You do realize, doncha, that a given "pope" (& there've been some doozies in RC history) is one of those "self interpreters," doncha?Shall I recount the histories of some of these popes in whom you've placed seemingly unquestionable trust as the final arbiter of Biblical truth?
This is a point of massive confusion for non-Catholics, and, frankly, some Catholics. The pope does not exist outside of the Church. And he is also not really "the final arbiter of Biblical truth" as you describe him. Rather, the Church is. We look to the entire history of the Church, and to all she has said, and prayed, and that which has been accepted by her as unquestionably reliable by constant witness and use in order to understand what we read in the Bible. If a pope comes out tomorrow and says that John 6 doesn't really reflect a teaching on the Eucharist no Catholic would accept it. It would be one man's opinion, and a bad one. Why? Because it flatly contradicts the 2,000 year teaching of the Church. Pope's are authoritative, but only so long as they remain within the confines of the Church's consistent understanding and teaching authority. They confirm us in our faith; they don't invent it.
People like to exaggerate things the Holy Father says for their own benefit, but actually there is nothing controversial about what the pope said as quoted in this article. In fact, what he said here is already done by every reasonable Protestant I have ever known. Every reasonable Christian knows that one has to consider any single statement from Scripture within the whole context in order to know whether it is meant to be taken as literally true on its own, or rather as contributing to a point being made through a greater segment of text. For instance, is it "literally true" when Christ said "This is my body" over bread? We say yes, given the context of the entire Scriptures and their witness to the Eucharistic faith of the Church. We also say yes given the historic witness of the Church throughout history. However, and very ironically, most of the people shouting that Catholics deny the Bible in believing that not every sentence of the Bible must be "literally true," would say this single sentence is actually not literally true. What the Holy Father is talking about here is actually what 99% of Christians do every time they read the Bible. Some want to make things controversial, but nothing said here actually is.
Over bread? Is Jesus not the "bread of heaven"? Why the false choice -- having to choose between "body" and "bread?" Did not Jesus use the word "bread" to describe Himself 11 times between John 6:32-58? What? Isn't "Bread" as a Jesus self-description good enough for you?
However, and very ironically, most of the people shouting that Catholics deny the Bible in believing that not every sentence of the Bible must be "literally true," would say this single sentence is actually not literally true.
Look @ John 6:51-55. Jesus uses the word "real" twice in v. 55: "This bread is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world.”...For my flesh is real food and my blood is real drink." (John 6:51,55)
If you're going to focus on "being Biblical"...then let's use the words Jesus used to describe Himself, which I have no qualms with as you contend: His flesh is indeed the Bread of heaven; we consume Him; and His flesh is "REAL food"...
Real = true; authentic; genuine...you're the one tossing in the word "literal" into Jesus' verbiage of John 6 as a reaction vs. those who symbolize. I don't symbolize it; but neither do I attach a literal biting-into-the knuckles of Jesus. Jesus didn't use the word "literal"; He said "real" -- and I believe Him as knowing what He was talking about.
What the Holy Father is talking about here is actually what 99% of Christians do every time they read the Bible.
Sorry. Not so. A high % of Christians do not try to "symbolize" or "spiritualize" away the reality of John 6. This shows your utter poverty of studying the history of the Reformation; elsewise you'd realize the nuanced positions of the major Catholic breakaway groups & their stance on John 6 (Lutherans; Anglicans; Episcopalians, etc.).
Some want to make things controversial, but nothing said here actually is.
Well, you just "shot" yourself in the foot here.
First...
...you condemn Protestants for not reading John 6 as "real." (Yeah, I know you use the word "literal" -- but your implication is that we don't think Jesus flesh & blood is real food & drink; sorry, but many do).
Second...
...Your very words above seem to indicate that you didn't realize the initial controversy arising among Jesus' "second wave" of less-intimate disciples...
...which indicates you haven't read John 6:66-67:
66 From this time many of his disciples turned back and no longer followed him. 67 “You do not want to leave too, do you?” Jesus asked the Twelve.
So Jesus' words in John were "controversy-free," eh?
Please, it's certainly OK if you're partially ignorant on this subject as it's revealed in John 6. (Hey, we're all ignorant or partially ignorant on MANY subjects). But please don't try to export that ignorance as something other than what it is.