I am careful with the word "literal" and am reluctant to use it.
You may eat His body and receive Him as judge only. Life will be eternal. You won't like it.
If one wants to descend into the morass of proof-texting, then one needs to think about verb tenses in Hebrew and Aramaic, and to wonder if the present tense is a present progressive (Is eating) or a kind of present perfect (has eaten) or a simple present (eats). And once that Pandora's box is opened I can find my way to a justification of just about anything.
As far as I'm concerned that demonstrates more why Sola Scriptura is a hermeneutic impossibility than anything else.
The subject is difficult two ways. One is exemplified by Theo's bland assertion that we think we're drinking corpuscles, which is nonsense as anyone who has spent half an hour with the part of the Summa that deals with this would know.
The other is the post Cartesian materialism that leads to the notion that something is what it is made of, and, similarly that an act is little more than the steps it takes to perform it.
(Oh my heavens, this is a beautiful passage!)
What is the difference between fornication and chaste intercourse? Little that one could film. Chaste intercourse takes place within the context of matrimony, and to the extent that, even in that context, it is exploitative it is not chaste. And, to be clear, true charity in marriage is not earned but a gift of grace.
so then, what is it truly to eat the true food (Βρωσις-- the KJV has "meat")? Is it only a matter of the food, so that a non-believer who ate it would eat it truly?
It is when these things are reduced to gotcha arguments and proof texts, when one reads the Bible not to encounter the speaker of the still, small voice but to justify a point of view that one encounters the chaste wife who is embraced by the exploitative husband.
The problem is that when we say "Substance" you think we mean "material". When we say "eat" you think we mean "chew and swallow," and so your side cannot articulate coherently the difference between getting laid and making love.
I'm not saying you don't know the difference. I am saying that you have abandoned the conceptual tools which would enable a coherent explanation of it and, likewise, an understanding (with or without agreement) of what we teach.