[D-fendr]

You seem to like St. Justin Martyrs treatise. Except for the Eucharist part.

Transubstantiation is one means of explaining the Real Presence correctly in Aristotelean terms. It’s not the only way, nor even necessary. Someone could develop another syllogism or argument concerning it tomorrow and it would not affect the faith. What is important is the correct belief in the Real Presence in the Holy Eucharist.

As C.S. Lewis put it: Christ said: “Take, eat.” not “Take, understand.”

So when or how transubstantiation is taught is irrelevant so long as the fundamental belief is there. As St. Justin put it:

“For not as common bread and common drink do we receive these; but in like manner as Jesus Christ our Saviour, having been made flesh by the Word of God, had both flesh and blood for our salvation, so likewise have we been taught that the food which is blessed by the prayer of His word, and from which our blood and flesh by transmutation are nourished, is the flesh and blood of that Jesus who was made flesh.”

As the Church has always taught and believed and as you saw through St. Justin Martyr’s eyes.

[Iscool]

“For not as common bread and common drink do we receive these; but in like manner as Jesus Christ our Saviour, having been made flesh by the Word of God, had both flesh and blood for our salvation, so likewise have we been taught that the food which is blessed by the prayer of His word, and from which our blood and flesh by transmutation are nourished, is the flesh and blood of that Jesus who was made flesh.”

Doesn't matter if it was said by Lewis, your pope, or you; their is no heavenly or spiritual benefit to having your flesh and blood nourished...

Your flesh, the 'old man' is the natural man...Not of God...The 'new man' is the spiritual man...

Joh 6:63 It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life.