The Flesh is of No Avail

John 6:63 reads, “It is the spirit that gives life; the flesh is useless.”
(NRSV)

How can the bread actually be Jesus’ flesh if the flesh is useless? It is a question I have heard many times from people trying to disprove the Catholic Church’s teaching on the Eucharist. However, it has one very obvious fault: it is a comparison of verse 63 to verses 55-56. Let us, then, compare these two verses.

John 6:55-56 “For MY flesh is true food and MY blood is true drink. Those
who eat MY flesh and drink MY blood abide in me…”

John 6:63: “…THE
flesh is useless.”

In the former verse, Jesus is referring to His own flesh; in the latter, the flesh in general (in other words, your flesh and my flesh). Verse 63 cannot render null the literal interpretation of verse 55, because Jesus is speaking of two totally different fleshes in each one. With this understanding, let us now read verse 63 in context. Crack open your Bible and read John 6:60-65.

In this passage, we see the disciples tell Jesus, “This is a hard teaching to accept! How can we believe it?” To this statement, Jesus responds, “What?! Am I not credible yet? If you saw me ascending into heaven where I came from, then would you believe me?” Jesus goes on to give the listening disciples the same lecture He will give to Thomas in John 20:29. “You want to believe your eyes, your own flesh. But the flesh is useless! You must believe in your spirit, in your heart. Blessed are those who have not seen, yet still believe. This knowledge is given them in their hearts, told them by the Father. For this reason I have told you that no one can come to me unless it is granted by the Father.”

John 6:63 is not meant to render null and void verse 55. It is, in fact, a very clear rebuke to those who do not believe that Jesus is truly present in the Eucharist. At this point, I would like to point out another fact worthy of note, and that is that John 6 is not simply a command to eat Jesus’ flesh and drink Jesus’ blood in a very literal sense. It is also a claim to divinity.

“Jesus would not drink blood, or command others to! The Jews were forbidden from drinking blood!” is typically the objection that comes next from my Protestant/Evangelical friends. And yes, it is true that the Jews were forbidden from drinking blood. But, why was it forbidden?

The Jews were forbidden from drinking blood because they, along with the pagans, believed that if one drinks blood they consume and assume the life of the one whose blood they drink. Assuming the life of a mere animal or human is then indeed repulsive. Who wants or needs the life of another mortal? Ah, but the blood and life one who is divine and immortal. That would grant eternal life. Doesn’t this sound familiar? John 6:51, 53 “…whoever eats of this bread will live forever. …unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink His blood you have no life within you.”

Jesus is telling the disciples that if they drink His blood, they will have His eternal life. He is claiming to be divine, and they know it. That is why he points to the Ascension as the miracle they would need to witness to believe. They would need to see Him returning from whence He came to believe that He actually came from heaven.

So, no, John 6:63 is far from a disproval of the literal Presence of Christ in the Eucharist. As we have seen in this blog post and the last, the entire passage only makes the utmost sense in light of the doctrine of Transubstantiation. So, my friends, “do you also wish to go away?” Or do you believe?

On Peter's Being in Rome

This is yet another article of mine deleted from the previous site. Please enjoy, and feel free to comment or use.

Pax et bonum,
~Tally Marx

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

"The funniest thing about the Catholics thinking that Peter was the first Bishop of Rome is the fact that Rome was an uncircumcised Gentile nation." -A Protestant

First and foremost, there were some Jews in Rome. The Roman Emperor Claudius in 51/52AD banished them, because of the racket they were making about some guy named "Christus," before he knew that a new religion was breaking forth even among his own people. We are told this by Suetonius.

Next, there is a passage in the Bible which implies that Peter was in Rome. 1 Peter 5:13 reads,

"The Church here in Babylon, united with you by God's election, sends you her greeting, and so does my son, Mark."

I know you're going to hate to hear this, but Babylon WAS a code-word for Rome. It was even used in secular sources, like the Sibylline Oracles, the Apocalypse of Baruch, and 4 Esdras. Eusebias Pamphilius wrote in 303,

"It is said that Peter's first epistle, in which he makes mention of Mark, was composed at Rome itself; and that he himself indicates this, referring to the city figuratively as Babylon."

