A Tale of Two Eucharists (Continued)

[pneuma07]

Originally Posted by Socrates4Jesus

The Protestant position with which i'm most familiar is one i've heard taught by both Evangelical and Calvary Chapel teachers. It is that, even though the official teaching of the Roman Catholic church strayed from the genuine gospel of who Jesus is and how we might know Him for all eternity, there remained, within the church, a faithful remnant. This remnant held to the true gospel throughout the history of the church and is still present today within Her.

There is a precedent for this in the Old Testament: When the vast majority of the Jewish people turned their backs on God and lived for sin rather than Him and suffered His judgement, there remained a faithful few to pick up the pieces after God's wrath subsided. In the case of the Roman Catholic church, it had become unfaithful, but the remnant of the true catholic (or universal) church remained faithful. The split into two religions did not occur until Luther, who was one of the faithful remnant. This is why you will find Protestant churches having in their creeds a statement of belief in the catholic (with a small c) church. Hence, the Gates of Hell might have won battles against the policy makers of the Roman Catholic church, but did not win the war against the true saints of the true catholic church who prevail faithfully to this day.

Again, i'm not trying to argue that this is true. I'm just telling you what i've been taught. What is needed is some unbiased expert who truly understands the history whom i can ask many questions.

Dear Soc,

sorry, I was somewhat confused by:

Many Protestants think of the Roman Catholic church the way the Roman Catholic church thinks of the non-Christian Jewish people: They respect them for being the bearer of the truth,

Usually, in Protestantism the "Roman Catholic church " is not described as "bearer of the truth". Now I think I'm led back by your recent description to familiar models, about which I had given this hint:
( generally the protestant model I see proclaimed is rather the going astray of the original apostolic visible Church, producing in a certain period - not exactly clear what period - the Catholic Church, with the true doctrine being conserved according to different sub-models by the "invisible church" or by scattered local visible churches...,

we should now understand whether the "faithful remnant" of those teachers fits sub-model a) "invisible church" or b) scattered visible churches.

In both cases among the common questions are:

- Which present faith community would the faithful remnant look like (most) through the whole of those 12 centuries ( IV to XVI ) ?

-Which present faith community would the pre-compromises mainstream IV century Church look like (most) ? ( and in which side of the eucharistic "battlefield" would that church be ?)



"Luther ... was one of the faithful remnant."

That can lead us back to the present topic again. Do you know Luther's position on the Real Presence ?

[Philthy]

[quote=Socrates4Jesus;3667521]]

I mean, the evidence i've examined to this point shows me that either the Roman Catholic view of the Eucharisit is correct or one of the Protestant views of the Eucharist is correct. I have you and others to thank for showing me that it is at least possible that the Eucharist is the body and blood of Jesus Christ. Still, i have not seen convincing evidence that it is impossible the Eucharist is not the body and blood of Jesus Christ.
There appear to me to be weak links in the defense of either position, and i'm now left uncertain as to which is the truth. The only thing i know for certain is that they cannot both be true, (as it would be a logical contradiction for the Eucharist to both be and not be Jesus Christ, and a logical contradiction can never be true).

This is tremendous progress. Please be careful to articulate exactly what has happened: using Scripture alone, you are unable to know the truth on this important topic. Take that realization one step further: does either side require that you know a truth through Scripture alone? You know the answer to that question and on that basis you should be logically comfortable rejecting the concept of Sola Scriptura, no? Only the CC remains tentatively logical in its approach: Scripture requires a visible, divinely inspired and appointed authoritative interpreter in order to know the truth - the whole truth - of our faith.

It seems as though i'm worse off than when i began.

I repeat, you have made tremendous progress. Your problem would seem to be that you are not yet comfortable with allowing someone or something other than yourself as the sole arbiter of truth in matters of faith. Please take comfort in the fact that the Catholic position is no longer in opposition to your intellect or your conscience.

Before i began this dialog, i was a Rebel considering leaving their ranks to defect to the Union side. Now, i find i have not enough to convince me the Union is on the side of God, but have found some reservations as to whether the Rebels are on the side of God. I cannot yet choose sides, yet i'm not certain remaining neutral is a good idea.

If you want to start looking at individual Union soldiers to determine whether they are "on the side of God" you will have to wade into history and confront the witness of the Saints. In doing so you will find that they strongly support and uphold the Catholic view and were unquestionably on the side of God.

Proverb 3:5 Trust in God with all your heart. On your own intelligence rely not...