The Scriptures declare that the Lord’s Supper is a memorial to the body and blood of Christ (Luke 22:19; 1 Corinthians 11:24-25), not the actual consumption of His physical body and blood. When Jesus was speaking in John chapter 6, Jesus had not yet had the Last Supper with His disciples, in which He instituted the Lord’s Supper

All ignorant and ungodly persons who are unfit to enjoy communion with Christ are equally unworthy of the Lord’s Table, and therefore cannot without great sin against Him, take a share in these holy mysteries or be admitted to the Supper while they remain in that condition. Indeed those who receive (the elements) unworthily, are guilty of the body and blood of the Lord, eating and drinking judgement to themselves.

In faith.
Dudley

I as a reformed Protestant and Presbyterian believe the following concerning the Lords Supper. I was never comfortable with the adoration aspect of the Eucharist as roman catholics call it. I experienced a “true Protestant conversion as John Calvin also a fromer roman catholic described. I understand your position but please try to understand what I most fervently believe now as a Protestant.

The Lord’s Supper
The Supper of the Lord Jesus was instituted by Him the same night on which He was betrayed to be observed in His churches until the end of the world for the perpetual remembrance, and showing forth of the sacrifice of Himself in His death. It was also instituted by Christ to confirm believers in all the benefits of His death; – for their spiritual nourishment and growth in Him; – for their further engagement in and commitment to all the duties which they owe to Him; – and to be a bond and pledge of their communion with Him and with their fellow believers.

In this sacrament Christ is not offered up to His Father, nor is there any real sacrifice made at all for remission of sin (of the living or the dead). There is only a memorial of that one offering up of Christ by Himself upon the cross once for all, the memorial being accompanied by a spiritual oblation of all possible praise to God for Calvary. Therefore, the popish sacrifice of the mass, as they call it, is most abominable, being injurious to Christ’s own sacrifice, which is the only propitiation for all the sins of the elect.

The Lord Jesus has, in this sacrament, appointed His ministers to pray and bless the elements of bread and wine (so setting them apart from a common to a holy use) and to take and break the bread, then to take the cup, and to give both to the communicants, also communicating themselves.

The denial of the cup to the people, the practices of worshipping the elements, lifting them up or carrying them about for adoration, or reserving them for any pretended religious use, are all contrary to the nature of this ordinance, and to the institution of Christ.

The outward elements in this sacrament which are correctly set apart and used as Christ ordained, so closely portray Him as crucified, that they are sometimes truly (but figuratively) referred to in terms of the things they represent, such as the body and blood of Christ. However in substance and nature they still remain truly and only bread and wine as they were before.

The doctrine commonly called transubstantiation, which maintains that a change occurs in the substance of the bread and wine into the substance of Christ’s body and blood, when consecrated by a priest or by any other way, is repugnant not only to Scripture but even to common sense and reason. It overthrows the nature of the ordinance, and both has been and is the cause of a host of superstitions and of gross idolatries.

Worthy receivers, outwardly taking the visible elements in this ordinance, also receive…

To adore the bread wafer outside the celebration of the Lords Supper is a total distortion of the sacrament itself. I now think the rc mass is actually an abomination and injury to Christ’s once only sacrifice on Calvary.

Too many cradle Protestants do not understand the blasphemes rc teaching of transubstantiation and the abomination that is the rc mass because it denies the one time only needed sacrifice of Christ on Calvary and it does teach that the bread wafer is transformed into the actual body and blood of Jesus which then they reserve in a tabernacle and worship in a golden monstrance in a service outside the celebration of the Lords Supper.

Watch EWTN and watch the abominable benediction of the wafer in a golden monstrance. Christ is not in the bread. We Protestants worship Christ and experience his presence in His Supper, RC are worshiping a piece of bread they believe was turned into Christ by their priest in the Roman mass. John Calvin renounced the teaching and the mass and I also did when I left Roman Catholicism and converted to the reformed Protestant faith.
__________________
Dudley

“III. The outward matter thereof, or Signes, are Bread and Wine.
IV. The Supper is lame, without both Signes; and to rob the people of the Cup, is Sacrilege.
V. The inward matter is Christ, with all his satisfaction and merit.
VI. As it is Jewish superstition, to use unleavened Bread; so the Popish Penny-wafers are superstitious reliques.
VII. Its outward form consists in Actions and Words.
VIII. The Actions are the breaking of Bread, and powring out of Wine; the distribution of both Signes, and the receiving thereof with the hand and mouth.
IX. The word is, the whole Institution, containing the Eucharist, the command, and the promise; but the promise chiefly.”—John

In Faith,
Dudley

“The Papists think the Protestant Doctrine is dangerous to Salvation; and the Protestants know the Popish Doctrine to be so.”—Matthew Poole, The Nullity of the Romish Faith. (1666.).

