Do I understand what the "Real Presence" is

[kylemccloughan]

Then the Orthodox, Lutherans, Anglicans, Methodists, and others who say they believe in the Real Presence really don’t I guess.

Absolutely not true at all. God doesn’t put himself in a box. We as humans do that sometimes, but he doesn’t. Believing that the bread and wine at communion truly are the body and blood of Christ just as spoken by him in the gospels IS the Real Presence.

 

[JonNC]

Sorry if I derailed your intended discussion.

Back on track, the “Real Presence” terminology that encompases both consubstantiation (bread AND Jesus are there side by side) and transubstantiation (it isn’t bread anymore, it’s Jesus). Both views are forms of a “Real Presence” belief even though they are mutually contradictory.

Then, of course, there is the Lutheran expression of the real presence, which is neither Transub. nor consub.

I would disagree with my friend, Manualman, and say that the underlying doctrine is the real presence, which is that when Christ states, “take and eat, this is my body” that He means exactly that - it is His body. It is not a symbol or representation of His body, but is, indeed, His body.

The other terms are ways in which different communions express this real presence -Transub., consub, Sacramental Union, metabole, etc.

Jon

 

[AmateurPianist]

Then the Orthodox, Lutherans, Anglicans, Methodists, and others who say they believe in the Real Presence really don’t I guess.

Sorry, this post was snarky and violated my self-imposed limits on this thread. Please consider it logically deleted.

 

[kylemccloughan]

Sorry, this post was snarky and violated my self-imposed limits on this thread. Please consider it logically deleted.

I didn’t take it that way. I have been told many times that only Catholics know what the real Presence is and celebrate as such. I say that nothing could be further from the truth.

 

[Radical]

I would disagree with my friend, Manualman, and say that the underlying doctrine is the real presence, which is that when Christ states, “take and eat, this is my body” that He means exactly that - it is His body. It is not a symbol or representation of His body, but is, indeed, His body.

Jon, like the Oposter I would love to see a clear explanation of what is involved in the Real Presence…please describe it to me as you would to one of your students …one of your less gifted students. Let me clarify a bit more…on the other thread Cat Herder gave the “stop sign” analogy, but in that analogy no miracle is involved, no change in/behind/under/about the element occurs, but what changes is entirely in the realm of “ideas”. The citizen acquires the idea that the red octagon requires him to stop his vehicle at its location. IMHO something more must be claimed in order to say Christ is bodily present (that it is indeed his body)…something more must be claimed in order to justify all of the fuss about the adherence to one view vs. the other. What I find particularly frustrating is that Christian A will insist view X is the only correct view, but then be entirely unable to precisely describe what is involved with view X. How one can claim exclusivity w/o also being able to describe that “only true belief” precisely? …so please indulge this request as if I am one of your dimmer (grade 5?) students. Thanks…and, of course, I would be happy to see answers from any one else who holds to a real bodily or a real spiritual presence.

 

[JonNC]

Jon, like the Oposter I would love to see a clear explanation of what is involved in the Real Presence…please describe it to me as you would to one of your students …one of your less gifted students. Let me clarify a bit more…on the other thread Cat Herder gave the “stop sign” analogy, but in that analogy no miracle is involved, no change in/behind/under/about the element occurs, but what changes is entirely in the realm of “ideas”. The citizen acquires the idea that the red octagon requires him to stop his vehicle at its location. IMHO something more must be claimed in order to say Christ is bodily present (that it is indeed his body)…something more must be claimed in order to justify all of the fuss about the adherence to one view vs. the other. What I find particularly frustrating is that Christian A will insist view X is the only correct view, but then be entirely unable to precisely describe what is involved with view X. How one can claim exclusivity w/o also being able to describe that “only true belief” precisely? …so please indulge this request as if I am one of your dimmer (grade 5?) students. Thanks…and, of course, I would be happy to see answers from any one else who holds to a real bodily or a real spiritual presence.

I am going to rely on Fr. Martin, with your indulgence, in this way. He wrote the Small Catechism for just this approach, teaching the doctrines of the Church in a way that allows a father to instruct his children.

VI. The Sacrament of the Altar
As the head of the family should teach it in a simple way to his household.

What is the Sacrament of the Altar?
It is the true body and blood of our Lord Jesus Christ, under the bread and wine, for us Christians to eat and to drink, instituted by Christ Himself.

