Quick Thought On Transubstantiation

I always find this discussion amusing in one sense. Very often, those insisting that this Scripture must be read symbolically and non-literally are also the ones that insist on a literal, non-symbolic interpretation of almost every other Scripture, like early Genesis.

Jesus is allowed to use metaphor and symbolism, but the writer of Genesis is not. :0)

Vance:

And in the case of the Catholic Church, those insisting that this Scripture must be read literally are also the ones that teach a symbolic, science-and-evolution-friendly interpretation of early Genesis. 😕 😀

Eric, exactly! Everybody picks and chooses when they will read “literally” and “symbolically” and then complains that everyone ELSE is picking and choosing! :0)

A lot of beams in a lot of eyes, most of the time!

“I always find this discussion amusing ”

The whole problem with this discussion is that the different sides are using the same theological terms differently. Protestants are tyring to stick to a sola-Scriptura, but in the end just interpret it in the Augustine-Anslem-Aquinas-Luther-(Calvin, Arminian, etc) tradition. Sola-Scriptura does not exist. Interpreting this Scriptures outside the living, dynamic Church has lead to the erroneous doctrines of denying the real presence, sola-fide, sola-scriptura, substitutionary atonement.

It is not a question of not using tradition to interpret scripture, but which tradition are you going to use? Study the scriptures, church fathers and church history!

The whole problem with this discussion is that the different sides are using the same theological terms differently. Protestants are tyring to stick to a sola-Scriptura, but in the end just interpret it in the Augustine-Anslem-Aquinas-Luther-(Calvin, Arminian, etc) tradition. Sola-Scriptura does not exist. Interpreting this Scriptures outside the living, dynamic Church has lead to the erroneous doctrines of denying the real presence, sola-fide, sola-scriptura, substitutionary atonement.

It is not a question of not using tradition to interpret scripture, but which tradition are you going to use? Study the scriptures, church fathers and church history!

Been there, done that, bought the icons.

As for “erroneous doctrines,” the Catholics and Orthodox are interpreting it in the Platonic and Greek and scholastic tradition, divorced and deviating from the Hebrew speech and meaning and understanding of Jesus and His followers. Though many recognize what happened, these Churches are too far down the road and have dug too deep a hole of unchangeable Traditions and dogmas and infallibilities to climb out or go back and undo, redo and correct their errors.

Tit … for … tat.

Eric W’s need to put a “tit for tat” response made me aware that I need to apologize for the tone of my previous post. I did not intend for it to come out that way. Please forgive.

Vance,

Right… Because clearly, neither YEC non-transubstantiationists nor OEC/TE transubstantiationists are aware of the potential issue you’re pointing out.

They have no sensible, considered reasons for taking Genesis as a historical account, and taking “This is my body” symbolically. (Or on the other side, for taking Genesis as non-historical, but “This is my body” non-symbolically.)

Clearly, that’s just inconsistent. There are no relevant hermeneutical differences between the two. It’s just picking and choosing!

Michael:

My apologies, too, for not putting a smiley 🙂 after my “Tit … for … tat” – which was meant to be taken in a friendly, not adversarial, manner.

Come to Dallas and we’ll discuss the Lord and Transubstantiation over a cold brew…. 🙂

On this matter of sometimes taking things literally, other times metaphorically? I generally agree that it’s rather arbitrary and inconsistent.

But to be sure, there might be a sort of rough dividing line of a sort out there, regarding the consciousness of this. Specifically, the Old Testament seems to being taking things rather literally. But the New begins to consciously speak of “parables” and “allegeries” and “figures” of speech; which is to say, metaphors.

So it seems like while to be sure, the whole Bible could be – and probably should be – taken metaphorically, the consciousness of metaphors, seems to have come up especially in the New Testament. In the era after Philo, and some other scholars.

Though to be sure, many language scholars admit that “all language is metaphorial” at base. Like the Hebrew words for “wind,” that we now translate as “spirit,” or vice-versa.

