The Real Presence

[Nicea325]

…and therein lies the problem…a conservative Catholic has no option but to interpret Augustine in a fashion that supports conservative Catholic teaching, b/c otherwise it just gets downright embarassing

Yep and then some totally make Augustine look flat out ignorant and foolish by claiming he believed and taught a novel Protestant belief of a symbolic eucharist.Speaking of embarassing?

BTW: I am wondering why you have no issues with conservative Catholic teaching on the canon of the NT? Protestanism: pick and choose what suits me.

 

[Radical]

I find it rather arrogant how you claim others give snippets taken out of context,when you do the exact same thing. And trust me you do because I know you lack the education and skills to present historical references in the proper context. This is all about you knowing more than Jesus,Apostles and the ECF’s. I find it rather amusing how Protestants as yourself go to great extremes to present men like St.Augustine as supporting Protestant beliefs and teachings.

BTW: You pervert St.Augustine’s works to prove your agendas and novelties,whether you care to hear it or not. And finally,for the last time St. Augustine WAS NOT PROTESTANT…period!

you know, if I look at this post, all I see are insults and assertions…there really isn’t anything that merits consideration

 

[Radical]

Yep and then some totally make Augustine look flat out ignorant and foolish by claiming he believed and taught a novel Protestant belief of a symbolic eucharist.Speaking of embarassing?

you know, if I look at this post, all I see are insults and assertions…there really isn’t anything that merits consideration

 

[Nicea325]

you know, if I look at this post, all I see are insults and assertions…there really isn’t anything that merits consideration

Insults? Assertions? How prideful can one be at times? Amazing how some people cannot admit when one has more education and knowledge than them? The foundation of Protestanism: It is what I SAY and that is all that matters;hence,thousands of denominations.

 

[Radical]

How prideful can one be at times? Amazing how some people cannot admit when one has more education and knowledge than them?

Are you talking about how you will dismiss the likes of Sullivan, Kilmartin, van der Meer and Wills (all renowned scholars) as revisionists b/c their works do not say what you want them to say?..if not, then it just seems to be more assertions and insults from you

 

[coolduude]

and that is the thing…you haven’t even seen the whole Sermon, yet you quote it as if you know what it advocates wrt the Eucharist.

I quoted wikipedia. Go edit the article if you have a problem with it.

well you seem to have a problem with the “protestant” bits that he said…in that regard it is also, what was said, was said…and it is necessary to reconcile the “catholic bits” with the “protestant bits” and not just quote the “catholic bits” and pretend that the “protestant bits” don’t exist (or be unaware of their existence)

Why should I apologize for my ignorance? I won’t do that. I didn’t fully know of the ‘protestant bits’ and I won’t apologize for that.

As another user pointed out, the Church would not canonize somebody who shared truly Protestant beliefs. It would be counter intuitive, illogical, and heretical. Think about it:
IF Augustine was Protestant in belief (as you claim)
AND he is a Catholic saint (as he is)
THEN he is the only Protestant saint in the Catholic Church!

Which is complete bunk because he lived 400 years after Christ, 600 years before the Great Schism, and a further 1100 years before Luther, Calvin, and the other Protestant fathers. It really doesn’t make any sense.

Again, why would the Church canonize someone who disagreed with them on such important issues as the Eucharist itself?

I have only found the Sermon at one place on the net…It can be read in Google Books. The work is by W. Harmless and is called “Augustine in His Own Words” at pages 153-155…limited preview only…so hopefully it remains available.

Thank you. I’ll be sure to check it out

Oh…so it is OK to quote a little snippet that makes him sound Catholic (even though you have no clue as to what the rest of the Sermon says)…but it is bad form for me to provide an additional bit from the Sermon? Unbelievable!

I was quoting wikipedia. Like I said, edit the article if you have a problem with it.

What I was referring to in my post, though, was that I didn’t want you to post just enough context to make Augustine sound Protestant. I wanted the whole sermon provided to see if Augustine’s quote from wikipedia really was taken out of context. I hope you see what I’m saying but it can be difficult to articulate things over the internet sometimes.

 

[Nicea325]

Are you talking about how you will dismiss the likes of Sullivan, Kilmartin, van der Meer and Wills (all renowned scholars) as revisionists b/c their works do not say what you want them to say?..if not, then it just seems to be more assertions and insults from you

And where those men living close to the Apostolic Age? Do they know more than the ECF? Really? Sullivan knows more about Augustine’s teachings than Augustine himself knew his own works? Speaking of insults! Go ahead and stick your “modern” scholars and I’ll stick to the ancient renowned scholars of the early church. Deal?

