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

[HomeschoolDad]

All right, I hear everything you are saying, but this teaching was reiterated three times:

“There is one universal Church of the faithful, outside of which no one at all can be saved.” – Pope Innocent III , Fourth Lateran Council, 1215

“We declare, say, define, and pronounce that it is absolutely necessary for the salvation of every human creature to be subject to the Roman Pontiff.” – Pope Boniface VIII, Unam Sanctam, 1302

“The Most Holy Roman Church firmly believes, professes and preaches that none of those existing outside the Catholic Church, not only pagans, also Jews, heretics, and schismatics can ever be partakers of eternal life, but that they are to go into the eternal fire ‘which was prepared for the devil and his angels’ (Mt. 25:41) unless before death they are joined with Her… No one, let his almsgiving be as great as it may, no one, even if he pour out his blood for the Name of Christ can be saved unless they abide within the bosom and unity of the Catholic Church.” - Pope Eugene IV, Cantate Domino, 1441

Many saints have also taught likewise.

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

So are you saying that “when the Church teaches something now, it is right, and if anything to the contrary was taught in the past, it was wrong”?

 

[Gorgias]

this teaching was reiterated three times:

You’re conflating “teaching” with your personal “interpretation”:

• EENS doesn’t speak to people, but to the means of salvation. Feeney disagreed, but the Church ruled against him.
• Unam sanctam: we’ve already discussed the nuances and potential misunderstandings of this statement.
• The Cantate domino statement is one that we might discuss. However, I’m guessing you’ll dismiss an assertion that conflicts with your opinion, just as you’ve done with the previous two. Would you like to discuss this bull, or would it be a waste of time?

So are you saying that “when the Church teaches something now , it is right , and if anything to the contrary was taught in the past, it was wrong ”?

Nope: I’m saying that Church teaching is never in conflict with itself, and thus, if a plain teaching of the Church today appears to conflict with a teaching of the Church in the past… then you’ve misunderstood the teaching from the past. Any argument that denies this understanding is essentially a sedevacantist argument.

 

[HomeschoolDad]

this teaching was reiterated three times:

No, but I welcome you to explain to us here, why these three teachings do not mean what they appear to mean from a plain reading of what they say.

So are you saying that “when the Church teaches something now , it is right , and if anything to the contrary was taught in the past, it was wrong ”?

I am not a sedevacantist. It sounds like what you are describing is the “hermeneutic of continuity”, a concept I do not reject in the least. Please explain, or direct us towards something we all might read, that will explain how these past teachings can be reconciled with what the Church teaches in this day.

I mean nothing nasty or spiteful in so asking. I’m serious. These three reiterations of the same teaching (as well as a litany of similar teachings by the saints throughout history) are very troublesome and difficult to understand in light of later teaching. Just for my own soul, I choose to accept them literally, and live accordingly, lest I be lost forever. Obviously others see matters differently. And some simply do not agree with the thrice-taught dogma.

 

[Gorgias]

No, but I welcome you to explain to us here, why these three teachings do not mean what they appear to mean from a plain reading of what they say.

Sure.

• You can find the first answer in the Catechism, which makes the case I’ve outlined briefly here.
• You can find the second answer in this very thread.
• I’ve asked whether you wish to enter into dialogue on the third issue. (To be fair, it’s been discussed on this forum time and again.) On one hand, I think I should ask you to avail yourself of the ‘search’ function. On the other hand, I’d be willing to engage in dialogue… but I suspect that you’d be unwilling to accept a position contrary to yours. Am I mistaken? Perhaps we can create a new thread to discuss the bull?

Please explain, or direct us towards something we all might read, that will explain how these past teachings can be reconciled with what the Church teaches in this day.

I would ask you to read the most recent teachings, which should sufficiently explain their positions.

I mean nothing nasty or spiteful in so asking.

Cool. I don’t mean to suggest that this is your approach.

These three reiterations of the same teaching are very troublesome and difficult to understand in light of later teaching.

