Do We Eat Flesh, Bread, Or What?

[Protestant101]

I thought it would be a good idea to start this topic, as the thread we were discussing it in has been closed. The reason given for it being closed is that it had reached a 1000 post limit that this forum has. I didn’t even know about that forum rule; but I figured that since there might be some areas of the old thread we could continue here; I will start this topic.

The Old Thread Is Here

My intention is to take a day or two and review the old thread, write down 2 or 3 items which seem to be most important, and then attempt to reply to those.

I must say that some of the reactions have been “aggressive” to be sure; but I see the whole thing as a good exercise in Bible study and information.

Catholics have been able to clarify some of their thoughts and feelings on the doctrine of The Real Presence, and how they view Protestants who “protest” this belief. And they have generally been very gracious to us Protestants who were brazen enough to charge in here and question some aspects of this doctrine which I know they hold so dear.

It is not my intention to anger anyone here about it all; I am honestly submitting my thoughts and beliefs here for the purpose “comparing and contrasting” our respective beliefs as the rules for this forum state. This kind of exchange can leave one feeling vulnerable, or even offended; it is never a smooth road to closely question or defend our belief system. I especially respect and admire the Catholics here who have tried to answer questions and charges in a very respecful and patient manner. Your kindness does not go unoticed.

I get far too many replies and PMs to possibly reply to all; there is not enough of me and my time or energy to get to everyone and everything that comes from this forum! There’s a lot more of you than me!! So please forgive me if I don’t reply to you directly. Sometimes, I just make one reply that I feel sort of addresses more than one person at once.

I will come back to this topic soon, and when I do I will try to clarify the Catholic position on why they think the “flesh” in John 6 is “literal” and that they eat “the literal flesh of Christ” at their Mass. I will say that we do not partake of His “divine nature” by literally eating the guy. Most of you know that this is my position. I will try to clarify this view as well in future posts here.

Soon as I review the other thread; I will be back.

 

[po18guy]

Consider: Christ established the Flesh and Blood Eucharist, by His own authority, in the scriptures already cited. It had already been believed in, practiced and consumed continuously for 1,844 years when a certain faith tradition came about. A little food for thought.

The scriptural support for these beliefs is well known. The belief and practice of the Apostles and the early Church only back this up.

 

[Eucharisted]

"The Lord Jesus says to his disciples : *I am the way, the truth and the life; no one comes to the Father but through me. If you had known me, you would have known my Father also; and from now on you shall know him, and have seen him. Philip says to him: Lord, show us the Father, and it is enough for us. Jesus says to him: Am I with you so long a time, and still you do not know me? Philip, he who sees me sees my Father also *(Jo 14, 6-9). The Father dwells in unapproachable light (1Tim 6,16) and God is spirit (Jo 4,24) and *no one has ever seen God *(Jo 1,18). Hence only in spirit can he be seen, for *it is the spirit that gives life; the flesh has nothing to offer *(Jo 6,63). Yet neither is the Son, in as much as he is equal to the Father, seen by any one other than by the Father, other than by the Holy Spirit. Wherefore, all those who saw the Lord Jesus according to humanity and did not see and believe according to the spirit and the divinity that he is the true Son of God, were condemned. So also now all those who behold the sacrament which is sanctified by the words of the Lord upon the altar at the hand of the priest in the form of bread and wine, and do not see and believe according to the spirit and divinity that it is truly the most holy body and blood of our Lord Jesus Christ, are condemned. This the Most High Himself attests, who says: This is my body and the blood of my New Testament (Mk 14,22-24) and: who feeds on my Flesh and drinks my Blood *will have everlasting life *(Jo 6,55). Wherefore the spirit of the Lord, who dwells in his faithful ones, He it is who receives the most holy body and blood of the Lord. All others who do not share of that spirit and presume to receive him eat and drink judgment to themselves (1Cor 11,29).

