Is the Eucharist "essential"?

[PeaceInChrist]

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”.

What of the thief on the cross? What of the martyrs who weren’t even baptized? What of those baptized on their deathbeds? My friend, I only gave the answer according to our faith. Read the Catechism. Certainly the Eucharist is necessary to perpetuate the one sacrifice of Jesus throughout all time and to unite us to Him, but baptism is the only sacrament that gives us sanctifying grace and initial justification. So, yes, one can enter Heaven without having received the Eucharist. That is true according to our faith. Ideal? No. But true.

 

[ffg]

What of the thief on the cross? What of the martyrs who weren’t even baptized? What of those baptized on their deathbeds? My friend, I only gave the answer according to our faith. Read the Catechism. Certainly the Eucharist is necessary to perpetuate the one sacrifice of Jesus throughout all time and to unite us to Him, but baptism is the only sacrament that gives us sanctifying grace and initial justification. So, yes, one can enter Heaven without having received the Eucharist. That is true according to our faith. Ideal? No. But true.

The OP’s question in the first post ‘Is the Eucharist essential to Christianity?’.

The question is not ‘essential to get to heaven’.

It has been stated many times - in the normative sense, i.e. those that freely accept or reject the teaching.

Everyone knows God’s mercy is great, listing exceptions to the regular practice of the Eucharist of scenario’s that lead us to believe or know a salvation outcome is not the focus.

Steve can correct me if I’m wrong.

If we are not preaching the necessity of the Eucharist to our brothers and sisters, we are leading ourselves and our friends who have the ability to ‘freely accept or reject the teaching’ down the wrong path and away from the ‘source and summit’ of our faith.

 

[ffg]

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.

I’m glad you brought this up because history is the center line for the non-Catholic - Christian’s POV of Catholicism as Christian, which I’ve found to be centered around the Eucharist.

The irony is that the folks that look at Catholicism as a non-Christian, or anti-Christian cult have tight logic (until you look at history) because the appearance is a true worship of bread and wine in the Catholic Eucharist.

Catholics would agree that the worship is directed to the object. Obviously because Catholics believe the object is turned into God. By God’s power.

I’ve always been curious why someone who rejects the possibility of God changing an item by substance but not form, is more crazy than God changing an item by substance and form as water into wine.

I’m glad we didn’t get the form change in the Eucharist (but if curious, google Eucharist miracle flesh, or the sort. I know of one instance a doubting priest was surprised, I’m sure it is on the internet).

Thanks for mentioning history.

 

[SteveVH]

The OP’s question in the first post ‘Is the Eucharist essential to Christianity?’.

The question is not ‘essential to get to heaven’.

It has been stated many times - in the normative sense, i.e. those that freely accept or reject the teaching.

Everyone knows God’s mercy is great, listing exceptions to the regular practice of the Eucharist of scenario’s that lead us to believe or know a salvation outcome is not the focus.

Steve can correct me if I’m wrong.

If we are not preaching the necessity of the Eucharist to our brothers and sisters, we are leading ourselves and our friends who have the ability to ‘freely accept or reject the teaching’ down the wrong path and away from the ‘source and summit’ of our faith.

You are correct, ffg. I only brought up the fact that Jesus told us that those who partake will be raised to eternal life and that those who don’t will have no life in them to emphasize these striking words of Jesus. He intended that we “do this”, not just as some pious way of remembering him (it is actually an odd way of remember him, if that is all there is to it) but because it gives us life, even eternal life. My curiosity lies in how something this seemingly important, according to Christ’s own words, can be so easily dismissed by some as not being essential for Christianity.

 

[SteveVH]

What of the thief on the cross? What of the martyrs who weren’t even baptized? What of those baptized on their deathbeds? My friend, I only gave the answer according to our faith. Read the Catechism. Certainly the Eucharist is necessary to perpetuate the one sacrifice of Jesus throughout all time and to unite us to Him, but baptism is the only sacrament that gives us sanctifying grace and initial justification. So, yes, one can enter Heaven without having received the Eucharist. That is true according to our faith. Ideal? No. But true.

