You are missing two things, which render the issue of Cannibalism entirely moot, and indeed, absurd, when we think about it:
Firstly, Jesus Christ is fully man and fully God, his human and divine natures united in one hypostasis without change, confusion, separation or division. This is the theology of the Chalcedonian Churches (the vast majority), the Miaphysite Oriental Orthodox churches (which consist of the Armenian, Coptic, Ethiopian and Eritrean, Indian and Syriac Orthodox churches, which became alienated over a difference in terminology at the Council of Chalcedon and also some crypto-Nestorian treachery, but which now are basically reconciled with the Chalcedonian churches, with a particularly close relationship between the Syriac Orthodox Patriarchate of Antioch and the Eastern Orthodox Patriarchate of Antioch, and likewise a close relationship between the Greek Orthodox Church of Alexandria and the Coptic Orthodox Church; this is also the view of the Assyrian Church of the East and the Ancient Church of the East, which are in the process of reuniting after a schism that began in 1968; scarcely the wink of an eye in the history of this church which dates back to the Apostle Thomas, who, with his disciples Addai and Mari, spread Christianity to Edessa, Mesopotamia, Persia and India, where there were communities of Syriac speaking Jews in Kerala since 200 BC; it was here where he received the crown of martyrdom by way of a spear thrown at him by a scandalized Hindu Rajah, in 53 AD), which people used to erroneously call Nestorian, but the Christology of the Church of the East is not the deeply flawed Christology of the fifth century heterodox bishop Nestorius, but rather was developed by an Assyrian, a native speaker of Syriac, Mar Babai the Great, in the early 6th century, who sought to translate the complex Greek concepts of physis, hypostasis and prosopon into Syriac terminology; the church is probably labelled Nestorius because they continued to venerate him and Theodore of Mopsuestia, after Nestorianism was rejected elsewhere at the Council of Ephesus in 453 AD.
So, all three Christological schools of thought, which, by the way, the Roman Catholic Congregation of the Doctrine of Faith determined were all mutually compatible and differed only in terminology in the 1990s, under the leadership of Josef Cardinal Ratzinger, who would later become Pope Benedict XVI, who regardless of how one feels about Roman Catholicism, is one of the leading theologians who is also a bishop in the current era, along with Dr. Rowan Williams, the former Archbishop of Canterbury and before that, the Archbishop of Wales, the Coptic Pope Shenouda, memory eternal, who reposed in the midst of the attempted Islamist takeover of Egypt after the downfall of the Mubarak regime, and Metropolitan Kallistos Ware of Diokleia, the emeritus professor of Eastern Christianity at Oxford, who has written two of the definitive books for people seeking to learn about the Eastern Orthodox Church, the Orthodox Church and The Orthodox Way, and also who translated into English with the assistance of a Greek Orthodox nun, Mother Mary, several important liturtical books and the Philokalia, a five volume anthology on prayer, monastic life, mystical theology, the virtues and, particularly, Hesychasm and the attainment of continuous prayer, compiled by St. Nicodemus the Hagiorite and St. Macarius of Corinth on Mount Athos in the 18th century.
So, with that established, since everyone agrees that our Lord is fully human and fully divine, without change, confusion, comingling, separation, or division of His humanity from His Divinity, the Christological principle of Communicatio Idiomatum comes into effect, whereby anything we can attribute to one nature of our Lord is communicated to the other nature. This is not some relic of ancient Christological debates, although it does originate in antiquity, probably with St. Cyril and the Council of Ephesus, it was of crucial importance to the early Lutheran theologians in the Protestant Reformation. It is essential to our Salvation, in that our Lord glorifies and restores our fallen human nature by uniting it with the uncreated divine nature of the Holy Trinity. Thus, we can say that a man forgave sins and worked miracles, and that the Virgin Mary, impregnated by the miraculous action of the Holy Spirit, gave birth to God, and that God died on the cross for our sins, and that a man rose from the dead.
Secondly, focusing on the Resurrection, we see that our Lord, God and Savior Jesus Christ arose in a glorified, imperishable and incorruptible body, which is superior to that of Adam before the fall, and when we are resurrected, our flesh will likewise be glorified. And in the Gospels According to Luke and John, we can see our Lord doing things after His resurrection that we cannot do, such as passing effortlessly through closed doors, yet He was no ghost, for St. Thomas the Apostle felt his wounds, proving His material existence, and the Gospel According to Luke, he ate with the Disciples before His ascension, all attributes of corporeality.
So, when we consider these two things, that Jesus Christ is omnipotent and fully God as well as fully man, and that He rose in a glorified form, it becomes entirely possible for Him to make His body and blood available to us, really truly present, retaining, after the Institution Narrative and the Epiclesis in the Holy Communion service, the perceptual attributes of bread and wine, except in the case of a few miraculous incidents where people, for their salvation, needed to perceive his actual body and blood, for example, a Muslim official in the Ottoman Empire converted after perceiving the Eucharist as flesh and blood; he looked away, and then looked back and saw it in the form of bread and wine; given the Islamic death penalty for apostasy, his conversion earned him the crown of martyrdom.
Thus, the glorified body of our risen Lord possesses attributes beyond our knowledge or comprehension, and even before His resurrection, He has existed from the moment of His conception in the womb of Mary the Mother of God (a title confirmed by Martin Luther) as fully human and fully divine, without change, confusion, comingling, separation or division of His humanity and divinity, and thus, given the principle of Communicatio Idiomatum, when we partake of the Eucharist, we are partaking of the Divine Nature, as St. Peter the Apostle reminds us in his second epistle.
So, if our Lord were, as the Unitarian Universalist heretics believe, and as the Muslims believe, and as most other cults believe, just a man, yes, the Eucharist would have a disturbing and indeed unshakeable cannibalistic connotation, even if one accepted a memorialist or Zwinglian (symbolic) interpretation, which explains why within 200 years of their schism from my denomination, the Congregationalist church, most UUA parishes in the Us, and Unitarian parishes in Great Britain, no longer celebrate the Eucharist, having replaced it with alternative rituals like “lighting the chalice” and “flower communion.”
However, He is not just a man; he is fully human, but He is also fully God, the Only Begotten Son and Word of God, begotten of the Father before all Ages, begotten not made, of one essence with the Father, and His humanity and divinity are in a state of hypostatic union as described above. And, He lives having trampled down death by death in the glorified form we will receive when we are resurrected at the Last Trumpet. Thus, God the Son can absolutely give us His body and blood in infinite quantities, in order to connect us to His sacrifice on the Cross, remitting our sins and granting us everlasting life, and we can partake, knowing that it is the very opposite of cannibalism, in that we are, based on 2 Peter, partakers of the divine nature.
I believe this post accurately reflects Assyrian, Roman Catholic, Lutheran, Eastern Orthodox and Oriental Orthodox sacramental theology and Christology, and I would encourage
@MarkRohfrietsch @ViaCrucis @prodromos @Greek Orthodox @concretecamper @Abaxvahl @Pavel Mosko and
@dzheremi , all of whom I regard as theologically well versed, to review it and comment if I have made any errors.