The Eucharist: Real Presence or symbol?

[Nicea325]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nicea325
False analogy? Just as in the Old Passover, Israelites were commanded to eat of the sacrificial lamb, so we are commanded by Jesus to consume the flesh of the New Passover lamb of the New Covenant in the New Exodus!

Okay, obviously this just isn’t going to happen. It’s like a broken record.

Call it and see it as you wish,does not change the fact what Jesus taught and said.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nicea325
Okay…and? How does that negate the Passover?

I am talking about the nature of Christ’s high priestly sacrifice. It makes sense that bread and wine are consumed, that is what Melchizedek offered.

Ah no…Jesus said to EAT His Flesh and drink His Blood,not SYMBOLS!

Wow, just…wow.

Citation for ‘unfinished Passover?’ For the number of cups of wine He drank?

And this whole thing is almost a non-sequitir, we are discussing commemoration vs. sacrifice of literal body.

Wow! Yet not shocked you cannot connect the dots about the 4 cups and Jesus sacrifice.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nicea325
According to you,not Jesus! I’ll take Jesus’ words over yours anyday.

Okay, let’s use Jesus’ words
John 6
55For my flesh is real food and my blood is real drink

And yet you flat out ignore:

This bread is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world.” 52 Then the Jews began to argue sharply among themselves, “How can this man give us his flesh to eat?”

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nicea325
And He also does not say: This bread IS ONLY a symbol of my flesh-does he? Or this bead ONLY REPRESENTS my body-does? But you get my point?

Yes, but He’s HOLDING the bread and wine. In the context of the Passover. The disciples could see that it was a symbol. He didn’t hack off his skin.

Exactly! Did He hold a door in His hand and bless it and say: This IS my Body? Or was it merely symbolic?

The Jews, I think, were familiar with symbolism.

Exactly so familiar the non-believers (as you are) said:

*“How can this man give us his flesh to eat?” *

*“This is a hard teaching. Who can accept it?” *

From this time many of his disciples turned back and no longer followed him.

Why so much fuss over a SYMBOL?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nicea325
And show me where God says: I am going to “INCARNATE” into man?

Not sure how that’s relevant. We’re supposed to take all of this literally, remember? Yet Jesus calls the bread His ‘flesh.’ Not His body.

It is very relevant. Should we deny the Incarnation since it is not exclusively said? God can do whatever He wants,whether you comprehend or not.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nicea325

Is it not a foreshadowing of better things to come?

Sure. I think Jesus fulfilled that on the cross. Doesn’t mean we have to keep eating His literal body all the time.

Well no offense,but you ‘think’ and what God said differ vastly. Jesus said: “DO THIS…”…not pick and choose.

How does an omnipresent physical body not confuse the two natures?

No sure where you are getting with this?

He can be where He wants. The question is where can his physical body, His flesh be?

Wow! So you being a mere mortal creature question God with: “Where can his…” Do question His incarnation? Again,your carnal knowledge hinders you greatly. One more time, God has no limits.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nicea325
Hmmmm? So Origen was confused?

Origen, in a homily written about A.D. 244, attested to belief in the Real Presence.

“I wish to admonish you with examples from your religion. You are accustomed to take part in the divine mysteries, so you know how, when you have received the Body of the Lord, you reverently exercise every care lest a particle of it fall and lest anything of the consecrated gift perish. You account yourselves guilty, and rightly do you so believe, if any of it be lost through negligence” (Homilies on Exodus 13:3).

Harsh words for merely A SYMBOL?

Sure, I respect the Lord’s Supper too. This is not an argument for transubstantiation.

And it certainly is NOT an argument against it either.

Read the passage, and then you can tell me what it means.

That Origen believes in the RP as just gave you reference to it. If it is only a symbol as you believe where are his writings condemning the RP as a heresy or usurpation from Christ?

God cannot perform logical impossibilities. He is the foundation of truth. That is what we are trying to ascertain, does this doctrine make logical sense or should it be revised?

If He is the foundation of TRUTH,then why cannot He gives His literal Flesh and Blood?

 

[wisdomseeker]

Q**uote:
Originally Posted by DavidY
Well, now we are equivocating on ‘church’ again. The word is the same in the NT.

And the Lord Jesus, in Revelations, seems to suspiciously avoid simply saying what any RC would say today. 'Just follow Rome!"