I have read the Catechism, several times, and refer to it on a constant basis. And I have never made the claim that one cannot enter heaven without having received the Eucharist. Like being born, Baptism brings us into the family of God. Obviously being born must happen before anything else happens. But after we are born, we must continually be nourished or we will die. And as I have already stated, this thread is not about invincible ignorance, or the fact that one may be saved out of the normative means established by Christ for our salvation. So let me ask you, as a Catholic who is apparently more informed than I, what importance do you place on these words?

"Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink His blood, you have no life in yourselves. 54"He who eats My flesh and drinks My blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day.… (John 6:53-54)

Thanks, and God bless.

Steve

 

[Tommy999]

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

Hi Steve,
For me, #3 is also the most important although the rest of them are very important and should be followed, too.

I am in a Christian faith tradition which believes holy communion is a solemn and holy remembrance of Christ’s sacrifice on the cross for humanity but is not the actual body and blood of Christ. I guess the verses you cited are interpreted differently than Catholicism.

I’m not saying that the Protestant tradition isn’t wrong on the subject (I’m still discerning), but that is why many protestants wouldn’t call the Eucharist absolutely essential because they view it differently than Catholics do.

This is one of my pet peeves at my local congregation, by the way. We only celebrate holy communion a few times a year – at Christmas, Easter, and that’s unfortunately about it. I wish we did it more. The Bible makes a big deal about it. Why don’t we?

A lot more attention in my church is put on the transformation of a person’s life from sinner to Christ follower and in growing in faith through the teaching and application of God’s Word to our daily lives. All rituals are almost non-existent.

Most of our church service is spent in praise (singing praise songs, etc) and in the preaching of God’s Word. We have a great pastor whose sermons are inspiring and helpful in applying God’s Word to our real-life situations.

However, I respect the Catholic rituals and see value in them. I don’t scoff at them as “vain repetitions” as some of my fellow Protestants do.

 

[Per_Crucem]

What of the thief on the cross? What of the martyrs who weren’t even baptized? What of those baptized on their deathbeds? My friend, I only gave the answer according to our faith. Read the Catechism. Certainly the Eucharist is necessary to perpetuate the one sacrifice of Jesus throughout all time and to unite us to Him, but baptism is the only sacrament that gives us sanctifying grace and initial justification. So, yes, one can enter Heaven without having received the Eucharist. That is true according to our faith. Ideal? No. But true.

Our duty should be to tell others what they must be do to be saved. Jesus says we must eat and drink of His flesh and blood. Therefore, we are to tell others this. Our assumption must be that without the Eucharist, they will perish. The Eucharist is a divine command, not a suggestion. It is not any less necessary than refraining from breaking the commandments. Our duty is to tell people what must be done, not tell them what they can get away with and still be given eternal life.

 

[ajecphotos]

Our duty should be to tell others what they must be do to be saved. Jesus says we must eat and drink of His flesh and blood. Therefore, we are to tell others this. Our assumption must be that without the Eucharist, they will perish. The Eucharist is a divine command, not a suggestion. It is not any less necessary than refraining from breaking the commandments. Our duty is to tell people what must be done, not tell them what they can get away with and still be given eternal life.

Eat and Drink His flesh and blood, to me, could also mean that we should eat and drink of Our Lord. To believe in his words. To digest his words. To eat of his words and life! To drink his Holy words! To believe in him 100%

 

[Per_Crucem]

Eat and Drink His flesh and blood, to me, could also mean that we should eat and drink of Our Lord. To believe in his words. To digest his words. To eat of his words and life! To drink his Holy words! To believe in him 100%

It could mean both that, as well as the Eucharist, yes. You can’t have the benefits of the sacrament without faith. But it has been the witness of 2000 years of Holy Tradition that it refers to the mystery of the Eucharist, most primarily. That is how we should approach it.

