whoxtank28

Yes it is

You are right and wrong.

Martin Luther had a problem with the idea of transubstantiation, but also rejected memorialism (the idea that you were taking the bread and wine to memorialize Christ's sacrifice). Martin argued that the literal body and blood of Christ were "in, with, and under" the sacraments. His reforms denied the magical transformation of transubstantiation, but vehemently defended the literal presence of Christs blood and flesh in the sacraments.

In other words, symbolic ritual cannibalism. Maybe some modern protestant offshoots disagree, but this is definitely not contained to catholocism.

Well considering nearly, if not all modern offshoots of Christianity are rooted in Catholocism, I don't really see why you they need to be separated so. The communions practiced in protestant offshoots are kind of bound to their origins no?

And once again, symbolically eating the flesh and blood of your deity can be referred to as symbolic ritual cannibalism, whether or not you believe that it is literally turning into the blood and flesh of your deity in your stomach.

Communion is not really just a catholic tradition, and it is not a wild interpretation to make when a dude says these 2 things sybolically represent my flesh and blood, calling the whole ritual symbolic cannibalism is not a stretch.

The ritualized cannibalism bit is transubstantiation, the belief that the blood(wine) and body(bread) of Jesus turn into his real blood and body during consecration in catholic mass.

But you could make a dig into it overall just beacuase the bread and wine are symbolic ritual cannibalism, very culty sounding when you look at it from another angle.