A Tale of Two Eucharists

[Lazerlike42]

Read post #403.

 

[Socrates4Jesus]

It is easy to get stuck between something being substantially present and physically present (since it could be said that the substance/essence of a thing has to do with the matter of a thing).

This is what the catechism of the catholic church has to say about physically present and sacramentally present:

Quote:

**1374 **The mode of Christ’s presence under the Eucharistic species is unique. It raises the Eucharist above all the sacraments as "the perfection of the spiritual life and the end to which all the sacraments tend."201 In the most blessed sacrament of the Eucharist "the body and blood, together with the soul and divinity, of our Lord Jesus Christ and, therefore, the whole Christ is truly, really, and substantially contained."202 "This presence is called 'real’ - by which is not intended to exclude the other types of presence as if they could not be ‘real’ too, but because it is presence in the fullest sense: that is to say, it is a substantial presence by which Christ, God and man, makes himself wholly and entirely present."203

And St. Ambrose (around 400’s AD says about this conversion:

Be convinced that this is not what nature has formed, but what the blessing has consecrated. The power of the blessing prevails over that of nature, because by the blessing nature itself is changed. . . . Could not Christ’s word, which can make from nothing what did not exist, change existing things into what they were not before? It is no less a feat to give things their original nature than to change their nature.205

Which definition of substancial should i use to understand the Catechism, Dog?

sub·stan·tial (shttp://img.tfd.com/hm/GIF/schwa.gifb-sthttp://img.tfd.com/hm/GIF/abreve.gifnhttp://img.tfd.com/hm/GIF/prime.gifshhttp://img.tfd.com/hm/GIF/schwa.gifl)

adj. **1. **Of, relating to, or having substance; material.

**2. **True or real; not imaginary.

**3. **Solidly built; strong.

**4. **Ample; sustaining: a substantial breakfast.

**5. **Considerable in importance, value, degree, amount, or extent: won by a substantial margin.

**6. **Possessing wealth or property; well-to-do.

n. **1. **An essential. Often used in the plural.

**2. **A solid thing. Often used in the plural.

 

[Lazerlike42]

Which definition of substancial should i use to understand the Catechism, Dog?

sub·stan·tial (shttp://img.tfd.com/hm/GIF/schwa.gifb-sthttp://img.tfd.com/hm/GIF/abreve.gifnhttp://img.tfd.com/hm/GIF/prime.gifshhttp://img.tfd.com/hm/GIF/schwa.gifl)

adj. **1. **Of, relating to, or having substance; material.

**2. **True or real; not imaginary.

**3. **Solidly built; strong.

**4. **Ample; sustaining: a substantial breakfast.

**5. **Considerable in importance, value, degree, amount, or extent: won by a substantial margin.

**6. **Possessing wealth or property; well-to-do.

n. **1. **An essential. Often used in the plural.

**2. **A solid thing. Often used in the plural.

Unless you can get a dictionary of philosophy, it’s not going to be in a dictionary.

 

[murphdog261]

I just found this. Its a Q & A with the current pope when he was a cardinal.

Here’s the link : adoremus.org/0604Ratzinger.html

I’ve taken a few selections out:

**Q: **The Eucharist is seen as the most sacred action in the world, carried out in the most sacred place in the world. The Body, the Blood, the Soul, and even the Godhead of Jesus, it is said, are present in this sacrament. Let me ask again, quite particularly: Is it true that a new miracle happens each day in this action? The transformation of bread and wine into flesh and blood – surely that can only be meant as a symbol.

**A: ** No. The Church believes firmly that the Risen One truly gives Himself here, wholly and entirely. To be sure, at various periods in the Church’s history there have, again and again, been disputes about this. The first great dispute cropped up in the early Middle Ages, the second in the sixteenth century. Luther held out in favor of transubstantiation here, with great emphasis, while Calvin and Zwingli, in their different ways, were in favor of a symbolic understanding, so that from this developed the great division within the Reformation movement.

……… (I skipped alot here)

“But this is not a statement of physics.** It has never been asserted that, so to say, nature in a physical sense is being changed**. The transformation reaches down to a more profound level. Tradition has it that this is a metaphysical process. Christ lays hold upon what is, from a purely physical viewpoint, bread and wine, in its inmost being, so that it is changed from within and Christ truly gives Himself in them.”

