I just watched a video by a Roman Catholic apologist on the Eucharist:
I have addressed the various biblical and historical arguments this apologist has used before. For a listing, see:
However, I do wish to address His argument that Jesus' language in John 6 is to be taken "literally" (read: in support of Transubstantiation and the Eucharist itself as being a propitiatory sacrifice) as Jesus did not correct His Jewish opponents at Capernaum unlike other instances where Jesus corrected misunderstanding (e.g., John 10:6-7).
This argument is flawed for many reasons.
Firstly, if the language of eating flesh and drinking blood is to be taken literally, it proves too much. In Catholic theology, one does not partake of the consecrated bread on a 24/7 basis, but on an iterative basis. However, the phrase translated by the KJV as "whoso eateth" in John 6:54 is ὁ τρώγων, a present participle. The same is for "drinketh" (πίνων). If it proves anything, it proves too much for the proponent of some form of Real Presence, in this case, Transubstantiation.
Secondly, the apologist is wrong when he stated that in all other instances, Jesus corrected misunderstanding of His teaching.
There are many instances where Jesus is misunderstood about His metaphorical language and He does not correct them. Note, for instance, the following as recorded in the Gospel of John:
In the temple he found people selling cattle, sheep, and doves, and the money changers seated at their tables. Making a whip of cords, he drove all of them out of the temple, both the sheep and the cattle. He also poured out the coins of the money changers and overturned their tables. He told those who were selling the doves, "Take these things out of here! Stop making my Father's house a marketplace!" His disciples remembered that it was written, "Zeal for your house will consume me." The Jews then said to him, "What sign can you show us for doing this?" Jesus answered them, "Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up." The Jews then said, "This temple has been under construction for forty-six years, and will you raise it up in three days?" But he was speaking of the temple of his body. (John 2:14-21, NRSV)
In this text, the Jews misunderstood Jesus’ use of “temple,” believing it to refer to a literal temple; instead, Jesus was speaking of His then future death and resurrection.
Something similar happens in Matt 26:60-63 where, as with the Jewish opponents in John 2, the Jews misunderstand Jesus’ teachings and yet Jesus does not correct them:
But they found none, though many false witnesses came forward. At last two came forward and said, "This fellow said, 'I am able to destroy the temple of God and to build it in three days.'" The high priest stood up and said, "Have you no answer? What is it that they testify against you?" But Jesus was silent. Then the high priest said to him, "I put you under oath before the living God, tell us if you are the Messiah, the Son of God." (NRSV)
Furthermore, Jesus explicitly thought that He would speak in a language that those outside the believing community would understand in terms of its full spiritual meaning. Justifying His use of parables, we read the following:
The reason I speak to them in parables is that 'seeing they do not perceive, and hearing they do not listen, nor do they understand.' With them indeed is fulfilled the prophecy of Isaiah that says: 'You will indeed listen, but never understand, and you will indeed look, but never perceive. For this people's heart has grown dull, and their ears are hard of hearing, and they have shut their eyes; so that they might not look with their eyes, and listen with their ears, and understand with their heart and turn-- and I would heal them.' (Matt 13:13-15, NRSV)
In light of the biblical evidence, it is clear that this Roman Catholic apologist is incorrect in stating that Jesus corrected, in each instance, misunderstandings about His teachings to listeners. He accuses critics of Catholic theology of being dependent upon secondary sources, but it is clear such is projection, as this is a popular argument from Tim Staples and other popular Catholic apologists, but it is clearly in conflict with the witness of the New Testament.