Jugulum,

unfortunately, most often it IS just picking and choosing (noting the understandable sarcasm of your post). The method of reading the text is based on which best supports their doctrinal position (as with transubstantiation) or (as with Genesis), it is often based on what seems most straightforward to our modern minds and preferences.

I usually only see hermeneutical analysis coming after the fact, from those who already have a position.

Henry,

while this is heading off in a different (albeit related) direction, the use of symbolic and figurative language, even when describing historical events, was actually the norm in the times when the OT was being written and compiled. This is currently a point causing much angst in the evangelical community at the moment, of course, with Peter Enns and others explaining these things. A different discussion, though.

Vance,

I do still think that your comment 52 was silly, at least as written. That is: The joke was, “Look how inconsistent it is for them to do both this and that!” But I read “this and that”, and thought, “Yeah, so?”

But, I suppose I’d be on board if you were defining “The same people who insist” as “The same people who insist out-of-hand, without any nuance or argument based on the particulars of the passage, language, genre, etc“.

I’m on board with you that it’s a common human trait, not specific to creation/evolution.

Also, this part makes me wonder:

I usually only see hermeneutical analysis coming after the fact, from those who already have a position.

The thing is, if I’ve come to a conclusion (based on careful, open-minded consideration), and I explain why, then what are you going to see? Someone who already has a position giving hermeneutical analysis!

Michael: “Study the scriptures, church fathers and church history!”

Yes!!

Studying church history reveals that the early church fathers supported and affirmed Sola Scriptura!!

Jugulum, yes, it is definitely a human trait and not specific to any particular theological or exegetical position. If you did some background research of everyone who strongly asserts a theological position, backing it up that position with Scripture and seemingly solid exegesis and hermeneutical analysis, I bet you would find that 90% of them were taking a position that they grew up with, or was the position of the denomination into which they came to be Christian. Coincidence? Of course not.

And, yes, this is a generalization, and for every rule there are exceptions (which prove the rule).

So, as to your last question, I would first wonder what your predisposed position would have been (the one you would have likely held as a default prior to any analysis). If it was the one you were backing now, it would definitely raise the question of whether it is a case of the (pre-existing) tail wagging the (hermeneutical) dog. It is just so hard to be entirely objective and when our final conclusions happen to match our original presumptions, we should definitely consider how open-minded we are being.

Raise the question, mind you, not be conclusive by a long shot! Very often, our preconceived ideas might actually be the ones we would also reach after full and objective analysis. After all, right is right! :0)

T U & D,
What did people do when they didn’t have the Bible to read? They trusted solely in the church fathers telling them sola scriptura. We see how well that worked out.

We should relax just a little bit and understand there are some who just can’t read the Bible. Do they get the idea of sola scriptura? Literacy is a great gift from God, but some people never quite grasped it. What do you say to someone like that?

That is where abuse started, from people who pretended to know more tell others what the Bible said when it did not. Sola scriptura only works when we can read the primary source document. I advocate all people to learn to read and comprehend. But there are some who never get to learn. How then do we minister to them using sola scriptura?

One time I bought a KJV in Spanish and had it in my car. A lady I worked with was from Guatemala and she saw the Bible in her language and it overwhelmed her with emotion so I gave it to her. She was overjoyed because she had the Bible in her hands in her language. But I don’t speak Spanish, could I have taught her from the Bible I could not understand?

“If you did some background research of everyone who strongly asserts a theological position, backing it up that position with Scripture and seemingly solid exegesis and hermeneutical analysis, I bet you would find that 90% of them were taking a position that they grew up with, or was the position of the denomination into which they came to be Christian. Coincidence? Of course not.”

