Dear and scholarly SR, I think you've done a great philosophical work by turning a short truth into a long problem.
LOL! My dad used to say, "What's the difference between a scientist and a philosopher? Well, a scientist knows more and more about less and less until he knows everything about nothing. Whereas a philosopher knows less and less about more and more until he knows nothing about everything." :)
So no, I do not purport to be a philosopher. Indeed, my treatment of the doctrine of substances has been ridiculously brief and inadequate. But we do have a problem. The doctrine does present the dilemma I raised concerning cannibalism. That is the question presented, as they say, and that's what I was trying to address, that while nothing in the NT narrative requires a conclusion of cannibalism, transubstantiation misses the mark, and presents as dogma a position that cannot be anything but cannibalism, albeit of a very sophisticated nature.
So while it may be that others can come at this without having to deal with its implications, I cannot unsee what I have seen. Transubstantiation, to my current understanding, does imply cannibalism, however convoluted. To get past that, it would be necessary for Rome to completely dispense with the Aristotelian-Aquinan formula, and I do not expect Rome to do that at my request. It is an impassible boundary.
Rather, I am bound to the simplicity of Scripture. I agree with what you said about "literal." Half my reason for even bringing that up was to show how useless it is as a means of understanding. I felt compelled to mention it only because it is so often raised by your fellow RCs, presumably as a means of establishing contrast with the Protestant/evangelical understanding of metaphor. It's kind of a straw man. The right way to interpret a passage is to understand it the way the writer meant it. Sometimes that's totally concrete. Very often there is much more there, including metaphor. That's why, in terms of methodology, just plain old honest use of language is probably the single most important thing on can do to get the right meaning. It would certainly help our Supreme Court do a better job with the Constitution.
As for Jesus, He did use the word "alethos" ("true") in John 6, discussing how His body and blood are true food. But he used the same word here:
Then said Jesus to those Jews which believed on him, If ye continue in my word, then are ye my disciples indeed ("truly");
(John 8:31)
So the use of the word "true" does not confine one to physical or even quasi-physical things. Being a true disciple of Christ is a spiritual thing. God desires that we worship Him is spirit and in truth. God is a spirit and nothing is more true than God. You see my problem here. "True" by itself does not tell us whether Jesus means physical, Aristotelian substantive, spiritual, or anything else in that ontological area. In fact, I'd say inserting ontology here completely misses the point. He is saying what He said in verse 35. What is the telos (purpose) of food? To satisfy hunger. What is the telos of drink? To satisfy thirst. Come to Jesus in faith, and you will have the truest food and truest drink you have ever consumed, because for the first time in your life, you will know permanent satisfaction. How? Believe on Him. So he's not addressing the ontology, but the teleology.
Anyway, thank you for your kind response.
Peace,
SR