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

[phil19034]

hopeful3542:

Protestants do not have valid Holy Orders. No valid priesthood=no valid Eucharist.

Disagree on both accounts. Would you care to point to the scriptural passage that supports these two claims?

@hodos - to be frank, it really doesn’t matter. We Catholics believe that only Catholics, Eastern Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox, the Church of the East, the Polish National Catholic Church, and some Old Catholics have valid Holy Orders.

We believe that Anglican, Lutheran, and all other Protestant orders are invalid because your understanding of Holy Orders is different from ours (plus the other Churches we accept).

So it really doesn’t matter what you or I think. This is ruling of the Catholic Church AND the ruling of all the Eastern Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox and Assyrian Church of the East.

 

[Hodos]

@hodos - to be frank, it really doesn’t matter. We Catholics believe that only Catholics, Eastern Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox, the Church of the East, the Polish National Catholic Church, and some Old Catholics have valid Holy Orders.

Fair enough. Thanks for admitting there is no apostolic basis for such an understanding.

 

[phil19034]

phil19034:

@hodos - to be frank, it really doesn’t matter. We Catholics believe that only Catholics, Eastern Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox, the Church of the East, the Polish National Catholic Church, and some Old Catholics have valid Holy Orders.

Fair enough. Thanks for admitting there is no apostolic basis for such an understanding.

I didn’t say there wasn’t apostolic basis. I’m saying that what we consider to be apostolic basis, Protestants do not.

 

[Vico]

Vico:

PrisonerOfChrist:

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?

Holy Communion increases sanctifying grace, so that would be lacking, however there could still be perfect contrition which forgives sins.

unless you eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood, you have no life in you; - John 6:53

This seems to be a very black and white statement. More than just merely increasing sanctifying grace. Either eat and live or don’t eat and die…

The person must be properly disposed (in a state of grace) to benefit from the Holy Eucharist – otherwise – eat and drink condemnation. Those properly disposed can also receive in desire.

 

[PrisonerOfChrist]

Thanks Vico

 

[Gorgias]

Um, yes it is. Unless you think that Christ’s faithfulness to his promise is dependent on you

No. We think it’s dependent on Him. Protestants deny either that the Eucharist is His body, blood, soul, and divinity, or they deny that the Eucharist itself is a sacrifice. Either way, what happens in Protestant services isn’t what is meant by “Eucharist”, as defined by Christ, the inspired writers of Scripture, and by the Church that Christ Himself founded and to which He gave authority.

If so, that’s an interesting take that isn’t really in line with 1 Corinthians 11.

Fascinating assertion, given that 1 Cor 11 is Paul’s assertion that what the Church does is precisely what the Catholic Church does as the Eucharist, and that Paul explicitly condemns divisions!

Would you care to point to the scriptural passage that supports these two claims?

Would you care to point to the scriptural passage that asserts that scriptural passages are the authority in the Church? 'Cause I can point to others that assert that the Church and the apostles who were given authority are precisely that!

each denomination believes in its truth.

Does that mean that each denomination is correct in its belief?

Well the 5 fold ministry does not include the priesthood

That says more about the “five-fold ministry”, then, doesn’t it?

Thanks for admitting there is no apostolic basis for such an understanding.

Nice try. It’s Apostolic, and ecclesiastical. You asked for purely “scriptural”, which is the understanding that we disagree upon.

 

[Bataar]

Submission to the pope is also a requirement for salvation.

 

[Gorgias]

Submission to the pope is also a requirement for salvation.

No. You’re misunderstanding that assertion. It’s one that was made to those who were part of the Church that included the pope. Must Catholics give religious submission of will to the Church? Yes. Must non-Catholics? No… that’s not what’s being asserted.

 

[Bataar]

Bataar:

Submission to the pope is also a requirement for salvation.

No. You’re misunderstanding that assertion. It’s one that was made to those who were part of the Church that included the pope. Must Catholics give religious submission of will to the Church? Yes. Must non-Catholics? No… that’s not what’s being asserted.

Here’s the quote from Unam Sanctam. It is defined doctrine by Pope Boniface VIII and as defined doctrine it is unable to be changed

“Furthermore, we declare, we proclaim, we define that it is absolutely necessary for salvation that every human creature be subject to the Roman Pontiff.”

 

[Gorgias]

Here’s the quote from Unam Sanctam. It is defined doctrine by Pope Boniface VIII and as defined doctrine it is unable to be changed

“Furthermore, we declare, we proclaim, we define that it is absolutely necessary for salvation that every human creature be subject to the Roman Pontiff.”

The question becomes, then, the audience to whom the pope was speaking. Did he believe the entire world – “every human creature”, as it were – to be Christians under the Church of which he was the pope? If so, then we can understand his statement to be, effectively, “every member of the Christian Church” (which we, today, would express as “every member of the Catholic Church”). So… must every Catholic be subject to the pope? Yes. Must others? The Church doesn’t assert that this is the case.

 

[SyCarl]

You are only looking at one part of John 6.

