“Well, they sure didn’t expect & accept that they would literally eat Him.”
Sure they did. http://www.therealpresence.org/eucharst/father/a5.html
http://www.therealpresence.org/eucharst/father/fathers.htm
“They weren’t sure what else he meant, but knew He didn’t mean THAT.”
Yes, He did. https://www.ewtn.com/faith/teachings/euchc2.htm
“For someone who spoke almost exclusively in parables etc, taking “eat me” literally was obviously wrong.”
Nope. Remember, we know what “eat my flesh” means when used as a metaphor: Psalm 27:2:
New International Version
When the wicked advance against me to devour me, it is my enemies and my foes who will stumble and fall.
As a metaphor it isn’t something positive.
Jesus meant what He said. You eat the Passover Lamb (just like in Exodus 12).
It’s why so many disciples walked away.....because His saying was hard. Symbolic talk is not “hard”..and it certainly doesn’t cause disciples to walk away.
One minor detail....the blood was NEVER consumed.
Jesus would not have commanded the Jews, nor His disciples who were well acquainted with the OT Law, to break the Law by consuming blood.
This would also go against the Council of Jerusalem's letter to the Gentiles.
19“Therefore it is my judgment that we do not trouble those who are turning to God from among the Gentiles, 20but that we write to them that they abstain from things contaminated by idols and from fornication and from what is strangled and from blood. Acts 15:19-20
Not only does the Council's ruling go against the catholic understanding of the "sacrifice" of the Mass, it is also against the worship of Mary. It is well known catholics bow down statues of Mary, pray to Mary, rely upon her for salvation, etc.