The Eucharist and Salvation

[Monica4316]

I’m trying to figure out a Church teaching. I read that the Council of Trent declared that infants don’t need to receive Communion because it’s not absolutely necessary (I’m paraphrasing and it could be I misunderstood the reason). I took it to mean that if an infant is baptized and dies, they can go to Heaven even if they’ve never had Communion, being in a state of grace. However, recently I read a quote that St Thomas and St Augustine taught that the Eucharist is essential for salvation. How do we put these two ideas together? thank you!

 

[Hatikvah]

I’m trying to figure out a Church teaching. I read that the Council of Trent declared that infants don’t need to receive Communion because it’s not absolutely necessary (I’m paraphrasing and it could be I misunderstood the reason). I took it to mean that if an infant is baptized and dies, they can go to Heaven even if they’ve never had Communion, being in a state of grace. However, recently I read a quote that St Thomas and St Augustine taught that the Eucharist is essential for salvation. How do we put these two ideas together? thank you!

Hi, Monica.

This is only a superficial reading of the Council of Trent’s documents, it is not completely in-depth. If it is of any note, the Eastern Orthodox Church does give the Eucharist to infants and small children, as do Eastern Catholics. The Catechism has a section titled “the Eucharist in the Economy of Salvation” (1333 - 1336) for comparison.

I think that there is, implicit in the Council of Trent (I’m no theologian), the idea that all the Sacraments that can be received are necessary for salvation in the long-run (which I will not define because it is vague):

CANON IV.-If any one saith, that the sacraments of the New Law are not necessary unto salvation, but superfluous; and that, without them, or without the desire thereof, men obtain of God, through faith alone, the grace of justification;-though all (the sacraments) are not indeed necessary for every individual; let him be anathema.(Canon IV, On the Sacraments in General, Council of Trent) (Source)

However, a person “must prove himself” worthy of receiving the Eucharist (i.e., be free of mortal sin):

Wherefore, he who would communicate, ought to recall to mind the precept of the Apostle; Let a man prove himself. Now ecclesiastical usage declares that necessary proof to be, that no one, conscious to himself of mortal sin, how contrite soever he may seem to himself, ought to approach to the sacred Eucharist without previous sacramental confession. (Concerning the Most Holy Sacrament of the Eucharist, First Decree, Chapter VII, Council of Trent)

 

[SJacob7]

CANON IV.-If any one saith, that the sacraments of the New Law are not necessary unto salvation, but superfluous; and that, without them, or without the desire thereof, men obtain of God, through faith alone, the grace of justification;-though all (the sacraments) are not indeed necessary for every individual; let him be anathema.

So you can’t be saved if you don’t receive the Sacraments you can receive? How does anyone outside of the RCC be saved then?

 

[Hatikvah]

So you can’t be saved if you don’t receive the Sacraments you can receive? How does anyone outside of the RCC be saved then?

Well, non-Catholics cannot receive active Sacraments according to the Church, except for Trinitarian formula baptism (though maybe Eastern Orthodox, but that’s a hot-button issue, I guess).

So if an Anglican is baptised, he has received the only Sacrament that he can without being Catholic. This was the Anglican’s effort, now he just has to put in faith and do a good job being a Christian. I hardly know about this topic, so it is nebulous to me.

And if a Catholic was able to go through baptism, confirmation, the Eucharist, confession, and matrimony, those are what he can receive; he cannot go through holy orders because he is married, anyhow.

Again, a vague topic for me.

 

[CB_Catholic]

Well, non-Catholics cannot receive active Sacraments according to the Church, except for Trinitarian formula baptism (though maybe Eastern Orthodox, but that’s a hot-button issue, I guess).

So if an Anglican is baptised, he has received the only Sacrament that he can without being Catholic. This was the Anglican’s effort, now he just has to put in faith and do a good job being a Christian. I hardly know about this topic, so it is nebulous to me.

And if a Catholic was able to go through baptism, confirmation, the Eucharist, confession, and matrimony, those are what he can receive; he cannot go through holy orders because he is married, anyhow.

Again, a vague topic for me.

Correction: 2 baptized non-Catholics who marry have a sacramental marriage. Thus the baptized Anglican who marries another baptized non-Catholic has received the Sacrament of Matrimony. There are also some exceptions to other Sacraments in danger of death, such as Anointing of the Sick and Eucharist if they cannot approach a minister of their own and hold the Catholic belief–the exceptions are more precisely covered in Canon Law.

A Deacon who is married receives Holy Orders–that is how he becomes a Deacon. Also, many Eastern Catholic Churches ordain married men to the priesthood. And we have married former Anglican priests and Lutheran ministers who have been ordained into the Latin Catholic priesthood after conversion and study, but this is done on a case-by-case basis.

It can get rather complicated.