While the apostate church is made up of churches, denominations and individuals which departed from the True Church or departed from the faith of the Apostles.
Except that YOUR apostate church has no visible existence before the 16th Century, while HIS true Church is present in every age. Don't believe it? Find someone even remotely Protestant before Wycliffe. They didn't exist, just an actual Protestant church really only started under Luther.
In 1215 the rcc added the false doctrine of transubstantiation, which is a belief that the priest has the power to call down Jesus from Heaven to be transformed into a wafer. Falsely teaching that the wafer becomes the physical Body of the Lord Jesus Christ.
Wrong, wrong, and wrong. Transubstantiation does not claim that Jesus is "transformed into a wafer". It claims exactly the opposite, that the whole substance of the wafer is transformed into the living flesh of Jesus, leaving only the wafer's appearance present.
And the doctrine, which was first proposed by Hildebert of Tours around 1079, is really just a philosophical explanation of a doctrinal point that was held UNIVERSALLY until the 9th century. That is the doctrine that Jesus Christ, Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity, is truly present under the form of bread in the Eucharist.
Don't believe it? Then open your Bible, and start in Exodus 12 with the institution of the Passover Supper. Question: what part of the Passover supper was absolutely not optional? Well, really, all of it, but you absolutely had to sacrifice the lamb, put its blood on your lintel, and eat its roasted flesh. If you didn't, your firstborn would die.
That scripture passage is read in every western-rite Catholic Church every year on Holy Thursday, when we commemorate the institution of the Eucharist.
Now turn to Malachi 1:11, where we read: For from the rising of the sun even unto the going down of the same my name shall be great among the Gentiles; and in every place incense shall be offered unto my name, and a pure offering: for my name shall be great among the heathen, saith the LORD of hosts. [KJV]
What "pure offering" do you suppose is offered by the Gentiles? What would fulfill Malachi's prophecy?
Keep going to John 1:29, where we read The next day John seeth Jesus coming unto him, and saith, Behold the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the world. [KJV]
Did you hear that? John the Baptist called Jesus "the Lamb of God"! That could only mean the _Passover_ Lamb of God. What do you have to do with the Passover lamb to be spared, again?
Now go to John chapter 6, where Jesus preaches on Passover, exactly a year before he died: I am the living bread which came down from heaven: if any man eat of this bread, he shall live for ever: and the bread that I will give is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world. [Jn 6:51, KJV]
Read the whole chapter. Don't try to explain Jesus' words away. They aren't symbol, they aren't metaphor, they aren't there to be ignored.
In all three of the synoptics, we see how that prophecy was fulfilled exactly a year later. And he took bread, and gave thanks, and brake it, and gave unto them, saying, This is my body which is given for you: this do in remembrance of me. Likewise also the cup after supper, saying, This cup is the new testament in my blood, which is shed for you. [Lk 22:19-20, KJV]
Now, if there was ever any doubt, Paul cleans it up for us. In 1 Cor 5:7 we read For even Christ our passover is sacrificed for us: Therefore let us keep the feast, not with old leaven, neither with the leaven of malice and wickedness; but with the unleavened bread of sincerity and truth. [KJV]
Catch it? "Christ our passover is sacrificed for us".
In the same epistle, we read in chapter 11:
23 For I have received of the Lord that which also I delivered unto you, that the Lord Jesus the same night in which he was betrayed took bread: 24 And when he had given thanks, he brake it, and said, Take, eat: this is my body, which is broken for you: this do in remembrance of me. 25 After the same manner also he took the cup, when he had supped, saying, this cup is the new testament in my blood: this do ye, as oft as ye drink it, in remembrance of me. 26 For as often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do shew the Lord's death till he come. 27 Wherefore whosoever shall eat this bread, and drink this cup of the Lord, unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord. 28 But let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of that bread, and drink of that cup. 29 For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh damnation to himself, not discerning the Lord's body. [KJV]
(Also read every Holy Thursday in every western Catholic church.)
Now, please ask yourself how someone can be "guilty of the Lord's body and blood" if they aren't there?
When we turn to the writings of the early Christians, we see that they all believed this. For example, we have Ignatius of Antioch (bishop of Antioch after Peter left; knew some of the Apostles personally) writing on his way to martyrdom in AD110:
Take care, then, to use one Eucharist, so that whatever you do, you do according to God: FOR THERE IS ONE FLESH OF OUR LORD JESUS CHRIST, and one cup IN THE UNION OF HIS BLOOD; one ALTAR, as there is one bishop with the presbytery…
They [i.e. the Gnostic heretics] abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer, because they do not confess that THE EUCHARIST IS THE FLESH OF OUR SAVIOR JESUS CHRIST, flesh which suffered for our sins and which the Father, in his goodness, raised up again.
And we have Irenaeus of Lyons (who was a disciple of Polycarp, who also knew the Apostles personally) writing around AD180:
He taught THE NEW SACRIFICE OF THE NEW COVENANT, of which Malachi, one of the twelve prophets, had signified beforehand: [quotes Mal 1:10-11]. By these words He makes it plain that the former people will cease to make offerings to God; BUT THAT IN EVERY PLACE SACRIFICE WILL BE OFFERED TO HIM, and indeed, a pure one; for His name is glorified among the Gentiles. (Against Heresies 4:17:5)
(Catch that? Malachi 1:11 is fulfilled in the Eucharist.)
But what consistency is there in those who hold that the bread over which thanks have been given IS THE BODY OF THEIR LORD, and the cup HIS BLOOD, if they do not acknowledge that He is the Son of the Creator… How can they say that the flesh which has been nourished BY THE BODY OF THE LORD AND BY HIS BLOOD gives way to corruption and does not partake of life? …For as the bread from the earth, receiving the invocation of God, IS NO LONGER COMMON BREAD BUT THE EUCHARIST, consisting of two elements, earthly and heavenly… (Against Heresies 4:18:4-5)
If the BODY be not saved, then, in fact, neither did the Lord redeem us with His BLOOD; and neither is the cup of the EUCHARIST THE PARTAKING OF HIS BLOOD nor is the bread which we break THE PARTAKING OF HIS BODY…He has declared the cup, a part of creation, TO BE HIS OWN BLOOD, from which He causes our blood to flow; and the bread, a part of creation, HE HAS ESTABLISHED AS HIS OWN BODY, from which He gives increase to our bodies.
When, therefore, the mixed cup and the baked bread receives the Word of God and BECOMES THE EUCHARIST, THE BODY OF CHRIST, and from these the substance of our flesh is increased and supported, how can they say that the flesh is not capable of receiving the gift of God, WHICH IS ETERNAL LIFE -- flesh which is nourished BY THE BODY AND BLOOD OF THE LORD…receiving the Word of God, BECOMES THE EUCHARIST, WHICH IS THE BODY AND BLOOD OF CHRIST… (Against Heresies 5:2:2-3)
There are many other examples here.
I think we can safely put to rest the ridiculous idea that Rome invented transsubstantiation out of nothing in AD1215. The rest of your foolishness can be addressed similarly, but I don't have the time right now.
I would suggest that you read this book and also this one. Trent Horn is a very fine Catholic apologist on Youtube; his channel is called "Counsel of Trent".
Are any of the non-biblical quotes you cite inspired?