I get it. But I believe that the Church doesn’t contradict herself; if she did, then Christ’s guarantee that “the gates of hell would not prevail” wouldn’t be true. So, if your understanding of the earlier statements is correct and the later statements are wrong… then Christ is mistaken. And, if the recent statements are true and the earlier ones are mistaken… Christ is likewise wrong.

Nope – Just. Can’t. Be. So… it must be that there’s continuity between these statements, and not rupture.

 

[HomeschoolDad]

I’ve asked whether you wish to enter into dialogue on the third issue. (To be fair, it’s been discussed on this forum time and again.) On one hand, I think I should ask you to avail yourself of the ‘search’ function. On the other hand, I’d be willing to engage in dialogue… but I suspect that you’d be unwilling to accept a position contrary to yours. Am I mistaken? Perhaps we can create a new thread to discuss the bull?

Not true. I am willing to accept any position that is the truth. I would welcome you, or someone, opening a new thread to explain how the Church’s teaching on EENS throughout the centuries shows a consistency and a development of doctrine. I don’t deny that this is possible. All I say is that for my own soul, I am not willing to consider that I could be saved if I ever withdrew from submission to the Roman Pontiff, and for the souls of others, I am not willing to evangelize in any other way than to draw anyone I can to the Barque of Peter. The latter really doesn’t matter, as convert-making is not my forte. We all have different gifts.

These three reiterations of the same teaching are very troublesome and difficult to understand in light of later teaching.

Then it needs to be explained to dispel the idea set forth by @1Lord1Faith and possibly embraced by others:

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

 

[OddBird]

No, it cannot be found in a piece of bread used only to commemorate.

Not all Protestants see the Eucharist as a mere commemoration. In fact, quite a few do believe in Real Presence. The question, as was pointed out further down the thread, is “can a Protestant minister validly consecrate the Eucharist”, to which, of course, a Catholic would say “no”, and a Protestant would say “yes”, and expect the full spiritual benefits of the sacrament.

In the case of my particular Protestant tradition, the thing that is “symbolic”, or at least spiritualized
rather than literal, is the way it understands apostolicity and its consequences for ordained ministry, not the way it understands the Eucharist.

I do very much think that this is problematic. But making the blanket statement that “Protestants” just see a commemorative piece of bread in the Eucharist is problematic as well.

 

[Ilkka]

Not all protestants believe it is simply a commemoration. For example, the evangelical-lutheran church in my country teaches that the bread and the wine become the true flesh and blood during consecration.

 

[njlisa]

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

I’m an RCIA Catholic, received into the Church 30 years ago.

I grew up in a sola scripture church. My church had no sacraments.
Rather, we had two ordinances: baptism and Lord’s Supper. The Lord’s
Supper was held maybe three times a year.

The pastor read Gospel narrative. There was no consecration. Platters
of bread and of grape juice (see photo above) were passed down the pews.
Each of us took a cube of white bread and a small cup of grape juice.

As a child, I had no idea of the Eucharist. I grew up believing what I was
taught: getting saved, believing that the Bible was the only source of truth,
and evangelizing others.

The Catechism (818-819) teaches that those raised as Protestants can’t
be charged with the sin of separation. Moreover, “Christ’s Spirit uses these
Churches and ecclesial communities as means of salvation.”

I am glad to be in the fullness of truth now. But I wouldn’t have missed
heaven as a young evangelical.

 

[1Lord1Faith]

I get it. But I believe that the Church doesn’t contradict herself; if she did, then Christ’s guarantee that “the gates of hell would not prevail” wouldn’t be true. So, if your understanding of the earlier statements is correct and the later statements are wrong… then Christ is mistaken. And, if the recent statements are true and the earlier ones are mistaken… Christ is likewise wrong.

I disagree with your premise. The phrase “the gates of hell…” also have a fairly plain meaning. It means the Church won’t be destroyed. It doesn’t mean the Church will not make mistakes.

 

[Gorgias]

I would welcome you, or someone, opening a new thread to explain how the Church’s teaching on EENS throughout the centuries shows a consistency and a development of doctrine.

I would recommend that you read Sullivan’s “Salvation Outside the Church?”. He covers precisely that ground.

