I am sympathetic that your ignorance is again displayed in this respect. I implore you to familiarize yourself with the meanings and difference in the terms "Substance" and "Property" The canon clearly and repeatedly refers to the substance of the Eucharist being changed. The fact that your source referenced the presence of a host is evidence that the Church acknowledges the remaining physical properties of bread and wine in the species.
What you are claiming is "transignification" rather than transubstantiation which was definitely rejected by Pope Paul VI in 1965. Transignification, a strawman argument put forth by modernists and Protestant apologists, is the contention that a physical or chemical change in the elements does or must take place for there to be a Real Presence. This is in opposition to the doctrine of the Catholic Church that there is a change only of the underlying reality or substance of the species, but not of anything that concerns physics or chemistry properties of the species.
Peace be with you.
Wiggle all you want.
It says that it’s changed and nobody has ever seen it so. It looks like the host and tastes like wheat.
It’s either the literal, actual, physical flesh and blood of Christ, or it’s a symbolic representation.
The *real presence* explanation is simply word games played with definitions to try to explain away why what they claim has happened hasn’t really.
The Council of Trent summarizes the Catholic faith by declaring: "Because Christ our Redeemer said that it was truly his body that he was offering under the species of bread, it has always been the conviction of the Church of God, and this holy Council now declares again, that by the consecration of the bread and wine there takes place a change of the whole substance of the bread into the substance of the body of Christ our Lord and of the whole substance of the wine into the substance>/b> of his blood. This change the holy Catholic Church has fittingly and properly called transubstantiation (CCC, 1376).
Substance
a : physical material from which something is made or which has discrete existence b : matter of particular or definite chemical constitution
Species
a. the external form or appearance of the bread or the wine in the Eucharist. b. either of the Eucharistic elements. Canon says that the “substance” has changed. That which it was made of is no longer present but has changed. It’s only the “appearance” that remains the same. Trying to tell us that Catholics believe it’s still bread but really it’s changed in substance into the body of Christ doesn’t work so well when the RCC says differently.
Using John 6 without including the 57th verse is rather disingenuous. If you believe that it’s Jesus “flesh” than you must also believe that His flesh also came down out of heaven.
John 6:57 As the living Father sent Me, and I live because of the Father, so he who eats Me, he also will live because of Me. 58 This is the bread which came down out of heaven; not as the fathers ate and died; he who eats this bread will live forever.
Did the flesh Catholics claim they are eating come down from heaven? When Jesus said “this is my flesh” was He talking about the physical flesh He acquired from Mary?