Question about the Eucharist and Protestants

  • Thread starter Thread starter William1964
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
W

William1964

Guest
It’s written in St. John chapter 3 that unless one is born again of water and the Holy Spirit you cannot enter into the Kingdom of God.

The caviate is that the church also says that there is such a thing as baptism of desire and baptism of blood.

Well, it’s also written in St. John chapter 6 that unless you eat of my flesh and drink of my blood there is no life in you.

Is there life in a Baptist. Can they attain sanctifying grace? Is there a caviate?
 
This is not “official”

I would say that yes there is a caveat in this similar to the one for baptism.
However, one must truly desire to receive “CHRIST” - Body Blood Soul and Divinity in the Eucharist and not just “bread and grape juice symbolizing, and in rememberance of Jesus”. In this sense, those who believe in the real presence, Lutherans and Anglicans may derive greater benefit even though their communion is not valid.
But the odds of one receiving the grace of the Eucharist in this way would be extremely slim in other communities, such as the baptists, simply because most Non-Catholic Christians are taught that the bread and wine are “symbolic”, and to believe otherwise is wrong.

That being said, I am sure there are many Truly “Spirit filled” Non-Catholic Christians.

Peace
James****
 
JRKH said:
This is not “official”

I would say that yes there is a caveat in this similar to the one for baptism.
However, one must truly desire to receive “CHRIST” - Body Blood Soul and Divinity in the Eucharist and not just “bread and grape juice symbolizing, and in rememberance of Jesus”. In this sense, those who believe in the real presence, Lutherans and Anglicans may derive greater benefit even though their communion is not valid.
But the odds of one receiving the grace of the Eucharist in this way would be extremely slim in other communities, such as the baptists, simply because most Non-Catholic Christians are taught that the bread and wine are “symbolic”, and to believe otherwise is wrong.

That being said, I am sure there are many Truly “Spirit filled” Non-Catholic Christians.

Peace
James****

James,
To expand upon what you have said here, Lutherans would include as a mean of grace, the hearing of the Gospel. So, even for those not discerning His presence in the Eucharist, or accepting the sacramental nature of Baptism, can receive grace in this way.

In addition, the *Decree on Ecumenism *of Vatican II says:
Our separated brothers and sisters also celebrate many sacred actions of the Christian religion. These most certainly can truly engender a life of grace in ways that vary according to the condition of each church or community, and must be held capable of giving access to that communion in which is salvation
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
William1964 said:
It’s written in St. John chapter 3 that unless one is born again of water and the Holy Spirit you cannot enter into the Kingdom of God.

The caviate is that the church also says that there is such a thing as baptism of desire and baptism of blood.

Well, it’s also written in St. John chapter 6 that unless you eat of my flesh and drink of my blood there is no life in you.

Is there life in a Baptist. Can they attain sanctifying grace? Is there a caviate?
Click to expand...
Yes, they “can” achieve Sanctifying Grace, through invincible ignorance (vs. culpable ignorance), and living a life in accord with the truths of Christ that they do know. In my opinion, it gets a little dicey for them if they live in affluent western society. They have ample opportunity, and resources (books, PC’s, etc.) to become educated. But, maybe some can’t, for reasons beyond their control (physical, mental, emotional, etc.). It’s on an individual by individual basis.

Invincible ignorance in this instance means that, through no fault of their own, they didn’t know the fullness of Christ’s message.

The Church says this, but in a much more eloquent way than I just did. 🙂
 
William1964 said:
It’s written in St. John chapter 3 that unless one is born again of water and the Holy Spirit you cannot enter into the Kingdom of God.

The caviate is that the church also says that there is such a thing as baptism of desire and baptism of blood.

Well, it’s also written in St. John chapter 6 that unless you eat of my flesh and drink of my blood there is no life in you.

