Every heresy is against the Catholic Church

[KEP1983]

What I think also argues in favor of Protestantism – potentially, at least – is that, frankly, the “original” is not necessarily the “best” or even the most “true.” It takes an additional belief that this is the case; it is not obvious or logically necessary.

Matt 16:18 "And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it. 19 I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.”

1 Tim 3:15 “which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth.”

John 14:26 "But the Advocate, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, will teach you all things and will remind you of everything I have said to you.

Yes, the original is “the best,” because it’s the one that Christ founded and said that His Holy Spirit will teach them all things and guide them into all truth.

Christ also said that the gates of Hades would not overcome the Church, and that the Church is the pillar and foundation of truth. Not the Bible, the Church.

Take the case of a restaurant. A restaurant serving superlative cuisine 10 years ago, may not be serving superlative cuisine today. Perhaps it is under new management.

If the person who founded it was Jesus Christ and Jesus said “I tell you that you are Dave Thomas, and upon this Wendy’s I will build my restaurant. And the gates of McDonald’s shall not prevail against it. And I will send my Holy Hamburger recipe, and it will guide you into the most delicious truth. Behold I am with you always, until the End of the Age”

Then I would follow Wendy’s, not McDonalds. And I would feel ashamed to think that Christ couldn’t preserve this Restaurant from falling into heresy and ruining the Holy Hamburger recipe.

And someone else, with a less literal understanding, can say, "actually, if you want to know who the real modern-day Romans are, look to the United States.

Non-sequitur.

Thus, I don’t think it’s enough to say, “modern-day Catholicism is closest to the spirit of Christ because it can trace its lineage, in unbroken succession, to Christ’s apostles.”…

The question isn’t solely about tracing your lineage. The question is about Christ’s promise to the Church.

Gods promise to Israel was that if they followed Him, He would bless them. If they didn’t, He’d curse them and pull them out of the land. Which He did, numerous times.

The promise to the Church was completely different. There is not quid-pro-quo promise to the Church. Instead, we see “the gates of hades will not overcome it,” and “I will guide it into all truth.” Even when Peter denied Jesus 3 times at the most crucial moment in human history, Christ came right back and restored him.

Secondly, if Protestants want to say that the Church fell into apostasy and that Martin Luther (or Calvin, or Zwingli, or whoever) restored it to the original truth; then I would expect such a huge event to be found in scripture. Why are there no prophecies about a great apostasy lasting 1,000 years followed by a great restoration of the truth? No, we don’t see that. Instead we see “I will build my Church, and the gates of Hades shall not prevail against it… behold, I am with you ALWAYS, until the End of the Age”

 

[KEP1983]

Thus, I well understand the concept that , in principle, Catholicism could be the original Church – historically – yet that this does not guarantee that it is the one true church, the church whose teachings are closest to the original teachings and intent of Christ.

At least you admit that Protestantism has a very poor historical claim.

So you must therefore admit that the Holy Spirit was incapable of preventing the Church from falling into heresy for 1,000 years, and had to wait over 1,000 years to send someone to “correct” the Church and restore its original teaching. Of course we don’t know if the correct correction is Lutheranism, Calvinism, Arminianism, Anabaptist, Evangelical, etc.

What a weak God! Completely incapable of protecting His truth from falling into such widespread error.

Jesus himself didn’t think in terms of literal succession, biologically speaking. He said, “who are my mothers and brothers? My real mother and brothers are those who hear God’s word and put it into practice.” By that he meant that those who are most closely related to him are not those who are biologically closest, but spiritually closest.

Jesus didn’t think in terms of literal succession; yet He created the state of Israel and its line of succession? And then in Acts 1 He and the Holy Spirit then inspired the Apostles to appoint Matthias as the successor to Judas, even though God doesn’t believe in succession?

And why did Paul warn Timothy to be wary who he laid his hands upon and gave his authority to?

And to refute the idea of succession you bring up something irrelevant about “mothers and brothers,” which had nothing to do with Church authority? I don’t see any connection between the two whatsoever.

Thus, the modern-day Italians are not necessarily closest to the spirit of Rome, and Catholicism is not necessarily – in principle, at least – closest to the spirit of Christ (not, at least, on account of historical continuity alone, or this idea of being “still the original, still the best”).

The Protestant conception of God is much like the Islamic and Mormon God, a very weak God who is incapable of preserving the truth. All of these religions ignore what Jesus said; that the gates of Hades would not overcome the Church, which is the pillar and foundation of truth, and that the Holy Spirit would guide the Church into all truth, and that He would remain with them ALWAYS until the End of the Age.

Instead Protestants, Muslims, and Mormons all insist that God had to wait 700-1,800 years to send someone to correct everything back to Christ’s original teachings. And ALL of them have split into numerous denominations. There are around 150 Islamic sects, 20,000 Protestant denominations, and about 100 Mormon sects. But after 2,000 years there still remains One Catholic Church.

 

[KEP1983]

Duly noted; looking again at your message, I see that this was indeed the point you were making

That is interesting, I was not aware of that historical distinction. In my admittedly somewhat random readings of arguments against transsubstantiation, I did come across one argument – from Calvin, I believe – which invoked Christ’s line “the poor you will always have with you, but I will not always be with you”, as well as – if I am remembering correctly – the statement, “remember I will be with you always, even until the end of time.” It was clear to Calvin – again, if I am not mistaken – that “I will not always be with you” referred to his physical, bodily presence on earth. However, “I will be with you always, until the end of time” was referring to his spiritual omnipresence (“wherever two or more are gathered in my name, I am with them”).

Thus, the main Protestant argument (even though there were nuances of difference between Luther and Calvin on the subect, just to name two) was that Christ was spiritually present in the Eucharist as, indeed, he is present everywhere; in fact, they went even further, and maintained that Christ is spiritually present in the Eucharist, in particular, in a way that he is not present everywhere.

Thus someone like Luther or Calvin – as I understand it – believed in the “real presence”, but believed that the real presence was spiritual (echoing Christ’s words, “God is a spirit, and those that worship him must do so in spirit and in truth.” Spiritual did not mean less real, as I understand it; if anything, they believed the opposite (“it is the spirit that gives life; the flesh profits nothing”).

The physical body of Christ – the flesh, blood, and bone – ascended into heaven, and would not come again until the end of time, hence the accuracy of Christ’s saying, “the poor you will always have with you, but me you will not always with you.” When the body of Christ left this earth, when he ascended into heaven, he sent the Holy Spirit (Pentecost).

From my own readings on the subject, I also see that most of the Reformers were troubled by the way in which Catholic layersons – presumably – were in danger of making the Euchrarist into an idol of sorts. So, comparatively speaking, these Reformers wanted to focus on the faith with which one partakes of the bread in which Christ is really and truly present, rather than on the bread itself. It was more important to them, I suppose, that the faith be focused on Christ, and not so much on this notion that the bread is Jesus “in the flesh.”

Perhaps it’s semantic, as well – Luther, as I understand it, believed in the real presence of the spiritual body of Christ, in the Eucharist. It’s the physical body of Christ that he believed was not omnipresent, even though the spiritual body could be omnipresent.

In a sense, I think most Catholics can appreciate this logic, as well – the Holy Spirit is everywhere, and thus Christ is everywhere. But the body of Christ ascended into heaven, and will “come again” at the end of time. In one sense, it is already here; in another sense, it clearly isn’t, since – when it was here – it could be seen and touched, and was walking around and talking to people, laying hands on them, etc.

You’re confusing transubstantiation with transformation.