It's interesting at about 7.00 or so, Bauerlein reads a commission statement (Catholic/Anglican dialogue) that says that "becoming" doesn't imply a material change. But, doesn't the doctrine of transubstantiation, as Aquinas used Aristotle, mean that the matter (substance?) changes, but not the form? Just curious. I think if they can agree on "real presence" even if they disagree on the minutiae, then all for the better.
"Becoming does not imply a material change"
"This becoming does not follow the physical laws of this world"
I interpret them to mean here no change in the look and feel. The becoming is real, but it does not affect the look and feel. If we were both Aristotelians we would say the accidents (or appearances) don't change but the essence (or form) changes. It's no longer bread, it's Jesus. Not Jesus exactly as he was when he walked the earth, but actually, without appearing to be so. I think they uncarefully used the term 'material', which can be thought of in multiple ways. Better if they had not used that specific word.
I'm Reformed, but I have never liked Calvin's position, which is since Christ is not ubiquitous (as Luther thought), because Christ is at the right hand of the Father (whatever that means) then the "real presence" is somehow a transmission of the Spirit who transcends time and space, connecting us to Christ in heaven...Ugh. Whatever. It's a mystery, but Calvin's rendering isn't that helpful, to me.
It IS a mystery. In fact the word 'sacramentum' is a cognate with the Greek word 'mysyerion'. So a sacrament is both a sign and a mystery. It is real enough, even earthy enough, and yet transcendent because it is of God.
Back in my salad years, when I was green in judgment, I couldn't even see the difference between the Calvinist and Catholic views. Or not enough that it matters. But then when looking at the Orthodox view, which is essentially Catholic but not defining everything so tightly, I saw that the Calvinist view was trying to avoid the realism that the Scripture is soaked in. And that the deniers of the Real Presence could be encouraged by the Calvinist view. Luther and the Orthodox and the Catholics went for, or actually kept the realism of the Scriptures. Calvin opened the door to a 'symbolism'. To the extent that the symbolism is a reaction against the overtheologizing of the Catholics, I get it. But if they would study Aquinas I think they could see some real merit in his views.
That would take some calm study and dialogue. I think it's possible to do, even though I am seldom encouraged about the prospects of ecumenism any longer. But some people can see some things which make a difference. This conversation based upon the First Things podcast might do that.
Edit: I just realized what forum this is. Sorry y'all.
Your comments above are EXACTLY the kind of thing I was hoping for. Not snide, not attacking, personal, hopeful, inquiring.