Where is this written?
The holy Evangelists, Matthew, Mark, Luke, and St. Paul, write thus:

*Our Lord Jesus Christ, the same night in which He was betrayed, took bread: and when He had given thanks, He brake it, and gave it to His disciples, and said, Take, eat; this is My body, which is given for you. This do in remembrance of Me.

After the same manner also He took the cup, when He had supped, gave thanks, and gave it to them, saying, Take, drink ye all of it. This cup is the new testament in My blood, which is shed for you for the remission of sins. This do ye, as oft as ye drink it, in remembrance of Me.*

What is the benefit of such eating and drinking?
That is shown us in these words: Given, and shed for you, for the remission of sins; namely, that in the Sacrament forgiveness of sins, life, and salvation are given us through these words. For where there is forgiveness of sins, there is also life and salvation.

How can bodily eating and drinking do such great things?
It is not the eating and drinking, indeed, that does them, but the words which stand here, namely: Given, and shed for you, for the remission of sins. Which words are, beside the bodily eating and drinking, as the chief thing in the Sacrament; and he that believes these words has what they say and express, namely, the forgiveness of sins.

Who, then, receives such Sacrament worthily?
Fasting and bodily preparation is, indeed, a fine outward training; but he is truly worthy and well prepared who has faith in these words: Given, and shed for you, for the remission of sins.

But he that does not believe these words, or doubts, is unworthy and unfit; for the words For you require altogether believing hearts.

Beyond that, I quote John of Damascus, “… if you enquire how this happens, it is enough for you to learn that it was through the Holy Spirit, just as the Lord took on Himself flesh that subsisted in Him and was born of the holy Mother of God through the Spirit”

So, it is here that Lutherans say, by faith, that in the words and by the power of the Holy Spirit, the bread upon which Christ lays his hands, and says, “this is my body”, is then His body. For what purpose? For us to eat, for the forgiveness of sins.

Jon

 

[AmateurPianist]

I didn’t take it that way. I have been told many times that only Catholics know what the real Presence is and celebrate as such. I say that nothing could be further from the truth.

Yeah you of course wouldn’t take it that way. I was just afraid that comment would lead to a rabbit trail I really did not want to go down.

 

[Radical]

I am going to rely on Fr. Martin, with your indulgence, in this way. He wrote the Small Catechism for just this approach, teaching the doctrines of the Church in a way that allows a father to instruct his children.

thanks, but it wasn’t what i was looking for…what I am trying to put my finger on is the actual difference between the various views (besides the label that each one places). For example, one fellow will claim a real bodily presence and the next will claim a real spiritual presence. If I was to cross examine these two fellows on the nature of things, they might both end up stating that there are material things, mental things and spiritual things. So, if both of those fellows would agree that Christ’s body is not materially present at the Eucharist, then Christ’s bodily presence for the first guy would have to be something achieved in the spiritual realm or the mental realm…and let’s go with spiritual. If so, then what is the actual difference between the first guy’s view and the second guy’s view apart from the way they prefer to label their views? Further, if the first guy wants to say that Christ’s body is materially present at the Eucharist, then how does he do that w/o blurring the differences between the spiritual and the material realms? When I look at Fr. Martin’s material I note that there is very little that could not be accepted by the various camps. I see the critical phrases as the ones that I have highlighted:
VI. The Sacrament of the Altar
As the head of the family should teach it in a simple way to his household.

What is the Sacrament of the Altar?
It is the true body and blood of our Lord Jesus Christ, under the bread and wine, for us Christians to eat and to drink, instituted by Christ Himself.

Where is this written?
The holy Evangelists, Matthew, Mark, Luke, and St. Paul, write thus:

Our Lord Jesus Christ, the same night in which He was betrayed, took bread: and when He had given thanks, He brake it, and gave it to His disciples, and said, Take, eat; this is My body, which is given for you. This do in remembrance of Me.

After the same manner also He took the cup, when He had supped, gave thanks, and gave it to them, saying, Take, drink ye all of it. This cup is the new testament in My blood, which is shed for you for the remission of sins. This do ye, as oft as ye drink it, in remembrance of Me.

What is the benefit of such eating and drinking?
That is shown us in these words: Given, and shed for you, for the remission of sins; namely, that in the Sacrament forgiveness of sins, life, and salvation are given us through these words. For where there is forgiveness of sins, there is also life and salvation.

