Yeah I could read it. My difference in understanding is simply this : the symbolic is rational. To call a thing symbolic is not to lower it in any way - the opposite, actually. Matter has no meaning all by itself. It takes human understanding to see meaning, which means that symbolism is the primary reality we inhabit. Everything is symbolic, no matter how much anyone tries to pretend that it isn't. 

It seemed like the reformers contradicted themselves by saying the bread and wine are just matter but simultaneously saying they're symbolic. All things are symbolic. Matter may be matter, but before matter can be a thing, it must be a symbol, conform to a symbol commonly held. The symbol sits between your comprehension and the real thing - such that no one has ever seen any real things. Only symbols.

But likewise, the earthly church seems to have invented some nonsense... The first of the three numbered paragraphs says that Jesus spoke symbolically, then says that this particular part isn't symbolic simply because Jesus didn't say its symbolic. He never said anything was symbolic, as far as I can recall. What about the part where he fed the crowd with bread and fish, then had his disciples collect the crumbs, asked how many baskets were left over, and they said seven, and he responds with (something like), "don't you understand?" I'm not sure what the symbolism was, but it was obviously symbolic. 

I'm not saying the material happening didn't happen. This is the problem with these discussions : people understand by reduction, when they should understand by expansion. I think the material event did occur. But I also think the symbolic event is the thing of primary importance. 

So anyways... Eucharist. It also seems like its supposed to be any time people eat together, not a big religious event. I don't think God actually likes religion, tbh.