Ignatius on the Eucharist

[stovebolts]

I posted some of this in the Bible Study Forum as a response, and while attempting to maintain the integrity of the Forum, decided to move this portion into the Apologetics forum where we can debate the issue of transubstantiation starting out first with Ignatius.

http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/ignatius.html

When we study the scriptures, it is wise to find out what was driving the text. In the case of Ignatius, part of what I would like to take into consideration is the era. At the time of Ignatius (Late First Century) Christians were being killed at an alarming rate by brutal means. Ignatius (50 – 99/117) would have been appox 4 years old when Nero was appointed Caesar (reined 54 - 68) and approx 18 when Nero committed suicide. Ignatius himself was a great Martyr for the Christian faith and was brought to Rome for his execution within the arena for all Christians to witness and serve as a warning.

Another factor to consider is that Docetism was an active heresy within Chrisitianity which Ignatius writes against in his letter to the Smyrnaeans. Docetism is a basic belief that “Those who proposed this heresy maintained that Jesus really did not possess, or inhabit a physical body, but only "appeared" to have a body. The basis of docetism is that Jesus was truly a spiritual being, and as such, could not have had a true body.†(http://www.churchhistory101.com/century2.php)
When Ignatius writes to the Romans, the letter is a very close, emotional and painful letter which describes a man coming to terms with an impending, violent death that is soon ahead of him. Within that context, he states,

“Permit me to be an imitator of the passion of my God. If any man hath Him within himself, let him understand what I desire, and let him have fellow-feeling with me, for he knoweth the things whichstraiten me.â€Â

Here, we know that passion describes the suffering that Christ went though. Within the same letter, Ignatius also states,

“I have no delight in the food of corruption or in the delights of this life. I desire the bread of God, which is the flesh of Christ who was of the seed of David; and for a draught I desire His blood, which is love incorruptible.â€Â

This “Bread of God†and “Bloodâ€Â, I believe refer back to what Ignatius said to the Trallians whom he considered ‘babes’ in Christ and thus, made it a point to be very clear with his words as not to feed meat to babes he states,

“Do ye therefore arm yourselves with gentleness and recover yourselves in faith which is the flesh of the Lord, and in love which is the blood of Jesus Christ.â€Â

First, in the letter to the Romans, he starts off by saying, “I have no delight in the food of corruptionâ€Â. This indicates to me that he is not speaking of a physical food, but rather a spiritual food. Combine this with what he wrote to the Trallians, and we find that what he is seeking is gentleness to recover his faith in Christ.

When we look at the passion of Christ, Jesus himself was gentle and submitted to the Fathers will even as the nails were hammered into his hands and feet and his clothes were divided below him. That perfect submission is a great picture of what perfect faith looks like and I believe that Ignatius, not being perfect struggled with the idea of revolt like any human would as I'm sure he would have been reminded of the words of Jesus on the cross, "Father forgive them, for they know not what they do"

When we speak of the blood of Christ, we know that it was through love (God) that our sins are forgiven. Scripture states,
Leviticus 17:11 For the life of the flesh is in the blood: and I have given it to you upon the altar to make an atonement for your souls: for it is the blood that makes an atonement for the soul.

Keeping in mind that the cross functioned as the Alter, I believe when Ignatius speaks of the blood of Christ to his letter to the Romans, he is speaking of being perfectly united with Christ through love and we know that it was God’s perfect love for us which led to Christ’s passion. If you read the letter to the Romans in it’s entirely, Ignatius wants his own suffering to come quickly (which I believes points to the suffering he is enduring) and he does not want his fellow brothers to postpone his suffering and further, but rather, he would have the ones whom wish to kill him be enticed to do so quickly.

So then, I do not conclude that Ignatius desires the physical ‘flesh’ or ‘blood’ of Christ, but rather he is seeking and desiring that which is perfect, which is the gentleness and love o f Christ in his time of great distress. I also believe this is a spiritual desire, and not a physical desire.

 

[mondar]

Good post.

 

[francisdesales]

When we study the scriptures, it is wise to find out what was driving the text. In the case of Ignatius, part of what I would like to take into consideration is the era. At the time of Ignatius (Late First Century) Christians were being killed at an alarming rate by brutal means. Ignatius (50 – 99/117) would have been appox 4 years old when Nero was appointed Caesar (reined 54 - 68) and approx 18 when Nero committed suicide. Ignatius himself was a great Martyr for the Christian faith and was brought to Rome for his execution within the arena for all Christians to witness and serve as a warning.

