Yes, it did. The proofs of Scripture offered are like those from the Old Testament referenced in the New Testament. It takes context to understand. The Church has been providing that context from the beginning. Let's consider something like the Eucharist. We don't think it should be controversial. Have you considered that the Epistles were written with a purpose? Their purpose was the correction and reproof of churches which had lost their way. We know the Christians at the time were accused of cannibalism because they claimed they ate the flesh of Jesus. Yet there was no mention in Scripture to correct this. In fact, if you read 1 Cor 11 in context, it confirms it further. Yet this teaching is denied.
What good are Biblical proofs when even something so extensively covered as the Eucharist is denied? You simply deny the Church the authority given Her by Christ and though you claim to want an explanation, no explanation will suffice.
If Jerome and Basil changed their statements why would you even consider them credible?
To quote "A Fish Called Wanda"...
"Apes don't read Nietzsche."
"Yes, they do, Otto. They just don't understand it."
You are quoting great doctors of the Church in an attempt to undermine the authority of the Church. There is no change to their statements... only context you don't understand. If you truly want to read what these great saints wrote, put down the tracts and read their writings in full.
"don't eat the blood" - God
>>Have you considered that the Epistles were written with a purpose?<<
John 20:31 But these are written, that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing ye might have life through his name.
>>Their purpose was the correction and reproof of churches which had lost their way.<<
Not for the reason John said?
>>In fact, if you read 1 Cor 11 in context, it confirms it further.<<
Hmmm, so Catholics must not be doing it right because That is why many among you are weak and sick.
>>What good are Biblical proofs when even something so extensively covered as the Eucharist is denied?<<
Acts 15:29 That ye abstain from meats offered to idols, and from blood, and from things strangled, and from fornication: from which if ye keep yourselves, ye shall do well. Fare ye well.
>>There is no change to their statements...<<
"For how can we adopt those things which we do not find in the holy Scriptures?" - Ambrose (On the Duties of the Clergy, 1:23:102)
“Let the inspired Scriptures then be our umpire, and the vote of truth will be given to those whose dogmas are found to agree with the Divine words.” - Gregory of Nyssa (d.ca, 395) “On the Holy Trinity”, NPNF, p. 327
“Neither dare one agree with catholic bishops if by chance they err in anything, but the result that their opinion is against the canonical Scriptures of God.” - Augustine (354–430) De unitate ecclesiae, 10
Those are your "church fathers". You can parse their words all you want. I rely on the writings of the apostles with the counsel of the Holy Spirit as we were told we should do.
John 14:26 But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you.
Nobody other than the apostles were with Jesus to remember what Jesus said. We were given the Holy Spirit who teaches us not some group of men in fancy robes.
1 John 2:27 But the anointing which ye have received of him abideth in you, and ye need not that any man teach you: but as the same anointing teacheth you of all things, and is truth, and is no lie, and even as it hath taught you, ye shall abide in him.
Catholics, Mormons, and Muslims want to rely on writings other than the apostles. They each put their faith and trust in those fallible men. I'll trust in Christ alone and the Holy Spirit he promised each of us.