- You said the Catholic Church does not allow married priests. False.
- You said that Catholic Church does not offer the chalice. False
- You said that the failure of the appearance of the bread and wine to change indicated the falseness of the doctrine of transubstantiation when in fact if they DID change, that would contradict the doctrine. So that's false.
You claimed that you knew these things because you had been Catholic.
What would YOU propose as an appropriate way to address these incorrect statements and to deal with your claim of authority based on your having been Catholic?
Fine, then we can look for an upswing in married priests. But last I heard, they're still having trouble finding priests because of that. And a few exceptions does not make a wholesale policy change.
- You said that Catholic Church does not offer the chalice. False
And I also said that I understand that that has been changed in recent years. I haven't made that comment since the correction.
- You said that the failure of the appearance of the bread and wine to change indicated the falseness of the doctrine of transubstantiation when in fact if they DID change, that would contradict the doctrine. So that's false.
If the Catholic church teaches that one must eat the literal, actual body and blood of Christ, and that Jesus Himself turned the wine into his literal, actual blood, and the bread into his literal, actual body for us to literally, actually eat with our literal, actual mouths, then it very well ought to look like literal, actual flesh and blood.
Demanding that every part of the ceremony be interpreted as literal and actual except for the literal, actual physical change in the elements stretches credibility. It's cherry picking what must be literal and actual on the physical plane and what's not. Switching between everything being literal and actual in the middle of the whole thing and then back again, is too much like manipulation. It's all literal, except for this part. It just doesn't work.