Replies

The point of mentioning the chalice thing again is just that the original conclusion still stands, even if you retract your original claim: Anyone who thought that a week ago, whatever they think now, cannot be expected to be taken as an authoritative on the actual teaching and practice of the Catholic Church.

- and now that the ROMAN Catholic Church is coterminous with the Catholic Church; When'd that get added?

Seriously? This is getting hard to believe.

In response to my saying that it was false that we had ever taught that there was no salvation outside the ROMAN Catholic Church, you presented a text that there was no salvation outside the Church.

For that to imply, "The Church" and "The Roman Catholic Church" would have to be the same thing. But as your own post says, there are Catholics who are not Roman Catholics.

Q.E.D.

So, all the priests can now go out and get married? And priests entering the priesthood can get married and do not have to take a vow of celibacy?

That is not what you originally said. NOW you are getting closer to the truth. But your original post was incorrect. I did not have to show that ANY priest can be or can get married to show you wrong.The proposition that SOME priests can BE married was enough to show you wrong, and that I showed. I can't argue against (or agree with) what you don't say, and it's not my responsibility if a proposition is expressed imprecisely.

Saving the best for last:
Transubstantiation is disproved by Scripture. Physical evidence verifies it.

First of all that is not your original argument. Since you have not indicated that you have abandoned your original argument, I am still addressing it.

But you say Physical evidence verifies it.

I'm not sure what the antecedent of "it" is. BUT I say again, the absence of a perceptible change is explained by the teaching on transubstantiation. So the absnece of a physical change cannot possible verify that the teaching is wrong. Some other thing might be able to verify that the teaching was wrong. But you seem to be arguing that if something happens just as it is predicted to happen, that means the prediction is wrong. This, of course, makes no sense.

The question of transubstantiation and Scripture is a different (and harder) question from the question of your repeated insistence that the absence of blood and flesh meant that transubstantiation was wrong.

To sum up. some statements which were easily seen to be wrong were proposed as certainly true AND were backed up by the claim that the person proposing them had been Catholic once.

Since the statements were obviously wrong, it was clear that the person, whoever long she had been Catholic, did not really know her Church's teaching.

When I drew that conclusion I was told that the conclusion was somehow beneath me. It interests me that the TRUTH of the conclusion was not a concern.

So I have been defending the conclusion and myself. It seems to me that there is something wrong with trying to defend propositions other than the ones originally made. You said things which were not true and cited your past for authority. That's what happened. This is now ridiculous.