Why would I trust any Protestant church, since the gates of hell supposedly prevailed against the church founded by God?

[joe370]

Hi sentry…You said:

Some of these threads make me think that things aren’t very good between Catholics and non-Catholics right now. We’re not the bad guys , and being non-Catholic doesn’t mean that we think ill of Catholics!

From my perspective things don’t seem that bad at all between catholics and non-catholics outside the obvious doctrinal differences. I have quite a few non-Catholic friends from my former non-Catholic church and here at CAF. I love all churches and respect every non-Catholics right to believe whatever they choose to believe. The following question was just a question that was on my mind as of late:

For 1500 years the Catholic Church, founded by God (long before, even one Protestant Church existed) - according to most Protestant/Evangelical Church leadership, has been guilty of blasphemy regarding the Eucharist. If they are right then the gates of hell did in fact prevail against Jesus’ church, again, long before any Protestant Church ever existed.

If the preceding is true about the Catholic church then where does one go to find doctrinal truth regarding the Eucharist or any other doctrine that has conflicting interpretations? Considering the assumption that the gates of hell supposedly prevailed against the Catholic church, (and the gates of hell did prevail, if in fact the Catholic Church was guilty of Eucharistic idolatry) - where does one go in lieu of the CC?

Sentry, isn’t the Catholic church guilty of Eucharistic idolatry if in fact the bread is not Jesus’ body…if it is just mere bread? Isn’t there too much liturgical focus on the bread if in fact the bread and wine are just mere symbols of Jesus’ Body? All of this focus on mere bread (catholics consider the Eucharist to be the source and summit of their faith) - seems rather blasphemous if the CC is wrong about the Eucharist. Of course I do not believe that they are wrong.

I am told by many of my non-Catholic friends that the CC, over the course of time, made some things up and altered the teachings of Jesus, eg the Eucharist. If they are right (of course I respectfully don’t believe they are) - then it doesn’t seem that I can trust the CC founded by God, (if in fact you believe that the CC was founded by God) - which got me wondering, why anyone would suggest that I could trust one of the many non-Catholic churches founded by man, as opposed to Jesus Christ, at a much later date than circa AD 33, when it comes to the same Eucharistic doctrine, or other conflicting doctrines for that matter?

Most of my family belongs to one of the non-Catholic churches (Lutheran - Evangelical) - and I often attend church service with them, and my dad’s church teaches one thing about the Eucharist and my nieces church teaches something completely different, and my church teaches something different from both of those churches, which is why I decided to throw the preceding questions out there to everyone here at CAF. I know that I was not entrusted with the authority to make a judgment call vis-a-vis the different interpretations of the Eucharist so I just thought I would attempt to get some feedback from others.

In the end, if we cannot agree, I believe that mutual respect is the key to catholics and non-catholics, remembering that we are all brothers and sisters in Christ.

 

[freerf]

Protestants typically believe in a universal church, free of denominational boundaries, one that is truly visible only to God. Some of those church members are within the Catholic church, some within Angelican, Baptists, Etc. .CS Lewis might even go farther and say some outside even Christian religions.

Point being, everyone falls short of the truth. We all believe some falsehoods and some truths. Therefore, one who believes who-heartedly in the “Catholic” faith could have just as much claim to membership in a “universal church” as one who attends a non-denomination 4 member church is the middle of nowhere.

Therefore, the gates of hell shall never prevail over this church, ever. Where two or more are gathered in His name, there He is, and there is His Church.

 

[joe370]

That is the vibe I am getting…

Protestants typically believe in a universal church, free of denominational boundaries, one that is truly visible only to God. Some of those church members are within the Catholic church, some within Angelican, Baptists, Etc. .CS Lewis might even go farther and say some outside even Christian religions.

Point being, everyone falls short of the truth. We all believe some falsehoods and some truths. Therefore, one who believes who-heartedly in the “Catholic” faith could have just as much claim to membership in a “universal church” as one who attends a non-denomination 4 member church is the middle of nowhere.

