Consistently? I don't think so. Exactly which statements of yours did I mischaracterize, please. I don't think I did so, but if did, I'd like to know.
The Protestant view of the Lord's Supper is one of spiritual presence and grateful commemoration -- "Do this in remembrance of me." It is a symbolic grace to be partaken of by the elect, for the welfare of the elect.
I know that. I don't know that it's relevant to what you allege about transubstantiation
To extrapolate the Lord's Supper into alchemy (which is precisely what the word "transubstantiation" implies) is to bestow on the "priestly" class a distinction never given them in Scripture -- an ability to literally change bread and wine into the flesh and blood of Christ. I'm aware RCs revere this alchemy. Protestants are repelled by it, recognizing the mass attempts to crucify Him anew every time it's performed.
Repetition or restatement in firmer language is not an argument. Raising other issues is not a defense. I am not for the present disputing the consequent or concomitant notions of transubstantiation, like priesthood and so forth.
You made a claim about a genetic code of some kind. You did not, when you made that claim, bring up anything about priesthood or the rest of it. I asked you to, ah, substantiate the genetic code statement. Instead of doing so you asked me some questions. I answered them as clearly as I could and then gave "a child's garden of the idea of 'substance'" In the course of that I pointed out that the substance of the pre-consecrated host is not "flour" as you had said. And I said, in agreement with Aquinas, that no chemical or alchemical, material or materialistic change were taught to happen (unusual miracles aside) when the consecration took place.
You fell silent and then disappeared only to reappear with another charge against us. When I persisted in my question about a source for the allegations about genetic stuff and that we teach a material or alchemical change, you changed, not the material, but the subject, and brought up other teachings and the tangential issue of priesthood and, as it seems, anything but my question of whether you can show me any support for your claim about genetics changes and alchemy and so forth.
I already know you disagree with us, and as I said, I'm not pursuing agreement here. You made an allegation (which some might characterize as inflammatory, by the way). I asked for support, and you did not give it. On a subordinate issue, flying in the face of the actual Aristotelian and Thomistic distinction between what a thing IS and what it is MADE OF - a distinction with which I do not expect you to agree but which you endorse every time you say,"The china plates are in the cabinet right next to the paper plates" - you simply repeat not only what we do NOT teach but what we do actually deny teaching. In fact, as I was told in my Protestant seminary, the earlier statements about transubstantiation were made to calm the fears and revulsion of those who thought they were being invited to eat something that would look and taste like flesh and blood.
Maybe it would help if you defined or clarified "alchemical". I could be msunderstanding you there.
But in the meantime, if it's true that any old stick will do to beat the Catholic Church, I'll still ask if it's really a stick or just a misunderstanding. You are not showing any evidence for the claim that we teach one can ingest God into one's genetic code. I think you made an uninformed or misinformed statement. Or possilby it was poorly expressed. I say again: I don't think you can back it up -- not the genetic, not the alchemical, not the materialistic. You say I mischaracterize what you say, but I use and consider seriously your actual words.
That's one for the archives. Nicely done.