Which is simply more ignorance, as nowhere in the life of the church in Scripture, interpretive of the gospels, is the Lord's supper manifest as "the source and summit of the Christian life," "in which our redemption is accomplished," due to it being a sacrifice for sins;
With the elements being transubstantiated into the Lord's "real" body and blood by a class of believers distinctively titled "priests," and which is consumed in order to obtain spiritual and eternal life.
Instead, the Lord's supper is nowhere manifestly described in all of Acts or what follows (other than a "feast of charity: Jude 1:12) except in one epistle, and in which the communion of the body of Christ in the Lord's Supper is taught as being akin to how the pagans have fellowship with devils via their feasts.
And the focus is on the church as the body of Christ, which the Corinthians are chastised for not recognizing by eating independent of others, and shaming them that were hungry. Which was contrary to the recognition of the Lord's unselfish death for the church which He bought with His own sinless shed blood.
The Cath Eucharist is simply not that of what Scripture teaches on the Lord;s Supper, and in which only the metaphorical view easily corresponds to the totality of Scripture, as explained below, while the RC view requires neoplatonic theology.
The Lord's Supper: solemn symbolism or real flesh and blood?
(Note: allow scripts for pop up Bible verses
This guy keeps throwing the same nonsense out there day after day, week after week, etc,...No matter how many times the evidence is shown he pretends he doesn't see it...