I can't speak for anyone else but, as it was originally in reply to me, I must say most of that post was pure tl;dr. The part I replied to led to a rather lengthy exchange between me and you regarding asking the faithful departed for their prayers... a subject you introduced, not me. The substance of my point (How can Catholic Eucharistic theology be manifestly in error as it goes so far back?) was not really addressed in that post.
Admittedly I've only skimmed this thread though...
So you presume to post on a thread about a most substantial issue, involving statements in 4 gospels, and a long discourse in one, your response is tl;dr (too long; didn't read)?
Which is consistent with your reliance upon uninspired, post-apostolic men, and ultimately the presumed ensured veracity of Rome, rather than being as a noble Berean and searching the Scriptures to see if this was so. Consistent with this 1st century souls This reliance is contrary in principle to The Lord and His apostles could have relied upon Jewish Tradition as authoritative but instead they invoked Scripture as the standard for obedience and establishing Truth claims, in dissent from the magisterium who insisted their judgment was to be followed.
At issue here is whether the words such as "Take, eat: this is my body, which is broken for you," (1 Corinthians 11:24) "which is given for you" (Luke 22:19) "Drink ye all of it; For this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins," (Matthew 26:27-28) were to be understood literally, and thus the apostles passively consumed what would be His actual bloody flesh and blood that was given and shed in His crucifixion, despite the Law forbidding this and the protestations of Peter to violating dietary laws.
For nowhere is anything taught about transubstantiation, of a Christ who was "really" bodily Him while appearing as an inanimate object that would even scientifically test as being nothing more than that, contrary to the Incarnation.
Or whether the apostles were given secret instruction on basic transubstantiation (Jn. 6 is not it) which novel extra-Scriptural theory was somehow not deemed worthy of inclusion in Scripture by the Holy Spirit, or even that the apostles all came to this conclusion on their own, so that they could violate the Law without a word of protest or questioning.
Or whether, being Jews who knew the Scriptures, they recognized this as another of the
many uses of metaphorical language regarding food, like as David employed in calling the water obtaining at the risk of the lives of men that of being their blood, and pouring it out unto the Lord. Or of men being bread for Israel, or of they being food for others, or eating the word of God. Etc.
And thus, rather than spiritual life being obtained by consuming the elements at the Lord's supper, and with this being food by which believers are nourished and built up, it is by believing the word of the gospel message that one obtains spiritual life, and is nourished and built up by the word of God as being "milk" and "meat."
And that rather than being a central supreme daily ritual sacrifice for sins at the hands of clergy distinctively called "priests," it is at best only described as breaking of bread in Acts, without a word of clergy even officiating, and is not even described in the rest of the NT except merely as a "feast of charity" (Jude 1:12) and in 1 Corinthians.
Which does not interpret the words at issue as being the priestly Cath Eucharist, but of a communion of the body and blood of Christ akin to how pagans have fellowship with demons in their dedicatory feasts, and as showing the Lord's death by sharing a communal meal as the body of Christ bought by that blood, and thus doing so while ignoring others is to not actually not come together to eat the Lord's supper. See
here.
