I thought you said you were Bible literate. Perhaps you were referring to the reading of the bible in only the literal-historical sense. There are two major ways in which to read Scripture; the Literal and the Mystical.
Littera gesta docet; quid credas allegoria.
Moralis quid agas; quo tendis anagogia.
A rough translation is:
The Letter tells of the deeds; the Allegory what we are to believe.
The Moral what we are to do; the Anagogical whither we are to tend.
With the exception of typology, the mystical sense is largely ignored by Protestantism. But since you bring up St. Augustine so frequently we ought to turn to what he had to say on the subject, rather than to speculate and infer. St. Augustine argued that reality could be divided into “signs”, realities that had signification, pointing beyond themselves to something else, and “things,” which are realities that had no signification. He wrote that the words of Scripture were “signs” that pointed to “things” beyond themselves, usually to historical realities. He said that only when one fully understands all the “things” to which the “signs” refer, can one achieve an understanding of the literal sense of Scripture. If you do not understand the Holy Spirit and the Eucharist you cannot understand the signs, i.e.; “the firefeeder and oil” reference.
"It is a matter of history when deeds done—whether by men or by God—are reported. It is a matter of allegory when things spoken in figures are understood. It is a matter of analogy, when the conformity of the Old and New Testaments is shown. It is a matter of etiology when the causes of what is said or done are reported. - St Augustine, On Genesis
“With the exception of typology, the mystical sense is largely ignored by Protestantism. “
Actually, I find myself agreeing with most of your post. There is very little in it that bothers me. The disconnect, of course, is that you yourself do not apply it. When Augustine, in one breath, speaks of the typology of the “sacrament of the Holy Spirit,” and then in the next breath speaks of the typology of the “sacrament of the Eucharist,” and even explicitly tells us that his phrases “the bread is the body of Christ” is no different than his other symbolic language (and compares the symbology of both), I fail to see in your post an explanation of why we should think he was only kidding.
As for “Biblical literacy.” I think the correct phrase is “literacy” in general, as none of your teachings actually exist in the scripture. In fact, your entire theology on the Eucharist is built on a few lines in scripture that conclude with the reason: “Do this to remember me.” And from this, you have imagined complicated systems to explain how “do this to remember me” actually means “do this as a rite of the Roman Catholic Church to secure for yourself eternal life.”