I'm not prejudiced against R.C.s BUT...

Also, before you start writing your next response, please stop strawmanning @Stalwart by portraying every source which he should put forth as "a conspiracy theory." In any case, we've already debunked the Papacy on this thread. You've failed utterly to defend it, so you've moved on to the Eucharist, which you also cannot defend because you do not know anything about that against which you are defending.

And since I'm waiting for your next response, I'll edit this post to remind you that you still haven't answered @Rexlion 's question.

 

*Theatrical eyeroll*
No, I am not right about everything; so that you might think me less stupid, so as to facilitate this advancement of this discussion, or elsewise to recognize these before the discussion be closed, and seeing as I have evidently no life or anything whatsoever else to do, I submit the following retractions in the form of this

LIST OF ACKNOWLEDGED MISCONCEPTIONS, FALSEHOODS AND VAGUE STATEMENTS WHICH I HAVE MADE IN THIS THREAD, WITH ACCOMPANYING ANALYSES THEREOF

I am, after all, a college student on the internet; what did you expect? Scholarship?

INCORRECT DEFINITIONS OF THE PAPAL OFFICE:

Indeed.

THE NAME OF THE INCUMBENT PATRIARCH OF CONSTANTINOPLE:
I wrote 'Bartholomew III', yet he is called 'Bartholomew I'.

THE IDEA THAT THE MAKING OF ICONS MIGHT BE SINFUL BECAUSE THEY WERE NOT FASHIONED BY DIVINE COMMANDMENT:

and

This is a dreadful argument; it devolves readily into the regulative principle.

A QUESTIONABLE INTERPRETATION OF CONCILIAR INFALLIBILITY:

I confess that this statement, though I think it correct, was no product of careful scholarship, but rather an argument which I concocted on the spot.

A CHRISTOLOGICAL CONFUSION ABOUT THE MYSTERY OF CHRIST'S DIVINE NATURE:
Vide Supra, the apoplogy to Invictus.

THE RELATIONSHIP OF THE ORSINI FAMILY TO THE TOWN OF ORVIETO:
The following has been extracted from the Italian Wiki, irrelevant as this is:

AN EXAGGERATION OF THE IMPACT OF THE SO-CALLED LATIN CAPTIVITY ON THE CREED OF DOSITHEUS:

Shallow as my reading may be, I think John Meyerdorff said that this was least 'Latin' of the creeds of the day.

POST #303: POORLY CONSIDERED STATEMENTS ON THE SUPERFICIAL SIMILARITIES BETWEEN THE SO-CALLED 'APOSTOLIC CHURCHES':

This is name-calling, and so poorly defined as to be useless.

POST #303: CARICATURISATION OF MY EXPERIENCE WITH THE BYZANTINE CHURCH:

This is hyperbolic.

POST #303: CLOYING OVERUSE OF THE WORD 'LUDICROUS'.

POST #303: ASIDE ABOUT LUDWIG OTT:

I can neither confirm nor deny that he had such a list; I recall the name 'Ludwig Ott' in connection with a list of infallible dogmas, of which the number was over 200. This is probably his work, Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma.

POST #303: STATEMENT INVOLVING A CONDITION COUNTER-TO-FACT AND THE THIRTY YEARS WAR:

As if I knew! If the Roman Church had indeed reformed itself in an orderly fashion, I doubt that a similar war would have been thereby averted.

POST #303: FAILURE TO CONSIDER ANGLO-CATHOLIC DEVOTIONS TO THE BLESSED VIRGIN MARY:

THE ETYMOLOGY OF THE WORD 'PROTESTANT':

MISCHARACTERISATION OF THE PROPOSED BOOKS:

I had stupidly assumed that the quotes therein were edited.

UNWARRANTED ASSERTION ABOUT THE BYZANTINE REJECTION OF THE WRITINGS OF ST. ANSELM OF CANTERBURY:

This is more of an internet phenomenon than anything else.

UNCLEAR STATEMENT ABOUT THE BYZANTINE VIEW OF ST. THOMAS AQUINAS:

It is well-known that prominent Byzantine theologians had indeed incorporated the works of St. Thomas, not least of whom was Gennadius Scholarius. The internet phenomen, however, applies here as well, and applies also to St. Augustine.

UNCHARITABLE REMARKS:

and

and

ERRONEOUS UNDERSTANDING OF THE DOCTRINE OF THE ASSUMPTION OF MARY:

and

I was apparently laboring under the delusion that the doctrine of the Assumption teach that Mary did not die. In my defense, as a man who am looking for that church to which the Lord is calling me, the particular Marian doctrines did not strike me as important; to the contrary, they seem ephemeral. Whether or not the Blessed Virgin was always a virgin should be between herself and St. Joseph. It's frankly none of my business.


IMPRECISE TREATMENTS OF THE SUBJECT OF THE EUCHARIST IN THE BYZANTINE CHURCH:
A: Misrepresenting the views of Nicolas Cabasilas:
In the first post which quoted Nicolas Cabasilas, I presented his view in a way that might be construed as stating that he disagreed with the position that the Eucharist be the sacrifice of Christ; as made clear in the thread later, this is most certainly not the case. I posted it, because it is so extremely insightful. In any case, this quip is incontrovertibly false:

Cabasilas believed no such thing.

B: The following:

As far as I am aware, the Eastern Churches, as a whole, neither confirm nor deny the transubstantiation of the Eucharist.

C: An explanatory note:
I have not studied this topic in much depth and, as such, should not have commented thereabout. Again, I was quite satisfied with the idea that the Eucharist should be treated as a mystery.