Look, Catholics tell us continually that we have to eat the LITERAL body and blood of Christ and that is what He meant when the crowds left Him because they thought LITERAL flesh and blood.
Some Catholics tell us that the actual, true, real change happens after we swallow it so nobody can deny or disprove their claim that it's the LITERAL actual, real flesh and blood.
You just have to take it by faith that the change happened because it's where nobody can see.
How convenient.
And now y'all tell us that it's not LITERAL literal, but figurative literal, or something.
That we're not really eating the LITERAL flesh and blood, but something that changes into it, or something like that.
Y'all want to get on the same page?
The simplest, easiest explanation is that it's real, literal, actual bread and wine that represents a spiritual reality. It's a picture in the physical that we humans need to understand the spiritual truth that Jesus was teaching. And it is NOT that Jesus is teaching us to violate the perpetual ordinance given before the Law, reiterated in the Law and again reiterated under the New Covenant, that the eating of blood is expressly forbidden by God.
The interpretation of the bread and wine being nothing more than symbolic representation of spiritual truths fits the best with overall interpretation of Scripture and does not contradict the weigh of teaching throughout Scripture to NEVER eat the blood.
Jesus does not inhabit a wheat wafer, a host, or anything other than the believer, who is the temple of the Holy Spirit. Christ in me, the Hope of glory.
I don't need to eat Him to have Him living in me. He's in there 24/7. If He's already there, I don't have to do anything to put Him there where He already is.
ST, 3rd Part, Questions 73-83 (but 80-83 are not as relevant, focus on 75-77)