The above is, actually, a very interesting statement. There are some that come from no theological background/denomination where they were taught that it means a certain thing. I will share my personal experience. I did not come from a Christian background and, in fact, had never heard of the Lord’s Supper until AFTER I came to Christ. I actually remember the first time I participated in the Lord’s Supper and having no clue what I was doing or what it was for. I had to ask someone where in the bible this was found. After reading it, it did not even occur to me that the elements were the actual body/blood of our Lord. The first time I read it in the bible, I had literally no influence from any denomination – as I said, I had no idea what I was doing the first time I participated. I simply watched everybody else and did what they did trying to make sure I didn’t do anything different. In fact, I was rather uncomfortable as I felt out of place not knowing what it was about or what I was supposed to do.

Anyway, after I read the passages in the bible, I simply understood it to mean that it was a representation of His body/blood. While I understood it was a representation, I had no idea why at that point in my walk. What I am saying is that I took it as a representation without any outside influence. It was not until (and I don’t remember how much later), that I learned that there were some that held to the belief that it was His actual body/blood and not a representation. I was still rather new to Christianity but, again, I do not remember how new. So I guess a good question is if someone without any influence whatsoever, come to believe that it was His actual body/blood if they simply read it in the bible after coming to Christ?

Kara,

One thing that I learned about Greek is that the word for “to read” means either “read silently, to yourself”, or “read aloud for others”.

So, I think the answer to your question about illiterate people is, “If I can’t read myself, I can have someone read to me.” Someone can simply read it aloud, or they can both read it and explain the meaning.

It’s always better if we can read it ourselves and delve into it, but illiterate people can still practice sola scriptura.

Jugulum,

Thanks for saying that. Sometimes us ‘dummies’, who have no formal theological training, do actually manage to somehow (could that possibly be the Holy Spirit instead?) get what God is saying.

Thanks for bringing up that point. I hate elitism no matter which side it comes from!

Eric: “The “gender” of a noun in Greek has nothing to do with its sex or whether it’s animate or inanimate.”

Perhaps I misunderstood your argument. Body is neuter, so if he is REALLY saying that “this is my body”, why would he agree the case with bread? If he had agreed in case with the bread, that would be an argument it is still bread.

Dennis: “Michael Patton asks:
> was it his body when he gave it to his disciples?

Yes, this is what Jesus said. I don’t think anyone can argue with this b/c it is the plain reading of the text.”

Funny, but this quote of yours in response to Michael is exactly what I would call “wooden-headed literalism”. I don’t mean that to be offensive, but as I said in my first quote, literal blood dripping flesh instead of blood was not what I got out of the text letting it “speak for itself” nor did I get “metaphysical mumbo-jumbo….it really is even though it really isn’t”

I got symbolism and remembrance and God-ordained ritual….but I did not see “eating the actual flesh and blood”

This sounds much harsher than I want…..don’t take it that way, I’m just trying to contrast what I got in using a “a common sense literal, grammatical, and historical hermeneutic.”

Jugulum,
Have you ever read about the missionaries to Hawaii? Interesting study of sola scriptura taken a little too far on people who didn’t want it. It’s how we live our lives from applying what we have learned from the Bible that counts.

Kara,

With all due respect, I don’t think you understand what the doctrine of Sola Scriptura represents and what it means.

Start with part 1 of CMP’s multi-part series on Sola Scriptura to obtain the necessary background.

Pax.

Wow…I read through all the responses…and I was waiting for it..yet no one went there…1 Corinthians 11:23-30…so my question is…so what is going on that the Apostle Paul would write about people getting weak, sick and “falling asleep”? Yeah, I don’t know either, but I make sure my “heart” is right before taking communion (Eucharist…however you refer to it) Obviously, something spiritually and physically profound is taking place…and I don’t think it is merely a memorial taking place…and I know I don’t have the answer; and I’m not looking for the answer here…I’m thinking that God puts this in the ‘need to know’ area…and I’ll just go on by faith!

Blessings,
Lisa

69.David on 12 May 2009 at 10:05 pm #

Eric: “The “gender” of a noun in Greek has nothing to do with its sex or whether it’s animate or inanimate.”

