"Transcending physical matter or the laws of nature" (WordWeb)? Whatever we want it to mean, the issue is not that God cannot transcend physical matter or the known laws of nature or of physics, but that the christ of the words Catholics invoke as taking literally (meaning non-existent bread that otherwise behaves and tests as just being what it appears to be is really Christ in substance, until the bread or wine behaves in a negative way that also manifests it is real bread, for then this christ is gone) does not conform to how the incarnated and crucified Christ is defined and emphasized, in contrast to a christ whose appearance does not conform to what He materially was.
In contrast the metaphorical meaning of both the words at the institution of the Lord's supper and John 6 alone easily conforms to Scripture.
I see there are two meanings to the words “metaphysical” and “mystical.” One set of meanings is what we, um, metaphysicians jokingly describe as “oogedy-boogedy.”
The other is boring to many. It might deal with questions like,
“Whether (and if so, how) we can say that God exists, triangles exist, my big toe exists?”
“Is there a difference between what a thing IS and what it is made of; are a beanbag chair and a golden throne both chairs?”
“Can we know the answers to these questions? How?”
When I read a clause like “What He [Christ] materially was,” the words “materially was,” get my attention. In my thinking what Christ IS is a such a different question from what he is made of that I want to stop there and look at “materially was” for a while.
So I think I'm right that we can't get far with Transubstantiation or the rest of that clump of questions.
As I have suggested, before we discuss what the Consecrated Bread is, I need to get clear about what regular everyday bread is.