All I say is that for my own soul, I am not willing to consider that I could be saved if I ever withdrew from submission to the Roman Pontiff

You would be correct in that assertion. See Lumen gentium, #14.

However, what applies to you and me, as Catholics, does not necessarily identically apply to non-Catholic Christians or non-Christians. I think that distinction is what’s tripping you up, here.

Then it needs to be explained to dispel the idea set forth by @1Lord1Faith and possibly embraced by others

It has been, by many writers and in many fora. Pope Benedict’s various discussions of the ‘hermeneutic of continuity’ are precisely centered on this question.

 

[HomeschoolDad]

I would welcome you, or someone, opening a new thread to explain how the Church’s teaching on EENS throughout the centuries shows a consistency and a development of doctrine.

I have heard of this book, but upon your recommendation, I looked at the Amazon reviews and it sounds like a worthwhile study. I will put it on my “shelf of good intentions”.

I am just going to say this, and it’s not going to come out right, but at first blush — I repeat, at first blush — it comes across as the Church saying “uh-oh, people aren’t buying this anymore, we’ve got this massive Protestant movement that has got the world’s attention, and non-Christians don’t appreciate the assertion, so we’ve got to put some spin on this and quit ticking everyone off with it”. I am not saying that the Church reasoned this way, I am simply saying that a Protestant or a non-Christian could get that impression.

I would just add as well, that evangelical fundamentalists don’t treat acceptance of Jesus as one’s personal Lord and Saviour as something optional, “just if you believe it and are persuaded by it in the first place”. No, in their eyes, if you don’t make this act of faith — their equivalent of being “inside the Church” — you are just lost, full stop. That is the kind of thinking that motivated the brave young man who went to the Sentinel Islanders, to proclaim the Gospel knowing full well that he’d be slaughtered almost instantly.

 

[Gorgias]

I am not saying that the Church reasoned this way, I am simply saying that a Protestant or a non-Christian could get that impression.

Yep. I get that take on it. But, it’s a natural human reaction that, in the absence of facts, people make up stories. They think they’re making up reasonable stories, but since they come from a position of ignorance, they’re often way off base. And, since they think they’re being reasonable, people believe and repeat the inaccurate stories that pose as truth.

Can we change that dynamic? No. Can we try our best to tell the truth, in hopes of replacing “well-intentioned but inaccurate stories”? I think we must.

No, in their eyes, if you don’t make this act of faith — their equivalent of being “inside the Church” — you are just lost , full stop.

Right. That – among other dynamics – is the rotten fruit of the Reformation.

 

[HomeschoolDad]

I am not saying that the Church reasoned this way, I am simply saying that a Protestant or a non-Christian could get that impression.

Yep, you can’t crawl inside other people’s heads and make them think right. People outside the Church often misunderstand our Catholic Faith, and distort the whole thing. Once in college, I had an evangelical classmate (she, like Pooh, “a bear of very little brain”) sincerely ask me “is the Catholic Church against birth control because they want to have a lot of children and take over the world?”. I felt like saying “well, I guess we’re busted, you figured it right out, we’re going to outnumber the rest of you and enslave you, on top of that”. (Being a gentleman, though, I held my tongue, and merely replied no, that’s not true.)

 

[Gorgias]

Once in college, I had an evangelical classmate sincerely ask me “is the Catholic Church against birth control because they want to have a lot of children and take over the world?”.

To be fair, though… that’s probably what she had been taught, growing up.

 

[TULIPed]

I am just going to say this, and it’s not going to come out right, but at first blush — I repeat, at first blush — it comes across as the Church saying “uh-oh, people aren’t buying this anymore, we’ve got this massive Protestant movement that has got the world’s attention, and non-Christians don’t appreciate the assertion, so we’ve got to put some spin on this and quit ticking everyone off with it”. I am not saying that the Church reasoned this way, I am simply saying that a Protestant or a non-Christian could get that impression.

Perhaps the Catholic Church in her wisdom had something like this in mind?

