you are idiots and cannibals to bootPlease explain for me exactly why those words were "carefully chosen" as you say, and exactly what those "carefully chosen" words were meant to accomplish. Also, please explain the "correct theology" that would make his "descriptions indeed correct" as you claim. I look forward to hearing what correct theology justifies calling someone a dork or an idiot, at the very least.It just makes you a stubbornly superstitious religious dork.
Awaiting your response,
patent
If your theology of the Eucharist, which would have a wheat wafer and a cup of alchoholic wine literally transform into the actual body and the actual blood of Christ, is incorrect then you are continually resacrificing Christ and declaring his once for all sacrifice on the cross not quite sufficient and you are literally eating human flesh. In both cases, you are indeed a 'foolish person' ('idiot'/websters) as well as technically a cannibal.
Personally, I prefer the phrasing used in the Heidelburg Catechism that the RCC Mass is a condemnable idolatry! Nonetheless, the_doc's description would still be accurate.
"It just makes you a stubbornly superstitious religious dork."
Feeling the need to make a 'sign of the cross' to make your prayers 'super special' or the mindless repetative babbling of the Rosary are both stubborn and supersticious. If this is a correct summation of these two examples of many, you would be considered a stubborn and supersticious annoyingly stupid or foolish person ('dork'/websters via 'jerk'/websters).
It may not be 'nice', but it would be accurate.
Jean