Yes it does alter the doctrine (considerably!), unless you assume that that is what it meant before that. Like with Scripture, you assume from later teaching only, that Ignatius understood it the exact same way.Again you assume Ignatius spoke parabolically, but the historical context suggests otherwise. Also, the word "changed" used by Irenaeus and Justin Martyr does not alter the doctrine, but rather clarifies it.
In the case of "conssubstantial" (homoosion) this did pretty much preserve the Biblical truth. But it still was misunderstood by many; not just the Arians, but also many orthodox bishops. I do think that the Church did try to explain too much with non-biblical language, and this did cause confusion. So the creeds like this could be said to depart from Apostolic teaching by phrasing it in new ways, that the Spirit did not inspire in the Bible.In much the same way, the word "consubstantial" in regards to the Son's relationship to the Father doesn't appear in Scripture, yet it clarifies apostolic truth in face of heretics who were using the same Scripture to deny the deity of Christ. The Arians and Semi-Arians greatly protested the use of the word "consubstantial" since it was not a biblical word (although most of the latter came around at the Council of Constantinople in 381). For that reason, should the Nicene creed then be held to be deviation from Apostolic Doctrine rather than clarification? Groups such as the Mormons and the JWs would say "yes".
But this should further explain to you why we use a word like "metaphor" or "symbol". Just as "consubstantial" was coind to explain the Godhead, and "changed" was used to explain how bread and wine were flesh and blood; when people saw that that had deviaed way beyond the simplicity of what the Gospel teaches, they countered with their own words. You question me to find those words in history, but then you have not shown that "changed" is what Jesus meant (especially when He was still there the first time!) Your final authority is what people said centuries later.
You assume I'm just following Zwingli. I didn't even know that he taught that; as I thought all the early Reformers agreed with Luther that it was "Real Presence". I amd many others read the Bible on our own, and we do not see these wild interpretations in there. Now you can say "oh, that's private interpretation", But then if we must follow a "catholic" institution; then which? The RCC? The EOC?, The High Protestsnt bodies? Oh, while we're at it, the JW's, Church of Christ, and many Baptist groups claim to be the original Church too. Basically, you must choose a church, and read the Bible through only its eyes, then.Sure, God can restore. The question is did He have to do so. Did everyone in the Church fall away from the apostolic doctrine of the Eucharist after the apostles died? Or did the Church itself completely go into apostasy teaching what was contrary to the true gospel of Christ only to be later restored by God? The Mormons would say "yes" particularly to the latter question.
Do you honestly think that it's preferable to read a 16th century (Zwinglian) interpretation back into Scripture than to consider that early 2nd century authors were in perhaps a better position to know what was the correct interpretation, some of whom being personally taught by the Apostles (Ignatius and Polycarp, for example)?
Again this is something you have not proved without begging the question that your interpretation of Scripture is the standard by which you determine truth verses error.
The Church is the people (two or three gathered in His name); not an institution of men. So the visible organized "Church" may have gone astray, but there were always be;lievers who placed simple faith in Christ. Even if they did believe some of thee errors, still, they were the true body in spite of that (NOT because of it.Obviously the church is not identical with Christ/God, but being Christ's Body, "the fullness of Him Who fills all in all", the Church is intimately connected to Him. While the advent of false teachers were prophesied by apostles, Christ also promised that the gates of hell would not prevail against the Church. In other words, despite the arrival of these false teachers, the true apostolic doctrine was to remain in the Church rather than to disappear completely for almost 1500 years before being restored by the "Reformers" with their mutually conflicting doctrines
And this is how the truth could be restored centuries later. What you consistently are not considering is that for all those centuries, there was a vast veil of darkness over the visible organization (not that there was not body of believers, keep in mind). Most leaders did not have the Spirit, and didn;t listen to His convicting, but rather continued exalting their own authority, as they added more and more corruptions. So these people would not be guided in to all truth, because they rejected the truth in favor of their own traditions and position. Proof of this is the same thing you accuse others of:Christ also promised that He would send the Holy Spirit Who would guide the Church into all truth.
You keep talking about "novel" and "mutally conflicting doctrines" of Protestantism; but what about mutally conflicting councils of catholicism, and if you're not RCC, then you differ from them too. You cannot escape it, unless you believe, like the Mormons, JW's, etc. that yours is the only true group!)It could also be argued that the Protestant churches have created "truth" (or rather "truths", as they have mutually conflicting views) with their novel interpretations of Scripture.
Yes it does, because then His own words in their own right then mean nothing, unless interpreted by some Church tradition, at least in practice of what I have seen. OK, I looked up "ground" and "pillar", and they both mean "support". The word for "ground" can figuratively mean "basis", and this is what I had in mind when I opposed the idea of it referring to the Church, and this also seemed to be the way you were using it. Still, the Church's position as bearer (not source) of the truth is dependant on it remaining faithful to the written word, which as I showed, is the final authority, even over "the spirit".The Church is the "ground and pillar of truth" because it is the Body of the One who is the Truth. Just as you can't separate the Logos from the written Word, you can't separate Christ (the Truth) from His Church (the ground and pillar of truth) built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets (Eph 2:20). Neither can you separate Scripture from the Church. (And this does not diminish Christ one bit)