I say that we could discuss and debate this all day, and forever and not really get anywhere. Until you get to the root of the problem, which is AUTHORITY, you will not be at peace with any answer.
My authority used to be the Bible alone, of course as it pertains to the pastors interpretation of it, and other protestant thinkers.
Today my authority is Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition from the one church Christ built, the pillar and foundation fo the Truth.
2 thess 2:15/ 1 tim 3:15
Without the pillar and foundation of the Truth and her Sacred Tradition, we wouldn;t even have the Bible as we know it today.
Start with the root and foundation of your fiath and all else will follow if you have the real pillar and foundation of the Truth.
I disagree, as I think you’re putting the cart before the horse. The Church is a Church of
witnesses. Everyone who is a Christian is a Christian
because of the witness of others, under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit and through Our Lord. Syele won’t believe in the Eucharist simply from the authority of the Catholic Church because she (that’s right, isn’t it? Sorry - can’t remember) simply doesn’t believe in the authority of the Catholic Church!
Now, in my opinion, the Eucharist is the single best
witness to the authority of the Catholic Church (not the other way around). It is the Catholic Church who rightly agrees with the Biblical
witness; it is the Catholic Church who rightly agrees with the historical
witness; it is the Catholic Church who has always taught and defended this belief in the face of so many heretics.
The fact that the early church fathers taught a belief exactly the same as the Catholic Church does today cannot be argued, except by the most semantic of our separated brethren. I know Syele’s been around for a while and almost certainly knows of the historical witness for the Eucharist. However, this witness is probably good enough in Syele’s eyes only to
support the Catholic doctrine, rather than prove it beyond reasonable doubt. This is why I think we should concentrate on the Biblical witness. As I have tried to show in my previous post, I believe the Biblical witness on this matter to be
conclusive - for those who actually already believe in the authority of the Biblical text, as I’m sure Syele already does.
Once a person believes in the witness of the Catholic teaching on the Eucharist, that is enough I think (well, almost) to show that one out of the Catholic, Anglican, Lutheran or Orthodox Churches must be true. Therefore, I think it is then prudent to point out the following from Cardinal John Henry Newman’s
Essay on the Development of Christian Doctrine, from the Introduction (part 17):
One additional specimen shall be given as a sample of many others:—I betake myself to one of our altars to receive the Blessed Eucharist; I have no doubt whatever on my mind about the Gift which that Sacrament contains; I confess to myself my belief, and I go through the steps on which it is assured to me. “The Presence of Christ is here, for It follows upon Consecration; and Consecration is the prerogative of Priests; and Priests are made by Ordination; and Ordination comes in direct line from the Apostles. Whatever be our other misfortunes, every link in our chain is safe; we have the Apostolic Succession, we have a right form of consecration: therefore we are blessed with the great Gift.” Here the question rises in me, “Who told you about that Gift?” I answer, “I have learned it from the Fathers: I believe the Real Presence because they bear witness to it. St. Ignatius calls it ‘the medicine of immortality:’ St. Irenæus says that ‘our flesh becomes incorrupt, and partakes of life, and has the hope of the resurrection,’ as ‘being nourished from the Lord’s Body and Blood;’ that the Eucharist ‘is made up of two things, an earthly and an heavenly:’ [Note 21] perhaps Origen, and perhaps Magnes, after him, say that It is not a type of our Lord’s Body, but His Body: and St. Cyprian uses language as fearful as can be spoken, of those who profane it. I cast my lot with them, I believe as they.” Thus I reply, and then the thought comes upon me a second time, “And do not the same ancient Fathers bear witness to another {24} doctrine, which you disown? Are you not as a hypocrite, listening to them when you will, and deaf when you will not? How are you casting your lot with the Saints, when you go but half-way with them? For of whether of the two do they speak the more frequently, of the Real Presence in the Eucharist, or of the Pope’s supremacy? You accept the lesser evidence, you reject the greater.”
)
See the Catholic’s side and you will see the BIG difference, how deep the Church’s faith is. Not to mention how apostolic it is. 