Real Presence and John 6

[susanlo]

You do realise your quote supports the real presence?

Which one?

The 2nd quote by Ambrose does show evidence that he believed that the Eucharistic elements changed in substance (transubstantiation). I certainly am not disputing that Ambrose believed in some sort of a physical conversion.

The 1st quote by Augustine does not give evidence of a physical or carnal presence of Christ in the Eucharist. It does go along with Augustine’s understanding of a spiritual presence (even a real ‘spiritual’ presence). He does call the elements flesh, but this in isolation can be taken as either a literal transformation or as a metaphor. Even modern-day churches that celebrate a symbolic communion state that they are partaking flesh and blood. They don’t mean this is a literal transformation, but that this is the meaning and significance of the elements. If we dig deeper into this writing and other writings by Augustine you can see clarification as to what he means.

At this time there was not a uniform understanding of the presence of Christ in the Eucharist. Eventually transubstantiation became the only accepted understanding, but there was a great diversity of beliefs in the early centuries.

 

[Duane1966]

Which one?

The 2nd quote by Ambrose does show evidence that he believed that the Eucharistic elements changed in substance (transubstantiation). I certainly am not disputing that Ambrose believed in some sort of a physical conversion.

The 1st quote by Augustine does not give evidence of a physical or carnal presence of Christ in the Eucharist. It does go along with Augustine’s understanding of a spiritual presence (even a real ‘spiritual’ presence). He does call the elements flesh, but this in isolation can be taken as either a literal transformation or as a metaphor. Even modern-day churches that celebrate a symbolic communion state that they are partaking flesh and blood. They don’t mean this is a literal transformation, but that this is the meaning and significance of the elements. If we dig deeper into this writing and other writings by Augustine you can see clarification as to what he means.

At this time there was not a uniform understanding of the presence of Christ in the Eucharist. Eventually transubstantiation became the only accepted understanding, but there was a great diversity of beliefs in the early centuries.

Wrong. Though the word transubstantiation was not yet in use, the concept was universally held. This is easily seen by the fact that all the ancient Churches believe there to be a complete conversion of the elements.

You, yourself posted this quote from Augustine, where he says we feed on the flesh Jesus got from Mary:

For He took upon Him earth from earth; because flesh is from earth, and He received flesh from the flesh of Mary. And because He walked here in very flesh, and gave that very flesh to us to eat for our salvation; and no one eats that flesh, unless he has first worshipped.

According to you, Augustine could be saying here that Mary really didn’t have flesh, nor Jesus. But that interpretation cannot be right, because Augustine use of the word very. Walking here in very flesh means Jesus truly walked the Earth, and Augustine says in that very same sentence that we eat that same flesh. The only way that passage can be read differently, is if Augustine did not believe Jesus actually became incarnate.

 

[Duane1966]

You do realise your quote supports the real presence?

Truth_Faith13, did you see the link I posted earlier on cannabalism?

Something else to consider in your original question is this. Before His followers walk away when Jesus said eat His flesh, the Greek word for eat here is phago, a word which has been used both literally and metaphorically in history. This is the point where his followers mumble among themselves.

Then John ramps it up and for eat switches to the Greek word trogo, a word that has never been used metaphorically. Historians have not been able to find an instance where trogo has been used metaphorically. At this point His followers walk away.

So when John uses a word, phago, that can be used in more than one way, his followers aren’t happy at what Jesus is saying, but they don’t walk away. It is not until John uses a word, trogo, that make it clear what He is saying, that His followers walk away.

If John did not mean to be literal, there is no reason to switch from a word that can be viewed in more than one way, to one that has never been viewed in more than one way.

 

[Wannano]

Truth_Faith13, did you see the link I posted earlier on cannabalism?

Something else to consider in your original question is this. Before His followers walk away when Jesus said eat His flesh, the Greek word for eat here is phago, a word which has been used both literally and metaphorically in history. This is the point where his followers mumble among themselves.

Then John ramps it up and for eat switches to the Greek word trogo, a word that has never been used metaphorically. Historians have not been able to find an instance where trogo has been used metaphorically. At this point His followers walk away.

So when John uses a word, phago, that can be used in more than one way, his followers aren’t happy at what Jesus is saying, but they don’t walk away. It is not until John uses a word, trogo, that make it clear what He is saying, that His followers walk away.

If John did not mean to be literal, there is no reason to switch from a word that can be viewed in more than one way, to one that has never been viewed in more than one way.