 

[Socrates4Jesus]

Socrates,

the problem that we’re dealing with here is that you can’t use a dictionary for this sort of thing. We’re dealing with philosophy. Philosophy uses words in completely different ways than what you tend to see in the dictionary. Every once in a while, you’ll find a dictionary that lists a philisophical usage as one of the definitions, but not always.

We run into this same problem with science. Science often uses words in ways inconsistent with how they are used generally speaking. Again, the dictionary will sometimes have a given scientific usage listed as one of its definitions, but not always.

None of the definitions I’ve seen corresponds to what the words mean in philosophy. Check out the post I referred to: that is what the words mean in philosophy.

Definition # 10 appears to be what you are saying, or perhaps not. But, yes, i do understand that languages changes over time. The word charity, for example, is translated as love in more modern translations of the Bible.

What definition of substance would you like me to consider (whether it be in a dictionary or not)?

sub·stance http://cache.lexico.com/g/d/premium.gif http://cache.lexico.com/dictionary/graphics/luna/thinsp.pngcache.lexico.com/g/d/speaker.gif/ˈsʌbhttp://cache.lexico.com/dictionary/graphics/luna/thinsp.pngstəns/Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciationsuhb-stuhhttp://cache.lexico.com/dictionary/graphics/luna/thinsp.pngns]Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation*–noun *1.that of which a thing consists; physical matter or material: *form and substance. *2.a species of matter of definite chemical composition: *a chalky substance. *3.[controlled substance.](http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=controlled substance) 4.the subject matter of thought, discourse, study, etc. 5.the actual matter of a thing, as opposed to the appearance or shadow; reality. 6.substantial or solid character or quality: *claims lacking in substance. *7.consistency; body: *soup without much substance. *8.the meaning or gist, as of speech or writing. 9.something that has separate or independent existence. 10.Philosophy. a.something that exists by itself and in which accidents or attributes inhere; that which receives modifications and is not itself a mode; something that is causally active; something that is more than an event. b.the essential part of a thing; essence. c.a thing considered as a continuing whole. 11.possessions, means, or wealth: *to squander one’s substance. *12.Linguistics. the articulatory or acoustic reality or the perceptual manifestation of a word or other construction (distinguished from form). 13.a standard of weights for paper. —Idiom 14. **in substance, **a.concerning the essentials; substantially. b.actually; really: *That is in substance how it appeared to me. *

 

[murphdog261]

Lazer is right, no dictionary definition given so far is sufficient.

 

[Socrates4Jesus]

Lazer is right, no dictionary definition given so far is sufficient.

Then we need a non-dictionary definition that is clear, concise and cogent. For, if we don’t know the meaning of the words we are using, how will we know what one another is saying?

 

[Socrates4Jesus]

Soc,

Your example of H2O is a good one. Your example gives a perfect insight into how the “accidents” of the “substance” we call H2O, can change from liquid, to solid, to gas, and even back again.

The trick now is to simply realize that God can also change the substance without changing the accidents. The bread and wine retain their accidents right down to the atoms and molecules, but the substance becomes the body, blood, soul and divinity of Jesus.

God created both the substance and the accidents of all that we perceive.

The “accidents” that we perceive around us are what the senses perceive about the substance, but they do not reveal the substance itself. We cannot see the soul of a person even though we know it to be part of their substance. The changing accidents of water provide us with a parallel that enables us to understand that God can also change the substance which is hidden without changing the accidents which are visible.

We know that Jesus body is now a glorified body and we have the testimony of the apostles to inform us of at least some of what this meant. We know that Jesus could appear out of nowhere, and we know that he could apparently pass through material barriers based on the fact that he appeared to the apostles in the “locked” upper room. We also know that Jesus could consume food, and that Jesus still has the marks of the crucifixion. We also know that He now sits at the right hand of the Father in glory. We know that He is in heaven with a glorified physical body.

The transformation of Jesus body has some significance to this discussion. Jesus is able to be visible and physically present to the disciples after the resurrection and yet a moment later He can be invisible to them. These mysterious aspects of Jesus resurrected and glorious body give us a glimpse of why we can and should believe that Jesus can be present in body, blood, soul, and divinity within the Eucharist. All of these things are mysteries and difficult to understand, but they are what Jesus promised.

When God says something it happens. When God said “Let there be light” there was light. He created everything out of nothing. This creative act resulted in matter that has substance and accidents. God chose what both aspects would be. Surely He can change the substance of something while preserving the accidents of something else. The clues are all there, but we also must make the leap of faith.

I will pray for you as you ponder this great Christian mystery.

