Please see my citations of St. Augustine, St Cyril, St. Basil, in Post #335 and as for your “he light of the rest of Scripture”, please refer to my citation of St. Paul in post #336.
You have no “rest of Scripture” to substantiate your point.
You pretend some unnamed interpretive authority who has no standing.
Um try reading the post. It was filled with example after example that you apparently are unable to comprehend. Maybe reading that post would help you ... or not. MGHMOYS
Dude, throwing some uninspired quotes of so-called church "fathers" (the true NT church did not begin under them) is not an argument for what the NT teaches since they came after it, and can be shown to have deviated from it.
And as for your sppsd "argument" from Scripture, you already tried this which was soundly refuted at length, but like a man driven to blindly defend a cultic church you simply repeat the same specious assertions as if they were arguments. Just face the fact that you have no real argument, and never have.
Merely quoting words in contention - the interpretation of which is the very issue, is not an argument, nor is reiterating your superficial but refuted attempted argumentation. If you want to defend as literal (and thus the preeminence Catholicism gives to the Lord's supper) Jn. 6 and the words at issue uttered at the last supper, then you must do so in the light of the rest of Scripture, esp. the NT church in Acts onward, which writings are interpretive of the gospels. And thus you need to:
1. Show that taking part in Lord's supper was essential in order to obtain spiritual life, as per your literal uptake of Jn. 6:53, versus believing the words of Christ as Him being the promised Messiah who takes away the sins of the world, seen in the preaching and teaching of the NT church in Acts 2, 10, 13 and so forth, by which souls obtained spiritual life in them.
2. Show that in the life of the NT the Lord's supper being described as a daily sacrifice for sins at the hands of men called "priests" (distinctive from laity), with the offering of it being a primary function, versus simply a communal commemorative and declarative meal with no priests ever mentioned, nor pastors exhorted to be faithful in this feeding, but instead being exhorted to feed the flock by preaching the word of God which is said to be spiritual nourishment.
3. Show that the Lord's supper was held as being spiritual nourishment, 'the medicine of immortality, the antidote for death, and the food that makes us live for ever in Jesus Christ," (CCC 1415) versus believing the word of God, which is uniquely said to be spiritual "milk" and "meat" and spiritual nourishment. (1Co. 4:6)
4. Show in the life of the church that it held the Catholic Eucharist to be "a kind of consummation of the spiritual life, and in a sense the goal of all the sacraments," (Mysterium Fidei) and thus the Catholic Eucharist being manifestly described as the preeminent practice of the NT church, versus even the Lord's supper not being manifestly described except in one epistle, and perhaps as breaking of bread in Acts and simple reference to the "feast of charity" in Jude 1:12.
5. Failing this, explain how the Holy Spirit could fail to clearly manifest the Lord's supper as being the priestly Catholic Eucharist and preeminent practice of the NT church, with its "priests" being charged with conducting (by Peter and Paul etc.). And with the only censure for not recognizing the body of Christ being that of not recognizing the church as such, due to hypocritically ignoring and shaming members of it by selfishly and independently eating, while supposedly showing/declaring the Lord's unselfish death which purchased the very body, the church, (Acts 20:28) and the souls they were ignoring (1Co. 11 )