Is there life in a Baptist. Can they attain sanctifying grace? Is there a caviate?
Click to expand...
While in no way disputing your interpretation of John 3 or 6, I would factor in the following:
  1. Did Abraham celebrate the Eucharist? For that matter, did anybody from the Old Testament celebrate it until Christ instituted it in “the upper room?”
  2. Did the “thief on the cross” celebrate the Eucharist?
  3. I’ve seen the mass on EWTN and they usually have a voice overlay with some kind of prayer about making it effectual for those that cannot be present. Clearly Catholics have some kind of understanding of the Eucharist having spiritual value in addition to/alongside of the the views on transubstantiation, etc.
 
Yes it is possible to be saved without receiving valid sacraments. God is gracious - although having gone to the trouble of providing a way for us to receive His grace, we certainly SHOULD follow His instructions. But He CAN provide grace to anyone and we know that He honors the desires of those who do not or cannot receive the sacraments for reasons which are not rejections of Him.

And yes, there is tremendous value in what we call “spiritual communion,” but that also presupposes that the person who desires but cannot receive sacramental communion believes in it.
 
JonNC said:
James,
To expand upon what you have said here, Lutherans would include as a mean of grace, the hearing of the Gospel. So, even for those not discerning His presence in the Eucharist, or accepting the sacramental nature of Baptism, can receive grace in this way.

In addition, the *Decree on Ecumenism *of Vatican II says:

As for Lutherans and the Eucharist, Cr. Ratzinger said:

Now, Lutheran and Anglicans would dispute the Catholic claim that our sacrament is invalid. This is one of the things we must reconcile as dialogue moves along.

Jon

usccb.org/seia/koinonia.shtml
Click to expand...
As Always - A well written response.
To your first point I will only respond that the OP is speaking to the Eucharist and so I limited my response to that specific point. Certainly every Christian derives benefit from hearing and meditating on the Gospel.
As to the validity issue, I defer to The magisterium in the person of Cardinal Ratzinger - Now Pope Benedict XVI.
Yes - the dialogue must continue. Of course if the dialogs bear fruit in other areas, the matter of “validity” will be the easiest to clear up with a simple “laying on of hands” 😃

Peace
James
 
jasev said:
While in no way disputing your interpretation of John 3 or 6, I would factor in the following:
  1. Did Abraham celebrate the Eucharist? For that matter, did anybody from the Old Testament celebrate it until Christ instituted it in “the upper room?”
Click to expand...
Yes those in the OT celebrated the “Eucharist” as it existed in the Old Testement covenent. That is the sacrifice of the unblemished lamb upon the altar in the temple.
Christ simply replaced the “unblemished lamb” with Himself and gave us a “bloodless” sacrifice in species of Bread and Wine.
  1. Did the “thief on the cross” celebrate the Eucharist?
Click to expand...
No He did not, but would undoubtedly he would have if he had been given the opportunity.
  1. I’ve seen the mass on EWTN and they usually have a voice overlay with some kind of prayer about making it effectual for those that cannot be present. Clearly Catholics have some kind of understanding of the Eucharist having spiritual value in addition to/alongside of the the views on transubstantiation, etc.
Click to expand...
Good point. But remember taht this goes back to the desire being a “True” desire to receive Jesus in Body Blood Soul and divinity - not just a symbolic presence.

Peace
James
 
James,

Do Catholics believe that Jesus was truly present - body, blood, soul, and divinity, in the old covenant lamb sacrifices? I don’t think so, but I could be wrong here.

To the OP’s point - John 6 states that there is no life in those that do not eat His flesh and drink His blood.
 
jasev said:
James,

Do Catholics believe that Jesus was truly present - body, blood, soul, and divinity, in the old covenant lamb sacrifices? I don’t think so, but I could be wrong here.
Click to expand...
No - of course not. However they did believe that the sacrificial lamb was a real and true sacrifice and not just a “symbol”. The "Blood of the Lamb and the Flesh of th Lamb was real and not symbolic. They also believed in and followed the Law in offering this sacrifice as truly pleasing to God, not trying to change and reinterpret what God meant.

