It takes quite a bit of work to subvert the plain meaning of scripture, no ?Not really. Look how often the plain sense of this scripture is ignored:
John 6: 53Jesus said to them, "I tell you the truth, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you. 54Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day. 55For my flesh is real food and my blood is real drink. 56Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me, and I in him.
Yeah, imagine how easy it is to subvert something that one can easily go to the old testament and parallel against those verses to show what's being said. Tell me. If Jesus flesh had to be eaten and he is the bread of life, how then was the bread of life eaten in old testament times. Furthermore, the statement christ made were present tense, not past, if it were to be taken literally, those men would have to have literally attacked and eaten christ. Sucks when sound reasoning starts permeating the conversation all of a sudden. There are a good many things that bear on that passage that catholics don't and won't deal with - period. And they all repudiate your stance.
That is all.