I was so exited about this experience last night that I wanted to post it on a new thread so that all could see. I was also tired last night, so I cleaned up the grammatical errors and spelling errors.

This is in response to someone (presumably protestant) who had questioned the meaning of Jesus' words in John Ch6. I also, was somewhat confused by this specific sentence mentioned, but I started to write last night in defense of our Lord's True Presents really not knowing how I would defend it. And it was as if all of a sudden my eyes were opened to the True meaning - and this was later confirmed. In the blink of an eye I understood what the sentence meant. God spoke to my heart last night! AMEN!

Nice interpretation, "concerned", but that's all it is. Is this the grounds that all the protestant sects use to refute the true presents? I don't think so! If when Jesus said that He was speaking of Spirt, He meant that you don't really have to eat His Body and Blood, and that this teaching really wasn't "hard", then why didn't all the disciples and Jews understand and continue to walk with Him? There's no doubt He spoke the words you quoted, but you have taken them out of context.

Jesus meant that his flesh wasn't just carnal nourishment, but Spiritual nourishment! This was why they murmured, because they were thinking that Jesus was talking about cannibalism (when you eat human flesh for carnal nourishment). But Jesus cleared it up; His Flesh is Spiritual nourishment! Jesus didn't take back what He had previously said! He clarified it. He was saying that unless we eat His Body and Drink His Blood we have no Spiritual (eternal life)in us. Therefore, while you take it to mean that Jesus' flesh is of no avail, what Jesus really meant was that our flesh was of no avail. Of course Jesus' flesh is eternal, thus it IS of avail! And unless we eat His eternal flesh, we will NOT have eternal life (with Him) in us! But many of the disciples STILL could not grasp this, and left him. If it wasn't a big deal, why did Jesus turn to his Apostles and ask if they would leave?

Wow! I must admit that I had a bit of trouble reading that part too, though in my ignorance I still believed. But while writing this letter, it just made sense. I hope that the same vail that just was lifter from me on that particular line, will be lifted from you and all those who don't understand.

In Christ.

-- Jake Huether (jake.huether@lamrc.com), August 18, 2002.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

After my revelation during the my last post I went back and re-read John, 6. It now makes perfect sense! We must look at the begining of the whole conversation. Jesus multiplied the food. Now, after he walked on water and is on the other side of the river, the crowds follow him. Why? Because He gave them food! The were hungry physically! Jesus knows this, and knows their physical need. But he basically tells them, I will give you physical food (my flesh), but it won't just be for your physical nourishment like your ancestors in the desert, my flesh will become "spiritual nourishment". Jesus said that the Israelites were given manna in the desert but they died (physically and spiritually). Jesus basically says to the crowds if you eat my flesh and drink my blood, yes you will die physically (because your flesh is of no avail - or no use), HOWEVER you will NOT die spiritually because the words I am talking about are of SPIRIT and LIFE! The crowds still had hunger on their minds, and the fact that their ancestors were given manna to satisfy their physical hunger, so they could not see that Jesus wasn't talking about their carnal hunger, but their spiritual hunger!

Also note: The sentence before, in which Jesus says, "Are you offended at this? Then what about when the Son of Man rises...", didn't seem to fit. But now it does! He's showing them that His Flesh and Blood are eternal, unlike ours! His Flesh and Blood will sustain us spiritually for eternity.

I still don't feel justified simply stating in words what is so clear to me now. But all I can do is present words - the Spirit will provide the needed understanding.

- Also noteworthy. After writing my first post and having my eyes opened to the truth about that "questionable" sentence, and after re- reading Johns account, I told this to my mother (who is now in Vancouver getting ready for that cruise). She has a better Bible with foot notes. She said the footnotes basically said exactly what I am saying - but I didn't know at the time! God is so great, and He will reveal to you exactly what you need to know (the Truth), as long as you accept Him and His Church!

Thank you Jesus Christ, my Lord and Savior - you have the words of eternal life!

In Christ.

-- Jake Huether (jake.huether@lamrc.com), August 19, 2002.

-- Jake Huether (jake.huether@lamrc.com), August 19, 2002

Answers

to the top

-- Jake Huether (jake.huether@lamrc.com), August 19, 2002.

Good going Jake! Who could doubt that this is the true answer? But... if you do not clear it with a priest, you are a protestant. Let me explain.

