Pascal and Protestant hesitation

  • Thread starter Thread starter AlmostCatholic
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
However, you did not answer my question; what gives you the impression that the Catholic Church regards Protestants as often “saved?”
Cathecism 838 "The Church knows that she is joined in many ways to the baptized who are honored by the name of Christian, but do not profess the Catholic faith in its entirety or have not preserved unity or communion under the successor of Peter."322 Those "who believe in Christ and have been properly baptized are put in a certain, although imperfect, communion with the Catholic Church."323 With the Orthodox Churches, this communion is so profound "that it lacks little to attain the fullness that would permit a common celebration of the Lord’s Eucharist."324
 
As far as Pascals wager goes, it seems that Purgatory wins out, Saints are neutral, but transubstantiation loses.

Let me ask specificaly concerning transubstantiation; what is there to gain or to lose depending on belief? If it is the body and blood of Christ, that may be good to know and wonderful to adore, but does it take a part in salvation? As I understand it, Protestants can be and often are considered ‘saved’ according to the Catholic church. So if the true presence isn’t necessary to partake to be saved, then it is ok to be either catholic or protestant.

On the other hand, if it isn’t the body and blood of Christ, then Catholics are doing a very awful thing in adoring a piece of bread. This seems to say that much more can be lost than can be gained in beleiving in the real presence.
You have not factored in John 6:53 So Jesus said to them, "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood, you have no life in you

Who is the “you” in this passage? It is all those to whom the truth of the Eucharist, and the command to eat it, has been revealed. Those to whom this truth and this requirement has been revealed, and who still reject it, have no life in them. It doesn’t get any plainer than that.
 
You know Justin, Jesus didn’t specify a time limit on when we consume His body and blood. His words in John 6 are so clear.
6:53 Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink His blood, you have no life in you;

This is God saying “truly, truly”.

I have often thought about this, not just in regards to Protestants but baptized babies that die before receiving the Eucharist.
I think if you look closely at Christ’s words, the answer presents itself.

Jesus said to them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood, you have no life in you;
he who eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day.”


Notice how the second verse is not actually a reverse of the first. The first verse is aimed at “you”, while the second verse is aimed at “he” (that is, any person). Now Jesus certainly could have said something like “Unless a man eat the flesh…he has no life in him.” That would have been structurally identical to the second verse, and would have covered every single person any where, any time. But He did not say that. He did not say “unless a man” but “unless you”.

What’s the difference? The difference is that both of these verses are speaking only about those to whom the truth of the Eucharist are given. If one is given this truth, and rejects the Eucharist, they have no life in them. If one is given this truth and accept it, by eating His flesh and drinking His blood (worthily, as Paul adds later), they have eternal life.

Who’s left? Those to whom the truth of the Eucharist has not been revealed. Christ says nothing here about their eternal life or lack of it. So John 6 does not say that babies, pagans, etc. are damned. What it does say is that “to him whom much is given, from him much is expected” applies to the knowledge of the Eucharist. Having that knowledge makes one’s response to the Eucharist a life-or-death matter.
 
You have not factored in John 6:53 So Jesus said to them, "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood, you have no life in you

Who is the “you” in this passage? It is all those to whom the truth of the Eucharist, and the command to eat it, has been revealed. Those to whom this truth and this requirement has been revealed, and who still reject it, have no life in them. It doesn’t get any plainer than that.
I really think you have a valid point. Within Christendom, if I am wrong in thinking that Jesus is literally present but I am honestly seeking Christ, then I still get closer to Christ. But if I am right and I accept the presence of Christ in the Eucharist then I really get Christ. Either way, I win.

God Bless,

-Justin
 
Cathecism 838 "The Church knows that she is joined in many ways to the baptized who are honored by the name of Christian, but do not profess the Catholic faith in its entirety or have not preserved unity or communion under the successor of Peter."322 Those "who believe in Christ and have been properly baptized are put in a certain, although imperfect, communion with the Catholic Church."323 With the Orthodox Churches, this communion is so profound "that it lacks little to attain the fullness that would permit a common celebration of the Lord’s Eucharist."324
Dear Justin:

The Scripture says: “Again the kingdom of heaven is like to a net cast into the sea, and gathering together of all kind of fishes. Which, when it was filled, they drew out, and sitting by the shore, they chose out the good into vessels, but the bad they cast forth. So shall it be at the end of the world. The angels shall go out, and shall separate the wicked from among the just. And shall cast them into the furnace of fire: there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth.” Matthew 13:47-50 (Douay-Rheims 1899 American Edition.)