 

[spedteacherita]

I might be an odd-ball amongst non-denominational protestants, but I would say both eucharist and Eucharist are essential. Both thanksgiving and participating in communion are part of the essence of Christian faith. As others have explained, I do think it is like baptism, however, in that someone can make it into Heaven without those externals, like the classic example of the thief on the cross.

The other aspect that is essential, and lost for a lot of people, is that the bread is also symbolic of the entire body of Christ, as bread is made up of many grains of wheat, and we are called to recognize the body of Christ as the gathering of our brothers and sisters in Christ.

Kliska,

I had just backed up from the verse in John 6:53 to view the entire context of what Jesus was speaking of. This is exactly what you were bringing up:

John 6:45-51

45 “It is written in the prophets, ‘AND THEY SHALL ALL BE TAUGHT OF GOD.’ Everyone who has heard and learned from the Father, comes to Me. 46 “Not that anyone has seen the Father, except the One who is from God; He has seen the Father. 47 “*Truly, truly, I say to you, he who believes has eternal life. *48 “I am the bread of life. 49 “Your fathers ate the manna in the wilderness, and they died. 50 “This is the bread which comes down out of heaven, so that one may eat of it and not die. 51 “I am the living bread that came down out of heaven; if anyone eats of this bread, he will live forever; and the bread also which I will give for the life of the world is My flesh.”

He’s actually speaking of both there but what I see here first is He who believes has eternal life…

 

[SteveVH]

Hi Steve,
For me, #3 is also the most important although the rest of them are very important and should be followed, too.

Hi, Tommy.

Yes, I think it goes without saying that one who calls themselves “Christian” should have accepted Christ as his Lord and Savior. That seems pretty essential. As you say, the rest should be followed too.

I am in a Christian faith tradition which believes holy communion is a solemn and holy remembrance of Christ’s sacrifice on the cross for humanity but is not the actual body and blood of Christ. I guess the verses you cited are interpreted differently than Catholicism.

I’m not saying that the Protestant tradition isn’t wrong on the subject (I’m still discerning), but that is why many protestants wouldn’t call the Eucharist absolutely essential because they view it differently than Catholics do.

Thanks for this, Tommy. I understand that this is the reason the Eucharist doesn’t make “the list”. What I don’t understand is how this determination was made, in light of the astonishing words of Christ. What is more is that I don’t understand how his words have been utterly diminished in importance to the point that in some congregations it is viewed as if Jesus said “hey, every now and then why don’t you all get together and have some crackers and grape juice and remember me”.

It is good that you are still discerning. I would ask you to read again the Bread of Life discourse in the 6th chapter of John (vs. 25-69). It is really divided into two parts.

Faith
The discourse begins with Jesus being asked by one in the crowd what they must do to do the works God requires. Jesus tells the crowd *“The work of God is this: to believe in the one he has sent.” * Jesus continues, “I am the bread of life. Whoever comes to me will never go hungry, and whoever believes in me will never be thirsty”. Jesus further tells them *"For my Father’s will is that everyone who looks to the Son and believes in him shall have eternal life, and I will raise them up at the last day.” *

The first part of the Bread of Life discourse is all about faith in Jesus. Faith is the first requirement and for good reason. Jesus is prepping them for what he is about to reveal, and it will require faith in Him in order to accept it.

Body and Blood
The second part of the discourse begins with Jesus saying "I am the living bread that came down from heaven. Whoever eats this bread will live forever. This bread is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world.” The crowd protests "How can this man give us his flesh to eat?” Keep in mind that Jesus is still answering the original question of what they must do to do the works God requires.