Just a mild correction here. It is doubtful that Christians were killed at an "alarming rate" during the time of Ignatius' martyrdom. It appears more likely that Rome was only interested in killing leaders of the nascent "atheist" movement. Just the simple fact that the Romans ALLOWED Ignatius to write to other Christians and visit with other Christians should make it clear that Rome was not trying to wipe out Christianity by killing "at an alarming rate". No doubt, Ignatius was to serve as an example for those who were "obstinate" in their "atheism".

Another factor to consider is that Docetism was an active heresy within Chrisitianity which Ignatius writes against in his letter to the Smyrnaeans. Docetism is a basic belief that “Those who proposed this heresy maintained that Jesus really did not possess, or inhabit a physical body, but only "appeared" to have a body. The basis of docetism is that Jesus was truly a spiritual being, and as such, could not have had a true body.â€Â

A bit of confusion, which I note from a few of your other posts. Jesus, being man, was indeed a spiritual being AND a physical being. Being a spiritual being does NOT preclude having a physical body. Man himself is a combination of physical and spiritual. Thus, your comments about being spiritual are a bit mistaken. Docetism stresses that the Word of God did NOT become incarnate, but that the Logos "pretended" to. The Logos REMAINED a spiritual being ONLY. Of course, this throws into confusion the entire idea that "all that Christ became for the sake of man was redeemed." If God did not become flesh, than only part of man was saved. The fleshy resurrection of Christ proved that wrong - something Docetists deny, as well as the Eucharistic presence.

Thus, Ignatius was very keen to show that God DID become man, in all ways but sin. He took on flesh and faced external hardships and temptations. His death redeemed man's entire self, not just the spiritual soul. Thus, with John, Ignatius stressed that Jesus was God in the flesh - and CONTINUES to appear in the form of bread and wine rather than human flesh so that we may continue to proclaim His death and resurrection with Him present.

“I have no delight in the food of corruption or in the delights of this life. I desire the bread of God, which is the flesh of Christ who was of the seed of David; and for a draught I desire His blood, which is love incorruptible.â€Â

This “Bread of God†and “Bloodâ€Â, I believe refer back to what Ignatius said to the Trallians whom he considered ‘babes’ in Christ and thus, made it a point to be very clear with his words as not to feed meat to babes...

Jeff, why must you refer to an entirely different letter to attempt to get Ignatius to say something he doesn't say to the Romans? What is wrong with the clear meaning of the words - that the Bread of God is the flesh of Christ. We have clear president to take the literal interpretation, since Jesus HIMSELF stated this concept in John 6:51

I am the living bread which came down from heaven: if any man eat of this bread, he shall live for ever: and the bread that I will give is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world.

Very clearly, though it surpasses the human mind to completely understand, Jesus tells us that HE HIMSELF is the living bread from heaven. He states His FLESH is this bread. That is the clear meaning of both Ignatius (who learned from John himself) and Jesus.

“Do ye therefore arm yourselves with gentleness and recover yourselves in faith which is the flesh of the Lord, and in love which is the blood of Jesus Christ.â€Â

First, in the letter to the Romans, he starts off by saying, “I have no delight in the food of corruptionâ€Â. This indicates to me that he is not speaking of a physical food, but rather a spiritual food. Combine this with what he wrote to the Trallians, and we find that what he is seeking is gentleness to recover his faith in Christ.

Again, as I noted above, you seem to desire to separate the physical from the spiritual. When the Scriptures speak of a man, they don't seperate Him into spiritual and physical components. To the Jew, man is one component. The bread from heaven consists of both a physical and spiritual component. The Eucharistic bread is not merely a physical thing, no more than you or I are merely physical things. Does that fact mean our bodies are insignificant? And naturally, why DID God become man? To partake of the physical world so that we could partake in Him. And thus, the Eucharist is not ordinary food, as Justin the Martyr states. Ignatius is not speaking of mere physical food, but a food that consists of BOTH a spiritual and a physical attribute - just as Jesus Christ Himself does.

Unfortunately, many people who do not believe in the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist tend to latch onto the "spiritual" sayings of the Fathers without realizing that THESE do not preclude the physical, either...

