Transubstantiation

[Mungo]

Transubstantiation.

Part 1
What does the Catholic Church mean by Transubstantiation and what is the Biblical basis for it?

There are two steps needed here:

1. What doctrine does the Catholic Church mean to express by Transubstantiation

2. What is the biblical basis for that doctrine.

This rather like - what doctrine do we mean by Trinity, and then what is the biblical basis for that doctrine.

The dogmatic definition was made at the Council of Trent in session 13:
And because that Christ, our Redeemer, declared that which He offered under the species of bread to be truly His own body, therefore has it ever been a firm belief in the Church of God, and this holy Synod doth now declare it anew, that, by the consecration of the bread and of the wine, a conversion is made of the whole substance of the bread into the substance of the body of Christ our Lord, and of the whole substance of the wine into the substance of His blood; which conversion is, by the holy Catholic Church, suitably and properly called Transubstantiation.

[I’m using the translation of J. Waterworth, published in 1848 & put on-line by the Hanover Historical Texts Project - http://history.hanover.edu/texts/trent/trentall.html]

Substance (and accidents) are philosophical terms.

Substance
“A being whose essence requires that it exist in itself. It is an ens per se (a being by itself) or ens in se (a being in itself). It is commonly distinguished from an accident, whose essence is to exist in another, that is, in a substance. (Etym. Latin substantia, that which stands under, principle, foundation.)”.

Accident
“That which is not of the essence of something. In a logic a predicable accident is a predicate incidentally attributed to a subject. In metaphysical philosophy, a predicamental accident is a category of being whose nature is not to exist in itself but in another as in a subject. It is not a thing but the mode of a thing. Of the nine categories of accident, relation, quality, and quantity are the most important. (Etym. Latin accidens, a happening; something that is added; chance; nonessential quality; from accidere, to come to pass, happen, befall.)”
(both definitions from Fr. John Hardon's Modern Catholic Dictionary on catholicculture.org)

Colour, weight, shape etc. exist not in themselves but in something. They exist as belonging to something. We do not see whiteness, but a white cow or a white stone. Substance in not observable. All we can observe are the accidents (properties) that adhere to a substance.

Transubstantiation says that the substance of bread changes into the substance of Christ’s body. The accidents of the bread remain and adhere to nothing. This could not happen naturally as accidents require a substance to adhere to. But we believe that this can (and does) happen supernaturally. God directly sustains the accidents of bread in existence.

We cannot detect this change but we “live by faith”. (Heb 10:38)

(Note: what I have said above (and later) applies to the change of the substance of bread into the substance of Christ’s body. The same applies to the changing of the substance of wine into the substance of Christ’ blood.)

 

[Mungo]

Part 2 - The Biblical basis

Jesus is having his final meal with the disciples. Tomorrow he will die. He had been looking forward sharing this with them. Why? Because it will be a very significant meal.

He takes the standard Passover meal and gives it a whole new meaning. He is not playing word games with them. He makes some very simple statements and gives them some very simple commands

"Take, eat; this IS my body." (not represents, not symbolises)

"Drink of it, all of you; for this IS my blood (not represents, not symbolises)

This was so important that this ritual was one of the key items of the early Christian assembly.
“They devoted themselves to the apostles’ teaching and fellowship, to the breaking of bread and the prayers” (Acts 2:42)

Catholics take these words of Jesus literally, as we believe Jesus intended them to be.

Consider Jesus’ words in the context of John’s gospel. John was writing many years after the other Gospels. He includes many items that the other did not. He gave no account of the Last Supper meal but did give the bread of life discourses. I think this is because the Last Supper memorial was so well established that he had no need to, but he did want to give the context for it. In Chapter 6 we hear Jesus gradually expounding about how he was the Bread of Life and they would have to eat his body and drink his blood to have life (Jn 6:51-58).

It starts with the feeding of the five thousand, a miracle of multiplication, and a giving of bread which recalls the bread from heaven (manna) that the Israelites received in the desert. He then crossed the sea of Galilee and the crowds follow. He takes this opportunity to remind them of the miracle of the loaves and to move on from there.

“Amen, amen, I say to you, you are looking for me not because you saw signs but because you ate the loaves and were filled.” (verse 26).
He continues (verse 27): “Do not work for food that perishes but for the food that endures for eternal life, which the Son of Man will give you.”

Then in verse 30-31 they ask for sign – surprising seeing that they had already had one. “What sign can you do, that we may see and believe in you? What can you do? Our ancestors ate manna in the desert, as it is written: ‘He gave them bread from heaven to eat.’”