How can bodily eating and drinking do such great things?
It is not the eating and drinking, indeed, that does them, but the words which stand here, namely: Given, and shed for you, for the remission of sins. Which words are, beside the bodily eating and drinking, as the chief thing in the Sacrament; and he that believes these words has what they say and express, namely, the forgiveness of sins

Who, then, receives such Sacrament worthily?
Fasting and bodily preparation is, indeed, a fine outward training; but he is truly worthy and well prepared who has faith in these words: Given, and shed for you, for the remission of sins.

But he that does not believe these words, or doubts, is unworthy and unfit; for the words For you require altogether believing hearts.

If the speaker has a philosophic outlook and thinks that what happens in the spiritual realm or in the realm of ideas is entirely what matters, then the speaker might understand “true body” to mean a conversion in the spiritual realm or in the realm of ideas b/c that is where true reality or true importance is achieved. With that mindset then, someone who holds to a purely spiritual presence could be very comfortable saying exactly what Fr Martin said…What I am trying to figure out is what is the real difference. Fr. Martin (I assume) wants to call it a real bodily presence b/c he values consistency with Christ’s use of “body” in “This is my body”. The next fellow may want to call it a real spiritual presence b/c he values describing the realm in which the real work is done. From the greatly coherent and wonderfully easy to explain symbolic view, it is very hard to figure out how the lot of you in the “real presence” camp actually differ from one another. What is it specifically about a “real bodily present view” that requires the holder thereof to believe a different thing (apart from the label) than the things believed by the holder of a “spiritually present view”. Please note I mean “requires” and not just “possibly causes”. Can any one explain this?..preferably so that a 12 year old could understand it. Thanks.

 

[JonNC]

thanks, but it wasn’t what i was looking for…what I am trying to put my finger on is the actual difference between the various views (besides the label that each one places). For example, one fellow will claim a real bodily presence and the next will claim a real spiritual presence. If I was to cross examine these two fellows on the nature of things, they might both end up stating that there are material things, mental things and spiritual things. So, if both of those fellows would agree that Christ’s body is not materially present at the Eucharist, then Christ’s bodily presence for the first guy would have to be something achieved in the spiritual realm or the mental realm…and let’s go with spiritual. If so, then what is the actual difference between the first guy’s view and the second guy’s view apart from the way they prefer to label their views? Further, if the first guy wants to say that Christ’s body is materially present at the Eucharist, then how does he do that w/o blurring the differences between the spiritual and the material realms? When I look at Fr. Martin’s material I note that there is very little that could not be accepted by the various camps. I see the critical phrases as the ones that I have highlighted:
VI. The Sacrament of the Altar
As the head of the family should teach it in a simple way to his household.

What is the Sacrament of the Altar?
It is the true body and blood of our Lord Jesus Christ, under the bread and wine, for us Christians to eat and to drink, instituted by Christ Himself.

Where is this written?
The holy Evangelists, Matthew, Mark, Luke, and St. Paul, write thus:

Our Lord Jesus Christ, the same night in which He was betrayed, took bread: and when He had given thanks, He brake it, and gave it to His disciples, and said, Take, eat; this is My body, which is given for you. This do in remembrance of Me.

After the same manner also He took the cup, when He had supped, gave thanks, and gave it to them, saying, Take, drink ye all of it. This cup is the new testament in My blood, which is shed for you for the remission of sins. This do ye, as oft as ye drink it, in remembrance of Me.

What is the benefit of such eating and drinking?
That is shown us in these words: Given, and shed for you, for the remission of sins; namely, that in the Sacrament forgiveness of sins, life, and salvation are given us through these words. For where there is forgiveness of sins, there is also life and salvation.

How can bodily eating and drinking do such great things?
It is not the eating and drinking, indeed, that does them, but the words which stand here, namely: Given, and shed for you, for the remission of sins. Which words are, beside the bodily eating and drinking, as the chief thing in the Sacrament; and he that believes these words has what they say and express, namely, the forgiveness of sins

Who, then, receives such Sacrament worthily?
Fasting and bodily preparation is, indeed, a fine outward training; but he is truly worthy and well prepared who has faith in these words: Given, and shed for you, for the remission of sins.

But he that does not believe these words, or doubts, is unworthy and unfit; for the words For you require altogether believing hearts.