Perhaps I misunderstood your argument. Body is neuter, so if he is REALLY saying that “this is my body”, why would he agree the case with bread? If he had agreed in case with the bread, that would be an argument it is still bread.

What I’m saying is that if Jesus meant to imply that “This [loaf/bread which I have in my hands and am giving to you] is my body,” in Greek one would normally expect the word “this” to agree in gender, number and case with the word “loaf/bread.”

By using the neuter, it can suggest that He was referring to something other than the actual bread/loaf in his hands. The remark in Garland (1 Corinthians, Baker, p. 547) I referred to is this:

Winter (2001: 153) argues, however, that the τουτο, which is neuter, does not refer to the bread (αρτος, artos), which is masculine, but to Jesus’ action on their behalf.14 Paul may not be repeating the words from the institution narrative, but rather citing Jesus’ sacrificial action on their behalf – “This [action of mine] is my body [given] for you” – to contrast it with their actions. This interpretation of the grammar is disputable, as Winter (2001: 154) admits, but it is clear that Paul contrasts Jesus’ self-sacrifice at the Last Supper with the Corinthians’ selfishness at their supper.

14 Winter (2001: 153) claims that the neuter demonstrative pronoun represents an action in sixteen of its seventy-four occurrences in Paul’s letters.

B. W. Winter 2001 After Paul Left Corinth: The Influence of Secular Ethics and Social Change. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans.

Jesus doesn’t mention the word “bread”. You don’t agree the case with a word which is unstated. If the item is truly unstated (as in “what is this?”), you would use the neuter anyway. The case needs to agree with the word which is stated, which in this case is body.

Kara,

I’m really not following. Can you explain what you mean? What aspect of Hawaiian missionary history you’re referring to?

Kara,
Are you referring to the appearance in Evangelical Christianity that one is to put their faith in the cannon of scripture before placing faith in Jesus Christ? Is that why the Hawaiian’s saw no difference between Christianity and their idolatrous religions?

I’m wondering if the bread was meant to also represent the manna from heaven, which was a forerunner of Christ, as the living Bread of life in the OT. The OT manna (meaning, what is this?) was eaten for sustenance, but it was also a symbol of Christ, the living Bread to come. It was some of the disgruntled Israelites who demanded meat, and it killed them because of their human interpretation of what they thought was better for them.

One would certainly think if the flesh part is literal in the NT, then Jesus would have been cutting meat with His disciples instead of breaking bread.

It still all comes down to the sacrifice He made either way.

D. Williams:

Have you taken any classes in Koinê Greek? I.e., are you speaking from knowledge of the language and grammar, or are you making statements based on what you think it should be?

Do you know how demonstrative pronouns work when they are in the predicate and attributive positions, and when they function as substantives? Do you know and understand the syntax of demonstratives?

You write: “If the item is truly unstated (as in “what is this?”), you would use the neuter anyway. The case needs to agree with the word which is stated, which in this case is body.”

Then what does the “this” refer to? Are you saying that Jesus is saying, “This body is my body”????

You’ve lost me.

To quote from an online Greek grammar, Elements of the Greek Language, Taken from the Greek Grammar of James Hadley (Google Books):

344. PRONOUNS OF REFERENCE
a. …
b. DEMONSTRATIVE PRONOUN OF REFERENCE: A substantive, once used, may be recalled or referred to by a demonstrative pronoun, in the same number and gender as the substantive or ANTECEDENT.

In 1 Corinthians 11:24, the normal syntactical antecedent for the demonstrative pronoun would be arton (masculine singular accusative of artos, bread/loaf) in 11:23; it’s unstated in 11:24a as the object of what He broke. As the above Greek Grammar notes, one would normally expect the demonstrative pronoun (which most believe is recalling or referring to the substantive artos) to agree with artos in number and case – i.e., one would expect Jesus to use the masculine singular, houtos. Instead, one sees in 11:24 that He uses the neuter singular, touto. This thus suggests the possibility that Jesus’ use of touto does NOT in fact refer to the bread, but to His action or to the Seder or to the gathering itself, etc.