Christ replaced the real and bloody sacrifice of the Lamb with the unbloody sacrifice of the Eucharist. Under the appearance of Bread and Wine, He give us Himself and one needs to recognize this in order to receive, even spiritually, the benefits of the Eucharist. In other words, just as you say here:
To the OP’s point - John 6 states that there is no life in those that do not eat His flesh and drink His blood.
Click to expand...
We should not try to reinterpret His words and His commands to mean something merely symbolic.
If a person truly believes this, but is unable for whatever reason to physically receive communion, then one can, by pious desire and true understanding, receive the benefits of communion.

Peace
James
 
JRKH said:
No - of course not. However they did believe that the sacrificial lamb was a real and true sacrifice and not just a “symbol”. The "Blood of the Lamb and the Flesh of th Lamb was real and not symbolic. They also believed in and followed the Law in offering this sacrifice as truly pleasing to God, not trying to change and reinterpret what God meant.

Christ replaced the real and bloody sacrifice of the Lamb with the unbloody sacrifice of the Eucharist. Under the appearance of Bread and Wine, He give us Himself and one needs to recognize this in order to receive, even spiritually, the benefits of the Eucharist. In other words, just as you say here:

We should not try to reinterpret His words and His commands to mean something merely symbolic.
If a person truly believes this, but is unable for whatever reason to physically receive communion, then one can, by pious desire and true understanding, receive the benefits of communion.

Peace
James
Click to expand...
I never said anything about symbols. 🙂

There is a stereotype that protestants believe the Eucharist is “merely a symbol”. There actually are a number of Protestant interpretations ranging from “symbol” (Zwinglian thought) to “spiritual presence” (Calvinistic thought) to “truly present - in, with, and under the forms of” (Lutheran thought). I can understand the stereotype that all protestants believe it is “only a symbol” (I would say, btw, that giving the “only” or “merely” would be offensive to someone holding a symbolic view). I can understand that perspective because there was a time until about a year ago that I held this assumption as well… until I started really exploring what different churches believed.

That being said - it’s completely besides the point to the comments I was making. Like I said in my first post in this thread… I’m in no way disputing this interpretation in the points I’m making and the questions I’m asking. Personally, the more I come to study this the more I’m convinced of some kind of “real presence.”

Now, you mentioned old testament sacrifice being a true sacrifice. I don’t think anyone would disagree with that. My question is: Jesus said someone who does not eat his flesh and drink his blood will not have eternal life. So, how do we understand Jesus words in light of those we believe to be saved (e.g. the cloud of witness in Hebrews) who have never eaten his body or drunken his blood in the Eucharist?
 
jasev said:
I never said anything about symbols. 🙂

There is a stereotype that protestants believe the Eucharist is “merely a symbol”. There actually are a number of Protestant interpretations ranging from “symbol” (Zwinglian thought) to “spiritual presence” (Calvinistic thought) to “truly present - in, with, and under the forms of” (Lutheran thought). I can understand the stereotype that all protestants believe it is “only a symbol” (I would say, btw, that giving the “only” or “merely” would be offensive to someone holding a symbolic view). I can understand that perspective because there was a time until about a year ago that I held this assumption as well… until I started really exploring what different churches believed.

That being said - it’s completely besides the point to the comments I was making. Like I said in my first post in this thread… I’m in no way disputing this interpretation in the points I’m making and the questions I’m asking. Personally, the more I come to study this the more I’m convinced of some kind of “real presence.”
Click to expand...
You are correct, as others have also said, that there are differnt views among the NCC groups. This fact does make it difficult to answer simply the simple question that is the title of this thread. 🤷 Pardon my gross generalization.
Now, you mentioned old testament sacrifice being a true sacrifice. I don’t think anyone would disagree with that. My question is: Jesus said someone who does not eat his flesh and drink his blood will not have eternal life. So, how do we understand Jesus words in light of those we believe to be saved (e.g. the cloud of witness in Hebrews) who have never eaten his body or drunken his blood in the Eucharist?
Click to expand...
Again - there is no single simple answer to this that I am aware of. I do not have time to get into it now, but will try to respond later.

Peace
James
 
The following question is for anyone who is kind enough to share his opinion.

