (maybe to sort of weed them out...?). This can seem like one of those times. I mean, even Jesus mentioned in that chapter, "It is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh is no help at all. The words that I have spoken to you are spirit and life (Jn. 6:63 ESV). If one says to that, "Well, yes, because the Spirit turned the bread and wine into Jesus' body and blood", the fact would seem to still remain that the bread and wine are seen as flesh and blood and not the Spirit, right?
Also, if the bread and wine are to literally be Jesus flesh and blood, then, since it's literal, wouldn't they literally become flesh and blood?
Is there anything I'm missing or misunderstanding at all? Again, my thoughts and questions are all offered in respect.

[sulongenjop]

If one does not eat, it means one does not want to remember Jesus!

[ful]

Eating beef and chicken, literally, gives the human body nutrition. One cannot exist without protein that comes from beef and chicken. Protein is an essential building block of our human body.
There are those that consume raw beef and fish, even. They don't think twice about it. Why consuming Jesus' flesh and blood, supernaturally, so hard to accept? After all, aren't we made in His image and likeness? Isn't Jesus our "Life Source?"

[YankeeWoodcraft]

At what point does the disbelief come in (I love to point this out ot Protestants)?

At John 6:66.

[urawesome]

“But He said to them, “I have food to eat that you do not know about.” So the disciples were saying to one another, “No one brought Him anything to eat, did he?” Jesus *said to them, “My food is to do the will of Him who sent Me and to accomplish His work.”
‭‭John‬ ‭4:32-34‬ ‭NASB1995‬‬

The disciples understood His food to be works.

“Do not work for the food which perishes, but for the food which endures to eternal life, which the Son of Man will give to you, for on Him the Father, God, has set His seal.” Therefore they said to Him, “What shall we do, so that we may work the works of God?” Jesus answered and said to them, “This is the work of God, that you believe in Him whom He has sent.””
‭‭John‬ ‭6:27-29‬ ‭NASB1995‬‬

The Eucharist is no different than bread that perishes. It is Christ in us (only those who are born again), who have eternal life. When Christ sat down with His disciples during the last supper, this was before He died on the cross where He committed His Spirit to the Father. It is Christ in us and wherever we gather in His name, He is there also. Man does not live on bread alone, but every Word that comes from the mouth of God. He said “do this in remembrance of Me”. This includes everything. During the first century the Lords Supper was eaten at their homes and tents (full meal). They enjoyed Christlike fellowship together. Some came just to eat a full meal which was wrong. The fellowship was a big part of it too. It was a good time of fellowship, not something somber. Why? Because Christ is in each and everyone of us born again believers (they would take a loaf and each person would break a piece from the bread). It was a celebration of His life and what He accomplished.

[manuelpompa-ue]

john 6 is about spiritually accepting Christ as a savior and Lord. the eating of Christ's flesh and drinking His blood was symbolic/metaphoric, just as He spoke in His parables. where in the bible do His apostles and disciples actually eat Christ's flesh, and drink His blood??? there wouldn't be enough of Jesus left to hang on the cross!!! by the way, the mass/eucharist is a denial that Christ's death and sacrifice on the cross was insufficient.

[LarrySanger]

This is so embarrassing.

Here is the “hard saying” of John 6:
—
John 6:53-57 KJV
Then Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you. [54] Whoso eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day. [55] For my flesh is meat indeed, and my blood is drink indeed. [56] He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, dwelleth in me, and I in him. [57] As the living Father hath sent me, and I live by the Father: so he that eateth me, even he shall live by me.
—
Yet Jesus himself almost immediately addressed the seeming weirdness and paradox:
—
John 6:61-65 KJV
When Jesus knew in himself that his disciples murmured at it, he said unto them, Doth this offend you? [62] What and if ye shall see the Son of man ascend up where he was before? [63] It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life. [64] But there are some of you that believe not. For Jesus knew from the beginning who they were that believed not, and who should betray him. [65] And he said, Therefore said I unto you, that no man can come unto me, except it were given unto him of my Father.
—
Let me try to paraphrase his response: Does my saying this trouble you? [Why does it?] Consider: what if I were to return to God whom I say is my Father? [Would I not thereby show that I am of the Spirit, as the Father is?] It is the Spirit [of God] who makes us alive [as he did Adam, our first fathers with the breath of life: *pneuma* is the same word, spirit and breath]. [Now, you were troubled that I said you must eat my flesh and drink my blood. But my serious irony was this:] Not flesh, but Spirit, is the source of life. The thing that will make you live is my words [and not flesh], for my words [*logoi*, plural of *logos*, Word] are of the Spirit. [You must believe these words and do them if you are to live.] But some of you will not believe these words [and so will die].

End of paraphrase.

I think Jesus was speaking with serious irony. He was actually saying something incompatible with the doctrine of transubstantiation: he is “the bread of life, ” not literally—after all, flesh “profiteth nothing”—but because he is the Word of God, a life-giving God who is Spirit. Thus his Word, and the words of his Gospel, are what are life-giving. There is of course his body sacrificed on the cross which saved sinners. But the value of that flesh and blood comes from what it accomplished spiritually: the justification of the faithful.

I think moreover that he was saying two things: (a) if the Lord gives you insight, you will understand properly how I am life-giving, and you will know it is through the Spirit. (b) I am speaking in an offensive paradox to throw up a stumbling-block to those who are not of me, whom God has not called; they will think I am being somehow literal, and, in their poor fleshly understanding, fail to grasp the figure.

I *think* that’s what he saying.

The whole exchange actually begins with the feeding of the 5, 000 and Jesus’ observation:
—
John 6:26-27 KJV
Jesus answered them and said, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Ye seek me, not because ye saw the miracles, but because ye did eat of the loaves, and were filled. [27] 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.
—
In other words: You foolish people chased after me because you were impressed by my ability to fill your bellies, not realizing that the “meat” that gives everlasting life is Spiritual.

Look, if he meant his “eat my flesh and drink my blood” *literally*, then why would he begin by criticizing the people who desired “meat which perisheth, ” and end by saying that flesh “profiteth nothing”? His entire point is that, as the bread of life, the gift he offers is not worldly (thus repudiating the temporal kingship is another point in the same theme) but spiritual. Again, to say the point is somehow about the metaphysics (theory of the being or underlying nature) of the Eucharist is to ignore the context in an embarrassing way; not only is that not his point, his point is entirely incompatible with such metaphysical speculation.