To me this kind of logic lends considerable weakness to your conclusions. The word Jesus used the first time then is probably correct as I doubt he would change words to confuse the issue. God is not a God of confusion. When you say John switches the word are you not implying Jesus used the different word? You state that it was only after hearing the word “trogo” that some walked away. If that is the case then Jesus must have used the word “phago” in his teaching in the synagogues. Unless I am missing something, a lot of doctrine aND practice is hanging on the change of one word. This explanation actually sheds interesting light on the subject for me.

 

[Duane1966]

To me this kind of logic lends considerable weakness to your conclusions. The word Jesus used the first time then is probably correct as I doubt he would change words to confuse the issue. God is not a God of confusion. When you say John switches the word are you not implying Jesus used the different word? You state that it was only after hearing the word “trogo” that some walked away. If that is the case then Jesus must have used the word “phago” in his teaching in the synagogues. Unless I am missing something, a lot of doctrine aND practice is hanging on the change of one word. This explanation actually sheds interesting light on the subject for me.

Actually, isn’t it the other way around? Jesus didn’t change His words, but the way He delivered them, I am sure changed during the discourse. Isn’t John showing that amongst the Jews, there was confusion with what Jesus was saying, during His discourse, so John used the word phago? So when the person reading in Greek reads this passage, and sees the word phago, the person would say to himself, okay I can see why the Jews are confused, Jesus is delivering it in a manner that some think he is being metaphorical when he says “eat My flesh,” and others think He is being literal, and to show that the Jews are taking it in multiple ways, they are arguing.

And then John shows that Jesus repeats Himself, even more emphatically, and to remove any confusion that the reader may himself have, and to show that Jesus is being literal, John now uses a word (trogo) that has never been used in any way but the literal sense.

 

[Wannano]

Actually, isn’t it the other way around? Jesus didn’t change His words, but the way He delivered them, I am sure changed during the discourse. Isn’t John showing that amongst the Jews, there was confusion with what Jesus was saying, during His discourse, so John used the word phago? So when the person reading in Greek reads this passage, and sees the word phago, the person would say to himself, okay I can see why the Jews are confused, Jesus is delivering it in a manner that some think he is being metaphorical when he says “eat My flesh,” and others think He is being literal, and to show that the Jews are taking it in multiple ways, they are arguing.

And then John shows that Jesus repeats Himself, even more emphatically, and to remove any confusion that the reader may himself have, and to show that Jesus is being literal, John now uses a word (trogo) that has never been used in any way but the literal sense.

In another thread it has been explained that Catholics do not take every word of the Bible literally. I suppose we are all tempted to take it literally if it backs up our viewpoint. The Jews were confused about more than just understanding about literally eating him.

I would be interested in knowing your opinion on why Jesus made reference to the fact that if they felt they were going to literally eat him, then…“what then, if you see the Son of Man ascend into heaven”…how would they be able to eat him? Seems like he is saying, if you literally think you are going to eat my flesh, what are you going to do when I disappear into the clouds?

 

[Techno2000]

Eucharistic Miracle

Lanciano, Italy 8th Century A.D.

The analyses were conducted with absolute and unquestionable scientific precision and they were documented with a series of microscopic photographs.
These analyses sustained the following conclusions:

The Flesh is real Flesh. The Blood is real Blood.

The Flesh and the Blood belong to the human species.

The Flesh consists of the muscular tissue of the heart.

In the Flesh we see present in section: the myocardium, the endocardium, the vagus nerve and also the left ventricle of the heart for the large thickness of the myocardium.

The Flesh is a “HEART” complete in its essential structure.

The Flesh and the Blood have the same blood-type: AB (Blood-type identical to that which Prof. Baima Bollone uncovered in the Holy Shroud of Turin).

In the Blood there were found proteins in the same normal proportions (percentage-wise) as are found in the sero-proteic make-up of the fresh normal blood.

In the Blood there were also found these minerals: chlorides, phosphorus, magnesium, potassium, sodium and calcium.

The preservation of the Flesh and of the Blood, which were left in their natural state for twelve centuries and exposed to the action of atmospheric and biological agents, remains an extraordinary phenomenon.

therealpresence.org/eucharst/mir/lanciano.html

 

[Duane1966]

In another thread it has been explained that Catholics do not take every word of the Bible literally. I suppose we are all tempted to take it literally if it backs up our viewpoint. The Jews were confused about more than just understanding about literally eating him.