Do me a favor. Define ‘church**.’

Jesus says, "he who hears you hears…
As you can see here Jesus asks us to hear His apostles. He never said to pick up the Bible and read it to hear Him and His Father. your church is not that one found by Christ no matter how hard you try to discredit the CC. you have not been able to defend that your church is the one found by Christ. Catholics can defend the Catholic Church as being the One True Church. take it or leave it. You have no idea who to hear the Word of God from but Catholics do. When Jesus said, if you have a problem with your brother take it to the Church. the Church is the final authority. Since you are not in the Church, we cannot take you there to decide a matter. you are the final authority according to you.

 

[wisdomseeker]

Romans 16.
All the churches of Christ salute you. 17 Now I beseech you, brethren, to mark them who make dissensions and offences contrary to the doctrine which you have learned and avoid them. 18 For they that are such serve not Christ our Lord but their own belly: and by pleasing speeches and good words seduce the hearts of the innocent. 19 For your obedience is published in every place. I rejoice therefore in you. But I would have you to be wise in good and simple in evil. 20 And the God of peace crush Satan under your feet speedily. The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with you.

St Paul also says, One Faith, One Spirit, One Baptism, of one mind, One Lord. Obviously something is wrong today with so many people calling themselves Christians that differ from the mind of Christ and His Church.

Jesus talks about the importance of being One that the world may believe in Him. One means no difference in teachings or doctrines. where do you see this today? only in the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church, where the seat of Peter is. that is how we know the True Church.

 

[joe370]

I understand, and I agree that either side, as is the case in anything, has the right to support their view in a sound fashion from scripture and in a sound fashion from history. With that said, leaving ill-informed arrogant assertions out of it for the moment, it seems fair to say, based on your assessment, that Jesus did not leave Christianity with a way to know, with certainty, the truth regarding the Eucharist? Forgetting about who is right and who is wrong for the moment - is that what you believe?

I think that is fair expectation…and I surely don’t expect that any one here will ever change their minds from a real bodily presence to my view…the most I think that we could possibly hope for is:

a) that each camp gains a better understanding of the reasoning of the opposing camp. (each side holds hundreds of millions of Christians and (IMHO) it is the height of ill-informed arrogance to assert that the opposing camp can’t possibly support its view in a sound fashion from scripture and in a sound fashion from history…it is kinda like claiming that all those 100’s of millions of Christians on the other side must all be bona fide idiots); and

b) that the truly bad arguments be recognized and then discarded

 

[veilofveronica]

The Roman Catholic Church is the only Church that believes in the Eucharist as the Real Presence of Christ, in transubstantiation, that is, that the bread and wine become the Body and Blood of Christ during the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass.

Other denominations may come close, but no other denomination of Christianity believes this in the same way.

 

[DavidY]

Romans 16.
All the churches of Christ salute you. 17 Now I beseech you, brethren, to mark them who make dissensions and offences contrary to the doctrine which you have learned and avoid them. 18 For they that are such serve not Christ our Lord but their own belly: and by pleasing speeches and good words seduce the hearts of the innocent. 19 For your obedience is published in every place. I rejoice therefore in you. But I would have you to be wise in good and simple in evil. 20 And the God of peace crush Satan under your feet speedily. The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with you.

St Paul also says, One Faith, One Spirit, One Baptism, of one mind, One Lord. Obviously something is wrong today with so many people calling themselves Christians that differ from the mind of Christ and His Church.

Jesus talks about the importance of being One that the world may believe in Him. One means no difference in teachings or doctrines. where do you see this today? only in the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church, where the seat of Peter is. that is how we know the True Church.

…and Paul was talking about things like the primacy of Peter, the literal presence, and such because he talked so much about that to the Roman church. (sigh).

‘One’ means no difference in teaching or doctrines? Hmmm

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_Catholic_religious_order#List_of_Catholic_religious_orders

Do all Catholics take vows? Sounds like a different teaching to me.

And I don’t think there is as much division as you think, though I would agree that there are many false churches. But what are the vital areas of faith? Cannot we unite around those?

 

[DavidY]

Q**uote:
Originally Posted by DavidY
Well, now we are equivocating on ‘church’ again. The word is the same in the NT.

And the Lord Jesus, in Revelations, seems to suspiciously avoid simply saying what any RC would say today. 'Just follow Rome!"

