Is the Eucharist "essential"?

[SteveVH]

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.

Yes, of course. It may be helpful to draw a parallel to our physical lives. Is eating food essential for us to live? Absolutely. Is eating and drinking the only thing essential to our lives? Absolutely not. Think of everything that makes our lives what they are. Being physically nourished allows us to do all of the rest of those things that make our life meaningful. Being nourished by the body and blood of Jesus Christ strengthens us spiritually for the very reason that Christ dwells within us in a manner that cannot be accomplished any other way.

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?

You are speaking of whether or not one is properly disposed to receive the Eucharist. At nearly every Mass one can witness some people who act like they’re receiving a snack at a party. But the fact that some receive unworthily, without the proper spiritual disposition, does not take away from the power of the sacrament. It just means that they cannot enjoy the benefits. And, if one is in mortal sin when they receive, as Paul tells us, they have called down judgment upon themselves. When we approach the Eucharist it should be much like a wedding where we walk toward our beloved with the intention of a loving embrace and a joining of our lives forever.

Continued…

 

[SteveVH]

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.

Yeah, St. Pope John Paul, II said that the greatest threat to Christianity is Christians who do not live the Gospel. The Eucharist is not a magic pill that changes one apart from their free will. It does, however, give us the spiritual nourishment and strength to avoid sin. The decision, however, is always ours to make. God never interferes in our free will. I think there are many that really have no idea what is happening when they receive. To them it is just another thing we do at Church, like blessing ourselves with holy water. There is no doubt that we need much catechesis in this area among many Catholics.

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.

Well, standing in a communion line doesn’t necessarily get us anywhere. Nor does the Eucharist if we are not properly disposed to receive it. But that doesn’t take away the power of the Eucharist in those who are properly disposed and desire to be united with Christ in order to bring him to the world.

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.

Tommy, why do you try to draw a comparison of an insincere person who fails at being a good Catholic with some hypothetical non-Catholic who lives a Christian life “24 X 7”? Do you not believe that there are many Catholics who do receive the Eucharist properly and who also live a Christian life 24/7 and who produce good fruit. Have you ever read about any of the lives of Catholic saints? Have you never met a Catholic who lives a holy life?

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 am certain that there are some. Shall we give examples also of non-Catholics who fail at being a good Christian? Do you suppose there might be any of those around? Not real sure what that accomplishes. I try to make it a practice not to judge a particular faith tradition by the very one’s who are not faithful to that faith tradition.

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

I pray God leads you to where you need to be.

Peace.

Steve

 

[Tommy999]

FYI… My answers are in bold

QUOTE=SteveVH;12804951]Yeah, St. Pope John Paul, II said that the greatest threat to Christianity is Christians who do not live the Gospel. The Eucharist is not a magic pill that changes one apart from their free will. It does, however, give us the spiritual nourishment and strength to avoid sin. The decision, however, is always ours to make. God never interferes in our free will. I think there are many that really have no idea what is happening when they receive. To them it is just another thing we do at Church, like blessing ourselves with holy water. There is no doubt that we need much catechesis in this area among many Catholics.

**I’m glad to hear you say that.

Perhaps I had misconstrued the reason for your post as just another attempt by a Catholic to assert that evangelical protestants are lacking in our relationship with God and inferior in holy living because we don’t have the same understanding as Catholics do about the Eucharist. Forgive me for being a little overly sensitive in this area because I get a little tired of the “protestants don’t have the fullness of the faith” comments I read on CAF by some Catholics.

I was beginning to think that may maybe Catholics did indeed consider the act of taking the Eucharist as some sort of magic pill that makes a Catholic holy or closer to God apart from being an authentic Christian in the rest of their lives. Forgive me for being overly sensitive about that. My bad. **

Well, standing in a communion line doesn’t necessarily get us anywhere. Nor does the Eucharist if we are not properly disposed to receive it. But that doesn’t take away the power of the Eucharist in those who are properly disposed and desire to be united with Christ in order to bring him to the world.

