[Mrs. Don-o]

Iscool, her's your problem. You are interpreting "real" and "substantial" as meaning "physiological," as if a consecrated Host would be expected to flex its biceps, wink at you, scratch its ears, etc..

Ten minutes' research via Google (try looking up "transubstantiation") would have put the kibosh this simple misunderstanding.

Since you have been reading and writing on this Forum as long as I have --- since 1998 --- it is solidly probable that you have slogged through this same low level of discussion at least once before --- likely many times --- without troubling even to look up the meanings of the words.

I'm done. Just for friendliness' sake, I'll flex my biceps for you.

There ya go. Let's talk about something else.

[Iscool]

Iscool, her's your problem. You are interpreting "real" and "substantial" as meaning "physiological," as if a consecrated Host would be expected to flex its biceps, wink at you, scratch its ears, etc..

I never even implied the flesh was physiological (functioning as a living organism)...Are we playing on what words like physiological mean???

I know what real means to the world and to those who write dictionaries...Does the Catholic religion have its own private interpretation what real means??? I have a feeling that would come as a shock to most Catholics that the flesh is not real flesh as we understand real...

But don't try to send me on a Catholic goose chase...If real flesh doesn't mean real flesh in Catholic circles, then why don't you explain to me and other uneducated Catholics what it does mean, to the Catholic religon...I'm sure they'd like to know as well...

So the host turns into the real flesh of Jesus, but not the real, real flesh of Jesus...Now that's a new one for me...