Me; neither; but I've learned to consider the source...
"One indeed is the universal Church of the faithful, outside which no one at all is saved, in which the priest himself is the sacrifice, Jesus Christ, whose body and blood are truly contained in the sacrament of the altar under the species of bread and wine; the bread (changed) into His body by the divine power of transubstantiation, and the wine into the blood, so that to accomplish the mystery of unity we ourselves receive from His (nature) what He Himself received from ours." — Pope Innocent III and Lateran Council IV (A.D. 1215)
Therefore, if anyone says that it is not by the institution of Christ the lord himself (that is to say, by divine law) that blessed Peter should have perpetual successors in the primacy over the whole Church; or that the Roman Pontiff is not the successor of blessed Peter in this primacy: let him be anathema. — Vatican 1, Ses. 4, Cp. 1
In the first part, I insulted no one.
In the first quotation, the universal Church, is the sum of all Christians, and those, who if they knew about Christ would be Christians.
Also, the Lateran Council was reasserting the belief of the True Presence.
In Vatican I, we see an assertion of fact.
In no case do I deserved to be insulted, regardless of how one feels about pronouncements of other faiths.