Quote:
Metaphysics is a philosophy. It is "man's wisdom" and it is foolishness with God. Yet you find it necessary to turn to this vain philosophy rather than to God's word to explain the Roman "faith".


Metaphysics is the philosophy of what does or does not exist, and how things exist. You also use metaphysics, as you most likely beleive things such as "God exists" and "this computer" exists, beliefs which I also share. To simply state that "X exists" or "Y exists in this way", is practically speaking a metaphysical statement. When you state that the Eucharist is only symbolic, you are makeing a metaphysical claim. In this particular case, I turned to metaphysics becuase you asked a metaphysical question, namely:

Quote:
Tell me, how can you "chew up" that which you believe is the literal Jesus Christ without breaking "His" bones?


You did not ask for an argument from Sacred Scripture concerning the Real Presence; you asked, if Christ's Body is physically present, how it is possible to consume said body without breaking his bones. I responded by reiterating what the Catholic Church has taught concerning the nature of Christ's presence, transubstantiation. As seen in Aquinas' treatment of the topic, transubstantiaion assumes that, as a matter of faith, the Body and Blood of Christ are present--transubstantiation goes on to propose how these are present.

Quote:
If you don't believe that Jesus Christ IS physically present, and if the "infallible" Pope Gregory VII were still in power, you would be in a heap of trouble as the "priest" Berengarius found himself to be.


Incorrect. Let us see what I wrote in my first post:

Quote:
I beleive that the body and blood, soul and divinity of Jesus Christ are truely, really, and substantially present in the Eucharist


Berengarius stated:

Quote:
I believe in my heart and openly profess that the bread and wine placed upon the altar are, by the mystery of the sacred prayer and the words of the Redeemer, substantially changed into the true and life-giving flesh and blood of Jesus Christ our Lord...They are present not only by means of a sign and of the efficacy of the sacrament, but also in the very reality and truth of their nature and substance.


As you can see, I am in complete agreement with Gregory VII, Berengarius, and Augustine. While stressing that the Body and Blood of Christ are truly present, not in the manner of a sign or symbol, none of these men stated that the Eucharist is a physical presence, but rather a substantial one, present the way a substance is present and not the way materiality is present.

I also "believe in my heart and openly confess" the quote you posted concerning the nature of the Eucharistic sacrifice.

Quote:
Now you want us to believe that all of these "infallible" pronouncements are nothing more than "metaphysical" dissertations?


Nothing of the sort, although I'm don't think any of them fall under the charism of infallibilty, with the possible exception of Gregory VII's statement. Augustine was not pope, so his statement could not be one of the few infallible statements pope's make. If you would like to read what Catholics consider an infallible teaching, turn to the Council of Trent, Session 13. For recent teachings not classified as infallibe in themselves, but which re-iterate the same teaching on the the Eucharist, I refer to Paul VI's encyclical Mysterium Fidei, as well as John Paul II's Ecclesia de Eucharistica, and of course, The Catechism of the Catholic Church

Returning to your query, the statements of the persons are not merely metaphysical dissertations; for the most part, like the quote from Augustine, they touch upon the dogma of the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist, which is a matter of faith. It is no carnal vision or philosophy that informs us that Christ's Body and Blood are present--it is the eyes of faith, opened by Scripture and secure in their vision by the Holy Spirit. Faith informs us that the Body and Blood of Christ are present, faith based upon the testimony of Scripture as well as the early Church Fathers; after it is transubstantiation which proposes how these are present.

As St. Ambrose writes (On the Mysteries):
Quote:
Perhaps you will say, "I see something else, how is it that you assert that I receive the Body of Christ?"...But why make use of arguments? Let us use the examples He gives, and by the example of the Incarnation prove the truth of the mystery. Did the course of nature proceed as usual when the Lord Jesus was born of Mary? If we look to the usual course, a woman ordinarily conceives after connection with a man. And this body which we make is that which was born of the Virgin. Why do you seek the order of nature in the Body of Christ, seeing that the Lord Jesus Himself was born of a Virgin, not according to nature? It is the true Flesh of Christ which crucified and buried, this is then truly the Sacrament of His Body.



Laudetur Jesum Christum!

PS: I am happy to see you acknowledge St. Augustine as believing and teaching the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist. Some have attempted to deny this fact.