One of the strongest differences between Catholic and Protestant is that if someone has such a revelation, then if C. they must check it vs the magistratrum (spelling??), and if P. will take it as the word of God and try to spread it around. Gotta check with the hierarchy, personal revelations are not in, gotta be a hierarchy approved Catholic style theologin or forget it.

Now, as far as I know, your interpetation is correct. I can not see why this came up, as that interpetation has been standard for as long as I can remember.

I am glad that this and not some more unhappy topic is what concerns this board now. I do check in to find what is happening sometimes. I am glad that things are happier here. Sean

-- Sean Cleary (seanearlyaug@juno.com), August 19, 2002.

Actually, I did not post enough smileys in that last post. Not that I am kidding, but that I see some humor in my replies.

As Chris might say about my statements about the P.'s: it takes one to know one. So, Welcome my brother in Christ to the fount of all revelations, authorized or not. Have joy in the happiness that you find there.

Sean

-- Sean Cleary (seanearlyaug@juno.com), August 19, 2002.

Sean,
The P. interpretation has not been standard for any time. It is different from the true, catholic interpretation. Protestants do not have faith in Christ's word, saying to us, ''Eat my flesh, drink my blood.''

The Protestant prefers to think ''flesh and blood'' of Christ has nothing to do with His true Body and Blood in the Sacrament of the holy Eucharist.

In the Sacrament, the faithful receive His real Body and His real Blood, as food and drink. The food and drink Jake is referring to as ''spiritual as well as ''physical''--

He hasn't excluded the ''physical'' (better said, corporal) substance of the Body and Blood of Christ on the altar. But Protestants do so, and still think they understand John, 6:54 /

They deny the truth, as if Christ were speaking ONLY of a spiritual presence, without Christ's real Body and Blood given to us as food and drink. This is what comes of private interpretation of scripture, without the Holy Spirit.

-- eugene c. chavez (chavezec@pacbell.net), August 19, 2002.

Jake are you saying that there is no carnal dimension to the True Presence and that it is only matter of spirit?

The human is a composite creature, and as such body and soul are technically not able to exist independently of each other... the body was damaged with the fall right along side the soul.

IMHO they walked away exactly because it sounded like cannabalism. Christ didn't run after them saying "wait, wait, let me explain...!" Note this woudln't be the last time disciples walked away. It happened again in a big way some fifteen hundred years later during the Reformation. =)

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), August 19, 2002.

"I can not see why this came up, as that interpetation has been standard for as long as I can remember."

That's exactly right - but me in my ignorance didn't know this. My "interpretation" was confirmed last night when I told my mother - there was a footnote in her Bible (Catholic) that stated the same thing!

Emerald wrote: "Jake are you saying that there is no carnal dimension to the True Presence and that it is only matter of spirit?"

Absolutely NOT! Emerald, you doubt my position on the True Presence? I avidly defend our Lord in the Eucharist! That was my entire post! Did I say something wrong? I apologize for any confusion. Lord, please make my statements clear, through the Power of the Holy Spirit. Amen!

In the sentence that was confusing (where Jesus said that the flesh is of no concern, and that His words were of Spirit and Life), protestants think that Jesus was referring to His Flesh as being of no avail, and that eating His Body and Blood was only meant spiritually. What I had tried to state was that it is exactly opposite! It is OUR flesh that is of no avail - this clarifies Jesus' point, because earlier we note that the crowd came to Jesus for food. However, because our flesh is of no avail neither should their hunger be. Jesus isn't telling them to eat and drink his Body and Blood for cannibalistic (or carnal) satisfaction. He wants us to eat and drink His Real Body and Blood for our spiritual sustenance, which we do every Sunday!

In other words, it was disgusting to many disciples to hear that Jesus wanted them to eat His Body, because they were only thinking that his Body would sustain them physically. They were still thinking of how the Manna sent in the desert sustained their ancestors physically - but not spiritually. Jesus wanted them to know that, yes indeed they must eat and drink His Body and Blood literally, but not for their physical hunger rather for their spiritual hunger. “My words are of spirit and life.”

I hope this clarifies it!

In Christ.

-- Jake Huether (jake.huether@lamrc.com), August 19, 2002.

Nah, I didn't doubt you... just wasn't clear to me.

Speaking of disciples walking away... of all the things Protestants complain about, the Eucharist is actually pretty far down on the list. I went to an all Protestant High School, and almost none of the roughing up I got had to do with the Eucharist. You would think they would hammer us on the Real Presence more than anything, but they just don't seem to.

