Is receiving Communion a requirement for gaining Eternal Life?

[Tcg]

.
Catholics place emphasis on the ritual known as Mass. It includes receiving the Eucharist, also known as Communion, where participants eat the body of Christ and drink his blood. Protestants also practice Communion thought they don't teach that it involves the actual blood and body of Christ. Some refer to it as the Lord's Supper.

This practice has been in the news recently as Pope Francis has suggested Biden continue to receive communion even though he is Pro-Choice. This has of course created quite a stir amongst the primarily Pro-Life Catholics. This caused me to wonder why Communion is so important to both Catholics and Protestants.

Is receiving Communion a requirement for gaining eternal life?

If not, why is so much emphasis placed on the practice?


Tcg

[1213]

Sorry, I don't think I said it is not a gift.

You stated this, "Bible tells eternal life is for righteous." You've got to pick one or the other.

Yes, eternal life is for righteous, as it is the gift for them. I don't think I said at any point that it is something else than a gift.

[JoeyKnothead]

"Jesus is the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost."

"Now in an ingestible cracker form."

Religion.

[brunumb]

"Jesus is the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost."

"Now in an ingestible cracker form."

Religion.

And it comes in many different varieties. Plain, wholemeal, multigrain, gluten free, high fibre, low salt, low GI, kosher,......
Just like religion.

[historia]

In as much as I don't believe it's ever mentioned in the Bible, I don't see how it could be

The Bread of Life discourse in John 6 is considered the key biblical text here.

A Google search on "Catholic Mass" leads to results that include daily masses available on YouTube, through Catholic TV, and various streaming options. I'm not sure if one provides their own crackers and juice for these viewings

No, that's not a thing. Many churches do take the consecrated host to parishioners who are unable to attend the mass in-person, though.

The Catholic Church doesn't allow gluten-free bread to be used for communion and will do no more for those with an allergic reaction than using bread with a reduced amount of gluten.

An option for someone who is severely gluten intolerant is to only receive the wine. Conversely, someone who has issues with alcohol could only receive the bread. For Roman Catholics, Christ's body and blood (and soul and divinity) are present in whole under each species (see CCC 1390), so taking either the bread or the wine alone is sufficient for receiving communion.

The CC has asserted that wheat bread has to be used and that it must contain a certain amount of gluten in order to be proper wheat bread. That would logically make gluten part of the substance of wheat bread, but when the gluten isn't transubstantiated they turn around and label it an "accidental" substance within the bread. It seems to me that they're trying to have it both ways.

We've been over this already, but it seems to me you're confusing categories here.

[historia]

Amongst all these groups, do you know how many, if any, consider receiving the Eucharist a requirement for gaining eternal life?

The Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox churches generally consider the Eucharist to be a requirement.

But for Roman Catholics, in particular, it's not a hard requirement, for two reasons: (a) children growing up in the (Latin rite) Roman Catholic Church typically don't receive communion until they are eight years old, so its not required before then, and (b) As Aquinas notes, and the Catechism states (CCC 1257), God is "not bound by his sacraments," and so can bring about salvation in a "way known to God."

[Athetotheist]

In as much as I don't believe it's ever mentioned in the Bible, I don't see how it could be

The Bread of Life discourse in John 6 is considered the key biblical text here.

A Google search on "Catholic Mass" leads to results that include daily masses available on YouTube, through Catholic TV, and various streaming options. I'm not sure if one provides their own crackers and juice for these viewings

No, that's not a thing. Many churches do take the consecrated host to parishioners who are unable to attend the mass in-person, though.

The Catholic Church doesn't allow gluten-free bread to be used for communion and will do no more for those with an allergic reaction than using bread with a reduced amount of gluten.

An option for someone who is severely gluten intolerant is to only receive the wine. Conversely, someone who has issues with alcohol could only receive the bread. For Roman Catholics, Christ's body and blood (and soul and divinity) are present in whole under each species (see CCC 1390), so taking either the bread or the wine alone is sufficient for receiving communion.

The CC has asserted that wheat bread has to be used and that it must contain a certain amount of gluten in order to be proper wheat bread. That would logically make gluten part of the substance of wheat bread, but when the gluten isn't transubstantiated they turn around and label it an "accidental" substance within the bread. It seems to me that they're trying to have it both ways.

We've been over this already, but it seems to me you're confusing categories here.

We have indeed been over it, and my last question still stands. How does a miracle which makes no discernable change---in this case, transubstantiation---qualify as miraculous?

I don't think I'm confusing anything. I'm interpreting the doctrine of transubstantiation literally, since transubstantiation is supposed to make bread and wine into the literal body and blood of Jesus.

[brunumb]

I don't think I'm confusing anything. I'm interpreting the doctrine of transubstantiation literally, since transubstantiation is supposed to make bread and wine into the literal body and blood of Jesus.

Maybe it only happens after you swallow.

[historia]

How does a miracle which makes no discernable change---in this case, transubstantiation---qualify as miraculous?

The Catholic Encyclopedia (1917) article on miracles explains this succinctly:

Thus, though the works of Divine grace, such as the Sacramental Presence, are above the power of nature, and due to God alone, they may be called miraculous only in the wide meaning of the term, i.e., as supernatural effects, but they are not miracles in the sense here understood, for miracles in the strict sense are apparent.

Your second question:

I don't think I'm confusing anything. I'm interpreting the doctrine of transubstantiation literally, since transubstantiation is supposed to make bread and wine into the literal body and blood of Jesus.

You're confusing how that happens, though. The doctrine of transubstantiation clearly states that the metaphysical "substance" becomes the body and blood of Christ, while the physical attributes ("accidents") remain the same.

In so far as you are using terms like "accidental substance" you are literally con-fusing categories.

[Athetotheist]

[Replying to historia in post #38]

The doctrine of transubstantiation clearly states that the metaphysical "substance" becomes the body and blood of Christ, while the physical attributes ("accidents") remain the same.

So transubstantiation is metaphysical, and not physical?

[Tcg]

[Replying to historia in post #38]

The doctrine of transubstantiation clearly states that the metaphysical "substance" becomes the body and blood of Christ, while the physical attributes ("accidents") remain the same.

So transubstantiation is metaphysical, and not physical?

That's a good question. I have to wonder what the term, "metaphysical substance" even means.


Tcg