Do me a favor. Define ‘church**.’

Jesus says, "he who hears you hears…
As you can see here Jesus asks us to hear His apostles. He never said to pick up the Bible and read it to hear Him and His Father. your church is not that one found by Christ no matter how hard you try to discredit the CC. you have not been able to defend that your church is the one found by Christ. Catholics can defend the Catholic Church as being the One True Church. take it or leave it. You have no idea who to hear the Word of God from but Catholics do. When Jesus said, if you have a problem with your brother take it to the Church. the Church is the final authority. Since you are not in the Church, we cannot take you there to decide a matter. you are the final authority according to you.

Still waiting for a definition so we can discuss if the CC is the only one founded by Christ.

It’s really a redundant statement. A church is a community of believers in Jesus Christ. And all of the other churches are not ‘founded by Jesus Christ.’ Eh?

I know from whom to hear the Word, I simply locate a local community of believers who confess Jesus Christ as Lord, whose fruit evidences this confession, and listen to the Word. I then apply logic and reasoning to the Scriptures in order to ensure that the teaching is sound. Simple!

 

[wisdomseeker]

Still waiting for a definition so we can discuss if the CC is the only one founded by Christ.

It’s really a redundant statement. A church is a community of believers in Jesus Christ. And all of the other churches are not ‘founded by Jesus Christ.’ Eh?

I know from whom to hear the Word, I simply locate a local community of believers who confess Jesus Christ as Lord, whose fruit evidences this confession, and listen to the Word. I then apply logic and reasoning to the Scriptures in order to ensure that the teaching is sound. Simple!

And you decide what is true and what is not. interesting. I wonder if you are the only who can decide who is speaking the Truth of God.

 

[wisdomseeker]

…and Paul was talking about things like the primacy of Peter, the literal presence, and such because he talked so much about that to the Roman church. (sigh).

‘One’ means no difference in teaching or doctrines? Hmmm

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_Catholic_religious_order#List_of_Catholic_religious_orders

Do all Catholics take vows? Sounds like a different teaching to me.

And I don’t think there is as much division as you think, though I would agree that there are many false churches. But what are the vital areas of faith? Cannot we unite around those?

around what? who decides?

 

[DavidY]

Call it and see it as you wish,does not change the fact what Jesus taught and said. ?

And He gave us bread and wine to commemorate this event as well. Works out. Also, Jesus said that He was going away to the Father, but He would send a Comforter (the Holy Spirit). In fact, He said that IF He did not leave then the Comforter could/would not come to the disciples. So we have a problem…

Passover Lamb = symbol of Passover sacrifice.

Bread and wine = symbol of Jesus’ sacrifice

Ah no…Jesus said to EAT His Flesh and drink His Blood,not SYMBOLS! ?

Flesh has a physical substance. Bread has a physical substance. A thing cannot have two physical substances.

Wow! Yet not shocked you cannot connect the dots about the 4 cups and Jesus sacrifice.

Not surprised that I see no citation from Scripture, either. ‘And Jesus only drank 3 cups of wine…?’

And yet you flat out ignore:

This bread is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world.” 52 Then the Jews began to argue sharply among themselves, “How can this man give us his flesh to eat?”

The lack of understanding of Jews at the temple does not equate to a literal teaching. Jesus often spoke in metaphor, and was responding to the question about how to obtain the bread that prevents hunger.

Exactly! Did He hold a door in His hand and bless it and say: This IS my Body? Or was it merely symbolic?

A door?

Exactly so familiar the non-believers (as you are) said:

*“How can this man give us his flesh to eat?” *
*“This is a hard teaching. Who can accept it?” *
From this time many of his disciples turned back and no longer followed him.
Why so much fuss over a SYMBOL?

Jesus often spoke in parables to veil His meaning. This was a particularly difficult one given Jewish law and the consumption of flesh and blood. If you actually read the entire chapter you’ll see that Jesus starts this portion telling the crowd that the work of the Father is to believe Him.

Jesus then said that if you eat of this bread you will not go hungry. Where is the literalism? Do Catholics ever hunger? Of course they do, this is like Jesus words to the woman at the well, and water/thirst.

It is very relevant. Should we deny the Incarnation since it is not exclusively said? God can do whatever He wants,whether you comprehend or not.