Thank you, Pax. Yes, it is not too difficult to understand how the substance of matter can be changed without changing the accidents (or appearance) of matter. For example, one can add antifreeze to lime koolaid to change its substance from something tasty to something deadly.

The thing is, when one changes the substance, one changes the thing itself. When God said, “Let there be light,” the substance of light particles and light waves were present and visible.

When Jesus turned water into wine, the accidents might have stayed the same (e.g., it might have been white wine that appeared similar to the water) but the substance had changed. For, the substance of water is, in part, its chemical composition, which is H2O. The water ceased to be merely water and became wine. Tasting it verified that this miracle took place.

What happens with the host is that before and after the blessing, the material substance stays the same (it has the same chemical composition it had before), as do the accidents stay the same (it has the same appearance as it had before). I’m not denying that it is logically possible that the inanimate bread take on the animate soul and Spirit of the Son of God. I’m just wondering how one can say that the material substance of the bread has changed, when all evidence shows otherwise.

 

[Socrates4Jesus]

Socrates, let me try to write up my own defintion of accidents and substance, in very unconfusing, clear language.

Right now, I have a thing in front of me. Here’s what I notice about the thing in front of me. The thing in front of me is mostly white. The tip of it is black. It is also cylindrical. It’s light - doesn’t weigh too much. It doesn’t seem to have any particular odor to it. It has a very smooth texture. The thing is also made up of atoms.

Now I just so happen to have a second thing here at my desk. This second thing is not the first thing, obviously, because I can see them both here: they’re two seperate things.

This second thing actually shares all the same characteristics of the first thing:

• White body
• Black tip
• Cylindrical
• Light
• No odor
• Smooth texture
• Made of atoms

This second thing is a AA battery.

Now notice something. All of those things I noticed about the first thing and the second thing are true of both of them. Both are white. Both have some black. Both are cylindrical, and are light, and don’t smell and are smooth and are made of atoms. These are qualities that can be found in many different things. They are also qualities that can’t be found except in a thing. You can’t just reach down and pick up “white.”

You can’t touch “cylindrical,” or “odorless.” You can pick up a thing that is white, or touch a thing that is cylindrical or is odorless, but apart from being qualities of actual things, they don’t exist. These are accidents. Accidents are those qualities which don’t exist in and of themselves, but only when they are found in things. Furthermore, accidents can be found in many different things; they aren’t restricted to one thing. I have a two things here - a AA battery and a pen - and “white” exists in both of them.

But do those qualities define the things? Is a pen something that is white with a black tip, cylindrical, light, odorless, smooth, and is made of atoms? Well no, it’s not. After all, the AA battery had these qualities, too. Furthermore, I have another pen here, and this other pen is yellow, not white. It’s also got a funky smell, and it’s triangular. The accidents then, don’t define a pen. I have here two things, both of them pens, and both of them with completely different accidents.

What makes a pen be a pen, then, is something else. This is called the substance of a thing. The substance of a thing is what the thing is. Whatever all the accidents happen to be, a thing’s substance is what it really is. Thus, I have two pens, each of which have different accidents. I have two AA batteries, with different accidents. The substance of a pen is it’s “penyness,” the quality of being a pen. The substance of a battery is “batteryness” - the quality of being a battery. Not what it’s made of, not what it looks like, just that quality of, in its being, being a battery.

So let’s compare the two. Accidents are those qualities which don’t define a thing - which don’t make it what it is. The color, the weight, the shape, the size, the smell, the composition, etc. “White” does not make a pen be a pen, it makes a pen be a “white” pen." Thus, an easy way to think of them is like adjectives. That quality of a thing that does define a thing - that makes it what it is - is it’s substance. So, you can sometimes think of substances like nouns.

Note that a thing can have any number of accidents - white, cylindrical, light, etc. - but only one substance - pen, or battery, or dog, or human.

If that makes sense, I’ll add a few final notes.

Lazer:

This is not a definition, it’s an explanation. Please give just a sentence or three with which we can work.

 

[Socrates4Jesus]

It’s getting late, all. Looking forward to talking with you later!

 

[maryj]

Yes, i agree with that. Every miracle Jesus did, from turning water into wind, to giving sight to a blind man, to raising His own body from the dead, was a sign. It was irrefutable evidence that He was God.

Please tell me, how is the Eucharist a sign?