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

Radical;8156559]and that is the thing…you haven’t even seen the whole Sermon, yet you quote it as if you know what it advocates wrt the Eucharist.

When you combine all of St. Augustine’s teachings, sermons and writings regarding the Eucharist and the Sacraments, this Roman Catholic Saint is solid on the True presence of the Eucharist.

Besides protestant new ideologies introduced 1600 years after the resurrection, which deny the True presence of Jesus body and blood in His Eucharist did not exist during St. Augustine’s time, the baptised Christian World was unanimous in the biblical faith of Jesus body and blood true presence in His Eucharist.

well you seem to have a problem with the “protestant” bits that he said…in that regard it is also, what was said, was said…and it is necessary to reconcile the “catholic bits” with the “protestant bits” and not just quote the “catholic bits” and pretend that the “protestant bits” don’t exist (or be unaware of their existence)

What ever happened to the protestant clarion cry; “IF Jesus said it I believe it”, “if it aint in the bible I won’t believe it”? What happened to the Sola Scriptura protestant faith here?

Here is Jesus speaking; Notice how Jesus references the True bread from heaven to be himself (His body) and is to be consumed by the faithful inorder to have eternal life.

John 6:33 **For the bread of God is that which comes down from heaven and gives life to the world."

35 Jesus said to them, "I am the bread of life;

47 Amen, amen, I say to you, whoever believes has eternal life.

48 I am the bread of life. **

50 **this is the bread that comes down from heaven so that one may eat it and not die. **

51 I am the living bread that came down from heaven; whoever eats this bread will live forever; **and the bread that I will give is my flesh for the life of the world." **

53 **Jesus said **to them, **"Amen, amen, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you do not have life within you. **

54 **Whoever eats 19 my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him on the last day.

55 For my flesh is true food, and my blood is true drink.

56 Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me and I in him. **

57 … so also the one who feeds on me will have life because of me.

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

…and therein lies the problem…a conservative Catholic has no option but to interpret Augustine in a fashion that supports conservative Catholic teaching, b/c otherwise it just gets downright embarassing

No, No Radical you forget that when St. Augustine is teaching as a Catholic Bishop to his catechumens he never deters from the faith.

When St. Augustine is battling heretics or heresies, he impressively uses his attackers own language to refute them with. It is good to know who St. Augustine is addressing every time he writes, less you contradict his faith with his writings.

Thirdly, when St. Augustine writes as a theologian such as his take on “predistenation” His “opinon” is not necessarily Catholic doctrine. But when ST. Augustine is teaching His catechumens or the Church, make no bones about it, this Apostolic successor is teaching a bonified biblical Apostolic Catholic faith.

I am an avid reader of St. Augustine, and I still cannot grasp the full understandings when he debates heretics, and I have Father Groeshel’s works to assist me, who is a leading authority on ST. Augustines writings today.

 

[Radical]

Do they know more than the ECF? Really?

in some cases most certainly…Augustine seems to have worked off of bad translations of the bible… two of the passages that you Catholics love to quote WRT Augustine’s alleged belief in the RBP are the result of his misunderstanding of scripture. Those passages are the “worshipping the footstool bit” and the “carried in his own hands bit”

Sullivan knows more about Augustine’s teachings than Augustine himself knew his own works?

no…how can you miss this? It is that Kilmartin, van der Meer and Wills know far, far more about Augustine than you (or I) do. They know what Augustine believed based on their research

 

[Radical]

I am an avid reader of St. Augustine, and I still cannot grasp the full understandings when he debates heretics, and I have Father Groeshel’s works to assist me, who is a leading authority on ST. Augustines writings today.

may I suggest that you spread your wings a bit and also employ some other leading authorities on Augustine’s Eucharistic views…their names are van der Meer (biographer), Wills (biographer) and Kilmartin (specialist in the history of Eucharist theology). .

