[underlining added for emphasis]
then, yourself in a spirit of charity (or so this came across, to me) aiming at getting a point across, in hope of possibly being better understood(?) changed the previous [underlined] wording;
Please understand, I'm not engaging on this point in order to nit-pic for sake of nit-picking and thus harassment, but rather to point out to you that neither of those [above] wordings are in line with how Roman Catholicism more officially describes transubstantiation.
I do believe, have been led to conclude (not merely on this thread, but for some years now) that the slight difference between how you chose to speak of consecrated eucharistic bread, and how the RCC otherwise has long vociferously pressed their own wordings (along with much consequent theological considerations and conclusions, there being a collection of 'baggage' of that sort in regards to this) goes a lo-ooong way in explaining just why so many, so-called "protestants" reject the doctrine of transubstantiation, for there are many who WOULD find themselves in much agreement with the wording which you chose to express.
As far I can tell, both ways you described what was being discussed could be said to, in general sense conform to; Lutheran description and understanding, traditional Anglican description, and take in also, in spirit as it were, Calvinistic description of what translates into the phrase 'pneumatic presence', the word pneumatic here being used somewhat synonymous with spiritually or as 'in spirit' if you will, yet true and Real presence in that manner, nonetheless.
Only explicitly not inclusive of corporeal (literal physical presence) at the same time, of the kind which fully and LITERALLY would equate to that Real Presence as I refer to that here, being also the very same *exact* physical body that was the corporeal flesh, blood, bone, hair, teeth, etc., of Christ when He walked the earth in (true & actual) form of a man prior to his crucifixion, death, resurrection, and then finally when He ascended.
Forgive me if you will for belaboring the point here, yet I do often get the impression that many modern 'Catholics', without even realizing it(!) hold what was once (and still IS, in many settings) fairly 'Protestant' views (albeit not fully -Zwinglian- as in "strictly memorial", as some, say Baptists often hold to) in regards to the Lord's Supper.
According to the RCC (in rough estimation on my own part, perhaps) the "bread" after consecration ceases to exist at all, the "accident" of the bread's outward appearance alone remaining, Christ said to be present "under" that mere outward accidental appearance ---not---
the bread, just as it was prior to consecration.
The entire affair quite often spoken of too (at times among and amid 'Catholic' descriptions) as being literally the *same* body as hung upon the cross, the ministrations of the priest said to be providing access to that same body, even as if to the LITERAL (thus corporeal) flesh just as that 2000 years ago hung upon a cross, along with His Divinity.
--- For my own understanding I simply must consider how He (as according to Scripture) was witnessed by three persons to have departed this earthly realm, having ascended up into the sky (quite literally), the question He asked in John 6 ("what will you say when I return to where I was before!"} indicating to me that Jesus DID return "back to where he was" prior to the time He was born into flesh and blood physical earthly realm existence -- thus --- The Lord our God be fully Spirit again; Father, Son, and Holy Spirit all together as one, as it was before there was made (by God) anything that was made.
How then could I (or even should I, and for that matter -- anyone?) eat of this bread which comes from Heaven, thinking it include be carnal, typical "mammalian" yet fully human flesh (you know, like the bodies we are existing with while we peck away at keyboards? yeah - that *stuff*-) along with His Divinity, and that altogether as that is now, from perhaps BOTH our own perspective, and God's own perspective too?
Is this making any sense to you? I brought this all up because if memory serves, centuries ago that type of position which you appeared to outline had been condemned by some pope or another as being heretical, and was anathematized. Thus this small (but significant) difference of viewpoint regarding the [Roman] Catholic doctrine of transubstantiation --- as that had been described by the Roman Catholic Church AND much contended over in past centuries (from about the year 1600, or so, continuing to this present day) and how you just otherwise wrote about it, be chief-most cause for the original and continuing disputation, along with not just a little bit of misunderstanding & mis-communication.
Or am I missing a boat here (the boat) and you are a Lutheran, or Methodist, and not [Roman] Catholic?
My only, or should I say main remaining concern here is that my questioning of you in this manner (if you are indeed Latin Church 'Catholic') could drive you to adopt yet more fully the 15th-16th century 'Romish' doctrine of transubstantiation, which I should add here the Orthodox have historically shunned fullest agreement with as being an unneeded(?) and less-than wisest approach to what they otherwise have widely long preferred leave to being spoken of as Divine Mystery, though they do also say "this is" the Body (of Christ), of course.
Methodists, even do the same much similar, (say "this is the Body), at least some of them do, considering the consecrated bread to be the Body in sacramental sense (even though still just ordinary bread at the same time, in 'carnal' physical sense) as again, as far as I can tell do those more formally Anglican (at least those Anglicans still of traditional-conservative type, albeit those folks add a bit of restrained 'adoration', at least posture of 'respect') and as also more than a few Pentecostal likewise view the consecrated loaf as Body of Christ albeit minus placing of wafer into a monstrance to be held aloft and looked upon as being God.
That last thingy -- the monstrance --- can serve as example of "how to worship one's own worship will intertwining that with worship of one's own Church's alleged authority to turn stones into bread bread into being no longer bread AT ALL but instead, be very God!" after hocus pocus words said by 'our priest', yep that's right, only our priest most definitely not yours! and don't you ever forget it!!!...
Sickening, isn't it? It's no wonder have been turned away. JUST LOOK WHAT HAS far too often BEEN DONE WITH IT. It truly has been a travesty, an offense to God.
Well AND truly stated.
If we were to take the words at issue plainly literally as Caths insist we must, then we would have to conclude that what the apostles consumed was the same manifest incarnated body that proved that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh, versus simple appearance.
This is he that came by water and blood, even Jesus Christ; not by water only, but by water and blood. And it is the Spirit that beareth witness, because the Spirit is truth. (1 John 5:6)
For at the Last Supper, the Lord said And when he had given thanks, he brake it, and said, Take, eat: this is my body, which is broken for you (1 Corinthians 11:24) and "this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins." (Matthew 26:28)
And the only human body that Christ ever had was one that was manifestly human, one that looked, felt, smelled, and would taste and scientifically test as truly human, including i believe, in its resurrected state, even though Christ could bodily appear at will, versus being like a phantom.
And the apostles could far more easily believe that the piece of meat they were to consume was His human body, rather than a piece of bread that looks , feels, smells, and would taste and scientifically test as such does not really exist, but instead it is the same body of Christ that was crucified for us (until the non-existent bread begin to decay),
The problem is that, apart from a few sketchy purported miracle which are contrary to Eucharistic theology, Cath priests have not been to effect this change, nor did the Lord ever manifest Himself as an inanimate object.
This thus necessitated explaining the deceiving nature of this "real disguised presence" by employing specious pagan philosophy to "explain" what is not seen in Scripture but best corresponds to what is attested to by some accounts of pagan practices.
Yet all of which contrivances is unnecessary as well as wrong, since the metaphorical understanding alone easily conflates with John and the rest of Scripture .
I agree. (nice to see you here!)