What is wrong with transubstantiation?

[myfavoritmartin]

I’m actually open to the possibility that these are genuine. But in that case, as Aquinas puts it, “during such apparitions Christ’s proper semblance is not seen, but a species miraculously formed either in the eyes of the beholders, or in the sacramental dimensions themselves, as was said above.” Aquinas insists that Christ’s body *in its proper species *remains in heaven.

Edwin

Edwin,
As an Episcopalian is it my understanding that Eucharist you partake in is also His Real Presence only in a different understanding than the CC also different than the LCMS?
I ask this because I was raised LCMS and had always understood their definition of RP by faith (left simply as that)
What is the EC stand on this?
Scripturally I struggle with it being anything more than symbolic.

 

[Philthy]

That is the Lutheran understanding. Jesus didn’t say “The substance of this isn’t being transformed into the substance of my body.”

Im certain you know more about this than I do, but “in, with and under” certainly does not capture “this is my body” because it implies that “my body” is in addition to the bread. Again, simply my opinion.
ct:

Transubstantiation (though not Trent’s declaration thereof). But that really isn’t the point.

Actually it was my point. The Church had been content enough to leave it alone until Luther started offering a theory which they felt lacked something essential and only then did a formal declaration come out. That brings us to the confusion we have now…
ct:

Both theories are trying to explain the essential mystery.

Agreed
ct:

If transubstantiation is flawed, it’s fair to propose an alternative theory.

More importantly, if transubstantiation is flawed, it’s fair to reject Catholicism.
ct:

Myself, I don’t see a major doctrinal difference between the two.

Edwin
I believe this topic is best kept to the theologians as most of us are not up to the task. But with respect to your comment it only begs the question, “Why did Luther feel compelled to introduce something at all?”, right? I mean if he contributed nothing doctrinally significant to what had already been established - as you maintain - then why not say nothing at all? I can only conclude that he must have felt that he had contributed something different; and the council of Trent also felt so and responded to it. On that basis I would disagree with your assessment if you mean that there is no significant difference between the two. At the very least they must have felt that Luther’s explanation was sufficiently vague to allow a significant misunderstanding.

 

[Philthy]

Scripturally I struggle with it being anything more than symbolic.

 

[Contarini]

Edwin,
As an Episcopalian is it my understanding that Eucharist you partake in is also His Real Presence only in a different understanding than the CC also different than the LCMS?
I ask this because I was raised LCMS and had always understood their definition of RP by faith (left simply as that)
What is the EC stand on this?

The 39 Articles, produced by the Church of England in the 16th century, say this:

The Supper of the Lord is not only a sign of the love that Christians ought to have among themselves one to another, but rather it is a Sacrament of our Redemption by Christ’s death: insomuch that to such as rightly, worthily, and with faith, receive the same, the Bread which we break is a partaking of the Body of Christ; and likewise the Cup of Blessing is a partaking of the Blood of Christ. Transubstantiation (or the change of the substance of Bread and Wine) in the Supper of the Lord, cannot be proved by Holy Writ; but is repugnant to the plain words of Scripture, overthroweth the nature of a Sacrament, and hath given occasion to many superstitions.
The Body of Christ is given, taken, and eaten, in the Supper, only after an heavenly and spiritual manner. And the mean whereby the Body of Christ is received and eaten in the Supper, is Faith.
The Sacrament of the Lord’s Supper was not by Christ’s ordinance reserved, carried about, lifted up, or worshipped.

This is very similar to the “Calvinist” position–i.e., Christ’s glorified Body and Blood are truly (not just symbolically) received in the Lord’s Supper, but are not present in the bread and wine in a bodily or local way. However, some Anglicans would dispute my interpretation of the Articles, and furthermore the majority of modern Anglicans (including myself) don’t regard the Articles as necessarily binding. The Episcopal Church in the U.S., in particular, tends to downplay the Articles (though you can find some who think they are binding). The current catechism of the Episcopal Church has this to say:

