That is manifestly evident, as first, the context is clearly about the body of Christ resisting and maintaining fellowship by avoiding idolatry and offenses to it. Thus the text you invoke is part of a teaching which censures having "fellowship with devils" by eating the sacrifices of the altar with them, as this signifies fellowship with those whom you eat with, and the object of their sacrifices.
"Neither be ye idolaters, as were some of them; as it is written, The people sat down to eat and drink, and rose up to play. " (1 Corinthians 10:7) "Wherefore, my dearly beloved, flee from idolatry." (1 Corinthians 10:14)
"But I say, that the things which the Gentiles sacrifice, they sacrifice to devils, and not to God: and I would not that ye should have fellowship with devils." (1 Corinthians 10:20)
And note here that "fellowship with devils' was not done by eating the real flesh of demons, (v. 19) but by eating things dedicated to false gods with pagans as part of a communal celebration. Likewise, feasts of the Lord in the OT worshiped God, by not by consuming His literal flesh. Nor is fellowship with the body and blood of Christ that of consuming His literal flesh, but by communally eating as part of corporate worship of Him who gave Himself for us.
And if done in a manner inconsistent with Him, and His selfish death, such as by ignoring needy brethren as if they were not part of the body of Christ, then they actually were not eating the Lord's supper. (1Cor. 11:20)
"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? For we being many are one bread, and one body: for we are all partakers of that one bread. " (1 Corinthians 10:16-17)
Both in paganism and the OT and the NT believers, "they which eat of the sacrifices partakers of the altar," (1Cor. 10:18) signifying fellowship by eating what is sacrificed, and thus he writes. "I would not that ye should have fellowship with devils." (v. 20)
And neither here or in the next chapter is the focus on the elements of the Lord's supper, but on what the Lord's supper signifies, and how it was being observed, in cp. 11 that being inconsistent with the Lord's death .
Moreover, entirely absent in Acts and the epistles is any explanatory teaching on the elements being changed into the literal body and blood of Christ, and the critical importance of receiving it to gain life in you, leaving RCs to read the desired substance into texts (in trying argue with evangelicals, as they do not need Scriptural proof texts for it)
Obviously they could not eat of the real flesh of demons as demons have no real flesh to offer. And the food they offered as sacrifice were offered to false gods and if one ate of that food knowing that, it signified a fellowship with the demons or submission to the false gods.
Jesus, however, did have true flesh, just as He said, and His flesh is true food, His blood true drink. His flesh was the sacrifice, once and for all that frees us and redeemed us so that we may share in His inheritance. By partaking of the Eucharist, we have fellowship with each other because we are sharing of the one loaf of Christ.
You are wrong about the elements not being discussed the NT for we read St. Paul saying the same words Jesus spoke at the Last Supper. We know that Paul never learned those words from the other Apostles because he tells us this himself. So there is only one way in which Paul would know them and that is if Jesus shared them with him and instructed him in them.
The elements came from the mouth of Jesus, “This is my body” and “This is my blood”. He was not pointing at those gathered with Him at the meal, He was holding bread and it was bread He gave them to eat.
On the road to Emmaus, the disciples recognized Jesus in the breaking of the bread and then the Jesus that had walked with them was no longer there.
Catholics do not read the desired substance into the text of Scripture. The belief was there before the words were written, before they were considered Scripture and long before others came along and decided the Church was wrong after centuries.
Rather, those who refuse to accept the truth are missing the forest for the trees, picking apart Scripture for assurance they are right and the Church is wrong.
I am not Catholic...but Evangelical...I am intrigued by this one following phrase that's been making its way into MANY, MANY Evangelical church "statements of faith" -- which also incorporates the verse you cited Daniel, 1 Cor. 10:16...note particularly the highlighted portion:
"We also teach that whereas the elements of Communion are only representative of the flesh and blood of Christ, the Lord’s Supper is nevertheless an actual communion with the risen Christ (1 Corinthians 10:16).
Now, I've looked around for a source re: where these Evangelical churches are getting this exact statement, and have thus far settled upon this as THE source: The MacArthur Bible Commentary
(But it may not be original with John MacArthur; he may have/likely have? garnered it from yet ANOTHER source...if somebody can enlighten me, that'd be great)
I have five questions for Daniel & Presently No Screen Name:
1. Do you view Communion as an "actual communion with the risen Christ (1 Cor. 10:16)"?
2. While I don't believe in an actual "trans" of the actual elements, what do you do with many of the phrases Jesus utilizes in describing Himself in John 6? Allow me to ESPECIALLY highlight the words I am talking about:
48 I am the bread of life. 49 Your ancestors ate the manna in the wilderness, yet they died. 50 But here is the bread that comes down from heaven, which anyone may eat and not die. 51 I am the living bread that came down from heaven. Whoever eats this bread will live forever. This bread IS my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world.” 52 Then the Jews began to argue sharply among themselves, “How can this man give us his flesh to eat?” 53 Jesus said to them, “Very truly I tell you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you. 54 Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise them up at the last day. 55 For my flesh IS REAL FOOD and my blood IS REAL DRINK. 56 Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me, and I in them. 57 Just as the living Father sent me and I live because of the Father, so the one who feeds on me will live because of me. 58 This is the bread that came down from heaven. Your ancestors ate manna and died, but whoever feeds on this bread will live forever.”
3. Given that Jesus allowed the above to simply either "sink in" -- or rebound off of His disciples...especially rebounding off of His disciples that were "more on the margin"...you can see vv. 66-67 for these disciples' exodus upon hearing these words...If Jesus wanted to highlight these words as ONLY "symbolic" and ONLY "signifying" some deeper "spiritual" parallel...then why didn't He make that clear to those disciples who parted ways with Jesus vs. simply letting them go?
4. Why don't we see very many Evangelical churches (& individuals) utilize John 6 as part of their proof-texting in their "Statements of Faith" on Communion?
5. Could it be that if more Evangelicals took John 6 to heart, perhaps some of them might react the same way many of Jesus' "outer" disciples reacted to His message in John 6? (As they did in John 6:66-67)
I'm very interested in your responses. (Thank you ahead of time for responding)