Okay, so now we don’t want to deal in literal language, See how this scalpel is applied in such an irrational manner???

Well no offense,but you ‘think’ and what God said differ vastly. Jesus said: “DO THIS…”…not pick and choose.

Right. The question is what did He say to do?

Wow! So you being a mere mortal creature question God with: “Where can his…” Do question His incarnation? Again,your carnal knowledge hinders you greatly. One more time, God has no limits. ?

So God can not exist if He wants. God can lie.

And it certainly is NOT an argument against it either. ?

It’s not an argument for it, and I have just posted one against it.

That Origen believes in the RP as just gave you reference to it. If it is only a symbol as you believe where are his writings condemning the RP as a heresy or usurpation from Christ? ?

This wasn’t an official doctrine of the church yet. Sure it was believed by some, but this notion of ‘transubstantiation’ hit the books about 1000 years later, then an anathema added as a big ‘gotcha’ to Luther at the Council of Trent.

If He is the foundation of TRUTH,then why cannot He gives His literal Flesh and Blood?

He can, absolutely. I just think He gave us a means to commemorate His flesh and blood with real food and real drink.

 

[DavidY]

And you decide what is true and what is not. interesting. I wonder if you are the only who can decide who is speaking the Truth of God.

No, see that’s the thing about reasoning. It’s objective. I can’t just translate a passage any ole’ way.

 

[DavidY]

around what? who decides?

Jesus and the apostles were pretty clear about the main ideas. It’s called the principle of perspecuity. What themes are repeated, hammered into our heads again and again?

Believe that Jesus is the Messiah, that He rose again, that His righteousness and sacrifice Has saved us from judgment, love Him, love one another, and be a part of a body of believers. Repent, confess, and recommit regularly.

Do you think that the RCC follows Jesus’ words that 'My yoke is easy and my burden is light?"

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

Hello DavidY, welcome to CAF.

By the time the book of Acts gets recorded, the sacramental belief system is well underway by the first century Christians.

How do you reason that Peter’s shadow or a handkerchief touched by Paul’s skin is able to heal and cure the sick, not to mention raise the dead?

Acts 5:15
Thus they even carried the sick out into the streets and laid them on cots and mats so that when Peter came by, at least his shadow might fall on one or another of them.
16
A large number of people from the towns in the vicinity of Jerusalem also gathered, bringing the sick and those disturbed by unclean spirits, and they were all cured.

Acts 19:11
So extraordinary were the mighty deeds God accomplished at the hands of Paul
12
**that when face cloths or aprons that touched his skin were applied to the sick, their diseases left them and the evil spirits came out of them. **

No, see that’s the thing about reasoning. It’s objective. I can’t just translate a passage any ole’ way.

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

Jesus never gave us bread and wine when He instituted the Eucharist at the last supper. Jesus states " take eat this is my body" not bread, “Take drink this is my blood in the new and everlasting covenant”, never did Jesus give us bread and wine to commemorate anything.

It is the “Spirit that gives life” to the bread from the Word of God, while the “flesh is of no avail”, which returns to dust.

I don’t think you would find not one practicing Jew who would agree with your 19Th century belief that the "Passover Lamb = symbol of the Passover sacrifice, from their liturgy of the Seder meal, which is celebrated in the form of a “Sacrifice” never a symbol, this Seder meal entails the Todah sacrifice (Leviticus 7). What you do not mention in this “Passover” feast that Jesus fulfills includes the “Matzoh” of unleavened bread, which is the bread of the (face of God) presence. Only the members of the covenant family could partake of it.

You would never understand the Hebrew Passover fulfilled in the Eucharist that Jesus revealed to his Catholic Church unless you understand a first century Jewish mindset combined with a Hebrew faith which is revealed in the Pentateuch, the Mishnah, the Targums, the Babylonian Talmud along with the Midrashim to name a few, regarding the messiah and the fulfillment of the old covenant.

If you want to short hand from all of the above, follow Jesus, the apostles, and what they handed down both orally and written to the Early Church Catholic fathers and the Catholic church today which continues to practice them.

It appears you are trying to force a 19Th century understanding of translations (not practice) into a first century Jewish mindset with a Hebrew faith which do not fit.

Understanding the first century Jewish understanding of a “Passover” will graduate your faith into the fulfillment of Jesus Christ in the (Perpetual law commanded by God (Exodus 12:14-27) in the) eating and drinking of Jesus flesh and blood which gives eternal life.

