Because they ignore history, just like the Muslims and other non-Catholic religions do. They close their eyes and drift away from the truth. It´s simple as that.
**Acts 2:42 They were continually devoting themselves to the apostles’ teaching and to fellowship, to the breaking of bread *{not flesh} *and to prayer.
1 Corinthians 5:7-8 " 7 Clean out the old leaven so that you may be a new lump, just as you are {in fact} unleavened. For Christ our Passover also has been sacrificed. 8 Therefore let us celebrate the feast, not with old leaven, nor with the leaven of malice and wickedness, but with the unleavened bread of sincerity and truth."**
**1 Corinthians 10:15-18 *“I speak as to wise men; you judge what I say. *16 Is not the cup of blessing which we bless a sharing in the blood of Christ? Is not the bread which we break a sharing in the body of Christ? 17 Since there is one bread, we who are many are one body; for we all partake of the one bread.”
1 Corinthians 11:23-27 "For I received from the Lord that which I also delivered to you, that the Lord Jesus in the night in which He was betrayed took bread; 24 and when He had given thanks, He broke it and said, “This is My body, which is for you; do this in remembrance of Me.” 25 In the same way {He took} the cup also after supper, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in My blood;
do this, as often as you drink {it,}
in remembrance of Me.” 26 For as often as
you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death until He comes. 27
{WARNING}Therefore whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner, shall be guilty of the body and the blood of the Lord."
Here is an exert from John White in relation to historical facts concerning the “early church - universal”
“OK, the New Testament…was a process undertaken by the early Church, which was thoroughly Catholic.”
“Catholic, or Roman Catholic?” John asked.
Paul looked surprised by the question. “There is a difference?”
“Of course” John replied. “Catholic simply means ‘universal,’ and it was a term used in the early Church to differentiate true believers from those outside. ‘Roman Catholic’ carries far more ‘baggage’ than the mere term ‘Catholic.’ It includes, as it is used by modern Roman apologists, the idea of Papal authority, doctrines such as purgatory, indulgences, Marian dogmas, etc. The early church was ‘catholic’ but it was surely not ‘Roman Catholic.’”
Paul looked flustered at this point. “Well, I disagree. The early Christians believed in the Real Presence of Jesus in Holy Communion…”
“But not in transubstantiation, right?” John inserted.
“Well, they may not have used the term…”
“So why do you interpret their belief in a ‘real presence’ as being relevant to a Roman Catholic dogma defined a thousand years later?”
“Well, it’s one of the many evidences that the Roman Catholic Church has been the one true Church all along…”
“And if that were the case, Paul, it would follow that what the early Fathers believed regarding what you call the ‘real presence’ would fit with what Rome teaches today, which is manifestly not the case. You will not find the early Fathers setting aside consecrated hosts, for example, in a tabernacle or monstrance for the express purpose of worshipping it, which is a natural and necessary result of a belief in transubstantiation. So, whatever they meant by ‘real presence’ it surely was not what you as a Roman Catholic believe today.”
“That’s just not the case!” Paul retorted. “Even Ignatius clearly believed in what I believe. He said in Romans 7.3, “I desire the bread of God, which is the flesh of Christ who was of the seed of David; and for a draught I desire His blood, which is love incorruptible.”
“Think about what you just quoted, Paul” John replied. “There is nothing about transubstantiation in those words. When you realize the background of Ignatius’ writings, and his battle against gnosticism, as well as Jesus’ words in John 6 about Him being the bread of heaven, the words of Ignatius make perfect sense without reading into them any kind of Aristotelian dogma of accidents and substance, etc. and etc. Besides, if you really think this is such a universal belief, please explain the following four citations to me:
Code:
“The sacrament of the body and blood of Christ, which we receive, is a divine thing, because by it we are made partakers of the divine-nature. Yet the substance or nature of the bread and wine does not cease. And assuredly the image and the similitude of the body and blood of Christ are celebrated in the performance of the mysteries.” Gelasius, bishop of Rome, in Jacques Paul Migne, Patrologiae Latinae, Tractatus de duabis naturis Adversus Eutychen et Nestorium 14.
“The mystical emblems of the body and blood of Christ continue in their original essence and form, they are visible and tangible as they were before [the consecration]; but the contemplation of the spirit and of faith sees in them that which they have become, and they are adored also as that which they are to believers.” (Theodoret, Dialogue ii, Opera ed. Hal. tom. iv p. 126).
In other words, in respect of His divine presence we always have Christ; in respect of His presence in the flesh it was rightly said to the disciples, 'Me you will not have always.' In this respect the Church enjoyed His presence only for a few days: now it possesses Him by faith, without seeing Him with the eyes....He left the world by a bodily withdrawal, He proceeded to the Father by His ascension man, but He forsook not the world in the ruling activity of His presence.
**
CONTINUED NEXT POST **
If you were a demon and you had been fooling Christians out of their faith throughout history with heresies and lies and other weapons of mass spiritual destruction, why in the heck would you admit to it and point out your strategies? It’s like when generals go on CNN and say where they’re looking for Bin Ladin or some terrorist? lol…dumb! I guess we can thank these demons for giving us some heads-up on their agenda! lol
does not or more accurately did not began in denial of the Catholic Church being the ONE TRUE CHURCH of Christ, as the leaders of the Protestant Revolution came out of this same One True Church saying that what was is no more; that the Church Christ founded [never denied] had some how lost favor with God. There is no evidence other than their opinion of this fact, and MUCH evidence that it is far from factual and truthful.
How old is your church or any of the other 30,000 non-catholic churches? Maybe 400 years. If He didn’t found His Church when He was on earth, when did He? How did he and how do you explain thee Bible that has been around for at least 1,600 years? I do value your opinions, but please, a bit of intellectual honesty is called for!