Agreed

Tommy, why do you try to draw a comparison of an insincere person who fails at being a good Catholic with some hypothetical non-Catholic who lives a Christian life “24 X 7”? Do you not believe that there are many Catholics who do receive the Eucharist properly and who also live a Christian life 24/7 and who produce good fruit. Have you ever read about any of the lives of Catholic saints? Have you never met a Catholic who lives a holy life?

**Yes, I believe there are lots of Catholics who receive the Eucharist properly (hopefully it is the vast majority) and who also live a Christian life 24/7 and who produce good fruit. I have interacted with many here on CAF. I can sense it is real and genuine love for our Lord and for others like me.

Unfortunately, my limited dealings with Catholics in the real world have not been as favorable. Besides those few Catholics at work whom I described earlier, my wife (who holds misconceptions of Catholicism) had a Catholic roommate at a conference she attended in her secular job. She said the Catholic lady came in to the room drunk late every night and cussed like a sailor, but seemed proud to say she was a Catholic whenever the topic of God and faith came up in their discussions. **

I am certain that there are some. Shall we give examples also of non-Catholics who fail at being a good Christian? Do you suppose there might be any of those around? Not real sure what that accomplishes. I try to make it a practice not to judge a particular faith tradition by the very one’s who are not faithful to that faith tradition.

**I agree and sadly know many non-Catholic Christians who fail at being good Christians.
I thought I had mentioned that earlier. I am far from perfect myself and am a sinner in need of the grace of God on a daily basis. Sometimes I feel very inadequate in my faith and have to lean of God for help.

However, I was focusing on Catholics here because of the emphasis you placed on the Eucharist as being essential to the Christian faith and possibly because I misinterpreted your reason for raising the topic. **

I pray God leads you to where you need to be.
**Thanks, Steve. Please pray for me. In my view, it takes a lot more mental gymnastics to justify Peter not being the first Pope and the Eucharist only being a symbol when it seems pretty straight forward statements in scripture about them being real. These are a couple of areas where I struggle at times. **

Peace.

Steve

 

[Randy_Carson]

In various threads on this sub-forum we read of certain “essentials” required in order to properly call oneself a “Christian”; i.e. belief in the Trinity, the bodily resurrection of Jesus, etc. Outside of the Catholic and Orthodox churches, with the exception of possibly some Lutheran and Anglican communities, the Eucharist is not even on the list.

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?

Thanks.

Steve

:yup:

The Precepts

You shall attend Mass on Sundays and on holy days of obligation and rest from servile labor.
We must “sanctify the day commemorating the Resurrection of the Lord” (Sunday), as well as the principal feast days, known as Catholic holy days of obligation. This requires attending Mass, “and by resting from those works and activities which could impede such a sanctification of these days.”

You shall confess your sins at least once a year.
We must prepare for the Eucharist by means of the Sacrament of Reconciliation (Confession). This sacrament “continues Baptism’s work of conversion and forgiveness.”

You shall receive the sacrament of the Eucharist at least during the Easter season.
This “guarantees as a minimum the reception of the Lord’s Body and Blood in connection with the Paschal feasts, the origin and center of the Christian liturgy.”

You shall observe the days of fasting and abstinence established by the Church.
“The fourth precept ensures the times of ascesis and penance which prepare us for the liturgical feasts and help us acquire mastery over our instincts and freedom of heart.” See below for more about fasting & abstinence.

You shall help to provide for the needs of the Church.
“The fifth precept means that the faithful are obliged to assist with the material needs of the Church, each according to his own ability.”

 

[ffg]

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.

Great stuff Tommy,

Considering your example above, if there was a Catholic in a state of Grace but not ‘seeking’ and loving The Lord, say just not really focused on what they were doing, but not in a life of sin -

I would say that is a great example of a person God is trying to reach with the Graces God gives in the sacrament.

The Graces from the sacrament might break through the person’s unfocused heart and help it focus.

The key with all the sacraments are that they are a gift from God. (vs. something we do for God by receiving)

We don’t have to get to a perfect state of ‘Christian’ for God to work His Love.

If you look at the history of Saints, many were blasted with Grace while being the opposite of ‘authentic Christian’.

The way we use the Graces (gifts) well, is allowing that love from God, through the graces from the sacraments, to flow through us - to others.