If, as you seem to suggest, the “touto” is supposed to refer to and agree in gender and number with the stated word soma (body), then the “this” must mean something OTHER THAN the bread He’s holding. What, D. Williams, would that be?

To continue/clarify:

This thus suggests the possibility that Jesus’ use of touto does NOT in fact refer to the bread, but to His action or to the Seder or to the gathering itself, etc. Or it could refer to the bread AS WELL AS SOMETHING ELSE or SOMETHING MORE.

He goes on and says, “Do THIS (again using touto) as My memorial.” This could very well mean that the Passover meal was now about HIM, and no longer about the Exodus from Egypt. Paul says that Christ is our Passover.

I think it’s a mistake and a misunderstanding of Jesus’ words and actions and the Passover context in which He said and did them to so literally identify the bread and wine with Jesus’ body and blood such as to insist that the bread and wine of communion become His literal/real body and blood (or, as the Catholic Church would say, His body, blood, soul and divinity).

Using a common sense, grammatical, historical hermeunetic here…given that this was a Jewish Passover meal where everything on the table is there to symbolize something (unleavened bread, hyssop, salt, etc.) it seems obvious that the original hearers would see Jesus words as an equivalent symbolic “meal” to do “in remembrance of me” as the Jews celebrated their “salvation by the lamb” from Egypt.

It seems to me that the symbolic ritual meaning is far more likely than a literal transmutation.

mbaker:

In John 6, the clear reference Jesus is making is to the manna, and not to the matzah of Passover.

And why did God give the Israelites manna? So they would learn that man does not live by bread alone, but by everything (Greek LXX panti rhêmati) proceeding from the mouth of God. (Deut. 8:3).

And in John 6, Jesus says that the words (ta rhêmata) which He has spoken to them are spirit and life.

They misunderstood His words then, and those who insist, based on John 6, that He was talking about the bread and wine literally turning into His body and blood misunderstand His words today.

EricW,
What does Koine Greek have to do with a scripture first given in Hebrew?

The manna from heaven was not the same thing as matzo. We know the matzo of passover was not to contain leaven, or yeast. That was what Jesus was referring to in the seder meal when he referred to himself in the seder. Unless you have been to a seder meal then you won’t understand the elements.

The manna from heaven was given after the Jews were freed from Egypt and wondered around the wildnerness. Manna contained honey which matzo did not. And we have to understand that Moses said the passover meal was to be eaten forever, throughout all generations.

We can’t apply Hellenistic viewpoints of Greek paganism to interpolate into Hebrew scripture. There was no manna given the night of the passover when the seder meal was instituted. It was the matzo.

Michael,
We know historically that it was those of the offspring of Puritanism who were staunch Calvinists who evangelized the Hawaiians and Polynesians while the same time enslaving them in the pineapple fields and stealing the throne in the name of the United States.

They did indeed convert Hawaii but at what cost? Does the end justify the means? That would be Machiavellian.

Kara Kittle:

Re: Koinê Greek vs. Hebrew: D. Williams is questioning my comments about the Greek demonstrative pronoun in 1 Corinthians 11:24. That is why I am asking about his knowledge of Koinê Greek.

Re: understanding Passover: I was raised Jewish – circumcised, bar-mitzvahed, the whole bit – and have even written a Passover Haggadah based on how the Feast would have been celebrated in the 1st-century (i.e., before the destruction of the Temple).

Re: Manna vs. Matzah: I’m speaking specifically about John 6. Some view John 6 as Eucharistic. I’m pointing out (agreeing with mbaker) that John 6 is about Manna, not Matzah. This weakens the Eucharistic identification of John 6, IMO.

Shalom!

‘What does Koine Greek have to do with a scripture first given in Hebrew?’

