What Happens To Protestants That Don't Receive The Eucharist?

[Gorgias]

Who makes the distinction between what is a prudential judgement and what is a pronouncement on faith and morals?

The Church. She declares doctrine and dogma.

Regardless, I would say that there’s overlap between the two. The change in the doctrine on Capital Punishment comes to mind.

No overlap. And, there hasn’t been a “change in the doctrine on capital punishment.” Rather, recent popes have made assertions about what is reasonable behavior in the current era. This doesn’t imply that the previous doctrinal statements are nullified. And, to be honest, if the cultural situation were to change dramatically, capital punishment might again become acceptable. (I don’t see it happening, of course, but nevertheless…)

And so, if a teaching relies on a contextual interpretation of a certain time, place and situation - is it a teaching on faith and morals, or is it a prudential judgement?

In every era, there are particular contexts in which people live. There are particular modes of expression, which are understood by those alive in those times and places.

But, as those eras pass, and the farther one gets from those times and places, those modes of expression change. The contexts which gave rise to those modes wane. And new modes of expression take their place.

And therefore, although the truths of doctrine do not change, the modes of expressing them do. The teachings of faith and morals remain; they do not become “prudential judgment.” They are expressed in a way that retain the truth in the original statements of doctrine; but they’re expressed in a way understandable to those of subsequent contexts. The teaching remains, although the contexts vary by time and culture.

Is this the dynamic you’re talking about?

The “gates of hell” verse from scripture simply means that the Church will not be destroyed.

Well… that’s your opinion. Why do you think that this is the case? How would you substantiate your opinion of this interpretation?

It doesn’t have anything to do with the Church’s proclamation of how it’s own teachings on faith and morals are infallible.

Again, your personal opinion. Moreover, it’s in conflict with the Church’s interpretation. Why hold to yours over the Church’s?

And, the teaching on infallibility doesn’t seem to be an infallible teaching.

Not sure how you’re coming to that conclusion.

 

[ConcernedConvert]

Are saved and may be saved are different things. One should not rest in a false assurance that they are fine outside of the church.

What "No Salvation Outside the Church" Means | Catholic Answers Magazine

 

[njlisa]

@ConcernedConvert

Being a Catholic is no assurance of salvation either. If one dies in a state of mortal sin, he is forever separated from God. That’s why we need the sacraments to remain in a state of grace. That’s why we pray for a good death.

Individual interpretation of the Scripture doesn’t trump the Catechism. As Catholics, we rely on the Church’s teachings about Scripture.

The salvation of Protestants, as stated above, “derives from the fullness of grace and truth that Christ
has entrusted to the Catholic Church. All these blessings come from Christ and lead to him, and are in themselves calls to ‘Catholic unity.’”

So, salvation comes through the Church.

 

[ConcernedConvert]

I guess I am confused how you jump from (calls to catholic unity) to there is salvation outside of the church. The Protestant Church does derive from the truths of the Catholic Church, but no longer has these truths, they walked away from these truths and the unity of the Catholic Church. They might have some of them, few do in today’s non denominational movement, but they do not and cannot have them all outside of the Catholic Church.
Just from a simply logical view, what would be the purpose of leaving a church, one with the protection of the Holy Spirit, to lead souls to Christ, if any which way on Sunday also led souls to Christ? Christ left A church. He left ideas and philosophies about the world within that one church. He did not simply just leave ideas and philosophies without the physical structure of that church.

 

[njlisa]

@ConcernedConvert

I called for nothing. I cited the Catechism. I think we’re stuck. So I’m bowing out this conversation.
God bless you.

 

[RaisedCatholic]

John chapter 6 is very clear. So what happens to them in the end? Will they still go to Heaven without the Eucharist while still trying to live a good Christian life?

Excellent question. I was just thinking, what if “anyone” doesn’t take the Eucharist? If Jesus is talking about Transubstantiation in John 6, then He is saying “UNLESS you eat My flesh & drink My blood, you have NO LIFE in you.” The word “UNLESS” means this is the only way to “have life in you.” So, if anyone - a Protestant, Catholic, or anyone else - doesn’t take the Eucharist, then would they go to Hell? Would this include babies, since Jesus said “UNLESS”? If not, that would seem to conflict with the words of Jesus when He said “UNLESS.”