When we speak of the blood of Christ, we know that it was through love (God) that our sins are forgiven... Keeping in mind that the cross functioned as the Alter, I believe when Ignatius speaks of the blood of Christ to his letter to the Romans, he is speaking of being perfectly united with Christ through love and we know that it was God’s perfect love for us which led to Christ’s passion. If you read the letter to the Romans in it’s entirely, Ignatius wants his own suffering to come quickly (which I believes points to the suffering he is enduring) and he does not want his fellow brothers to postpone his suffering and further, but rather, he would have the ones whom wish to kill him be enticed to do so quickly.

Agreed. When we partake of the Eucharist, we are SUPPOSED to recall the suffering of Christ. Thus, we are called into rememberance by Paul in his letter to the Corinthians.

After the same manner also [he took] the cup, when he had supped, saying, This cup is the new testament in my blood: this do ye, as oft as ye drink [it], in remembrance of me. For as often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do shew the Lord's death till he come. 1 Cor 11:25-26

Christ comes to us in a physical setting, through symbols and signs (sacraments) where we continue to experience His saving work and recall what He has done, what He is DOING for us today, and what we will someday experience in heaven, as the Eucharist is also a foreshadowing of the Wedding Feast.

So then, I do not conclude that Ignatius desires the physical ‘flesh’ or ‘blood’ of Christ, but rather he is seeking and desiring that which is perfect, which is the gentleness and love o f Christ in his time of great distress. I also believe this is a spiritual desire, and not a physical desire.

Jeff, God became man so that we may know God. We continue to know, to experience God through physical things, symbols, signs. The Bible is one example that may help you to understand what a sacrament is to the Catholic. God speaks to you through physical words found in the Bible. In a special way, God comes to us through the Eucharist. Why that form? Because bread and wine have particular meanings to the recipient, one of sustanance and support, of joy and comfort. Eating in the company of others was a very important part of culture and society in those days. Those who ate together formed a communion with the others - which is why the Pharisees were so distraught with Jesus' eating company... All of these symbols and signs help us to remind us that Christ did, continues to do, and will do at the end of time. Thus, the Eucharist is so important to us - Christ's presence through visible signs.

Regards

 

[Catholic Crusader]

Ignatius of Antioch:

"I have no taste for corruptible food nor for the pleasures of this life. I desire the bread of God, which is the flesh of Jesus Christ, who was of the seed of David; and for drink I desire his blood, which is love incorruptible"
source: Letter to the Romans 7:3 [written A.D. 110].

"Take note of those who hold heterodox opinions on the grace of Jesus Christ which has come to us, and see how contrary their opinions are to the mind of God. . . . They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer because they do not confess that the Eucharist is the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ, flesh which suffered for our sins and which that Father, in his goodness, raised up again. They who deny the gift of God are perishing in their disputes"
source: Letter to the Smyrnaeans 6:2–7:1 [written A.D. 110].

 

[lovely]

Joe,

Your post has made me think a little this morning...I may be back in here. This topic is so interesting to me. Thanks Jeff.

 

[francisdesales]

Joe,

Your post has made me think a little this morning...I may be back in here. This topic is so interesting to me. Thanks Jeff.

Thanks, Lovely.

The unanimous belief in the Real Presence of the Eucharist amongst the Early Church speaks very strongly to me. I believe it is the most "proven" of the mysteries that God has reveled to us, to include the Incarnation and the Trinity. Since the Spirit speaks through the Church, it seems that a unanimous statement would be a powerful working of the Spirit on the veracity of this belief - unless one believes that God is not protecting the Church and what Christ taught them. This disbelief is akin to thinking that the same men who went to the lions for refusing to offer incense to Caesar would somehow bungle such an important and central belief taught by Christ...

Think about it. Doesn't seem very likely, does it?

Regards

 

[Veritas]

Francis went over some of what I was thinking, but I would like to post what the Bible says about partaking of Christs body and blood too. I think its important to consider whats going on; especially because Paul writes:

whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of sinning against the body and blood of the Lord. 1 Corinthians 11:27

It's in three Gospel accounts:

..."Take and eat; this is my body." ... Then he took the cup, gave thanks and offered it to them, saying, "Drink from it, all of you. This is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins. Matthew 26:26-28

...."Take it; this is my body."...Then he took the cup, gave thanks and offered it to them, and they all drank from it. "This is my blood of the] covenant, which is poured out for many," he said to them. Mark 14:22-24

...."This is my body given for you; do this in remembrance of me." In the same way, after the supper he took the cup, saying, "This cup is the new covenant in my blood, which is poured out for you. Luke 22:19-23

Paul also goes on....

