<<”I’m not exactly sure what you’re referring to, but I will assert again the non-Scriptural basis of the RCC Eucharist. It has more in common with sorcery than with the Bible.
Think about it, a select group of hand-picked priests control a key religious symbol by performing an incantation complete with a magic spell. The object of this incantation magically, but not apparently or even measurably, changes into another substance that holds sway over the eternal souls of all people.
This is not an ordinance of God, but a control method of men.”>>
With the foregoing statement you have just about thrown/taken out the “Acts of the Apostles” from scripture. Is not the “Acts” basically discussing the Church? Isn’t St Paul travelling around establishing and correcting Churches. Sort of what a Bishop would do in his diocese. Are you saying that Paul and Barnabas and Luke were liars and that the scripture is written by magicians? You have questioned the Holy Spirit by unwarranted and untrue statements!
Pope John Paul states it perfectly:
“In the Acts of the Apostles, the Evangelist Luke points out essential criteria for a correct understanding of the nature of the Christian community and hence, also of every parish, where he describes the first community of Jerusalem whose members were devoted to the Apostles’ teaching and fellowship, to the ‘breaking of bread and the prayers’: a welcoming, supportive community ready to share everything (cf. 2: 42; 4: 32-35).
I don't see how this assertions follows my statement that the RCC eucharist has no basis in Scripture. How do my statements against transubstantiation extend to the book of Acts? Your attempted connection is depressingly weak.
When your popes and bishops conform to the teachings of Scripture, then I will consider their interpretations. However, if they did conform, there would be little to discuss.