But it REALLY does not look like the Lord's body which was broken, and His blood which was shed, with its manifest physicality that John emphasized, versus a Gnostic or Docetist Christ who was not what He appeared to be. And which soon to be crucified manifest flesh and blood a straight-forward literal reading of the "words of consecration" would refer to. Nor is there anything in the text which requires this to still look like bread and wine.
But since Cath priests cannot change the bead and wine into the manifestly incarnated flesh and blood of Christ (aside from a few purported miracles which do not conform to Eucharistic theology), then while what Caths receive REALLY looks like bread and wine, they are to believe that it REALLY is the crucified body and blood of Christ (even in the smallest particle), while the bread and wine REALLY no longer exist, Christ being present instead.
That is, until the bread and wine which no longer exist REALLY exist begin to manifest decay, at which point the Catholic christ REALLY no longer exist under that appearance. Nor does the bread and wine either according to Aquinas. At which point as concerns the "Real Presence" in that locale, theologically
they have taken away my Lord, and I know not where they have laid him. (John 20:13)
I believe in the Real Presence in Holy Communion myself, and even after all these years of study of Scripture I STILL do NOT understand what Catholic theology on Communion is.
And that’s after reading Catholic theology too.
What I get from them is that a miracle happens on the altar and the bread and wine is transformed into Jesus’ flesh and blood, but it’s flesh that tastes like bread and blood that tastes like wine?
And at the same time, Jesus in heaven is re-crucified. Again and again and again every time they say these words.
And for some reason, only the priest is allowed to drink the blood/wine/whatever.
I mean, even if you take ‘this is my body’ 100% literally, doesn’t this Catholic thing go a little bit beyond what the Bible says?