 

[1Lord1Faith]

The Church. She declares doctrine and dogma.

Of course she does… And she does this by the language she uses to characterize the teaching, and the type of document that the teaching is promulgated within. So, the process of characterization of a teaching should be formulaic, and it’s due assent would then be obvious and unquestionable. Isn’t that how it works.

Since there is no attempt by the Pope to actually label a teaching “dogma” or “infallible” or “prudential” - who makes the distinction between what is a prudential judgement and what is a pronouncement on faith and morals?

No overlap. And, there hasn’t been a “change in the doctrine on capital punishment.”

Well, that settles it.

The contexts which gave rise to those modes wane. And new modes of expression take their place.

“modes”?? What mode of expression was Unam Sanctum written in that’s different from the mode of expression that Lumen Gentium was written in?

Again, your personal opinion. Moreover, it’s in conflict with the Church’s interpretation.

The CCC doesn’t use “gates of hell” as a scriptural justification for pronouncing doctrinal judgements:

Simon Peter holds the first place in the college of the Twelve;283 Jesus entrusted a unique mission to him. Through a revelation from the Father, Peter had confessed: “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.” Our Lord then declared to him: "You are Peter, and on this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of Hades will not prevail against it."284 Christ, the “living Stone”,285 thus assures his Church, built on Peter, of victory over the powers of death. Because of the faith he confessed Peter will remain the unshakable rock of the Church. His mission will be to keep this faith from every lapse and to strengthen his brothers in it.286

553 Jesus entrusted a specific authority to Peter: "I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven."287 The “power of the keys” designates authority to govern the house of God, which is the Church. Jesus, the Good Shepherd, confirmed this mandate after his Resurrection: "Feed my sheep."288 The power to “bind and loose” connotes the authority to absolve sins, to pronounce doctrinal judgments, and to make disciplinary decisions in the Church. Jesus entrusted this authority to the Church through the ministry of the apostles289 and in particular through the ministry of Peter, the only one to whom he specifically entrusted the keys of the kingdom.

Not sure how you’re coming to that conclusion.

Given the consistent messages in scripture of humility, penance, and shepherding - it’s a reasonable conclusion.

 

[Gorgias]

Since there is no attempt by the Pope to actually label a teaching “dogma” or “infallible” or “prudential”

You’re contradicting yourself, aren’t you? You just said that the Church does that precise thing (in other words, through the magisterium)!

Well, that settles it.

LOL! Seriously, though: although some have tried to make that assertion, others have explained that this is not the case. Moreover, the Church hasn’t identified it as a change in doctrine.

“modes”?? What mode of expression was Unam Sanctum written in that’s different from the mode of expression that Lumen Gentium was written in?

Forms of language and expression.

The CCC doesn’t use “gates of hell” as a scriptural justification for pronouncing doctrinal judgements:

Sure it does, and you’ve just quoted it! “[Peter’s (i.e., the Church’s)] mission will be to keep this faith from every lapse”…! Right there in the context of the very Scripture quote you’re claiming isn’t interpreted in that way!

Given the consistent messages in scripture of humility, penance, and shepherding - it’s a reasonable conclusion.

OK, then: demonstrate the conclusion and its rationale, rather than just alluding to it…

 

[1Lord1Faith]

You’re contradicting yourself, aren’t you?

I wasn’t clear enough in my language (you see how this causes a problem). I meant a literal label, or a literal definition of any teaching using those words to define it. As in - “This teaching is a prudential judgment” or “This is an infallible statement”.

So, again, how do we tell the difference between prudential judgments and solemn proclamations on faith and morals?

Moreover, the Church hasn’t identified it as a change in doctrine.

Has the Church identified it as something else. Perhaps a “development of doctrine”?

