Okay, leave aside the quality of the catechesis.
You claim that you know what the teaching is. You have brought your knowledge into the debate.
If I now question your knowledge will I be charged with doing something wrong?I am going to assume that since YOU brought your knowledge into the question I may question it. I will number the following questions and propositions to make it easier for you to show me where I am wrong.
I argue that, for whatever reason, you do not know the doctrine. For:
(1)Now, you have said that the doctrine cannot be true because no perceptible change takes place.
(2) This implies that you claim that the doctrine teaches that a perceptible change takes place.
(3) For, if what happens accords with the doctrine, then, while the doctrine may be wrong for some other reason, it cannot be wrong because of what happens.
(4) But you claim that what happens shows the doctrine to be wrong.
(5) Therefore you make the claim in (2) above.
(6) But the doctrine teaches that no perceptible change takes place. Art. 5, Q, 75, III, Summa -- "Whether the accidents of the bread and wine remain in this sacrament after the change?" [Hint: no.]
(7)Therefore EITHER -a- your claim to know the doctrine is false OR -b- one can know something that is not true.
(8) -b- is absurd, so
(9) You do not know the doctrine.
Q.E.D.
Please note that the argument is made without reference to quality of catechesis, but entirely on the basis of things you have said, things Aquinas has written, and logic.
The doctrine of transubstantiation violates the clear reading of other passages of Scripture surrounding communion.
If it didn’t, I wouldn’t have a problem with it.
Since it does and regarding it as symbolic, done in remembrance, fits with the interpretation of other Scripture, that’s how I interpret it.