For I received from the Lord what I also passed on to you: The Lord Jesus, on the night he was betrayed, took bread, and when he had given thanks, he broke it and said, "This is my body, which is for you; do this in remembrance of me." In the same way, after supper he took the cup, saying, "This cup is the new covenant in my blood; do this, whenever you drink it, in remembrance of me." For whenever you eat this bread and drink this cup, you proclaim the Lord's death until he comes. 1 Corinthians 11:23-26

Is not the cup of thanksgiving for which we give thanks a participation in the blood of Christ? And is not the bread that we break a participation in the body of Christ? Because there is one loaf, we, who are many, are one body, for we all partake of the one loaf.
1 Corinthians 10:16-17

 

[francisdesales]

Francis went over some of what I was thinking, but I would like to post what the Bible says about partaking of Christs body and blood too. I think its important to consider whats going on; especially because Paul writes:

whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of sinning against the body and blood of the Lord. 1 Corinthians 11:27

It's in three Gospel accounts:

..."Take and eat; this is my body." ... Then he took the cup, gave thanks and offered it to them, saying, "Drink from it, all of you. This is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins. Matthew 26:26-28

Yes, Craig, good points. The Eucharist is, among other things, a remembrance of what Christ did. The symbolism of the rites that takes place during the Eucharistic celebration also add to this remembrance. For example, the Eucharistic bread is broken, calling to mind that Christ's Body was broken, and sacramentally, is broken. The words "Take and eat" apply to us, as well, not just the Apostles. Knowing such things adds a lot to what we experience during the Mass.

I think once people stop trying to separate the spiritual from the physical (confusing the spiritual with the flesh as per the two ways of life), things make much more sense. The Eucharist is a physical presence of Jesus, the intent being to spiritually feed us via physical senses. Is this the normal way God comes to us, through the physical world? The Incarnation, in a nutshell, is the primary example of God coming to man through the physical - vs. the Docetist' viewpoint.

Regards

 

[francisdesales]

Ignatius of Antioch:

"Take note of those who hold heterodox opinions on the grace of Jesus Christ which has come to us, and see how contrary their opinions are to the mind of God. . . . They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer because they do not confess that the Eucharist is the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ, flesh which suffered for our sins and which that Father, in his goodness, raised up again. They who deny the gift of God are perishing in their disputes"
source: Letter to the Smyrnaeans 6:2–7:1 [written A.D. 110].

Checkmate...

 

[Catholic Crusader]

..."Take and eat; this is my body." ... Then he took the cup, gave thanks and offered it to them, saying, "Drink from it, all of you. This is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins.....

Fantastic quotes. I'm amazed at your perspective. But - and I'm almost afraid to say this - the next hairy subject that will eventually have to be tackled is: Who is empowered to effect this change of elements? I don't want to veer off onto that subject at this time, but it is an integral part of me and francis' beliefs, and something that needs to be eventually addressed..

 

[stovebolts]

Ignatius of Antioch:

"Take note of those who hold heterodox opinions on the grace of Jesus Christ which has come to us, and see how contrary their opinions are to the mind of God. . . . They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer because they do not confess that the Eucharist is the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ, flesh which suffered for our sins and which that Father, in his goodness, raised up again. They who deny the gift of God are perishing in their disputes"
source: Letter to the Smyrnaeans 6:2–7:1 [written A.D. 110].

Checkmate...

Hello Joe, glad to hear from ya.

Sorry for the delay in my response. I was preoccupied....

I look forward to responding to your reply.

Jeff

 

[stovebolts]

Hello Joe, it looks like we’ve much to discuss eh? I’ll count on you and others to place the pieces where they belong within the context of your reply for the sake of space. I’ll start at the top of your post and work down.

