[Woodkirk]

Since you guys claim that it is the literal body and blood of Christ, why don't you construe every other part of that Last Supper literally as well. When you have the Eucharist, do you go into an upper room? Do you eat the Passover Meal first? Do you pass a loaf of bread with everyone taking a piece? Do you pass the cup of wine? Do you actually sit around a table as this is done?

The RCC has the chutzpa to claim to be "literalists" in interpretation of the Last Supper, but then they ignore the other literal aspects of the situation. If you really were literalists, you would meet the other literal requirements, but you can't so you don't thus you aren't. What is done in the Mass bears no resemblance to the Last Supper and is truly an imaginative creation of those who were far from literal believers.

[RobbyS]

Martin Luther took the words in a literal sense and, of course, the Eastern churches also believe in the Real Presence. Even Calvin interepreted them in a sense that allowed the "power" of Jesus to be present even if huis person was not. Why accept, as you do, the rationist/reductionist views of the unspiritual Mr. Zwingli, whose primary concern was to get rid of the priesthood.

[Rambler]

Since you guys claim that it is the literal body and blood of Christ,

It's not us guys. Jesus claims it is his literal body and blood. The Church believed it from the earliest times. We believe it.