John 6:53 Salvation without receiving Christ in the Eucharist?

[Luke_K]

Is receiving Christ in the Eucharist necessary for salvation/getting to heaven?

I ask because of John 6:53 “Amen, amen, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you do not have life within you.”

But the criminal on the cross next to Jesus never partook in the Eucharist, and Jesus said that he was saved: Luke 23:42-43 “Then he said, ‘Jesus, remember me when you come into your kingdom.’ He replied to him, ‘Amen I say to you, today you will be with me in paradise.’”

I’m not trying to deny the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist or anything (I’m Catholic), I’m just wondering.

 

[Seminarian_Tim]

Is receiving Christ in the Eucharist necessary for salvation/getting to heaven?

I ask because of John 6:53 “Amen, amen, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you do not have life within you.”

But the criminal on the cross next to Jesus never partook in the Eucharist, and Jesus said that he was saved: Luke 23:42-43 “Then he said, ‘Jesus, remember me when you come into your kingdom.’ He replied to him, ‘Amen I say to you, today you will be with me in paradise.’”

I’m not trying to deny the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist or anything (I’m Catholic), I’m just wondering.

I see those two passages as two distinct ways of receiving Christ, both of which will lead to salvation. One is sacramentally by receiving Jesus’ body and blood in the Eucharist, while the other reception of Jesus is primarily penetential and almost reversed (Jesus receives the man). Also, keep in mind that the only people who had received the Eucharist in the second scene were the immediate Twelve Apostles. The man on the Cross did the only thing he knew how to do- say he was sorry and mean it. That’s why priests are able to facilitate the removal of the state of sin from a man on his deathbed, regardless of how much he may have sinned or strayed from the Church.

I could be off, so if anyone wants to add anything or correct me, feel free to do so.

 

[Catholic_Dude]

Is receiving Christ in the Eucharist necessary for salvation/getting to heaven?

I ask because of John 6:53 “Amen, amen, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you do not have life within you.”

But the criminal on the cross next to Jesus never partook in the Eucharist, and Jesus said that he was saved: Luke 23:42-43 “Then he said, ‘Jesus, remember me when you come into your kingdom.’ He replied to him, ‘Amen I say to you, today you will be with me in paradise.’”

I’m not trying to deny the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist or anything (I’m Catholic), I’m just wondering.

That warning is for those who hear about and refuse to receive it, like those who left in v66.

 

[thistle]

Is receiving Christ in the Eucharist necessary for salvation/getting to heaven?

I ask because of John 6:53 “Amen, amen, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you do not have life within you.”

But the criminal on the cross next to Jesus never partook in the Eucharist, and Jesus said that he was saved: Luke 23:42-43 “Then he said, ‘Jesus, remember me when you come into your kingdom.’ He replied to him, ‘Amen I say to you, today you will be with me in paradise.’”

I’m not trying to deny the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist or anything (I’m Catholic), I’m just wondering.

Baptism takes away original sin and personal sin and if a person dies immediately thereafter they are saved. The criminal on the cross was the first example of baptism of desire.

 

[Robbinson]

Baptism takes away original sin and personal sin and if a person dies immediately thereafter they are saved. The criminal on the cross was the first example of baptism of desire.

This makes sense to me and is a way of harmonizing the thief’s entry into paradise without the benefit of further sacraments.

 

[Trael]

Is receiving Christ in the Eucharist necessary for salvation/getting to heaven?

I ask because of John 6:53 “Amen, amen, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you do not have life within you.”

But the criminal on the cross next to Jesus never partook in the Eucharist, and Jesus said that he was saved: Luke 23:42-43 “Then he said, ‘Jesus, remember me when you come into your kingdom.’ He replied to him, ‘Amen I say to you, today you will be with me in paradise.’”

I’m not trying to deny the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist or anything (I’m Catholic), I’m just wondering.

Hi, I’m new to these forums. so please bear with me.
From My experience, I’ve learned this…
We as Catholics are called to follow Christ, to repent of our sins, confess them. and do penance for them. The Gift of Salvation is not a granted thing, by simply taking our Lord in the Eucharist. Faith, without works is dead… We must all become Born again also to enter into heaven, and Nicodemus certainly was confused by this statement. While it is true that, that thief on the cross did not “receive the eucharist” in the Mass, however He did receive the Eucharist in the form of his own crucifixion. The Eucharist is the Body and Blood of our Lord, and we are invited to participate with the Lord in his death and resurrection at each Mass… Dying he destroyed our death, rising he restored our life… That Thief. by CHRISTS invitation alone, as God alone can only judge, participated in the Eucharist Just as we all are invited to do so at each Mass. This shows Gods Mercy and Love for us, that while we are still sinners. He judges Us by our true penitent hearts…Whenever We take the Eucharist within us, WE are, by the grace of God, participating not only in our Lords Supper, but His FULL crucifixion, His FULL resurrection, completely and totally. It is Christs’ Salvific Mission, culminated on the Cross that grants us Salvation. We whom take the Eucharist, join Him there, Thru the Mystery of the Church, The Mystery of the Eucharist, and the Grace of God.

