Hey Ron,
Below is something that I write for my KC council newsletter, this one is on the Eucharist. The ideas have been HEAVILY stolen from other posters here and apologists like John Martignoni (I readily admit to plagiarism
)
It may help her understand a bit more. You never know which switch is going to make that light bulb come on, but maybe tell her about the I Corinthians 11:27 below. After you have discussed that, maybe ask her what they do with the left over “wafers” in her church when they have the Lord’s Supper. Baptist churches I’ve seen throw them away.
**Apologetics Corner
The Real Presence in the Eucharist
“Catholics believe that at the Lord’s Supper they are actually eating Jesus. They must be cannibals! They can’t seem to understand that Jesus was speaking symbolically when he said ‘This is my body’. Jesus just meant that this symbolizes His body.”
Well, that’s what they say. I’m sorry to say that it seems even some Catholics have lost the sense of the Real Presence. So, where do we ground our belief that Jesus is actually present in the Eucharist?
We get a hint of this in Malachi chapter 1. The author is speaking of abuses and religious indifference in the Jewish community. He talks first about “…offering polluted food on my altar!” (Malachi 1:7). The passage later in verse 11 talks about “…a pure offering”. In the footnotes to the New American Bible, it says “In his first chapter, the writer foresees the time when all nations will offer a pure oblation –a prophecy whose fulfillment the church sees in the Sacrifice of the Mass.” So, it talks about polluted food offerings and a “pure offering” to come.
-Psalms 110:4: “The Lord has sworn and will not waver: “Like Melchizedek you are a priest forever”. By definition a priest offers a sacrifice. What sacrifice did Melchizedek offer? Bread and Wine! (Gen. 14:18) So, when did Jesus offer bread and wine as a sacrifice? The only time was at the Last Supper.
-Matthew 26:26-28 “….this is my body……this is my blood”. It doesn’t say this “symbolizes”, or this “represents” my body. It says this IS my body.
-I Corinthians 11:27: “Therefore whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord unworthily will have to answer for the body and blood of the Lord.” Why would someone who eats or drinks unworthily have to answer if this service is only a ‘memorial’?
-“Eat my flesh” or variations of it are repeated by Jesus six times. Four of the times, the Greek word used actually means “to chew”.
-“Do this in remembrance of me”. We’re all familiar with that one. According to scholars, the word “remembrance” in the Greek is technical and rare. The only other time it is used in the New Testament is Hebrews 10:3 where the “remembrance” is the act of carrying out a sacrifice.
Let’s keep going with John 6. In verse 41 Jesus says that He is the bread that came down from Heaven. The Jews start murmuring. (Trust me, they are about to murmur a lot more). Then Jesus says in verse 51 “I am the living bread that came down from heaven; whoever eats this bread will live forever….” At that point, Scripture tells us that the Jews went from murmuring to downright quarreling. They said “How can this man give us [His] flesh to eat?” Jesus said to them “Amen, amen, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you do not have life in you.” What a strange thing for Jesus to say. Why didn’t he just tell them “I mean that in a symbolic way.”?
He didn’t say that because that’s not what He meant!
John 6:55 “For my flesh is true food, and my blood is true drink.” That’s pretty vague. I wonder what Jesus could possibly have meant by that?
Then we read that “many of his disciples who were listening said, “This saying (teaching) is hard: who can accept it?” Jesus said “Does this shock you?” By the way, why would the disciples say that this was a hard teaching if they understood he was speaking symbolically? If Jesus was just telling them to get together once in a while and have some bread and wine to remember him by, would that be a “hard teaching”? Jesus said a bit more, but then comes verse 66: “As a result of this, many [of] his disciples returned to their former way of life and no longer accompanied him.”
That’s one of the most telling passages about the Real Presence. In many other instances in Scripture, when the disciples did not understand something, Jesus would explain. Note that in this instance, Jesus didn’t run after them saying: “Wait, wait, you misunderstood. I meant that symbolically, not literally.” He simply let them go. This is the only place in the Gospel where disciples left Him over a doctrinal issue.
The Early Church
-All early Church authors who wrote about the Eucharist believed in the Real Presence.
-Ignatius (who died about the same time as the Apostle John died) wrote “They confess not the Eucharist to be the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ, which suffered for our sins and which the Father, of his goodness, raised up again.”
-No writers in the 1st 300 years wrote anything remotely related to other notions concerning the Lord’s Supper.
-For the first thousand years of Christianity there were no exceptions to this belief of the early Church in the Real Presence. This was the universal teaching of the entire Church.
-With the emergence of Rationalism and its attack on this doctrine, the Church convened a council (the Second Lateran Council-1215) that defined what early Christians already believed. No one had ever challenged this doctrine, so it was never a matter of debate.**
and then listen some more. Sometimes, I would say – Stephen, it sounds like you are searching or I’m proud of you for trying to figure things out. Sometimes, he would mumble something about his past. 
cattle stampede!! (Some of these people are 
my own relatives…)