He has gone from claiming that he is the Bread of Life come down from heaven, and they grumbled about that, to telling them that the bread is his flesh which he will give for the life of the world. Now the crowd is in a tizzy. Have you ever wondered why Jesus just didn’t stop with the first part of the discourse if this was only about having faith in Jesus? But he doesn’t stop here. His language does not become softened, as if they just didn’t understand and needed clarification. Now he says:

“Very truly I tell you, 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, and I will raise them up at the last day. For my flesh is real food and my blood is real drink. Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me, and I in them."

It was at this point that everyone left him except the Apostles. He didn’t chase after them. And the Apostles didn’t say “Hey, I don’t know what their problem is, I understand perfectly”. They didn’t understand anything other than it was Jesus who had spoken the words and because of that, because of the faith that was first required, they believed what could not be grasped. “You have the words of eternal life, to whom should we go?”

It is good that you are still discerning, Tommy. Take a long hard look at the words of Jesus and how they progress in force. Forget about “Transubstantiation” and all the rest for just a moment and ask yourself why Christ spoke these words and did not recant even after the entire crowd left him.

Peace.

Steve

 

[dcana]

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’d say everything that the Catholic Church teaches is essential and necessary to be believed and followed to be a true-blue, 100% Christian as desired by Jesus Christ.

From *Lumen Gentium, *the Dogmatic Constitution on the Church of VC II, #8:

This is the one Church of Christ which in the Creed is professed as one, holy, catholic and apostolic, which our Savior, after His Resurrection, commissioned Peter to shepherd, and him and the other apostles to extend and direct with authority, which He erected for all ages as “the pillar and mainstay of the truth”. This Church constituted and organized in the world as a society, subsists in the Catholic Church, which is governed by the successor of Peter and by the Bishops in communion with him, although many elements of sanctification and of truth are found outside of its visible structure. These elements, as gifts belonging to the Church of Christ, are forces impelling toward catholic unity.

So, for example, the Orthodox would be excluded from belonging in perfect communion to “the one Church of Christ”, unlike the Latin Church and all of the Eastern Catholic Churches, because they consist of schismatic groups that do not have Peter as their head, and Jesus gave us Peter and his successors to be His vicar, the head of the Church on earth, and the rock on whom the Church is built, who can not err when speaking in an official pronouncement on faith or morals. Are the Orthodox “governed by the successor of Peter and by the Bishops in communion with him”? No, so they are deficient Christians. Anglicans and Lutherans are much more deficient, lacking the Sacraments, and then follows the Baptists, etc., ending with today’s “non-denominationalist” storefront- or mega-churches. The order goes pretty much exactly according to the time they were formed, from the 16th century to the 21st. Speaking absolutely, in absolute terms (absolutely) I’d say that nothing is absolutely necessary if one dies before reaching the age of reason. So, since people do actually die before reaching the age of reason, nothing is absolutely essential for entering heaven. For adults, there is only one thing absolutely essential for entering heaven - following one’s conscience and living the best as one knows how. Through genuinely invincible ignorance and God’s mercy, some may be (maybe) saved who are not Christian, followers of other religions, or maybe followers of no religion at all. We place them in God’s merciful hands. He created them and loves them. As to who is able to be even considered a Christian, only one thing is absolutely necessary - #4 above. An infant who is baptized is a Christian. God has claimed the person for Himself, removed Original Sin, given him Sanctifying Grace, and made him a co-heir with Christ. If one is baptized as an adult, then #1-3, along with contrition for all one’s sins and also a profession of faith in all that the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church teaches must be present to be baptized. This is what the long period of catechesis is for. Must this profession be present in an absolute sense? No, see Canon IV below. So what must absolutely be present at baptism? I’d say #1-3 and repentance for all one’s sins. Such a person could claim to be a Christian and could be saved, in the sense of entering heaven after living a normal lifespan (everyone is perfectly, 100%, completely “saved” at baptism), but living outside the visible bounds of the Church, and thereby being excluded from rather important things such as The Truth and The Seven Sacraments instituted by Christ, most especially the Holy Eucharist and Holy Confession, is it likely? I don’t know. I’ll leave that question alone and just place them in the merciful hands of God, who is the judge of all souls.

