One point that I want to contribute here is on the topic of Jesus’ “physical” presence in the Eucharist. Trevin you use that word several times but it is not part of the Church’s explanation of the Real Presence. The Council of Trent said that Jesus is “really, truly, and substantially” present in the Eucharist. The choice for this wording comes from an attempt to form a coherent explanation of several different facts.
Fact 1: Jesus says that His body and blood are true food and true drink – if He were talking symbolically why use the word “true” and why let so many people misinterpret these words as we see in John 6/
Fact 2: At the Last Supper Jesus take bread and says “This is my body” and takes wine and says “this is my blood”. It’s the language of “is” which is the language of ontology or being. Jesus doesn’t say “Here is my body” but “THIS IS my body”
Fact 3: In the writings of the Church Fathers we can see a literal interpretation of these statements. Augustine says that Jesus held himself in his hands.
Fact 4: At the Last Supper and at Mass the appearance of bread and wine remain even after Jesus or the priest says “This is my body”.

Because the appearance of bread and wine remain we avoid the language of the “physical”. But what transubstantiation does mean is that you can no longer says that there is bread on the altar. It may look, smell, and taste like bread but it is Christ Himself. There is no bread. That the appearance of bread remains is itself a miracle. We believe this because Jesus said so as the Tradition teaches and as recorded by Sacred Scripture. God bless you in your search for His Truth.

In the interest of full disclosure: I found your blog via a search on the Saddleback Forum, and your collection helped me a great deal. My husband and I (and our children) are Catholic, but not Roman Catholic. We are believers in the Real Presence, which means that if we are wrong, we are in idolatry, so this is a serious issue. Our understanding of transubstantiation is that a natural element (accident, to describe it like Thomas Aquinas) must give way to the supernatural. That Jesus’ presence forces the natural to give way. This doesn’t necessarily mean that the molecular level is changed, but that is certainly not impossible.

I appreciate the level of discussion you are having here. It is respectful, and thoughtful, while not being wishy washy or self-deprecating. I imagine you may have already discovered Touchstone magazine, but if not, I recommend it to you.

The problem with what you write is that the Church does not teach that the Eucharist is an action that is primarily ours. In fact, the Church does not teach that the Eucharist sacrifice is any way ours!!! It alone is the work of God, who through His Spirit (the Epliclesis) in Christ makes this present. Thus, the priest prays in the concluding doxology (through Him, with Him, and in Him, in the unity of the Holy Spirit all glory and honor is yours almighty Father). I encourage you to read the Catechism and its treatment on the Eucharist.