I would be interested in knowing your opinion on why Jesus made reference to the fact that if they felt they were going to literally eat him, then…“what then, if you see the Son of Man ascend into heaven”…how would they be able to eat him? Seems like he is saying, if you literally think you are going to eat my flesh, what are you going to do when I disappear into the clouds?

That’s not the way I read it. From Haydocks commentary:

Christ, by mentioning his ascension, by this instance of his power and divinity, would confirm the truth of what he had before asserted; at the same time, correct their gross apprehension of eating his flesh and drinking his blood, in a vulgar and carnal manner, by letting them know he should take his whole body living with him to heaven; and consequently not suffer it to be, as they supposed, divided, mangled, and consumed upon earth.

The point He is driving home, is yes yes truly you will eat My flesh. It will be in a manner that is comfortable to you (bread), rather than chewing on an arm or a leg. But that bread will truly be My flesh. And My body will be in Heaven. You will be feeding on Me in a sacramental way, and the Spirit will give life to the bread and wine. Just as the Spirit caused life in the Virgin.

 

[Wannano]

That’s not the way I read it. From Haydocks commentary: The point He is driving home, is yes yes truly you will eat My flesh. It will be in a manner that is comfortable to you (bread), rather than chewing on an arm or a leg. But that bread will truly be My flesh. And My body will be in Heaven. You will be feeding on Me in a sacramental way, and the Spirit will give life to the bread and wine. Just as the Spirit caused life in the Virgin.

Thanks for that, you presented your answer well. I will study on that but am now preparing g for some sleep and travel all day tomorrow.

 

[Duane1966]

Thanks for that, you presented your answer well. I will study on that but am now preparing g for some sleep and travel all day tomorrow.

Thanks Wannano, and safe travels. One last quote from Fr. John Hardon:

Is there any real difference between Jesus in heaven and Jesus in the Eucharist? No, it is the same Jesus. **The only difference is in us. We now on earth cannot see or touch him with our senses. But that is not a limitation in him; it is a limitation in us. **

 

[Reuben_J]

Actually, isn’t it the other way around? Jesus didn’t change His words, but the way He delivered them, I am sure changed during the discourse. Isn’t John showing that amongst the Jews, there was confusion with what Jesus was saying, during His discourse, so John used the word phago? So when the person reading in Greek reads this passage, and sees the word phago, the person would say to himself, okay I can see why the Jews are confused, Jesus is delivering it in a manner that some think he is being metaphorical when he says “eat My flesh,” and others think He is being literal, and to show that the Jews are taking it in multiple ways, they are arguing.

And then John shows that Jesus repeats Himself, even more emphatically, and to remove any confusion that the reader may himself have, and to show that Jesus is being literal, John now uses a word (trogo) that has never been used in any way but the literal sense.

Great work there in helping us understanding the Real Presence.

God bless.

 

[susanlo]

Wrong. Though the word transubstantiation was not yet in use, the concept was universally held. This is easily seen by the fact that all the ancient Churches believe there to be a complete conversion of the elements.

You, yourself posted this quote from Augustine, where he says we feed on the flesh Jesus got from Mary:According to you, Augustine could be saying here that Mary really didn’t have flesh, nor Jesus. But that interpretation cannot be right, because Augustine use of the word very. Walking here in very flesh means Jesus truly walked the Earth, and Augustine says in that very same sentence that we eat that same flesh. The only way that passage can be read differently, is if Augustine did not believe Jesus actually became incarnate.

Well, we know from the rest of Augustine’s writing that he believed that Jesus and Mary had flesh. One sentence in isolation can be hard to analyze. That is why it is important to look for as much context as possible.

Augustine explains more about the flesh in Sermon 272:
“Inside each of you, thoughts like these are rising: “Our Lord Jesus Christ, we know the source of his flesh; he took it from the virgin Mary. Like any infant, he was nursed and nourished; he grew; became a youngster; suffered persecution from his own people. To the wood he was nailed; on the wood he died; from the wood, his body was taken down and buried. On the third day (as he willed) he rose; he ascended bodily into heaven whence he will come to judge the living and the dead. There he dwells even now, seated at God’s right. So how can bread be his body? And what about the cup? How can it (or what it contains) be his blood?” My friends, these realities are called sacraments because in them one thing is seen, while another is grasped. What is seen is a mere physical likeness; what is grasped bears spiritual fruit. So now, if you want to understand the body of Christ, listen to the Apostle Paul speaking to the faithful: “You are the body of Christ, member for member.” [1 Cor. 12.27] If you, therefore, are Christ’s body and members, it is your own mystery that is placed on the Lord’s table! It is your own mystery that you are receiving! You are saying “Amen” to what you are: your response is a personal signature, affirming your faith. When you hear “The body of Christ”, you reply “Amen.” Be a member of Christ’s body, then, so that your “Amen” may ring true!”

