This does not accord with the reaction of Jesus' hearers at the time, nor with the understanding and practice of the Church everywhere --- Europe, Asia, Africa ---until the Northwest European breakup in the 16th century.
Did any Christian believe the Mass was in contradiction to the NT until the 16th or 17th century? Might you let me know?
At the time of the initial Bread of Life Discourse (John 6), the crowds are disturbed at Jesus' words, interpret them as real and shocking. "This saying is hard, who can accept it?"
Jesus notes this, and does he finesse it in a literary genre kind of way?
No, He doubles down. "I tell you, my Flesh is real food and by Blood real drink." (Literary device, eh?) He even switches verbs, so the verb He uses goes from just "eat" (phago) to the way an animal eats meat (trogo). The word trogo means “to gnaw, to chew,” and it is used nowhere else in the New Testament, except in John 6:54, and 56-58.
Note: Jesus doesn't chase after them and say, "Wait! Stop! It's just a metaphor, you simpletons!"
No, he's all about "real" food and "real" drink and "Amen, amen, I say unto you." Then He turns to His closest disciples and says, "Do you want to go, too?"
It accords with the rest of Scripture which clearly and repeatedly forbids the consumption of blood.
If the Catholic interpretation is correct, God Himself is violating His own Law and precept. It’s a contradiction that Catholicism needs to explain, how God can forbid the consumption of blood and then go and demand that it be eaten.
If the meal is simply symbolic, a representation or ceremony of remembrance, then no such contradiction exists. Since it is not blood being consumed, there is no violation of the Law with communion being a meal of remembrance and showing the Lord’s death until He comes again.