 Q. What is the Holy Eucharist?           A.     The Holy Eucharist is the      sacrament commanded by 
Christ for the continual remembrance of his life, death, 
and resurrection, until his coming again.                             Q.     Why is the Eucharist called a      sacrifice?           A.     Because the Eucharist, the      Church's sacrifice of praise and

thanksgiving, is the way by which the sacrifice of Christ is
made present, and in which he unites us to his one offering
of himself. Q. By what other names is this service known? A. The Holy Eucharist is called the Lord’s Supper, and
Holy Communion; it is also known as the Divine
Liturgy, the Mass, and the Great Offering. Q. What is the outward and visible sign in the Eucharist? A. The outward and visible sign in the Eucharist is bread
and wine, give and received according to Christ’s
command. Q. What is the inward and spiritual grace given in the
Eucharist? A. The inward and spiritual grace in the Holy Communion
is the Body and Blood of Christ give to his people, and
received by faith. Q. What are the benefits which we receive in the Lord’s
Supper? A. The benefits we receive are the forgiveness of our sins,

Catechism 859​

               the strengthening of our union with Christ and one      
another, and the foretaste of the heavenly banquet which 
is our nourishment in eternal life.                             Q.     What is required of us when we      come to the Eucharist?           A.     It is required that we should      examine our lives, repent 
of our sins, and be in love and charity with all people.

This is more Catholic than the Articles with regard to sacrifice, but it’s pretty vague with regard to presence.

 

[Contarini]

Another relevant text is the ecumenical agreement reached by Anglican and Catholic theologians. This most adequately expresses what I myself believe, and it’s fairly representative of what I have encountered in the Episcopal Church. However, I joined the Episcopal Church in a parish that leaned strongly toward Catholicism (in fact, the priest told me that the medieval Fourth Lateran Council, which taught transubstantiation, was of more authority for Anglicans than the 39 Articles, which reject transubstantiation!). Not all Episcopalians would hold the same views I was taught, and worldwide Anglicanism is generally more Protestant than the Episcopal Church (though some provinces are more Catholic). But on the whole the attitude of Episcopalians as I’ve enountered it is best summed up in the view “Christ is truly present but we don’t need to explain how.”

Our liturgy (which is really a better summary of what Anglicans believe than any formal doctrinal statement) asks God to send His Holy Spirit upon us and upon the gifts so that they may be the Body and Blood of Christ for us and that we may be the Body of Christ for the world. That’s another pretty good way to summarize what I and Episcopalians generally believe about the Eucharist. Under that general umbrella, some of us are pretty close to the Catholic view (or even embrace it entirely), while others hold a more spiritualized view. Since you can find Episcopalians who believe that Jesus didn’t rise from the dead, it goes without saying that you can find some who believe the Eucharist is merely symbolic! But that’s certainly not the generally held view or the official teaching of the Episcopal Church.

Scripturally I struggle with it being anything more than symbolic.

On what basis? Where do you see Scripture teaching that it is merely symbolic? I have never encountered such a passage. I can see how one could interpret the Institution Narrative and John 6 as purely symbolic, but I do not see anything in Scripture that would particularly prompt one to do so. And IMHO 1 Cor. 10:16 pretty clearly rules out a purely symbolic interpretation. However, since you indicated that you think Scripture actually teachings that the Eucharist is merely symbolic, I’d like to see the passages of Scripture that point in that direction in your opinion, rather than getting into yet another argument over the passages that seem to teach the Real Presence.

In Christ,

Edwin

 

[Contarini]

Im certain you know more about this than I do, but “in, with and under” certainly does not capture “this is my body” because it implies that “my body” is in addition to the bread.

I don’t see the force of this argument. Jesus did not say “this has been transformed into my body,” much less “this is no longer bread but is now my body.” (Indeed, 1 Cor. 11:26-27 refers to the Host at the time of reception as bread–of course this reference can be explained away quite plausibly, but in itself it points toward the Lutheran rather than the Catholic interpretation.) He simply said, “this is my body.” All that is required for this to be true is that the term “my body” be truly predicated of whatever Jesus was talking about (which is clearly the bread, although one rather desperate and wacky Protestant Reformer suggested that Jesus pointed to his own natural body as he spoke). I see nothing whatever that indicates that nothing else can be truly predicated of the same physical object. Your argument would imply that when the voice from heaven said (on two occasions) “This is my beloved Son,” it therefore followed that Jesus was not also truly human. My christological reference is not accidental–this is precisely the analogy to which Luther appealed, and I find it quite persuasive.

Actually it was my point. The Church had been content enough to leave it alone until Luther started offering a theory which they felt lacked something essential and only then did a formal declaration come out.

