Roman Catholic Doctrine of the Eucharist, part 4—The Issue of John 6:63

During the lecture The Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist, the speaker1 set out to prove transubstantiation by reading John 6. Of course, he stopped reading before he got to verse 63 because keeping this passage within context will completely undermine the doctrine of transubstantiation.
There is some dispute as to whether or not John 6 can be applied to the doctrine of Eucharist because technically at the time Jesus was not at the Passover, the Last Supper, and was not placing special symbolism upon the elements.

Here we will point out that even within an alleged monolith such as Roman Catholicism we find John 6 employed in order to prove transubstantiation and we also find footnotes within Vatican approved Bibles that state that Jesus was probably not referring to the Eucharist in this passage.

The rendering of John 6:63 in Vatican approved Roman Catholic Bibles:

The New Testament of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, Translated from the Latin Vulgate, A Revision of the Challoner-Rheims Version,
“It is the spirit that gives life; the flesh profits nothing. The words that I have spoken to you are spirit and life.”2

The Holy Bible with the Confraternity Text—Papal Edition,
“It is the spirit that gives life; the flesh profits nothing. The words that I have spoken to you are spirit and life.”3

The Kleist-Lilly Version of the New Testament,
“The Spirit is the life-giving thing; the flesh as such is worthless. The words I have spoken to you are Spirit and, therefore, life.”4

The New American Bible,
“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.”
Footnote:
^{“Spirit…flesh: probably not a reference to the eucharistic body [or flesh] of Jesus but to the supernatural and the natural}, as in 3, 6. Spirit and life: all Jesus said about the bread of life is the revelation of the Spirit.”5

Some Examples of Roman Catholic Interpretation:
Fr. Alfred McBride states:

Chapter six of John’s Gospel records Christ’s dialogue at the Capernam synagogue about the Bread of Life…he promised to nourish them with supernatural bread. Eight times he told them he was the living bread come down from heaven. Four times he insisted they must eat his flesh and drink his blood in order to have eternal life here and thereafter. At first they thought he was speaking metaphorically.
But Jesus emphasized and repeated his teaching. They asked disbelievingly, ‘How can this man give us his flesh to eat’? Jesus did not soften his words. He did not correct misunderstandings. He meant what he said and they knew it. ‘For my flesh is true food, and my blood is true drink’ (v.55). Many of his listeners were disciples. They were used to his miracles and mysterious sayings. They could not accept him. He told them to think spiritually. ‘Does this shock you?…
It is the spirit that gives life’ (vs. 61, 63). They left him. Then he faced his apostles. ‘Do you also want to leave?’ Peter said, ‘Master, to whom shall we go?…
We have come to believe…you are the Holy One of God’ (vs. 68-69). The text says that Judas did not believe. It was on the issue of the Eucharist that he abandoned Christ. This is the clearest example in the Gospel of someone rejecting Jesus over a doctrinal matter.6

The text is clear and this is a faulty apologetic. Jesus had stated that He came from heaven and that He is the bread of life. In v.50-51 ^{Jesus states for the first time that He, being the bread of life must be consumed, “…here is the bread…which a man may eat…I am the living bread…If anyone eats of this bread, he will live forever. This bread is my flesh...”} At this, His audience was repulsed and confused, they state, “How can this man give us his flesh to eat?” Jesus then makes His point clearer in v.53-58, “…unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you. Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life…my flesh is real food and my blood is real drink…the one who feeds on me will live…he who feeds on this bread will live forever.” At this His audience is astounded, v.60-61, “On hearing it, many of his disciples said, ‘This is a hard teaching. Who can accept it?’ Aware that his disciples were grumbling about this, Jesus said to them, ‘Does this offend you?’” Of course this offended them, cannibalism would certainly offend kosher Jews.
Thus, it is completely incorrect to state that At first they thought he was speaking metaphorically, because the exact opposite is true, at first they thought that He was speaking literally, verses 52 and 60 in particular make this very clear.

Fr. Alfred McBride also states that Jesus did not correct their misunderstanding, but if He was speaking literally and they thought that He was speaking metaphorically, He should have corrected them. In fact, He does correct them but for the opposite reason. They thought that He was speaking literally and He was not and so He states, v.61-64, “Does this offend you? What if you see the Son of Man ascend to where he was before! The Spirit gives life; the flesh counts for nothing. The words I have spoken to you are spirit and they are life. Yet there are some of you who do not believe.”

It is very clear, they are offended because they think that He spoke literally, Jesus tells them that it is the Spirit gives life and that the flesh (His physical body) counts for nothing. Moreover, He points out that He has been speaking spiritual, metaphorical words to them. Oddly enough ^{Fr. McBride agrees with this in that he states, He told them to think spiritually}, the problem for transubstantiation is that if He told them to think spiritually then His meaning cannot be literal. It may or may not be significant that Fr. McBride quotes but a few words from v.61-64.