Just a mild correction here. It is doubtful that Christians were killed at an "alarming rate" during the time of Ignatius' martyrdom

I don’t understand why you minimize the death of Christians by Rome and honestly, I am surprised by your answer. I am viewing the entire life of Ignatius in my opening statement (Nero, Vespasian, Titus, and Domitian) while it appears you are focusing around Ignatius’ last days with the reign of Domitian?
http://www.eyewitnesstohistory.com/christians.htm

The following account was written by the Roman historian Tacitus in his book Annals published a few years after the event. Tacitus was a young boy living in Rome during the time of the persecutions.
"Therefore, to stop the rumor [that he had set Rome on fire], he [Emperor Nero] falsely charged with guilt, and punished with the most fearful tortures, the persons commonly called Christians, who were [generally] hated for their enormities. Christus, the founder of that name, was put to death as a criminal by Pontius Pilate, procurator of Judea, in the reign of Tiberius, but the pernicious superstition - repressed for a time, broke out yet again, not only through Judea, - where the mischief originated, but through the city of Rome also, whither all things horrible and disgraceful flow from all quarters, as to a common receptacle, and where they are encouraged. Accordingly first those were arrested who confessed they were Christians; next on their information, a vast multitude were convicted, not so much on the charge of burning the city, as of "hating the human race."

A bit of confusion, which I note from a few of your other posts. Jesus, being man, was indeed a spiritual being AND a physical being. Being a spiritual being does NOT preclude having a physical body. Man himself is a combination of physical and spiritual. Thus, your comments about being spiritual are a bit mistaken.

I’m not sure how you concluded that I was confused about Jesus having a real physical body other than by taking what I posted about Dioecism by mistake as my view. Rest assured, I came into this conversation in full agreement and understanding of what you have posted thus far on Dioecism.

Jeff, why must you refer to an entirely different letter to attempt to get Ignatius to say something he doesn't say to the Romans? What is wrong with the clear meaning of the words - that the Bread of God is the flesh of Christ. We have clear president to take the literal interpretation, since Jesus HIMSELF stated this concept in John 6:51

As far as John 6:51, doctrine does not stand on one verse of the bible. If that were the case, then by God’s own word we could save ourselves (Job 40:14).

Ignatius is writing two different letters to two different people. In Ignatius’ letter to the Trallians he states,
http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/t ... tfoot.html

So then I crave gentleness, whereby the prince of this world is brought to nought.
Am I not able to write to you of heavenly things? But I fear lest I should cause you harm being babes. So bear with me, lest not being able to take them in, ye should be choked.

Clearly, he sees the Trallians as babes while his verbiage connotes the five senses, manly the sense of eating. Thus, he is very careful to be very precise as to what he is speaking about as not to be misunderstood easily.
He goes on to say,

take ye only Christian food, and abstain from strange herbage, which is heresy: for these men do even mingle poison with Jesus Christ, imposing upon others by a show of honesty, like persons administering a deadly drug with honied wine, so that one who knoweth it not, fearing nothing, drinketh in death with a baneful delight.

How do you take these items Joe? Christian food; strange herbage = heresy = poison = deadly drug = honied wine = drinketh death…

Ignatius goes on to say,

Not indeed that I have known of any such thing among you, but I keep watch over you betimes, as my beloved, for I foresee the snares of the devil. Do ye therefore arm yourselves with gentleness and recover yourselves in faith which is the flesh of the Lord, and in love which is the blood of Jesus Christ.

It looks pretty straight forward to me. Ignatius is not saying that bread turns into the literal flesh, nor does the wine turn into the literal blood of Jesus. Since he is speaking to “Babesâ€Â, I believe we can use this a base moving forward as I’m sure he has outlined very clearly what is meant by “Flesh†and “Blood†just as he has outlined what it is to be “choked†by heresy.

Again, as I noted above, you seem to desire to separate the physical from the spiritual.

With all due respect Joe, your senses are off. I in no manner attempt to separate the physical from the spiritual, especially when partaking of the Eucharist / Lords Supper.

Unfortunately, many people who do not believe in the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist tend to latch onto the "spiritual" sayings of the Fathers without realizing that THESE do not preclude the physical, either...

Again, I do not fall into that mindset. Jesus is present in the Eucharist, after all, it’s his Table and when two or more come together, Christ is there; however, the Eucharist does not solely consist of a piece of bread and a cup of wine and that’s where it ends. In other words, my mouth does not salivate as I look at the bread and wine as my flesh craves material sustenance. (Matthew 4:4) Christ is present in each and every Christian as we have been granted His spirit and his Spirit dwells (tabernacles) within each of us. (John 1:14-16, Acts 2:38) I’m sure you’ll agree, as the Body of Christ (1 Corinthians 12:27), we are active participants with Christ, through Christ when we partake in the Eucharist.

