Actually, the literal eating of Christ’s flesh and blood is not central Christian doctrine because that would be cannibalism. In John 6:63-64 Jesus clarifies that He was not speaking of literal flesh and blood even though He allowed many of His disciples to leave Him because they thought that He did. They were not called of the Father to be His disciples. Those who remained gave Jesus the benefit of the doubt even though they didn’t fully comprehend at that point.
I'm sorry but that is just not true, either to Scripture or Tradition. Jesus never clarified His words but in fact reiterated them, and the Church has always treated them literally (see St. Augustine's quote). The Eucharist is not cannibalism because it is an unbloody, sacramental reception of His resurrected Body and Blood, not the eating of dead flesh. The apostles understood this meaning after the Last Supper.
Actually, the literal eating of Christ’s flesh and blood is not central Christian doctrine because that would be cannibalism. In John 6:63-64 Jesus clarifies that He was not speaking of literal flesh and blood even though He allowed many of His disciples to leave Him because they thought that He did. They were not called of the Father to be His disciples. Those who remained gave Jesus the benefit of the doubt even though they didn’t fully comprehend at that point.
I'm sorry but that is just not true, either to Scripture or Tradition. Jesus never clarified His words but in fact reiterated them, and the Church has always treated them literally (see St. Augustine's quote). The Eucharist is not cannibalism because it is an unbloody, sacramental reception of His resurrected Body and Blood, not the eating of dead flesh. The apostles understood this meaning after the Last Supper.