I see this thread has now turned to the Eucharist. I think my post [#677], it is somewhat long, gives the Eucharistic Theology of the Catholic Church, and links the Catechism with respect to Scripture and its interpretation as understood by the Church and early Church Fathers (e.g Typology).
For the record, you will not find one Church Father or Early Council of the Church [Nicea 325 AD; Constantinopile 381; Ephesus 431 or Chalcedon 451] that interpreted the Eucharistic passages the way you all are doing and it was the Fathers of the Church and the Councils of the 4th century that settled the biblical canon.
With respect to the Church Fathers, Pope Benedict Notes in PRinciples of Catholic Theology: Building Stones for a fundamental Theology (p.148) “Tge canon of Holy Scripture can be traced to them, or, at least, to the undivided Church [he is speaking of undivided Latin West and Greek East] of the first centuries of which they were representatives. It is through their efforts that precisely those books that today we call “New Testament” were chosen as such from among a multitude of other available literary texts, that the Greek caon of the Jewish Bible was joined to them as “Old Testament”, that it was interpreted in tersm of them and that, together, the two Testaments came to be known as “Holy Scripture”.
And again, there are no Church Fathers that interpret the Eucharist with the theology that you are suggesting. Rather, the theology of the Eucharist of the Catholic Church and the Eastern Orthodox Church is supported by Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition, as expressed by the Church Fathers and Councils of the early Church.
Pax et bonum
Confusing post, you state we are all wrong but we have different positions.
To me, the transubstantiation or not of the Eucharist is really a minor point; we are not saved by communion but by faith.
Baptism and communion are outward expressions of our internal faith, but are not required for a person to gain salvation.