If we want to believe non history made up we can. Just sheer after the fact from many centuries later. First started in the 1500 hundreds from the spirit that brought us a man who took books out of the bible.
Boatbums you are a fairly decent person from your writings. I remember years ago you were not so hung ho on this then we read more of this "trash" . We have to check out original sources like the early church father. I do not see how we can not see that these sites are taking them out of context. All the early church fathers were priests and Bishops as Catholic who believed in the real presence, and the apostolic succession. Just read it for your self.
We have people who tried to put that they did not believe in the real presence on these threads. Like one person had some writing from one of these sources. I go to the original I read it is showing the real presence by the consecration at the end. Consecration is a catholic term for the pray for the bread to be prayed over for the Real Presence. Then I read that the word " figure " is real explaining how the bread and wine become the body and blood but looks the same as bread. Which means the same explanation today in the Catholic Church.
Then the word "figured " is being used from someone who is trying to prove the commmunion is a symbol. Just plain idiocy from these sites.
Just read it for your self. You are well intended but wow. We can not change history.
"All" that was presented in my post is "garbage"? Really? Did you take note that two of the references came from Catholic historians (Paul Johnson) including one who was a priest? His name was Father Raymond Brown and the document he wrote was given a nihil obstat AND an Imprimatur. So, when he or Johnson speak of the historical evidence that proves Peter and Paul did NOT found the Church of Rome, that Peter did NOT stay there as Pope for 25 years or that the lists of "Apostolic Succession" generated by a few of the Early Church Fathers, i.e., Eusebius and Irenaeus, then they certainly have no "axe to grind" nor should they feel the need to confect their own history since these facts were also known to many others. They have endorsements from the Catholic Church.
This brings up why, when we attempt to discuss things that may or may not have happened thousands of years ago, we find ourselves at loggerheads because we come at it from two different viewpoints. This site http://turretinfan.blogspot.com/2011/02/solo-scriptura-sola-scriptura-and.html does a good job of explaining why this can be like pulling teeth:
The same phenomenon occurs when it comes to discussing historical evidence for and against the claims of Rome. A person who believes that the Roman Catholic Magisterium has special divine authority naturally looks at evidence for the claims of Rome in a much different way than a person who does not believe that the Roman Catholic Magisterium has divine authority. If a person firmly believes that the Roman Magisterium is infallible (i.e. incapable of error) under certain conditions; in short, if that is his basic theological axiom, then by definition he cannot at the same time believe that there is any real evidence of error. This is the reason that for faithful Roman Catholics, the very possibility of there being evidence contradicting the claims of the Roman Church is non-existent. Any alleged evidence of error offered by Protestants or others must be explainable in some other way.
Those who do not begin with the basic theological axiom of Roman Catholicism see abundant evidence against the claims of Rome in Scripture, the writings of the Church Fathers, and the documented events of church history. This evidence prevents them from believing that the Roman Catholic Magisterium has divine authority. For those who adopt the basic theological axiom of Roman Catholicism, all of this alleged evidence essentially ceases to exist. From the perspective of the non-Roman Catholic, the Roman Catholic is doing something comparable to reading a red-letter Bible with red tinted glasses. If he sets aside the glasses, he can see all the words printed in red. If he puts the glasses on, all the words printed in red disappear from his sight. From the Roman Catholic perspective, it is non-Roman Catholics who are reading the evidence with a distorted lens.
To be fair, Roman Catholics are not alone in dealing with this kind of criticism. All of those who believe in the infallibility and inerrancy of Scripture are criticized in a similar way by liberals and skeptics who say they have found abundant evidence of error in Scripture. If a person truly believes that the Scriptures are the inerrant Word of God, he cannot at the same time believe that there is any real evidence of error in the Scriptures. He trusts that there is an explanation for any apparent errors, even if he does not know what that explanation is. In the same way, a Roman Catholic who truly believes in the infallibility of the Magisterium will trust that there is an explanation for any alleged errors presented by non-Roman Catholics.
So, knowing that none of us is completely objective, how do we deal with the claims of Rome? Rome claims special divine authority and infallibility. Rome claims to be the one Church Christ founded on earth. Rome claims that those who are not in communion with the Pope are schismatics. These are very big and very consequential claims. When faced with such claims, one does not simply make a blind leap of faith one way or the other. One needs to know whether the claims are true before making any kind of commitment. Why? Because if an institution is making those kinds of claims and they are false, one would be committing oneself to a lie of monumental proportions. On the other hand, if the claims are true, rejecting them is equally serious.
I submit that the claims of Rome do not stand up to close scrutiny when measured by any standard other than Rome herself. While the claims of Rome have a theoretical plausibility when considered alone, that plausibility evaporates when we evaluate the evidence for and against those claims. At issue, then, is the truth or falsity of the premise regarding the special divine authority of the Roman Catholic Church. If that premise is granted, many of the remaining claims of Rome follow. The problem, however, is that there is abundant evidence from Scripture, tradition, and history that renders the truthfulness of the basic premise entirely implausible. In other words, while Romes arguments using this premise may be logically valid, none of them are sound because the key premise is false.
I sincerely hope you will go to the site and read the entire article. My intent is NOT to sow discord but to speak the truth in love the best way I can. I fully understand that not everyone will accept it, but, perhaps, there are a few who will and will find rest for their souls in the pure Gospel of Jesus Christ which is salvation by the grace of God through faith in Jesus Christ.