 

[Nicea325]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nicea325
Do they know more than the ECF? Really?

in some cases most certainly…Augustine seems to have worked off of bad translations of the bible… two of the passages that you Catholics love to quote WRT Augustine’s alleged belief in the RBP are the result of his misunderstanding of scripture. Those passages are the “worshipping the footstool bit” and the “carried in his own hands bit”

Bad translations? Oh like the 1611 KJV Bible? Your arrogance is overwhelming at times. So I am curious to know why your beloved scholars hav not challenged and question the NTcanon too,since they “know” more than them? And Protestants love to MIS-quote ECF to suit their novel beliefs. As I said,Protestanism is self-centered and always will be all about “me” and what I say and feel.

Quote:
Sullivan knows more about Augustine’s teachings than Augustine himself knew his own works?

How…how can you miss this? It is that Kilmartin, van der Meer and Wills know far, far more about Augustine than you (or I) do. They know what Augustine believed based on their research

On the contrary,how BLIND can you be? All you ever do is mention the same three names and base all of your arguments and three people who are CENTURIES apart from Augustine. Second,what makes you believe ONLY they more than anyone else? Your scholars are NOT the spokemen for 2,000 years of Christianity nor the only valid scholars. It is arrogant of you to believe that for nearly 2,000 years know one has understood Augustine until your scholars appeared.

BTW: You assume my educational background far to much.

And I see you still have not provided ONE shred of evidence Augustine considered the RP a heresy,pagan,unorthodox,usurpation. Do you ever plan to meet my challenge or continue to dance around it?

All I hear is one prideful person wishing to re-write history and twist the words of men to suit his beliefs.

 

[PJM]

=Radical;8156493]did you mean to use the double negative? In any event, I am not unsure that I do not care about the firmness of your convictions.

The so called Eucharistic miracles do not impress me in the least…every faith has their miraculous claims…and I don’t see the Eucharistic miracles as in a superior class. Tell you what, however, if you and your Church were truly interested in establishing/testing the truth of the alleged miracles, it would be a rather easy thing to do. As I have suggested on another thread:

…but here is something all you faithful adherents could do for us skeptics:

1. pick the five Eucharistics miracles that enjoy the greatest confidence of Catholics;

1. run DNA tests on the flesh and blood samples from those five miracles;

1. the results should either:

        a) prove to the rest of us that all the DNA samples came from a single person, a male semite to be precise; or

        b) prove that the adherents are a gullible and mistaken lot (when it comes to Eucharistic miracles)

We have the technology, let’s do the test for the good of all of us…until then, don’t expect me to buy into the claims…there are just too many holes in them.

Really, PJM…your Church has the opportunity, by way of independent scientific testing, to prove that God is working miracles wrt the Catholic Eucharist…that would go a long, long way in validating the Catholic claims wrt its Eucharist. (It would surely do it for me) Note, however, the emphasis on independent! Please don’t refer me to any tests conducted by Catholics (who are clearly out to prove the validity of their “miracle” w/o any independent checks on their methodology).

God bless you too, Pat

DUH! It happens ALL of the time. Mircales ARE required BOTH got the First and the second [final step] to Sainthood. I though you said you were not impressed [no doubt true] about the E.M.s already presented and road map on how to find more.

SORRY about the double negative! That’s the only thing I have shared that we agree on

While not quite in the format you demand: DNA test have been run on MANY EM’s over a period of many hundreds of years … and ALL have the identical Blood types. Recon that is just coincedience too; right?
May God overlook your obstinance,
God Bless you,
Pat

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

may I suggest that you spread your wings a bit and also employ some other leading authorities on Augustine’s Eucharistic views…their names are van der Meer (biographer), Wills (biographer) and Kilmartin (specialist in the history of Eucharist theology). .

That’s the problem between you and I. I would rather learn from St.Augustine himself regarding his faith about the Eucharist, not another person’s opinion. For me St. Augustine is clear on the True presence of Jesus body and blood in His Eucharist. Trying to learn the mindset of this great theologian about his Catholic faith in the Eucharist from another persons opinion is the problem your having understanding ST.Augustines Catholic faith.

Comparing his apologetic works and trying to twist them with his Catholic faith is the problem your seeing from another persons opinion. I learned from other opinions of St.Augustine are always trying to justify his complex thinking and writings, by grouping them thinking to make them apply to current thinking and philosophical understanding of the date pretending to think they solved his mystical writings from their opinions, becomes only an opinion. I prefer the facts.

For myself, I take each writing and each teaching of his individually, and more times than others one cannot zero in on this great theologian, because sometimes he runs the risk of border line heretic, but his Catholic faith keeps him grounded on the Rock of Peter.