Jesus responds and casts out the bait…. “Amen, amen, I say to you, it was not Moses who gave the bread from heaven; my Father gives you the true bread from heaven. For the bread of God is that which comes down from heaven and gives life to the world.”

….and they take it “They said to him, Sir, give us this bread always”

Now he starts the teaching. Jesus said to them “I am the bread of life; whoever comes to me will never hunger, and whoever believes in me will never thirst………I came down from heaven”

He now has a dialogue going, “The Jews murmured about him because he said, ‘I am the bread that came down from heaven,’” and he continues on the bread theme “I am the bread of life. Your ancestors ate the manna in the desert, but they died; this is the bread that comes down from heaven so that one may eat it and not die.”

At this stage he seems to be still talking about normal bread, but he then takes it a step further.
“I am the living bread that came down from heaven; whoever eats this bread will live forever; and the bread that I will give is my flesh for the life of the world.”

This is strange talk: “The Jews quarrelled among themselves, saying, ‘How can this man give us (his) flesh to eat?’”

Jesus hammers home his point and emphasises he is talking literally about flesh and blood. This is no figurative language “Amen, amen, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you do not have life within you.”

He then switches the verb he uses for eating from phago to trogo which means chewing or gnawing to give added emphasis.
“Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him on the last day. For my flesh is true food, and my blood is true drink. Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me and I in him. Just as the living Father sent me and I have life because of the Father, so also the one who feeds on me will have life because of me. This is the bread that came down from heaven. Unlike your ancestors who ate and still died, whoever eats this bread will live forever.”

This upsets many listeners including many disciples who left. Does Jesus call them back and say “Hey, it was only figurative. I didn’t mean it literally”? No he doesn’t.

He turns to the twelve and says “Do you also want to leave?” This is a crunch point There is no compromise in this. He offers no further explanation. Jesus is saying:- I meant what I said. Do you believe in me?

The apostles are confused but Peter answers “Master, to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life. We have come to believe and are convinced that you are the Holy One of God.” Jesus has just told them that they must eat his flesh and drink his blood to have eternal life. Now Peter says you have the words of eternal life. So he is accepting that he has to literally eat Jesus’ flesh and drink his blood to have eternal life because Jesus has said it and Jesus is the Holy One of God, even though he does not understand how this can happen without there being some sort of horrible cannibalistic ritual. And Jesus does not enlighten them.

Now move on to the Last Supper. Jesus blesses the bread and wine. Does he say “Hey guys, remember that time a few weeks ago when I really got you wound up about eating my flesh and drinking my blood? You really fell for it. Of course I was just winding you up. You only have to eat this bread and drink this wine as a sort of symbolic action.”

No he says
This IS my body
This IS my Blood

Jesus said what he meant, and he meant what he said.

Paul recognised this:
“Whoever, therefore, eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of profaning the body and blood of the Lord. Let a man examine himself, and so eat of the bread and drink of the cup. For any one who eats and drinks without discerning the body eats and drinks judgment upon himself.” (1Cor 11:27-29).

Protestants try to claim that Jesus was only speaking metaphorically at the Last Supper. After all Jesus says things like:
"Truly, truly, I say to you, I am the door of the sheep. (Jn 10:7)
"I am the true vine, and my Father is the vinedresser. (Jn 15:1)
And we do not think Jesus is literally a gate or a vine. That is true but there is a context in those sayings both in the surrounding text and in the lives of the hearers. There is no context for a person holding (what looks like) a piece of bread and saying “"Take, eat; this is my body."”, in the surrounding text or in the lives of the hearers, for it to be a metaphor. The context to understand Jesus words at the last Supper is John 6:51-58.

In John 6:51-58 (and the preceding verses) Jesus prepares the apostles for what he is to do at the Last Supper.

“For my flesh is food indeed, and my blood is drink indeed.
He who eats my flesh and drinks my blood abides in me, and I in him.”

“Indeed” is Strong G230:- “indeed, surely, of a surety, truly, of a (in) truth, verily, very.”
In other words – this is not a metaphor. His flesh really is food. His blood really is drink.

In Biblical terms to eat someone’s flesh, as a metaphor, is to persecute them and bring them to ruin.

“When the wicked, even mine enemies and my foes, came upon me to eat up my flesh, they stumbled and fell” (Psalm 27:2). See also Is 9:20, 49:26, Micah 3:2-3.