Wherefore, O you sons of men, how long will you be dull of heart? (Ps 4,3). Why do you not recognize the truth and believe *in the Son of God *(Jo 9,35)? Behold: daily he humbles himself (Phil 2,8) as when *from heaven’s royal throne *(Wisd 18,15) he came down into the womb of the Virgin. Daily he himself comes to us with like humility; daily he descends from the bosom of the Father ( Jo 1,18; 6,38) upon the altar in the hands of the priest. And as he appeared to the Apostles in true flesh, so now also he shows himself to us in the sacred bread. And as they by their bodily sight saw only his flesh, yet contemplating him with the eyes of the spirit believed him to be very God, so we also, as we see our bodily eyes the bread and wine, are to see and firmly believe that it is his most holy body and blood living and true. And in this way the Lord is always with his faithful, as he himself says: Behold I am with you until the end of the world (Mt 28,20)."

• Saint Francis of Assisi, First Admonition.

 

[NDfan]

Consider: Christ established the Flesh and Blood Eucharist, by His own authority, in the scriptures already cited. It had already been believed in, practiced and consumed continuously for 1,844 years when a certain faith tradition came about. A little food for thought.

The scriptural support for these beliefs is well known. The belief and practice of the Apostles and the early Church only back this up.

Well known?? I don’t think so. Maybe according to your interpretation or the RCC interpretation. But sorry Transubstantiation doesn’t even make sense and does not fit with how the church defines it today.

 

[pete_29]

Well known?? I don’t think so. Maybe according to your interpretation or the RCC interpretation. But sorry Transubstantiation doesn’t even make sense and does not fit with how the church defines it today.

and which church would that be pray tell.

 

[Protestant101]

Consider: Christ established the Flesh and Blood Eucharist, by His own authority, in the scriptures already cited. It had already been believed in, practiced and consumed continuously for 1,844 years when a certain faith tradition came about. A little food for thought.

The scriptural support for these beliefs is well known. The belief and practice of the Apostles and the early Church only back this up.

Of course you will say this because you are Catholic; but what specific texts actually say that John 6’s use of the word “flesh” is intended to mean Jesus’s literal flesh?

If you are not familiar with terms like “hermeneutics” “exegesis” or “eisegesis;” I would suggest you go look them up in the same place where you found “Codswallop.” I will be interested, in this thread, to dig into HOW Catholics have used John 6 in such a literal sense. NOT WHY, but how?

The Bible gives us principles by which to go for deciding what a specific text means. What Bible principles/hermeneutics can you share that would enlighten us on HOW Catholics decided that the “flesh” in Jo.6 was literally Jesus’ flesh and that we eat it to gain eternal life?

How does the Bible tell us to decide if a given text is symbolic or not? What principles are we to go by?

Below are a few texts which show clearly that God’s Word is our necessary food, and that we are to “eat” of it regularly:

The “Word of The Lord;” (Bible) fittingly describes itself as “food” for the soul:

Deut. 8:3 “And he humbled thee, and suffered thee to hunger, and fed thee with manna, which thou knewest not, neither did thy fathers know; that he might make thee know that man doth not live by bread only, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of the LORD doth man live.”

Job 23:12 “Neither have I gone back from the commandment of his lips; I have esteemed the words of his mouth more than my necessary food.”

Ps.119:103 “How sweet are thy words unto my taste! yea, sweeter than honey to my mouth!”

Jer.15:16 “Thy words were found, and I did eat them; and thy word was unto me the joy and rejoicing of mine heart: for I am called by thy name, O LORD God of hosts.”

Ezekiel 2:8-9 “But thou, son of man, hear what I say unto thee; Be not thou rebellious like that rebellious house: open thy mouth, and eat that I give thee.” “And when I looked, behold, an hand was sent unto me; and, lo, a roll of a book was therein;”

Ezekiel 3:1-3 "God said, “Mortal man, eat this scroll; then go and speak to the people of Israel.” “So I opened my mouth, and he gave me the scroll to eat.” “He said, “Mortal man, eat this scroll that I give you; fill your stomach with it.” I ate it, and it tasted as sweet as honey.”

