Once again, your assertion is refuted by what I provided, and is contrary to what the Holy Spirit, abundantly shows spiritual life-giving "meat and drink" to be, and the use of metaphorical language - which John especially uses - and how the NT church understood the gospels , and who never presents the Lord's supper as a sacrifice for sin by the hands of Catholic priests whereby souls obtain spiritual life, or as essential for obtaining it.
Only the metaphorical understanding easily conforms to the rest of Scripture, and does not require resorting to Neoplatonic thought and Aristotelian metaphysics to explain and rationalize a christ who by all evidences of matter is mere bread but "really" is the true and proper and lifegiving flesh and blood of Christ, corporeally present whole and entire." which is more akin to a Gnostic or Docetist Christ which was not what he appeared to be. to be.
John 6:53-55
Then Jesus said unto them,
Verily, verily, I say unto you,
Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man,
and drink his blood,
ye have no life in you.
Whoso eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood,
hath eternal life;
and I will raise him up at the last day.
For my flesh is meat indeed,
and my blood is drink indeed.1 Corinthians 11:27-29
Wherefore whosoever shall eat this bread,
and drink this cup of the Lord, unworthily,
shall be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord.
But let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of that bread, and drink of that cup.
For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh damnation to himself, not discerning the Lord’s body.First Apology of St. Justin Martyr, c. 155 AD
"We do not consume the eucharistic bread and wine as if it were ordinary food and drink, for we have been taught that as Jesus Christ our Savior became a man of flesh and blood by the power of the Word of God, so also the food that our flesh and blood assimilates for its nourishment becomes the flesh and blood of the incarnate Jesus by the power of his own words contained in the prayer of thanksgiving ("eucharistia").
All of these affirm that, while the Body and Blood surely have other layers of meaning --- sign, commemoration, and so forth --- these other meanings are part of the fundamental reality that this IS His Body and Blood.
All of the other meaningful facets --- that this is symbolic, metaphoric, refers to spiritual things,etc.--- are taken up in the incarnational/sacramental *fact* of Christ's Body and Blood (Eucharistic realism) without replacing or refuting it.
All the ancient churches ---- not only Latin and Byzantine, that is, those under the direct sway of Roman or Constantinople, but also Armenian, Assyrian, Coptic, Ethiopian, etc.--- would agree that the Eucharist is "also" a symbol and a commemoration, without saying it is "only" a symbol or a commemoration. They all affirm Eucharistic realism: this is His Body and Blood.
It's always been both/and.
This is the reason why elaborate explanations of the symbolic aspect, do not refute the realist. The sign is multivalent, and not exclusive.
Compare to the act of marital union. It surely has the symbolic meaning of spiritual union, but that does not deny, refute or replace bodily union.
Your anti-sacramental POV --- refuting the "real" and "true" description of what is "indeed" His Body and Blood ---can be sustained only be refuting the Gospel of John, the Epistles of Paul, and all Christendom. I doubt you can show me that anybody made your kind of arguments to "refute" or "deny" Eucharistic realism, for the first 1500 years of Christianity.
That's the novelty of the modern "anti-carne," anti-incarnational argument.