Is the Sacrament of the Eucharist necessary to be a part of the Body of Christ

[rightness]

To clarify, I am not asking if the Eucharist is necessary for salvation, but it is related.

I’m asking whether the Eucharist, through Transubstantiation, the Flesh and Blood of Christ, is necessary to become a part of the Body of Christ. I will argue that it is, but I’d like to see if there are any objections.

First, I’ll point out what the Catechism says:

790 Believers who respond to God’s word and become members of Christ’s Body, become intimately united with him: “In that body the life of Christ is communicated to those who believe, and who, through the sacraments, are united in a hidden and real way to Christ in his Passion and glorification.” This is especially true of Baptism, which unites us to Christ’s death and Resurrection, and the Eucharist, by which "really sharing in the body of the Lord, . . . we are taken up into communion with him and with one another."

Next, I’ll introduce the Sacrament of Marriage in terms of the start of the Bible, Genesis 2, and the end of the Bible, Revelation 21. As Adam and Eve would enter a covenant marriage through God, Genesis 2:24 and CCC 1640 explains that marriage is the unity of flesh.

CCC 1640 “Thus the marriage bond has been established by God himself in such a way that a marriage concluded and consummated between baptized persons can never be dissolved. This bond, which results from the free human act of the spouses and their consummation of the marriage, is a reality, henceforth irrevocable, and gives rise to a covenant guaranteed by God’s fidelity. The Church does not have the power to contravene this disposition of divine wisdom.”

The only way we can have the unity of flesh, becoming one body, is through the Eucharist, and this is fulfill the Marriage of the Lamb Supper in Revelations 21.

If a Christian has not partaken of the Flesh of the Lord, and emphasizing Flesh as in Transubstantiation and not Consubstantiation or anything less, they have not fully consummated with Christ and isn’t a part of the Body of Christ.

Baptism is necessary for salvation, but to be a part of the Body of Christ, a Christian would need to partake in the Eucharist, which requires to full believe in the Catholic Church’s doctrine.

Thoughts?

 

[poche]

The Catholic Church would be incomplete without the Eucharist.

 

[Rob2]

Thoughts?

No .

We become members of the Body of Christ through our Baptism .

 

[UpUpAndAway]

If a Christian has not partaken of the Flesh of the Lord, and emphasizing Flesh as in Transubstantiation and not Consubstantiation or anything less, they have not fully consummated with Christ and isn’t a part of the Body of Christ.

Baptism is necessary for salvation, but to be a part of the Body of Christ, a Christian would need to partake in the Eucharist, which requires to full believe in the Catholic Church’s doctrine.

Thoughts?

That would exclude anyone who is permanently unable to receive either the host or the Precious Blood. Granted, such people are probably rare. However, they do exist. I have trouble believing that Jesus or His Church would require something of us that not everyone could do.

 

[Tis_Bearself]

The Eucharist allows us to share more fully in the body of Christ. However, baptism and other sacraments also allow people to share in the body of Christ. Therefore, the Eucharist is not necessary to make someone part of the Body of Christ.

Plenty of martyrs died after receiving baptism (either of water or of blood ) but having never received Eucharist. There have also been deathbed conversions of people who were unable to receive because they were too ill, and children who were baptized but died before receiving their First Communion. These people are not excluded from the Body of Christ.

 

[mcq72]

The only way we can have the unity of flesh, becoming one body, is through the Eucharist, and this is fulfill the Marriage of the Lamb Supper in Revelations 21.

I beg to differ. The Body of Christ, the ecclesia, is a spiritual entity first, desiring spiritual unity, not unity of our flesh. Oh the Body is visible, but the unity is spiritual.

 

[mcq72]

Baptism is necessary for salvation, but to be a part of the Body of Christ, a Christian would need to partake in the Eucharist, which requires to full believe in the Catholic Church’s doctrine.

I thought the Church teaches when you are baptized , you are also baptized into the Body of Christ, made part of the Church. Never heard you are outside the Church, His body, until you receive first communion.

 

[1ke]

If a Christian has not partaken of the Flesh of the Lord, and emphasizing Flesh as in Transubstantiation and not Consubstantiation or anything less, they have not fully consummated with Christ and isn’t a part of the Body of Christ.

No, the Church does not teach this.

The Church teaches we become members of the body of Christ through baptism.

Confirmation and Eucharist complete the sacraments of initiation and strengthen baptismal grace.

But no, it is not accurate to say those who have not received them are not members of the body of Christ. The Church explicitly states otherwise.