And from the NT:- “Go to now, ye rich men, weep and howl for your miseries that shall come upon you…..Your gold and silver is cankered; and the rust of them shall be a witness against you, and shall eat your flesh as it were fire.” (Jas 5:1,3). See also Rev 17:16.

Jesus was most certainly not using eat my flesh as a metaphor. He meant it literally.
But we ask like Mary at the Annunciation “How shall this be?”. It sounds completely repugnant.

God’s wonderful answer is Transubstantiation. We eat the substance of Christ's body but under the appearance and taste (accidents) of bread.

 

[Mungo]

Part 3 - Early Christian Witness

The early church fathers understood Jesus as speaking literally. From the first two centuries:-

Ignatius of Antioch
“I have no delight in corruptible food, nor in the pleasures of this life. I desire the bread of God, the heavenly bread, the bread of life, which is the flesh of Jesus Christ, the Son of God, who became afterwards of the seed of David and Abraham; and I desire the drink of God, namely His blood, which is incorruptible love and eternal life." (Epistle to the Romans 7:3 [A.D. 110]).

Ignatius of Antioch
" But consider those who are of a different opinion with respect to the grace of Christ which has come unto us, how opposed they are to the will of God....

" They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer, because they confess not the Eucharist to be the flesh of our Saviour Jesus Christ, which suffered for our sins, and which the Father, of His goodness, raised up again. Those, therefore, who speak against this gift of God, incur death in the midst of their disputes. " (Epistle to the Smyrnaeans 6:2; 7:1 [A.D. 110]).

Justin Martyr
"And this food is called among us Εὐχαριστία [the Eucharist], of which no one is allowed to partake but the man who believes that the things which we teach are true, and who has been washed with the washing that is for the remission of sins, and unto regeneration, and who is so living as Christ has enjoined. For not as common bread and common drink do we receive these; but in like manner as Jesus Christ our Saviour, having been made flesh by the Word of God, had both flesh and blood for our salvation, so likewise have we been taught that the food which is blessed by the prayer of His word, and from which our blood and flesh by transmutation are nourished, is the flesh and blood of that Jesus who was made flesh." (First Apology 66:1-20 [A.D. 148]).

Irenaeus
"Moreover, how could the Lord, with any justice, if He belonged to another father, have acknowledged the bread to be His body, while He took it from that creation to which we belong, and affirmed the mixed cup to be His blood? (Against Heresies 4:33:2 [A.D. 180]).

Irenaeus
" He has acknowledged the cup (which is a part of the creation) as His own blood, from which He bedews our blood; and the bread (also a part of the creation) He has established as His own body, from which He gives increase to our bodies.

"When, therefore, the mingled cup and the manufactured bread receives the Word of God, and the Eucharist of the blood and the body of Christ is made, from which things the substance of our flesh is increased and supported, how can they affirm that the flesh is incapable of receiving the gift of God, which is life eternal, which [flesh] is nourished from the body and blood of the Lord, and is a member of Him?[1] (Against Heresies 5:2:2-3 [A.D. 180]).

Clement of Alexandria
"'Eat my flesh,' [Jesus] says, 'and drink my blood.' The Lord supplies us with these intimate nutrients. He delivers over his flesh and pours out his blood, and nothing is lacking for the growth of his children" (Paidagogos 1:6;43;3 [A.D. 202]).

Cyril of Jerusalem
"The bread and the wine of the Eucharist before the holy invocation of the adorable Trinity were simple bread and wine, but the invocation having been made, the bread becomes the body of Christ and the wine the blood of Christ" (Catechetical Discourses, Mystagogic 1, 19:7 [A.D. 350]).

Cyril of Jerusalem
"Do not, therefore, regard the bread and wine as simply that; for they are, according to the Master's declaration, the body and blood of Christ. Even though the senses suggest to you the other, let faith make you firm.

"Do not judge in this matter by taste, but be fully assured by the faith, not doubting that you have been deemed worthy of the body and blood of Christ...[Since you are] fully convinced that the apparent bread is not bread, even though it is sensible to the taste, but the body of Christ, and that the apparent wine is not wine, even though the taste would have it so,...partake of that bread as something spiritual, and put a cheerful face on your soul" (Catechetical Discourses; Mystagogic 4, 22:9 [A.D. 350]).