From the Council of Trent:

Canon IV. If any one saith, that the baptism which is even given by heretics * in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, with the intention of doing what the Church doth, is not true baptism; let him be anathema.

Canon V. If any one saith, that baptism is free, that is, not necessary unto salvation; let him be anathema.

Canon VII. If any one saith, that the baptized are, by baptism itself, made debtors but to faith alone, and not to the observance of the whole law of Christ [the true knowledge of which only exists in the Catholic Church]; let him be anathema.

Canon VIII. If any one saith, that the baptized are freed from all the precepts, whether written or transmitted, of holy Church, in such wise that they are not bound to observe them, unless they have chosen of their own accord to submit themselves thereunto; let him be anathema.

My :twocents: :shamrock2:*

 

[Tommy999]

Hi Steve,
I will take a closer look at what you recommended and will get back to you. I like and respect your posts. I perceive you are a good and godly Christian man.

I do have a follow-up question for you. It may or may not be entirely related to your topic, but it shows where I am at in my spiritual journey. I hope you don’t mind.

Question:
Isn’t the Christian faith a lot more than “eating the flesh and drinking the blood of Christ”, although I don’t downplay that aspect of a Christian’s life because it is obviously critically important to have Christ in our lives and hearts.

For example, isn’t it likely that there are at least a few Catholics (and Protestants, too, but I am focusing on Catholics now because of the focus on the Eucharist) who stand in line for the Eucharist who were mean or hateful to their kids or wife on the way to church but act pious while at Mass while partaking in the Eucharist, and then go back home and return back to their old abusive or hateful demeanor as soon as Mass is over?

If that is the case, was the Eucharist truly a life-changing essential for that guy and where does it fit into his essentials list?

I know a few Catholics who got ashes placed on their foreheads on Ash Wednesday and wore them at work who turned around the next day and told the dirtiest jokes in the office. It makes me wonder how essential the Eucharist really is in their life.

To me, there should be more important aspects in a Christian’s (Catholic or Protestant) life than just standing in the Eucharist line. Any Catholic can do that, even the hateful and abusive ones.

What I am deeming as more essential – to me, anyway – is a true and inner transformation of a person’s life through surrendering oneself to Christ as Savior that turns the person from a sinner who just can’t help himself into a genuine Christian who lives a Christian life 24 x 7 even though he still makes mistakes, but he repents and asks for forgiveness and whose life shows evidence of a true life transformation in progress – but those closest to him will attest he is an authentic Christian by his fruit.

To me, that is much more essential than standing in the Eucharist line. Sometimes I wonder if some Catholics focus more on the trappings of religiosity than in living a truly transformed life in Christ.

I realize there are lots of Catholics, many whose acquaintance I have made on CAF, who genuinely love God and serve Christ. I like and respect you very much and I am not referring to you folks at all. You are one of the reasons I remain on CAF. I have learned and continue to learn a lot from you, and I appreciate it very much.

Just wanted to share where I’m at right now in my spiritual journey and discernment.

I am still a work in progress but have come a long way through Christ’s help, and I realize that I don’t have all the answers. That’s why I am on CAF. Take care and God bless all of you.

Tommy

 

[dcana]

I have to amend my answer. I don’t believe #3, “Accepting Christ as one’s Lord and Savior” should be in the list at all. I’d replace it with, “Believing that Jesus Christ is the Lord and Savior of the world.” Of course he’s my “Lord and Savior” since I believe that He is the Lord and the Savior and I am a member of the world. I don’t like the catchphrase, “Accepting Christ as one’s personal Lord and Savior.” It is a novelty invented relatively recently by fundamentalists as a kind of statement rejecting the necessity of “organized religion”, when it comes down to it. I don’t like it not because I don’t believe it, but because I’m quite sure if I asked a fellow Christian what they mean by “accepting Christ as one’s personal Lord and Savior”, many would include things that I don’t believe, like baptism is not necessary for salvation, it is only an optional “sign” of being saved, and so on. It’s a loaded term.