I’ll get to my analysis of ‘if not essential’ and historic considerations, if this was the case tomorrow or Monday, hopefully.

Take care,

Mike

 

[ffg]

:yup:

The Precepts

You shall attend Mass on Sundays and on holy days of obligation and rest from servile labor.
We must “sanctify the day commemorating the Resurrection of the Lord” (Sunday), as well as the principal feast days, known as Catholic holy days of obligation. This requires attending Mass, “and by resting from those works and activities which could impede such a sanctification of these days.”

You shall confess your sins at least once a year.
We must prepare for the Eucharist by means of the Sacrament of Reconciliation (Confession). This sacrament “continues Baptism’s work of conversion and forgiveness.”

You shall receive the sacrament of the Eucharist at least during the Easter season.
This “guarantees as a minimum the reception of the Lord’s Body and Blood in connection with the Paschal feasts, the origin and center of the Christian liturgy.”

You shall observe the days of fasting and abstinence established by the Church.
“The fourth precept ensures the times of ascesis and penance which prepare us for the liturgical feasts and help us acquire mastery over our instincts and freedom of heart.” See below for more about fasting & abstinence.

You shall help to provide for the needs of the Church.
“The fifth precept means that the faithful are obliged to assist with the material needs of the Church, each according to his own ability.”

For folks that might be confused when seeing the first and third precepts, it is not a requirement to receive the Eucharist at Mass, save for the third precept.

Though, if in a State of Grace, I don’t know if someone would voluntarily not receive the ‘source and summit’ of the faith, that just seems illogical. Unless they can only receive from the cup due to a health issue, and happen to be ill.

 

[Tommy999]

Great stuff Tommy,

Considering your example above, if there was a Catholic in a state of Grace but not ‘seeking’ and loving The Lord, say just not really focused on what they were doing, but not in a life of sin -

I would say that is a great example of a person God is trying to reach with the Graces God gives in the sacrament.

The Graces from the sacrament might break through the person’s unfocused heart and help it focus.

The key with all the sacraments are that they are a gift from God. (vs. something we do for God by receiving)

We don’t have to get to a perfect state of ‘Christian’ for God to work His Love.

If you look at the history of Saints, many were blasted with Grace while being the opposite of ‘authentic Christian’.

The way we use the Graces (gifts) well, is allowing that love from God, through the graces from the sacraments, to flow through us - to others.

I’ll get to my analysis of ‘if not essential’ and historic considerations, if this was the case tomorrow or Monday, hopefully.

Take care,

Mike

I like your insights, Mike. I hadn’t thought of it that way but it makes sense the more I ponder on it and let it sink in.

 

[Joy2day]

Of course it is essential. How can u even ask such a question? I guess if ur a protestant, or a mormon, or a muslim, or a buddist, then ‘no’ the eucharist is not essential.
If the eucharist is not essential, why go to a catholic mass? Why not go to Hillsong or some other evangelical group?
Its like asking is the sun essential to daylight.

 

[ajecphotos]

Of course it is essential. How can u even ask such a question? I guess if ur a protestant, or a mormon, or a muslim, or a buddist, then ‘no’ the eucharist is not essential.
If the eucharist is not essential, why go to a catholic mass? Why not go to Hillsong or some other evangelical group?
Its like asking is the sun essential to daylight.

The ‘essential’ thing is to believe in God, in Jesus as the son of God.

Also, there is more to a ‘Catholic Mass’ than ‘just’ the Eucharist! Think of all those that go to a Catholic church and are unable to receive the Eucharist! Why should they go if they can’t receive? As i said, the mass is a wonderful experience. For those that cannot receive it is very essential to attend and be a part of the mass!

 

[ffg]

A little analysis on ‘what if the Eucharist is not essential?’. Let’s see what kind of hoops we have to jump through to land at ‘not essential’.

First and foremost, we would have to assume the Catholic definition of the Catholic Eucharist is false, since the foundation of the ‘essential nature’ is that God means what he says at the bread of life discourse and the last supper.

If this was the case, the first hoop - we must conclude that Catholicism is NOT Christian since the action is to worship what looks like bread and wine. I haven’t yet seen a ‘Christian’ Church that worships the triune God and bread.