Calling Rome Babylon was a common practice. It makes more sense in light of the fact that Christians were being severely persecuted in Rome and had been banished; they would not very well wish to advertise the fact that they were there! This use of a code-word also explains Revelation, 14-18, where Babylon is described as a great yet terrible city. At the time of John's writing Revelations, the onetime capital of Babylon had been reduced to nothing of consequence. Why mention it as a city of such horrendous power? This confusion is cleared when one understands that “Babylon” didn’t refer to the broken city, it referred to the very powerful and wicked pagan Rome.
I will, however, admit that the Bible does not say definitively "Peter went to Rome." Nor, honesty must add, does it say, "Peter did not go to Rome." Since Scripture leaves the question unanswered, let us consult other sources.

William Jurgen's "The Faith of the Fathers" includes thirty references to Peter's being and dying in Rome. I will list a few.

1) Dionysius of Corinth, 170AD: "You have also, by your very admonition, brought together the planting that was made by Peter and Paul at Rome." (Historia Ecclesiastica)

2) Tertullian: "How happy is that Church... where Peter endured a passion like that of the Lord, where Paul was crowned in a death like John's."
(Tertullian: De Praescriptione Haereticorum)

3) Tertullian: "This is the way in which the apostolic churches transmit their lists: like the Church of the Smyrnaeans, which records that Polycarp was placed there by John; like the Church of the Romans, where Clement was ordained by Peter."
(Tertullian, De Praescriptione Haereticorum)

4) Ignatius of Antioch, 101AD, remarked that he couldn't command the Roman Christians the way Peter and Paul once did.
(Ignatius of Antioch, Epistula ad Romanos)

5) Irenaeus, late 2nd century, "while Peter and Paul were evangelizing in Rome and laying the foundation of the Church..." going on to explain that the two departed Rome, maybe to attend the Council of Jerusalem, noting that Linus was named as Peter's successor and that next in line were Cletus and Clement of Rome.
(Irenaeus, Adversus Haereses)

6) Clement of Alexandria, early 3rd century: "when Peter preached the Word publicly at Rome, and declared the Gospel by the Spirit, many who were present requested that Mark, who had been for a long time his follower and who remembered his sayings, should write down what ahd been proclaimed." (Historia Ecclesiatica)

7) Peter of Alexandria, 311: "peter, the first of the chosen apostles...at last was crucified in Rome."
(Peter of Alexandria, De Paenitentia)

8) Lactantius, 318: "When Nero was already reigning Peter came ro Rome, where, in virtue of the performance of certain miracles which he worked by the power of God which had been given to him, he converted many to righteousness and established a firm and steadfast temple to God." Nero reigned from 54-68. (Lactantius, De Mortibus Persecutorum)

9) Eusebius Pamphilius: "[In the second year of the two hundred and fifth olympiad (aka, 42AD)] the apostle Peter, after he established the Church in Antioch, is sent to Rome, where he remains a bishop of that city, preaching the Gospel for 25 years. ...Nero is the first, in addition to all his other crimes, to make a persecution against the Christians, in which Peter and Paul died gloriously at Rome."
(Eusebius Pamphilius, Chronicon)

So, noticing that the Bible doesn't expressly forbid Peter to serve the Gentiles, and doesn't expressly say that he didn't go to Rome, and knowing that ALL of the historical documents we have WITHOUT EXCEPTION are in agreement that he died in Rome, I think it is safe to say that Peter was in Rome.

There is, of course, absolutely no question that Peter is buried in Rome. For more information on this subject, see John Evangelist Walsh’s “The Bones of Saint Peter.” If Rome was not important in relation to him and he did not die there, then why would the early Christians have risked their lives to smuggle his body into the city to bury it there?

Yes, I think it is safe to say that Peter at least died in Rome.

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

Resources you may enjoy:
Karl Keating's "Catholicism and Fundamentalism"
Rev. Henry G. Graham's "Where We Got the Bible"
Raymond E. Brown, "Introduction to the New Testament"
Fr. John Laux's "Catholic Apologetics"