He goes on to talk about the role of the elements:
“But what role does the bread play? We have no theory of our own to propose here; listen, instead, to what Paul says about this sacrament: “The bread is one, and we, though many, are one body.” [1 Cor. 10.17] Understand and rejoice: unity, truth, faithfulness, love. “One bread,” he says. What is this one bread? Is it not the “one body,” formed from many? Remember: bread doesn’t come from a single grain, but from many. When you received exorcism, you were “ground.” When you were baptized, you were “leavened.” When you received the fire of the Holy Spirit, you were “baked.” Be what you see; receive what you are. This is what Paul is saying about the bread. So too, what we are to understand about the cup is similar and requires little explanation. In the visible object of bread, many grains are gathered into one just as the faithful (so Scripture says) form “a single heart and mind in God” [Acts 4.32]. And thus it is with the wine. Remember, friends, how wine is made. Individual grapes hang together in a bunch, but the juice from them all is mingled to become a single brew. This is the image chosen by Christ our Lord to show how, at his own table, the mystery of our unity and peace is solemnly consecrated. All who fail to keep the bond of peace after entering this mystery receive not a sacrament that benefits them, but an indictment that condemns them.”
earlychurchtexts.com/public/augustine_sermon_272_eucharist.htm

I find so much meaning in this. I think Augustine goes so much deeper than a physical conversion. He delves deep into the images and the spirituality. I see no signs that he is writing about anything except a symbolic flesh. A few quotes of his are vague and could be taken either way in isolation. I have seen websites that quote a phrase earlier in this sermon: “For what you see is simply bread and a cup - this is the information your eyes report. But your faith demands far subtler insight: the bread is Christ’s body, the cup is Christ’s blood.” - as proof of Augustine believing in a physical conversion. I think he is taking this in a very different way. Besides the vague statements he also states directly that John 6:53 is a figure and explains it as a “mere physical likeness” with much spiritual meaning. I think when all of the information is compared we can see why Schaff and Kelly say that he was similar to Cyprian and Tertullian in their symbolic view of the Eucharist, but took it deeper into a spiritual view similar to Calvin’s reformed understanding.

 

[susanlo]

Truth_Faith13, did you see the link I posted earlier on cannabalism?

Something else to consider in your original question is this. Before His followers walk away when Jesus said eat His flesh, the Greek word for eat here is phago, a word which has been used both literally and metaphorically in history. This is the point where his followers mumble among themselves.

Then John ramps it up and for eat switches to the Greek word trogo, a word that has never been used metaphorically. Historians have not been able to find an instance where trogo has been used metaphorically. At this point His followers walk away.

So when John uses a word, phago, that can be used in more than one way, his followers aren’t happy at what Jesus is saying, but they don’t walk away. It is not until John uses a word, trogo, that make it clear what He is saying, that His followers walk away.

If John did not mean to be literal, there is no reason to switch from a word that can be viewed in more than one way, to one that has never been viewed in more than one way.

Did the followers understand the concepts of transubstantiation and Jesus making himself present under the accidents of bread and wine and reject this concept as a “hard teaching” and walk away? Or did they misunderstand and think Jesus was speaking of cannibalism? Was the “hard teaching” they rejected: transubstantiation or cannibalism?

 

[rcwitness]

Did the followers understand the concepts of transubstantiation and Jesus making himself present under the accidents of bread and wine and reject this concept as a “hard teaching” and walk away? Or did they misunderstand and think Jesus was speaking of cannibalism? Was the “hard teaching” they rejected: transubstantiation or cannibalism?

Short answer: they rejected transubstantiation. But He did not yet offer them the transubstantiation, because they did not believe He was from heaven. They believed He was a prophet, and saw miracles, but they were not following with faith still. They were testing and demanding Him to satisfy their carnal senses. They asked things they were unable to understand, and Jesus told them in a way they were unable to understand. Peter, and those who believed, trusted His Word and that He would fulfill His Word. Though they also had moments and degrees of doubt, they were strengthened through Peter and his leadership.

I think the disciples who left did take Jesus literally. But they did not know how to take Him literally. They asked, “How can this man give us His flesh and blood to eat?”

Do you think the Peter knew how He would give them His flesh and blood to eat? I dont. Because he would have to first understand the sacrificial death and the Lord’s Supper. They did not understand that until afterwards.

