Not denigrating, but pointing out what you have been taught about the Holy Eucharist is wrong, so you might come to appreciate the greatest gift He left His Church, His actual, physical and spiritual presence in the form of bread and wine.
It is at best unnecesarily antagonistic. The way it’s written will never bring anyone to your side. But e see this in almost every apologetic piece Roman authors write that are posted here. And we’re told of course that isn’t the case.
Do you even know what denomination I am, for you to say that?
If the flesh and blood is meant to be taken literally, then John 6 is at best a FORESHADOWING of (not the INSTITUTION of) the Lords Table ... which at this point in His ministry is still several years away. It is a foreshadowing at best because they did not literally sit down and celebrate the Lords Table there in John 6.
Now the point that is overlooked is this: the gospel of John is the only gospel that does not record the Lords Table. If John 6 is a foreshadowing ... then it is not possible that John would neglect to complete the thought by mentioning it in the Upper Room Discourse in John 13-17.
The best attempts by Catholics usually involve some variation of ... "The other gospels mentioned the institution of the Lords Table, John didn't need to be redundant ..."
This is simply not a valid explanation ... because much lesser events, for example, the Triumphal Entry, ARE included in all 4 gospels.
So far, not even a Catholic priest could present a cogent explanation for this.
I urge every Roman Catholic to go read the entire discourse in John 6 ... count how many times Jesus mentions belief ... and non-belief.