[ADSUM]

Your comment: “He did not say ‘this becomes my body’, He did not say, ‘this represents my body’. He said this IS my body, this IS my blood.

Take it for what he said. It does not become, it does not represent, It is!

There is now cannibalism in that.”

Well at least One Protestant can read the actual words, but has a faulty analysis.

From Catholic answers:http://www.catholic.com/blog/tim-staples/are-catholics-cannibals

Miriam-Webster defines cannibalism as:

1. The usually ritualistic eating of human flesh by a human being.
2. The eating of the flesh of an animal by another animal of the same kind.

Cannibalism implies here the actual chewing, swallowing, and metabolizing of flesh and blood either after or during the killing of a human being; at least, if we stick to definition #1.

Catholics do not do any of this in the Eucharist. Though Christ is substantially present—body, blood, soul and divinity—in the Eucharist, the accidents of bread and wine remain. Here it is important to define terms. When the Church teaches the bread and wine at Mass are transubstantiated into the body, blood, soul and divinity of Christ, we have to understand what this means. The word, transubstantiation, literally means “transformation of the substance.” “Substance” refers to that which makes a thing essentially what it is. Thus, “substance” and “essence” are synonyms. For example, man is essentially comprised of body, soul, intellect, and will. If you remove any one of these, he is no longer a human person. The accidents or accidentals would be things like hair color, eye color, size, weight, etc. One can change any of these and there would be no change in the essence or substance of the person.

In the Eucharist, after the priest consecrates the bread and wine and they are, in fact, transubstantiated into the body, blood, soul and divinity of our Lord, our Lord is then entirely present. Neither bread nor wine remains. However, the accidents of bread and wine (size, weight, taste, texture) do remain. Hence, the essential reason why Catholics are not guilty of cannibalism is the fact that we do not receive our Lord in a cannibalistic form. We receive him in the form of bread and wine. The two are qualitatively different.

[metmom]

Neither bread nor wine remains. However, the accidents of bread and wine (size, weight, taste, texture) do remain.

There's a lot of mental gymnastics involved in saying something is and is not something at the same time.

[Elsie]

In the Eucharist, after the priest consecrates the bread and wine and they are, in fact, transubstantiated into the body, blood, soul and divinity of our Lord, our Lord is then entirely present.

Facts are provable.

[RnMomof7]

Catholics do not do any of this in the Eucharist. Though Christ is substantially present—body, blood, soul and divinity—in the Eucharist, the accidents of bread and wine remain.

Double talk

[Syncro]

Though Christ is substantially present—body, blood, soul and divinity—in the Eucharist, the accidents of bread and wine remain.

God would not require Christians to take part in something as widespread as this that has an "accident" involved.

That's just word parsing to make it seem necessary to take communion only in the Catholic fashion although the way non-Catholics do it is closer to scriptural.