…and the master of the banquet tasted the water that had been turned into wine. He did not realize where it had come from, though the servants who had drawn the water knew. Then he called the bridegroom aside 10and said, “Everyone brings out the choice wine first and then the cheaper wine after the guests have had too much to drink; but you have saved the best till now.”

11This, the first of his miraculous signs, Jesus performed in Cana of Galilee. He thus revealed his glory, and his disciples put their faith in him.

(John 2)

Because Jesus himself tells us it is the sign of the new and Everlasting Covenant.

 

[truthsilence]

See my dilemma? Wanting to believe is not enough. Faith is not desire; its trust in sound and rational evidence.

Hey Soc,

I like how Christian scholar Luke Timothy Johnson describes Faith. He says something like this: Faith doesn’t mean belief. It includes belief, but what it really means is a living response of trust, obedience and loyalty to God, who has a claim upon our very existence; and our willingness to respond to that claim.

I thought I’d include that, before I post what a dear friend who is also Deacon at our local cathedral had to say when I asked him to help me more fully understand what is being discussed here. This is his reply:

It is a metaphysical transformation, not a physical transformation. The metaphysical/physical distinction is crucial and what seems to be utterly lost in this exchange.

To wit: there is no physical change in either the bread or the wine at the atomic or sub-atomic level. It is a sacramental transformation.The sacred species do not become human flesh, we are not cannibals.

Nonetheless, it is Christ- Body, Blood, soul, and divinity. It is a theological mystery, which is not something unknown and unknowable, but known because God has told us (i.e., it has been revealed). It is a belief of faith, which, while reasonable, is not demonstrable from reason.

The only empirical evidence that it is true is what fruit it bears in our lives.

God be with you as you are pondering these questions and answers, friend. I will be more out than I’ll be in the forum for a while. Loads of work to do, with a deadline.

You are in my prayers and I ask that I remain in yours.

Peace,
Tami

 

[Socrates4Jesus]

I just found this. Its a Q & A with the current pope when he was a cardinal.

Here’s the link : adoremus.org/0604Ratzinger.html

I’ve taken a few selections out:

I’m taking this forest one tree at a time, Dog! Before i consider another definition of the Eucharist, i want to give Lazer’s ideas of substance and accidents the attention they are due. If his ideas turn out to be full of dry rot and worms, i’ll consider taking a closer look at another tree.

Goodnight for now!

 

[Socrates4Jesus]

Because Jesus himself tells us it is the sign of the new and Everlasting Covenant.

Yes, MaryJ, His sacrificial death and resurrection from the dead was the sign of the new and everlasting covenant. The miraculous sign was the resurrection.

Do you think He was saying that the bread and wine represent that sign?

 

[murphdog261]

I know you probably went to bed already, but I just want to stress:

sacramental transformation, and not a physical change

There was a post that quoted a Deacon in #428 post. Read it. Its good.

 

[Socrates4Jesus]

Hey Soc,

I like how Christian scholar Luke Timothy Johnson describes Faith. He says something like this: Faith doesn’t mean belief. It includes belief, but what it really means is a living response of trust, obedience and loyalty to God, who has a claim upon our very existence; and our willingness to respond to that claim.

I thought I’d include that, before I post what a dear friend who is also Deacon at our local cathedral had to say when I asked him to help me more fully understand what is being discussed here. This is his reply:

Quote:
It is a metaphysical transformation, not a physical transformation. The metaphysical/physical distinction is crucial and what seems to be utterly lost in this exchange.

To wit: there is no physical change in either the bread or the wine at the atomic or sub-atomic level. It is a sacramental transformation.The sacred species do not become human flesh, we are not cannibals.

Nonetheless, it is Christ- Body, Blood, soul, and divinity. It is a theological mystery, which is not something unknown and unknowable, but known because God has told us (i.e., it has been revealed). It is a belief of faith, which, while reasonable, is not demonstrable from reason.

The only empirical evidence that it is true is what fruit it bears in our lives.

God be with you as you are pondering these questions and answers, friend. I will be more out than I’ll be in the forum for a while. Loads of work to do, with a deadline.

You are in my prayers and I ask that I remain in yours.

Peace,
Tami

Hey, Tami, thanks for asking an expert!