Therefore, the gates of hell shall never prevail over this church, ever. Where two or more are gathered in His name, there He is, and there is His Church.

 

[cooterhein]

The CC is guilty of Eucharistic idolatry, long before any protestant church existed, if in fact the bread and wine does NOT become the flesh and blood of Jesus Christ - period!!!

You need to change your tone. You can’t talk to me that way. What did non-Catholics do to you, anyway?

If the protestant claim is true then the gates of hell have been victorious over the church founded by God

Protestants don’t agree with any part of this statement. We don’t believe the CC constitutes the Ark of Salvation, the Protector of the Fullness of Truth, the One True Church, or the “church founded by God.” We also don’t believe the gates of hell have prevailed against it. There are still plenty of Christians in the CC, and that means the gates of hell have not prevailed. If the teaching errors were so grievous that no Christians were left in Catholic parishes, then and only then would the gates of hell have prevailed against the CC. But still not against Christ’s Church, provided that there are still Christians on earth who don’t belong to the CC.

Most, not all, protestants say that make the claim that catholics worship mere bread and mere wine and re-sacrifice Jesus over and over. You know that I am right!!! I have been accused of that silliness time and time again right here at CAF.

Ain’t nobody doing it now. You’re the one dragging it up and trying to get non-Catholics to say it. Doesn’t make sense to me.

What do you want me to say? I’m refusing to affirm those things and asking you to stop revisiting them, and you’re mad for some reason. Is there any way of talking to you that does work? Because I’m trying, and I don’t think you’re being very reasonable.

You’re one of the grumpier Catholic converts, you know. Hope that changes for you. Seriously, it’s one thing to get upset when non-Catholics call you blasphemous- that’s understandable. But when you air those grievances of your own accord, get yourself worked up all over again, and (for whatever reason) get a little upset with people who refuse to call you a blasphemer, that’s grumpy person behavior.

Transubstantiation is an utter joke and a lie made up by the Magisterium of the CC to most protestants and you know that to be true.

smileyvault.com/albums/character/smiley-vault-character-260.gif

If not the CC then which church is Christ’s church safeguarding truth??? Please don’t say: all of them as the one true church. That makes zero sense to me.

Non-Catholics don’t see the function of “safeguarding truth” or the preservation of a mythical repository of perfection as the thing that’s threatened by the Gates of Hell. We’re more concerned with the identity of Christ’s Church and its survival, which is all the people ingrafted into His Body. It’s their survival on planet Earth that’s threatened by the Gates of Hell. And yes, things like truth, sound doctrine, and beneficial teaching are means that contribute to this end. But if and when the CC errs- even grievously so- yet does not cause Christians to cease existing on this planet, the Gates of Hell have not prevailed.

It’s rather curious that in your mind, so many actual departures of Christians from the Catholic Church- something that clearly messes with unity- is not sufficient for the Gates of Hell to prevail, but if the Magisterium ever errs in any way, however slight…

Boom, curtains, it’s over, the Devil wins. Even if there’s still plenty of Christians around that are perfectly capable of working out long-term solutions to such a problem, the Gates of Hell have prevailed.

It seems a little arbitrary to me. That’s all.

I hope you understand the explanation. You used to be a Protestant, and you put it right out there for everyone to see. We assume that you’re capable of understanding the language we speak. If you’re not, maybe you should be less public with your recent status as a Protestant and get into some kind of remedial learning mode.

Sarcasm is the usual response from protestants when faced with reality.

You were a Protestant not that long ago. What is wrong with you? Were you like this when you were a Protestant?

That was all I could ever muster as a former protestant, when faced with truth. Thanks for the feedback though…

Well, I guess you answered that question. You were a sarcastic Protestant. And now you’re kind of a grumpy Catholic.

I hope that changes for you. The grumpiness, that is. And you’re welcome for the feedback.

 

[joe370]

Every time you respond to my posts, you inject so much hostility and I don’t know why. I consider you a brother in Christ but clearly this is not reciprocated so please don’t waste your time responding to my posts; you never address the OP anyway.

Take care and I really mean that.