Jeff, God became man so that we may know God. We continue to know, to experience God through physical things, symbols, signs. The Bible is one example that may help you to understand what a sacrament is to the Catholic. God speaks to you through physical words found in the Bible. In a special way, God comes to us through the Eucharist. Why that form? Because bread and wine have particular meanings to the recipient, one of sustanance and support, of joy and comfort. Eating in the company of others was a very important part of culture and society in those days. Those who ate together formed a communion with the others - which is why the Pharisees were so distraught with Jesus' eating company... All of these symbols and signs help us to remind us that Christ did, continues to do, and will do at the end of time. Thus, the Eucharist is so important to us - Christ's presence through visible signs.

I both agree and understand Joe. Both you and I have discussed our agreements on this issue in the past and we both agree in many area’s, including the importance of partaking of the Lords Supper. We at the Church of Christ partake each and every Lord’s day per the Apostles teaching (Acts 20:7). It is the focal point of our coming together.

Where we will split hairs, is stating that the bread is somehow transformed into the literal flesh of Christ and the wine is transformed into the literal blood of Christ. Even my senses tell me different, including my conscience. Is this to say that Christ is not present in the bread and wine? Absolutely not, but when we break bread, and pass it to one another we are united by and through Christ as we share a common faith and love for, in and through Christ.

Now then, I respectfully ask that our post’s reduce in size. I honestly don’t have time to respond to such large posts. That being said, I see Ignatius letter to the Romans where he mentions the flesh and blood of Jesus through the foundation that he laid out in his letter to Trallians. In addition, he sees his impending death as a sort of initiation into true discipleship as his flesh and blood will soon be offered up to Christ. It is my belief that he is struggling with the reality of dyeing a horrid death in the arena and is comparing his responses (which I believe he is struggling with) to the response of Christ.

 

[Catholic Crusader]

....Where we will split hairs, is stating that the bread is somehow transformed into the literal flesh of Christ and the wine is transformed into the literal blood of Christ. Even my senses tell me different, including my conscience.....

A comment on the above quote: You cannot rely on the senses to perceive the supernatural. My senses don't perceive angels about me or a Holy Spirit dwelling within me, but they are there. Even in the Bible, when Jesus said "..this is my body..", it did not look any different afterwards. Your senses probably would not have told you that Jesus was the Almighty God if you had seen Him wandering about the countryside. But He was.

Lastly, just to put a fine point on it: The Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of Christ subsists fully in either species (the wine or the bread). There is no seperation. Just a little theological point there.

 

[stovebolts]

Cc,
I understand what you are saying; why does scripture state,
Deut 14:21b Do not cook a young goat in its mother's milk. Please note, it does not prohibit the cooking of a young goat in goat milk...

I realize that some of the pagans did this, but what do you believe it symbolized within the Hebrew culture other than being a warning against paganism?

Carry that same thought back to Genesis 9:4. I'd be interested in your reply.

 

[Catholic Crusader]

Cc,
I understand what you are saying; why does scripture state,
Deut 14:21b Do not cook a young goat in its mother's milk. Please note, it does not prohibit the cooking of a young goat in goat milk...

I realize that some of the pagans did this, but what do you believe it symbolized within the Hebrew culture other than being a warning against paganism?

Carry that same thought back to Genesis 9:4. I'd be interested in your reply.

Ah. Yes. Well, I would say that Jesus' holiness would not allow Him to tell us to do something profane, even if only symbollically. Therefore, if your position were correct, and the Eucharist was only symbolic, it would still mean that Jesus told us to symbolically do something bad. So I don't think that scripture works here.

Whenever Jesus' commands contradict OT laws or ordinances, Jesus' commands supercede them.

 

[stovebolts]

I think your not reading what I'm writing. I do not deny the presence of Christ in the Eucharist... To do so would be like denying God dwelling in the holy of holies before the temple curtain was torn. :-?

What I am opposed to, is the idea that a wafer takes on the form of meat and the wine takes the form of blood and we call that the Eucharist. I digress, ...

Cc,
I understand what you are saying; why does scripture state,
Deut 14:21b Do not cook a young goat in its mother's milk. Please note, it does not prohibit the cooking of a young goat in goat milk...

I realize that some of the pagans did this, but what do you believe it symbolized within the Hebrew culture other than being a warning against paganism?

Carry that same thought back to Genesis 9:4. I'd be interested in your reply.