Mat.4:4 “But he answered and said, It is written, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God.”

**1 Pet.2:2-3 **“As newborn babes, desire the sincere milk of the word, that ye may grow thereby:” “If so be ye have tasted that the Lord is gracious.”

Rev.10:9-11 “And I went unto the angel, and said unto him, Give me the little book. And he said unto me, Take it, and eat it up; and it shall make thy belly bitter, but it shall be in thy mouth sweet as honey.” “And I took the little book out of the angel’s hand, and ate it up; and it was in my mouth sweet as honey: and as soon as I had eaten it, my belly was bitter.” “And he said unto me, Thou must prophesy again before many peoples, and nations, and tongues, and kings.”

 

[CHESTERTONRULES]

I will come back to this topic soon, and when I do I will try to clarify the Catholic position on why they think the “flesh” in John 6 is “literal” and that they eat “the literal flesh of Christ” at their Mass. I will say that we do not partake of His “divine nature” by literally eating the guy. Most of you know that this is my position. I will try to clarify this view as well in future posts here.

Soon as I review the other thread; I will be back.

Some interesting quotes from Augustine which describe the mystery that is beyond human understanding.

And he was carried in his own hands. Now, brothers, who can understand how this can happen to a man? Who can be carried in his own hands? A man is able to be carried in the hands of others, but no one is carried in his own hands. How this is to be understood in a literal way of David himself we cannot discover; however, we can discover how this happened in the case of Christ. For Christ was carried in his own hands when, entrusting to us his own Body, he said: “This is my Body.” Indeed he was carrying that Body in his own hands. (87)

He took earth from earth, because flesh is from the earth, and he took Flesh of the flesh of Mary. He walked on earth in that same Flesh, and gave that same Flesh to us to be eaten for our salvation. Moreover no one eats that Flesh unless he has first adored it [nemo autem illam carem manducat, nisi prius adoraverit] …and we sin by not adoring. (89)

Who is the Bread of heaven except Christ? But in order that man might eat the bread of angels, the Lord of the angels became a man. If this had not happened, we would not have his Flesh: if we did not have his Flesh, we would not eat the Bread of the altar. (90)

If, therefore, you are the Body of Christ and his members, it is your Mystery placed on the Lord’s table; it is your Mystery that you receive. (93)

 

[pete_29]

Jesus took bread and said, “THIS IS MY BODY”. What’s so hard to understand?

 

[broski234]

Well known?? I don’t think so. Maybe according to your interpretation or the RCC interpretation. But sorry Transubstantiation doesn’t even make sense and does not fit with how the church defines it today.

NDfan,
I need you to clarify your answer in your last sentence. How does the church define it today as opposed to the way it did then? It makes perfect sense when you take a closer look at scripture. You are embarking on classifying yourself into the category of the disciples who left Jesus in Jn6:66. Do you, too, find this teaching to be too hard? Why do you think Jesus was speaking symbolically?

 

[broski234]

Of course you will say this because you are Catholic; but what specific texts actually say that John 6’s use of the word “flesh” is intended to mean Jesus’s literal flesh?

If you are not familiar with terms like “hermeneutics” “exegesis” or “eisegesis;” I would suggest you go look them up in the same place where you found “Codswallop.” I will be interested, in this thread, to dig into HOW Catholics have used John 6 in such a literal sense. NOT WHY, but how?

The Bible gives us principles by which to go for deciding what a specific text means. What Bible principles/hermeneutics can you share that would enlighten us on HOW Catholics decided that the “flesh” in Jo.6 was literally Jesus’ flesh and that we eat it to gain eternal life?

How does the Bible tell us to decide if a given text is symbolic or not? What principles are we to go by?

Below are a few texts which show clearly that God’s Word is our necessary food, and that we are to “eat” of it regularly:

The “Word of The Lord;” (Bible) fittingly describes itself as “food” for the soul:

Deut. 8:3 “And he humbled thee, and suffered thee to hunger, and fed thee with manna, which thou knewest not, neither did thy fathers know; that he might make thee know that man doth not live by bread only, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of the LORD doth man live.”

