You may have a Bible, but I suggest the Catholic Church's teaching on the real presence is correct and consistent with Scripture, whereas your interpretation (whatever it may be) is mistaken.
When Jesus says "This is my body" and "This is my blood" the night before his crucifixion, he meant it. If Jesus had meant to teach Lutheranism, he could have said in a clear way, "This bread contains my body." If he had meant to teach Evangelicalism, he could have said in a clear way, "This bread only represents my body." But he didn't say either. Yet he was clear. In the clearest way he could say it, he said, "This
is my body" (Matthew 26:26-28).
A year earlier before the Last Supper, Christ was preaching to His Disciples. Please refer to
John 6:26-59 in your Bible, which you have already cited, and let's review it.
First, Jesus tells us what we need to do for God, which is to believe in Him, Jesus. They ask Him for a sign, and He tells them that He is the "bread of life." Here, yes, He is speaking through an analogy, as in "I am the door," "I am the vine." There could be lots of ways to interpret what this means, unless He were to go on an explain the analogy. Happily, He does just that -- He explains the analogy. And what does He say? He says,
"This bread is my flesh, which I give for the life of the world." What is the bread of life? His
flesh. In case we don't understand whether he means "flesh" in a real, physical, touchable way, he tells us next that it is the same flesh that will be given up on the Cross! He goes on to say that this flesh must be eaten by his followers.
There is no doubt what Christ means. If the flesh we eat for eternal life is meant in only a "figurative way," or "spiritually speaking," then so is the flesh of the crucifixion! Jesus equates the two. Either they are both literal, or they are both figurative.
Jesus taught that in order for us to have eternal life we must "eat his flesh." He repeats this phrase, or its variations,
six times. Four of the times, the Greek word used is very graphic; it can be translated "to chew." This word is never used symbolically anywhere in the NT, OT, Septuagint, or any other ancient literature. Jesus makes it clear that the flesh is literal, as the body on the Cross was literal.
Further evidence that Jesus was literal about eating His Flesh: This is the only place in the Gospels where disciples of Jesus left him over a doctrinal issue. This is also the first time we hear of Judas doubting the wisdom of his master. Do you think they were so upset over a metaphor? Of course not. They walked away because, just like Protestants today, they refused to take Him literally. They could not believe Him that they had to eat His flesh to be saved. They thought He had lost His marbles. In droves, they walked away, and eventually they killed Him over it. Only His closest followers remained loyal, and even one of them, Peter, denied Him for a period of time. Are you doubting the Lord as Peter did? As many of the disciples did who left Him because they could not accept His teaching?
In
1 Corinthians 11:23-32, Paul writes, "Whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of
sinning against the body and blood of the Lord. A man ought to examine himself before he eats of the bread and drinks of the cup. For anyone who eats and drinks
without recognizing the body of the Lord eats and drinks judgment on himself."
Now how could one be "guilty" of the Body and Blood of Christ if the service is
only a memorial?
Granted, the service is done in remembrance. But it is more than that. We must
recognize the bread for what it truly is, "
the body of the Lord, or be judged. How much clearer could Paul be than this? There is no textual basis for the Protestant teaching that communion is
only a memorial.
Moreover,
the early Church believed in the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist, as is evident in the writings of the early Church Fathers.