(The assumption is another doctrine altogether, Oh wait, you mean ...)
Who assumed? I concluded -- tentatively, from the use of such phrases as
Transubstantiation is only one of hundreds of questionable(to me) practices ...
(Hint: It's not a "practice".)
You said
Eucharist is Jesus becoming once again flesh to be consumed by the flesh.. an insult to the Holy Spirit.. in essence.. and in reality.. It flys in the face of the Holy Spirit performing spiritually.,. The Eucharist raises the flesh to preposterous import.. and reduces the spirit/Spirit to figurative character..
There may be an indication I'm not able to see that you understand the doctrine, but I sure don't see it. "Flesh"? Precluding the spiritual work of the Spirit, when the "body" in question is a "spiritual body"?
I don't see, though I could be wrong, how someone could at once understand the teaching and use language like that. So, conclusion, not assumption.
It’s not a “practice”.
= =
Really???
Soooooooooooo it’s a figment of EVERYONE’S imagination with ABSOLUTELY NO impact on actions, behaviors, rituals
AT ALL???
Goodness, learn something every day.
LoL...
We seem to talking on two different wavelengths.. Thats o.k. happens here all the time.. Thats what, he that has ears to hear, then let him hear.. is all about.. There may be things we both see tha same, and others our observation posts show differently.. I am ok with that too.. Actually I've noticed thats the way it has always has been.. from the beginning.. Very obvious on this and other threads too.. Can we all get along?.. Answer: sometimes..