If the speaker has a philosophic outlook and thinks that what happens in the spiritual realm or in the realm of ideas is entirely what matters, then the speaker might understand “true body” to mean a conversion in the spiritual realm or in the realm of ideas b/c that is where true reality or true importance is achieved. With that mindset then, someone who holds to a purely spiritual presence could be very comfortable saying exactly what Fr Martin said…What I am trying to figure out is what is the real difference. Fr. Martin (I assume) wants to call it a real bodily presence b/c he values consistency with Christ’s use of “body” in “This is my body”. The next fellow may want to call it a real spiritual presence b/c he values describing the realm in which the real work is done. From the greatly coherent and wonderfully easy to explain symbolic view, it is very hard to figure out how the lot of you in the “real presence” camp actually differ from one another. What is it specifically about a “real bodily present view” that requires the holder thereof to believe a different thing (apart from the label) than the things believed by the holder of a “spiritually present view”. Please note I mean “requires” and not just “possibly causes”. Can any one explain this?..preferably so that a 12 year old could understand it. Thanks.

I see. May I suggest, then, that you seem to be asking the “how” in a metaphysical sense. I am, therefore, the wrong person to ask. Lutheranism as a practice tends to ignore this line of thought. As evidence, we won’t subscribe to either Transubstantiaiton or consubstantiation, because they both entail a “substance / accidents” type of explanation. As Christ does not go into these types of details, it is impossible for us to know, from a Lutheran POV.
We accept, at Christ’s own words, that through the words and by the power of the Holy SPirit, that it is indeed His body and blood. While our physical senses perceive bread and wine, by sight, feel, smell and taste, by faith we accept a change from mere bread and wine to His body and blood.

Jon

 

[Loboto-Me]

I see. May I suggest, then, that you seem to be asking the “how” in a metaphysical sense. I am, therefore, the wrong person to ask. Lutheranism as a practice tends to ignore this line of thought. As evidence, we won’t subscribe to either Transubstantiaiton or consubstantiation, because they both entail a “substance / accidents” type of explanation. As Christ does not go into these types of details, it is impossible for us to know, from a Lutheran POV.
We accept, at Christ’s own words, that through the words and by the power of the Holy SPirit, that it is indeed His body and blood. While our physical senses perceive bread and wine, by sight, feel, smell and taste, by faith we accept a change from mere bread and wine to His body and blood.

Jon

Pardon my ignorance Jon, but I have to ask then, if the bread becomes Christ by faith, does that mean that if there’s nobody around to have the faith that the bread has become Jesus’ body, that it becomes bread once again? I’m not trying to be “smart” or to open up a discussion that wasn’t intended, only trying to figure out how it works in Lutheranism.

 

[BYUChemAlum]

I see. May I suggest, then, that you seem to be asking the “how” in a metaphysical sense. I am, therefore, the wrong person to ask. Lutheranism as a practice tends to ignore this line of thought. As evidence, we won’t subscribe to either Transubstantiaiton or consubstantiation, because they both entail a “substance / accidents” type of explanation. As Christ does not go into these types of details, it is impossible for us to know, from a Lutheran POV.
We accept, at Christ’s own words, that through the words and by the power of the Holy SPirit, that it is indeed His body and blood. While our physical senses perceive bread and wine, by sight, feel, smell and taste, by faith we accept a change from mere bread and wine to His body and blood.

Jon

So, if I understand Radical’s question, you are saying that there really is no way to know the difference between a “bodily” presence of Christ in the Eucharist, and a “spiritual” presence of Christ in the Eucharist?

 

[JonNC]

Pardon my ignorance Jon, but I have to ask then, if the bread becomes Christ by faith, does that mean that if there’s nobody around to have the faith that the bread has become Jesus’ body, that it becomes bread once again? I’m not trying to be “smart” or to open up a discussion that wasn’t intended, only trying to figure out how it works in Lutheranism.

Perhaps I was unclear. The bread is the body of Christ, by the words and the power of the Holy Spirit, not as a result of faith or because of it. In fact, it is His body despite the faith of the recipient and the celebrant. We know it is His body by faith.

Better explained?

Jon

 

[JonNC]

So, if I understand Radical’s question, you are saying that there really is no way to know the difference between a “bodily” presence of Christ in the Eucharist, and a “spiritual” presence of Christ in the Eucharist?

No, what I’m saying is that Christ says it is His body. It is His body. We receive Him orally.
It is His true and substantial body of Christ.

