Is the Eucharist 'required' for Salvation? Please Help...

[TrueLight]

I think it might be helpful to list, according to Catholic teaching, everything that is needed to be “saved”.

I’ll start:

– Belief in the Lord Jesus Christ
– Baptism

Thanks.

 

[TheRealJuliane]

Funny you should say that, NotWorthy. Probably because she was raised by Cradle Catholics that were comfortable with the faith but could not/did not explain the faith to the extent she could defend it when challenged. Hence she was easy prey. But there was a silver lining in this sadness. Her leaving was my wake up call. I/we re-discovered our faith at a much deeper level, thanks to Catholic Answers and the journey home of many Protestant converts! I basically re-learned aobut my faith and ‘filled in the blanks’ where many assumptions and questions remained unanswered over the years…

Our non-catholic daughter has a much younger sister in Catholic elementary school who is as a result more grounded in the faith than either my wife, myself or her older sister ever were until now thanks to our own re-commitment! God works in amazing ways to bring families closer to Him.

So I ask with humility for prayers from you all that my older children (did I mention both my older daughters left the faith?..) see our transformation, a new-found love for the Lord thru His one true church, and open their hearts to the point that a seed may one day be planted that will grow to fill in the void that they will come to experience as a result of their current faith journey…

Don’t be worried for anything…

Your daughters will see your faith deepened and it will affect them…It may take years, but do not despair. You, as their father, are the largest influence on their faith, after all, you are their earthly father and give them access to their Heavenly Father. If your faith is stronger and you act to draw them back to the Father, they will return.

 

[Jerry-Jet]

Is it possible to be saved without the Eucharist? Of course–ask the good thief who Jesus promised “today you will be with Me in paradise.”

In the overwhelming majority of cases–maybe greater than 99% of Catholics–how dificult is it to avoid MORTAL sin continually for a lifetime without the Eucharist? It would be extremely difficult.

Now if a Catholic has problems on a continuing daily basis avoiding MORTAL sin–and the chances are great that he might not always perform an act of perfect contrition and promise to confess those MORTAL sins in the sacrament of Reconciliation–then what are the chances that He might die in a state of MORTAL sin?

I would say that those chances would be great!!

 

[Della]

So far a few posters have said that the Eucharist is necessary for salvation (see above) and others have said it may be true for Catholics only (see below).

I agree that we need to harmonize scripture with scripture, but that doesn’t mean that we can just ignore a verse because it does not match what we believe.

Is there a Church teaching on John 6:52~58? Do you think Jesus was only speaking to believers when he gave the requirement to eat his flesh and drink his blood? Why does the CCC make this conditional for believers only ? To answer my own question, Jesus was not just speaking to believers (see John 6:24~25). It appears that the CCC is contradicting the Bible .

I think you are laboring under a misconception here. What I was saying is the God is not bound by the sacraments and those who do not know they ought to be receiving the sacraments are not as culpable as those who know. That is what determines the non-believers salvation–what he knew and what he did with what he knew. This is why I stated that for unbelievers the sacraments are not binding. It’s a matter of discipline not of sin, you see. Of course Jesus wants everyone to receive his body and blood and the invitation is for all persons but the proviso is they must be in union with Christ’s body first. This does not negate Jesus’ words at all, they mere clarify who must obey and who is not expected to do so. I hope that helps. It’s a rather complex issue.

 

[Utmost]

I think you are laboring under a misconception here. What I was saying is the God is not bound by the sacraments and those who do not know they ought to be receiving the sacraments are not as culpable as those who know. That is what determines the non-believers salvation–what he knew and what he did with what he knew. This is why I stated that for unbelievers the sacraments are not binding. It’s a matter of discipline not of sin, you see. Of course Jesus wants everyone to receive his body and blood and the invitation is for all persons but the proviso is they must be in union with Christ’s body first. This does not negate Jesus’ words at all, they mere clarify who must obey and who is not expected to do so. I hope that helps. It’s a rather complex issue.

My question is not whether God is bound by the sacraments, it’s about the meaning of the passage of John 6:52~58.

From your post above, are you saying that God and non-believers are not bound by the sacraments, only believers are bound by the sacraments.

But then John 6:52~58 seems pretty clear. It also seems to be talking about everyone not just believers. How can you say that this passage is conditional to only believers? (see excerpt from NotWorthy’s post):

Good Lord!

What part of “unless you eat…drink… …you have no life in you” does she not understand?!?!?

