You insisted, “I have already shown where cannibalism is expressly denied as an appropriate understanding of what we teach.” Sorry, just saying it in denial of the blasphemous doesn’t make it so. The father of lies is not going to say Truth. He will always defined his lies. This imagined explanation is mumbo jumbo. ANY real and substantial body, blood, soul and divinity claim to be in any way in the catholic wafer on the catholic altar is magic thinking. Do deny what your ‘other religion’ teaches of the Mass is to employ magic thinking to swallow the koolaid. Deny in any way you wish, expoundng the lengthy passages from Aquinas or Mad Dawg, the truth is you are teaching people that must eat the god of Catholicism to get the life of the god of Catholicism into them. That is teaching ‘another gospel.’ Denial does not change the reality that you are teaching something contrary to what Jesus taught and God illustrated with Holy Spirit presence at Pentecost and int he house of Cornelius.
Are you saying that you know what our teaching means better than Aquinas knows it?
In a lengthy passage of fewer than 40 words, Aquinas quotes Augustine to say the exact opposite of what you say. Receiving the Sacramental body and blood are not necessary to get the Life. He argues against the idea that the Sacrament is necessary to Salvation.
This makes some things clearer. No wonder there was so little response to my answer to the original post. That post LOOKED like an argument, but it was really not one. It was more like a politician's speech. It's not meant to be looked at carefully, it's just a kind of extended cheering or pep-rally. So the truth of any particular statement doesn't matter as long as the argument is anti-Catholic.
Anti-Catholicism is so fundamentally and, as it were, superabundantly true that it really doesn't matter what anybody says. If an article says things that aren't true, the truth of its being anti-Catholic washes away the other, lesser falsehoods.
Similarly, the greatest single authority on Catholic teaching about the Eucharist can write that the Sacrament is not necessary to salvation, but, He's Catholic, so he didn't mean it, but in fact meant the opposite.
AlllRIGHTY then.