My point is, no one cannot refute that St. Augustine remained in good standing with the Catholic Church and was canonized a Catholic saint. To twist his Catholic teachings on the Eucharist as an unbeliever of the true presence, only reveals a serpent at work.

Breaking down words from his writings does not relate to his Catholic faith, when St.Augustine is clear that the body and blood are truly present in the Eucharist.

Iam amazed how protestants miss this? Augustine is a Catholic Saint who practiced and taught his Catholic faith.

**St. Jerome was one of St. Augustines contemporaries and they battled theologically. St. Jerome never battled anyone with such a Catholic faith as St. Augustine. Do you think St. Jerome who was a staunch Roman Catholic would of exposed St. Augustine had he doubted the Catholic faith regarding the true presence of Jesus body and blood?

For the record St. Jerome went as far as teaching to “venerate the chalice and ciborium” which contained the body and blood of Jesus Christ. Had St. Augustine doubted the true presence, ST. Jerome would of floored St.Augustine on this blessed sacarment.** IT DID NOT HAPPEN. St.Augustine is a Roman Catholic who taught the true presence of Jesus body and blood in the Eucharist mystically at times, but opinions who doubt his Catholic faith are reaching for things that are never there in St.Augustines Catholic faith.

Instead of gazing at opinons from afar, try reading St. Augustines contemporaries who knew him and talked with him, such as other Catholic saints and popes. From these contemporaries of ST. Augustine have me convinced as well as St. Augustine himself that he believed in the True presence of Jesus body and blood in the Eucharist.

Trusting the Early Church Fathers one cannot go wrong.

Peace be with you

 

[Radical]

DUH! It happens ALL of the time. Mircales ARE required BOTH got the First and the second [final step] to Sainthood.

yes, and non-Catholics also claim that their miracles happen all the time…and someone from that faith validates their miracles too.

While not quite in the format you demand: DNA test have been run on MANY EM’s over a period of many hundreds of years …

aaarrrrrrgggggghhhhhhhh! DNA tests haven’t existed for hundreds of years. Blood type tests (also not around for hundreds of years), are not, repeat are not DNA tests. This is the problem with the Catholic claims regarding the miraculous that circulate on the internet…it is unsubstantiated bad information heaped upon more of the same.

…and ALL have the identical Blood types. Recon that is just coincedience too; right?

well, given your track record of inaccurately reporting what has been done, I would first need to actually see that tests have been done, then I’d need to see the results, and then verify that proper scientific methodology had been followed…then we could see if it would be necessary to even begin to consider the possibility of a coincidence.

 

[david_ruiz]

[But in order for the graces that gives eternal life, “you must consume the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world”

.Again ,the new testament church shows one is saved by grace ,and not works of righteousness. In the John discourse that is the final point .The apostles show no indication of a literal interpretation of real presence yet Christ is happy with them .Why ? The final and ultimate criterion for righteousness is to believe,“for sure thou art the Christ,your WORDS are life” Peter said. He do NOT say, " your flesh is life". 1 John 3:23 - “For this is THE commandment of God, that we should believe on the name of His son ,Jesus Christ , and love one another, and he that keepeth his commandments dwelleth in him and He in them.” I do NOT see anything here of eating His flesh .The interpolation then is that eating his flesh is believing on the Son …Jesus told a man that he must, " go and sell all you have , and follow me to be righteous" .Does that literally apply to all of us ?

“This cup is the New covenant in my blood which will be shed for you”, in the New and everlasting covenant we must consume this Lamb because this Lamb’s body and blood gives us eternal life.

[/QUOTE]

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

david ruiz;8158697].Again ,the new testament church shows one is saved by grace ,and not works of righteousness

.

No, No david you put the cart before the horse here. Baptism saves you now?

1Peter 3:20… in which a few persons, eight in all, were saved through water.
21 This prefigured baptism, which saves you now.

See also John 3:3-5 by baptism one recieves the saving graces of God sacramentally which is a true and real presence when the finger of God touches our humanity and saves us.

You got it right from the Catholic Church, it is grace recieved from baptism that saves you now. The works and righteousness are done by Jesus. After baptism the saved Christians Philippians 2:12 So then, my beloved, obedient as you have always been, not only when I am present but all the more now when I am absent, work out your salvation with fear and trembling.
13 For God is the one who, for his good purpose, works in you both to desire and to work.