The Hebrew text is not the source for the cannonical Scriptures. All quotes in the New Testament of Old Testament Scripture comes from the Septugient (LXX). It is held that this translation was divinely inspired, since all NT references come from it and also doctrines can be found in it, such as the prophecy of the Virgin birth in Isaiah, resurrection of the dead in Maccabees. The Hebrew cannon became unreliable, especially after the diasporadic post-Judaic Council of Jamnia in 90 AD, convened in part to counteract the Christain movement by altering the Hebrew books and cannon.

1) It does seem, from our posts here, that the Bible itself – or especially, John 6? – does not seem obviously or irrefutably literal, physical, in its presentation of a passover or Eucharist. (If it presents a passover or eucharist at all? A per Eric’s point earlier, on its timing).

2) So that the very, literal Catholic understanding of the host – that it changes into a piece of literal, actual, human flesh, with veins and capillaries and so forth … would see rather gross and false to the Bible itself. Which spoke for example of the host being a “remembrance” and so forth.

3) However, what about the somewhat less literal nature, of the somewhat more sophisticated Catholic doctrine of transubstantiation? This doctrine to be sure, seems to insist that John 6 is a passover/Eucharist; and that the bread is Jesus’ “body.” However, transubstantiation, is somewhat less literal than our second point here; it says that the host does not visibly, physically change into actual flesh. But only changes in its (rather Platonic?) essence, or “Substance.”

And that substance is invisible. Which means that the host has undergone a rather subtle change; one that is even invisible. And you might even say, rather spiritual. The bread has an invisible spiritual “substance” in it, you could say.

4) So that in the end, the “Catholic” doctrine of transubstantiation (which was at times adopted by various Protestants too) comes rather close to the (today predominant Protestant) idea, of a purely symbolic – or at least, “spiritual,” presence.

5) So: could we almost reconcile the two different positions, Catholic and Protestant? By saying that God’s “spirit,” the spirit of his body, is found in the host?

6) In the name of … reconciliation? Ecumenism? A unified body of Christ?

Joe, nice. But I seriously doubt that a Catholic would be willing to give so much ground to say that they are really holding to a spiritaul real presence.

Eric,
I will take your expertise on the subject any time regarding Judaism.

Can Catholics and Protestants be reconciled, on the matter of the Eucharist/communion?

I’ve actually heard some of the more intellectual Catholic priests, try to finesse the difference between Catholicism’s “Real Presence” in “Substance” – by saying that God is really, “Substantially” there.

Seems a little sly. But? Then when we look at “substance” to be sure, it is of courses invisible; like a spirit.

So it might in fact be possible to reconcile the two. It’s commonly being tried these days, by some priests.

Might be hard to make it stick. But it might be worth a try.

Joe and GG:

But even though the Catholics and the Protestants might come to basic agreement on the “what” of the Eucharist, they would still be forbidden/prohibited from partaking of the same Eucharist.

(KK: I am no expert on Judaism – as they say, ask two Jews and you get three opinions! – but thanks for the kind words. FWIW re: Judaism, there is a wonderful film called USHPIZIN about a Hasidic couple and the trials they undergo at Sukkoth due to two unexpected visitors from the husband’s past. The husband and wife in the movie are an actual Hasidic husband and wife in real life, and it’s filmed in Mea(h) Shearim, the ultra-Orthodox Jewish section of Jerusalem. You can Netflix it; in fact, if you have Netflix, you can watch it instanly on your PC or TV. A friend and I watched it on the plane flight back from Jerusalem last month. Very inspiring.)

Joe: “Can Catholics and Protestants be reconciled, on the matter of the Eucharist/communion?”

Well, the Catholics that I know regard the Real Presence in the Elements of the Eucharist as a 1st-order, non-negotiable doctrine. If Protestants want to be genuinely reconciled to Catholics on this matter, then Protestants must stipulate and believe in the Real Presence as well.

EricW,
I saw that. Good movie. Wasn’t it centered also on their inability to have children to which she felt shame in because somehow her tradition dictated that for her to be proper she had to have children?

I also saw others because we have Shalom TV on demand. I watch it sometimes and enjoy it.

