On a CA radio program that I heard online, the apologist said, about the Eucharist, that “Jesus could, if He willed, appear in any form He wishes”. Is it safe to say that Jesus takes on the FORM of (appearances) bread and wine when transubstantiation occurs?
The bread that is used is really bread. After it has been changed into Jesus’s flesh, it still looks like bread, and what you see is bread, and that appearance of bread remains after the bread has been changed into his flesh. What you see is what is left of bread.
The reality or substance of bread is gone. It has been changed into the reality or substance of the flesh of Jesus. And what is seen is bread not Jesus because our eyes cannot see substance as such. But we know that tho we cannot see the image of Jesus there, it is his real flesh … in person.
Why does he look like bread? Because bread is our natural food which we can consume easily. If he had changed the look of it into the look of real flesh we would repulsed by it. So the bread we eat remains looking like bread when in reality it is the flesh of Jesus we receive.
Since the food he gives us is for human beings, then it only makes sense that we receive something that we can consume into ourselves naturally. As he said, “I am the bread of life.” So it would only make sense that he would not give it any other form.
I know it’s his flesh and blood but I think the apologist was right, He takes on the form appearances) of bread and wine, while changing into His actual body and blood, thus leaving the appearance of bread and wine.