[RnMomof7]

It depends on what you mean by "real actual flesh" and "real actual blood." Anatomical flesh, no. (No organs, no meat proteins.) Physiological blood, no. (None of the biochemical characteristics or physiological functions of blood. Don't try putting it in your I.V.)

Exactly ... either he was lying or He was revealing the typology of the passover meal ...

[Mrs. Don-o]

Lying? (I shake my head.)

I guess I can be glad we're no longer arguing about Baby Jesus' transitional stools.

[Mrs. Don-o]

You seem to be tripping over a false dichotomy; that either Jesus is just using a figure of speech, OR what He's got in His hands is a lively little Mini-Me which is going to be ripped apart so people can eat its gristle, gizzard and bone.

Please realize that it's neither of those.

It's neither a figure of speech, or a soon to be dismembered and cannibalized Mini-Me. The reality is that, as Jesus said, "My flesh is true food, and my blood is true drink." Then, at table, He said "This is my Body" and when the supper was ended, "This is the chalice of My Blood, the Blood of the New and eternal Covenant."

It must be obvious that we connect those two statements.

His true, Eucharistic body and blood have the appearance and chemical characteristics of bread and wine. They are nevertheless what He says they are.

Can't we settle with that?

It reminds me of an argument with my older son when he was an adolescent: "Is light a particle or a wave? It's got to be a particle or a wave!"

It's like what Nils Bohr said about quantum physics: "You never actually understand it. You just, so to speak, get used to it."