Leaving tradition out of the discussion, how do non-Catholics make sense of this apparent inconsistency?

[gtrenewed]

Yep! Read John 6,pretty clear it is more than just words. Cannot read your way to Heaven Richard. Cannot EAT words Richard,so indeed there is somethig else necessary as God Himself (Jesus) says over and over in John 6.

You should consider this - We do not live by (eat) bread alone but by every word that proceeds from the mouth of God. We receive life from God’s Word.

Jesus being the Word made flesh is still the Word. As we sincerely and believingly read the word of God we consume the Word made flesh, Jesus and receive life.

Our mass consists of two liturgies - Word and Eucharist. We are priviledged to receive life from both. John 6 is more than words but we do eat (receive life from) The Word in scripture and eucharist.

Non-Catholic Christians who do not receive the eucharist as we do still receive life from the Word, the scriptures but they are settling for less than Jesus has offered.

 

[JonNC]

Several posters have said that without valid orders there is no valid Eucharist and without a valid Eucharist there is no salvation. I learned that growing up in the pre-Vat2 church? The current catechism teaches that there are Christians outside of the Catholic Church.

How can the catechism call those outside of the Catholic Church brothers in the Lord if they are not Christians and are not eligible to be saved?

Doesn’t the catechism say that a trinitarian baptism is the entrance into Christ?

These are good questions, and just to add to the mix, this quote from Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger:

I count among the most important results of the ecumenical dialogues the insight that the issue of the eucharist cannot be narrowed to the problem of ‘validity.’ Even a theology oriented to the concept of succession, such as that which holds in the Catholic and in the Orthodox church, need not in any way deny the salvation-granting presence of the Lord [Heilschaffende Gegenwart des Herrn] in a Lutheran [evangelische] Lord’s Supper

Jon

 

[gtrenewed]

These are good questions, and just to add to the mix, this quote from Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger: I count among the most important results of the ecumenical dialogues the insight that the issue of the eucharist cannot be narrowed to the problem of ‘validity.’ Even a theology oriented to the concept of succession, such as that which holds in the Catholic and in the Orthodox church, need not in any way deny the salvation-granting presence of the Lord [Heilschaffende Gegenwart des Herrn] in a Lutheran [evangelische] Lord’s Supper

Jon

In your opinion, did he say this because a Lutheran has faith that it is the real presence of the Body and Blood of Jesus?

That is a huge statement, is there any data on support amongst the bishops? Or did he offer this for consideration and discussion?

Since the catechism allows for non-catholic christians, to me the eucharist can not be the principle salvic element but is principle among the sacrements that gives us life as does the word to deliver us safely to our true home.

 

[mackbrislawn]

Paul calls the gospel scripture and summarizes Jesus death on the cross and his resurrection coming from THE SCRIPTURES.

Uh…how could Paul have called the gospel scripture when the gospels had not been written in Paul’s time? The gospel had not been enscripturated yet. So, it is not possible that Paul could have learned about Jesus’ death on the cross and his resurrrection coming from the scriptures…