Wonder why.

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), August 19, 2002.

My point was that the protestant side takes personal understanding and revelation to be the highest point, and the Catholic side takes the unified magistraium based point to be the highest point.

From this one can figure that there is *not* one unified protestant point. Ascribing a viewpoint to a disjoint non-collective "group" is just typical Catholic attitude -- but most understand and forgive your expressed ignorance. Keeping track of who believes what is more for the protestant side, lumping disparate viewpoints into one heap is more the Catholic side. It takes more effort to keep track, and there are few rewards for the Catholic to do so.

Having said that, a large number of the "non-denomantional" groups have had problems struggling over this issue. And some of them have expressed the view (and made it official for that parish-equivalent) that you are talking about.

I remember struggling with this, and now just being tired of the struggle. If it looks like bread, and (go through list of senses) then why are you saying that it is something else and not bread at all? I can understand those who say that it is both bread and Christ, but I am baffled by the denyal of the substance of bread.

I have not considered that passage as part of this arguement. The flesh of Jesus is his word, and his life-style. Listen to the word, live the life and you are the fruitful seed on good ground. He is speaking metaphoracally, or spiritually, not of the physical flesh. Sean

-- Sean Cleary (seanearlyaug@juno.com), August 19, 2002.

Sean,
That is precisely why I said and I repeat, the Catholic places complete faith on the word of Jesus Christ, and the Protestant withholds the true faith these passages call for.

It's ironic the lengths protestants will go to resisting everything but sola scriptura, and then cast off their faith in the Word of God when asked to believe, even if it's clearly scriptural.

-- eugene c. chavez (chavezec@pacbell.net), August 20, 2002.

Sean,

To be honest, you posts are confusing. Are you Catholic?

To clear any misconceptions of my posts: Yes, I am Catholic. Yes, I submit to the HIGHER authority, the Church, which submits to the HIGHEST authority, God. My posts confirm the REAL and TRUE presence of Christ in the Eucharist, which is Biblical (and now more than ever CLEAR to me).

Eugene,

Were you able to get what I wrote? Does it make sense? I feel like I didn't do an adequate job explaining why that "confusing" sentence in John 6 actually makes perfect sense.

Oh well, if no one else understands what I wrote, at least I am now completely satisfied to know that the Catholic Church IS indeed correct and the Body and Blood of Christ is REAL food for us and only available through the Catholic Mass!

In Christ.

-- Jake Huether (jake.huether@lamrc.com), August 20, 2002.

Sean: To be honest, you posts are confusing. Are you Catholic?

Sean's Answer: Ex-Catholic or Anglo-Catholic. The Anglican chruch is one that sends mixed messages on this: the mass does say "memorial" but also says "the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ".

J: To clear any misconceptions of my posts: Yes, I am Catholic. Yes, I submit to the HIGHER authority, the Church, which submits to the HIGHEST authority, God. My posts confirm the REAL and TRUE presence of Christ in the Eucharist, which is Biblical (and now more than ever CLEAR to me).

Sean: Cool. Good. I am not here to argue in this post. I could, but will not, this forum is what it is, and some have said to me in this forum that any arguement is not respectful of this forum. And I am feeling too good/happy right now. And I mostly agree with what you are saying anyway. The 'Only Catholics Have the One True Faith' thing is not really bigotry, just over-enthusiasm.

Part of my faith, my personal belief, not the code that I submit to, is that Heaven will be a surprise. That when we cease to see dimly, that much doctrine will likely be noted as good but mistaken. And that God will love it/us for the good effort made. But hitting the other kids over the head with our creation may not be considered good play.

When I really want to argue is the last refuge of the Church elders: The Catholic church, no matter how fugheaded it could become, or has been, is made right by God. But when I feel up to it I will take it to a less happy post. Something about overwealming pride, and a comment made about creating a Jewish race from the rocks, and another example of overwealming pride in the Church's above statement. I would rather hint than argue, but I suspect that you could follow my hints.

I am very pleased about the quickness of the turnaround for this forum. I remember when it took hours. Now we can almost chat.

-- Sean Cleary (seanearlyaug@juno.com), August 20, 2002.

eugene, It seems like you want an arguement. I am not sure I should give it to you. It has been a while, but I believe you were one of those who said that my arguements were not respectful of this forum.

