Yes, of course...now concentrate of the subject of the sentence(remember grade school diagramming)...
the subject of the sentence is "this"....He said do THIS
and what had He just done????Transubstantiated bread and wine into His Body and Blood!!!
do THIS...and then He tells you why to do THIS.....
in memory of ME.
Roman Catholics interpret this passage literally and apply its message to the Lord’s Supper, which they title the “Eucharist” or “Mass.” Those who reject the idea of transubstantiation interpret Jesus’ words in John 6:53-57 figuratively or symbolically. How can we know which interpretation is correct? Thankfully, Jesus made it exceedingly obvious what He meant. John 6:63 declares, “The Spirit gives life; the flesh counts for nothing. The words I have spoken to you are spirit and they are life.” Jesus specifically stated that His words are “spirit.” Jesus was using physical concepts, eating and drinking, to teach spiritual truth. Just as consuming physical food and drink sustains our physical bodies, so are our spiritual lives saved and built up by spiritually receiving Him, by grace through faith. Eating Jesus’ flesh and drinking His blood are symbols of fully and completely receiving Him in our lives.
The Scriptures declare that the Lord's Supper is a memorial to the body and blood of Christ (Luke 22:19; 1 Corinthians 11:24-25), not the actual consumption of His physical body and blood. When Jesus was speaking in John chapter 6, Jesus had not yet had the Last Supper with His disciples, in which He instituted the Lord’s Supper. To read the Lord’s Supper / Christian Communion back into John chapter 6 is unwarranted. For a more complete discussion of these issues, please read our article on the Holy Eucharist.
The most serious reason transubstantiation should be rejected is that it is viewed by the Roman Catholic Church as a "re-sacrifice" of Jesus Christ for our sins, or as a “re-offering / re-presentation” of His sacrifice. This is directly in contradiction to what Scripture says, that Jesus died "once for all" and does not need to be sacrificed again (Hebrews 10:10; 1 Peter 3:18). Hebrews 7:27 declares, "Unlike the other high priests, He (Jesus) does not need to offer sacrifices day after day, first for his own sins, and then for the sins of the people. He sacrificed for their sins ONCE for all when He offered Himself."
Read more: http://www.gotquestions.org/transubstantiation.html#ixzz3THY21SDk
“E.g., if I told you to give your child a hug in remembrance of me, you wouldn’t think I meant a symbolic hug.”
No, I would not. But Jesus gave the reason WHY we partake: “IN REMEMBRANCE OF ME”.
NOT “in a perpetual ongoing sacrifice of me”, but to REMEMBER.
“The Roman Catholic Church and I think even the consubstantiation view of the Lutheran Church and so forth says, “This is My body,” verse 24 and verse 25, “This is the New Testament in My blood,” and because of a misunderstanding of the meaning of estin, the verb “to be” in the Greek, they have decided that that has to literally be the body and blood of Christ, either in a very physical sense or in a sort of a strange spiritual sense. That’s not what He’s saying. The verb to be, estin, or whatever form you want, singular or plural, is frequently used to mean represents. This bread is not His body, it represents His body. This cup is not His blood, it represents His blood. When Jesus said in John 10, “I am the door,” He meant I as a Savior and shepherd of the sheep represent a door into the sheepfold. He wasn’t literally a door. In Matthew 13 when He gave the parable of the wheat and the tares and He said, “The field is the world,” He didn’t really mean the field is the world. In the parable He meant the field represents the world. And He said the good seed are the children of God and the bad seed, the children of the wicked one. And, of course, the words is and are in those cases simply means represents. It’s used in a figurative, metaphorical sense.
So, here this represents My body, this bread He said. And this cup represents My blood. It was not His blood. His blood was still in His veins when He said that. It was not His body. His body was still sitting there when He said that. So, we’re not talking about literal things.”
http://www.gty.org/Resources/Sermons/1847