He never said His body; a human body isn't even something that is/can be said. Words are things people can say, whereas human bodies are not. Also, the Bible does not even record Him as having ever said the phrase "His body" in any of His recorded, face-to-face, in-person, in-the-flesh conversations with people. He did say "my body", however, by which (I take it) He was referring to His body, and thus not referring to something that was not His body, such as one or more morsels of bread.
He doesn't say His blood, because, like a human body, blood is not something one says/can say. One can certainly say things about blood -- whether about their own blood, or about some other party's blood, or about both; one can say the word "blood" and thereby either refer to blood or not refer to blood; but no one says blood.
You know quotation marks didn't exist when the Bible was originally written, right? And that Jesus was aware that quotation marks weren't a thing, when He spoke, knowing what would be recorded?
I'm sure you know that.
My mistake! Seriously, though: saying what you just said is akin to saying "I never use sentences." For, on the contrary, you're using "My" capitalized when talking about yourself, right there, in your very sentence that reads "I never use "My" capitalized when I am talking about me."
SUPRA.
Either a piece of bread is broken, or it's not broken. To say "it's broken...symbolically" is to utter nonsense.
Oh. So ... is the consecrated host, His body, or no? Because it either is or it isn't, and to say, "It is ... symbolically" seems ... to be "utter nonsense."
Wouldn't you agree? I mean you said it.
(Except where you said, "No, it's a verb, but you used it as a noun, so you shouldn't have used quotation marks there.") That's equivocation.
You said your "priest" only breaks the piece of bread he eats, and does not break the piece of bread he hands to you to eat. Chanting "it's broken...symbolically" does not change the fact that the unbroken piece of bread he hands you is an unbroken piece of bread.
Well, I have received nonetheless, actually broken host before, it's rare, but not rare enough to just say it never happens. Such as if Mass was well attended, and the priest needs to break up even the little hosts, just so that everybody gets enough, which is just a tiny amount, barely large enough to appear to be obv bread. So that no one goes without.
You see how your contention here has fallen flat? Because obv when I do receive broken host, nothing is different, because what really matters is the words of consecration which the ministerial priest said when holding the elements. "This is My body; this is My blood; this do."
Are you asking if the pronoun "this" is a pronoun? "This" is a pronoun. When Jesus says "This is my body", by His pronoun "this" He is referring to His body, and thus, He is not referring to one or more morsels of bread, or any other thing that is not His body.
You're capturing the importance of the words of consecration. Now, what about BEFORE He said those words? Bread, or nah?
Some of the time you seem to be saying He is referring to His body by His pronoun "this". But you also turn around and say He is, by His pronoun "this", referring to something that is not His body. See, that's where you derail: the times when you say He is referring, by His pronoun "this", to something that is not His body.
Your theology of the incarnation itself is actually limited, which is why you're thinking about this the way you are. You do understand that when you think of His body, meaning what on a crucifix is called His corpus, that you're thinking about God, simpliciter, or God, directly. Not like, God is associated with Jesus's body, but that God IS Jesus's body?
But if we took some skin cells off His arm and looked at them under a microscope, would we see God? Wouldn't we just see cells, and nuclei, and cytoplasm? But it's actually God. I mean stands to reason. Must be. So how do ... how do we make any sense of that at all? In fact, sense of our faith at all? How can we tell people that this flesh and blood Man Who walked the Earth, IS God?
A strand of His hair isn't a strand of God's hair—it IS God, at least while it's on His head, because He IS God. It's an ontological fact. And you can't say, "Well yes, He is God, but not His PHYSICAL features," which is Gnostic, and Docetism. So therefore His hair, and His skin cells, ARE God.
You folks, don't get that. You haven't drunk the Kool-aid. Jesus is God, simpliciter, unconditionally and without qualification. We have no difficulty believing that what appears to be bread and wine, is ACTUALLY God, because while Jesus Himself APPEARED to be a mere man, he was ACTUALLY God too. And He's the One Who SAID, the words of consecration.