Job 23:12 “Neither have I gone back from the commandment of his lips; I have esteemed the words of his mouth more than my necessary food.”

Ps.119:103 “How sweet are thy words unto my taste! yea, sweeter than honey to my mouth!”

Jer.15:16 “Thy words were found, and I did eat them; and thy word was unto me the joy and rejoicing of mine heart: for I am called by thy name, O LORD God of hosts.”

Ezekiel 2:8-9 “But thou, son of man, hear what I say unto thee; Be not thou rebellious like that rebellious house: open thy mouth, and eat that I give thee.” “And when I looked, behold, an hand was sent unto me; and, lo, a roll of a book was therein;”

Ezekiel 3:1-3 "God said, “Mortal man, eat this scroll; then go and speak to the people of Israel.” “So I opened my mouth, and he gave me the scroll to eat.” “He said, “Mortal man, eat this scroll that I give you; fill your stomach with it.” I ate it, and it tasted as sweet as honey.”

Mat.4:4 “But he answered and said, It is written, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God.”

**1 Pet.2:2-3 **“As newborn babes, desire the sincere milk of the word, that ye may grow thereby:” “If so be ye have tasted that the Lord is gracious.”

Rev.10:9-11 “And I went unto the angel, and said unto him, Give me the little book. And he said unto me, Take it, and eat it up; and it shall make thy belly bitter, but it shall be in thy mouth sweet as honey.” “And I took the little book out of the angel’s hand, and ate it up; and it was in my mouth sweet as honey: and as soon as I had eaten it, my belly was bitter.” “And he said unto me, Thou must prophesy again before many peoples, and nations, and tongues, and kings.”

Prot101,

You asked, “what specific texts actually say that John 6’s use of the word “flesh” is intended to mean Jesus’s literal flesh.” Read John 6:51. He is directly relating the bread He will give the disciples to His flesh that He will give for the life of the world. Was His flesh that He gave on the cross symbolic? I don’t think so. But if you say that the Eucharist is symbolic, then you have to believe that Him dying on the cross was symbolic. You can’t have it one and not the other in this case.

 

[NDfan]

and which church would that be pray tell.

The Roman Catholic church.

 

[NDfan]

NDfan,

I need you to clarify your answer in your last sentence.  How does the church define it today as opposed to the way it did then?  It makes perfect sense when you take a closer look at scripture.  You are embarking on classifying yourself into the category of the disciples who left Jesus in Jn6:66.  Do you, too, find this teaching to be too hard?  Why do you think Jesus was speaking symbolically?

Broski I can clarify. The church defined the real presence as transubstantiation at the council of trent. The RC claimed that the WHOLE substance of the bread and wine changed to Jesus flesh and blood but that the accidents which are the outward appearance remained. Now according to Aristotelian physics from which transubstantiation is derived we know that the accidents of an element have to inhere to a substance. Meaning that the accidents of wine let’s say which is the color red, the smell and taste of alcohol and tannins, the appearance etc. have to inhere to the substance the accidents represent. Opponents of transubstantiation objected to this definition for the eucharist claiming that if the substance changes to Christ’s flesh and blood then the accidents have to as well. But the accidents of flesh and blood would be different than those of bread and wine. To refute this Thomas Aquinas who understood Aristotelian physics claimed that the accidents were self contained through a miracle.

Now of course this is an easy way to dismiss any critics but certainly doesn’t match transubstantiation. If transubstantiation really takes place then any substances that would cause harm to someone like an alcoholic, or someone who is allergic to say wheat would be rendered harmless. Why? Because if the substance really changes then the alcohol and wheat and whatever substances that make up bread and wine would also cease to exist. But the church does not teach this. The church teaches that the substances of bread and wine stay intact. Almost similar to Martin Luther’s teaching. So if an alcoholic goes to a Catholic Church and says hey I’m worried about drinking the wine because it’s a trigger for me, the church will say do not partake in the cup. But wait a minute if transubstantiation really takes place then there is no worry. The substance of alcohol is gone and the only thing left is the accidents of the color red, the smell of alcohol, etc.