I am the living bread that came down from heaven. If anyone eats of this bread, he will live forever. And the bread that I will give for the life of the world is my flesh."
(Joh 6:51 ESV)

and

Whoever feeds on my flesh and drinks my blood abides in me, and I in him.
(Joh 6:56 ESV)

Jesus indicates that whoever eats His flesh and drinks His blood has eternal life. He puts no qualifications on the statement. Hence, if Jesus is speaking literally in John 6 and the teaching of transubstantiation is true, anyone who receives the Eucharist in a Catholic Church, licitly or illicitly, Christian or not, is saved. Someone could break into a church and eat the host and meet the requirement in Jesus’ statement. If Jesus is not speaking literally in these statement, why should we believe he his in John 6:53?

Augustine used John 6:53 as an example of when Jesus was speaking figuratively not literally.

1. If the sentence is one of command, either forbidding a crime or vice, or enjoining an act of prudence or benevolence, it is not figurative. If, however, it seems to enjoin a crime or vice, or to forbid an act of prudence or benevolence, it is figurative. “Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man,” says Christ, “and drink His blood, you have no life in you.” This seems to enjoin a crime or a vice; it is therefore a figure, enjoining that we should have a share in the sufferings of our Lord, and that we should retain a sweet and profitable memory of the fact that His flesh was wounded and crucified for us.
   (On Christian Doctrine, Book 3, Chapter 16, Paragraph 24)
   http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/12023.htm

My belief is that whoever receives the Eucharist, in any church, intending to do what Jesus said, receives the benefit Jesus intended. I know as a Catholic you cannot accept this as your church teaches differently but that doesn’t mean much to non-Catholics.

 

[Thom18]

You imagine that a person who receives Him unworthily receives the same benefit as those who receive Him reverently? And that there is “no qualification”? I don’t understand how one could see the Bread of Life discourse as a teaching which can be accepted outside of all of His other teachings- as if we could suspend His other teachings when discussing this one- but maybe you could explain how? Is a person who consumes Him no longer bound to be baptized, to follow His greatest Commandment, to confess their sins?

 

[SyCarl]

Well I would think that someone who received intending to do what Jesus said would have faith and not be receiving unworthily. The point of my post, however, was that John 6 cannot be used to support transubstantiation. That is taking Jesus’ words out of context of His whole teaching. In the verses I quoted Jesus puts no qualification on His statement. He doesn’t add any conditions such as “if they are baptized”. If transubstantiation is true then somebody who receives unworthily would meet the requirements of Jesus’ statement and Jesus doesn’t lie. In fact I am the one who takes Jesus’ teachings as a whole into consideration. It is the Catholic Church’s interpretation that leads to the absurdity you are objecting too. There is not a problem if Jesus is not speaking literally here.

Earlier in the discourse Jesus says:

For this is the will of my Father, that everyone who looks on the Son and believes in him should have eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day."
(Joh 6:40 ESV)

Compare that to:

Whoever feeds on my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day.
(Joh 6:54 ESV)

If both statements are true, and again Jesus doesn’t lie. then by eating and drinking in John 6 He means believing in Him.

In his teaching on John 6, Augustine reaches the same conclusion.

Wherefore, the Lord, about to give the Holy Spirit, said that Himself was the bread that came down from heaven, exhorting us to believe in Him. For to believe in Him is to eat the living bread. He that believes eats; he is sated invisibly, because invisibly is he born again.
(Tractates on the Gospel of John. Tractate 26, Paragraph 1)

http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/1701026.htm

 

[1Lord1Faith]

The point of my post, however, was that John 6 cannot be used to support transubstantiation.

I’m not entirely convinced that Jn 6 has much, if anything, to do with transubstantiation. It seems like more of a primer for other things. But the last supper discourse seems like a justification for transubstantiation.

For this is the will of my Father, that everyone who looks on the Son and believes in him should have eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day."
(Joh 6:40 ESV)

At this ^ point, some people get very academic about what it means to “believe”. But that doesn’t seem to be the right approach. Jesus says that believers must have a childlike trust in God. So your following opinion would seem to have merit.

Well I would think that someone who received intending to do what Jesus said would have faith and not be receiving unworthily.

 

[HomeschoolDad]

Submission to the pope is also a requirement for salvation.

I have a feeling that the Church of today finds this statement to be extremely embarrassing. Did this pope mean what he said, or was there some kind of nuance — directed only towards Catholics, towards all Christians (i.e., Catholic and Orthodox — those were pretty much the only two “flavors” Christianity came in at the time), or towards all people? To suggest “all Catholics have to be subject to the Roman Pontiff, but only Catholics, and all y’all Catholics are subject to the Roman Pontiff anyway, so you’re all good” is laughable. He said “every human creature”. There’s not much spin to that.