"19 Though I am free and belong to no one, I have made myself a slave to everyone, to win as many as possible. 20 To the Jews I became like a Jew, to win the Jews. To those under the law I became like one under the law (though I myself am not under the law), so as to win those under the law. 21 To those not having the law I became like one not having the law (though I am not free from God’s law but am under Christ’s law), so as to win those not having the law. 22 To the weak I became weak, to win the weak. I have become all things to all people so that by all possible means I might save some. 23 I do all this for the sake of the gospel, that I may share in its blessings."

 

[Gorgias]

I disagree with your premise. The phrase “the gates of hell…” also have a fairly plain meaning. It means the Church won’t be destroyed. It doesn’t mean the Church will not make mistakes.

Well, let’s dig into this question a little more deeply, then.

Does “the gates of hell will not prevail” mean that “the Church will not make mistakes”, as you claim it does?

The Church itself would answer “no”: there’s nothing in that claim that suggests that, in matters of prudential judgment, the Church super-human. It makes errors of judgment, it fails to live up to the challenges of Christian behavior to which Christ calls us, and it’s patently “human” in its behavior.

However… there’s more to the story. If by “mistakes”, you mean “mistakes in declaring and teaching what God has revealed to humanity”, then no – the Church teaches that the Holy Spirit protects the Church that Jesus founded from teaching error. This only covers the areas of ‘faith and morals’, and only when the pretty explicitly declares that they’re teaching a doctrine or dogma. In this context – and this context only, the Church asserts that God protects the Church from misleading its faithful in solemn teachings.

So… which do you mean? Are you claiming that the Church sometimes makes mistakes in prudential judgment (and I’d agree), or that it makes mistakes in solemn pronouncements of doctrine?

 

[1Lord1Faith]

So… which do you mean? Are you claiming that the Church sometimes makes mistakes in prudential judgment (and I’d agree), or that it makes mistakes in solemn pronouncements of doctrine?

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

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

Then there is the context of a teaching, which is the one life raft that Unam Sanctum seems to be constantly clinging to. So if we start with - a teaching’s context is supposed to be used as a way to interpret its meaning. Fine. But why then would the teaching be used outside of said context. 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?

Does “the gates of hell will not prevail” mean that “the Church will not make mistakes”, as you claim it does?

That’s not what I said, or even what I meant. I’ll try again. The “gates of hell” verse from scripture simply means that the Church will not be destroyed. It doesn’t have anything to do with the Church’s proclamation of how it’s own teachings on faith and morals are infallible. And, the teaching on infallibility doesn’t seem to be an infallible teaching.

 

[ConcernedConvert]

Man I was going to respond to the earlier claims but you nailed them all haha

 

[ConcernedConvert]

That’s not necessarily true. Nor is that the church’s position. If it truly doesn’t matter where we attend church, why would god leave us a church to begin with at all… Form matters, god is very clear about this. The church is very clear about salvation and it’s limits outside of the church Left for us by Christ himself.
People don’t like these teachings and often find ways to push the exceptions because they are very hard teachings.

 

[njlisa]

@ConcernedConvert

Seth, the Catechism is the teaching of the church.

Here is the definition of “Catechism” from U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops

The content of the Catechism is faithful to Apostolic Tradition,
Scripture and the Magisterium. It incorporates the heritage of the Doctors,
Fathers, and Saints of the Church and illuminates with the light of faith,
contemporary situations, problems and questions.

The quotes I provide are directly from the Catechism,
which was promulgated by St. John Paul II in 1992.
Your argument is with Catechism, not me.

818 “However, one cannot charge with the sin
of the separation those who at present are born into
these communities [that resulted from such separation]
and in them are brought up in the faith of Christ, and
the Catholic Church accepts them with respect and
affection as brothers. . . . All who have been justified
by faith in Baptism are incorporated into Christ; they
therefore have a right to be called Christians, and with
good reason are accepted as brothers in the Lord
by the children of the Catholic Church.”

819 “Furthermore, many elements of sanctification
and of truth” are found outside the visible confines of
the Catholic Church: “the written Word of God; the life
of grace; faith, hope, and charity, with the other interior
gifts of the Holy Spirit, as well as visible elements.”
Christ’s Spirit uses these Churches and ecclesial
communities as means of salvation, whose power
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.”