My difficulty is seeing how this statement can be true:

(a) There is no physical change in either the bread or the wine at the atomic or sub-atomic level.And how this statement can also be true:

(b) Nonetheless, it is Christ’s body and blood, and Christ’s soul and divinity.You see,

(a) is the opposite of (b)and (b) is the opposite of (a)so it is a logical contradiction to assert that both (a) and (b) are both true, and logical contradictions are always false.My reasoning is this:

(b1) The is Eucharist is believed to be the body, blood, soul, and divinity of Jesus Christ.(c1) The Eucharist is also bread and wine.(d1) Bread and wine are physical (or material) and are composed of atoms.(e1) The soul and divinity of Jesus are spiritual (or non-material) and not composed of atoms.(f1) The body and blood of Jesus are physical (or material) and are composed of atoms.(g1) There is believed to be a metaphysical (spiritual or immaterial) change of the Eucharist, as it becomes the soul and divinity of Jesus Christ.(h1) Jesus’ body and blood are physical (not metaphysical or spiritual or immaterial)(a1) There is no evidence of a physical (or material) change in the bread and wine of the Eucharist. They remain atomically, and molecularly, and chemically bread and wine.

Therefore (conclusion):

It is a logical impossibility that the bread and wine of the Eucharist has actually become the body and blood of Christ. However, it is not logically impossible that it becomes the soul and divinity of Christ.
Understand that i really want to believe that the Eucharist is true, but i also want to love the one who is the Truth. He tells me that i must love Him not just with all my desire, but also with my mind (or reason):

Jesus replied: " ‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.’ "(Matthew 22:37)
It is my firm conviction that to accept a logical contradiction as being true is to fail to love Jesus. I cannot accept the Roman Catholic teaching on the Eucharist as true until i understand how it is in no way a logical contradiction, for, as i said, logical contradictions are always false.

See my dilemma?

 

[Socrates4Jesus]

I know you probably went to bed already, but I just want to stress:

sacramental transformation, and not a physical change

There was a post that quoted a Deacon in #428 post. Read it. Its good.

Yes, i did, Dog. (Please see post 435.)

 

[MaryJohnZ]

It’s not that i’m rushing through, it’s that i’m taking it one step at a time, Lazer. At this point, i think, you need to change your definition of substance. We agreed that this definition is sufficient:

**Substance **is the actual matter of a thing, as opposed to the appearance or shadow; reality. Substance is what makes a thing what it is, and that which cannot be changed without changing the thing itself.

You are now appear to be saying that the agreed upon definition is faulty:

Substance is not the *matter *of a thing - it’s what the thing really, truly is.
You are actually saying that substance is the opposite of what we agreed it was when we began. I don’t mind changing your definition, i just want to be sure this is your intention before we move on.

Socrates,
I am not answering for Lazer, but remember that we believe that it is the glorified body of Christ that is in the Eucharist and the glorified Christ could ‘walk through closed doors’…

so laws of matter do not bind it to any configuration…

And Mary’s virginity was preserved during the birth which means
Christ physical nature was born miraculously as well…

no one can really explain that.

so the eucharist is a sign that God owns creation and can do with it what He Will.

This makes sense since the Jewish people had the custom of putting the Astrology signs in their synagogues for the purpose of saying God was the supreme ruler of time…well this sign goes further and says God rules everything…time, space, matter, dimension,…etc.

God has witnessed to His work with Eucharistic miracles which have been shown and which will happen again…

The Hebrew Catholic website explained some of what is their Catholic view of jewish mystic tradition and they believe the Jewish people will be converted by a Eucharistic miracle of some kind…

OK, so now you can all go on with discussing substance, matter and accidents…

God Bless, MaryJohnZ

 

[Socrates4Jesus]

Socrates, let me try to write up my own defintion of accidents and substance, in very unconfusing, clear language.

Right now, I have a thing in front of me. Here’s what I notice about the thing in front of me. The thing in front of me is mostly white. The tip of it is black. It is also cylindrical. It’s light - doesn’t weigh too much. It doesn’t seem to have any particular odor to it. It has a very smooth texture. The thing is also made up of atoms.

Now I just so happen to have a second thing here at my desk. This second thing is not the first thing, obviously, because I can see them both here: they’re two seperate things.

This second thing actually shares all the same characteristics of the first thing:

• White body
• Black tip
• Cylindrical
• Light
• No odor
• Smooth texture
• Made of atoms

This second thing is a AA battery.

Now notice something. All of those things I noticed about the first thing and the second thing are true of both of them. Both are white. Both have some black. Both are cylindrical, and are light, and don’t smell and are smooth and are made of atoms. These are qualities that can be found in many different things. They are also qualities that can’t be found except in a thing. You can’t just reach down and pick up “white.”