 

[Duane1966]

Well, we know from the rest of Augustine’s writing that he believed that Jesus and Mary had flesh. One sentence in isolation can be hard to analyze. That is why it is important to look for as much context as possible.

Augustine explains more about the flesh in Sermon 272:
“Inside each of you, thoughts like these are rising: “Our Lord Jesus Christ, we know the source of his flesh; he took it from the virgin Mary. Like any infant, he was nursed and nourished; he grew; became a youngster; suffered persecution from his own people. To the wood he was nailed; on the wood he died; from the wood, his body was taken down and buried. On the third day (as he willed) he rose; he ascended bodily into heaven whence he will come to judge the living and the dead. There he dwells even now, seated at God’s right. So how can bread be his body? And what about the cup? How can it (or what it contains) be his blood?” My friends, these realities are called sacraments because in them one thing is seen, while another is grasped. What is seen is a mere physical likeness; what is grasped bears spiritual fruit. So now, if you want to understand the body of Christ, listen to the Apostle Paul speaking to the faithful: “You are the body of Christ, member for member.” [1 Cor. 12.27] If you, therefore, are Christ’s body and members, it is your own mystery that is placed on the Lord’s table! It is your own mystery that you are receiving! You are saying “Amen” to what you are: your response is a personal signature, affirming your faith. When you hear “The body of Christ”, you reply “Amen.” Be a member of Christ’s body, then, so that your “Amen” may ring true!”

He goes on to talk about the role of the elements:
“But what role does the bread play? We have no theory of our own to propose here; listen, instead, to what Paul says about this sacrament: “The bread is one, and we, though many, are one body.” [1 Cor. 10.17] Understand and rejoice: unity, truth, faithfulness, love. “One bread,” he says. What is this one bread? Is it not the “one body,” formed from many? Remember: bread doesn’t come from a single grain, but from many. When you received exorcism, you were “ground.” When you were baptized, you were “leavened.” When you received the fire of the Holy Spirit, you were “baked.” Be what you see; receive what you are. This is what Paul is saying about the bread. So too, what we are to understand about the cup is similar and requires little explanation. In the visible object of bread, many grains are gathered into one just as the faithful (so Scripture says) form “a single heart and mind in God” [Acts 4.32]. And thus it is with the wine. Remember, friends, how wine is made. Individual grapes hang together in a bunch, but the juice from them all is mingled to become a single brew. This is the image chosen by Christ our Lord to show how, at his own table, the mystery of our unity and peace is solemnly consecrated. All who fail to keep the bond of peace after entering this mystery receive not a sacrament that benefits them, but an indictment that condemns them.”
earlychurchtexts.com/public/augustine_sermon_272_eucharist.htm

I find so much meaning in this. I think Augustine goes so much deeper than a physical conversion. He delves deep into the images and the spirituality. I see no signs that he is writing about anything except a symbolic flesh. A few quotes of his are vague and could be taken either way in isolation. I have seen websites that quote a phrase earlier in this sermon: “For what you see is simply bread and a cup - this is the information your eyes report. But your faith demands far subtler insight: the bread is Christ’s body, the cup is Christ’s blood.” - as proof of Augustine believing in a physical conversion. I think he is taking this in a very different way. Besides the vague statements he also states directly that John 6:53 is a figure and explains it as a “mere physical likeness” with much spiritual meaning. I think when all of the information is compared we can see why Schaff and Kelly say that he was similar to Cyprian and Tertullian in their symbolic view of the Eucharist, but took it deeper into a spiritual view similar to Calvin’s reformed understanding.

First off, in most of your quotes from Augustine, he is saying what you see is one thing, what your faith should tell you is another. Augustine flat out says in the earlier quote that you posted, that the flesh that Jesus walked around in, is the same flesh that we eat. And guess what? That is what the Catholic Church has always taught. No surprise, he was a Catholic bishop after all. Now if he didn’t mean it that way, then there was a myriad of other ways and words he could have used to get his point across.

That is why Kelly and Stone repeatedly say don’t take Augustine in isolation, if you read Augustine as a whole, it is clear he believes in the physical presence of Jesus in the Eucharist. Once you see that, then it becomes easy to see the concept of transubstantiation in his writings. When you read all of Augustine, you can easily see that the way he uses figure and symbol, is not the way you interpret him.