As I said before, the Church doesn’t label (literally label) teachings, or “developments” of teaching, as anything. She just teaches, and it’s up to the sensus fidelium to solidify the teaching.

Forms of language and expression.

You mean Latin, the dead language?

Peter’s (i.e., the Church’s)] mission will be to keep this faith from every lapse”…!

I think we need to look at what is meant by “this faith”. It’s antecedent is in the sentence before which says

Peter had confessed: “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.… Because of the faith he confessed Peter…

So, it’s a rather simple definition of faith. I don’t believe it includes the pronouncement of doctrinal judgements, which is found in the next paragraph along with a different scripture verse.

OK, then: demonstrate the conclusion and its rationale, rather than just alluding to it…

I’m not sure how I could demonstrate the circular reasoning of infallibility if you simply don’t accept the logic behind why circular reasoning isn’t reasoning at all.

I already said why I think it was a bad idea for the Church to define such a doctrine in the first place. But I could go on. For example, the doctrine simply causes confusion, confusion in its consequences for the faithful and for those outside of the Church as well.

 

[Gorgias]

So, again, how do we tell the difference between prudential judgments and solemn proclamations on faith and morals?

I hate using Wiki as a source, but I didn’t feel like typing in the whole explanation. See this Wiki article, and in particular, the section entitled “Conditions for teachings being declared infallible”. What it boils down to is that there is a certain formulaic way of making the assertion that doctrine is being declared. Before the First Vatican Council, we would look at the way that the pope (or council) wrote their assertions, and glean from them whether they were implying that this was a doctrinal teaching.

Has the Church identified it as something else. Perhaps a “development of doctrine”?

That might be one way of looking at it. We could certainly say that this is what JPII did, in his revision to the CCC with respect to capital punishment. The way he framed it up was “look… it’s been seen as moral in certain situations, but we cannot see how those situations exist today. So: moral in the objective sense, but not moral in the subjective situation of the present day.”

That’s what “development of doctrine” really is – it doesn’t change the doctrine, although it might nuance it.

As I said before, the Church doesn’t label (literally label) teachings, or “developments” of teaching, as anything.

She really does. After you’ve read the Wiki article, it would be interesting to learn whether your perspective has changed.

it’s up to the sensus fidelium to solidify the teaching.

Umm… no? The faithful don’t determine teaching or modify it. That’s a rather recent (circa 1970’s or so) attempt to co-opt the term “sensus fidelium” and change what it means. The document Sensus fidei in the Life of the Church discusses the way the sensus fidei fidelium operates (see chapter 3, section 2, starting at paragraph 74):

• The magisterium listens to the sensus fidelium
• The magisterium nurtures, discerns and judges the sensus fidelium
• Reception

It’s not that the faithful change the teaching; but, it is the case that, if the faithful aren’t receptive to the teaching, then the magisterium may reformulate the particular expression of the teaching, to make its essence more clearly known (and, one hopes, to be accepted).

You mean Latin, the dead language?

No, although choice of language certainly matters, since it drives modes of expression. I’m talking about the way language is used, and what particular expressions exist in a distinct time and place.

 

[Gorgias]

I’m not sure how I could demonstrate the circular reasoning of infallibility if you simply don’t accept the logic behind why circular reasoning isn’t reasoning at all.

Circular reasoning is fallacious. I don’t think that the notion of infallibility is circular, though. I think that it can be presented as if it were, but then I would take up the logical errors in the presentation.

So… why do you say that the rationale of infallible teaching is circular reasoning? Or, to your original assertion: why do you believe that the teaching of infallibility is itself not infallible?

 

[1Lord1Faith]

She really does. After you’ve read the Wiki article, it would be interesting to learn whether your perspective has changed.

If she did, it wouldn’t be left up to the Church, and consequently the sensus fidelium, to discern which teachings require which kind of assent. There is actually a footnote in the Wiki article about that.

LG 12: “judgment as to their genuinity and proper use belongs to those who are appointed leaders in the Church, to whose special competence it belongs, not indeed to extinguish the Spirit, but to test all things and hold fast to that which is good (cf. 1 Ts 5:12 and 19-21)”.