Theodore of Mopsuestia
"When [Christ] gave the bread he did not say, 'This is the symbol of my body,' but, 'This is my body.' In the same way, when he gave the cup of his blood he did not say, '‘This is the symbol of my blood,' but, 'This is my blood'; for he wanted us to look upon the [Eucharistic elements] after their reception of grace and the coming of the Holy Spirit not according to their nature, but receive them as they are, the body and blood of our Lord. We ought...not regard [the elements] merely as bread and cup, but as the body and blood of the Lord, into which they were transformed by the descent of the Holy Spirit" (Catechetical Homilies 5:1 [A.D. 428]).

---

Jesus explained the Eucharist best: "My flesh is true food, and my blood is true drink. Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me and I in him" (John 6:55) .

---

 

[SyrianMariam]

Thank you for posting this.

 

[hawkman]

We ought...not regard [the elements] merely as bread and cup, but as the body and blood of the Lord, into which they were transformed by the descent of the Holy Spirit"

We should regard the bread and cup as the body and blood of the Lord . Correct ?

 

[SyrianMariam]

We should regard the bread and cup as the body and blood of the Lord . Correct ?

The cup must be eaten!

 

[SyrianMariam]

Should Matthew 5:29 be taken literally? Since we are to literally drink human blood, should we also remove our eyes and hands?

 

[hawkman]

Should Matthew 5:29 be taken literally? Since we are to literally drink human blood, should we also remove our eyes and hands?

partake of that bread as something spiritual

We ought...not regard [the elements] merely as bread and cup, but as the body and blood of the Lord, into which they were transformed by the descent of the Holy Spirit"

The word regard .

I regard you SyrianMariam as a sister because we are both Christians , spiritual brother and sister .
But you are not my sister in the flesh .

 

[for_his_glory]

The wine only represents the blood of Jesus that was shed for our sins as He gave to drink of. The bread represents the flesh/body of Christ that was broken for us as He laid down His own life that we now can have eternal life with Him to all who will believe, John 3:16.

Institution of the Lord's Supper

Mat 26:26 And as they were eating, Jesus took bread, and blessed it, and brake it, and gave it to the disciples, and said, Take, eat; this is my body.
Mat 26:27 And he took the cup, and gave thanks, and gave it to them, saying, Drink ye all of it;
Mat 26:28 For this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins.
Mat 26:29 But I say unto you, I will not drink henceforth of this fruit of the vine, until that day when I drink it new with you in my Father's kingdom.

1Cor 10:16 The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not the communion of the blood of Christ? The bread which we break, is it not the communion of the body of Christ?
1Cor 10:17 For we being many are one bread, and one body: for we are all partakers of that one bread.

1Cor 11:23 For I have received of the Lord that which also I delivered unto you, That the Lord Jesus the same night in which he was betrayed took bread:
1Cor 11:24 And when he had given thanks, he brake it, and said, Take, eat: this is my body, which is broken for you: this do in remembrance of me.
1Cor 11:25 After the same manner also he took the cup, when he had supped, saying, This cup is the new testament in my blood: this do ye, as oft as ye drink it, in remembrance of me.
1Cor 11:26 For as often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do shew the Lord's death till he come.
1Cor 11:27 Wherefore whosoever shall eat this bread, and drink this cup of the Lord, unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord.
1Cor 11:28 But let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of that bread, and drink of that cup.

 

[Mungo]

We should regard the bread and cup as the body and blood of the Lord . Correct ?

Depends what you mean by regard. If you mean represents then no. If you mean is then yes

 

[Mungo]

The cup must be eaten!

The cup is drunk from.

 

[Mungo]

Should Matthew 5:29 be taken literally? Since we are to literally drink human blood, should we also remove our eyes and hands?

I don't see your point here.

 

[Mungo]

The wine only represents the blood of Jesus that was shed for our sins as He gave to drink of. The bread represents the flesh/body of Christ that was broken for us as He laid down His own life that we now can have eternal life with Him to all who will believe, John 3:16.

Institution of the Lord's Supper

Mat 26:26 And as they were eating, Jesus took bread, and blessed it, and brake it, and gave it to the disciples, and said, Take, eat; this is my body.
Mat 26:27 And he took the cup, and gave thanks, and gave it to them, saying, Drink ye all of it;
Mat 26:28 For this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins.
Mat 26:29 But I say unto you, I will not drink henceforth of this fruit of the vine, until that day when I drink it new with you in my Father's kingdom.

1Cor 10:16 The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not the communion of the blood of Christ? The bread which we break, is it not the communion of the body of Christ?
1Cor 10:17 For we being many are one bread, and one body: for we are all partakers of that one bread.