If you went to a restaurant with a friend, and you said to the server: *I’ll have the same thing my friend ordered. *Would you be okay if the server brought you something completely different? And if you said this is not the same, would it be okay for the server to say to you: you said the same thing, but you did not mean the same thing, you were actually using that word to mean something else.

Of course Augustine goes deeper than just a physical conversion, after all he believed he was eating God. But he still believes a conversion has taken place.

And it is in eating God physically, that gives much fruit to the spirit.

 

[Duane1966]

Did the followers understand the concepts of transubstantiation and Jesus making himself present under the accidents of bread and wine and reject this concept as a “hard teaching” and walk away? Or did they misunderstand and think Jesus was speaking of cannibalism? Was the “hard teaching” they rejected: transubstantiation or cannibalism?

Cannibalism. They walked away in disgust.

But transubstantiation happened at the Last Supper. That is why Augustine said: “Jesus held Himself in His own hands.”

 

[susanlo]

Short answer: they rejected transubstantiation. But He did not yet offer them the transubstantiation, because they did not believe He was from heaven. They believed He was a prophet, and saw miracles, but they were not following with faith still. They were testing and demanding Him to satisfy their carnal senses. They asked things they were unable to understand, and Jesus told them in a way they were unable to understand. Peter, and those who believed, trusted His Word and that He would fulfill His Word. Though they also had moments and degrees of doubt, they were strengthened through Peter and his leadership.

I think the disciples who left did take Jesus literally. But they did not know how to take Him literally. They asked, “How can this man give us His flesh and blood to eat?”

Do you think the Peter knew how He would give them His flesh and blood to eat? I dont. Because he would have to first understand the sacrificial death and the Lord’s Supper. They did not understand that until afterwards.

I don’t think Peter completely understood, but followed Jesus anyway out of faith. 67*“You do not want to leave too, do you?” Jesus asked the Twelve.
68Simon Peter answered him, “Lord, to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life. 69We have come to believe and to know that you are the Holy One of God.” (John 6:67-69)

The ones that left did not believe. Perhaps after Pentecost some came back and became Christians. We don’t know for sure:
64Yet there are some of you who do not believe.” For Jesus had known from the beginning which of them did not believe and who would betray him. 65He went on to say, “This is why I told you that no one can come to me unless the Father has enabled them.”
66*From this time many of his disciples turned back and no longer followed him.(John 6:64-65)

It seems like their belief in Jesus and not their understanding of exactly what Jesus meant made all of the difference.

 

[susanlo]

Cannibalism. They walked away in disgust.

But transubstantiation happened at the Last Supper. That is why Augustine said: “Jesus held Himself in His own hands.”

So to the original question in the thread - the “hard saying” that caused them to leave was the idea of cannibalism.
All Christians today would say that they left because they misunderstood. Whether Jesus actually meant transubstantiation, consubstantiation, spiritual presence or symbolic understanding, it wouldn’t have changed the misunderstanding and disgust that caused those who did not have faith and trust in Jesus to walk away.

 

[Duane1966]

So to the original question in the thread - the “hard saying” that caused them to leave was the idea of cannibalism.
All Christians today would say that they left because they misunderstood. Whether Jesus actually meant transubstantiation, consubstantiation, spiritual presence or symbolic understanding, it wouldn’t have changed the misunderstanding and disgust that caused those who did not have faith and trust in Jesus to walk away.

They knew Jesus meant His flesh to eat, Scripture tells you why they misunderstood. They could not fathom the "how He could do it, without it being cannabalism.

 

[rcwitness]

I don’t think Peter completely understood, but followed Jesus anyway out of faith. 67*“You do not want to leave too, do you?” Jesus asked the Twelve.
68Simon Peter answered him, “Lord, to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life. 69We have come to believe and to know that you are the Holy One of God.” (John 6:67-69)

The ones that left did not believe. Perhaps after Pentecost some came back and became Christians. We don’t know for sure:
64Yet there are some of you who do not believe.” For Jesus had known from the beginning which of them did not believe and who would betray him. 65He went on to say, “This is why I told you that no one can come to me unless the Father has enabled them.”
66*From this time many of his disciples turned back and no longer followed him.(John 6:64-65)

It seems like their belief in Jesus and not their understanding of exactly what Jesus meant made all of the difference.

It seems like you are suggesting that Peter was actually eating and drinking Jesus’ flesh and blood with his reply. I would say he displayed a faith that would accept Jesus’ Eucharist as transubstantiation.

But here, he displays a different reaction:

But he turned and said to Peter, “Getbehindme,Satan! You are a hindrance tome; for you are not on the side of God, but ofmen.”