What do you think of this interpretation (Catholics)?

Question

I would like to know what you think of this interpretation:

http://www.afcministry.com/Roman_Catholicism_and_the_eucharist_and_John_6_verses_53_through_57.htm

Answer 1

I agree with the above statement, the Catechism is a just and true grounding in what Catholic's believe.

On some points arguing against the Protestant claiming to know the true "context" of that scripture, I have a few things to add:

1. Protestants always say that they are strictly Bible based, yet where did their Bible come from? Someone should definetly look into their history here and do some research on the Council of Nicea. ( convened by Catholics, because there were no Protestants for another 1300 years.)

2. Again, they say bible only. "sola scriptura" as it were. Well, it would appear this is obviously going against the Catholic believes (they believe in the scripture AND tradition) and it is also against what the Bible states. See passages : 1Co11:2 and 2Pet1:20 . Also, see the section on tradition at this site explaining these passages http://a-voice.org/discern/rcccheat.htm

3. As for the context of the Eucharist mentioned in the Bible, and what Christ meant. Was it literal or spiritual? I will mention 3 things here. First, whenever Christ was preaching, most the time the disciples didn't get it, and Peter would ask Christ to go into more explanation so the disciples knew they weren't misinterpreting him. After Christ speaks of his Body and Blood, making reference to the Eucharist, Peter only states that he understands. Forgive me for not having the exact passages, but this, shown in correct context shows that Peter took Christ literally, and understood it as literal, where as at other times, Christ would have to use a parable after he stated something so that the apostles would understand.
next. why do you think the people of vs. 63 chapter John 6 were confused because they thought he meant something figuratively? No, they understood him very literally, and they realized that this was very odd, so they grumbled, not believing that they would have to literally do something. Christ does not tell them it is not literal. That is not what he says. The quote used to debunk the Roman Catholic Eucharist is in fact a defining quote of the Eucharist. What is the Eucharist, being the Body and Blood of Christ? "It is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh profits nothing; the words that I have spoken to you are spirit and are life." That IS the Eucharist. Our flesh profits nothing from it, only our spirit, which is in the Eucharist given Life through Christ and the Holy Spirit.
3. There is another time where Christ is stating, that you must "Eat His flesh and drink His Blood" and many of the people around him are upset by this. He tells them if they cannot believe and do this, they cannot follow him. Many many people following Christ abandon him at this moment.

"For my flesh is true food, and my blood is true drink.
Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me and I in him."

(John 6: 55-56)


"Does this shock you?"


"What if you were to see the Son of Man ascending to where he was before?
It is the spirit that gives life, while the flesh is of no avail.
The words I have spoken to you are spirit and life.
But there are some of you who do not believe."

Jesus knew from the beginning the ones who would not believe
and the one who would betray him. And he said,
"For this reason I have told you that no one can come to me
unless it is granted by my Father."

As a result of this, many [of] his disciples
returned to their former way of life and no longer accompanied him.
Jesus then said to the Twelve, "Do you also want to leave?"
Simon Peter answered him, "Master, to whom shall we go?
You have the words of eternal life.
We have come to believe and are convinced
that you are the Holy One of God."
(John 6:61-69)

Why would Christ ask "Does this shock you?" If he did not mean the literal interpretation? A purely figurative interpretation of Christ's words would have not caused shock, but the idea of eating and drinking his flesh literally would have! No one would have left him if he had meant it spiritually. It is also apparent here that Peter and the other disciples accept this, because he is the Chosen One of God, and through him all things are possible.

It's apparent to me that the Protestant who wrote that piece was picking and choosing his scripture and context, leaving out key verses such as these.





Asking from another verse in scripture....why would anyone prepare to stone Christ for saying "eat my flesh and drink my blood" if he only meant it figuratively. It's also funny how he doesn't rebuke those who are about to stone him, saying "no, no, you don't get it" or something along those lines.

Answer 2

Obviously Catholics disagree with this Protestant interpretation of the Eucharist.

At the Last Supper, Jesus said, “Take this bread. It is my body.” Then he said, “Take this and drink. This is my blood. Do this in memory of me.”

Catholics believe this was the First Eucharist, that through a miracle the bread and wine actually became the body and blood of Jesus Christ.

Catholics reenact the Last Supper during every Mass, where God, acting through the priest, changes the bread and wine into the body and blood of Jesus Christ.

This is a great sacrament of thanksgiving and unity of Catholics.

By the way, the Orthodox, Lutheran and many Anglican Churches also believe in the Real Presence of Jesus Christ in the Eucharist.

For more information, see the Catechism of the Catholic Church, sections 1322 and following: http://www.usccb.org/catechism/text/pt2sect2chpt1art3.htm

With love in Christ.

Answer 3

John... With all due appreciate, i won't communicate on why Protestants have faith their interpretation is authentic. even though, because of the fact that i'm Catholic, i will communicate approximately why we Catholic's experience that we've the finished, and precise interpretation. listed right here are the justifications why: a million) Jesus advised Peter that HE could build HIS Church on Peter --- Matt sixteen:18-19 2) Jesus promised that HE could leave with them (Peter and Apostles) with the HS who could handbook them into ALL fact... no longer purely some fact --- John sixteen: 12-15 3) Paul tells us to "stand corporation and carry quickly to the traditions which you have been taught, the two via an oral assertion or via a letter of ours" --- 2 Thess 2:15 4) St. James tells us that "faith without works is ineffective" --- James 2:26 5) St. Paul tells us... "if I even have all faith with a view to head mountains yet have not got love, i'm no longer something" --- a million Corinthians 13:2 (love which skill = charity) 6) "The pillar and foundation of fact is the Church" --- a million Tim 3:15 GOD BLESS...

Answer 4

I think the Catechism's interpretation is prefectly legitimate.

I noticed verses 51 and 52 were cropped out for the purpose of refuting the Catholic interpretation. Whether you accept these verses as metaphor or not, Jesus makes it clear he specifically refers to the bread as his flesh.

[51] I am the living bread which came down from heaven: if any man eat of this bread, he shall live for ever: and the bread that I will give is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world.
[52] The Jews therefore strove among themselves, saying, How can this man give us his flesh to eat?
[53] 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.

Answer 5

IF WE EAT HIS FLESH AND DRINK HIS BLOOD DOES THAT MAKE US CANNIBALS? IS THAT REALLY WHAT JESUS WANTS?