Did you know that the passover lamb was not completed until the flesh of the lamb was consumed? If you read Exodus 24:11 you will find that upon the Passover and eating of the unleavened cakes that Moses and the 70 elders beheld God and ate and drank, this Jesus fulfills in his Eucharist celebrated today in the Catholic Mass when heaven and earth meet in worship, with the True Presence of Jesus body, blood soul and divinity celebrated in time in the Eucharistic liturgy.

True bread and wine outside of the liturgy remain signs, but in liturgy they are “this is my body, this is my blood”.

DavidY;7664878]And He gave us bread and wine to commemorate this event as well. Works out. Also, Jesus said that He was going away to the Father, but He would send a Comforter (the Holy Spirit). In fact, He said that IF He did not leave then the Comforter could/would not come to the disciples. So we have a problem…

Passover Lamb = symbol of Passover sacrifice.

When God created you out of mud (dust and water) from these physical accidents is what makes up your human body, but it takes the Word of God, blown into the nostrils of man which “Transubstantiates” these physical attributes into a life being = our bodies return to dust but it is the “Spirit” that gives them life.

Bread has no true substance of itself, because it is made from the accidents of a wheat and water to become a bread. The substance from which all of these originate comes from the substance of God who created them.

The bread made by human hands, is all the best we can offer to God, but the Word of God made flesh, has taken upon Himself from the substance (begotten of God) from which these accidents that make them bread and wine were created by human hands, which remain to our senses or flesh only bread and wine (which availeth nothing) were created by the Word of God from the beginning and “transubstantiated” them by the Word of God into his own body, blood, soul and divinity, when God spoke “this is my body, this is my blood”.

Do you believe that Jesus is fully human and fully divine, consisting of two natures in one? If you answer yes to the above question, you may have answered your own puzzle below?

Flesh has a physical substance. Bread has a physical substance. A thing cannot have two physical substances.

cont’

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

cont’

Jesus drank four cups of wine in order to fulfill the “Passover” Seder meal from the cross in the “It is finished” or consummated. And so did the apostles who followed him from their martyrdom.

Not surprised that I see no citation from Scripture, either. ‘And Jesus only drank 3 cups of wine…?’

You have been mislead, understand that the first century Jewish passover celebrated the “exodus” from slavery, Jesus now fulfills this “perpetual law” in Himself by celebrating a “new exodus” in his body and blood according to God’s law and commandments.

Jesus addresses ancient Israel to “believe” that He has come their messiah. This belief, does not apply to 19Th century Christian’s, because 19Th century Christian’s are not expecting a messiah like Moses to deliver them. Jesus Veils nothing to the Children of God, but the mysteries remain hidden to ears that do not hear and eyes that do not see.

Jesus often spoke in parables to veil His meaning. This was a particularly difficult one given Jewish law and the consumption of flesh and blood. If you actually read the entire chapter you’ll see that Jesus starts this portion telling the crowd that the work of the Father is to believe Him.

From my personal Catholic experience, when I consume the lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world, my soul thirst no longer, because “zeal for thine house consumes me”, so no I never hunger for other gods, or man made religions, for “I have tasted that the Lord is good”.

Jesus then said that if you eat of this bread you will not go hungry. Where is the literalism? Do Catholics ever hunger? Of course they do, this is like Jesus words to the woman at the well, and water/thirst.

Peace be with you

 

[elvisman]

…and Paul was talking about things like the primacy of Peter, the literal presence, and such because he talked so much about that to the Roman church. (sigh).

‘One’ means no difference in teaching or doctrines? Hmmm

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_Catholic_religious_order#List_of_Catholic_religious_orders

Do all Catholics take vows? Sounds like a different teaching to me.

Most Catholics DO take vows - Marriage vows.

**Holy Orders is on of SEVEN Sacraments. You call THAT a “different” teaching? Apparently, you don’t know your Bible. Read 1 Cor. 12 in it’s entirety and maybe you’ll begin to see that all in the Body of Christ have different functions.

Honestly, Devid - you’re really reaching here . . .**

And I don’t think there is as much division as you think, though I would agree that there are many false churches. But what are the vital areas of faith? Cannot we unite around those?