Saint Paul the Apostle writes:

8For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith—and this not from yourselves, it is the gift of God— 9not by works, so that no one can boast. 10For we are God’s workmanship, created in Christ Jesus to do good works, which God prepared in advance for us to do.

(Ephesians 2)

and so it seems that it is not just baptism, nor merely the Eucharist, but also God’s grace, and our faith in Him and these sacraments that saves us. Repentance, too is a requirement, and there are others as well.

My question, though is concerning the required faith. Since all who are saved are saved, in part, through their faith, does this mean that a Protestant who has faith that the Eucharist is not the body and blood of Christ cannot be saved? In other words, does a false faith negate the saving power of God’s grace and the sacraments?

🤷
 
spockrates said:
The following question is for anyone who is kind enough to share his opinion.

Saint Paul the Apostle writes:

8For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith—and this not from yourselves, it is the gift of God— 9not by works, so that no one can boast. 10For we are God’s workmanship, created in Christ Jesus to do good works, which God prepared in advance for us to do.

(Ephesians 2)

and so it seems that it is not just baptism, nor merely the Eucharist, but also God’s grace, and our faith in Him and these sacraments that saves us. Repentance, too is a requirement, and there are others as well.

My question, though is concerning the required faith. Since all who are saved are saved, in part, through their faith, does this mean that a Protestant who has faith that the Eucharist is not the body and blood of Christ cannot be saved? In other words, does a false faith negate the saving power of God’s grace and the sacraments?

🤷
Click to expand...
It is especially God’s Grace, since all of these things, including faith, and even including good works, are dependent on Grace. I would say that the “stretch” of God’s Grace is probably known only to Him.

Jon
 
JonNC said:
It is especially God’s Grace, since all of these things, including faith, and even including good works, are dependent on Grace. I would say that the “stretch” of God’s Grace is probably known only to Him.

Jon
Click to expand...
Regarding Grace: Certainly!

Regarding the stretch: Yes, perhaps I’m asking others make too much of a stretch to answer that one.

😃
 
I think that we need to get back to the original question, which is:

Is there life in a Baptist. Can they attain sanctifying grace?

Let’s not forget that there are two types of grace, actual, and sanctifying. Actual grace is the that which leads us to the truth and keeps us in search of sanctifying grace. Sanctifying grace lives within our soul and it is what makes the soul holy and spotless, free of mortal sin.

The only way to attain sanctifying grace is through the Sacraments of Baptism, and reconcilliation (confession), since these cleanse the soul of original and mortal sin.

Since justification by faith alone, and the teaching by Calvin that predestined peoples don’t lose their faith were condemned by the Council of Trent, the only way for anyone to attain sanctifying grace is through the Catholic Church and Her Sacraments.

So, my answer would be no, Baptists cannot attain sanctifying grace. More importantly, it should be noted, that to confer the Sacrament of Holy Communion and perform the miracle of Transubstantiation, can only be performed by a validly ordained Catholic Priest.

God Bless
 
SGT_ROCK_33 said:
I think that we need to get back to the original question, which is:

Is there life in a Baptist. Can they attain sanctifying grace?

Let’s not forget that there are two types of grace, actual, and sanctifying. Actual grace is the that which leads us to the truth and keeps us in search of sanctifying grace. Sanctifying grace lives within our soul and it is what makes the soul holy and spotless, free of mortal sin.

The only way to attain sanctifying grace is through the Sacraments of Baptism, and reconcilliation (confession), since these cleanse the soul of original and mortal sin.

Since justification by faith alone, and the teaching by Calvin that predestined peoples don’t lose their faith were condemned by the Council of Trent, the only way for anyone to attain sanctifying grace is through the Catholic Church and Her Sacraments.

So, my answer would be no, Baptists cannot attain sanctifying grace. More importantly, it should be noted, that to confer the Sacrament of Holy Communion and perform the miracle of Transubstantiation, can only be performed by a validly ordained Catholic Priest.

God Bless
Click to expand...
Do you make this statement knowing that it is contrary to the express teaching of the Church?
 
Please educate…

How is my statement contrary to the teachings of the Church?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top