You need to change your tone. You can’t talk to me that way. What did non-Catholics do to you, anyway?

Protestants don’t agree with any part of this statement. We don’t believe the CC constitutes the Ark of Salvation, the Protector of the Fullness of Truth, the One True Church, or the “church founded by God.” We also don’t believe the gates of hell have prevailed against it. There are still plenty of Christians in the CC, and that means the gates of hell have not prevailed. If the teaching errors were so grievous that no Christians were left in Catholic parishes, then and only then would the gates of hell have prevailed against the CC. But still not against Christ’s Church, provided that there are still Christians on earth who don’t belong to the CC.

Ain’t nobody doing it now. You’re the one dragging it up and trying to get non-Catholics to say it. Doesn’t make sense to me.

What do you want me to say? I’m refusing to affirm those things and asking you to stop revisiting them, and you’re mad for some reason. Is there any way of talking to you that does work? Because I’m trying, and I don’t think you’re being very reasonable.

You’re one of the grumpier Catholic converts, you know. Hope that changes for you. Seriously, it’s one thing to get upset when non-Catholics call you blasphemous- that’s understandable. But when you air those grievances of your own accord, get yourself worked up all over again, and (for whatever reason) get a little upset with people who refuse to call you a blasphemer, that’s grumpy person behavior.

smileyvault.com/albums/character/smiley-vault-character-260.gif

Non-Catholics don’t see the function of “safeguarding truth” or the preservation of a mythical repository of perfection as the thing that’s threatened by the Gates of Hell. We’re more concerned with the identity of Christ’s Church and its survival, which is all the people ingrafted into His Body. It’s their survival on planet Earth that’s threatened by the Gates of Hell. And yes, things like truth, sound doctrine, and beneficial teaching are means that contribute to this end. But if and when the CC errs- even grievously so- yet does not cause Christians to cease existing on this planet, the Gates of Hell have not prevailed.

It’s rather curious that in your mind, so many actual departures of Christians from the Catholic Church- something that clearly messes with unity- is not sufficient for the Gates of Hell to prevail, but if the Magisterium ever errs in any way, however slight…

Boom, curtains, it’s over, the Devil wins. Even if there’s still plenty of Christians around that are perfectly capable of working out long-term solutions to such a problem, the Gates of Hell have prevailed.

It seems a little arbitrary to me. That’s all.

I hope you understand the explanation. You used to be a Protestant, and you put it right out there for everyone to see. We assume that you’re capable of understanding the language we speak. If you’re not, maybe you should be less public with your recent status as a Protestant and get into some kind of remedial learning mode.

You were a Protestant not that long ago. What is wrong with you? Were you like this when you were a Protestant?

Well, I guess you answered that question. You were a sarcastic Protestant. And now you’re kind of a grumpy Catholic.

I hope that changes for you. The grumpiness, that is. And you’re welcome for the feedback.

 

[benidict]

For 1500 years the Catholic Church, founded by God (long before, even one Protestant Church existed) - according to most Protestant/Evangelical Church leadership, has been guilty of blasphemy regarding the Eucharist. If they are right then the gates of hell did in fact prevail against Jesus’ church, again, long before any Protestant Church ever existed. If the preceding is true then why in the world would I trust any Protestant church founded by man, considering the fact that the gates of hell supposedly prevailed against the church founded by God, and the gates of hell did prevail, if in fact the Catholic Church was guilty of Eucharistic idolatry in every century leading up to the protestant reformation?

hi Joe, you are so correct. honestly, if Catholicism is not true, then we need to beat feet back to Judaism. truly, those are the only two options. either Christ, and the Church he founded. or the law. as a convert myself, i cannot make sense of all the different teachings of protestantism. i look back on it now, and i am flabbergasted. it reminds me of the story of the tower of babel for some reason…peace and prayer for you and yours. and may you be truly blessed in your defense of the one true faith.

 

[JonNC]

=joe370;7258021]For 1500 years the Catholic Church, founded by God (long before, even one Protestant Church existed) - according to most Protestant/Evangelical Church leadership, has been guilty of blasphemy regarding the Eucharist.