So the second hoop, as pointed out earlier, the reformation included rejection of the definition of the Eucharist from what was ‘Christian’.

Nobody argues that ‘Christian’ started with the reformers.

Now we have to go all the way back 2000 years and ask ourselves- if not essential, does it make sense that it was written in the essential Christian documents?

We know writing is quick and easy now, but putting a little extra ‘not essential’ information seems like a stretch considering the effort required to get the info down in writing at the time.

So the third hoop is the information shared from a very early point in Christianity is not essential.

Which leads to a fourth hoop - information being taught as essential and accepted as essential in Christianity, until the reformation.

This all leads into an earlier post in this thread where essential was argued because of the existence of the Eucharist, regardless of acceptance or rejection.

Take care,

Mike

 

[Joy2day]

The ‘essential’ thing is to believe in God, in Jesus as the son of God.

Also, there is more to a ‘Catholic Mass’ than ‘just’ the Eucharist! Think of all those that go to a Catholic church and are unable to receive the Eucharist! Why should they go if they can’t receive? As i said, the mass is a wonderful experience. For those that cannot receive it is very essential to attend and be a part of the mass!

The OP’s statement was ‘is the Eucharist essential’, not ‘receiving the Eucharist is essential’.
To a catholic and to the catholic mass, the Eucharist is essential. Whether you personally receive the Eucharist, does not relate to whether the Eucharist is essential. Otherwise, why go to mass? why not go to a prayer gathering without the Eucharist?

If you don’t receive, you still receive graces from being present at the consecration.

 

[SteveVH]

Of course it is essential. How can u even ask such a question?

I ask it of those who do not believe it is essential. I also asked them to explain why they do not think it is essential.

 

[SteveVH]

Yeah, St. Pope John Paul, II said that the greatest threat to Christianity is Christians who do not live the Gospel. The Eucharist is not a magic pill that changes one apart from their free will. It does, however, give us the spiritual nourishment and strength to avoid sin. The decision, however, is always ours to make. God never interferes in our free will. I think there are many that really have no idea what is happening when they receive. To them it is just another thing we do at Church, like blessing ourselves with holy water. There is no doubt that we need much catechesis in this area among many Catholics.

I’m glad to hear you say that.

Perhaps I had misconstrued the reason for your post as just another attempt by a Catholic to assert that evangelical protestants are lacking in our relationship with God and inferior in holy living because we don’t have the same understanding as Catholics do about the Eucharist. Forgive me for being a little overly sensitive in this area because I get a little tired of the “protestants don’t have the fullness of the faith” comments I read on CAF by some Catholics.

Well, in an effort to make sure you don’t misunderstand me again, let me make it very clear that I do believe the Catholic Church has the fullness of truth and that the Protestant denominations (all of them) do not. This does not mean that the members of these denominations are not sincere people who love Jesus and who live a fruitful and holy Christian life.

But lets just take the subject at hand as an example. IF the Catholic Church is correct that the Eucharist really is the true presence of Christ’s body, blood, soul and divinity then those who disagree do not have the fullness of truth. Right? We could go on with the other sacraments as well. Is Baptism necessary? For some it is not. Do they have the fullness of truth? Is confessing our sins and being absolved by a priest necessary? Some don’t think so. Do they have the fullness of truth? IMO, the degree to which the teachings of Christ’s original Church are rejected is the degree to which they are lacking in truth.

Unfortunately, my limited dealings with Catholics in the real world have not been as favorable. Besides those few Catholics at work whom I described earlier, my wife (who holds misconceptions of Catholicism) had a Catholic roommate at a conference she attended in her secular job. She said the Catholic lady came in to the room drunk late every night and cussed like a sailor, but seemed proud to say she was a Catholic whenever the topic of God and faith came up in their discussions.

Yes, not a good example of a Catholic Christian. There are many. And if the Catholic Church taught that this behavior was fine then one should take great pause in considering to become Catholic. The good news is that it doesn’t. We are a divine institution made up of sinners. Thus, all of us fall short in living the Catholic faith perfectly, some to a greater extent than the others, but all of us to some degree. I think this is true among all Christians.