A “certain, although imperfect, communion with the Catholic Church” is not equivalent to a view that a person is or will be “saved.”

Your “wagers” may be assuming a very over-estimated winner’s circle.

Spiritus Sapientiae tecum.

John Hiner
 
I think if you look closely at Christ’s words, the answer presents itself.

Jesus said to them, "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood, you have no life in you;
he who eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day."

Notice how the second verse is not actually a reverse of the first. The first verse is aimed at “you”, while the second verse is aimed at “he” (that is, any person). Now Jesus certainly could have said something like “Unless a man eat the flesh…he has no life in him.” That would have been structurally identical to the second verse, and would have covered every single person any where, any time. But He did not say that. He did not say “unless a man” but “unless you”.

What’s the difference? The difference is that both of these verses are speaking only about those to whom the truth of the Eucharist are given. If one is given this truth, and rejects the Eucharist, they have no life in them. If one is given this truth and accept it, by eating His flesh and drinking His blood (worthily, as Paul adds later), they have eternal life.

Who’s left? Those to whom the truth of the Eucharist has not been revealed. Christ says nothing here about their eternal life or lack of it. So John 6 does not say that babies, pagans, etc. are damned. What it does say is that “to him whom much is given, from him much is expected” applies to the knowledge of the Eucharist. Having that knowledge makes one’s response to the Eucharist a life-or-death matter.
That makes perfect sense.

May I ask what it means to take the body unworthily? And what would the church say is needed to rectify taking the body unworthily?

God Bless,

-Justin
 
Dear Justin:

The Scripture says: “Again the kingdom of heaven is like to a net cast into the sea, and gathering together of all kind of fishes. Which, when it was filled, they drew out, and sitting by the shore, they chose out the good into vessels, but the bad they cast forth. So shall it be at the end of the world. The angels shall go out, and shall separate the wicked from among the just. And shall cast them into the furnace of fire: there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth.” Matthew 13:47-50 (Douay-Rheims 1899 American Edition.)

A “certain, although imperfect, communion with the Catholic Church” is not equivalent to a view that a person is or will be “saved.”

Your “wagers” may be assuming a very over-estimated winner’s circle.

Spiritus Sapientiae tecum.

John Hiner
I don’t know about that. The parable doesn’t imply the church, but rather the judgement. The Church seems to say that those who are following Christ are a part of the church, they just don’t know it: whether one is a protestant or even a pagan. And I grant that there are those who say to Christ Lord, Lord, to whom he says " I never knew you" But again, I think the analogy of the body is more like the church.

The verse that someone mentioned earlier that says that we are judged according to the knowledge we are given; and that to whom much is given much is required (Luke 12:48) seems to say that those outside of this question are still given some chance to find Christ. I think the question for those -in regard to their choices- is of seeking christ or anti-christ. Every decision we make is either in favor of Christ or Anti-Christ (selfishness, pride, power, etc.), even if you don’t know who Christ is per se.

I think that this is true for many protestants. They are seeking Christ and when they discover that He is the most present in the Catholic church, they will go there. Like Peter Kreeft says, when we (as protestants) see how Christocentric every doctrine of the RCC is, we will go there. But the correlary is that the RCC must present it to us. The church must regain its focus on Christ and be more evangelical than evangelicals. More fundamentally focused on Christ than fundamentalists! This is the only way the church will reunite. Feed the sheep and we will come!

Forgive my rambling and God Bless

-Justin
 
So to get back to my question which isn’t very clear…
What if, for those who do not have the chance to take communion, might it be that in that afterlife moment of limbo, they can really imbibe Christ in the fullest way. without even the symbolic aspect of the eucharist. This is also speculation. When it comes to those who aren’t given much of a chance, I don’t have a lot of answers, but I do think the catholic church has the most sensible answers, from what I’ve read in the Cathechism.

God Bless

-Justin
Maybe this will help and I just thought of it. When you are in heaven you are partaking of this mystery

Those in heaven are partaking in this feast.
But God alows us to take part of it right now. That is why John when he is call up on the lords day (more than likely it was at mass) he sees the Lamb as if slain. He sees everything we see at mass

We “lift up our hearts” to heaven and are, in a real sense, “caught up in spirit” and taken into a liturgy that’s always going on in heaven (see Revelation 4:2).

That’s what was revealed to the Apostle John in the Bible’s last book. In fact, it’s the Mass that makes sense of the puzzling, and often frightening visions and symbols of Revelation.

What’s revealed to John is that the Mass we celebrate on earth is a participation in the liturgy of heaven.

