Replies

Appeals to pedigree are invalidated by the first two hundred and fifty years - Both Paul and John declare that iniquity was already entering the Church in their time, so traditions forming even then were heretical. Your 'catalogue approach' merely demonstrates that adoption of the Eucharist was a very early addition, from before the various splits which define the liturgical churches which you would endorse. That there is so very little evidence before 300AD (extant, in situ, and really before 400AD) defies any proofs after the fact.

Catholics do no want to admit that even in the NT church false teaching and false doctrine were present.. their own church fathers held differing views on some things ..

Even Augustine felt John 6 was a metaphor ...What the early church chose to believe on this were up to the individual conscience ...it was not a Roman doctrine demanding belief until 1215

"Catholics do no want to admit that even in the NT church false teaching and false doctrine were present."

((((Sigh))))) We, too, have read the Epistles. One of the important jobs of the Apostolic hierarchy was rooting out these false doctrines. You will NEVER find a Catholic who does not realize that Peter, Paul, James and John spent a lot of their energy in keeping the doctrine pure and undiluted despite the erroneous opinions of independent preachers and interpreters who were not authorized by the Apostolic leadership.

"Even Augustine felt John 6 was a metaphor ..."

Your problem is, you don't know enough about Augustine.

In one passage from a book called "On Christian Instruction," Augustine notes, "Christ says, "Unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink His blood, you shall not have life in you" --- It seems to command crime or vice." Here his purpose is to distinguish the Eucharist from cannibalism.

In fact, the Eucharist is different from cannibalism in essential ways. Cannibalism is the eating of parts of a dead body--- and when it's all consumed, that's it: there's no more. The Eucharist is the eating of the whole Christ --- Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity ---- whole and entire (not parts), living (not dead) and inexhaustible. Even if a million people receive the Eucharist, they are, each one of them, receiving the whole Christ, glorified, resurrected, living and true. This is clearly not a matter of cannibals gnawing on a limited ration of gristle and bone.

Augustine emphasizes that the Lord’s body and blood are communicated under the "appearance," "sign," "symbol" or "figure" of bread and wine. Even today the Catechism of the Catholic Church uses the terms "sign" and "symbol" to describe the Eucharist in paragraphs 1148 and 1412. It means that the appearance of the bread and wine are unchanged. The "substance" --- their underlying reality ---- is that they are the Body and Blood of the Lord.

Augustine is in full agreement with this:

Sermons 234, 2 (ca. AD 400):

"The faithful know Christ in the breaking of the bread. For not all bread, but only that which receives the blessing of Christ, becomes Christ’s body." Explanations of the Psalms (ca. 400):

"For Christ was carried in His own hands, when, referring to His own Body, He said: “This is My Body.” For He carried that Body in His hands."

"Your 'catalogue approach' merely demonstrates that adoption of the Eucharist was a very early addition, from before the various splits which define the liturgical churches which you would endorse."

This is even more problematic, because it suggests that the whole Church, "before the various splits," actually accepted what Jesus and St. Paul said about the Eucharist being Jesus' Real Body and Blood, and no church body seriously disputed that for 1500 years. This means the Holy Spirit abandoned the whole "un-split" Church to gross error and left it there for a millennium-and-a-half --- until some Western Europeans finally "got it" that Jesus wasn't serious about that Body and Blood stuff anyhow (yuck).

"Gates of Hell" wins the first 1500 rounds? And you think the Holy Spirit was perhaps asleep?

1 Kings 18:27
And at noon Elijah mocked them, saying, "Cry aloud, for he is a god. Either he is musing, or he is relieving himself, or he is on a journey, or perhaps he is asleep and must be awakened."

But I don't think the Holy Spirit is like that. I think the Holy Spirit can be relied upon to "lead us into all truth", to protect His Church, and to endorse the words spoken by Jesus Christ.