Originally Posted by Joe Obenberger

Hey Pal, I'm not here to argue the theology of transubstantiation, but it's clear that's what you'd like to do here. No thanks.

Michael has stated the Catholic position more or less accurately and that's my point here: Catholics believe that Christ is bodily present in the Eucharist, that the bread and wine have become his actual body and blood through a miracle, though still appearing to remain bread and wine, their substance has been changed to body and blood. Aha, you observe, but they still look and taste like bread and wine! The Catholic Church teaches that things are not always what they appear to be, and they are "accidents" in the philosophy of Aristotle and the theology of St. Thomas Aquinas. That's the essence of transubstantiation, a bitterly contested issue during the Protestant Reformation. Some Protestants went so far as to accept consubstantiation, the idea that the consecrated species in the Eucharist were simultaneously bread and wine but also the body and blood of Christ; but most of the Protestant leaders thought that it was just a symbol. (By the way, Mormons substitute water for the wine because of the teachings in the Word of Wisdom about alcohol, and many of the Bible Thumper sects - the ones who oppose this industry and who join AFA and MIM - substitute grape juice.) If you find it hard to believe that the Catholics really believe this, you can check it out yourself in the Catechism of the Catholic Church, paragraphs 1374-1377. (That same Catechism takes the position that all governments should outlaw pornography, and while it condemns prostitution, it's notably silent about suggesting that prostitution should be outlawed. In this respect, it tracks with the teaching of Aquinas, though it disregards his reasoning that things which protect against sexual predation should not be outlawed.)