Writing in defense of the Catholic interpretation of John 6, Robert Sungenis noted:
. . . no passage of the Old or New Testament commands anyone to drink blood, not even as a metaphor. Yet the Bible uses the drinking of water both literally (Jn 4:1 3; Rm 12:20) and figuratively (Jn 4:10-15; 7:38). Hence, since the rest of the New Testament never uses drinking blood as a metaphor for believing in Jesus, it certainly begs the question for opponents to claim that it is a metaphor in John 6. Similarly, nowhere other than in John 6 does either the Old or New Testament eve command anyone to eat the flesh of either God or Christ, even as a metaphor. (Robert A. Sungenis, Not By Bread Alone: The Biblical and Historical Evidence for the Eucharistic Sacrifice [2d ed.; Catholic Apologetics International Publishing, Inc., 2009], 148-49)
Sungenis, in a footnote (p. 149 n. 158) cites p. 375 of Ludwig Ott's Fundaments of Catholic Dogma in support of this argument:
There is nothing in the text to support a figurative interpretation; for bread and wine are neither in their nature, nor by current speech usage, symbols of body and blood. The literal interpretation involves no intrinsic contradiction though it presupposes faith in the Divinity of Christ.
Just because the Bible does not employ a metaphor except for in one narrative, does not mean it is not a metaphor. For instance, only in John 10:7-9 is Jesus called a "door." Using Sungenis' logic, this means that Jesus is, substantially, a door, but only has the accidents (outward appearance) of a human person, which is absurd. Indeed, this is where Sungenis contradicts himself on this issue, for on p. 153, he notes that:
John 10 is the only time that Jesus said, "I am the door," or even referred to as a door in all Scripture . . .
For more refutations of arguments in favour of the Mass as a propitiatory sacrifice and Transubstantiation from both the Bible and early Christian literature, see:
