My brother, I personally can't go on with endless quote bubbles... it's just too confusing. So, summarising: 1. The idea that the Eucharist is part of the one sacrifice for the remission of sins seems abominable. The Cross becomes a nebulous non-event, and idolatry is very easy. Are you sure the original text says "this blood is being shed for the remission of sins", rather than "is shed" in the sense of "will be shed"? We can use such a term for future tense, even if it sounds like the present tense: "This blood is shed for you" - i.e. it is incarnate and exists solely to be shed for you (upon the Cross, tomorrow). The very fact that He said the Eucharist is for a remembrance means it's a remembrance of a specific event, yet participating in the event spiritually. To be brief: Christ was in no pain or agony during the Last Supper, so where was this shedding of blood for the remission of sins? One Catholic priest told me that since Jesus separates the Body from the Blood as distinct elements, it literally is a death or shedding of blood, since the loss of all the blood from the body is death. This has profound consequences for our salvation, and I think you can understand why I am very concerned and extremely hesitant about it. 2. The way you put David's allegory, my use of it as an example makes no sense. Still, it was just one example that Scripture, and the Jewish mindset, did use idiomatic positives that may sound literal, but they were clearly metaphors. 3. Thomas said the body is the form of the soul, expressing the soul's identity. Vegetable souls express themselves with the matter of leaves and stems, animate souls by corresponding body parts and faculties, etc. A person is not necessarily a unity of body and soul, since the divine person called the Son of God had no body until the Incarnation. The very fact that our bodies die and disintegrate, while our souls remain extant, disproves the idea that we "are" our bodies. I took from Aquinas what I thought sensible and convincing, not everything all at once. He convinced me about the existence of God any many other things though, so you'll have to excuse me if I am still caught up in a Thomist mindset. 4. The Divine Person with glorified human soul, called Jesus, is present everywhere as God, definitely. I do hope you don't take it to mean a sort of polytheistic presence, though, which would make the Eucharist pointless. Christ's one human body cannot be present everywhere, can it? He'd have to utterly destroy the very nature of the human body in order for it to be that way, in which case He would not be truly "one of us". Of course, you said you don't believe the bread becomes the literal body of Christ, yet it is the body of Christ. I agree with you (I think?) but doesn't it all come off as rather silly? It isn't the body, but it is? This set of questions is precisely what I meant by conjecture. I didn't want to appear to be refusing to answer your statements, some of which just struck me as "off". I am not a very intelligent person, and there are many things I do not know about the faith (just having been baptised in Easter 2011). I am trying to learn, and often do that more by rash objections than by humble questions.