And they overcame (the Devil) by the blood of the Lamb, and by the word of their testimony;
“and they loved not their lives unto the death.-REVELATION 12:11.
Played by the Scots army when it marched into England under Alexander Lesley, Earl of Leven,
in 1640, 26,000 strong.
When to the kirk [church] we come,
We’ll purge it ilka [every] room,
Frae [from] Popish reliques, and a’ [all] sic [such] innovation,
That a’ [all] the world may see,
There’s nane [none] in the right but we,
Of the auld [old] Scottish nation.”
-LESLEY’S MARCH.

The name which the Bible gives to this holy sacrament is “the Lord’s Supper” (1 Cor. 11:20), and that it speaks of communicants as a band of Christians who gather at “the Lord’s table” (1 Cor. 10:21). In these verses the Holy Spirit, by the pen of Paul, teaches us that when we come to “the Lord’s table” “to eat the Lord’s Supper”, we “cannot drink the cup of the Lord and the cup of devils”, nor “be partakers of the Lord’s table and of the table of devils”. The Lord’s table is not for everybody. Only Christians are to gather there; for while a person may sit at “the Lord’s table” with “the cup of the Lord” in one hand and “the cup of devils” in the other, and be perfectly acceptable to Satan, he cannot do things in that way and be acceptable to Christ. The Holy Spirit makes it clear that the Lord is particular, very particular, about the kind of people who shall sit at His table.

The Lord’s Supper is to be eaten at the Lord’s table, in the Lord’s house, by the Lord’s people, under the direct supervision and watchful oversight of the Lord’s officers, who in every instance are to apply the Lord’s law, without “respect to persons”.

Perhaps you are wondering what Paul meant by the “cup” and “table” of devils. A sentence or so will explain what he refers to. In that age social guilds and labor unions were very numerous—even more numerous, it would seem, than they are today. Each had its god, its sacrifices, its secrets which were called “mysteries”, and its festivals. At their festivals the members sacrificed to the divinity of which they had chosen to be the “patron saints”, and drank to the god of their guild. From this you can see why Paul speaks of the “cup” and “table” of devils, and says that in such institutions the members sacrificed “to devils, and not to God”.

Paul, as every Bible…

The following pieces attest to why I believe I…

If you are still reading here, I want to draw your attention to something. You said:

“If you go back to the Greek translation of the word ” EAT” Trogo, it means to eat or gnaw on flesh is explicit. It has no other meaning. ”

That may be correct. However, there are two different Greek words for “eat” used in the John 6 account. The other one is “esthio”, Strong’s #5315. This particular word is used in the New Testament in a very symbolic way for eating in four places. See: John 4:32, I Corinthians 10:3, James 5:3, and Revelation 17:16.

According to the Thayer’s Lexicon, this word can mean, besides physical eating, “a metaphor, to devour, consume.” That is clearly the way it is used in the verses I listed above.

When the text uses the Greek “esthio”, the King James version translates it “eat”. When the Greek “trogo” is used, the King James translates it “eateth”.

So I am not at all sure that the Greek for “eat” here would exclude the symbolic interpretation of this passage at all.

And by the way, the Greek word used where it says, “drink my blood” is also used in the New Testament symbolically.

You also mentioned that Jesus never corrected the people’s misunderstanding of what He said. That is true. But did you notice that the reason He got into this narrative in the first place was that the people had demanded a sign from Him? I find it interesting that in the other places where unbelievers asked Him for a sign, once He gave them one and once He didn’t. But when He did, He didn’t really bother to explain to them what He meant either. He spoke of the sign of Jonah– as Jonah was in the whale for 3 days and 3 nights, the Son of man would be 3 days and 3 nights in the heart of the earth. I don’t know if they knew what that meant or not. But the point is, He didn’t explain it.

Please remember Dudley was a Catholic at one time..