What if God wanted you to have a Pope you didn't like, and even so, do what he says [Vanity]

“This do” is not a good answer to “Do what?” You might as well answer, “that.” So, no, of course that is not a real answer.

This comes closer:

“Consume it. Eat it.”

The obvious question then becomes: “consume what?”

Then we would be close to seeing precisely what your view of the Eucharist is and what Christ instituted.

I have already given much background as to "my own view".

Further, I will again direct your attention to the FACT that my own comments at #113 were not addressed to your own reply #112, but instead was addressed to your comment #97, to which answers of my own provided to you, you yourself have given no response which would address directly whether you agree to anything found there (among my own presentation of information) or not. Instead you have pressed on with yet other questioning -- which has been answered, and had been all along too.

But you didn't "like" the answers. They were not good enough, for they were not in the step-by-step order you sought to impose upon others. Is this [summation] itself not true? No need to answer that one, for the answer is sufficiently in evidence.

If there is to be a discussion rather than form of "personal" interrogation --- unless on the other hand this on your own part really be as 21^st reply of Inquisition -- where the one being questioned is not told what the "charges" are -- for there are none, being that the questioning be more akin to fishing expedition in search of theological thought-crime committed on the part of some person other than the Inquisitor -- then I will tell you quite directly that more direct response on your own part (to questions posed to yourself) be required. For as you did say;

The point of the question is to reveal the problems in wrong answers.

Continuing (and unfounded as it was mis-aimed from it's initial inception) commentary on your own part as to my own alleged errors, has been all along the dodgy avoidance to provide answer to direct questions --- on your own part --- which avoidance of as you continue here to squirm away from those -- still is as it has been all along -- much as a squirting of squid-ink in your own wake, in order to conceal your own methodology and the ensuant failure for you to have been able to gain enough traction to escape the net (that I set for capture of fishes) which you have purposefully and headlong swam (by your own carelessness) into.

The obvious question then becomes: “consume what?”

I have answered that question in extensive detail. See -- "discernment of the body".

I knew the game you were playing here, I recognized it for the "fishing expedition" that it was...and got ahead of it, doing a bit of "fishing" here myself. But you just kept right on swimming into the walls of webbing which I had set before yourself...

Turn-about is fair play after all, isn't it? Imagine myself having a large smile, right about now...

Now that I have *somewhat* explained trammel nets to you, relating those as I have used one of that sort of "net" in rhetorical manner here (multiple walls of webbing, where the active swimming of the fish against the resistance is what entangles, with no backing out of the pocket of webbing be possible after a few twists and turns, lol) in regards to your own words and ceaseless "questioning" which you have engaged in, those of your own being like unto attempt to herd or drive from behind some fish (or is it sheep?) into simple net (or dip tank) of your own ---

--- Answer the questions which have been posed to yourself, and see if you can wriggle yourself out and into the collection baskets, good fish, bad fish, here fish, gone fish.

So jump into the "right" basket, else be thrown overboard (be-gone fish) with the rest of the by-catch.

Among all that I personally am, I am a fisherman. A real, honest-to-God fisherman... like I made mention of earlier in this thread.

Your first post to me on this thread was:

Do what in memory of Him? “This do” in memory of Him. (1) Gotta’ problem with that?

And so on around and around.

It’s not that I don’t like the answers; I don’t see the answers.

>>>I have answered that question in extensive detail. See -”discernment of the body”.

We are to consume the discernment of the body?

That’s nonsensical.

And the whole “fisherman” tangent is not even a tangent, it’s out there in off topic land. Why not stick to a coherent argument?

Why is it so hard to answer simply: “Consume what?”

Why is it so hard to answer simply: “Consume what?”

Asked and answered.

Is it so hard (for you) to recall what has been said, or do you stumble at what it means?

Otherwise, this continuance is just more of your own obvious dodge to answer any questions, yourself?

The answer is as you would say, "obvious".

Goodbye

Asked and answered.

So what was the answer?

Is it so hard (for you) to recall..

Again, I don't see your answer. Should only take a minute to repost the simple answer, yes? If not, then, why not?

This is how simple the answer can be:

‘Take, this is my body.’