Tag: not a symbol

formerresidentprotestant:

ehyeh-joshua:

tokillthedragon:

If Christ didn’t want us to eat His flesh in the appearance of bread, then why was He born in a city called House of Bread and laid in a food trough?

If He didn’t want that, why would He have said that He is the bread from heaven and that His flesh is truly food and that we must eat it? (And if He meant that as a metaphor, why didn’t He correct everyone when they all took it literally?)

If He didn’t want that, then why did He offer Himself as the Lamb of God for the sacrifice for our sins in the same way the Old Testament Jews offered a lamb in sacrifice, a lamb which they were required to eat the flesh of?

If He didn’t want that, why did He say, “This is my body, which is given for you” at the Last Supper, just before the first Seder at the beginning of Passover, at which they would have eaten the paschal lamb?

It is painfully obvious that Christ meant for us to literally eat His flesh and drink His blood under the appearance of bread and wine, and that’s why the earliest Christians unanimously took the Eucharist to be literally Christ’s flesh and blood.

It’s really quite simple – if He meant it literally, then He incriminates Himself as a false prophet who lead the people astray by sorcery to worship a false god. For which the penalty is death by stoning.

Either Christianity is true, and the Eucharist is false, or the Eucharist is true and Christianity is a total lie that has destroyed the lives of billions through idolatry.

My dude, my pal, my guy, you got this backwards. If the Eucharist isn’t true, then our faith is a farce. And CS Lewis perfectly describes the logic in that case.

According to the Catechism of the Catholic Church, paragraph 1324: “The Eucharist is the source and summit of the Christian life. The other sacraments, and indeed all ecclesiastical ministries and works of the apostolate, are bound up with the Eucharist and are oriented toward it. For in the blessed Eucharist is contained the whole spiritual good of the Church, namely Christ himself, our Pasch.”

Here is a link to St Justin Martyr, outlining the Eucharist as being the true Body and Blood of Christ, as well as a quote from St Vincet of Lerins.

“But here some one perhaps will ask, Since the canon of Scripture is complete, and sufficient of itself for everything, and more than sufficient, what need is there to join with it the authority of the Church’s interpretation? For this reason — because, owing to the depth of Holy Scripture, all do not accept it in one and the same sense, but one understands its words in one way, another in another; so that it seems to be capable of as many interpretations as there are interpreters. For Novatian expounds it one way, Sabellius another, Donatus another, Arius, Eunomius, Macedonius, another, Photinus, Apollinaris, Priscillian, another, Iovinian, Pelagius, Celestius, another, lastly, Nestorius another. Therefore, it is very necessary, on account of so great intricacies of such various error, that the rule for the right understanding of the prophets and apostles should be framed in accordance with the standard of Ecclesiastical and Catholic interpretation.“

Here’s another thought: Say you are right and the Eucharist means nothing, that should call into question every other miracle that Christ performed during his ministry, up to and including his resurrection.