1Cor 11:23 For I have received of the Lord that which also I delivered unto you, That the Lord Jesus the same night in which he was betrayed took bread:
1Cor 11:24 And when he had given thanks, he brake it, and said, Take, eat: this is my body, which is broken for you: this do in remembrance of me.
1Cor 11:25 After the same manner also he took the cup, when he had supped, saying, This cup is the new testament in my blood: this do ye, as oft as ye drink it, in remembrance of me.
1Cor 11:26 For as often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do shew the Lord's death till he come.
1Cor 11:27 Wherefore whosoever shall eat this bread, and drink this cup of the Lord, unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord.
1Cor 11:28 But let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of that bread, and drink of that cup.

No it doesn't represent Christ's blood. It is Christ's blood in a very real way.

 

[SyrianMariam]

I don't see your point here.

Should we literally remove our eyes and hands, since we should also literally drink the blood of Christ?

 

[SyrianMariam]

No it doesn't represent Christ's blood. It is Christ's blood in a very real way.

What does it taste like?

 

[hawkman]

Depends what you mean by regard. If you mean represents then no. If you mean is then yes

I found an article on Substance and Accidents . Help me out Mungo and read it and tell me if this is your understanding too or can you give me a link you prefer for a study on substance and accidents .

Here is the article link Substance and Accidents: A Beginner’s Guide to Defending the Eucharist , SyrianMariam you may want to read it too .

 

[SyrianMariam]

Was the water Jesus turned into wine purely 'substantive'?

 

[Mungo]

Was the water Jesus turned into wine purely 'substantive'?

What do you mean by that?

 

[Mungo]

I found an article on Substance and Accidents . Help me out Mungo and read it and tell me if this is your understanding too or can you give me a link you prefer for a study on substance and accidents .

Here is the article link Substance and Accidents: A Beginner’s Guide to Defending the Eucharist , SyrianMariam you may want to read it too .

I'm not a theologian but it seems a very good explanation to me.
Thank you for finding that. I'll make a note of it..

 

[Simons]

Part 2 - The Biblical basis
….. He makes some very simple statements and gives them some very simple commands
"Take, eat; this IS my body." (not represents, not symbolises)
"Drink of it, all of you; for this IS my blood (not represents, not symbolises)

there isn't any need for Jesus to indicate that he was speaking symbolically. They were in the middle of a meal where the elements of the meal act as symbols of the Passover event. The disciples were all familiar with the use of symbols as part of that religious ritual, they could all see that the bread remained unchanged in his hands and so a symbolic meaning would have been the obvious, the expected and the common-sense understanding. On the other hand, if transubstantiation was what Jesus had in mind, then that concept cries out for a clarification. Without him expressly describing transubstantiation, how could the disciples be expected to understand that the substance of the bread had just been transformed into the substance of his body (without an accompanying change in the accidents of the two things)? Symbols were common and familiar to the disciples. Transubstantiation was something that they would have never even contemplated as a possibility. Given the Catholic claim I think it is more significant that he didn’t say, “Take, eat; this is the SUBSTANCE of my body."

This was so important that this ritual was one of the key items of the early Christian assembly.
“They devoted themselves to the apostles’ teaching and fellowship, to the breaking of bread and the prayers” (Acts 2:42)

I find there's a tendency among Catholics to assume any reference to breaking bread is a reference to the Eucharist (when it could be simply a reference to a common meal)

Catholics take these words of Jesus literally, as we believe Jesus intended them to be.

I don't think Catholics take these words literally. If the eating was literal then your teeth would actually chew his flesh, however, your teeth only chew the accidents of the bread and never touch his flesh. Literal eating would amount to cannibalism and what you do isn't that at all.

He now has a dialogue going, “The Jews murmured about him because he said, ‘I am the bread that came down from heaven,’” and he continues on the bread theme “I am the bread of life. Your ancestors ate the manna in the desert, but they died; this is the bread that comes down from heaven so that one may eat it and not die.”

yes, you are right about the reason for the murmuring. It wasn’t his (figurative claim) to be bread, but rather his (non-figurative claim) to have come down from heaven.

Jesus hammers home his point and emphasises he is talking literally about flesh and blood. This is no figurative language “Amen, amen, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you do not have life within you.”