Thanks, Steve. Please pray for me.

You got it!

Peace.

Steve

 

[badnewsbarrett]

In various threads on this sub-forum we read of certain “essentials” required in order to properly call oneself a “Christian”; i.e. belief in the Trinity, the bodily resurrection of Jesus, etc. Outside of the Catholic and Orthodox churches, with the exception of possibly some Lutheran and Anglican communities, the Eucharist is not even on the list.

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?

Thanks.

Steve

It’s essential to the Catholic identity in that it is a defining characteristic of that particular group, but not to a Christian identity. Much like the Five Solas are essential to a Protestant identity, but not to a Christian identity overall.

 

[SteveVH]

It’s essential to the Catholic identity in that it is a defining characteristic of that particular group, but not to a Christian identity. Much like the Five Solas are essential to a Protestant identity, but not to a Christian identity overall.

That is not what our Church claims. The Catholic Church claims that it is the source and summit of the “Christian” faith, not the Catholic faith. The “Christian” faith held this as a foundational truth for 1500 years before Protestantism saw the light of day.

So what happened? Who made the decision that the Eucharist was no longer essential, and why?

 

[ericc]

If the Eucharist was absolutely essential for salvation, what of children who have not yet had their first communion? Or perhaps the Orthodox are correct with communing infants?

I think infants will always have a separate treatment from God. What of infants without baptism then? The discourse of the bread from heaven was not targeted at infants. But of baptism, similar to circumcision of the OT, it must be the parents faith on behalf of the infant that signify joining God’s family. That is the parents want the infant to be part of God’s family, the one that the parents are already part of.

Infants or children will never be able to discern the import of the Eucharistic and thus partaking it may be construed as taking it without discerning which Paul warn against.1 Cor 11:29. Hence until children have reached the stage of understanding the Eucharist fully, not partaking it can not be held against them.

 

[Per_Crucem]

Infants or children will never be able to discern the import of the Eucharistic and thus partaking it may be construed as taking it without discerning which Paul warn against.1 Cor 11:29. Hence until children have reached the stage of understanding the Eucharist fully, not partaking it can not be held against them.

That is congruent with the very Thomistic approach towards the Eucharist that was, regretably, adopted by the Lateran council. However, it is not consistent with the patristic understanding of 1 Cor. 11:29, nor with the fact that infants commune in the entire Catholic Church for almost 1100 years, nor is it consistent even within Catholic doctrine today. For an Eastern Catholic may bring his infant child to a Latin Catholic Mass and the priest must commune that infant, because the Eastern Catholic canons allow for it.

Besides the fact that the whole rationality argument is downright Baptist.

 

[truetofaith]

The Last Supper wasn’t a Mass but Jesus instituted the Eucharist of His Body & Blood and gave it to His apostles, there. Judas had already been dismissed.
He also said on another occasion “unless you eat My flesh & drink My blood, you will not have life within you.”
Sounds like it's essential.

 

[ajecphotos]

The Last Supper wasn’t a Mass but Jesus instituted the Eucharist of His Body & Blood and gave it to His apostles, there. Judas had already been dismissed.
He also said on another occasion “unless you eat My flesh & drink My blood, you will not have life within you.”

Sounds like it's essential.

But, does eat my flesh and drink my blood mean to eat and drink the words of Jesus, the life of Jesus, to believe in him 100%? Maybe it doesnt refer to the bread he breaks!?

 

[czarlazar]

That is congruent with the very Thomistic approach towards the Eucharist that was, regretably, adopted by the Lateran council. However, it is not consistent with the patristic understanding of 1 Cor. 11:29, nor with the fact that infants commune in the entire Catholic Church for almost 1100 years, nor is it consistent even within Catholic doctrine today. For an Eastern Catholic may bring his infant child to a Latin Catholic Mass and the priest must commune that infant, because the Eastern Catholic canons allow for it.

Besides the fact that the whole rationality argument is downright Baptist.

Similar in the Orthodox Church, a child is a “full member” unlike in the Latin church and there can and will take communion regularly. In my each the children take communion each week.