Eating Flesh and Drinking Blood
|
Have you ever been approached, either in person or through email, by a friendly person claiming to be a Roman Catholic with a question? If you haven't, you surely one day shall be. This is a fairly common “approach” technique for Catholic apologists and proselyters. The approach usually goes something like this:
That is hardly threatening, so you continue to give attention to his petition. This is when he nails you with a challenge to disprove one of the core verses misused to justify some of the foundational doctrines of the RCC.
The correct response, of course, should be; “Because that is the meaning of the passage.” At this point, it would be wise to turn the question around and ask some questions concerning Catholicism's literal interpretation of the passage. The first question I would ask would have to do with another verse in the same chapter. Since Catholics consider it necessary to interpret John 6:54 literally, then why don't they also interpret 6:58 the same way?
Notice that this verse says that the body and blood mentioned in the immediately preceding verses is bread. I have yet to have a Catholic explain why this verse is not also to be taken literally. Then, there's this passage:
Why don't they interpret this passage literally? Again, Jesus says He is the Bread of Life. Then He says that the bread He will give is His flesh. Can He be bread? Can bread be flesh? The Catholics who so love verse 54 are quick to ignore other verses in the same area. Then, there's this verse:
Have you ever had a Catholic explain to you how Jesus of Nazareth could have been a loaf of walking and talking bread? The Catholic then brings up the fact, as proof that verse 54 is to be taken literally, that His listeners were troubled by His words and left.
Indeed, they did leave. And, when Jesus saw that His followers also were having trouble with the concept of eating His flesh and blood, He explained the meaning of His words in the very next series of verses -- which Catholic apologists seem never to notice:
And this is the clue to help understand why so many Catholics are unable to comprehend the true meaning of John 6:54. Verse 65 is the key. We know from elsewhere in the Scriptures that the Scriptures are foolishness to those who are not saved.
Let's return to the passage 6:53-58: Jesus' point was an analogy that has spiritual, rather than literal, significance; just as eating and drinking are necessary for physical life, so also is belief in His sacrificial death on the cross necessary for eternal life. The eating of His flesh and drinking of His blood metaphorically symbolize the need for accepting Jesus' work on the cross. For the Jews, however, a crucified Messiah was unthinkable (cf. Acts 17:1-3). Once again, the Jews, in their willful and judicial blindness, could not see the real spiritual significance and truth behind Jesus' statements. Moreover, Jesus' reference here to eating and drinking was not referring to the sacrament of the Eucharist for two significant reasons: 1) communion had not been instituted yet [The Last Supper was still in the future], and 2) if Jesus was referring to communion, or the Eucharist, then this passage would teach that anyone partaking of communion (Eucharist) would receive eternal life. Could it be that Catholic interpretations of Scripture that support two of their dogmas are in conflict? If John 6:54 indeed is to be interpreted as Catholics understand the verse, then anyone who receives communion is GUARANTEED to have eternal life, whether a member of the Catholic Church or not -- whether a believer or not; whether he dies in a state of grace or not. On the other hand, The Council of Trent formally defined John 3:5 in this way: According to the words of Jesus in John 3:5, Baptism in water (Baptisimes fluminus) is necessary, since the establishment of the New Covenant, for the salvation of all men without exception...
It is by (valid) Baptism in water by which men are made members of Christ's Body, the Church.
In the Sacrament of Baptism the soul is truly cleansed from all sin (original and actual) and is truly justified and regenerated unto new life by the infusion of sanctifying grace. So, herein lies the difficulty: If everyone who partakes of communion is guaranteed eternal life, then why is baptism a requirement for salvation in the Catholic Church? There's another little problem with RCC dogma and the literal interpretation of John 6:54. If one indeed understands 6:54 literally, then anyone who takes communion receives eternal life.
There can be no equivocation here; Jesus' words are quite specific and, if taken literally, eating His actual flesh and drinking His actual blood result in assured eternal life. Yet, if this is so, how can the RCC explain the following dogma?