 

[Della]

My question is not whether God is bound by the sacraments, it’s about the meaning of the passage of John 6:52~58.

From your post above, are you saying that God and non-believers are not bound by the sacraments, only believers are bound by the sacraments.

But then John 6:52~58 seems pretty clear. It also seems to be talking about everyone not just believers. How can you say that this passage is conditional to only believers? (see excerpt from NotWorthy’s post):

What Christ is wanting is for us to be one with him–and for that purpose he gave us the Sacrament of the Eucharist. It is the Church’s interpretation of Christ’s words that one is only bound by this command if one is able to fulfill it. Unlike loving one another, which we all can do, physically receiving bread and wine is not possible for everyone. If he meant in an absolute way, babies could not be saved since they cannot receive the Eucharist. Those who cannot consume the Eucharist, such as the severely disabled, would also be out of luck. The Church only requires its members, who are able, to receive once a year. What we have to keep firmly in mind is that the commands of Christ are implemented as his Church, which he established, determines. Without understanding the Church’s place in this it is impossible to understand Christ’s meaning in this passage or many others.

 

[Credo111]

It’s far more complex than claiming that “salvation is only” or “chiefly” by the Eucharist, or believing that Jesus is God’s Son, that he died for sins, etc. - for the simple reason that, like it or not, the NT is ambiguous in its soteriology.

That’s garbage. There is nothing complex about Catholic soteriology, and nothing ambiguous in Our Lord’s words: “Unless you eat My Flesh and drink My Blood, you have no life in you.”

No life.

Those who like to dilute His teachings often overcomplicate what is plain, straightforward, and easily understood, to the harm of souls.
Christine

 

[Nita]

That’s garbage. There is nothing complex about Catholic soteriology, and nothing ambiguous in Our Lord’s words: “Unless you eat My Flesh and drink My Blood, you have no life in you.”

No life.

Those who like to dilute His teachings often overcomplicate what is plain, straightforward, and easily understood, to the harm of souls.
Christine

As Della noted, babies do not receive Communion. Actually, baptized Catholics younger than about 7 yrs. do not receive the Eucharist. What do you think happens to them if they die prior to receiving the Eucharist? Are they deprived of eternal life?

 

[Kathryn_Ann]

In recent discussions regarding our faith with my evangelical daughter (former Catholic now married to an evangelical youth minister) about the ‘fullness’ of our faith and the ways the sacraments give us the opportunity to experience Christ at a much deeper level, she responds with, “All she/they care about/need is what the bible says they need to be saved, i.e. by accepting God’s free grace with faith, and living out that faith”. (Their particular demonination believes in faith and works…) When I asked her to read John 6:5x where Christ talks about “unless you eat…drink… …you have no life in you”, as well as “everlasting life”, She questioned me that “Doesn’t that seem to imply these actions are required for salvation?”, which of course they do not accept.

I have always believed we are saved thru baptism, accepting God’s grace and living out our faith. I believe that the Eucharist was instituted by Christ to physically/supernaturally experience his grace, but not a requirement for salvation. T/F? What does the Chursch teach on this? Any references?

Your thoughts are most appreciated.

Dear congabongo, Beloved Child of God,

I’m sure others here will have excellent answers to your specific questions.

I just noticed your post and wonder if there is a way you could get** Dr. Scott Hahn’s :knight1:books **to your daughter. Many on these forums may agree with me here that his books are very moving, theologically sound, and have helped many convert or “revert” to the Faith.

One of my favorites of his is** The Lamb’s Supper, The Mass as Heaven on Earth."** And another is, if I have the title correct here, "Rome Sweet Home." Are you familiar with Dr. Hahn?

Briefly, he was studying for the presbyterian ministry when he happened into a Catholic Mass by chance. He was awestruck at how everything he saw pointed to holy scripture, and even after becoming ordained as a presbyterian minister, he could not ignore the Holy Spirit’s drawing him into the Church. :getholy:

I’ve mentioned his books before, and that many of his friends thought he had lost his mind. He hadn’t at all! He had found The Real Church. His wife Kimberly is a wonderful author too, and eventually followed Scott into the Church.

I find that his books and videos, (many of the latter are all over YouTube) speak very well to the protestant sensibility.