John’s vision begins on “the Lord’s day,” Sunday (see Revelation 1:10) - the name the first Christians gave to the first day of the week, upon which they celebrated “the breaking of the bread” (see Acts 20:7; Luke 24:1).

John is “caught up in spirit on the Lord’s Day.” In other words, possibly while celebrating the Eucharist himself, John is taken to heaven.

And John sees the same things we see when we come to Mass.
He sees an altar (see Revelation 8:3); candles (1:12); incense (5:8); priests dressed in robes (4:4). And he sees bread or manna (2:17), and bowls or chalices of blood (see Revelation 16).

He sees heavenly worshippers – angels and saints – crying, “Holy, Holy, Holy” (4:8), singing a hymn to the glory of God, the heavenly king (15:3) and shouting “alleluia” (19:1,3,6) and making the sing of the cross on their foreheads (14:1).

There are readings from Scripture (Revelation 2-3), and, finally, the “wedding feast of the Lamb” (19:9).

With the Angels and Saints

John is invited to “come up here” (see Revelation 4:1). And we are invited to come up to heaven, as well – to lift up our hearts - at the beginning of our Liturgy of the Eucharist.

When we lift up our hearts, we are asked to sing with the angels and saints.

This is not simply a fine expression of sentiment. As with everything else in the Mass, there is a “sacramental realism” at work here.

At this point in the Mass, we are in a mysterious way joining our song to the song that John – and the prophet Isaiah before him – heard in heaven: “Holy, holy, holy . . .” (see Revelation 4:8; Isaiah 6:3).

The second part of our song ("Blessed is he . . . ") is taken from the Psalm that pilgrims to Jerusalem would sing at Passover. It was also the psalm that was sung upon Christ’s triumphal entry to Jerusalem (see Mark 11:10; Psalm 118:26).

The biblical words give us clues to what’s going on in the Mass. We have gathered around the altar – not only an earthly altar, but a heavenly altar as well. We have made our way to Mount Zion, the new and heavenly Jerusalem.

This is what John saw – “the Lamb standing on Mount Zion” (see Revelation 14:1).

The Letter to the Hebrews (see Hebrews 12:22-24) likewise speaks of the Eucharistic celebration on earth as entrance into and participation in the heavenly liturgy in the new Jerusalem.

In the Mass, says Hebrews, we approach “Mount Zion, the city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem.” There, we join “countless angels” and “the assembly of the firstborn” and Jesus, “mediator of the new covenant and the sprinkled blood” in a “festal gathering” or feast.

And notice the similarities between Hebrews’ description of the Mass and John’s Revelation. Both see a new Jerusalem, a new Zion, the dwelling place of the Lord (see Psalm 132:13-14). Both see angels and Jesus, the Lamb whose blood takes away the sin of the world. And both see a “feast” and a gathering of “firstborn” or “firstfruits” of those who believe in Jesus (see Revelation 14:4). And both see in this feast in the temple of heaven a sign of the new covenant wrought in the blood of Jesus (see Revelation 11:19)

What these Scriptures show us is that the Mass is the summit of salvation history told in Scripture.

And this is the same thing that the prayers of the Mass tell us.

This wedding feast of the lamb is when everyone will partake of this feast and everyone will have life but we can have it all right now.
 
Hello Almost,

Not to be a wet blanket here, but I think that the entire idea of Pascal’s Wager is extreemly offensive. Basically what you are saying is that the only thing you want from God is a ticket on the Pearly Gates Express. So you’re going to hedge and go with the “safer” option to make sure you get one. Saying, "I’ll believe x rather than y because x is “safer” is like giving your mother a kiss only because you want her to cook you your favorite dinner.

I’m not trying to be condesending when I say this, but you have an awful lot to learn about the Catholic faith. The Catholic faith is not about you and your ticket on the Pearly Gates Express, ok. It’s about loving God and following Christ where ever he leads, whatever it costs. Even if it doesn’t feel “safe.” Remember Jesus’s words to Peter?
The Gospel According to John
Chapter 21
18 Amen, amen, I say to you, when you were younger, you used to dress yourself and go where you wanted; but when you grow old, you will stretch out your hands, and someone else will dress you and lead you where you do not want to go."
19 He said this signifying by what kind of death he would glorify God. And when he had said this, he said to him, “Follow me.”
You say that you are “Almost Catholic.” That tells me that God is calling you. That tells me that where ever you are right now Jesus is calling you in a new direction. Maybe Jesus is calling for you to stretch out your hands, and be led where you do not want to go. Jesus is looking you in the eye and saying, “Follow me.” Then, rather than following the Lord without counting the costs, you stand there playing a thought game you learned in Philosophy 201.