 

[ffg]

Tommy, great questions, Steve will provide some helpful answers.

You are leading me into where I wanted to go next which was to consider the other side of the essential argument.

But first A couple of thoughts on your questions - your questions get into detail that a lot of Catholics don’t think about or know.

First it is important to remember we are all sinners, so the guy who sins in the office with ashes on his head the day before is like 99.9% of all humans. It’s not our job, but God’s to understand and act on his heart.

It is our job to show him a good example to which he will hopefully cling. I find it cringeworthy when I see ‘Catholic’ politicians publicly support sinful contra-Catholic actions, but I’m a sinner too with no claim to greatness over anyone.

Wanting to be good always, and constantly being aware of our actions is a gift from God for which we must continually pray. There is a reason why the folks that look like they should take 1 minute in confession take 30 minutes, they have a better understanding of sinfulness than I.

With regard to the Eucharist, there is detail which most Catholics don’t know or follow. A key one is to receive the Eucharist worthily, one must be in a state of Grace. No Mortal sins on the heart. Otherwise, the person is actually sinning, called a sacrilege, by receiving the Eucharist. There are a great deal of folks separating themselves from God by not washing their souls in confession before they partake at the Lord’s table.

Obviously there are more details within those short paragraphs, perhaps setting up a different thread so we can keep this on the OP as best as possible. You can mention in your op that you are good with however the thread flows with your questions.

Take care,

Mike

 

[Tommy999]

Tommy, great questions, Steve will provide some helpful answers.

You are leading me into where I wanted to go next which was to consider the other side of the essential argument.

But first A couple of thoughts on your questions - your questions get into detail that a lot of Catholics don’t think about or know.

First it is important to remember we are all sinners, so the guy who sins in the office with ashes on his head the day before is like 99.9% of all humans. It’s not our job, but God’s to understand and act on his heart.

It is our job to show him a good example to which he will hopefully cling. I find it cringeworthy when I see ‘Catholic’ politicians publicly support sinful contra-Catholic actions, but I’m a sinner too with no claim to greatness over anyone.

Wanting to be good always, and constantly being aware of our actions is a gift from God for which we must continually pray. There is a reason why the folks that look like they should take 1 minute in confession take 30 minutes, they have a better understanding of sinfulness than I.

With regard to the Eucharist, there is detail which most Catholics don’t know or follow. A key one is to receive the Eucharist worthily, one must be in a state of Grace. No Mortal sins on the heart. Otherwise, the person is actually sinning, called a sacrilege, by receiving the Eucharist. There are a great deal of folks separating themselves from God by not washing their souls in confession before they partake at the Lord’s table.

Obviously there are more details within those short paragraphs, perhaps setting up a different thread so we can keep this on the OP as best as possible. You can mention in your op that you are good with however the thread flows with your questions.

Take care,

Mike

Hi Mike,
Thanks. I think you made some real good points.

By the way, if I were Catholic, I would probably spend a lot of time in Reconciliation, so I am definitely no saint and don’t claim to be. However, like others on CAF I strive to live a genuine Christian life and so I press on toward the goal.

My main point that I hope I got across is that an authentic follower of Christ who is Catholic should partake in the Eucharist on a regular basis to strengthen his walk with Christ, but as part of a larger plan that includes seeking first the kingdom of God and His righteousness and loving the Lord with all of his heart, soul, and mind, and his neighbor as himself.

If a Catholic does not possess the latter but still takes the Eucharist, it rings a little hollow to call it essential and it would seem to me to just be just a ritualistic formality with no staying power, but that’s just my opinion.

 

[Tommy999]

Hi, Tommy.

Yes, I think it goes without saying that one who calls themselves “Christian” should have accepted Christ as his Lord and Savior. That seems pretty essential. As you say, the rest should be followed too.

