The Catholic position is not that the entire Bible should be viewed literally. One has to look at the context and the type of writing the inspired author used.
John 6 (key Eucharist texts) should be interpreted literally because it reads like a historical account of disciples leaving Him over this hard teaching.
Revelation on the other hand obviously has a lot of symbolism and should not be interpreted literally. Same for the parables of Jesus. Some of this symbolic writing was used to hide the Truths from potential oppressors in the government at the time.
You don't say? /sarc
One has to look at the context and the type of writing the inspired author used.
You mean the apostles vs. "J," "E," "P," and "D?" Wow. Tell me . . . how did "nineteenth century scholarship" finally prove that these unknown human authors, and not G-d Himself, authored the Torah? I'm sure you must know, since you're so sure of it.
John 6 (key Eucharist texts) should be interpreted literally because it reads like a historical account of disciples leaving Him over this hard teaching.
Be honest. You interpret John 6 literally merely because it's part of Catholic cultural identity and makes a demarcation between Catholics and Fundamentalist Protestants. Just as the same Catholic evolutionists believe that J*sus was born without the activity of a human father or that Mary played basketball with the sun on October 13, 1917. These are "Catholic miracles" as opposed to the first eleven chapters of Genesis which is for Protestant "trailer park trash."