I for one play it safe. Even if I were tempted to seek out another Christian communion with valid sacraments and “pretty much” the fullness of doctrine — and to be brutally honest, with all this sex abuse and cover-up business going on, it has crossed my mind — I can’t risk meeting my end, standing before my Just Judge, and having Him to say to me “you knew what My vicar Boniface taught, maybe others did not know, but you knew, you’re a very educated man, and he meant what he said, yet you refused your submission — I hate to have to be the One to tell you, son, but you are lost forever”

This isn’t being a “Feeneyite”. This is merely being able to read, and to know what words mean. I would dearly love to see the magisterium “own” this teaching (as well as the two other times it was proclaimed as dogma), and tell us clearly what it means, and how we are supposed to interpret it, if indeed the plain words don’t mean what they seem to mean. Or if the plain words do mean what they seem to mean, “own” that too, and teach and minister accordingly. The North American Martyrs didn’t come over from France, and allow angry natives to perform horrible atrocities on them, and then keep ministering to them, because they thought these people would be saved according to their good will and their consciences. Just something to think about.

 

[HomeschoolDad]

As far as Christians not receiving the valid Eucharist, I can only say that, being as charitable as I can be, they would have to have some sort of “spiritual rickets”, grave spiritual malnutrition from never having received the Body of Christ. Perhaps Our Lord sees this, sees their hearts, and gives them graces to make up for what they lack, kind of a “spiritual vitamin supplement”. There’s no way to say. It’s just a mystery beyond our understanding (my understanding, anyway) how Our Lord can pour out all of these graces, yet not pour out the grace that would “bring it all the way home” and lead these people into the One True Church. Is God not powerful and omnipotent enough to do that? A great mystery.

 

[Gorgias]

I have a feeling that the Church of today finds this statement to be extremely embarrassing.

I think I would agree – if your interpretation is correct, then that interpretation would be “embarrassing”. The question, then, becomes, “is that the proper understanding of his statement?”

Did this pope mean what he said

I think you mean “did this pope mean what I interpret him to mean?”…

Did this pope mean what he said, or was there some kind of nuance — directed only towards Catholics, towards all Christians (i.e., Catholic and Orthodox — those were pretty much the only two “flavors” Christianity came in at the time), or towards all people? To suggest “all Catholics have to be subject to the Roman Pontiff, but only Catholics, and all y’all Catholics are subject to the Roman Pontiff anyway, so you’re all good” is laughable.

Not quite. Can you show that the pope asserted that all Christians – Catholic and Orthodox – “be subject” to him for their salvation? Let’s get even more precise: for those who never heard the name of Jesus – that is, those who were never evangelized – is their salvation dependent on being subject to the pope?

See what I mean? The statement makes no sense, with respect to Catholic doctrine, if it means what you’re saying it means. So, yes – it’s “laughable”… but only if you force it to mean something that’s not consonant with Catholic doctrine.

I for one play it safe. Even if I were tempted to seek out another Christian communion with valid sacraments and “pretty much” the fullness of doctrine

You’re missing the point: there’s not one single standard that applies to all and without distinction. So, you’re correct in your observation, despite yourself: you would be responsible for your decision to not be Catholic, but that’s based on the fact that you are actually a Catholic. That standard doesn’t apply to one who is not and never has been a Catholic, though. (And yes, that’s the stated teaching of the Catholic Church.)

This isn’t being a “Feeneyite”.

It kinda is.

This is merely being able to read, and to know what words mean.

Ahh, but it falls apart in that your reading and comprehension skills aren’t taking into account context.

I would dearly love to see the magisterium “own” this teaching

Read Lumen gentium, then. The magisterium kinda really does “own it” there.

The North American Martyrs didn’t come over from France…because they thought [angry natives] would be saved according to their good will and their consciences. Just something to think about.

Lumen gentium reminds us that, although what I’m saying is true, it’s nevertheless the case that we’re called to evangelize all peoples. Just something to think about.

 

[1Lord1Faith]

I have a feeling that the Church of today finds this statement to be extremely embarrassing.

It probably finds the entire document to be embarrassing. Nothing of it has stood. And so it could be written off as an opinion of how Pope Boniface VIII thought that things were. He was obviously wrong.

As far as the Church owning it, I agree, things like that need to be addressed. They shouldn’t be spun to make it seem like “that’s not really what it means”. It’s plainly written. And today, the Church teaches something completely different. It’s a good example of a pope getting it wrong, despite the definitive sounding language.

IMO, that and other examples call into question the Church’s doctrine on it’s own infallibility, which from time to time has struck me as circular reasoning par excellence.

 

[PrisonerOfChrist]

I have a feeling that the Church of today finds this statement to be extremely embarrassing

If this means we need to adhere to dogmas pronounced by popes when announced via ex-cathedra and other things of this nature, then I have no problems and I find nothing embarrassing. Quite the opposite, the successor to Saint Peter has my full allegiance.

 

[PrisonerOfChrist]

It probably finds the entire document to be embarrassing. Nothing of it has stood. And so it could be written off as an opinion of how Pope Boniface VIII thought that things were. He was obviously wrong.

I think we need to study this papal bull in it’s historical context. The split between Catholics and Orthodox was still fresh and there was much turmoil during this time.