That’s not quite right–IV Lateran had made something like a formal declaration in the 13th century, though admittedly Gary Macy argues that it wasn’t really a definition of transubstantiation as a dogma. Certainly the Lollards had been persecuted for Eucharistic heresy long before Luther (though one of my professors in grad school claimed that the view enforced in late medieval England wasn’t actually the orthodox view of transubstantiation but a theory of the annihilation of the substance of bread which was rejected by Aquinas and by the broader Catholic Church).

More importantly, if transubstantiation is flawed, it’s fair to reject Catholicism.

I would never reject Catholicism solely on the basis of the relatively abstruse doubts I have about so mysterious and complex an issue. Furthermore, my understanding of Catholicism is that one can question whether a dogma has been adequately explained without questioning the dogma itself. The Council of Trent said that the transformation is appropriately referred to as transubstantiation, but the possibility remains open that a still more appropriate way of speaking may be found in the future. At least that’s my impression.

I believe this topic is best kept to the theologians as most of us are not up to the task. But with respect to your comment it only begs the question, “Why did Luther feel compelled to introduce something at all?”, right? I mean if he contributed nothing doctrinally significant to what had already been established - as you maintain - then why not say nothing at all? I can only conclude that he must have felt that he had contributed something different; and the council of Trent also felt so and responded to it. On that basis I would disagree with your assessment if you mean that there is no significant difference between the two. At the very least they must have felt that Luther’s explanation was sufficiently vague to allow a significant misunderstanding.

First of all, I certainly was not claiming that the Fathers of Trent agreed with me on this point, or for that matter that Luther did. At the same time, Luther really didn’t put a lot of weight on this particular issue. He rejected transubstantiation because he thought it was unnecessary and part of the corruption of Christian theology by Aristotelianism. But his main concern was with the doctrine of the Eucharistic sacrifice. I think he thought transubstantiation supported the trend toward seeing the Eucharist primarily as an object to be worshipped rather than a gift to be received in faith, but mostly he was upset with the idea that the Eucharist was something we offer to God rather than something God offers to us (and yes, I know that a fully orthodox view maintains both–I do not agree with Luther on this point, though I think he had some adequate concerns with the way the Eucharist was taught and practiced in his day).

I am not claiming that there’s no meaningful difference between the two views. I’m saying that I don’t see the difference as necessarily pertaining to doctrine rather than to theological speculation.

In Christ,

Edwin

 

[ComradeAndrei]

I would never reject Catholicism solely on the basis of the relatively abstruse doubts I have about so mysterious and complex an issue. Furthermore, my understanding of Catholicism is that one can question whether a dogma has been adequately explained without questioning the dogma itself. The Council of Trent said that the transformation is appropriately referred to as transubstantiation, but the possibility remains open that a still more appropriate way of speaking may be found in the future. At least that’s my impression.

I don’t think transubstantiation can ever be tossed aside though. In the ecumenical scene, we don’t throw around “transubstantiation” very much because the word itself has certain emotional baggage tied to it by some protestants and we can talk about the Eucharist without necessarily resorting to talk of transubstantiation. However, it is not judged inadequate or improper as a theological term in Catholic circles.

Since the bread and wine are changed into the Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of Christ and remain that way as long as the accidents maintain their full integrity then I do not see any better way of speaking of this mystery other than using transubstantiation.

Indeed, St. Thomas Aquinas wrote many (if not most) of the texts for the Mass for the feast of Corpus Christi-itself inspired by one of these Eucharistic miracles in which the Host bled. I think that those of us who are in favor of transubstantiation do understand what “substance” and “appearance” is. However, what do you think St. Thomas Aquinas meant by transubstantiation?

It is not irrational to believe that such a Eucharistic miracle could be performed if the Eucharist is indeed the Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of Christ because if the Blood is truly present even under the appearances of bread and wine that God could make the Blood truly present under the appearances of blood as well.

 

[cet]

This is wrong with transubstantiation: it is the dogma that crucifies Yeshua over and over and over again, each mass actually… depending on how many churches that practice this over the world, you will have a lot of repetitions of the sacrifice of Yeshua.

In stern contrast you have this:

Heb 9:28 So Christ was once offered to bear the sins of many; and unto them that look for him shall he appear the second time without sin unto salvation.

Only ONCE did Yeshua die for our sins. Only ONE sacrifice… Every time the priest has mass, and performs this ritual, he yanks Yeshua down from the throne, and places him in the eucharist and is sacrificed again. Standard catholic teaching (witch is very similar to rituals that you find in heathen religions, the eating of the god.)

