Where’s the twist?
I wasn’t defending the dogma. Not here. I already have a life. Im not going to spend too much of it on people who don’t know the difference between what a thing is and what it is made of.
I would add that to the person with a limited acquaintance with Euclid, Lobachevsky might seem to suffer from severely twisted logic. A person who can’t give a coherent account of what Trent means by “substance” can’t argue against the idea of transubstantiation. Not “shouldn’t”, can’t.
That’s not disrespectful. It’s just that if you’re going to play contract bridge, it’s not going to go well if you don’t know any bidding conventions.