I will pray for your daughter and her husband and for you.
Yours in Christ,
Kathryn Ann

:heaven:

 

[JFJK]

I remember that I had a lot of trouble with this passage as well as the quotation “Blessed are those who are called to the supper of the Lamb” said by the priest. That was before I received my first holy communion. I argued: Does Christ discriminate? I still find it hard (if at all possible) to explain the mystery of the Eucharist to non-catholics. Seems to be on the same level as trying to explain the Trinity. Grasping that the invisible God humbles himself to become a visible piece of bread requires the gift of faith. I also must be extremely careful as not to give an impression of the Communion being a “magic ritual” or “cannibalism”. According to the Catechism, “The Eucharist is the source and summit of the Christian life.” But what about children and those believers who haven’t received the sacrament? are they excluded from salvation in all cases? Talking to my Protestant friends I found that we agreed on the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist in the following manner: the universal Church is the Body of Christ and in the Eucharist (thanksgiving) the community of believers visibly demonstrate their unity - in this sense, Christ is present We also agreed that it is more than just a symbol. Catholic teaching does not deny this form of presence. But it also teaches there is a very unique and special mode of presence. So when talking to Protestants on this subject I try to focus on what we have in common. This is a very sensitive, intimate and personal issue.

Here are two links to confront:
The Catholic view: vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p2s2c1a3.htm

One of the Protestant views: reachingcatholics.org/eatdrink.html

I also found the book “Jesus and the Eucharist” by Tad Guzie to be a good reading on this topic.

 

[Credo111]

As Della noted, babies do not receive Communion. Actually, baptized Catholics younger than about 7 yrs. do not receive the Eucharist. What do you think happens to them if they die prior to receiving the Eucharist? Are they deprived of eternal life?

Nita: As Catholics, we follow the Magisterium, which has been given authority by God to define and enunciate doctrine. The Church clearly teaches that children are not allowed to receive Holy Communion until a certain age, so the above does not apply to them.

That is not the subject that is being debated here, though. The original post asked about those outside the faith, e.g., adult protestants, who do not receive the Eucharist. Christ makes it pretty clear that the Eucharist is necessary to salvation.

God can, by extraordinary means, save souls who do not receive the sacraments. But that is NOT the norm. That is the exception to the rule. The rule is that the sacraments are necessary to salvation, and we do non-Catholics no service by assuming that they will be saved without the sacraments. The Church has never taught this, not even after Vatican II.
Christine

 

[Nita]

Nita: As Catholics, we follow the Magisterium, which has been given authority by God to define and enunciate doctrine. The Church clearly teaches that children are not allowed to receive Holy Communion until a certain age, so the above does not apply to them.

Apologies. I’ll respond to your post differently. Here were your words:

That’s garbage. There is nothing complex about Catholic soteriology, and nothing ambiguous in Our Lord’s words: “Unless you eat My Flesh and drink My Blood, you have no life in you.”

No life.

The Magisterium teaches that those outside the Church can be saved.
The Church also teaches that those who are not Catholic should not receive the Eucharist.
So, obviously, the Church does not teach reception of the Eucharist as necessary for non-Catholics to be saved.

 

[teeboy]

I understand what you are saying, but then there are other verses which say if you believe in Jesus you are saved (without reference to the Eucharist or sacraments). So we need to harmonize scripture with scripture. There are also verses which suggest we must believe in Jesus to be saved, yet others which suggest that God desires that all be saved and yet has supernaturally blinded some (like Israel, in large part) - thus the Catholic doctrine of invincible ignorance.

The Bible is complex and multidimensional and thus it is dangerous to build a theology on a single verse (this or any other verse) in a vacuum. That is why the magisterium and teachings of the Church are so valuable (and so attractive to me).

Blessings,

Brian

But, the sacrament is Jesus in the present tense. So, if you believe in Jesus, you believe in the sacrament and you are saved.

 

[teeboy]

I really don’t think it was Jesus’ intention to sit around and debate scripture as laypeople.

That’s why I study the Catechism more than scripture.

 

[teeboy]

I understand what you are saying, but then there are other verses which say if you believe in Jesus you are saved (without reference to the Eucharist or sacraments). So we need to harmonize scripture with scripture. There are also verses which suggest we must believe in Jesus to be saved, yet others which suggest that God desires that all be saved and yet has supernaturally blinded some (like Israel, in large part) - thus the Catholic doctrine of invincible ignorance.

The Bible is complex and multidimensional and thus it is dangerous to build a theology on a single verse (this or any other verse) in a vacuum. That is why the magisterium and teachings of the Church are so valuable (and so attractive to me).

Blessings,

Brian

In Constitutional Law, it’s called the 4 corner’s rule. You can’t use one verse or one article to make a point.