 

[Dovekin]

it is not accurate to say those who have not received them are not members of the body of Christ. The Church explicitly states otherwise.

While I agree with this, it is also true that the Eucharist is the culmination of initiation. Baptism is preparation for the Eucharist and incomplete without it.

And I would have thought it was when we were anointed that we became part of the body of the Anointed.

 

[rightness]

That would exclude anyone who is permanently unable to receive either the host or the Precious Blood. Granted, such people are probably rare. However, they do exist. I have trouble believing that Jesus or His Church would require something of us that not everyone could do.

I think it’s not only rare, but not even possible. For someone to not be able to eat or drink, or not needing any sustenance, that’s not human. The Catholic Church has developed methods to administer the Sacrament of the Eucharist even those who aren’t able to digest, so this isn’t a problem.

The Eucharist allows us to share more fully in the body of Christ. However, baptism and other sacraments also allow people to share in the body of Christ. Therefore, the Eucharist is not necessary to make someone part of the Body of Christ.

Plenty of martyrs died after receiving baptism (either of water or of blood ) but having never received Eucharist. There have also been deathbed conversions of people who were unable to receive because they were too ill, and children who were baptized but died before receiving their First Communion. These people are not excluded from the Body of Christ.

Again, this isn’t concerning salvation. Martyrs become a part of God when they enter Heaven by default, but we’re not dead yet.

The Church teaches that marriage is dissoluble if it has not yet been consummated, like a Josephite marriage. The two have not become one if there is no union of flesh, therefore, how can we be a part of Body of Christ if we don’t unify with His flesh through the Eucharist?

No, the Church does not teach this.

The Church teaches we become members of the body of Christ through baptism.

Confirmation and Eucharist complete the sacraments of initiation and strengthen baptismal grace.

But no, it is not accurate to say those who have not received them are not members of the body of Christ. The Church explicitly states otherwise.

I’m aware of CCC 1267 also teaching what you just said. I’m just doing some thinking into what the Eucharist means at a deeper level, and how it applies to protestants thinking they are already Catholic, using the Body of Christ in a broader sense, therefore they don’t have to follow the Catholic Church. What separates Catholics and Protestants is the Eucharist, but are Protestants a part of the Body of Christ in a spiritual sense whereas we are literally a part of the Body of Christ.

This is a mystery that I’m raising, though I certainly have no problem with Protestants being a part of us, even though they are separated brothers and sisters. I’m just figuring out how to elevate the Sacrament of the Eucharist in a way that makes it necessary for them to partake in Jesus’s Body and Blood.

 

[UpUpAndAway]

I think it’s not only rare, but not even possible. For someone to not be able to eat or drink, or not needing any sustenance, that’s not human. The Catholic Church has developed methods to administer the Sacrament of the Eucharist even those who aren’t able to digest, so this isn’t a problem.

It’s not a question of being able to eat, drink and digest. It’s a question of what individuals can eat, drink and digest.

Celiac disease exists. Wheat allergies exist. Sulfite allergies exist. Alcohol intolerance exists. It is possible for a person to be afflicted with more than one of these conditions, thus making it impossible to receive at all.

The USCCB has spoken on this topic, and indeed the Church provides alternatives to accommodate those with these illnesses. Some folks are so sensitive, however, that even the alternatives are not options for them.

http://www.usccb.org/prayer-and-wor...st/celiac-disease-and-alcohol-intolerance.cfm

 

[Tis_Bearself]

The Church teaches that marriage is dissoluble if it has not yet been consummated, like a Josephite marriage. The two have not become one if there is no union of flesh, therefore, how can we be a part of Body of Christ if we don’t unify with His flesh through the Eucharist?

We don’t have to physically bond with the Church through eating Eucharist or having sex or anything else for us to be “in communion” with the Church. The Catechism suggests that even some non-Catholics who aren’t baptized might be “in communion” with the Church and thus part of Christ’s Body simply because they share a belief in the God of Abraham, or marry a Catholic in the Church.

So, if you want to persist in this idea of yours that people aren’t part of the body of Christ unless and until they consume the Eucharist, that’s merely your opinion, and your made-up rule, and not Church teaching.

 

[1ke]

And I would have thought it was when we were anointed that we became part of the body of the Anointed.

Nope. It’s when you are baptized.

And, during baptism, you ARE anointed: priest, prophet and king.

 

[1ke]

but are Protestants a part of the Body of Christ in a spiritual sense whereas we are literally a part of the Body of Christ.