Yep, that’s the movie.

Erik W.

1) To be sure, though the “what” of the Eucharistic and Protestant communions might be reconciled, there is a remaining problem.

2) The problem – as you hinted – is the political or institutional side of the Eucharist. That is, the Church insists that anyone who takes communion in its churches, must be obedient to the Church, and Pope. Which would rule out any Protestant.

However, just as it is not that hard to fix the “what,” there are ways to fix even this difference; and even reconcile it all to Judaism too.

Look for that; even in the near future. Though not from a Pope, or any conventional religious leader. Obviously; since doctrinal convention emphasizes differences; and constantly militates against unity.

Read some of the more liberal/intellectual literature; which since it is liberal, and intellectual, can easily get past many minor differences.

But also watch for a unifying figure, or doctrine. That comes to unite “all.”

Interestingly, there are some Catholics who take Holy Communion without believing in the Real Presence.

GG,

I am curious as to who or what you think this may be: “But also watch for a unifying figure, or doctrine. That comes to unite “all.”

And do you think this would be a good thing or a negative thing?

Eric:
“Then what does the “this” refer to? Are you saying that Jesus is saying, “This body is my body”????”

“Mt 17:5 This (masc) is My beloved Son(masc)”

Are you saying God was saying “My Son is my Son”?

Rom. 11:27 “THIS(fem) IS MY COVENANT(fem).

Are you saying God is saying “My covenant is my covenant”?

1John 1:5 “This(fem) is the message(fem)”

By my count there is something around 55 case of someone saying “this is the xxxx” in the New Testament. I can find only one where the “this” refers to the noun and the cases do not agree:

Acts 8:10 οὗτός ἐστιν ἡ δύναμις τοῦ θεοῦ

But in this case, the “this” refers to a person as in “this man”, and in Greek the gender of the person overrides the gender of the strict grammar.

As to your quote that “a substantive, once used, may be recalled”, there is no substantive in Jesus’ words about the bread. That’s the the problem with your argument.

1 Corinthians 11:24 changes nothing, because Paul is quoting Jesus, not making his own statement about the bread.

Even if he hadn’t been, you haven’t convinced me that the “this is …” construction would usually not agree, except when the “this” refers to another antecedent, rather than the thing immediately referred to. (Such as 1Jn 4:10 “This(neut) is love(fem)… that he sent his Son”. The “this” here clearly refers to the stanza coming after. ) although even this isn’t consistent, because we have 1Jn 5:14 “This(fem) is the confidence(fem) which we have before Him, that…”. It seems to me that what naturally rolls off the Greek tongue is case that agrees.

But you seem to be arguing that it isn’t even normal for the “this” to agree with the “is xxx” by saying:

“then the “this” must mean something OTHER THAN the bread He’s holding.”

.. when I see no basis for that argument at all.

“This could very well mean that the Passover meal was now about HIM, and no longer about the Exodus from Egypt.”

So now you’ve gone beyond even Zwingli that the bread isn’t even meant to signify his body, but rather the situation in general is meant to signify his body? Come now.

He gave them bread and said THIS is my body. AND THEN he gave them wine saying THIS is my blood. He didn’t give them bread and wine and THEN say “this is my body and blood”.

Paul says 1Cor. 10:16 Is not the cup of blessing which we bless a sharing in the blood of Christ? Is not the bread which we break a sharing in the body of Christ?

He doesn’t say “is not the cup and bread a sharing in the passover meal”.

“the bulk of recent research on the Real Presence supports two hypotheses. First, there has been some real decline in the belief of Catholics in the Real Presence.

More recent research shows that a majority of Catholics, including young Catholics, still agree with the church’s teaching that the bread and wine actually become the body and blood of Christ.”

From here.

Minor correction, 1Jn 4:10 says “IN this is love”, so you wouldn’t even be able to cite this as really equivilent. When John says 2John 6 καὶ αὕτη ἐστὶν ἡ ἀγάπη, the cases agree again.