A source, please Joe.

If they are right then the gates of hell did in fact prevail against Jesus’ church, again, long before any Protestant Church ever existed. If the preceding is true then why in the world would I trust any Protestant church founded by man, considering the fact that the gates of hell supposedly prevailed against the church founded by God, and the gates of hell did prevail, if in fact the Catholic Church was guilty of Eucharistic idolatry in every century leading up to the protestant reformation?

For the gates of hell to prevail, the Church Universal, including the Church Triumphant must be prevailed against. Clearly, that will never happen.

Beyond that, I still don’t understand the connection you make, my friend, between the sins of human beings, and the failure of Christ to protect His Church from the evil one.

Jon

 

[gcnuss]

For the gates of hell to prevail, the Church Universal, including the Church Triumphant must be prevailed against. Clearly, that will never happen.

I agree. I think of the promise that the gates of hell will not prevail as having an eschatological dimension, i.e., that the forces of evil will, in the end, be defeated. One can look at the prophecy in Revelation to see this.

Along the way, the forces of evil will win some skirmishes. They will wrench weak souls away from the Church. They will seem to gain the upper hand through persecution. However, they will not prevail.

I imagine that the martyrs of old, who faced the beasts in the arenas – while singing hymns and preparing to enter the Church Triumphant – understood this best of all. It might have seemed that the gates of hell were prevailing but the Christians understood well that evil had no claim on them.

I also think that when we talk about the gates of Hell prevailing against the Church we fail to differentiate between the Church and the people who inhabit the Church. I will grant that the Church (in the sense of the one, holy, catholic, and apostolic church, transcending time and space) will never be in error. But, I do believe that people, even the great of leaders of the Church, can fall into, and teach, error. Arius, Pelagius and many others can be cited. I firmly believe that God will raise up prophets to straighten things out when such errors occur.

Just a few thoughts on a very deep subject.

 

[flyonthewall]

Hey Fly…

If the devil managed to deceive the Catholic Church into teaching that the bread and wine is only a symbol of Jesus’ body and blood as early as the 1st, 2nd, and 3rd century (and the devil did not by the the way, rightly divide) - and not the real flesh and blood of our savior Jesus Christ, (my flesh is real food and my blood is real drink…) - then the devil did in fact manage to prevail against the church founded by God, for the simple fact that Jesus’ church was supposedly guilty of Eucharistic idolatry, which is utter blasphemy and the hallmark of apostasy. Many (not all) - non-Catholics make this very claim! If that does not constitute blasphemy then nothing does…

Of course the CC is not guilty of such silly claims made by so many non-Catholics…

I do not believe the gates of hell prevailing has anything to do with the bread and wind being literal flesh and blood.
(simple explaination, but it is the gist)
Gates are inanimate objects. They do not do anything unless someone opens or closes them. The only way they can “prevail” is if they cannot be opened.

Hell, in this usage is the place of the dead.

Now how can the gates of the place of the dead prevail? by not being able to be opened.
Jesus Christ opened those gates thru the Atonement. All are resurrected. Physical death has been defeated. He is also the way to spiritual life. He has overcome death in all it’s forms, and thru His gospel we may partake of that life.

He has prevailed, and the gospel and the atonement shall stand forever.

So I do believe the gates of hell have not prevailed and shall not prevail, even though our beliefs are different

 

[tester]

The word church in Matthew 16:18 is ekklesia which means the body of Christ: Believers are the church!
The word “church” literally means “those called out,” and often means an assembly or congregation.

God in the “church”? Yes!!

1 Cor 3:16-17** Don’t you know that you yourselves are God’s temple and that God’s Spirit lives in you? **If anyone destroys God’s temple, God will destroy him; for God’s temple is sacred, and you are that temple.

God use to be in the Temple , now he is in believers.

There will always be true believers preserved (unless God snatchers all of them away).
No matter how bad Satan and Hell rise up against the “ekklesia” the Gates of Hell will not prevail.