You have offered nothing to prove that Jesus was speaking literally and not figuratively, other than your declaration that this was the case. No one that day would have made a literal interpretation of “eating his flesh”, as that would have required what was totally forbidden and repugnant, namely cannibalism. No one that day would have thought that a transubstantial eating was in mind as that concept wouldn’t be invented for centuries. The Jews asked, “How can this man give us his flesh to eat?”….and that is a question Jesus never answered except that:
a. he had already repeatedly stressed that eternal life was received by those that believed in him; and
b. then he stressed that eternal life was received by those that ate his flesh.
It seems rather obvious that he was (metaphorically) equating belief in him with eating his flesh.

He then switches the verb he uses for eating from phago to trogo which means chewing or gnawing to give added emphasis.
“Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him on the last day.

I don’t think John’s use of “trogo” helps the Catholic interpretation. How many billions of times have individual Catholics received the Mass? And in those billions and billions of attempts at “eating his flesh” has a single Catholic ever actually “trogo-ed” his flesh (as that verse declares to be necessary)? No, never, not even once. Catholics have trogo-ed bread and wafers (grinding them to mushy crumbs), but never has a Catholic ever actually “trogo-ed” the flesh of the Son of Man and so, according to those words of Christ, no Catholic would have life within him/her…that is, if you want to take “trogo” literally and not figuratively.

This upsets many listeners including many disciples who left. Does Jesus call them back and say “Hey, it was only figurative. I didn’t mean it literally”? No he doesn’t.

Did he call them back and say “Hey, it was only eating by way of transubstantiation that I had in mind. I didn’t mean cannibalism”? No, he didn’t…and it wasn’t his use of trogo that upset them, it was his claim to have come down from heaven.

He turns to the twelve and says “Do you also want to leave?” This is a crunch point There is no compromise in this. He offers no further explanation. Jesus is saying:- I meant what I said. Do you believe in me?

Before Jesus asked if they wanted to leave, he asked, “Does this offend you? Then what if you see the Son of Man ascend to where he was before!” Note how that last sentence is a good retort if the issue (the hard teaching) was that they took issue with his claim to have come down from heaven and note further that it isn’t a proper retort to the grumbling if the grumbling was about his claim that they had to eat his flesh. Please read the bread of life discourse again and note how the grumbling and offence taken by the Jews relates to Christ’s claim to have come down from heaven.

The apostles are confused but Peter answers “Master, to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life. We have come to believe and are convinced that you are the Holy One of God.” Jesus has just told them that they must eat his flesh and drink his blood to have eternal life.

and He had also just told them (again) that he was the bread that came down from heaven

Now Peter says you have the words of eternal life. So he is accepting that he has to literally eat Jesus’ flesh and drink his blood to have eternal life because Jesus has said it and Jesus is the Holy One of God, even though he does not understand how this can happen without there being some sort of horrible cannibalistic ritual.

there is nothing about Peter’s comment that requires him to have understood Jesus literally with respect to the requirement to eat flesh. Again, the issue at that point (the hard teaching) was his claim to have come down from heaven. The United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, writes: “Jesus claims to be the bread that comes down from heaven (Jn 6:50); this claim provokes incredulity (Jn 6:60); and so Jesus is pictured as asking what his disciples will say when he goes up to heaven.” (see: https://bible.usccb.org/bible/john/6) The bishops correctly identify the hard teaching, but you don’t.

And Jesus does not enlighten them.

enlighten them about what?…figurative interpretations were commonplace, but as to the idea of a transubstantial eating….Jesus talking about robots playing football would have made the same amount of sense. Transubstantial eating cried out for enlightenment.

Now move on to the Last Supper. Jesus blesses the bread and wine. Does he say “Hey guys, remember that time a few weeks ago when I really got you wound up about eating my flesh and drinking my blood? You really fell for it.

No he didn’t….I guess they must not have stumbled into a literal understanding

Of course I was just winding you up. You only have to eat this bread and drink this wine as a sort of symbolic action.”

you mean like how they ate the Passover meal while recognizing certain of the elements as symbols? One should also keep in mind that the ancients had a high regard for symbols in that they believed that symbols shared in the reality of the thing that they symbolized. (note: not became in reality the thing that they symbolized, but shared in the reality of the thing that they symbolized.) See: Eucharist: Symbol of Transformation by Crockett, William R. for a scholarly work on this point. I note that you list a number of early church fathers that speak realistically about the bread being the body, however, ancients who did not believe in a substantive presence would still speak realistically (and also symbolically) about the elements because of their belief that the symbols shared in the reality of the thing that they symbolized. Starting in the fourth century some of the early church fathers believed in a real bodily presence, but before that it was mainly a neo-platonic belief in a real symbolic presence.