Yet those same people insist that you believe them and not your lying eyes and taste buds, when they call their crackers Jesus meat. I don't think they're using a very falsifiable scientific definition of "meat".

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transubstantiation

>This council officially approved use of the term "transubstantiation" to express the Catholic Church's teaching on the subject of the conversion of the bread and wine into the body and blood of Christ in the Eucharist, with the aim of safeguarding Christ's presence as a literal truth, while emphasizing the fact that there is no change in the empirical appearances of the bread and wine.

Is the transubstantiation cannibalism because it claims to be consuming Jesus?

https://www.quora.com/Is-the-transubstantiation-cannibalism-...

"It's not technically cannibalism, because we're just lying about crackers being Jesus meat. And we're not lying, because you can't trust your own eyes and scientific experiments."

There was a whole long serious historical (and hysterical) debate about if or when the crackers stopped being Jesus during digestion, and whether or not Jesus turned into poop, or if you could poop Jesus. (And by logical extension, could you eat last week's poop if you were out of crackers?)

https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/64057/on-th...

>My Question: Does the real presence of the Eucharist persist even after digestion to the point of being taken out of the body by defecation?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stercoranism

>Stercoranism (from Latin stercorarius, "belonging to dung", from stercus, "dung") is a supposed belief or doctrine attributed reciprocally to the other side by those who in the eleventh century upheld and those who denied that the bread and wine offered in the Eucharist become in substance, but not in form, the body and blood of Jesus Christ.

>Those who upheld the view that they do change, but only in substance, accused their opponents of asserting that what is presented as the body and blood of Christ is no more than what subsequently is subject to the normal digestive processes after ingestion, eventually passing through the intestines and being excreted through defecation. Those who held the opposite view retorted that the same accusation applied rather to the upholders of the change of substance.

>On this, see the explanation given by the Protestant theologian and historian Johann Lorenz von Mosheim, who calls it an "imaginary heresy".

[...]

>Karl August von Hase said that early Church theologians, such as Origen (184–253), were willing to allow that the consecrated elements of Christ’s body were digested and excreted in the manner of typical food,

Here's the official talking point:

>In relation to the process of digestion, the Catholic Church's teaching has been expressed in this way: "The substance of Christ's body is not subject to processes of digestion or to any chemical reactions. The qualities of bread of course behave in their normal way, undergoing a change as they are affected by digestion. Our Lord's substantial presence ceases as these qualities cease to retain those characteristics proper to bread."

So officially, the bread stops being Jesus meat once it's digested, before you can poop him. Clever!