Is there a difference that you acknowledge between what a thing is and what it looks like?
A human being, for example, can look like a very small one-celled animal, or like Harrison Ford, or even like Helen Thomas. (I know that's hard to believe. Work with me here.)
I think Helen Thomas is sufficient to show that what a thing IS is different from what it looks like.
I guess I'm going through this because it is simply astonishing to me that somebody could criticize Transubstantiation by saying that the host does not "look like" raw meat.
It is sown a physical body. It is raised a spiritual body. If there is a physical body, there is also a spiritual body. Thus it is written, "The first man Adam became a living being;" the last Adam became a life-giving spirit.So when we are talking about the body and blood of Christ, we are not talking about "raw meat."
An hour in the Summa would spare us these ridiculous counter arguments which argue against what we do not teach.
MD, I know are addressing our issues of humility this month, but I must say that you are quite a guy. :)