Romans 11: .2… Don’t you know what Scripture says in the passage about Elijah—how he appealed to God against Israel: 3 “Lord, they have killed your prophets and torn down your altars; I am the only one left, and they are trying to kill me”? 4 And what was God’s answer to him? “I have reserved for myself seven thousand who have not bowed the knee to Baal.” 5 So too, at the present time there is a remnant chosen by grace. 6 And if by grace, then it cannot be based on works; if it were, grace would no longer be grace…

It didn’t matter if Rome was burning the ekklesia at the stake or now believers are being beheaded in Iran, the Gates of Hell will not prevail !

Question: Have the Gates of Hell prevailed against Christ’s Church:
A) Much
B) A little
C) Not at all

Answer is C!!!

 

[Thomas_Casey]

Please try a new concept and see if this makes the thread move more smoothly and charitably. Instead of talking about each other, what about talking about dropping the rhetoric about who’s right and wrong and stick to posting your opinion on the subject, then move along to something else. It’s pretty simple and keeps the thread friendly and conflict free.

If you dont’ try it, I’ll come back and close it. Get the hint?

Thomas Casey
Moderator

 

[freerf]

.

hey all, if you believe courtesy in dialogue is important, and find it troubling that Christians are angry and quarrelsome when discussing various Christian dogma, please consider joining the group below.

It is our hope to elevate the conversation a bit and improve courtesy!

thumbsup:

God Bless

 

[joe370]

Hey Jon…

=joe370;7258021]For 1500 years the Catholic Church, founded by God (long before, even one Protestant Church existed) - according to most Protestant/Evangelical Church leadership, has been guilty of blasphemy regarding the Eucharist.
A source, please Joe

.

Jon, are you referring to a source proving that the CC was the only church that existed for the first 1500 years, which means that the CC was founded by God,

or

A source that illustrates that some non-Catholics insist that catholics are guilty of Eucharistic idolatry?

Jon, if I did not believe that the bread and wine, upon the words of consecration, becomes the body and blood of our Lord, I would certainly think that the CC, liturgically speaking, is guilty of Eucharistic idolatry on some level.You wouldn’t? After all, to the CC the Eucharist is the source and summit of Christian life. The Holy Eucharist, Vatican II tells us, is “the source and summit of the Christian life” (Lumen gentium, no. 11; cf. Catechism of the Catholic Church, no. 1324). Since the Christian life is essentially a spiritual life, we might say as well that the Eucharist is the “source and summit of Christian spirituality” too.

If they are right then the gates of hell did in fact prevail against Jesus’ church, again, long before any Protestant Church ever existed. If the preceding is true then why in the world would I trust any Protestant church founded by man, considering the fact that the gates of hell supposedly prevailed against the church founded by God, and the gates of hell did prevail, if in fact the Catholic Church was guilty of Eucharistic idolatry in every century leading up to the protestant reformation?
For the gates of hell to prevail, the Church Universal, including the Church Triumphant must be prevailed against. Clearly, that will never happen

.

Beyond that, I still don’t understand the connection you make, my friend, between the sins of human beings, and the failure of Christ to protect His Church from the evil one.

Jon, we both agree that the church triumphant is the church in heaven with Jesus and that the words, “the gate of hell will not prevail…” - do not apply to the church triumphant?

I am sorry; let me clarify. Every singly person sins so clearly the sins of human beings have nothing to do with the words of Matthew 16. The words of Matthew 16, “the gate of hell will not prevail…” are referring to doctrinal truth in my humble opinion. For example, if the CC decided to infallibly claim that the Trinity was a lie, or that the books of Hebrews and Revelation, were not part of the word of God, or that the bread and wine (according to many, [not all] - non-Catholics, this is NOT true) - truly become Jesus’ flesh and blood, then the gates of hell would have prevailed against the CC on some level - yes no maybe? In other words, if i believe that the CC is right (and I do) - to say that the bread and wine truly and sacramentally become the body and blood of Jesus upon the words of consecration of an ordained priest or bishop, and the CC is wrong as many non-Catholics claim, which means that I am wrong, then I am quite certain that Satan would be overjoyed and no doubt be at least complicit in undercutting doctrinal truth - yes no maybe?