Kind Regards
Carl Erik Tengesdal

 

[myfavoritmartin]

On what basis? Where do you see Scripture teaching that it is merely symbolic?

Edwin

Thanks for responding Edwin, in my laymen terms I’ll try to spell myself out as clearly as possible.

Symbolic and highly significant because it symbolizes the Christs’ message of grace and salvation
and also symbollic in its prefigurement of the Messianic banquet.

Luke 22:19 (New International Version)
19And he took bread, gave thanks and broke it, and gave it to them, saying,
“This is my body given for you; do this in remembrance of me.”

Verses symbolically showing the prefigurement of the Messianic banquet; the promises, celebratory banquets and the fulfillment…

The symbolic or typological promises…
Isaiah 25:6-8 (New International Version)
6 On this mountain the LORD Almighty will prepare
a feast of rich food for all peoples,
a banquet of aged wine—
the best of meats and the finest of wines.
7 On this mountain he will destroy
the shroud that enfolds all peoples,
the sheet that covers all nations;
8 he will swallow up death forever.
The Sovereign LORD will wipe away the tears
from all faces;
he will remove the disgrace of his people
from all the earth.
The LORD has spoken.

Matthew 22:4 (New International Version)
4"Then he sent some more servants and said, ‘Tell those who have been invited that I have prepared my dinner:
My oxen and fattened cattle have been butchered, and everything is ready. Come to the wedding banquet.’

Luke 15:22-32 (New International Version)

22"But the father said to his servants, ‘Quick! Bring the best robe and put it on him. Put a ring on his finger and sandals on his feet.
23Bring the fattened calf and kill it. Let’s have a feast and celebrate.
24For this son of mine was dead and is alive again; he was lost and is found.’ So they began to celebrate.
25"Meanwhile, the older son was in the field. When he came near the house, he heard music and dancing.
26So he called one of the servants and asked him what was going on.
27’Your brother has come,’ he replied, ‘and your father has killed the fattened calf because he has him back safe and sound.’
28"The older brother became angry and refused to go in. So his father went out and pleaded with him.
29But he answered his father, ‘Look! All these years I’ve been slaving for you and never disobeyed your orders.
Yet you never gave me even a young goat so I could celebrate with my friends.
30But when this son of yours who has squandered your property with prostitutes comes home, you kill the fattened calf for him!’
31" ‘My son,’ the father said, ‘you are always with me, and everything I have is yours.
32But we had to celebrate and be glad, because this brother of yours was dead and is alive again; he was lost and is found.’ "

The celebrations…
We find in the apostolic practice of the Lord’s Supper (Acts 2:46).
46Every day they continued to meet together in the temple courts.
They broke bread in their homes and ate together with glad and sincere hearts,

The fulfillment
Revelation 19:9 (New International Version)
9Then the angel said to me, "Write: ‘Blessed are those who are invited to the wedding supper of the Lamb!’ " And he added,
“These are the true words of God.”

He is worthy to be sought!
Simon

 

[JaneFrances]

Thanks for responding Edwin, in my laymen terms I’ll try to spell myself out as clearly as possible.

Symbolic and highly significant because it symbolizes the Christs’ message of grace and salvation
and also symbollic in its prefigurement of the Messianic banquet.

Luke 22:19 (New International Version)
19And he took bread, gave thanks and broke it, and gave it to them, saying,
“This is my body given for you; do this in remembrance of me.”

Verses symbolically showing the prefigurement of the Messianic banquet; the promises, celebratory banquets and the fulfillment…

The symbolic or typological promises…
Isaiah 25:6-8 (New International Version)
6 On this mountain the LORD Almighty will prepare
a feast of rich food for all peoples,
a banquet of aged wine—
the best of meats and the finest of wines.
7 On this mountain he will destroy
the shroud that enfolds all peoples,
the sheet that covers all nations;
8 he will swallow up death forever.
The Sovereign LORD will wipe away the tears
from all faces;
he will remove the disgrace of his people
from all the earth.
The LORD has spoken.

Matthew 22:4 (New International Version)
4"Then he sent some more servants and said, ‘Tell those who have been invited that I have prepared my dinner:
My oxen and fattened cattle have been butchered, and everything is ready. Come to the wedding banquet.’

