“We have Scripture not because of the Catholic church but in spite of it.”
~ ~ ~
You give history to confirm and you get a comeback line like
this one. Protestants have non history before 1517 but pay no attention.
Our Lord states you remain spiritually immature without the
Eucharist.
And where, pray tell, does our Lord say that?
Might doesn’t make right. Longevity is no measure of authenticity. Other religions have been around longer than Catholicism. If you’re going to argue that that criteria is what gives them authenticity or authority, they need to step aside and let others take their place.
Not to mention that history can be falsified. Unless it’s the very words of God, I don’t put much stock in it.
And I especially don’t trust the history painted by any organization about itself, with the Catholic church’s known history, that puts said organization in a positive light, ignoring or excusing known corruption and immorality.
It smacks too much of propaganda.
There is way too much history from outside sources of what the Catholic church was to ignore.
Final authority is Scripture, which was recognized long before it was officially recognized as canon. Putting the RCC stamp of approval on it doesn’t make it Scripture or give it authority or mean the RCC wrote the Bible.
Chapter and verse?