What it does.
Get out your dictionary.
ANY dictionary.
See if you can find a definition of "is" of "changed from one reality to an entirely different one via the precise physics mechanism of an alchemic transubstantiation leaving behind an unknowable mixture of reality and Aristotelian accidents" (What the RCC dogmatically insists the word "is" means)
OR
"not" (what Zwingli and most modern American "Evangelicals" dogmatically insist the word means.)
Look up the word in your dictionary, because you seem to be having a really hard time with the word (reminds me of Bill Clinton).
What follows "is" in the texts? Body, Blood, bread, wine, forgiveness.
What is mentioned AFTER the "is?" Body, blood, bread, wine, forgiveness.
Therefore, what "is?" Body, blood, bread, wine, forgiveness.
Ain't rocket science.
No one had the difficulty you are having for over 1500 years.
No one in my First Communion Class (all Second Graders) had the problem you do on understanding this.
They ain't hard words to understand: Body, blood, bread, wine, forgiveness.
All are pretty simple words, easy to understand.
No explanation or hermeneutics or "nuance" needed.
The "IS" refers to what IS ..... really...... present......
It's called "Real Presence."
Simple.
Except for those who insist that what Jesus and Paul said can't be true and so appoint self to correct them.
Please respect others who also have made up their mind that is has a symbolic meaning in regard to communion.
Not yet has anyone (including you or I) asked anyone to agree with them on anything. Everyone has the "right" to hold what they choose to hold, even if it's wrong. No one in this thread has challenged that. There is no disrespect that I can see, anywhere in this thread. But realize, not everyone here is an extreme relativist who hold that truth is a phantom and ALL there is is opinion. Most here hold that truth exists and that it matters. Opinions (while respected and welcomed) don't necessarily equal truth, some here hold.
But IMO, if you are going to join with a small minority (existing for less than 500 years) that REJECTS the universal, historic view - you need something more than Zwingli's "what Jesus said
can't be true so it must be metaphor." What I see in the Zwinglian repudiation is a whole dogma based
ENTIRELY on words completely missing in any eucharistic text... while ignoring EVERY actual word in the text except two: bread and wine. And the whole "This can't be true so it's not; I appoint me to correct Jesus" seems to me to be a bad way to do theology. Anyone may take that approach if they so choose, but I think it's a bad approach (doesn't make THEM bad, just the approach; no one in this thread has called ANYONE bad.).
You have been given AMBLE opportunity to show why "is" means "not" and why most of what follows "is" isn't. I think you have practically been BEGGED to do that, but you have not. Others have.... most here are WELL aware of the whole Zwinglian argument of "it cannot be true so it's not, I'll appoint me to tell you what Jesus SHOULD have said so that it can be true". We've heard it MANY times. They end up gutting the whole thing, of all the words (except bread and wine) and then can't tell you why it's SO important, why participating wrong brings judgement, etc..... nor why not one Christian in over 1500 years ever had such an idea. But you have been given LOTS of opportunity to present your case, evidence that the only words in any eucharistic text that mean what they mean is "bread" and "wine." Now only saying, "I'm entitled to my OPINION" (a point no one has ever challenge) well..... it's entirely unrelated to your opinion being true .
.
