Clement of Alexandria was essentially a Docetist who taught that Christ's body was not subject to suffering and he also denied Christ's full humanity.
The issue of Christ being "fully human" vs. "fully divine" is an argument of semantics.
Here is something I found that Clement of Alexandria wrote:
"Rejoice," it is said, "that ye are partakers in the sufferings of Christ:" that is, if ye are righteous, ye suffer for righteousness' sake, as Christ suffered for righteousness. Sounds like he believes that the Christ suffered. That would mean he is not a Docetist. But if you don't like him, then here is Tertullion:
"He says, it is true, that 'the flesh profiteth nothing;' but then, as in the former case, the meaning must be regulated by the subject which is spoken of. Now, because they thought His discourse was harsh and intolerable, supposing that He had really and literally enjoined on them to eat his flesh, He, with the view of ordering the state of salvation as a spiritual thing, set out with the principle, 'It is the spirit that quickeneth;' and then added, 'The flesh profiteth nothing,'--meaning, of course, to the giving of life. He also goes on to explain what He would have us to understand by spirit: 'The words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life. 'In a like sense He had previously said: 'He that heareth my words, and believeth on Him that sent me, hath everlasting life, and shall not come into condemnation, but shall pass from death unto life.' Constituting, therefore, His word as the life-giving principle, because that word is spirit and life, He likewise called His flesh by the same appelation; because, too, the Word had become flesh, we ought therefore to desire Him in order that we may have life, and to devour Him with the ear, and to ruminate on Him with the understanding, and to digest Him by faith. Now, just before the passage in hand, He had declared His flesh to be 'the bread which cometh down from heaven, 'impressing on His hearers constantly under the figure of necessary food the memory of their forefathers, who had preferred the bread and flesh of Egypt to their divine calling."--(Tertullian, On the Resurrection of the Flesh, 37)
You have quoted one of the people of whom Ignatius warned the church to steer clear.
I don't think that is possible since Ignatius died in 110 A.D. and Clement was born in 150 A.D.
It might should give you pause that you have chosen him for support of your position.
Well let us both pause and consider our positions.
Let us cut to the chase. Your position is essentially saying that those who partake of the communion believing the bread and wine turn into his body and blood are the True Church where Christ dwells. Consequently you ingest the Christ in this manner according to this scripture.
John 6:56
He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood,
dwelleth in me, and I
in him.
By comparison, I believe the Spirit of Christ dwells in us through belief that God is the divine Love that would sacrifice Himself for those unworthy of Him. 1 John 4:9. Those who dwell in Him, and He in them, through such a faith, will be freed in their conscience to show the same Love, and they are the Church. 1 John 4:15. And in this faith, Christ is ingested in a manner that is known as the hearing of the Gospel, and the power of it is the cross. Hence the true communion of the Church is done in memory of Him, whom God sent to suffer death on the cross, so as to give us life. That is why he said his body is food and his blood is drink.
Luke 22:19
And he took bread, and gave thanks, and brake it, and gave unto them, saying,
This is my body which is given for you:
this do in remembrance of me.
I don't see the significance of the bread and wine turning into his flesh and blood, except to cause some to conclude that anyone who does not believe this, is not in the Church. I don't like that Litmus test. It doesn't mean that just because they don't agree with that interpretation of the words of Christ, that they don't believe the Gospel.
