That is a misunderstanding of Catholic eucharistic theology, as while words such "true body and blood" are used, that at “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 of his blood,” thus becoming the “true Body of Christ and his true Blood,” (CCC 1376; 1381) having been “substantially changed into the true and proper and lifegiving flesh and blood of Jesus Christ our Lord,” being corporeally present whole and entire in His physical "reality.” (Mysterium Fidei, Encyclical of Pope Paul VI, 1965) "the very body which he gave up for us on the cross, the very blood which he "poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins,"(CCC 1365) with His human body and human soul, with His bodily organs and limbs and with His human mind, will and feelings. (John A. Hardon, S.J., Part I: Eucharistic Doctrine on the Real Presence) Thus the statement, "Consequently, eating and drinking are to be understood of the actual partaking of Christ in person, hence literally.” (Catholic Encyclopedia>The Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist) Yet this is not as a body "sensible, visible, tangible, or extended, although it is such in heaven," but under a "new mode of being," (John A. Hardon, S.J., Doctrine of the Real Presence in the Encyclical "Mediator Dei") so that the Eucharist being "the true and proper and lifegiving flesh and blood of Jesus Christ," "the very body which he gave up for us on the cross," etc. and in each and every visible particle or the bread and the wine, does not mean the bread and wine are literally transformed into actual literal bloody human flsh with its evident properties. The presence of Christ's true body and blood in this sacrament cannot be detected by sense, nor understanding, but by faith alone..." (Summa Theologica; 75:1) Thus "If you took the consecrated host to a laboratory it would be chemically shown to be bread, not human flesh." (Dwight Longenecker, "Explaining Transubstantiation") Therefore purported "Eucharistic miracles" are not consistent with what the Real Presence via transubstantiation means. Francis Clark, S.J. states that Thomas Aquinas (a "doctor of the church"), considered the issue of such purported miraculous manifestations of the physical flesh of Christ in the hosts and explained that what appeared on those occasions, And since there is a problem with invisible particles falling or floating away (thus ending up most anywhere), and since decomposition has been ongoing to some degree since they were baked, then in theology it is stated (or argued) that only what is visible in "normal" vision is the "true body and blood." I do not have the link now for that. could not be the real flesh and blood of Christ, for such a possibility was excluded by the nature of transubstantiation and of Christ’s sacramental presence ; but they were miraculous representations produced by divine power as tokens to direct men’s thoughts to, and to strengthen their belief in, the true flesh and blood of Christ invisibly present under the Eucharistic species. ('Bleeding hosts' and Eucharistic theology, Francis Clark, S.J., p. 219-20,22)
But it is imagined that that at the moment of the completion of the words of consecration by the priest (and only by ordained priests) then the bread and wine no longer exist, while the "Real Presence" of Christ's body that these elements are changed into (which change is said to be occur outside of time, and regardless of appearing as bread and wine) only exist until the bread or wine - which again, are held to no longer exist - begin to manifestly (appearance being critical) decompose, as Aquinas affirms (Summa theologiae, III, q. 77, a. 6) as well as others: "The Eucharistic presence of Christ begins at the moment of the consecration and endures as long as the Eucharistic species subsist. Christ is present whole and entire in each of the species and whole and entire in each of their parts, in such a way that the breaking of the bread does not divide Christ." (CCC 1377; Cf. Council of Trent: DS 1641) "...that is, until the Eucharist is digested, physically destroyed, or decays by some natural process." (The Holy Eucharist BY Bernard Mulcahy, O.P., p. 32) Thus persons with celiac disease can suffer adverse effects to the non-existent gluten in the Eucharistic host) and wine (which one could get drunk on in sufficient quantity) takes place (as with mold, digestion, etc.), in which case "Christ has discontinued His Presence therein." (Catholic Encyclopedia>The Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist)
I wonder what ever happened to that chunk of flesh mentioned in
Luke 2:21?
Hair, fingernail clippings, baby teeth, swaddling clothes...
“’What’s the difference between a liberal and a conservative?
A liberal will interpret the constitution, a conservative will quote it!’
~Rush Limbaugh
In a similar vein...
What’s the difference between a Catholic and a Protestant?
A Catholic will interpret the Bible, a Protestant will quote it!
But RCs claim that’s what John 6 is teaching. Literal blood and flesh had to be consumed.