Luke 15:22-32 (New International Version)

22"But the father said to his servants, ‘Quick! Bring the best robe and put it on him. Put a ring on his finger and sandals on his feet.
23Bring the fattened calf and kill it. Let’s have a feast and celebrate.
24For this son of mine was dead and is alive again; he was lost and is found.’ So they began to celebrate.
25"Meanwhile, the older son was in the field. When he came near the house, he heard music and dancing.
26So he called one of the servants and asked him what was going on.
27’Your brother has come,’ he replied, ‘and your father has killed the fattened calf because he has him back safe and sound.’
28"The older brother became angry and refused to go in. So his father went out and pleaded with him.
29But he answered his father, ‘Look! All these years I’ve been slaving for you and never disobeyed your orders.
Yet you never gave me even a young goat so I could celebrate with my friends.
30But when this son of yours who has squandered your property with prostitutes comes home, you kill the fattened calf for him!’
31" ‘My son,’ the father said, ‘you are always with me, and everything I have is yours.
32But we had to celebrate and be glad, because this brother of yours was dead and is alive again; he was lost and is found.’ "

The celebrations…
We find in the apostolic practice of the Lord’s Supper (Acts 2:46).
46Every day they continued to meet together in the temple courts.
They broke bread in their homes and ate together with glad and sincere hearts,

The fulfillment
Revelation 19:9 (New International Version)
9Then the angel said to me, "Write: ‘Blessed are those who are invited to the wedding supper of the Lamb!’ " And he added,
“These are the true words of God.”

He is worthy to be sought!
Simon

Hmmm. . .and, where is the the symbolism here as it pertains to the Eucharist? Some more explanation is needed here as none of these Scriptures plainly supposes symbolism. Can you please ellaborate?

 

[rr1213]

Myfavoritemartin,

For many years, I waivered on the fence as to whether the Eucharist is the Real Presence or symbolic. Personally, I think that much of the biblical language can be read better as it being symbolic. Nonetheless, I do believe in the Real Presence and the clincher, what pushed me off the fence so to say, was 1 Corinthians 11:29: “For anyone who eats and drinks without discerning the body, eats and drinks judgment on himself.” I understand that there can be other interpretations of this passage, but to me it demonstrates that Christ’s body is truly present and, thus, the Eucharist is not symbolic.

RR1213

 

[MariaG]

This is wrong with transubstantiation: it is the dogma that crucifies Yeshua over and over and over again, each mass actually… depending on how many churches that practice this over the world, you will have a lot of repetitions of the sacrifice of Yeshua.

In stern contrast you have this:

Heb 9:28 So Christ was once offered to bear the sins of many; and unto them that look for him shall he appear the second time without sin unto salvation.

Only ONCE did Yeshua die for our sins. Only ONE sacrifice… Every time the priest has mass, and performs this ritual, he yanks Yeshua down from the throne, and places him in the eucharist and is sacrificed again. Standard catholic teaching (witch is very similar to rituals that you find in heathen religions, the eating of the god.)

Kind Regards
Carl Erik Tengesdal

Could you please cite the Catholic teaching that states we crucify Christ again and again at each Mass?

 

[cet]

Could you please cite the Catholic teaching that states we crucify Christ again and again at each Mass?

Maybe crucify is a wrong word to use, but we can agree on sacrifice, 'cause that is what mass is all about, isn’t it? The real presence of Christ in the eucharist, and that it is being offered as a sacrifice? You, as a catholic are bound to believe that Christ is REALLY present in the eucharist. Hence the sacrificing of Christ is happening every time you have mass… Witch is happening in every catholic church all over the world each Sunday.

-c-

 

[rr1213]

Maybe crucify is a wrong word to use, but we can agree on sacrifice, 'cause that is what mass is all about, isn’t it? The real presence of Christ in the eucharist, and that it is being offered as a sacrifice? You, as a catholic are bound to believe that Christ is REALLY present in the eucharist. Hence the sacrificing of Christ is happening every time you have mass… Witch is happening in every catholic church all over the world each Sunday.

-c-

I don’t think that the Catholics believe that Christ is being sacrificed again and again and again which, of course, would be contrary to the teaching in Hebrews. Its a bit of a close distinction and words may be getting in the way here, but I think that Catholics are saying that Christ’s original sacrifice is being re-presented during the Mass, in other words, that we are essentially transported in some mystical way to the foot of Calvary.

 

[Image_of_God]

Contarni—forgive me for this mispell----why is it that Anglicans and Lutherans do not draw from Aquinas like you do? Is that he is too Catholic? Or that he is just not a good source for them?