The Eucharist is food for the saved to journey in this world and into eternity. God is the same yesterday, today and forever more. This heavenly bread is not for the unbelievers, let alone those who do not discern the body and blood of Jesus in the cup of blessing and in the bread see 1Cor.11:20-27

In the John discourse that is the final point .The apostles show no indication of a literal interpretation of real presence yet Christ is happy with them .Why ? The final and ultimate criterion for righteousness is to believe,“for sure thou art the Christ,your WORDS are life” Peter said. They do NOT say your flesh is life.

If you take in the whole context of scripture teaching you will find no contradiction when John reveals that "your WORDS became flesh;

John 1:1
1 2 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
2
He was in the beginning with God.
3
3 All things came to be through him, and without him nothing came to be. What came to be
4
through him was life, and this life was the light of the human race;
14
**And the Word became flesh **9 and made his dwelling among us, and we saw his glory, the glory as of the Father’s only Son, full of grace and truth.

I sort of lost your thought in your continued post here because you have jumped off subject all over the place, I will repost my response for your latter subjects.

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

david ruiz 1 John 3:23- “For this is THE commandment of God, that we should believe on the name of His son ,Jesus Christ , and love one another, and he that keepeth his commandments dwelleth in him and He in them.” I do NOT see anything here of eating His flesh .The interpolation then is that eating his flesh is believing on the Son …Jesus told a man that he must go and sell all you have , and follow me to be righteous .Does that literally apply to all of us ?

The letter of 1John comes long after the resurrection and is teaching to the already saved Christians, morals and disciplines. These are already celebrating Mass in the breaking of bread and prayers see Acts 2:42.

The gosples on the other hand reveal **Jesus himself teaching what it takes to be saved **and what it takes to live in communion with God in all of eternity.For example Jesus teaches that you must be baptised in order to enter and see the kindom of God;

John 3;3 Jesus answered and said to him, “Amen, amen, I say to you, **no one can see the kingdom of God without being born 3 from above.” **
5 **Jesus answered, "Amen, amen, I say to you, no one can enter the kingdom of God without being born of water and Spirit. **6
What is born of flesh is flesh and what is born of spirit is spirit.

Now **Jesus teaches that those saved his disciples **in His New Covenant must eat His flesh and drink His blood.

Matthew 26:26 While they were eating, Jesus took bread, said the blessing, broke it, and giving it to his disciples said, **“Take and eat; this is my body.” **
27
Then he took a cup, gave thanks, 16 and gave it to them, saying, **"Drink from it, all of you,
28
for this is my blood of the covenant, which will be shed on behalf of many for the forgiveness of sins. **

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

And Jesus said , "Do this for eternal life " ,or did he say , “Do this in REMEBRANCE of Me .”…In the end, the new testament has shifted to old testament tendencies

.

Your on the right track here, because Jesus came to fulfill the Law and the Prophets. The “Do this in rememberance of me” is the same Hebrew expression Jesus used from the Old Testament Jewish passover which “rememberance” translated to the Hebrew is “Zakar” which means to “be made present”. Jesus was fulfilling the Sedar meal in himself by making himself present as the True sacrificial Lamb of God who will save them from their guilt and sins.

You go from offering thanks for the final offering, Eucharist, to re-offering daily

.

This thanks that Jesus is fulfilling from the law which includes the “Todah” sacrifce offering. Do you know what the Hebrew “Todah” sacrafice offering entails? in short “Eucharist” fits the bill.

Did you know Jesus is slain since the foundation of the world? Revelations 13:8…the Lamb which was slain from the beginning of the world. You are wrong to think that Jesus is re-sacrificed or re-offered daily. The Last supper event revealed in time what is from all eternity that John sees in heaven from eternity the “lamb standing as though slain”.

Jesus institutes His eternal sacrifice to be celebrated at Mass in time from all of eternity, here is the Hebrew revelation of what takes place at Mass;

Hebrews 10:19
9 **Therefore, brothers, since through the blood of Jesus we have confidence of entrance into the sanctuary
20
10 by the new and living way he opened for us through the veil, that is, his flesh, **

Hebrews 12:22…** you have approached Mount Zion and the city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem, **and countless angels in festal gathering,
23
and the assembly of the firstborn enrolled in heaven, 6 and God the judge of all, and the spirits of the just made perfect,
24
**and Jesus, the mediator of a new covenant, and the sprinkled blood **that speaks more eloquently 7 than that of Abel.