The faithful don’t determine teaching or modify it.

The “faithful” includes bishops doesn’t it?

I’m talking about the way language is used, and what particular expressions exist in a distinct time and place.

This may be true for scripture, but it seems to be a stretch to apply it to Church documents written in Latin.

why do you believe that the teaching of infallibility is itself not infallible?

According to the Church it’s an infallible teaching. According to me, it’s poor form.

I really don’t have any problem with thinking that certain teachings are completely free from error. And even defining the guidelines for infallibility by setting up goal posts seems fine. But declaring the goal posts to be infallible is just circular reasoning. It just takes the intellectual honesty out of it.

 

[Gorgias]

If she did, it wouldn’t be left up to the Church, and consequently the sensus fidelium, to discern which teachings require which kind of assent.

The laity don’t determine “which kind of assent” a particular teaching requires. The Church provides that guidance.

There is actually a footnote in the Wiki article about that.

You realize that this footnote (from Lumen gentium) is talking about the “leaders in the Church” (i.e., the magisterium), not the faithful who receive the teachings… right?

The “faithful” includes bishops doesn’t it?

the lay faithful. Better?

This may be true for scripture, but it seems to be a stretch to apply it to Church documents written in Latin.

Really? Have you ever read a Latin document from the 12th century? For that matter, have you ever read an English translation of a 12th century document? The style and manner of speech is extremely different than that of the present day!

According to me, it’s poor form.

Wow. You’re just not going to attempt to substantiate any of your claims, are you? OK, then… I’ve got some Latin for you (I hope its mode of expression isn’t unclear!): “quod gratis asseritur, gratis negatur”.

And even defining the guidelines for infallibility by setting up goal posts seems fine. But declaring the goal posts to be infallible is just circular reasoning. It just takes the intellectual honesty out of it.

If I’m understanding you correctly… then that doesn’t make any sense. You’re saying that you’re OK with the Church identifying what an infallible teaching is… but you’re not OK with them subsequently following those guidelines and actually pronouncing an infallible teaching?!?

 

[1Lord1Faith]

The term sensus fidelium includes priests and bishops, as well as the lay faithful. So, I’ll continue to think that after a teaching is pronounced it waits to be ‘solidified’ (maybe there’s a better term to use) by the sensus fidelium. And, to circle back to my original point in this thread…Unam Sanctum’s famous teachings haven’t been solidified so much as they’ve been changed.

And there is no mode of expression that accounts for the plain meaning of the second and last sentence in the written text of US. There are no metaphors or hyperbole or anything. The assertions were wrong, despite the use of definitive sounding language. The use of such language did not make the teaching infallible.

You’re saying that you’re OK with the Church identifying what an infallible teaching is… but you’re not OK with them subsequently following those guidelines and actually pronouncing an infallible teaching?!?

Okay, I didn’t explain that well at all.

To me, the doctrine on infallibility is circular reasoning. If you’d like to share why you think it’s not, feel free.

I don’t, however, have a problem with the Church, say the CDF, writing a document which tells us how to discern the language of authoritative documents. But to make said document infallible by using the very authority of said document…is bad form. It’s also unnecessary and causes confusion - as is evident by constant questions like “is this infallible, do I have to follow it”. Such failures, IMO, render the document to be in violation of itself. See? Easy as pie!

 

[Gorgias]

to circle back to my original point in this thread…Unam Sanctum’s famous teachings haven’t been solidified so much as they’ve been changed.

I would disagree with that assertion. In fact, IIRC, Sullivan deals with this question in his book (“Salvation Outside the Church”), which I also recommended to HomeschoolDad earlier in this thread.

The use of such language did not make the teaching infallible.

It’s the way he states it: “We declare, we proclaim, we define”. This is the phrasing of declarations of doctrine in that day.