 

[Catholic Crusader]

Well, there's no way I can do better than this link in explaining:
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05573a.htm
Check it out, if you haven't already.

 

[stovebolts]

Well, there's no way I can do better than this link in explaining:
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05573a.htm
Check it out, if you haven't already.

No, I'd rather hear your direct reply to my direct question than read an article that you happen to agree with. Thanks anyway though.

 

[francisdesales]

Hello Joe, it looks like we’ve much to discuss eh? I’ll count on you and others to place the pieces where they belong within the context of your reply for the sake of space. I’ll start at the top of your post and work down.

Hi, Jeff, good to be discussing this subject with you again... Let's see what we can do here.

I don’t understand why you minimize the death of Christians by Rome and honestly, I am surprised by your answer. I am viewing the entire life of Ignatius in my opening statement (Nero, Vespasian, Titus, and Domitian) while it appears you are focusing around Ignatius’ last days with the reign of Domitian?

I am not minimizing the death of Christians! I use their witness as an example to the conviction of their belief on the Eucharist! However, historically speaking, Trajan did not persue persecutions on a large scale (even the Catholic Encyclopedia states that, naming only two prominent charecters killed). We also have an extant letter from Trajan to Pliny the Younger, governor of Bithynia. The letter does not promote persecution except for the "obstinate atheist". There was to be no active seeking of Christians. THIS was the political reality of the time of Ignatius, not Domitian. It is a slight correction, that is all.

I’m not sure how you concluded that I was confused about Jesus having a real physical body other than by taking what I posted about Dioecism by mistake as my view. Rest assured, I came into this conversation in full agreement and understanding of what you have posted thus far on Dioecism.

I didn't state you were confused about whether Jesus had a real physical body, Jeff. I did imply that your separation of the spiritual from the physical is akin to Docetism itself, the very heresy Ignatius adamantly wrote against. As I highlighted earlier, being spiritual does NOT preclude the physical. Thus, Ignatius' words about the spiritual food says nothing about the importance and reality of the Eucharistic elements, CERTAINLY NOT eliminating them from consideration. This is not "proof" that Ignatius considered the Eucharist in the metaphorical sense, a la Protestantism. That is an incredible leap of logic that is not supported by OTHER verses that Ignatius did write, as Terry wrote above...

Thus, I tell you your argument falls flat when you refer to the "spiritual" portions when Ignatius refers to the Eucharist. By discussing "A" but not "B" does not deny "B". Even John Paul the 2 discusses the spirituality of the Eucharist in his last Encyclical he wrote. But don't think he was denying the physical!

As far as John 6:51, doctrine does not stand on one verse of the bible. If that were the case, then by God’s own word we could save ourselves (Job 40:14).

I do not make that case. It is quite obvious that the unanimous citations on the subject are compelling evidence that the first Christians believed in the Real Presence, no matter how many verses state this in Scriptures. I trust I don't have to remind you on who wrote the Scriptures?

Clearly, he sees the Trallians as babes while his verbiage connotes the five senses, manly the sense of eating. Thus, he is very careful to be very precise as to what he is speaking about as not to be misunderstood easily.

I have no problem with that concept, as I also must "condescend" to the level of people whom I try to teach. I certainly don't go into the esoterics of the Eucharist or the Trinity on the first day of RCIA with people who have not read the Scriptures. This doesn't mean that this basic building block is a moot point once we are "ready for meat" as mature Christians. Sure, the mature don't focus on the physical, but the physical STILL leads to the spiritual meaning.

Same when we pray. First, we begin with structured, formal prayers. As we mature, we develop the habit of meditation. But as ANY writing of a saint will tell you when speaking on such intermediate prayers, they do NOT discard the formal prayers. EACH that I am aware of begins with such vocal and often structured prayers to prepare one for the more mature prayers. Same with the Eucharist. The Bread and Wine are STILL Christ - but the mature focus more on what He did then on the elements themselves... Even the mature are able to experience Christ through the physical.

I presume you ALSO experience Christ through your visible, physical letters of the Bible, although technically, you already have heard the Word and don't "need" this (according to your mentality that you put forth regarding the physical)

With all due respect Joe, your senses are off. I in no manner attempt to separate the physical from the spiritual, especially when partaking of the Eucharist / Lords Supper.

