The video in post 37 explains it very well.
The Last Supper was the First Mass where He gave us His Body and Blood. His sacrifice in dying on the Cross is recreated in the Mass where He gives Himself to us and pays the price for our sins.
He gives us food and drink for our eternal life and this becomes a way to bring the union of God and His people back to how it was before original sin.
It seems fitting that Satan enticed Adam and Eve to sin by eating a forbidden fruit(food), and Jesus gives us His Body and Blood as food for our eternal life.
While not stated in the video, Jesus completed the Old Covenant, and began the the New Covenant. The old mosaic laws in regard to food, etc was no longer required to be followed. Jesus ended the sacrifice of animals from the Old Testament. While there was a letter to the gentiles (possibly a compromise so that the old Jewish laws were not required to be followed by gentiles) in Acts not to eat blood. I do not feel that this pertains to Christ’s words to eat His Body and Blood. Christ would not tell us to sin. It seems to be an used as an excuse by non Catholics that do not have the Real Presence.
So many verses talk about the one-time sacrifice, the sufficiency, how his blood was better than that of lambs/etc that had to be offered over and over again. But posting verses doesn't matter. These things can not be discussed because our languages are different. To some, what the bible has to say on the issue isn't as substantial as the collection of man's writings over the past 2000 years. I don't understand it, but if I would just learn it, I wouldn't spend time trying to pit the word of god up against tradition.
As I understand it, the catholic church sees the constant (24/7/365 for the past 2000 years) sacrifice of jesus as crucial to his good news. Based on my reading of the bible, I just find it cringeworthy.