The big question then becomes “what’s the context of this bull, and what is the pope declaring here?” The context is the assertions being made by secular kings, that they were not subject to the pope, but instead, held higher authority than him. In this bull, Boniface was disagreeing with him, stating that everyone is subject to the pope, and being a king didn’t mean he was superior to the pope. Therefore, that’s why he’s saying “every human creature” – he’s simply asserting that being a king doesn’t exempt him from having to obey the pope.

But to make said document infallible by using the very authority of said document…is bad form.

It doesn’t do that. (Have you read that part of the documents of Vatican I?) Let’s look at it closely:

• they show that, throughout the entire history of the Church, popes and councils have taught authoritatively and without error.
• they use the phrasing that these historical proclamations have used – in their error-free and authoritative teachings – to make their own authoritative, error-free proclamation
• this proclamation asserts that, when the pope speaks “ex cathedra” (exercising his office), he possesses the infallibility that Jesus willed him to have. So, when he makes such a proclamation, on faith or morals, it’s infallible. Further, it’s infallible on its own merits (as having come from him) and not proceeding from the subsequent consent of the church (i.e., the of the sensus fidei fidelium).

So, it’s not circular – they’re not saying “we’re declaring something brand new, and by the way, it applies to this declaration, too”. Rather, they’re saying “this attribute has been the case since the beginnings of the Church, and we’re using this existing attribute to make our declaration (which formalizes the attribute).”

In a certain sense, it’s a lot like the Declaration of Independence. In that declaration, our Founding Fathers didn’t simply say “we’re allowed to do this”. Instead, they claimed that this right has existed – manifestly! – for all, and therefore, they’re just exercising this right in order to make the declaration. Again, not circular logic: they’re just asserting that the authority exists, and then, utilizing that authority, they make their declaration.

 

[Gorgias]

It’s also unnecessary and causes confusion - as is evident by constant questions like “is this infallible, do I have to follow it”.

That’s because people conflate “not infallible” with “not authoritative”. If a Church declaration doesn’t fall under infallibility (for whatever reason), it is still nevertheless authoritative, and demands compliance. It’s a (IMHO) silly argument to say “I don’t have to follow it” – after all, are the secular laws of the land infallible? (Of course not!) Are they nevertheless authoritative and demand compliance? Yes!

 

[TULIPed]

If a Church declaration doesn’t fall under infallibility (for whatever reason), it is still nevertheless authoritative, and demands compliance.

Tonight, at the dinner table, I will substitute the word “my” for ”a Church” and proclaim this to my family. Now I just have to come up with a declaration to test compliance.

 

[1Lord1Faith]

The big question then becomes “what’s the context of this bull, and what is the pope declaring here?”

Yes, I guess the rest of us (faithful) will have to figure that out.

they’re not saying “we’re declaring something brand new, and by the way, it applies to this declaration, too”.

It would seem that the ex cathedra doctrine was new. Or at least, not very well defined before.

So, the possibility to do it was always there, it just had to be defined by a council, which would be in keeping with the protocol of magisterial infallibility?

In a certain sense, it’s a lot like the Declaration of Independence.

I was actually thinking of the Bill of Rights. Some founders were against having one because if a list of rights was made…it would call into question the things that weren’t on the list I guess they thought that the Supreme Court needed a starting point, other than the rights that existed manifestly.

 

[Gorgias]

Tonight, at the dinner table, I will substitute the word “my” for ”a Church” and proclaim this to my family. Now I just have to come up with a declaration to test compliance.

Are you trying to say that you don’t have authority in your family as the husband/father and head? My condolences…

Yes, I guess the rest of us (faithful) will have to figure that out.

And, as always, “think with the mind of the Church” is a good approach. Can you figure it out on your own? Sure! Just check with the Church to see if you got the right answer or not! Just because you thought it through, doesn’t mean you got it right!

So, the possibility to do it was always there, it just had to be defined by a council, which would be in keeping with the protocol of magisterial infallibility?

I would say that it formalized it and created a means by which it became easier to identify when it occurs in the future.

 

[TULIPed]

Are you trying to say that you don’t have authority in your family as the husband/father and head? My condolences…

No. I do have authority. Nobody seems to recognize it though. (Except when somebody wants a credit card of course…)