You can’t touch “cylindrical,” or “odorless.” You can pick up a thing that is white, or touch a thing that is cylindrical or is odorless, but apart from being qualities of actual things, they don’t exist. These are accidents. Accidents are those qualities which don’t exist in and of themselves, but only when they are found in things. Furthermore, accidents can be found in many different things; they aren’t restricted to one thing. I have a two things here - a AA battery and a pen - and “white” exists in both of them.

But do those qualities define the things? Is a pen something that is white with a black tip, cylindrical, light, odorless, smooth, and is made of atoms? Well no, it’s not. After all, the AA battery had these qualities, too. Furthermore, I have another pen here, and this other pen is yellow, not white. It’s also got a funky smell, and it’s triangular. The accidents then, don’t define a pen. I have here two things, both of them pens, and both of them with completely different accidents.

What makes a pen be a pen, then, is something else. This is called the substance of a thing. The substance of a thing is what the thing is. Whatever all the accidents happen to be, a thing’s substance is what it really is. Thus, I have two pens, each of which have different accidents. I have two AA batteries, with different accidents. The substance of a pen is it’s “penyness,” the quality of being a pen. The substance of a battery is “batteryness” - the quality of being a battery. Not what it’s made of, not what it looks like, just that quality of, in its being, being a battery.

So let’s compare the two. Accidents are those qualities which don’t define a thing - which don’t make it what it is. The color, the weight, the shape, the size, the smell, the composition, etc. “White” does not make a pen be a pen, it makes a pen be a “white” pen." Thus, an easy way to think of them is like adjectives. That quality of a thing that does define a thing - that makes it what it is - is it’s substance. So, you can sometimes think of substances like nouns.

Note that a thing can have any number of accidents - white, cylindrical, light, etc. - but only one substance - pen, or battery, or dog, or human.

If that makes sense, I’ll add a few final notes.

Lazer:

I’m not brushing aside what you are saying; i do appreciate the time you are taking in explaining. Let me try to paraphrase what you said, and please tell me if i’m getting it:

1. • All things spiritual or material have attributes or qualities
   • All attributes or qualities are either substances or accidents
   • Substances are those attributes which exist in and of themselves
   • Accidents are those attributes which cannot exist in and of themselves
   • All things spiritual and material have both substances and attributes
   • No substance is an accident
   • No accident is a substance
     I have two questions:
   • Are these premises accurate?
   • Is the atomic, molecular, and chemical structure of a material thing a substance or an accident?

 

[Socrates4Jesus]

Socrates,
I am not answering for Lazer, but remember that we believe that it is the glorified body of Christ that is in the Eucharist and the glorified Christ could ‘walk through closed doors’…

so laws of matter do not bind it to any configuration…

And Mary’s virginity was preserved during the birth which means
Christ physical nature was born miraculously as well…

no one can really explain that.

so the eucharist is a sign that God owns creation and can do with it what He Will.

This makes sense since the Jewish people had the custom of putting the Astrology signs in their synagogues for the purpose of saying God was the supreme ruler of time…well this sign goes further and says God rules everything…time, space, matter, dimension,…etc.

God has witnessed to His work with Eucharistic miracles which have been shown and which will happen again…

The Hebrew Catholic website explained some of what is their Catholic view of jewish mystic tradition and they believe the Jewish people will be converted by a Eucharistic miracle of some kind…

OK, so now you can all go on with discussing substance, matter and accidents…

God Bless, MaryJohnZ

Yes, you make an interesting point, MJ. However, the gospel writer does not describe Jesus walking through a door, as if He were a ghost.

While they were still talking about this, Jesus himself stood among them and said to them, “Peace be with you.”(Luke 24:36) That’s one thing i like about the Luke, he pays close attention to details. Renowned archaeologist and scholar William F. Albright called him the best of all the ancient historians. What Luke is describing is more like Jesus moving at the speed of thought and teleporting (e.g., one moment He was outside the door and the next moment He was inside the door, but He did not pass through the door as if He were a ghost). Me being a geek (as i work in Information Technology) i liken it to the transporter on Star Trek, only much faster.

That Jesus had a physical body is shown conclusively by the Jesus’ words:

“Look at my hands and my feet. It is I myself! Touch me and see; a ghost does not have flesh and bones, as you see I have.”*(Luke 24:39)*Hence, i’m still trying to figure out how the flesh and bones of Jesus can truly be said to be the bread.