But alas this is not what the teaching is. So contrary to what the Council of Trent defined and what Thomas Aquinas argued, which is the whole substance changes, the church today says it doesn’t. Therefore it cannot be transubstantiation. If there’s no transubstantiation then we have just plain bread and wine. Now in the mid-20th century, some Roman Catholic theologians interpreted it as referring to a change of meaning rather than a change of substance. Meaning that when you consume the bread and wine what does it mean. But in 1965 Paul VI called for the retention of the original dogma so that went by the wayside. Currently the vatican is considering changing to the term transignification. We’ll see what happens.

To set the record straight I believe in the real presence just not transubstantiation.

PEACE

 

[po18guy]

Well known?? I don’t think so. Maybe according to your interpretation or the RCC interpretation.

I would guess that you have heard of and read John 6, Matthew 26:26-29 and 1 Corinthians 11. Those are just some of the scriptures which came from the 1,976 year old Catholic practice and belief.

 

[po18guy]

Of course you will say this because you are Catholic; but what specific texts actually say that John 6’s use of the word “flesh” is intended to mean Jesus’s literal flesh?

Nice trick question! First of all, one cannot “dumb down” Christ’s church to the heretical and erroneous level of “sola scriptura”. It remains a tragedy that so many have been cheated by that man-made doctrine.

Rather, tell me using scripture, where Jesus says His words are symbolic? He does not. So, why do you believe they are symbolic? The majority of his disciples would not walk away from mere symbolism - especially since the symbolism used in the other scriptures you mentioned caused no such loss of disciples. Neither did they walk away from the symbolism used in the parables. Why not? Because mere symbolism does not cause the rejection of an entire belief system.

If you are not familiar with terms like “hermeneutics” “exegesis” or “eisegesis;” I would suggest you go look them up in the same place where you found “Codswallop.”

Sorry. Not my word. Wrong user.

I will be interested, in this thread, to dig into HOW Catholics have used John 6 in such a literal sense. NOT WHY, but how?

Well, John 6 was spoken by Christ, but written by those who listened to Him and practiced the Eucharist. Paul received this same message by direct revelation. They taught the Church. That’s how.

I find it distinctly curious to question the oldest beliefs in Christendom - that which was taught to the Apostles by Christ. I find it equally curious that the newer beliefs, arriving 1,500 to 1,900 years later, are somehow assumed to be correct when they are so remote from the incident. The new beliefs, we are taught by Christ and the Apostles, are the ones which should be suspect.

The Bible gives us principles by which to go for deciding what a specific text means.

Well, please give them to the other 29,999 denominations so that we can have Christian unity. “You shall know them by their fruits” (Matthew 7:16-20) The fruits of “sola scriptura” are division. Either the bible or “sola scriptura” is defective. Your choice.

What Bible principles/hermeneutics can you share that would enlighten us on HOW Catholics decided that the “flesh” in Jo.6 was literally Jesus’ flesh and that we eat it to gain eternal life?

As before, you are WRONG on Catholic belief. If nothing else, your considerable time here should have made you familiar with true Catholic beliefs, not the error that you repeat. Christ said that we have no life in us unless we eat His Flesh and drink His Blood. He said that His Flesh and Blood are “real” food and drink. Please explain why Catholics are wrong to believe this.

How does the Bible tell us to decide if a given text is symbolic or not? What principles are we to go by?

The “bible”, being an inanimate physical object, tells us nothing without authoritative interpretation. This authority was provided by Christ to His Apostles in the founding of His Church, the living Body of Christ on earth.

Mat.4:4 “But he answered and said, It is written, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God.”

Yes, man lives by the Word. The Word made Flesh. Jesus commanded us to eat His Flesh and drink His Blood. A hard saying for some (John 6:66).

