But St. Thomas’s explanation isn’t dogmatic. Eastern Catholics for example aren’t required to use it.
We say it’s the body and blood of Jesus Christ because he said it would be. That’s the way my pastor explained it.
Aren't we agreeing? That's what I was trying to say.
We say it’s the body and blood of Jesus Christ because he said it would be. That’s the way my pastor explained it.
Works for me. I would say that the bulk of Thomas's treatise is not about why one ought to believe this as an explanation of what it means to believe it.
For example, if someone says, against it, that we are saying, "Lo, here," as we are told not to do, then Aquinas supplies a (difficult) explanation of why that is NOT what we are saying. Or if some one says, "Well, what happens if the bread goes moldy? Is Jesus moldy?" again we can look to Aquinas for an explanation of why that does NOT follow from the assertion of the real presence.