 

[corvidae]

This is wrong with transubstantiation: it is the dogma that crucifies Yeshua over and over and over again, each mass actually… depending on how many churches that practice this over the world, you will have a lot of repetitions of the sacrifice of Yeshua.

In stern contrast you have this:

Heb 9:28 So Christ was once offered to bear the sins of many; and unto them that look for him shall he appear the second time without sin unto salvation.

Only ONCE did Yeshua die for our sins. Only ONE sacrifice… Every time the priest has mass, and performs this ritual, he yanks Yeshua down from the throne, and places him in the eucharist and is sacrificed again. Standard catholic teaching (witch is very similar to rituals that you find in heathen religions, the eating of the god.)

Kind Regards
Carl Erik Tengesdal

well CET,
You obviously do not understand the Catholic teaching. Do you believe that Christ would allow someone to “yank him down from his thrown” without his permission?

Rather,
The Catholic Church believes we become present at the one sacrafice of Calvary, rather than resacrificing.

I am confused because you seem to believe that the Catholic Church has some mystical power over God, and somehow it is not God who gives the power.

A lone Raven

 

[Melchior]

It’s too hard to spell.

 

[Contarini]

Contarni—forgive me for this mispell----why is it that Anglicans and Lutherans do not draw from Aquinas like you do? Is that he is too Catholic? Or that he is just not a good source for them?

Well, the fact that I study church history for a living (and minored in medieval philosophy in grad school) has something to do with it.

Luther himself saw scholastic philosophy as a whole as a corruption of the Christian faith (though it’s not clear he ever read Aquinas), and Lutherans historically have had some tendency in that direction, although they have also had their own scholastic tradition. Plenty of Anglicans love Aquinas (Richard Hooker, probably the best theologian we can boast, sounds like Aquinas frequently), but we have historically had a tendency to be rather unsystematic.

Edwin

 

[Contarini]

Maybe crucify is a wrong word to use, but we can agree on sacrifice, 'cause that is what mass is all about, isn’t it? The real presence of Christ in the eucharist, and that it is being offered as a sacrifice? You, as a catholic are bound to believe that Christ is REALLY present in the eucharist. Hence the sacrificing of Christ is happening every time you have mass… Witch is happening in every catholic church all over the world each Sunday.

-c-

Yes, but in the Catholic view it’s all one sacrifice!

Edwin

 

[Contarini]

I don’t think transubstantiation can ever be tossed aside though.

I know that there’s no way you ever will, so the rest of us will just have to deal with it. It can be interpreted and explained better, but it will never be rejected outright.

Since the bread and wine are changed into the Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of Christ and remain that way as long as the accidents maintain their full integrity then I do not see any better way of speaking of this mystery other than using transubstantiation.

I agree that if you want to get to that level of specificity there is no more adequate explanation currently. There are two other possibilities, then:

1. The mystery doesn’t need to be defined even as closely as you define it; or
2. A better explanation will present itself someday. It seems to me that there are some promising leads but so far nothing that can replace transubstantiation (recognizing that anything that could replace transubstantiation would have to embrace the meaning of the older term rather than rejecting it).

Indeed, St. Thomas Aquinas wrote many (if not most) of the texts for the Mass for the feast of Corpus Christi-itself inspired by one of these Eucharistic miracles in which the Host bled.

Are you sure? I thought it was inspired by a vision in which a holy woman was told that one more feast was lacking to the Church’s calendar.

I think that those of us who are in favor of transubstantiation do understand what “substance” and “appearance” is.

I’m sure you aren’t claiming that everyone does. . . .

However, what do you think St. Thomas Aquinas meant by transubstantiation?

That the metaphysical reality that makes a thing what it is is transformed from bread and wine into the glorified Body and Blood of Christ, so that the substance of the Body (which remains in heaven in its natural dimensions) becomes non-spatially present under the unchanged empirically perceptible properties of bread and wine on the altar.

OK, that’s a lot of technobabble, but it’s the most accurate way I know how to put it–I welcome correction (substantiated by citations from Aquinas, of course!).

It is not irrational to believe that such a Eucharistic miracle could be performed if the Eucharist is indeed the Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of Christ because if the Blood is truly present even under the appearances of bread and wine that God could make the Blood truly present under the appearances of blood as well.

I don’t object to that way of formulating it at all.

Edwin