In fact, it would be hard to be more scriptural.
But let's be crystal clear: the "Eucharistic sacrifice" is one and the same sacrifice as Calvary. It is not a new sacrifice. It is not another sacrifice. Jesus does not suffer or die again.
Christ's sacrifice is eternally present to the Father in heaven. If you don't believe that, I suggest you reread Hebrews 9 and 10, particularly in light of the Yom Kippur narrative in Leviticus 16.
The sacrifice in Leviticus does not end with the death of the victim. None of the OT sacrifices do. The victim must be offered by the priest -- on Yom Kippur (and only then) the victim's blood is sprinkled in the Holy of Holies by the High Priest -- and, in many cases, the priest and the person for whom the sacrifice is offered must eat the sacrificial victim.
Hebrews makes it crystal clear that Christ is now in the heavenly Holy of Holies offering his blood to the Father on our behalf, so it's crystal clear that his sacrifice did not end on Calvary. (We don't even need to add that heaven is outside of time, and all moments are present eternally to God anyway.) This is why Christ appears in Revelation 5:6 as a Lamb standing "as though it had been slain".
It is precisely this sacrifice that is made present to us in the Mass. In the Mass we are -- spiritually -- at the foot of the cross, and in the heavenly Holy of Holies with Jesus the High Priest.
This is why Hebrews 13 has the interesting aside that "we have an altar from which those who serve the [Jewish] Tabernacle have no right to eat".
That automatically tells you two things: Christians offer a sacrifice (that's what an altar is, a table for sacrifice), and they eat of it.
Hmmm, then the church fathers in theCouncil at Jerusalem in Acts 15 were wrong when they told believers to abstain from blood.
Now, some of the apostles who were at this meeting were listed by name and were, Paul, Barnabas, Peter, and James. The decision they reached about requiring the Gentile believers to follow the Law was this..... (James speaking, after Peter who was also there and didn't contest it) Acts 15: 19-20 "It is my judgment, therefore, that we should not make it difficult for the Gentiles who are turning to God. Instead we should write to them, telling them to abstain from food polluted by idols, from sexual immorality, from the meat of strangled animals and from blood.
Acts 15: 22-29 22Then the apostles and elders, with the whole church, decided to choose some of their own men and send them to Antioch with Paul and Barnabas. They chose Judas (called Barsabbas) and Silas, two men who were leaders among the brothers.
23With them they sent the following letter: The apostles and elders, your brothers, To the Gentile believers in Antioch, Syria and Cilicia: Greetings. 24We have heard that some went out from us without our authorization and disturbed you, troubling your minds by what they said. 25So we all agreed to choose some men and send them to you with our dear friends Barnabas and Paul— 26men who have risked their lives for the name of our Lord Jesus Christ. 27Therefore we are sending Judas and Silas to confirm by word of mouth what we are writing. 28It seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us not to burden you with anything beyond the following requirements: 29You are to abstain from food sacrificed to idols, from blood, from the meat of strangled animals and from sexual immorality. You will do well to avoid these things. Farewell.
Now, how could they, being led by the Holy Spirit, tell people to abstain from blood if they thought that Jesus taught that the communion cup became the actual, literal blood of Christ?
That would be God contradicting His own commands.
Besides, has anybody ever PROVED that the wafer becomes the literal flesh of Christ?
And do Catholics even take communion like Christ commanded yet by taking the cup as well? For years the RCC only had its adherents take the wafer, not the cup so they weren't even observing communion Scripturally to begin with.