Though it was not word-for-word, as he himself stated, in my eyes it was the same statement of belief.
Are you ever going to address the errors I pointed out in what you attribute to us in your #109?
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/1031277/posts?page=109#109
Specifically, you said:
"There is no real *union* between the Created and uncreated within the concept of transubstantiation"
Thus denying our belief in the existence of both the created body and blood of Christ through transubstantiation of the bread and wine, and its permenant union to the divinity via the soul, and
"In our view, transubstantiation is a practical denial of the Incarnation. Because it promotes the changing of the created to Uncreated instead of the union."
Which I pointed out is absolutely false, since we teach the bread and wine become the body and blood of Christ, and certainly not His divinity.
Do you now agree with transubstantiation with these corrections to what you think it teaches, or do you still reject it?