Oh, come now. The Latin church does not teach that Scripture is an allegory.
On the other hand, the Scriptures certainly contain allegories--read Proverbs.
It is a matter of discernment which passages are to be taken literally, and which are allegorical.
One must pick whether John or the synoptics correctly recorded the time of Christ's Crucifixion--as an Orthodox Christian I hold with St. John the Theologian, while the Latin church and most protestants hold with the synoptics, hence the controversy over 'azymes'. And if you pick the synoptic Gospels' chronology, then John's timing of the Crucifixion during the slaughter of the Paschal lambs is allegorical.
What warrant have you to insist that Genesis chapters 1 and 2 are to be read literally, and worse still with a sense of 'literal' based on a hermeneutic which didn't even exist at the time they were first written down--that of reading everything as if it were written by and for post-'Englightenment' rationalists--when the generation of Christians who were alive when the Church fixed the canon of Scripture didn't give them that reading? St. Basil the Great in his Hexaemeron--often held up as a patristic support for six-day literalism--early in the book writes, "It matters not whether you say 'day' or 'aeon', the thought is the same." St. Gregory of Nyssa describes the opening chapters of Genesis as "Doctrine in the guise of a narrative." Where do you get off insisting on literalism, misnaming the Holy Scriptures, 'the Word', when Christ Himself is the Word, as if they were a Christian Koran?
Why do you have to appeal to early thinkers instead of Jesus, the Apostles, prophets and the scriptures themselves. Why? Because only through the opinions of dissassociated persons can you get to the nonsense you proffer. It isn't about taking it literally, it's about taking it seriously. Messing with the language isn't taking it seriously, it's trying to find excuse.