Another likewise example of this sort of selective eisegesis (or, isogesis) is found in the first chapter of Fr. Michael Muller’s book The Blessed Eucharist, Our Greatest Treasure. The chapter is entitled The Doctrine of the Real Presence, Fr. Muller does something interesting in that he quotes John 6:26-27, 6:32-33, 6:34, 6:52, 6:55-7, 6:61, then he writes:

‘Doth this scandalize you?’ (John 6:62). Observe, He does not say you are mistaken; you do not understand Me. No, on the contrary, He insists still more on the necessity of eating His Flesh and drinking His Blood: ‘Amen, amen, I say unto you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink His blood, you shall not have life in you.’ ‘Many of His disciples,’ continues the Evangelist, ‘hearing this, went away and walked no more with Him.’7

^{What just happened? He is following the text of John ch. 6 pretty well but when he is on the verge of v. 63 he claims that Jesus does not explain that they are misunderstanding Him (which is what v. 63 is all about), he claims that next (after v. 62) Jesus said, “Amen, amen, I say unto you…” which is v. 53}. Note that while Fr. Muller cites all the quotations from John as he is interpreting them, he does not cite this verse (citing it would reveal that he is not being honest about what the text says and he is taking the verses out of order so that he can make them say whatever he wants). Incidentally, “Doth this scandalize you?” is cited as John 6:62 as the verses were numbered in the old Roman Catholic Douay translation of the Latin Vulgate Bible however, the modern Roman Catholic Bibles such as the New American Bible numbers the verses like the Protestant Bibles do. Therefore, when we say that he skips quoting v. 63 we mean the verse that we have been discussing in this article.

Back to the book, after confusing the order of Jesus’ words Fr. Muller quotes v. 66 and then quotes 6:68-70. Fr. Muller then writes, “They believe the words of their Master without the least hesitation; they receive His words in that sense in which the others had refused to receive them; they receive them in their obvious meaning, as a promise that He would give them His real Flesh to eat and His real Blood to drink; they believe with a full faith…”8
There is no indication that they did not hesitate and in fact all indications that they did, apparently what set the twelve Apostles apart from the ones who deserted Jesus is that they accepted the correction that Jesus made in v. 63 to their all too literal understanding of what He had said up to that point.
For more examples of how Roman Catholics deal with John 6:63 see the essays in this series which present the views of Karl Keating, Alan Schreck and Fr. Thomas Krieg.

1. 1. The subject of the lecture was The Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist, the speaker was an ex-Protestant pastor of some three decades who is now Roman Catholic
2. 2. The New Testament of Our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, Translated from the Latin Vulgate, A Revision of the Challoner-Rheims Version, Edited by Catholic Scholars Under the Patronage of The Episcopal Committee of the Confraternity of Christian Doctrine, Nihil Obstat Rt. Rev. Msgr. Henry J. Grimmelsman, S.T.D., Rev. John F. McConnell, M.M., S.T.L., S.S.L., Rev. Joseph J. Tennant, S.T.D., S.S.L. Also approved by Eugune Cardinal Tisserant, President of the Pont. Biblical Commission and His Excellency Most Rev. Edwin V. O’Hara Bishop of Kansas City (Patreson, NJ: St. Anthony Guild Press, 1941)
3. 3. The Holy Bible with the Confraternity Text -Papal Edition—This Bible was commended by Pope Paul VI—Edited by Rev. Thomas B. McDonough S.T.L., J.D. A new edition of the Catholic Family Bible published previously with the approbation of His Eminence Samuel Cardinal Strich and with the Imprimatur of His Eminence Albert Cardinal Meyer Archbishop of Chicago—Imprimatur: Rt. Rev. Francis W. Byrne J.C.L. Vicar General Archdiocese of Chicago 5-9-69. (Chicago, Ill: The Catholic Press, 1969)
4. 4. The New Testament Rendered from the Original Greek with Explanatory Notes, Part One-The Four Gospels translated by James A. Kleist, S.J. Part Two Acts of the Apostles, Epistles and Apocalypse translated by Hoseph L. Lilly, C.M. Nihil Obstat Robert G. Boucher, C.Ss.R., S.T.L., S.S.L. (Milwaukee: The Bruce Publishing Co., 1954)
5. 5. The New American Bible, Translated from the Original Languages with Critical Use of All Ancient Sources and The Revised New Testament Authorized by the Board of Trustees of the Confraternity of Christian Doctrine and Approved by the Administrative Committee/Board of the National Conference of Catholic Bishops and the United States Catholic Conference, Nihil Obstat by Stephen J. Hartdegem, OFM, SSL. and Christian P. Ceroke, O. Carm., S.T.D. (Nashville: Catholic Bible Press a division of Thomas Nelson Publishers, 1987)
6. 6. Alfred McBride, O. Praem., Essentials of the Faith, A Guide to the Catechism of the Catholic Church (Hunington, Indiana: Our Sunday Visitor Publishing Division, 1994), p.135. Nihil Obstat: Rev. Msgr. Francis D. Kelly, S.T.L., Ph.D. Imprimatur: Bernard Cardinal Law 2-4-94
7. 7. Fr. Michael Muller, C.S.S.R.; Priest of the Congregation of the Most Holy Redeemer, The Blessed Eucharist, Our Greatest Treasure (Rockford, Ill.: Tan Books and Publishers, Inc., 1994. First published by Kelley & Piet of Baltimore, Maryland in 1868.), p. 5. Imprimatur: +Martin John Spalding, Archbishop of Baltimore 10-22-1867
8. 8. Muller, p. 5