Jon, if the CC, over time, altered the Eucharistic doctrine from its supposed true symbolic meaning then the gates of hell have prevailed, doctrinally speaking - yes no maybe?

Your thoughts friend…

 

[JonNC]

=joe370;7263168]Hey Jon…
Jon, are you referring to a source proving that the CC was the only church that existed for the first 1500 years, which means that the CC was founded by God,
No Joe. I know the source for this that you would claim. Of course, the EOC claim it, too. On balance, I think its a tie.

A source that illustrates that some non-Catholics insist that catholics are guilty of Eucharistic idolatry?

Jon, if I did not believe that the bread and wine, upon the words of consecration, becomes the body and blood of our Lord, I would certainly think that the CC, liturgically speaking, is guilty of Eucharistic idolatry on some level.You wouldn’t? After all, to the CC the Eucharist is the source and summit of Christian life. The Holy Eucharist, Vatican II tells us, is “the source and summit of the Christian life” (Lumen gentium, no. 11; cf. Catechism of the Catholic Church, no. 1324). Since the Christian life is essentially a spiritual life, we might say as well that the Eucharist is the “source and summit of Christian spirituality” too.

Well, now that you put it like that, I guess I am guilty of it, too.

Jon, we both agree that the church triumphant is the church in heaven with Jesus and that the words, “the gate of hell will not prevail…” - do not apply to the church triumphant?

No, Joe. I think Christ means the whole Church.

I am sorry; let me clarify. Every singly person sins so clearly the sins of human beings have nothing to do with the words of Matthew 16. The words of Matthew 16, “the gate of hell will not prevail…” are referring to doctrinal truth in my humble opinion.

Doctrinal truth may, of course, be part of that.

For example, if the CC decided to infallibly claim that the Trinity was a lie, or that the books of Hebrews and Revelation, were not part of the word of God, or that the bread and wine (according to many, [not all] - non-Catholics, this is NOT true)

• truly become Jesus’ flesh and blood, then the gates of hell would have prevailed against the CC on some level - yes no maybe?
  No! It would the error of human beings within the Catholic Church. If tomorrow, BXVI
  said that the Eucharist is symbolic, would you then deny the real presence? I should hope not, and His Church continues to prevail - in you!

In other words, if i believe that the CC is right (and I do) - to say that the bread and wine truly and sacramentally become the body and blood of Jesus upon the words of consecration of an ordained priest or bishop, and the CC is wrong as many non-Catholics claim, which means that I am wrong, then I am quite certain that Satan would be overjoyed and no doubt be at least complicit in undercutting doctrinal truth - yes no maybe?

Satan my be overjoyed that there is dessention in His Church, but the doctrinal truth is not undercut. The truth remains truth, though our eyes may be shrouded by sin.

Jon, if the CC, over time, altered the Eucharistic doctrine from its supposed true symbolic meaning then the gates of hell have prevailed, doctrinally speaking - yes no maybe?

No! His truth would remain, even if the human beings temporarily in charge made errors.

Jon

 

[fbl9]

snip…

No! It would the error of human beings within the Catholic Church. If tomorrow, BXVI
said that the Eucharist is symbolic, would you then deny the real presence? I should hope not, and His Church continues to prevail - in you!

Satan my be overjoyed that there is dessention in His Church, but the doctrinal truth is not undercut. The truth remains truth, though our eyes may be shrouded by sin.

No! His truth would remain, even if the human beings temporarily in charge made errors.

Jon

Say the one officating agrees with the pope; how does this affect the vadlity of the sacrament in question?
Is it your belief; that the belief of the one who recieves the sacrament determines what they recieve?

 

[joe370]

Hey Jon…

Well, now that you put it like that, I guess I am guilty of it, too.

Jon if the CC and the Lutheran church are both wrong, as many claim, then both churches, liturgically speaking, would be guilty of Eucharistic idolatry, considering the fact that it is the source and summit of our faith - right?

