Is the Eucharist "essential"?

[ffg]

This is one of those grand central station questions. Multiple folks show the different ways they consider 1 term, and all leave on their separate trains. Great stuff.

I think it was mentioned earlier, that the focus is the normative, vs. any which way we want to explain ‘ignorant of certain information’. God’s Mercy is great, and great is too small a word. No argument from this IP.

Then the key is the heart, no? That thing where it is above our pay grade to judge. However, He who knows the heart, can and will do that task.

I think it’s common for us to be lenient on ourselves.

If we live life thinking we’ll be alright when our actions are showing a rejection of God’s gifts, we might be playing ourselves for a fool. We might want to make the effort to ensure we are not rejecting God in His gifts.

My favorite parable is the one of the 10 Virgins on their way to the party at God’s house. 5 were ready when God called them. 5 were not only - not ready, but were told they were not known.

Those 5 thought there was a relationship with God, which was not there.

This parable reminds me of the essential nature of God’s gifts, which are available to help build a relationship with God.

Take care,

Mike

 

[Mystophilus]

I bring this up because for Catholics and Orthodox, the Eucharist, properly defined as the true presence of the body, blood, soul and divinity of Christ, is the “source and summit” of our faith. To say it is an “essential” belief is an understatement. If there was no Eucharist, there would be no Catholic Church and therefore no Protestant communities as well.

So the question: Is the Eucharist essential to Christianity? If not, why?

No, because Christianity is not coterminous with the combined Catholics and Orthodox.

That situation is most clearly visible in the many and various Protestant denominations who have “communion”, and most emphatically not “the Eucharist”, but nonetheless continue to self-identify as Christian and to be identified by other groups as Christian. It is also visible in the Quakers, who do not (generally) practise communion, and who likewise continue to self-identify as Christian and (generally) to be identified by other groups as Christian.

 

[SteveVH]

The topic of this thread is not invincible ignorance. If we want to go down that road then really, nothing at all is “essential”. God has the power to save anyone regardless of their beliefs or knowledge. We all know and agree with that.

We see certain lists of “essentials” to being a Christian put forward by people of various faith traditions; i.e. we must believe in the Trinity, we must believe in the resurrection, we must accept Jesus as our personal Lord and Savior… The Eucharist never seems to make this list of essentials, even though we are told, in no uncertain terms, that those who do not eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood will have no life in them while those that do partake will be raised to eternal life.

This is not about God’s capability of saving anyone he desires to save. The question is, considering the words of Jesus in regard to the Eucharist, why is it not on the list of essentials for many Christians? Why is it ignored or simply disregarded as just as essential to being a Christian as believing in the Trinity, for instance?

Sorry if the OP was not as clear as it should have been.

Steve

 

[Per_Crucem]

The topic of this thread is not invincible ignorance. If we want to go down that road then really, nothing at all is “essential”. God has the power to save anyone regardless of their beliefs or knowledge. We all know and agree with that.

Absolutely. We are told very little, if anything at all, about invincible ignorance in Scripture. The subject never comes up. It is mostly speculation on our parts, though not uninformed by God’s mercy. But clearly, the apostolic message focused on what we must do and believe to be saved. Their message was not one of reducing it down to what we can be exempted from in order to be saved.

We see certain lists of “essentials” to being a Christian put forward by people of various faith traditions; i.e. we must believe in the Trinity, we must believe in the resurrection, we must accept Jesus as our personal Lord and Savior… The Eucharist never seems to make this list of essentials, even though we are told, in no uncertain terms, that those who do not eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood will have no life in them while those that do partake will be raised to eternal life.

Baptism suffers the same fate.

 

[SteveVH]

Lets try it this way.

Of the following beliefs, what would you say is essential in claiming one is a Christian?

1. Belief in the Trinity
2. Belief in the bodily resurrection of Jesus
3. Accepting Christ as one’s Lord and Savior
4. Baptism
5. Eucharist

If the Eucharist does not make your list, then why?

Thanks.

Steve

 

[SteveVH]

Absolutely. We are told very little, if anything at all, about invincible ignorance in Scripture. The subject never comes up. It is mostly speculation on our parts, though not uninformed by God’s mercy. But clearly, the apostolic message focused on what we must do and believe to be saved. Their message was not one of reducing it down to what we can be exempted from in order to be saved.

Baptism suffers the same fate.

Thank you. You “get it”.

 

[ffg]

It’s possible a non-Catholic - no Eucharist Christian, could argue an ‘essential’ treatment to the Eucharist because in their church it is not existent.

In other words, one might say: ‘It is essential, because we had to decide to reject it’.