I note that the devil used “sola scriptura” in his attempt to lead Christ astray. Christ, Who had authority, corrected the evil one as to the words’ true meaning. Words are easily twisted.

 

[po18guy]

Jesus took bread and said, “THIS IS MY BODY”. What’s so hard to understand?

Well, to believe this, you’d have to be… ugh…Catholic! I guess that’s what.

 

[pete_29]

Well, to believe this, you’d have to be… ugh…Catholic! I guess that’s what.

You know I’ve asked this on several different posts and never get an answer.

 

[ncgolf]

I must admit though the Eucharistic miracle is a difficult one … and I’m Catholic. How can one explain to someone else something we have never seen with our physical bodies. I admit, though I believe, even if I have not seen.

I go back to the upper room … when Thomas was not there … and the disciples were all huddled there. The Lord came to them … and they were full of joy and excited … I am sure they couldn’t wait to share this news with Thomas.

But when Thomas joined them he would not believe … he had to see with his own eyes and hands for him to believe what the others saw.

I believe that is where we all are today … Catholics and non-Catholics … in the upper room waiting for Christ. Some have seen with the eyes of faith but some have not and want more evidence … but we are all there, together, … doubters and believers. I believe an important part of that story is … they were still together … the others did not toss out Thomas for not agreeing … it is only when Christ chose to reveal himself that Thomas did believe. This still happens today.

In the end Thomas indeed did see … and his first words … My Lord and My God … so I will wait until the end of the story.

 

[CHESTERTONRULES]

I must admit though the Eucharistic miracle is a difficult one … and I’m Catholic. How can one explain to someone else something we have never seen with our physical bodies. I admit, though I believe, even if I have not seen.

I go back to the upper room … when Thomas was not there … and the disciples were all huddled there. The Lord came to them … and they were full of joy and excited … I am sure they couldn’t wait to share this news with Thomas.

But when Thomas joined them he would not believe … he had to see with his own eyes and hands for him to believe what the others saw.

I believe that is where we all are today … Catholics and non-Catholics … in the upper room waiting for Christ. Some have seen with the eyes of faith but some have not and want more evidence … but we are all there, together, … doubters and believers. I believe an important part of that story is … they were still together … the others did not toss out Thomas for not agreeing … it is only when Christ chose to reveal himself that Thomas did believe. This still happens today.

In the end Thomas indeed did see … and his first words … My Lord and My God … so I will wait until the end of the story.

St. Ambrose, I believe, said something like this(sloppy, inaccurate paraphrase):

Why should we doubt that something that exist can become something else by the power of the word when something that did not exist came into existence by this word.

The Word became flesh.

 

[NDfan]

I would guess that you have heard of and read John 6, Matthew 26:26-29 and 1 Corinthians 11. Those are just some of the scriptures which came from the 1,976 year old Catholic practice and belief.

Yes I’m familiar with those verses and no they are not used to defend transubstantiation. No ECF ever used John 6 to defend communion nor to describe communion.

Let me ask you this po18. If the bread literally becomes Christ then someone who has an allergy to the ingredients should not have to worry about consuming them after consecration correct?? Same for the wine. If someone had an alcohol dependency they wouldn’t have to worry about it being a trigger for them after consecration because the wine ceases to exist correct? Please answer that for me and then maybe you can convert me

 

[CHESTERTONRULES]

Yes I’m familiar with those verses and no they are not used to defend transubstantiation. No ECF ever used John 6 to defend communion nor to describe communion.

QUOTE]

“Wherefore to those who partake worthily with faith, it is for the remission of sins and for life everlasting and for the safeguarding of soul and body; but to those who partake unworthily without faith, it is for chastisement and punishment, just as also the death of the Lord became to those who believe life and incorruption for the enjoyment of eternal blessedness, while to those who do not believe and to the murderers of the Lord it is for everlasting chastisement and punishment. The bread and the wine are not merely figures of the body and blood of Christ (God forbid!) but the deified body of the Lord itself: for the Lord has said, ‘This is My body,’ not, this is a figure of My body: and ‘My blood,’ not, a figure of My blood. And on a previous occasion He had said to the Jews, Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink His blood, ye have no life in you. For My flesh is meat indeed and My blood is drink indeed. And again, He that eateth Me, shall live." John of Damascus, Exposition of the Orthodox Faith, 4:13 (A.D. 743).