Being a disciple of Jesus, particularly a Catholic disciple, is about many things. It’s about faith. It’s about love. It’s about trust. It’s about going where your called no matter the cost. It’s about building the Kingdom of God. It is not about being “safe,” and it is not about your ticket to heaven.

Good luck with your search. Trust Jesus. Trust his Church. They won’t lead you astray. Pascal? Leave him where you found him.
 
I don’t know about that. The parable doesn’t imply the church, but rather the judgement.
Dear Justin:

Catechism of the Catholic Church 567 The kingdom of heaven was inaugurated on earth by Christ. “This kingdom shone out before men in the word, in the works and in the presence of Christ” (LG 5). **The Church is the seed and beginning of this kingdom. **Its keys are entrusted to Peter.

763 It was the Son’s task to accomplish the Father’s plan of salvation in the fullness of time. Its accomplishment was the reason for his being sent. “The Lord Jesus inaugurated his Church by preaching the Good News, that is, the coming of the Reign of God, promised over the ages in the scriptures.” To fulfill the Father’s will, Christ ushered in the Kingdom of heaven on earth. The Church "is the Reign of Christ already present in mystery."

The parable of the good and bad fish refers to the Catholic Church. Its import is that not all members of the Church will be saved. This is obvious to anyone who knows the Church Militant as made up of sinners.

“Enter ye in at the narrow gate: for wide is the gate, and broad is the way that leadeth to destruction, and many there are who go in thereat. How narrow is the gate, and strait is the way that leadeth to life: and few there are that find it!" Matthew 7:13-14 (Douay-Rheims 1899 American Edition.)

One of the great advantages that the Church has over many Protestant groups is the Book of the Church (Sirach or Ecclesiasticus): “Be not without fear about sin forgiven, and add not sin upon sin: And say not: The mercy of the Lord is great, he will have mercy on the multitude of my sins. For mercy and wrath quickly come from him, and his wrath looketh upon sinners. Delay not to be converted to the Lord, and defer it not from day to day. For his wrath shall come on a sudden, and in the time of vengeance he will destroy thee." Sirach 5:5-9 (Douay-Rheims 1899 American Edition.)

Presumption that one is to be saved is not a Catholic attitude. “V. Pray for us, O Holy Mother of God. R. That we may be made worthy of the promises of Christ." ““Holy Mary, Mother of God, pray for us sinners, now, and in the hour of our death.”

The Church does not teach that being a member of the Church is a sign of salvation: “And I do all things for the gospel’s sake: that I may be made partaker thereof. Know you not that they that run in the race, all run indeed, but one receiveth the prize ? So run that you may obtain. And every one that striveth for the mastery, refraineth himself from all things: and they indeed that they may receive a corruptible crown; but we an incorruptible one. I therefore so run, not as at an uncertainty: I so fight, not as one beating the air: But I chastise my body, and bring it into subjection: lest perhaps, when I have preached to others, I myself should become a castaway." 1 Corinthians 9:23-37 (Douay-Rheims 1899 American Edition.)

Spiritus Sapientiae nobiscum.

John Hiner
 
Hello Almost,

Not to be a wet blanket here, but I think that the entire idea of Pascal’s Wager is extreemly offensive. Basically what you are saying is that the only thing you want from God is a ticket on the Pearly Gates Express. So you’re going to hedge and go with the “safer” option to make sure you get one. Saying, "I’ll believe x rather than y because x is “safer” is like giving your mother a kiss only because you want her to cook you your favorite dinner.

I’m not trying to be condesending when I say this, but you have an awful lot to learn about the Catholic faith. The Catholic faith is not about you and your ticket on the Pearly Gates Express, ok. It’s about loving God and following Christ where ever he leads, whatever it costs. Even if it doesn’t feel “safe.” .
Please don’t misunderstand me or the argument. I think of Pascal’s wager as a mental excercise. It isn’t meant to apeal to the best intentions in a person. It is just a simple argument, and a very crude starting point.

In my search I have not based my philosophy on Pascal’s wager, but it is a very good tool for developing thoughts on issues. I believe that there really is some depth to the catholic church that is worth exploring and Pascal’s idea helps me to explore that.

If we use this as an apologetic tool to convince people that at the least, God is a safe bet, well, maybe they aren’t the best of motives, but what can we do? Shall we wait to come to God when we have a pure Kantian duty that we follow? Who will ever be saved? No, God stoops to conquer. He will bring himself down to meet even the most reluctant convert, or those who convert for mean reasons.