Non-Catholics who are baptized are both.

 

[mcq72]

I’m just figuring out how to elevate the Sacrament of the Eucharist in a way that makes it necessary for them to partake in Jesus’s Body and Blood.

Well you could take scripture literally and dogmatically, that indeed one must eat the flesh of Jesus to have eternal life.

 

[Dovekin]

Dovekin:

And I would have thought it was when we were anointed that we became part of the body of the Anointed.

Nope. It’s when you are baptized.

And, during baptism, you ARE anointed: priest, prophet and king.

So what is it?
At baptism (during which you are anointed) or not?

That baptismal anointing is only for infants. Everyone else is anointed in Confirmation only.

 

[1ke]

So what is it?
At baptism (during which you are anointed) or not?

We become a member of the body of Christ at baptism. I’m not sure how to make that more clear.

That baptismal anointing is only for infants.

Catechumens receive the anointing with the oil of catchumens.

They do also receive anointing during confirmation which follows baptism.

That doesn’t change the fact that we become members of the body of Christ at baptism.

 

[rightness]

It’s not a question of being able to eat, drink and digest. It’s a question of what individuals can eat, drink and digest.

Celiac disease exists. Wheat allergies exist. Sulfite allergies exist. Alcohol intolerance exists. It is possible for a person to be afflicted with more than one of these conditions, thus making it impossible to receive at all.

The USCCB has spoken on this topic, and indeed the Church provides alternatives to accommodate those with these illnesses. Some folks are so sensitive, however, that even the alternatives are not options for them.

http://www.usccb.org/prayer-and-wor...st/celiac-disease-and-alcohol-intolerance.cfm

Intolerance doesn’t mean complete unable. Pope Benedict had already argued off celiac disease as you already pointed out in your link. You’re not going to implode if you have some gluten or minimal amounts of alcohol. Most kombucha probably contains more alcohol than mustum. Anyway, it’s no longer bread and wine after consecration regardless.

This recent study of celiac is so fear mongering that it drives people to go gluten-free even if they haven’t been properly diagnosed. Even the diagnosis is not perfected, nor are the studies about controlled gluten amounts.

 

[rightness]

We don’t have to physically bond with the Church through eating Eucharist or having sex or anything else for us to be “in communion” with the Church. The Catechism suggests that even some non-Catholics who aren’t baptized might be “in communion” with the Church and thus part of Christ’s Body simply because they share a belief in the God of Abraham, or marry a Catholic in the Church.

So, if you want to persist in this idea of yours that people aren’t part of the body of Christ unless and until they consume the Eucharist, that’s merely your opinion, and your made-up rule, and not Church teaching.

lol my made up rule that is in CCC 790, which I quoted already and will quote again for emphasis.

"…and the Eucharist, by which “really sharing in the body of the Lord, . . . we are taken up into communion with him and with one another.”

You can also read 793, 1329, 1331, and so forth.

And it’s not my idea that this is the case. If Baptism was enough, then why did Jesus institute the Eucharist. Go think about that. Jesus is the God that created them in “our image”, man and woman, to be able to have the union of flesh, thus He also instituted marriage in this way. Having instituted both marriage and Eucharist, with the Eucharist being based on marital, covenant union, it’s only fitting that the Eucharist represents this special union of His body and ours when we eat His flesh.

If Baptism was enough, why did Jesus go through such painstaking to ensure the sacrifice of the Passover was completely represented in His death and the Last Supper, and also making sure that we knew it is His flesh, and that only His flesh is necessary, not bread or Baptism. If Baptism was enough, he would have bid John the Baptist a job well done and didn’t need to be sacrificed because it’s enough to be a part of Him, but Baptism isn’t enough to the point that Jesus had died for us, then Revelations would show us such marriage in Heaven.

And I’ll quote a part of CCC 1331: " Holy Communion , because by this sacrament we unite ourselves to Christ, who makes us sharers in his Body and Blood to form a single body."

I think there is a great distinction in becoming a part of His Body through Baptism and through the Eucharist, otherwise, why would the Catechism state that we unite ourselves with Christ through the Eucharist, when we should already be eternally united with the Body of Christ through Baptism as described in CCC 1267.

 

[Kima]

Jesus himself basically said it’s important, so it’s really nothing to argue about.

John 6,54-56:

54 Those who eat my flesh and drink my blood have eternal life, and I will raise them up on the last day. 55 My flesh is true food, and my blood is true drink. 56 Those who eat my flesh and drink my blood live in me, and I live in them.