No, Joe. I think Christ means the whole Church.

There is once church: the church militant here on earth and the church triumphant comprised of those folks in heaven. The promise of Matthew 16 applies to the church militant only for the simple fact that it is a given that the gates cannot prevail against the church triumphant - right?

Quote:
I am sorry; let me clarify. Every singly person sins so clearly the sins of human beings have nothing to do with the words of Matthew 16. The words of Matthew 16, “the gate of hell will not prevail…” are referring to doctrinal truth in my humble opinion.
Doctrinal truth may, of course, be part of that

.

The only other way the gates could prevail is if the all churches, regardless of denomination, ceased to exist.

No! It would the error of human beings within the Catholic Church. If tomorrow, BXVI
said that the Eucharist is symbolic, would you then deny the real presence? I should hope not, and His Church continues to prevail - in you!

I’m confused for the first time regarding something you have said. If BXVI spoke ex Cathedra and said that the Eucharist is symbolic, you wouldn’t consider that as the gates prevailing upon the church? If he did that, and I wanted to continue to belong to the CC then I would have deny the real presence.

No! His truth would remain, even if the human beings temporarily in charge made errors.

Jon, it would not be temporary if it was spoken from the chair. This would never happen, but if it did, this would certainly be an example of the gates, doctrinally speaking, prevailing. But if you do not agree, that’s cool.

 

[Rightlydivide]

Hey Fly…

If the devil managed to deceive the Catholic Church into teaching that the bread and wine is only a symbol of Jesus’ body and blood as early as the 1st, 2nd, and 3rd century (and the devil did not by the the way, rightly divide) - and not the real flesh and blood of our savior Jesus Christ, (my flesh is real food and my blood is real drink…) - then the devil did in fact manage to prevail against the church founded by God, for the simple fact that Jesus’ church was supposedly guilty of Eucharistic idolatry, which is utter blasphemy and the hallmark of apostasy. Many (not all) - non-Catholics make this very claim! If that does not constitute blasphemy then nothing does…

Of course the CC is not guilty of such silly claims made by so many non-Catholics…

From early on, the Christian church was confronted by and many local congregations fell into incorrect beliefs. The first part of Revelation has the Apostle John addressing this. Paul also constantly addresses errors in his epistles. That early churches fell into error is undeniable according to scripture

church in Pergamos write; T.
[14] But I have a few things against thee, because thou hast there t[15] So hast thou also them that hold the doctrine of the Nicolaitans, which thing I hate.
hem that hold the doctrine of Balaam, who taught Balac to cast a stumblingblock before the children of Israel, to eat things sacrificed unto idols, and to commit fornication.

So no, I understand that in regards to the Eucharist many early Christian churches held incorrect beliefs.

 

[fbl9]

From early on, the Christian church was confronted by and many local congregations fell into incorrect beliefs. The first part of Revelation has the Apostle John addressing this. Paul also constantly addresses errors in his epistles. That early churches fell into error is undeniable according to scripture

So no, I understand that in regards to the Eucharist many early Christian churches held incorrect beliefs.

Which church held the correct beliefs and what are the correct beliefs? Provide proof of this in some manner please.

 

[Rightlydivide]

Which church held the correct beliefs and what are the correct beliefs? Provide proof of this in some manner please.

The church at Philadelphia comes quickly to mind. The correct beliefs are the teachings found in the Bible.
The proof is Revelation chapter 3. As far as the churches that Paul wrote to, that could take awhile to unpack. Some he is quite hard on and others not as much.

 

[fbl9]

The church at Philadelphia comes quickly to mind. The correct beliefs are the teachings found in the Bible.
The proof is Revelation chapter 3. As far as the churches that Paul wrote to, that could take awhile to unpack. Some he is quite hard on and others not as much.

And the non symbolic teaching is found in scripture as is batismal regeneration many others that you deny.
Yes St.Paul was particularly hard on the ones in Corinith when it came to receiving the flesh and blood of our Lord in an incorrect manner.