Thanks for this, Tommy. I understand that this is the reason the Eucharist doesn’t make “the list”. What I don’t understand is how this determination was made, in light of the astonishing words of Christ. What is more is that I don’t understand how his words have been utterly diminished in importance to the point that in some congregations it is viewed as if Jesus said “hey, every now and then why don’t you all get together and have some crackers and grape juice and remember me”.

It is good that you are still discerning. I would ask you to read again the Bread of Life discourse in the 6th chapter of John (vs. 25-69). It is really divided into two parts.

Faith
The discourse begins with Jesus being asked by one in the crowd what they must do to do the works God requires. Jesus tells the crowd *“The work of God is this: to believe in the one he has sent.” * Jesus continues, “I am the bread of life. Whoever comes to me will never go hungry, and whoever believes in me will never be thirsty”. Jesus further tells them *"For my Father’s will is that everyone who looks to the Son and believes in him shall have eternal life, and I will raise them up at the last day.” *

The first part of the Bread of Life discourse is all about faith in Jesus. Faith is the first requirement and for good reason. Jesus is prepping them for what he is about to reveal, and it will require faith in Him in order to accept it.

Body and Blood
The second part of the discourse begins with Jesus saying "I am the living bread that came down from heaven. Whoever eats this bread will live forever. This bread is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world.” The crowd protests "How can this man give us his flesh to eat?” Keep in mind that Jesus is still answering the original question of what they must do to do the works God requires.

He has gone from claiming that he is the Bread of Life come down from heaven, and they grumbled about that, to telling them that the bread is his flesh which he will give for the life of the world. Now the crowd is in a tizzy. Have you ever wondered why Jesus just didn’t stop with the first part of the discourse if this was only about having faith in Jesus? But he doesn’t stop here. His language does not become softened, as if they just didn’t understand and needed clarification. Now he says:

“Very truly I tell you, 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, and I will raise them up at the last day. For my flesh is real food and my blood is real drink. Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me, and I in them."

It was at this point that everyone left him except the Apostles. He didn’t chase after them. And the Apostles didn’t say “Hey, I don’t know what their problem is, I understand perfectly”. They didn’t understand anything other than it was Jesus who had spoken the words and because of that, because of the faith that was first required, they believed what could not be grasped. “You have the words of eternal life, to whom should we go?”

It is good that you are still discerning, Tommy. Take a long hard look at the words of Jesus and how they progress in force. Forget about “Transubstantiation” and all the rest for just a moment and ask yourself why Christ spoke these words and did not recant even after the entire crowd left him.

Peace.

Steve

Hi Steve,
I read the discourse and agree Christ emphasized that his followers should eat his flesh and drink his blood. There’s no doubt about that. It’s plainly and clearly written.

I wish my local AOG church congregation served communion a lot more often than we do. I am troubled that we only partake in it a couple of times a year (usually at Christmas and Easter).

In fact, I am an usher in my local congregation and we do communion so infrequently that we have to rehearse it in advance to make sure it goes smoothly when it is done, which is a little sad, in my view.

I think in evangelical circles, becoming “born again” and having a personal relationship with Christ as Lord and Savior is emphasized as paramount to the point where holy communion takes a back seat – not sure why.

 

[BarbG]

Years ago I made a one-day retreat about the Eucharis tgiven by Fr. Ron Rolheiser --he was so profound that I made up my mind I would go to Mass every day to receive Communion. I wish I could remember just what he had to say but of course I can’t. I did attend Mass every day for a number of years but am not able to do it any more – just wish I could.

 

[SteveVH]

I’d say everything that the Catholic Church teaches is essential and necessary to be believed and followed to be a true-blue, 100% Christian as desired by Jesus Christ.