I hope this helps answer your question???

Dave

 

[Trael]

I see those two passages as two distinct ways of receiving Christ, both of which will lead to salvation. One is sacramentally by receiving Jesus’ body and blood in the Eucharist, while the other reception of Jesus is primarily penetential and almost reversed (Jesus receives the man). Also, keep in mind that the only people who had received the Eucharist in the second scene were the immediate Twelve Apostles. The man on the Cross did the only thing he knew how to do- say he was sorry and mean it. That’s why priests are able to facilitate the removal of the state of sin from a man on his deathbed, regardless of how much he may have sinned or strayed from the Church.

I could be off, so if anyone wants to add anything or correct me, feel free to do so.

AMEN AMEN AMEN !!!

 

[fhansen]

Is receiving Christ in the Eucharist necessary for salvation/getting to heaven?

I ask because of John 6:53 “Amen, amen, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you do not have life within you.”

But the criminal on the cross next to Jesus never partook in the Eucharist, and Jesus said that he was saved: Luke 23:42-43 “Then he said, ‘Jesus, remember me when you come into your kingdom.’ He replied to him, ‘Amen I say to you, today you will be with me in paradise.’”

I’m not trying to deny the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist or anything (I’m Catholic), I’m just wondering.

**That servant who knows his master’s will and does not get ready or does not do what his master wants will be beaten with many blows. But the one who does not know and does things deserving punishment will be beaten with few blows. From everyone who has been given much, much will be demanded; and from the one who has been entrusted with much, much more will be asked. **Luke 12:47-48

Had the thief been given more time together with the faith he received and expressed, he would’ve been expected to also come into fuller conformity with the Lord’s will in other matters.

 

[Bonarges]

Baptism takes away original sin and personal sin and if a person dies immediately thereafter they are saved. The criminal on the cross was the first example of **baptism **of desire.

The thief was under the Old Law. No baptism required.

 

[thistle]

The thief was under the Old Law. No baptism required.

The old law was prior to Jesus. The man on the cross was there with Jesus so he did have a baptism of desire.

 

[John_Mulholland]

What happens when we receive Him in the Eucharist? Actually, we are buried in Him, He does not dissolve in us. So, on the cross the good thief was “buried” in Christ: He received the Eucharist!

 

[thistle]

What happens when we receive Him in the Eucharist? Actually, we are buried in Him, He does not dissolve in us. So, on the cross the good thief was “buried” in Christ: He received the Eucharist!

You are wrong. It was a baptism of desire.

 

[John_Mulholland]

I see those two passages as two distinct ways of receiving Christ, both of which will lead to salvation. One is sacramentally by receiving Jesus’ body and blood in the Eucharist, while the other reception of Jesus is primarily penetential and almost reversed (Jesus receives the man). Also, keep in mind that the only people who had received the Eucharist in the second scene were the immediate Twelve Apostles. The man on the Cross did the only thing he knew how to do- say he was sorry and mean it. That’s why priests are able to facilitate the removal of the state of sin from a man on his deathbed, regardless of how much he may have sinned or strayed from the Church.

I could be off, so if anyone wants to add anything or correct me, feel free to do so.

 

[John_Mulholland]

I think Seminarian Tim has it right. The good thief got his baptism of desire, not the usual baptism, and he got his “eat my body and drink my blood” post baptism of desire, once again not the usual way under the species but through Jesus saying to him “This day you shall be with me in Paradise.” But more importantly, Eucharist or no Eucharist, the man was saved. The problem as I see it is making a statement in the Bible true in this case in some rational way. The thief is saved without apparently fulfilling a condition laid down by our Divine Lord, i.e., eating his body and drinking his blood. We can get too literal about things, but if we have to rationalize it my initial reply to new member is such an attempt. But why bother? If we take it literally that he must eat/drink, then he can’t be saved, and that is clearly a contradiction of Jesus’ own words. If anyone were bothered by not being able to reconcile, such a person thinks too much I think.