What I think is misunderstood about the non-Catholic response to the literal body and blood of Christ in the Eucharist is not so much that we deny the significance of the representative nature of the bread and wine as we do the place of importance to a believer's salvation. Do you or do you not teach that receiving the "host" is necessary for sanctification?
This, I think, is the main reason for the rejection of the Church's teaching on the subject. I believe that when I accepted Jesus Christ as my savior, when I put my faith in his finished work on the cross - for my sins - I became born again. I received and was sealed until the day of redemption by the Holy Spirit of promise and that Christ now resides in me. I receive the bread and wine (grape juice) in a commemoration of what he has done for me. I examine my heart, confess my shortcomings, release any anger towards my fellows and then consume the elements in a remembrance of him - just like he said we should. I do not believe that, by participating in this service, I am receiving grace or refreshed sanctification. I am already saved, sanctified, justified and made righteous by his blood shed for me on Calvary. There is no need to renew or relive or re-sacrifice as he died ONCE for ALL.
I think we get too caught up in the arguments about the bread and wine being or becoming the literal body and blood and miss the entire point of WHY it is done.
Well put.
I'm waiting for an answer to that, too. It is the most important question about the Eucharist in the Catholic Church beliefs.
"By the which will we are SANCTIFIED through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ ONCE FOR ALL...But this man, after he had offered ONE SACRIFICE FOR SINS FOREVER, sat down on the right hand of God...for by ONE OFFERING he hath perfected FOREVER them that are sanctified'. (Heb. 10:10,12,14).
If every time a Catholic sins, he fears separation from God, he is saying the death of Jesus Christ was not sufficient, and it becomes necessary for Him to die over and over again each and every time there is sin.
Hence the hideous nature of the Eucharist, whereby the body and blood of Christ becomes actual, every time the Eucharist is performed. Think about that. He only had to die ONCE for sin, FOREVER. The Catholic Church evidently thinks it's necessary for Him to die over and over. It's a perversion and a slap in the face of the FINISHED WORK OF CHRIST.
I'm going to say ,"No."
However, it is "ordinarily necessary" as is Baptism, though the 'ordo' is less comprehensive for receiving the host.
"Ordinarily" (and that's a VERY important word, it does not mean "frequently" or "usually". It pertains to "order") the best thing would be to be baptized and to be a practicing Catholic in good standing. Then if you croaked before reaching the age of reason sufficient to be admitted to communion, you would be appropriately sanctified. And if you through your own frowardness reached the age to be admitted and did not choose to be admitted and did not receive "Regularly" then there would clearly be some unfinished business between you and the body.
But then the shadings and the gradations come into play.
- It is meritorious merely to attend Mass piously.
- A "precept of the Church" is to receive at least once a year, preferably during Eastertide. But of course, most of those who have a priest handy receive more often than that.
The BIG family of gradations includes
- those, usually unknown, people who by grace undergo a deep conversion. This can be so profound that even the "Temporal penalty of sin"(TPOS) is removed. They might not ever make it to ANY church service of any kind.
- and while we're talking about the TPOS, we hold that for the average run of the mill indiwiddle sanctification is not completed without a tour in Purgatory.
- And finally there is the great class of "separated brethren" who because of upbringing, the lack of opportunity to converse with someone as downright fabulous as moi, and things of that kind have a half through misunderstanding half through, oh, social aversion etc. and half (we're generous) lack of the possibility of openness to us. They follow their conscience the best they can, and better than many. They pray, study the Bible and other pious books. They are moved by grace to want a closer walk with Jesus.
ALL OTHER THINGS BEING EQUAL, we hold they would have WAY more spiritual helps, consolations, insight,s blah blah if they took recourse to the Sacraments, but we're certainly not going to say that they are certainly and inevitably excluded from the Body.
In this connection, while I speak of my "converting" to Catholicism, that is incorrect. I "converted" when I was baptized. I "entered full communion" when I did all the stuff and kissed the Pope's toe and swam the Tiber ...
I trust I make myself obscure.