Thus, pointing out it’s non-presence doesn’t necessarily equate to ‘not essential’.

It might equate better to ‘quite essential’ because of the necessity of a decision on the topic.

 

[SteveVH]

It’s possible a non-Catholic - no Eucharist Christian, could argue an ‘essential’ treatment to the Eucharist because in their church it is not existent.

In other words, one might say: ‘It is essential, because we had to decide to reject it’.

Thus, pointing out it’s non-presence doesn’t necessarily equate to not essential.

It might equate better to ‘quite essential’ because of the necessity of a decision on the topic.

How can one believe it is essential and then reject it?

 

[ffg]

Playing the part here: (I’m a bad actor)

Start of Scene 1 of 1 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

It was necessary to make a decision on the topic of the Eucharist.

If it was not essential, it would not have needed a decision.

Our church leaders decided through prayer and study that Jesus did not mean what He said to be taken literally.

Thus the decision to reject the Eucharist as the CC teaches.

We can’t eliminate the Eucharist’s existence in other churches, so it is essential to address it.

So, it’s existence makes it essential, even though we reject it.

End of Play ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Maybe half a participation trophy?

 

[truetofaith]

Lets try it this way.

Of the following beliefs, what would you say is essential in claiming one is a Christian?

1. Belief in the Trinity
2. Belief in the bodily resurrection of Jesus
3. Accepting Christ as one’s Lord and Savior
4. Baptism
5. Eucharist

If the Eucharist does not make your list, then why?

Thanks.

Steve

I would have to pick #3. But then everything else must be followed!

 

[SteveVH]

I would have to pick #3. But then everything else must be followed!

And if everything else does not follow? Technically, if one is Baptized they can claim the title Christian. But some deny that even Baptism is necessary. Is it possible that the title “Christian” is nothing more than a title? Or is it necessary that one believe certain things in order to have a valid claim to that title?

 

[aidanbradypop]

And if everything else does not follow? Technically, if one is Baptized they can claim the title Christian. But some deny that even Baptism is necessary. Is it possible that the title “Christian” is nothing more than a title? Or is it necessary that one believe certain things in order to have a valid claim to that title?

The Evangelical Free Church of America, mostly located in the midwest, is not very big on baptism. They will do it if requested. A fellow a few doors down has been attending an E-free church here for about 20 something years. He can count on two hands the amount of times that he has witnessed a baptism there. I believe they eat the Lords Supper 4 times a year as well. I am in favor of believer’s baptism but one has to be baptized.

From talking with him, I attended there a couple of times with him but could not handle the Calvinism, baptism and communion are not essential to their Christian life.

What kind of pie do you make with those apples? Lol

 

[SteveVH]

The Evangelical Free Church of America, mostly located in the midwest, is not very big on baptism. They will do it if requested. A fellow a few doors down has been attending an E-free church here for about 20 something years. He can count on two hands the amount of times that he has witnessed a baptism there. I believe they eat the Lords Supper 4 times a year as well. I am in favor of believer’s baptism but one has to be baptized.

From talking with him, I attended there a couple of times with him but could not handle the Calvinism, baptism and communion are not essential to their Christian life.

What kind of pie do you make with those apples? Lol

Exactly! Christ commanded the Apostles to teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit. How can anyone think this is optional? But, then again, I would say the same thing about the Eucharist. If we don’t partake we have no life in us and if we do partake we will be raised to eternal life.

 

[Mystophilus]

The question is, considering the words of Jesus in regard to the Eucharist, why is it not on the list of essentials for many Christians? Why is it ignored or simply disregarded as just as essential to being a Christian as believing in the Trinity, for instance?

Ah, well, for that one I would suggest that your answer lies most probably in history, and especially in the vehement rejection of transubstantiation during the Reformation. The non-sacramentalism of various Protestant groups appears to have been an outgrowth of that: in order to avoid the perceived danger of ritualism, they have adopted a view of the sacrament of the Eucharist which turns it into the symbol of communion.

 

[JamalChristophr]

Well, it’s just about as essential as having the blood of the lamb on your doors during the passover in Egypt. No blood over the doorposts = death. No eucharist = death. By receivng the Eucharist we are sealing the covenant for our part, it seems to me.