Jon

 

[AmateurPianist]

Anyway, this has been an informative thread to me.

I was looking for a nice, clear definition of “Real Presence” with clear, unambiguous boundaries. However as was explained to me, it is nothing more than a category term to describe a number of beliefs and approaches (much like the term Protestant). So as such, perhaps a nice, clear definition does not exist.

So back to my study. I have concluded that “Real Presence” is really nothing more than taking Jesus at His word when He said “This is my body, This is my blood”. There is no need to downgrade this to “represents”. In some sense it is His body and blood.

Where there seems to be disagreement seems to be in these areas

• The sense in which it is His body and His blood. I have observed that nobody believes it in the most direct sense possible (it has the chemical and molecular structure of flesh and blood).
• The circumstances that must exist for the Real Presence to occur, I guess everybody believes it occurs during communion and the recipient must not be in a state of sin.
• The mechanics (how) it works. This can range from we don’t know to a great amount of detail.
• Just how much God has revealed the above three. In other words how much should we concern ourselves with the sense, circumstances, and mechanics. This can range from none to quite a bit of details.

At least this is as far as I can figure this out at this time.

 

[Radical]

No, what I’m saying is that Christ says it is His body. It is His body. We receive Him orally.
It is His true and substantial body of Christ.

Jon

Jon, with all due respect…I don’t know how you can say that there is a definite difference between your view and the “spiritual” view if you can’t begin to describe the metaphysics of your view. If you can’t say that the bread becomes body in realm X (such that you can say that the realm of change is not the spiritual realm) then how can you say that the change you envision is definitely different from the change envisioned by the guy with the spiritual view? Look at what you just typed:

a) No, what I’m saying is that Christ says it is His body. (The Spiritual View Guy [SVG] agrees fully)

b) It is His body. (the SVG agrees, but perhaps contemplates a different “how” for the “is”)

c) We receive Him orally. (this cries out for some sort of explanation…how is the body present? How does it travel with the bread? How does it enter the mouth and get eaten? …I think that you need something to rule out the SVG’s idea that the “oral and other action” has ramifications in the spiritual realm and not in realm X …realm X being the unspecified realm in which you envision the change occuring )

d) It is His true and substantial body of Christ (here you seem to have entered the metaphysics of trans or consubstantiation with the claim of it being the substantial body…what does “substantial body” mean?)

I don’t mean to be grilling you on this matter, but I am truly perplexed by your insistence on a particular view w/o any precision wrt that view. The Eucharist was at one time the sacrament of unity…now it seems to result in disunity.

 

[Radical]

Pardon my ignorance Jon, but I have to ask then, if the bread becomes Christ by faith, does that mean that if there’s nobody around to have the faith that the bread has become Jesus’ body, that it becomes bread once again? I’m not trying to be “smart” or to open up a discussion that wasn’t intended, only trying to figure out how it works in Lutheranism.

Howdy Loboto-Me…shouldn’t you be down at the Stampede grounds? Would it be possible for you to answer my questions from the Conservative Catholic point of view? It would be appreciated…and if possible, keep in mind that I am looking for the answer that could be grasped by a 12 year old. Thanks.

 

[BYUChemAlum]

No, what I’m saying is that Christ says it is His body. It is His body. We receive Him orally.
It is His true and substantial body of Christ.

Jon

Forgive me, but I have a few questions:

what does “substantial” mean? I’ve noticed that some that believe in the Real Presence state that there is a difference between a “physical” presence and a “substantial” presence? Do you believe that there is a difference, and if so, what is it? Also, is there a difference between Christ being present spiritually and Christ being present substantially? If so, what is that difference?

 

[pablope]

Anyway, this has been an informative thread to me.

I was looking for a nice, clear definition of “Real Presence” with clear, unambiguous boundaries. However as was explained to me, it is nothing more than a category term to describe a number of beliefs and approaches (much like the term Protestant). So as such, perhaps a nice, clear definition does not exist.

So back to my study. I have concluded that “Real Presence” is really nothing more than taking Jesus at His word when He said “This is my body, This is my blood”. There is no need to downgrade this to “represents”. In some sense it is His body and blood.

At least this is as far as I can figure this out at this time.

In a sense, yes…there is not need to parse or try to explain away what the words meant. It is clear when He said it…“This is my body…this is my blood”…no ifs and buts.