 

[teeboy]

The Eucharist and Salvation is one topic to discuss.

However:

The Eucharist is Jesus. Jesus heals and stregthens and confers grace. Jesus makes one holy. To not take advantage of the Eucharist is ignorance and laziness.

To attend Mass and receive the Eucharist daily and to ask God to “give you your daily bread” and to “help him by being a means of doing his will on Earth” is very worthy, I believe, in the eyes of God and very fullfilling to the individual.

 

[Credo111]

The Magisterium teaches that those outside the Church can be saved.
The Church also teaches that those who are not Catholic should not receive the Eucharist.
So, obviously, the Church does not teach reception of the Eucharist as necessary for non-Catholics to be saved.

Nita–The last part of my earlier response already addressed this point. The Church teaches that only those in invincible ignorance may be saved apart from the sacraments. That would be by the extraordinary (meaning rare, out of the ordinary, uncommon) means of grace.

The NORM is that only those within the Catholic Church who receive the sacraments can be saved.

For us to give the impression that the sacraments are not necessary to salvation is to do grave disservice to souls. It is to lead them astray, and keep them from the one, true Church, outside of which there is no salvation.
Christine

 

[Nita]

Nita–The last part of my earlier response already addressed this point. The Church teaches that only those in invincible ignorance may be saved apart from the sacraments. That would be by the extraordinary (meaning rare, out of the ordinary, uncommon) means of grace.

The NORM is that only those within the Catholic Church who receive the sacraments can be saved.

For us to give the impression that the sacraments are not necessary to salvation is to do grave disservice to souls. It is to lead them astray, and keep them from the one, true Church, outside of which there is no salvation.
Christine

I wasn’t discussing how many non-Catholics would be saved; God alone knows that.
The question was whether or not non-Catholics had to receive the Eucharist to be saved - whether John 6 applied to them. What did the Church teach in this regard. And it’s obvious, whether it’s only 3 non-Catholics or 30 billion non-Catholics that are saved, the Church does not say they must receive the Catholic sacrament of the Eucharist first; in fact, she teaches they should not receive the Catholic sacrament of the Eucharist if they are not Catholic.

 

[Credo111]

I wasn’t discussing how many would be saved; God alone knows that. But you pointed out to me that the question was whether or not non-Catholics had to receive the Eucharist to be saved - whether John 6 applied to them. What did the Church teach in this regard. And it’s obvious, whether it’s 3 or 30 billion non-Catholics that are saved, the Church does not say them must receive the Catholic sacrament of the Eucharist first.

That’s the wrong way to phrase it, and it is misleading to others. The normative means of salvation requires the Eucharist. That is the norm, and it should be taught as the norm. To go around saying, “The Church teaches that you don’t need the Eucharist to be saved” is misleading and harmful to souls.

It’s like saying, “The law requires you to buckle your seat belt when driving.” That is the norm, and everyone must follow the norm. But in rare emergency situations–where the seat belt is not functioning properly, perhaps, or the police are chasing down a car and did not have time to buckle their seat belt–the law gives them a pass. But the law remains the law. It would be wrong for one to say, because of the rare exceptions, that “the law allows you to drive without your seat belt.”

In certain rare situations, God might allow someone to be saved without the Eucharist. But the norm remains the norm, and it must be taught as the norm.
Christine

 

[Nita]

That’s the wrong way to phrase it, and it is misleading to others. The normative means of salvation requires the Eucharist. That is the norm, and it should be taught as the norm. To go around saying, “The Church teaches that you don’t need the Eucharist to be saved” is misleading and harmful to souls.

It’s like saying, “The law requires you to buckle your seat belt when driving.” That is the norm, and everyone must follow the norm. But in rare emergency situations–where the seat belt is not functioning properly, perhaps, or the police are chasing down a car and did not have time to buckle their seat belt–the law gives them a pass. But the law remains the law. It would be wrong for one to say, because of the rare exceptions, that “the law allows you to drive without your seat belt.”

In certain rare situations, God might allow someone to be saved without the Eucharist. But the norm remains the norm, and it must be taught as the norm.
Christine

The topic of this thread is not who can be saved. As you informed me above, your Post #31,

That is not the subject that is being debated here, though. The original post asked about those outside the faith, e.g., adult protestants, who do not receive the Eucharist.

And that is precisely the topic I addressed - whether the Church teaches that adult protestants must receive the Eucharist to be saved…