From *Lumen Gentium, *the Dogmatic Constitution on the Church of VC II, #8:

This is the one Church of Christ which in the Creed is professed as one, holy, catholic and apostolic, which our Savior, after His Resurrection, commissioned Peter to shepherd, and him and the other apostles to extend and direct with authority, which He erected for all ages as “the pillar and mainstay of the truth”. This Church constituted and organized in the world as a society, subsists in the Catholic Church, which is governed by the successor of Peter and by the Bishops in communion with him, although many elements of sanctification and of truth are found outside of its visible structure. These elements, as gifts belonging to the Church of Christ, are forces impelling toward catholic unity.

So, for example, the Orthodox would be excluded from belonging in perfect communion to “the one Church of Christ”, unlike the Latin Church and all of the Eastern Catholic Churches, because they consist of schismatic groups that do not have Peter as their head, and Jesus gave us Peter and his successors to be His vicar, the head of the Church on earth, and the rock on whom the Church is built, who can not err when speaking in an official pronouncement on faith or morals. Are the Orthodox “governed by the successor of Peter and by the Bishops in communion with him”? No, so they are deficient Christians. Anglicans and Lutherans are much more deficient, lacking the Sacraments, and then follows the Baptists, etc., ending with today’s “non-denominationalist” storefront- or mega-churches. The order goes pretty much exactly according to the time they were formed, from the 16th century to the 21st. Speaking absolutely, in absolute terms (absolutely) I’d say that nothing is absolutely necessary if one dies before reaching the age of reason. So, since people do actually die before reaching the age of reason, nothing is absolutely essential for entering heaven. For adults, there is only one thing absolutely essential for entering heaven - following one’s conscience and living the best as one knows how. Through genuinely invincible ignorance and God’s mercy, some may be (maybe) saved who are not Christian, followers of other religions, or maybe followers of no religion at all. We place them in God’s merciful hands. He created them and loves them. As to who is able to be even considered a Christian, only one thing is absolutely necessary - #4 above. An infant who is baptized is a Christian. God has claimed the person for Himself, removed Original Sin, given him Sanctifying Grace, and made him a co-heir with Christ. If one is baptized as an adult, then #1-3, along with contrition for all one’s sins and also a profession of faith in all that the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church teaches must be present to be baptized. This is what the long period of catechesis is for. Must this profession be present in an absolute sense? No, see Canon IV below. So what must absolutely be present at baptism? I’d say #1-3 and repentance for all one’s sins. Such a person could claim to be a Christian and could be saved, in the sense of entering heaven after living a normal lifespan (everyone is perfectly, 100%, completely “saved” at baptism), but living outside the visible bounds of the Church, and thereby being excluded from rather important things such as The Truth and The Seven Sacraments instituted by Christ, most especially the Holy Eucharist and Holy Confession, is it likely? I don’t know. I’ll leave that question alone and just place them in the merciful hands of God, who is the judge of all souls.

From the Council of Trent:

Canon IV. If any one saith, that the baptism which is even given by heretics * in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, with the intention of doing what the Church doth, is not true baptism; let him be anathema.

Canon V. If any one saith, that baptism is free, that is, not necessary unto salvation; let him be anathema.

Canon VII. If any one saith, that the baptized are, by baptism itself, made debtors but to faith alone, and not to the observance of the whole law of Christ* [the true knowledge of which only exists in the Catholic Church]; let him be anathema.

Canon VIII. If any one saith, that the baptized are freed from all the precepts, whether written or transmitted, of holy Church, in such wise that they are not bound to observe them, unless they have chosen of their own accord to submit themselves thereunto; let him be anathema.

My :twocents: :shamrock2:

 

[Indifferently]

All the Reformed confessions confess that where the true church is, the two sacraments of Baptism and Holy Communion are administered in line with Christ’s ordinance. Not all Reformed churches are Anglican in orientation.

As far as I can see, without the Lord’s Supper we veer very dangerously towards Platonism and the belief that the created order is somehow bad in comparison to some spiritual order beyond the senses. God appointed the creaturely substances of bread and wine to communicate his saving benefits to us, in part at least because he created them good.