Let me first say that I’m sorry. This must be a difficult time for you. My prayers are with you. I’m a revert, who had left the Church for about 6 years with many of the same reasons you have here. Much of what brought me back was Vatican II’s document, which emphasize above all the relationship that we have with Jesus Christ, and de-emphasize the notion that being Catholic is about being able to check every item on a list. I would strongly urge you to read a bit there. Sacrosanctum Concilium and Dei Verbum were both a light to me.
I will also say that faith is not the same thing as knowledge.
The reasons that I have begun to doubt the authority of the Church are the following:
-You have to engage in a great deal of "reading into: the the text of scripture to support Catholic doctrines, not the initial meaning of the texts, eg The Eucharist
Well, I’ll grant you that on some doctrines, but fundamentally, being Catholic is about a worldview centered on Christ. The Eucharist, in particular, is a tricky case. While there are obviously verses like John 6 and 1 Corinthians 11 that speak to transubstantiation, to me, our reliance on translation out of the initial Aramaic and Greek means that we view the text through the theology that was later used to explain the imperfect translation. For example, in the Greek of the Lord’s Prayer, the word we express as “daily” in “daily bread” is actually the word epiousios (epi = across or beyond; ousia = substance). A reasonable translation of the word is literally “transubstantial,” but it’s weird because the Lord’s prayer is the only place in all Greek writing of the ancient world in it occurs – we don’t have others who explain it. But just think about a church full of Christians speaking in Greek, and every day saying “give us this day our transubstantial bread,” and the theology was in the daily words. Translation into Latin or other language meant that theological explanation was needed to convey the meaning of the original Greek. That put us more distant from the practice and language of the first Christians, making belief more an intellectual exercise than a daily practice.
Regarding the Catholic doctrine of the Eucharist, we know from pagan sources, like Pliny the Younger, art in the Roman catacombs, and the architecture of the oldest known church, that at Dura-Europos, that the liturgies of “word” and “Eucharist” were separate as they are in Catholic liturgy. Part of this is due to the Eucharistic celebration being in the form of an “agape feast,” which was later regulated and eventually brought into the church building itself.
-The early Church, while similar to the current Catholic Church in many ways was very different in many ways. At any stage of the Church’s history you would have been taught different things about many Church doctrines.
Absolutely it was different. For example, for the first two centuries, there was no doctrine of the Trinity, but if you look at the earliest writings of the Church Fathers, you won’t find them contradicting it. For example, look at the writings of Melito of Sardis (about 170 AD).