Then they shall take some of the blood and put it on the two doorposts and the lintel of the houses in which they eat it. 8They shall eat the flesh that night, roasted on the fire; with unleavened bread and bitter herbs they shall eat it. 9Do not eat any of it raw or boiled in water, but roasted, its head with its legs and its inner parts. 10And you shall let none of it remain until the morning; anything that remains until the morning you shall burn. 11In this manner you shall eat it: with your belt fastened, your sandals on your feet, and your staff in your hand. And you shall eat it in haste. It is the LORD’s Passover. 12For I will pass through the land of Egypt that night, and I will strike all the firstborn in the land of Egypt, both man and beast; and on all the gods of Egypt I will execute judgments: I am the LORD. 13The blood shall be a sign for you, on the houses where you are. And when I see the blood, I will pass over you, and no plague will befall you to destroy you, when I strike the land of Egypt.

 

[PeaceInChrist]

Dying in a state of grace is essential to our salvation. The only sacrament that infuses sanctifying grace (the grace of initial justification) into our fallen souls is baptism. Even absolution only restores this bond; it does not recreate it. The only sacrament theoretically necessary for salvation is baptism. The Eucharist is the source and summit of our faith not because it infuses us with the grace of initial justification, but because it IS Jesus in the most literal sense. Not only does it unite us to Him and one another, it sanctifies our souls and allows deep and intimate union with God. While it’s not technically absolutely necessary for bare minimum salvation, if one isn’t going to perish within five minutes of being baptized, it is absolutely necessary to receive the Eucharist as often as one can, if one desires intimate Union with God, to be sanctified, to become holy. But, yes, one can receive salvation through baptism without the Eucharist.

 

[SteveVH]

Ah, well, for that one I would suggest that your answer lies most probably in history, and especially in the vehement rejection of transubstantiation during the Reformation. The non-sacramentalism of various Protestant groups appears to have been an outgrowth of that: in order to avoid the perceived danger of ritualism, they have adopted a view of the sacrament of the Eucharist which turns it into the symbol of communion.

Good analysis, IMO.

 

[SteveVH]

Well, it’s just about as essential as having the blood of the lamb on your doors during the passover in Egypt. No blood over the doorposts = death. No eucharist = death. By receivng the Eucharist we are sealing the covenant for our part, it seems to me.

Then they shall take some of the blood and put it on the two doorposts and the lintel of the houses in which they eat it. 8They shall eat the flesh that night, roasted on the fire; with unleavened bread and bitter herbs they shall eat it. 9Do not eat any of it raw or boiled in water, but roasted, its head with its legs and its inner parts. 10And you shall let none of it remain until the morning; anything that remains until the morning you shall burn. 11In this manner you shall eat it: with your belt fastened, your sandals on your feet, and your staff in your hand. And you shall eat it in haste. It is the LORD’s Passover. 12For I will pass through the land of Egypt that night, and I will strike all the firstborn in the land of Egypt, both man and beast; and on all the gods of Egypt I will execute judgments: I am the LORD. 13The blood shall be a sign for you, on the houses where you are. And when I see the blood, I will pass over you, and no plague will befall you to destroy you, when I strike the land of Egypt.

Absolutely! As Scott Hahn points out, if you didn’t like lamb and your mother made little matza crackers in the shape of the lamb instead (symbol), you would wake to find the first born of your family dead. You had to eat the lamb, a real lamb. We must eat the Lamb of God, the real Lamb of God, not a symbol.

 

[SteveVH]

Dying in a state of grace is essential to our salvation. The only sacrament that infuses sanctifying grace (the grace of initial justification) into our fallen souls is baptism. Even absolution only restores this bond; it does not recreate it. The only sacrament theoretically necessary for salvation is baptism. The Eucharist is the source and summit of our faith not because it infuses us with the grace of initial justification, but because it IS Jesus in the most literal sense. Not only does it unite us to Him and one another, it sanctifies our souls and allows deep and intimate union with God. While it’s not technically absolutely necessary for bare minimum salvation, if one isn’t going to perish within five minutes of being baptized, it is absolutely necessary to receive the Eucharist as often as one can, if one desires intimate Union with God, to be sanctified, to become holy. But, yes, one can receive salvation through baptism without the Eucharist.

And yet those who do not eat the flesh and drink the blood will have no life in them. That sounds pretty necessary to me, and therefore “essential”.

 

[onenow1]

. The question is, considering the words of Jesus in regard to the Eucharist, why is it not on the list of essentials for many Christians? Why is it ignored or simply disregarded as just as essential to being a Christian as believing in the Trinity, for instance?

Steve

In John 6, some of His followers walked away, because it was a hard saying{hard to believe. Why should it be any different today for our brethren reformers, with so many theological opinions ? Some, have acted as Gnostics, thinking they have the truth without the faith of the one true church of Jesus Christ, that subsists in the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church.

Matthew 16

18 And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the powers of death shall not prevail against it.
19 I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven."

God Bless