Again, it’s a tough fit for the relatively recent innovation of Evangelicalism, 1700 years is a big gap.
But if you can make history fit this requirement, no doubt you can erase the Holy Eucharist as well. It takes a lot of effort, but if the motivation is there...
So, again, you’re welcome to your opinion. I’ll let you have the last word on this if you wish to.
May God bless you and yours...
“Again, it’s a tough fit for the relatively recent innovation of Evangelicalism, 1700 years is a big gap.”
The nation of Israel was missing for nearly 2000 years, but it still came back. Evangelistic Christianity has always been around whether you like it or not.
“But if you can make history fit this requirement, no doubt you can erase the Holy Eucharist as well. It takes a lot of effort, but if the motivation is there...”
It’s funny how all you rc’s centerpiece the “Holy Eucharist”, but yet you don’t even know what it’s about! Christianity’s centerpiece is the Cross, the Blood that Jesus shed upon it once and for all. The Last Supper Communion points to Christ’s Sacrifice upon that Cross which brought us the Glorious New Covenant. Forgiveness of sin doesn’t come by the Eucharist, but by the shedding of blood.
RC’s always want to use tradition as the excuse for not following the Bible, but yet Christianity is built around Jewish tradition NOT rcc tradition. You always say that RC came from Peter, but Peter was a Jew and the tradition was Jewish like it or not. The Jewish wedding tradition points to why and how Communion was commissioned by Christ. Sorry RC’s, but you didn’t invent the tradition of Communion nor do you understand it.
Rather, trying to make Catholic history (in such things as her wafer god) conform to Scriptural history is an insurmountable effort, though many vainly try. There is a reason why it is asserted,
"the one duty of the multitude is to allow themselves to be led, and, like a docile flock, to follow the Pastors." Encyclical of Pope Pius X promulgated on February 11, 1906
in all cases the immediate motive in the mind of a Catholic for his reception of them [the dogmas of the Church] is, not that they are proved to him by Reason or by History, but because Revelation has declared them by means of that high ecclesiastical Magisterium which is their legitimate exponent.” — John Henry Newman, “A Letter Addressed to the Duke of Norfolk on Occasion of Mr. Gladstone's Recent Expostulation.” 8.
"Catholic doctrine, as authoritatively proposed by the Church, should be held as the supreme law," (Providentissimus Deus) under the vain premise that "the same God is the author both of the Sacred Books and of the doctrine committed to the Church," (and likewise being the author of both is contradicted by her theologians).
Rome has presumed to infallibly declare she is and will be perpetually infallible whenever she speaks in accordance with her infallibly defined (scope and subject-based) formula, which renders her declaration that she is infallible, to be infallible, as well as all else she accordingly declares.
Therefore the basis for assurance of the veracity of Catholic teaching (and for the specious claim that it conforms to Scripture) is the the novel and unScriptural premise of ensured perpetual magisterial infallibility, which is unseen and unnecessary in Scripture.