Again, I do not fall into that mindset. Jesus is present in the Eucharist, after all, it’s his Table and when two or more come together, Christ is there; however, the Eucharist does not solely consist of a piece of bread and a cup of wine and that’s where it ends. In other words, my mouth does not salivate as I look at the bread and wine as my flesh craves material sustenance. (Matthew 4:4) Christ is present in each and every Christian as we have been granted His spirit and his Spirit dwells (tabernacles) within each of us. (John 1:14-16, Acts 2:38) I’m sure you’ll agree, as the Body of Christ (1 Corinthians 12:27), we are active participants with Christ, through Christ when we partake in the Eucharist.

OK, thanks for making this more clear. I see your distaste for the physical presence, however. As I have said, and Ignatius and the Catechism, that the Eucharist is NOT JUST bread and wine. The Eucharistic elements have become something else. The intent is not to eat food for physical nourishment, but for spiritual nourishment. That is clear among all the writers of the Fathers and the Church today. Yes, Christ is present in a particular way in each of us, but the Eucharist is a different presence, a physical one. We aren't talking about presence in the community in a vague way, but a physical reality that can be touched, tasted, swallowed. Just as in the communion offering of the Old Testament, the Victim is eaten and community with God is achieved. However, with the New Covenant, the Victim is CHRIST HIMSELF. The Jews who first heard this certainly understood the signs of the OT that pointed to this NEW sacrifice, NEW offering, NEW communion - one that replaces the other ones.

I both agree and understand Joe. Both you and I have discussed our agreements on this issue in the past and we both agree in many area’s, including the importance of partaking of the Lords Supper. We at the Church of Christ partake each and every Lord’s day per the Apostles teaching (Acts 20:7). It is the focal point of our coming together.

Where we will split hairs, is stating that the bread is somehow transformed into the literal flesh of Christ and the wine is transformed into the literal blood of Christ. Even my senses tell me different, including my conscience. Is this to say that Christ is not present in the bread and wine? Absolutely not, but when we break bread, and pass it to one another we are united by and through Christ as we share a common faith and love for, in and through Christ.

I don't see this as splitting hairs, I see this as fundamental to my faith...

YES, our senses do not correspond to what occurs. That is why it is called a sacrament of faith. We rely on the words of Christ as He stated at the Last Supper.

THIS IS MY BODY, (holding bread)
THIS IS THE CUP OF MY BLOOD (holding a cup of wine)

Clearly, the Apostles were intrigued and confused. But they remembered that Jesus said something very unusual, as it is mentioned often in the Scriptures. They didn't dismiss Christ's "strange" words, changing them to suit the future Protestant's conscience. The first Christians must also have partaken in this sacrament of faith, since they were unanimous on their proclamation.

The Church comes together through the Eucharist, the visible presence of Christ in the world today. That is why the Eucharist is the sign of our unity. That is why it is administered by the bishop or whom he delegates. This unity is one of the marks of the Church.

Now then, I respectfully ask that our post’s reduce in size. I honestly don’t have time to respond to such large posts. That being said, I see Ignatius letter to the Romans where he mentions the flesh and blood of Jesus through the foundation that he laid out in his letter to Trallians. In addition, he sees his impending death as a sort of initiation into true discipleship as his flesh and blood will soon be offered up to Christ. It is my belief that he is struggling with the reality of dyeing a horrid death in the arena and is comparing his responses (which I believe he is struggling with) to the response of Christ.

Terry's post clearly shows that this point of view is incompatible with what Ignatius actually wrote. I know you would LIKE Ignatius to mean that, but the words are just not there. The bread from heaven is Christ's flesh - just as Jesus Himself said. Plain enough for those who are willing to hear.

Regards

 

[Catholic Crusader]

Well, there's no way I can do better than this link in explaining:
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05573a.htm
Check it out, if you haven't already.

No, I'd rather hear your direct reply to my direct question than read an article that you happen to agree with. Thanks anyway though.

I thought I gave a reply two posts ago. I don't know what else to say. Jesus said "This is my Body". Are we going to pull a Bill Clinton and argue over what the meaning of the word "is" is? I take that verse at face value, and since this thread is about Ignatius, I would say that most all the Early Fathers did too. I don't think you find the "symbolic" interpretation until the 16th century. I don't know what else to say. The Eastern Orthodox believe it; Coptics believe it; even "Traditional" Anglicans believe it. It ain't just a Catholic thing.