God Bless

-Justin
 
i wonder if the eucharist is like this. Like the pascal lamb it is a symbol of faith and a real protection from the angel of death, but it is also a symbol of Christ. And the bread is the symbol of christ and it is Christ, and represents our partaking of His divine nature and it really is the partaking. I think that this makes the issue so much fuller and it truly compels me towards catholicism.

-Justin
Regarding the relationship between the symbolism and the reality of the Eucharist:

The bread and wine of the Eucharist really is Our Lord, His body and blood. That is a reality.

But, it is also true that Jesus chose to use bread and wine to make this reality present. He also chose to allow the “accidents” of bread and wine to remain (taste,color,texture,etc.) even tho the real “substance” is no longer that of bread and wine. WHY? That is where grasping the symbolism of the materials (bread and wine) starts to enhance the understanding He wants us to receive concerning the Sacrament. Why bread and wine?? What is it about those two things that appropriately symbolize Our Lord?? His purpose in giving us such a wonderful gift?? etc. etc. Pondering these questions lead to beautiful insights into the love of Our Lord for us.

It is absolutely wonderful when one’s faith is so real that to go sit before the tabernacle is just like going to Jesus’ house and sitting and talking with Him. He’s as real in the tabernacle as He was sitting at table in Capernaum. “Lo I am with you always, to the close of the age.” (Mt. 28:20)

Nita
 
That makes perfect sense.

May I ask what it means to take the body unworthily?
If you had sinned mortally since the time of your Baptism or the time of your last good Confession, you would be receiving the Body in an unworthy manner.
And what would the church say is needed to rectify taking the body unworthily?
Attend the Sacrament of Reconciliation (go to Confession) beforehand, and be absolved of all of your sins.
 
If you had sinned mortally since the time of your Baptism or the time of your last good Confession, you would be receiving the Body in an unworthy manner.

Attend the Sacrament of Reconciliation (go to Confession) beforehand, and be absolved of all of your sins.
Let me add that you should also believe that it is truly the body of Christ when you receive it.
 
Let me add that you should also believe that it is truly the body of Christ when you receive it.
The primary meaning of discerning the Body of the Lord is to recognize the Real Presence under the appearance of the bread and wine. A secondary but also important meaning is to discern the Mystical Body of Christ in the Catholic Church. One must be in actual communion with the Church, which is all of those united with the Bishops in communion with the Pope, the souls in Purgatory and the Saints in Heaven, in unity with the Trinity. One must discern this Mystical Body and realize oneself to be a member of it in order to eat and drink the Eucharist worthily.

By “full, conscious, and active participation” in the Eucharistic prayer, we offer ourselves fully to the Trinity and recommit ourselves to God’s service. Each time we accept Communion we reaffirm our unity with the actual, visible, Catholic Church. This is why it is so dangerous for “dissenters,” those consciously in sin, and those who are separated from the Catholic Church to eat or drink Communion.

Pax Christi nobiscum.

John Hiner
 
Let me add that you should also believe that it is truly the body of Christ when you receive it.
This can’t be a hard and fast requirement, since infants receive the Eucharist in valid Eastern Rite Catholic Churches, as their tradition always has been.

I think a better way to phrase it would be, “You should also not disbelieve that it is truly the body of Christ when you receive it.”

Jeremy
 
This can’t be a hard and fast requirement, since infants receive the Eucharist in valid Eastern Rite Catholic Churches, as their tradition always has been.

I think a better way to phrase it would be, “You should also not disbelieve that it is truly the body of Christ when you receive it.”

Jeremy
I think I agree your phrasing is better
 
I have a little something to add in response to your original post. Once, a mother wrote to C. S. Lewis. She was very concerned about the state of her son’s soul. Why? Because the boy said that he loved Aslan more than he loved Jesus. C. S. Lewis wrote back and said not to worry

*“Tell Laurence from me, with my love,” Lewis wrote in a detailed letter, “ … [He] can’t really love Aslan more than Jesus, even if he feels that’s what he is doing. For the things he loves Aslan for doing or saying are simply the things Jesus really did and said. So that when Laurence thinks he is loving Aslan, he is really loving Jesus: and perhaps loving Him more than he ever did before. … I don’t think he need be bothered at all. God knows all about the way a little boy’s imagination works (He made it, after all) … .” *

I believe the same would hold true for a good Catholic who really loved Jesus, but died and found out that the Blessed Sacrament was an invention (which I do not believe!!!) - he would find that it was Jesus he had loved all along, even if it was an unintended image. So I think that would take your wager back to neutral 🙂
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top