This is a theory not a biblical teaching, although Christ’s death and ressurection was representative of the Jewish Passover. Jesus was the Passover Lamb. But that reality has nothing to do with the Catholic doctrine of transubstantiation.
Why would it that even be a nessessary thing? It has nothing to do with what Christ said it was for. He said “Do this in remembrance of me”. Why is it necessary for us to eat his actually body for us to remember what he did for us? When Jesus said he is the Bread of Life he wasn’t confining that meaning to simply to a physical meal. Jesus meant His is eternal food for the soul! Not for our physical stomachs.
“Give us this day our daily bread.” Matthew 6:11
Do you believe this prayer is concerned here with just “our physical stomachs”? Think again if you do. In both instances (John 6 and Matthew 6) Jesus is talking about the same bread, Him: “I am the bread of life.” (John 6:35)
When you read in the Bible all the passages that are related to a specific issue then you can see the whole picture. On this one we start with the very first book of the Bible:
“And Melchizedek king of Salem brought forth
bread and wine: and he was the priest of the most high God.” Genesis 14:18
Look what we have: a priest of the most high God; bread and wine; “Give us this day our daily bread”; “I am the bread of life”; “I am the bread which comes from heaven.” (John 6:41) There is more:
"Jesus answered, “Truly, I say to you, you look for me, not because you have seen through the signs, but because you ate bread and were satisfied. Work then, not for perishable food, but for the lasting food which gives eternal life. The Son of Man will give it to you, for he is the one the Father has marked.” John 6:26-27
If Jesus real concern regarding bread was just the bread for the “physical stomachs” of his followers, why does He reproaches them for looking for that specific bread? His followers were sure Jesus was talking about literal bread: «And they said to him, “Give us this bread always.”» (John 6:34)
Even the Apostles weren’t completely sure what Jesus was saying. They got it that night during the Last Supper. Then they knew the bread was truly His body and it was for our spiritual needs. If that is not the case, why would Paul be so concerned about Christians “eating a symbol” unworthily?
“Therefore, IF ANYONE EATS OF THE BREAD OR DRINKS FROM THE CUP OF THE LORD UNWORTHILY, HE SINS AGAINST THE BODY AND BLOOD OF THE LORD. Let each one, then, EXAMINE HIMSELF BEFORE EATING OF THE BREAD AND DRINKING FROM THE CUP. OTHERWISE, HE EATS AND DRINKS HIS OWN CONDEMNATION IN NOT RECOGNIZING THE BODY.” (1 Cor. 11:27-29)
Condemnation for eating a “symbol” unworthily?
From
Rick Salbato:
“So we see from Paul’s words and from the symbols of the Old Law that there are three ways to sin against the Body of Christ: to receive in the state of sin; to not believe it to be His real Body; and to think of it as a food.”
If you visit the catacombs, if you read the Fathers of the Church, you’ll see that the Early Church Christians were gathering there to attend Mass and to have Communion. For that reason they were also being killed by the roman authorities. Read St. Justin
letter to the Emperor Antoninus Pius explaining him the sacrifice of the Body and Blood of Christ, c. 155 AD. Go to CHAPTER LXV – ADMINISTRATION OF THE SACRAMENTS.