Parsing the Eucharist II

Of course the issue which has sucked all the oxygen out of the room regarding the USCCB virtual meeting is whether or not President Joe Biden should be allowed to received Communion.  But that was actually not the only issue discussed.  One of them was the ongoing discussion of the infamous survey which indicated that 60-70% of Catholics did not believe in the Real Presence. This has been the cause of real anguish among clergy, catechists, and hierarchy who despair that we are failing to pass along the basics of the faith to Catholics.  I think these people should take heart that the situation is not as dire as they imagine.  I actually wrote about this in 2019 , hence the title of this post as Parsing the Eucharist II. I still feel that the survey was flawed; and how could it fail to be, since it tried to describe one of the "big three" mysteries of Catholic belief, the other two being the Trinity and the Incarnation.  

I have since some across an article  by Deacon Steven Greydanus which is the best explanation I have come across of  Christ's real presence in the Eucharist:

"When I was first trying, as a young non-Catholic, to understand what exactly Catholic theology claims in regard to Christ’s presence in the Eucharist, I was much helped by the discovery that there is one important way in which Christ is said not to be present in the Eucharist.  He is said to be present really and substantially, physically and spiritually, in his body and in his blood, in his humanity and divinity — but he is “not present as in a place,” according to Thomas Aquinas, or “not locally present” in the words of Cardinal Newman."

"Only in heaven is Christ’s body “locally present” or “present as in a place”; his mode of presence in the Eucharist is different and “nonlocal.”

"What does “nonlocal presence” mean? To approach this idea, here are some practical implications:

1. When the priest elevates the host, Christ’s body is not elevated in space. You can move the host around as much as you want, but Christ is not moved in space.
2. Christ’s body is not spatially distributed throughout the host (“after the proper manner of dimensive quantity” in Aquinas’s language), the way locally present bodies are distributed in space, with part here and part there. Rather, the entire Christ is fully present in every particle of the host and in every drop of the precious “blood.” (I use quotation marks to emphasize that the contents of the chalice are the whole Christ, body and blood, as much as the host. When we differentiate between the sacramental “body” and “blood,” as if Jesus’ body and blood were separated in the sacrament, we are speaking symbolically, not literally.)   
3. As a direct consequence of this non-distributed mode of presence, when the priest breaks the host, Christ is not broken. And, of course, when we chew the host, Christ is not mangled.
4. Also, obviously, twice as much Eucharist is not twice as much Christ. You don’t receive any more Jesus if you receive both the host and from the chalice, nor do you receive less if you receive only one or the other. Half a host, or any fraction of a host, or two hosts, are all exactly the same: the whole Christ.

I can see the impossibility of fitting these concepts into three sentences of a survey.  A mystery by definition can't be understood by our finite minds. Maybe the clergy should relax a bit, Catholics may be in a better place as far as faith than they imagine.  It's okay to believe, but not entirely understand.  I notice that virtually everyone either genuflects or bows in the direction of the tabernacle when they enter the church. They know that Christ is really present.