I have encountered a few Catholic apologists who argued that the references to the salvific value of eating the flesh and drinking the blood of Christ, are to be understood as having to do with receiving Communion worthily. That is not what the dogmatic statements cited above either say or suggest. As I read them, I am informed that anyone who eats a consecrated eucharistic wafer or takes a sip of consecrated wine is "will persevere until the end and be saved," without regard to his state of grace or standing in the Catholi Church. At this point, despite the fact that you have used both the Scriptures and Roman Catholic dogmas to make your case, the Catholic apologist may seek to change to direction of the discussion by throwing out another challenge:
I would not trouble myself to search for such a verse. This challenge is meaningless, for we are examining John 6:54, not some other verse. The above are sufficient arguments as to why 6:54 cannot be taken literally. The frustrated Catholic may toss out another attempt to alter the focus of the discussion.
At last, we get to the heart of this Catholic's mission, which is to discredit the doctrine of Sola Scriptura. As is almost always the case when Catholics go after this Christian doctrine, they show their complete lack of understanding as to what the doctrine is. Borrowing from chapter 5 of James R. White's book, The Roman Catholic Controversy, (Bethany House, (1996), I shall summarize what Sola Scriptura is not:
Using the same source, I shall now summarize what Sola Scriptura is :
Should one do as the Catholic suggests, and look in the Scriptures for references to eating flesh and drinking blood, will he discover that the RCC's understanding, as expressed by the apologist, is accurate? One of the earliest references to eating flesh and blood (of animals, not Christ) is this one:
In this verse, is God not clearly prohibiting the eating of flesh with blood in it? And, according to RCC doctrine, does not the consecrated host include the real and substantial body, blood, soul and divinity of Christ? Is God a liar? Does what the Catholic Church claims Christ teaches in John 6:54 conflict with what God says in Genesis 9:4? Is God the Author of confusion? Is the above verse an isolated occurrence? A slip of God's inspiration to Moses? Read what follows:
In verse 14, God clearly states that anyone who eats blood shall be cut off (killed). Can God be so clearly against the eating of blood here and later require it for salvation? I think not. There's more, and it would be good to bear in mind that these passages are taken from Torah, the Books of the Law:
Most likely, the defender of the Catholic faith will not be swayed by the above, and will continue doggedly to maintain that Jesus could not have used eating and drinking figuratively in John 6:54:
This is answered by showing that God has clearly prohibited the eating of blood, which is in direct conflict with the RCC interpretation of John 6:54. It would appear that it is Rome that has added to the Scriptures, not Christianity. The apologist, of course, will disagree and press his case:
Of course, he already knows that non-Catholics do not for a moment imagine that Jesus was advocating cannibalism. This is just an attempt to throw you off-balance, perhaps to confuse you. He may re-open something that was addressed earlier. Anything to break your train of thought.
He mentions "answers" to Levitical Law, but he does not provide them, for to do so would require additional special interpretation. This is just a smoke screen. Here is a final thought for you. If eating Christ's flesh and drinking Christ's blood were necessary to salvation, then no one could have been saved until Christ died. How, then, are Catholics able to explain Chapter 11 of Hebrews? How do they explain the "great cloud of witnesses" in Hebrews chapter 12? We know that Enoch and Elijah were taken up to Heaven while still alive, yet they could not have eaten Christ's flesh nor drunk His blood. And was not Moses saved? And Abel? Did David dine on the flesh and drink the blood of Jesus? Or were all these saved by faith? Think on this, please. Catholic apologists often are arrogant and aggressive, apparently believing they can overpower their opposition by force of will. Don't let them intimidate you. They will frequently toss out red herrings, attempt to lead you down rabbit trails that serve only to confuse you and weaken your own resolve. Remember. You do not have to respond to every single thing they write or say. You are not in bondage to them. It is your right and your privilege to respond to what you wish or, should you desire, to ignore everything they demand of you |
P>
 | Home | Eucharist Stuff | Catholic Stuff | PTG Forum |  |