I don't think so.
But perhaps what you meant to convey was in line with what I wrote.
You wrote, for example, that what Gelasius said
doesn't necessarily contradict Transubstantiation. If you mean that he was not explicitly reacting to Aristotle's ideas when saying what he did, I could agree. But it appeared that you were saying Gelasius' comment was not in conflict with the POV we call Transubstantiation. That's a different matter.
And in any case, I certainly cannot agree that Transubstantiation is not wrong. However, I mean the Roman doctrine. My understanding is that Orthodox Christians also use the term but have a different, non-mechanical, view of the issue.
Yes, we are in agreement, but it seems what I said miscommunicated what I was thinking. You are saying everything I meant to convey.
When I say Transubstantiation is not wrong, I mean "not even wrong" - it's just kind of irrelevant. A big problem with Roman Catholicism is taking things that are kind of irrelevant or fringe and making them central - which was what I was trying to point out. Even if their dogma were based on correct details, making the details the central dogma is the problem - but I'm not saying the details are correct. It's a type of inversion.
The same is with their dogma of the immaculate conception. It's details that even if true tradition (although I don't think it is) are basically irrelevant, but raised to be a central dogma. Mary being without stain is acceptable and true tradition, but they dogmatize a specific details which are irrelevant to Mary's stainlessness and which are also questionable.
I cannot be a Roman Catholic because they dogmatize details I don't believe in. However, the tendency to dogmatize these details is a central and core problem. It might be acceptable (not a reason to deny communion) to believe the details the RCC has dogmatized, but they shouldn't be dogma even if true. At the very least, it raises problematic opinion to dogma. Problematic opinions are unavoidable, but they are not even heresy... but if you raise it up it does become heresy.
Another example would be the Marian Apparitions, like Fatima, which even if true they are often made the center of piety and that should not be.
Another example would be their religious artwork which became more and more beautifully detailed, but also more and more earthly or even sensual (instead of heavenly) as a result.
Another example would be their tendency to divide Christ and Mary (Sacred Heart, Sacred Face, Sacred Feet, there is even Sacred Genitalia worship which was popular with French Royalty.) This is very problematic. The heart is a detail of the human, but what is the heart without the rest of the human person? This is a confusion.
The RCC has a tendency to make the lower raised up over the higher - it's a widespread problem that afflicts everything Roman Catholic.