The daily Mass offering is biblical and conducted in every nation world wide daily and Jesus fulfills the prophets in the “do this in rememberance of me” when His sacrifice and offering truly present in His body and blood celebrated in the Eucharist.

Malachi 11
For from the rising of the sun, even to its setting, my name is great among the nations; And everywhere they bring sacrifice to my name, and a pure offering; For great is my name among the nations, says the LORD of hosts.
12
But you behave profanely toward me by thinking the LORD’S table and its offering may be polluted, and its food slighted.

No one can go before the Father in heaven without the True presence of Jesus body, blood soul and divinity. The Mass sacramentally makes this happen in time from all of eternity.

John 14:6
Jesus said to him, "I am the way and the truth 5 and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.

 

[Cat_Herder]

Bottom line - for an institution to gain control ( because of rival patriarchs, division, a collapsing political, social system, - real problems ), the" real presence" is a must, for then it legitimizes the need for a priestly class over lay people , as the pope legitimizes rule organizationally. This may seem harsh , but I believe it is part of the puzzle. Again , there definitely were new challenges. However the Church could have continued in the same fashion as during apostolic times :equality in ministries and saints ,and reliance on the Holy Spirit as Vicar of Christ…Thank-you for letting me speak so frankly. You are gracious hosts.

You are claiming that the “true” Christian Church “became” Catholic when it “added” the doctrine of Christ’s Real Presence in the Eucharist, and that it did so in order to gain political control over believers.

That is a greivous accusation. And it is dead wrong. I’ll tell you why.

You didn’t give a date for this alleged event but the favorite of your fellow doomsayers is Constantine’s Edict of Milan in 313 AD. So your timeline looks like this…

. “true church” . . . . . . . . . . “Catholic” church . . . . . . . . . . . . . . … . . . . “true” church
|----------------------------|---------------------------------------------/ /----------|----------------------
33 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ~300. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1500s
AD . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . AD . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .AD
Cavary . . . . . . . . . Legalization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Reformation

As you know, the Catholic doctrine of the Real Presence includes WORSHIP of the Eucharist. Since idolaters are not saved (Rev. 21:8), if the Eucharist is not Christ Himself, Catholics are not saved. That means that if you are right, then no one from the time the doctrine was allegedly “adopted” to the time of the Protestant Reformation (1500s AD) would be saved because such people would be Catholic, therefore worshipers of the Eucharist, therefore idolaters if the Eucharist is something other than God, therefore unsaved.

So let’s look at the BIble.

[BIBLEDRB]1 Timothy 2:3-4[/BIBLEDRB]
[BIBLEDRB]John 3:16[/BIBLEDRB]

Well then…
If God truly wills for all men in the world to be saved and know the truth, and the “true” church was out of the picture for more than a thousand years, leaving no way to know the truth and be saved (and moreover teaching idolatry as you claim), then God cannot accomplish what He wills–the salvation of the billions of people who lived and died during that period–and therefore He is not omnipotent and therefore is not God.
To state the obvious conclusion:
Therefore either Catholics are saved (because Christ is present in the Eucharist) or Christianity is not true.

Since you are simultaneously arguing the existence and omnipotence of God while also claiming that He is unable to do His will (to offer salvation to everyone by keeping the “true” church in constant existence), you are holding mutually exclusive positions and have refuted yourself.

Thankfully, God exists and He is omnipotent. But there is more.

If God truly wills for all men to be saved, then the means of salvation He provided must have existed during the time between Calvary and the Reformation; moreover…
[bibledrb]Malachi 3:6[/bibledrb]
Since God does not change, that means of salvation must have been constant and unchanging. Moreover…
[bibledrb]Jude 1:3[/bibledrb]
Since God provided His revelation once for all 1,500 years before the Reformation, that means of salvation must have existed AT ALL TIMES after Calvary and BEFORE the Reformation.
Moreover:
Since the means of salvation existed before the Reformation then no Protestant church can provide the means of salvation unless the means of salvation was obtained from the Catholic Church.
And that is reality. Christ founded one Church, the ekklesia kata holos described in Acts 9:31, from which comes the term Catholic Church; moreover, Christ is really present in the Holy Eucharist, Catholics are not idolators because the Eucharist is Jesus, who is God, and that means Christ kept His promise that He would never leave the Church because He is there in the Eucharist waiting for you.
[BIBLEDRB]Matthew 28:20[/BIBLEDRB]