The Church (Roman Catholic) has fallen into as great an error with regard as to how Christ is received and put on as the Galatians were, who would receive the Spirit “by the works of the law” (Gal.3:2), that is, a carnal or bodily operation instead of a mental one through the mind, “by the hearing of faith” (Ibid.). And one might also exclaim here, as St. Paul did with regard to the Galatians (Gal.3:1-3):

O senseless Catholic Church, who hath bewitched you that you should now believe the Spirit of Christ is received by the flesh, that is, Communion of and through the mouth? Are you so foolish, that whereas the Spirit is received “by the hearing of faith”, you would now have your members receive it “by the flesh” - mouth-eating Communion?

Christ also said:

“Behold, I stand at the door, and knock: if any man hear my voice, and open the door, I will come in to him, and will sup with him, and he with me.” (Rev.3:20)

To “open the door” to Christ, does that mean to open the mouth, the opening to the stomach, to receive Communion, the supposed “bread of life,” or does it mean to open the mind, the opening to the heart and soul? It is manifestly the latter, is it not? Yes.

In view, then, of all that we have noted, the “bread of life” is not a thing of material from, containing the supposed literal flesh and blood of Christ, which we must literally eat and drink if we want everlasting life, as the Church teaches, and as understood by the Jews, who said:

“...How can this man give us his flesh to eat?” (Jn. 6:52)

Christ could easily have done that, just as we are given other flesh to eat, if that had been what He meant. But He did not mean that; for He explained to His disciples later what He meant by that, and that was to put on, scripturally eat and drink, His “spirit and life” (Jn.6:63). For in Scripture when it speaks of eating and drinking anything outside of natural food and drink for the body, it means to imbibe and assimilate it with the mind and will, not by a mouth-eating and drinking operation.

Because the Jews, and some of His disciples, took His sayings literally in the matter in question, the Church cites that as supporting her course for taking the sayings of Christ literally. But that is no criterion for taking them so; for the Jews also have always taken literally, and do so yet, the prophecies pertaining to their promised Messiah. Now, if the Jews were in error for taking the literal acceptation those prophecies and have, therefore, not, and apparently will not, accept Christ as their promised Messiah, because He has not fulfilled the prophecies according to their literal acceptation of them, then are they to be taken as a criterion for the literal acceptation or understanding of the terms, the “bread of life,” and for the literal eating and drinking of the supposed flesh and blood of Christ, because they so understood them and said: “How can this man give us flesh to eat?” Hardly.

The Jews, on the occasion in question, as much misunderstood Christ as did the Samaritan woman at Jacob’s well, when He told her about “living water,” which if one drank of it one “...shall never thirst” (Jn.4:14). She then said to Him:

“Sir, thou hast nothing to draw with, and the well is deep: from whence then hast thou that living water?”(Jn.4:11)

Just as the Jews said, “...How can this man give us his flesh to eat?” and as Nicodemus said, “...How can these things be?” (Jn.3:9) After Christ told her the difference in the effects between using or drinking natural water and “living water,” she said to him:

“...Sir, give me this water, that I thirst not, neither come hither to draw.” ( Jn.4:15)

Just as the Jews said: “...Lord, evermore give us this bread.” (Jn.6:34) That they said to Christ after He told them what the effects would be of the “bread of God” (Jn.6:33), the “bread of life” (verse 35), the “living bread” (verse 51) which they later believed was His real, carnal flesh that He would give “for the life of the world” (verse 52), and which they believed they were to eat literally as the Samaritan woman believed she was to literally drink “living water.”

By the fact that the effect produced by the use of “living water” would be to make one “never thirst” (Jn.4:14), just as that of the “bread of life” would make one also to “never thirst” (Jn.6:35) or, one “may eat and not die” (verse 50), shows that the “living water,” the “bread of life,” the “living bread which came down from heaven” (verse 51), and the “my flesh, for the life of the world” (verse 42), are all one and the same thing. That the one is no more material in form and appearance than the other; that the one is no more of the appearance of natural bread than the other is of the appearance of natural water. Such being the case, then, there is no more a Real Presence of Christ in the “bread of life,” as the Church claims there is, and which we must literally eat or drink in order that we may “not die,” may “live for ever,” have “everlasting life” and be “raised up in the last day,” than there is a Real Presence in the “living water,” “water of life.” And one is just as much of a “metaphorical” expression as the other.

In view of all that, then, is it not plainly to be seen that the Church greatly erred in interpreting in the literal sense the sixth chapter of St. John, and thereby deduced the doctrine of the Real Presence from it, because the Jews apparently understood Christ as speaking in the literal sense and said,

“...How can this man give us his flesh to eat?” - “...From whence then hast thou that living water?” (Jn.4:11) - “How can these things be done?” (Jn.3:9)

And Nicodemus, too, was “a master (teacher) of Israel” (Jn.3:19), and of an intelligence far superior to that of the Jews on the occasion of Jn.6:24-60. Yes; it may easily be seen that she erred in her interpretation.

(This excerpt is taken from pages 114-117 of the book, How I Became a Non-Catholic, by John Hunky of Atchison, Kansas, in 1910. This book is out of print.)

This page hosted by Get your own Free Home Page