St. Basil the Great
“To communicate each day and to partake of the holy Body and Blood of Christ is good and beneficial; for He says quite plainly:** ‘He that eats My Flesh and drinks My Blood has eternal life.’** Who can doubt that to share continually in life is the same thing as having life abundantly? We ourselves communicate four times each week, on Sunday, Wednesday, Friday, and Saturday; and on other days if there is a commemoration of any saint.”

-“Letter to a Patrician Lady Caesaria” [93] ca. 372 A.D.

ST. HILARY OF POITERS

“When we speak of the reality of Christ’s nature being in us, we would be speaking foolishly and impiously - had we not learned it from Him. For He Himself says:** ‘My Flesh is truly Food, and My Blood is truly Drink. He that eats My Flesh and drinks My Blood will remain in Me and I in him.’ **As to the reality of His Flesh and Blood, there is no room left for doubt, because now, both by the declaration of the Lord Himself and by our own faith, it is truly the Flesh and it is truly Blood. And These Elements bring it about, when taken and consumed, that we are in Christ and Christ is in us. Is this not true? Let those who deny that Jesus Christ is true God be free to find these things untrue. But He Himself is in us through the flesh and we are in Him, while that which we are with Him is in God.”

As the prayer proceeds, we ask and say: ‘Give us this day our daily bread.’ This can be understood both spiritually and simply, because either understanding is of profit in divine usefulness for salvation. For Christ is the bread of life and the bread here is of all, but is ours. And as we say ‘Our Father,’ because He is the Father of those who understand and believe, so too we say ‘our Bread,’ because Christ is the bread of those of us who attain to His body. Moreover, we ask that this bread be given daily, lest we, who are in Christ and receive the Eucharist daily as food of salvation, with the intervention of some more grievous sin, while we are shut off and as non-communicants are kept from the heavenly bread, be separated from the body of Christ as He Himself declares, saying: ‘I am the bread of life which came down from heaven. If any man eat of my bread he shall live forever. Moreover, the bread that I shall give is my flesh for the life of the world.’ Since then He says that, if anyone eats of His bread, he lives forever, as it is manifest that they live who attain to His body and receive the Eucharist by right of communion, so on the other hand we must fear and pray lest anyone, while he is cut off and separated from the body of Christ, remain apart from salvation, as He Himself threatens, saying: ‘**Unless you eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink His blood, you shall not have life in you.’ **And so we petition that our bread, that is Christ, be given us daily, so that we, who abide and live in Christ, may not withdraw from His sanctification and body.",

Source: St. Cyprian of Carthage, the Lord’s Prayer, 252 A.D., chapter 18:,

-“The Trinity” [8,14] inter 356-359 A.D.

St. Clement of Alexandria

“The Word is everything to a child: both Father and Mother, both Instructor and Nurse.** ‘Eat My Flesh,’ He says, ‘and drink My Blood.’ **The Lord supplies us with these intimate nutrients. He delivers over His Flesh, and pours out His Blood; and nothing is lacking for the growth of His children. O incredible mystery!”,

-“The Instructor of the Children” [1,6,41,3] ante 202 A.D… ,

St. Ignatius

“Consider how contrary to the mind of God are the heterodox in regard to the grace of God which has come to us. They have no regard for charity, none for the widow, the orphan, the oppressed, none for the man in prison, the hungry or the thirsty. They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer,** because they do not admit that the Eucharist is the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ**, the flesh which suffered for our sins and which the Father, in His graciousness, raised from the dead.”

“Letter to the Smyrnaeans”, paragraph 6. circa 80-110 A.D.