If non-Catholic/Orthodox ministers aren't valid pastors in your eyes, are they teaching valid truths? Salvational truth?
It's a matter of liturgy ---- you know this. They can and many do teach valid truths and soteriological or salvific truth, but they don't celebrate Church, Christian liturgy, you know that 'priest work' is called 'liturgy,' and there's such a category as authentic liturgy for the Church.
We are a priesthood, the common priesthood. Our ministers are ministerial priests, they are our helpers in our own liturgy, they facilitate the liturgy of all Catholics and Orthodox Christians.
I already answered. Why are you asking again?
There are lots of Catholics who disagree with something that the Apostles taught as the dogmatic infallible Gospel truth, but part of that is on the bishops, who have, while transmitting probably everything they have received that originated with one of the Apostles, also taught things that the bishops made up.
The Orthodox are even worse imo, because at least the Catholic college of bishops took a big risk by publishing everything that the Catholic Sacred Tradition contains. In there are things that are probably made up by bishops somewhere along the previous 19 centuries of Church history, but also there are all the authentic Apostolic lessons basically verbatim or at least thought-for-thought.
The Orthodox don't have anything like this. There are a bunch of Orthodox churches, each led by a patriarch (the pope used to be considered the patriarch of Rome, back before the 1054 Schism), and they have not all together, and none of them have done it individually, published anything so clear as the Catechism of the Catholic Church. There is no source for everything that Orthodoxy teaches and believes. They might say the Bible and the councils (the councils they judge to be valid), but even then, it isn't anywhere at all clear what the entirety is of the Orthodox faith, unlike with the Catechism.
It would be nice if there is some hidden portion of the Apostolic Tradition that does positively delimit what is and what is not Apostolic instead of interpolation or extrapolation, like how the canon of the Bible is positively delimited (we know precisely the table of contents of the Bible approved by the Apostles). But if we have written down now all that is contained in the Apostolic Tradition as taught by Catholic bishops, then we can perhaps all together reason about which parts are likely Apostolic and which parts are unlikely to be Apostolic.
But there isn't any doubt that the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist is Apostolic, it's even literally right in the Bible, four separate times. There really isn't a lot of doctrine that is repeated four separate times in four separate books in the Bible, the Real Presence is one of those things.
Not believing in the Real Presence in the valid liturgy is what I'm calling the Protestant view in this thread. Both the Orthodox and Catholic churches have valid pastors so Orthodox and Catholic liturgy is valid, but the Protestant view rejects the Real Presence, and so the Protestant view doesn't see any substantial difference between the Orthodox and Catholic liturgies on the one hand, and Protestant liturgies (which even includes abstaining from any 'corporate worship services' at all) on the other.
The meat of the winning argument in the OP's linked thread is that going as far back as we can see from here, the one Church has always believed in the Real Presence. Among putative Christians, it wasn't seriously considered to be fictional until the 1500s. It is definitely an innovation, and a tradition of man, to reject the Real Presence.
So I guess you're basically a Protestant in this thread, and not a Catholic.
