We all know the passage where Jesus makes the Eucharist very clear, and then people get offended by His words and leave to go do their own thing. He never once qualifies His statement, but rather says that people will be offended, but He will not change. The Apostles were tempted to leave also, but acknowledge that, even though Christ's words are hard to accept, there is no denying He knows all truth. Jesus had said:
"Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood, you have no life in you; he who eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day."
Yet, what if our protestant friends were correct? What if Jesus was actually teaching a protestant understanding of things, and was not explaining the Eucharist? Would He have used the words we find (in every translation of Scripture, Catholic or otherwise) in the gospel of John, chapter 6? No reasonable person would think so. Instead, if promoting a protestant view of what is said in that passage, He would likely have said something more like:
"Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you find some really cool symbolic way of sorta, kinda, eating my flesh (but not real flesh of course, because that is not what I mean) and drinking my blood (but not real blood of course, because that is really yucky), then you might not have life in you; but, let me be clear, I'm not actually putting any real requirements on you, because that would be legalistic, and I want everyone to be just really super happy and be able to slide right into Heaven when they die because that is easier for everyone involved. And I will raise everyone up on the last day, except those crazy Catholics who worship bread and wine and statues and saints, and a whole bunch of other nasty stuff!"