Oh, REALLY? Hmmm . . . let’s take a look at just a few of the many differences among the Protestant sects that are pretty darn essential, I might add:
Some Protestant denominations believe in baptismal regeneration, while others do not.
Some believe in soul-sleep, while others do not.
Some believe in the total depravity of man, while others do not.
Some believe in the Holy Trinity, while others do not.
Some believe in doctrine of “once saved, always saved”, while others do not.
Some believe in a pre-tribulation “Rapture”, while others do not.
Some believe that only those who were predestined will make it to heaven, while others do not.
**Some believe that some were predestined for hell, while others do not. **
Some believe that some were word/faith teaching, while others do not.
Some believe in a woman’s right to choose abortion, while others do not.
Some believe that practicing homosexuality is a sin, while others do not.
Most believe in contraception, while others do not – and the list goes on.

Not many differences, huh?

 

[elvisman]

Jesus and the apostles were pretty clear about the main ideas. It’s called the principle of perspecuity. What themes are repeated, hammered into our heads again and again?

Believe that Jesus is the Messiah, that He rose again, that His righteousness and sacrifice Has saved us from judgment, love Him, love one another, and be a part of a body of believers. Repent, confess, and recommit regularly.

Do you think that the RCC follows Jesus’ words that 'My yoke is easy and my burden is light?"

Yup. His yoke IS easy and his burden light - compared to the Mosaic Law. However, Jesus NEVER preached an easy Gospel and niether does his Catholic Church:
- Being baptized (Matt. 28:19-20, John 3:5, Rom. 2:29, Col. 2:12-17, 1 Peter 3:21)****
- Picking up our cross daily to follow him (Matt. 16:24, Luke 9:23)
- Works of mercy and charity (Matt. 19:21, 25:31–46, Luke 18:22)
- Obeying his commandments (John 15:10)
- Doing the will of the Father (Matt. 7:21)
- Obeying and being subject to the authority of his Church (Luke 10:6, Matt. 16:18-19, 18:15:18, John 20:21-23)
- Dying and being buried with him through Baptism (Rom. 6:1-11)
- We must suffer with Christ (Matt. 10:38, 16:24, Mark 8:34, John 12:24, Rom. 8:17, 2 Cor. 1:5-7, Eph. 3:13, Phil. 1:29, 2 Tim. 1:8, 1 Peter 2:19-21, 4:1-2).

Jesus said that the world would hate his Church (John 15-18).
He told us that it would be persecuted (John 15:20)

This doesn’t sound like all of the Protestant “denominations”. This sounds like the most hated and persecuted Church around today: His original Catholic Church.

Bottom line: Those who preach an easy Gospel, preach a FALSE Gospel.

 

[elvisman]

Flesh has a physical substance. Bread has a physical substance. A thing cannot have two physical substances.

This is perhaps the mose comical of ALL of the objections to the Real Presence. God created the universe out of nothing, yet he can’t allow the Real Presence of the glorified Christ to exist in the appearances of bread and wine??
That’s a real knee-slapper . . .

People can’t appear to others after they’ve been dead for centuries but Moses and Elijah did at the Transfiguration . . .

You can’t multiply a few loaves of Bread and fish into literally thousands. Tell that to Jesus, who fed over 5,000 people . . .

It’s impossible for a human being to disappear out of thin air, but Philip did in Acts 8:39 . . .

This is PRECISELY why John 6:63-64 states:
*"The words I have spoken to you are spirit and life. But there are some of you who do not believe." Jesus knew from the beginning the ones who would not believe and the one who would betray him. *

 

[elvisman]

 

[JonNC]

Flesh has a physical substance. Bread has a physical substance. A thing cannot have two physical substances.

David,
Christ never said anything about physical substances. He simply said, “This is my body”.
The issue Lutherans have had with Transubstantiation, and consubstantiation for that matter, is the expression of the real presence in these kinds of metaphysical terms, which Christ did not go into. He simply says, “This is my body”. And I believe those words, on the clear expression, and by faith.
John of Damascus is quoted as saying regarding how bread and wine are or become His body and blood, “… 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”.

In many ways, the doctrine of Transubstantiation has the positve effect of expressing in no uncertain terms that, in fact, Christ’s words are true, that the bread and wine ARE His body and blood, not by any means we understand, but by the declaration of His words by the pastor/priest and the power of the Holy Spirit.

Jon