That it was impossible is my point, but Jesus said,
"As the living Father hath sent me, and I live by the Father: so he that eateth me, even he shall live by me. " (John 6:57)
So we "live" as Jesus did, and which was by believing and doing the word of God, as that was His "bread and butter."
"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. " (Matthew 4:4)
"Jesus saith unto them, My meat is to do the will of him that sent me, and to finish his work. " (John 4:34)
Further, there is nothing in Catholic teaching that says that souls are dead until they consume the body of Christ. The soul is immortal, the life of which Christ speaks is life in the Kingdom of God.
Rome teaches that it is the seed of eternal life and often RCs argue for their wafer on the basis of Jn. 6:53, that it is necessary to have life in you, making no qualifications as you cannot, for it means it is necessity to "eat" the bread Jesus gives in order to have life and to live for Him.
However, we do not see souls being born again or constantly exhorted to live by consuming the Lord physically, but they were born again when they heard and believed the gospel message, (Eph. 1:13) and the word of God effectually worked in those who believed, (1Ths. 2:13) effecting obedience. Thus the priority of the apostles in preaching, so that it was "not reason that we should leave the word of God, and serve tables." (Acts 6:2)
If the Eucharist was what Rome says it is, and critical to have life in you and to receive grace, it would often be mentioned at least in the letters to the churches. However, despite the paramount priority Rome places on The Lord's supper, it not a manifest subject in any of the epistles to the church, except the description of it as "feasts of charity' in Jude 1:12, and in 1Cor. 11, and which definitely does not teach that the elements are the Lord's body .
This conspicuous absence is set in contrast to the many exhortations to live by believing the gospel and live by the word as in acting it out in service to others. And which corresponds to how Jesus lived and died, and which believers commemorated in their "feasts of charity," which was not that of focus on a wafer, but a communal meal of sharing. Literalism is not an all or nothing concept concerning Scripture. Both extremes, rejecting all literalism or taking every passage literally has been used to divide Christ’s church
Indeed, literalism is not an all or nothing concept concerning Scripture, but that it must be taken literally here is the RC argument, but which is overall contrary to what Scripture says, and John's method of teaching.
Well, that is a thoughtful reply and I thank you for it, but still disagree with your conclusion.
Jesus was fully human, but He was also fully divine. He had no need of the food He was offering to those who believe in Him. His point was that He lives because of the Father and we live because of Him.
“My meat is to do the will of Him who sent me and to finish His work.” Jesus’ mission is not the same as ours as only He could accomplish what God willed. And only the Father could sustain Him.
We on the other hand, are to believe in Jesus and follow His commands and one of His commands was to “Do this in remembrance of me.” As Paul wrote, “For as often as you eat this bread and drink this cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death until He comes again.”
The protestant understanding of the Eucharistic passages might be reasonable were it not for the fact that Paul speaks of eating the bread and drinking the cup not in a figurative or symbolic sense but in a very real sense. And that he would say that one who partakes of that bread and cup unworthily eats and drinks damnation on themselves is clearly in regards to the true presence of Christ in those items. What else would bring about such an eternal punishment?
And why would some of the bread be saved and taken to those who could not come to the Mass? Why not just eat the bread at their house? No, we are told that some of the bread was taken to those brothers and sisters not there.
The letters to the church from Paul, Peter, John and James etc do not spend an inordinate amount of time speaking of the Eucharist because that was the practice of the church and there was no need to speak to it constantly. Everyone comes to church and behaves, it is out in the world that people misbehave and in their every day lives that they need reminding as to how they are to live. The breaking of the bread together was something they did whenever they were together and that is mentioned several times especially in Acts which speaks to the beginnings of the church.
Though there are some exhortations in the letters regarding the Eucharist and how one should comport oneself in church, for the most part, the letters address specific theological and behavioral errors within the communities.
Finally, belief in the real/true presence of Christ in the Eucharist is the ultimate in belief in Christ. As the church says it is the source and the summit of our faith.