My own opinion has been formed by the Catholic church: those without the Eucharist are missing something. But God may be mercyful, and we maybe wrong. To say otherwise is to have almost the Pride of the devil, and this pride has put many a stumbling block in the path of many good things: Christian unity, Christian mutual respect.

onwards: I quote you: "This is what comes of private interpretation of scripture, without the Holy Spirit."

Actually the P.s rely (too much??) on the Holy Spirit. In at least one church, that is almost all of the triune God that they worship. So I disagree. Instead, This is what comes of private interpetation of scripture, inspired by the Holy Spirit, but without study, background, history, etc. Those who journey this way (and please note that most of this comment mostly agrees with the spirit of what you said/meant) are like mathematicians who ignore the past many thousands of years of genius level math theory and advances. They call themselves to invent everything from triangle theory to the Calculus, both of which needed genius to get right. The Catholic stance stands on the shoulders of Giants, to paraphrase Newton.

slight topic change: I have had a long strange trip in my religious life. One time I found time to reflect on a 4 way box: sacrifice / No Sacrifice Christian / Christian ------------------------ Sacrifice / No sacrifice Non-Christian / Non-christian

-or- Catholic / 'Standard' Protestant ---------------------------------- Wiccan / Jewish

As I have said, it was a long strange trip I started when I found that the Catholic church left me with a hunger for God and Religion, and did not fill that hunger at that time. These days I would likely have taken a different path, and maybe remained Catholic. But too much teenage angst is still in this 50 year old to easily return. I have found a place that knows that it must convince, not just reiterate and pontificate. Because it knows that it must convince, it has learned that it must listen. So I can have a dialog, not a monolog. And since I feel that my concerns are respected and considered, I can grow.

-- Sean Cleary (seanearlyaug@juno.com), August 20, 2002.

Terribly interesting comment, Sean: "I have found a place that knows that it must convince, not just reiterate and pontificate. Because it knows that it must convince, it has learned that it must listen. So I can have a dialog, not a monolog. And since I feel that my concerns are respected and considered, I can grow."

There's only one thing wrong with this comment. It does not conform to reality. Here's what I mean:

1. Your current "place" ("Anglo-Catholic" community) does not actually "convince" a person who digs really deeply. That's why I hope that you are able to dig that way. If you do, then you surely will return to Catholicism, just as very many "Anglo-Catholics" become genuine Catholics. There are "holes" in "Anglo-Catholicism." It cannot explain and defend itself fully.

2. Your former "place" (the Catholic Church) does not simply "reiterate and pontificate." In fact, only she can fully "convince" a person who digs really deeply. I wish that you could watch or listen to "The Journey Home" each Monday at 8:00 p.m. Eastern time on EWTN. You would see laity and clergy of dozens of non-Catholic Christian entities, including "Anglo-Catholicism," who have come "home" to the Catholic Church, because they have been totally "convinced" and do not complain about the mythical "reiteration and pontification" that you mentioned.

3. You require your religious home to "listen"? Kindly Catholics (lay/religious/clergy) would be happy to "listen" to you, to accept every right thing you say, and to correct every wrong thing. One thing that no Christian should desire or expect, though, is that his "home" should "listen" to me or you (or a big bunch of us, even a majority) -- and then change its doctrines to fit the requirements of the majority. Jesus founded a teaching church, not a democracy. The successors of the Apostles are to teach doctrine to us, not learn doctrine from us! Read the New Testament thoroughly, and you will see that "Anglo-Catholicism" is not what Jesus had in mind. See if you can find some examples of St. Paul "listening" to one of the Gentile churches and bending the deposit of the faith to please them. "You want divorce and remarriage, Galatians? You got it!" "You want to use contraceptives, Ephesians -- and a little pre-marital relations? No problem, guys!" Slight hyperbole by me, maybe -- but a sufficiently accurate depiction of the gutless bending under pressure that is done by "Anglo-Catholic" clergy. You won't catch the true Church that Jesus founded (the Catholic) bending and approving of mortal sins. So get back in here, Sean, me boy!

4. In the Catholic Church, your "concerns [will be] respected and considered." But getting respect and consideration is not the only way by which you "can grow." In fact, as a Christian, you "can grow" even more if -- like so many saints, in union with Jesus -- you would humbly accept disrespect and lack of consideration. Seek not your own satisfaction and ego-boosting -- and you will eventually be much happier. Ask yourself if your prime model, Jesus, was concerned about whether he "could grow."

God bless you.
John

-- J. F. Gecik (jfgecik@hotmail.com), August 20, 2002.