If you can get a hold of a copy of the Catholic missal…look for at the point when the priest calls on the HS and consecrates the bread and wine…this is when Catholics believe these become the body and blood…not during communion.

I will let JonNC speak about the Lutheran service, but I believe it is at the same similar point.

 

[babylonsfalling]

Real Presence is a vague umbrella term used to allow people with different detailed understandings to have at least a more broad term which neither objects to.

Catholics believe that at the consecration, the bread is transubstantiated into the body and blood of Christ. I have a little story that helps to understand this.

Say I steal the Mona Lisa. I then use alien replicating technology (sci fi geek) to create a PERFECT and exact copy of it down to the molecular level. Are there now TWO Mona Lisa’s in the world? Of course not. Only one of them IS the Mona Lisa, regardless of how identical they may be. Now say I deface the actual Mona Lisa with Sharpie marker to give her a mustache and goatee. Does it stop being the Mona Lisa because it’s physical characteristics no longer match the historic descriptions? Again no, it still IS the Mona Lisa, just defaced.

Hopefully the above helps you understand a little bit of what “substance” is all about. ***<–No…not really but I already understand it anyway.***When the host is consecrated, the SUBSTANCE changes. It no longer IS bread. At its most basic level, it has become the body and blood of Christ. What it looks like or tests out as under a microscope is irrelevant. What my alien replicator cannot do, Christ can and does do at communion. He changes the very basis of what the host IS from mere bread into his own flesh for us to eat, same way God’s people have always partaken of the flesh of the sacrificial lamb.

The point was that believing in Real Presence when doesn’t APPEAR to be anything more than mere bread and wine is an exercise in faith…which I believe is an under rated benefit of Communion. It helps us ignore what our carnal senses incorrectly tell us and thereby makes us use our faith instead.

 

[JonNC]

=Radical;8125300]Jon, with all due respect…I don’t know how you can say that there is a definite difference between your view and the “spiritual” view if you can’t begin to describe the metaphysics of your view. If you can’t say that the bread becomes body in realm X (such that you can say that the realm of change is not the spiritual realm) then how can you say that the change you envision is definitely different from the change envisioned by the guy with the spiritual view?

You would have to have someone define what is meant by “spiritual” presence.

Look at what you just typed:

a) No, what I’m saying is that Christ says it is His body. (The Spiritual View Guy [SVG] agrees fully)

b) It is His body. (the SVG agrees, but perhaps contemplates a different “how” for the “is”)

Again, we’re getting into the how. But let me suggest the following: spiritually, Christ is present in many other ways.

c) We receive Him orally. (this cries out for some sort of explanation…how is the body present? How does it travel with the bread? How does it enter the mouth and get eaten? …I think that you need something to rule out the SVG’s idea that the “oral and other action” has ramifications in the spiritual realm and not in realm X …realm X being the unspecified realm in which you envision the change occuring )

Why does it cry out for an answer? He says’ “take and eat”. Physically, orally eat. He says, “drink ye all of it”. Physically, orally drink. There is no mistaking His intent or message. This is my body - eat. This is a physical event. Of course it is spiritaul, but it indeed is physical.

From the Epitome of the Formula of Concord:

1. We believe, teach, and confess that the body and blood of Christ are received with the bread and wine, not only spiritually by faith, but also orally; yet not in a Capernaitic, but in a supernatural, heavenly mode, because of the sacramental union; as the words of Christ clearly show, when Christ gives direction to take, eat, and drink, as was also done by the apostles; for it is written Mark 14:23: And they all drank of it. St. Paul likewise says, 1 Cor. 10:16: The bread which we break, is it not the communion of the body of Christ? that is: He who eats this bread eats the body of Christ, which also the chief ancient teachers of the Church, Chrysostom, Cyprian, Leo I, Gregory, Ambrose, Augustine, unanimously testify.

d) It is His true and substantial body of Christ (here you seem to have entered the metaphysics of trans or consubstantiation with the claim of it being the substantial body…what does “substantial body” mean?)

Not at all. To say it is His true and substantial body is to state what Christ said, “This is my body”. The metaphysics of tran- and con- substantiation try to explain this physically; is the bread still their, or just its accidents, etc.

I don’t mean to be grilling you on this matter, but I am truly perplexed by your insistence on a particular view w/o any precision wrt that view. The Eucharist was at one time the sacrament of unity…now it seems to result in disunity.

And the more we try to explain the hows, the more disunified it becomes, I agree.

continued