Ignatius on the Eucharist

[Hidden In Him]

Greetings all.

I just read an interesting thread posted on "What if Protestants were right about the Eucharist," and the article cited in it gives what appears to be the primary historical source material for how the doctrine of transubstantiation came to be established.

The earliest of these quotes is from Ignatius, so I would like to discuss it in depth here. I'm sure this has been debated somewhere before at this Forum, but let me bring up a question to my learned Catholic friends and see if I can't get an answer that suits me. Granted, this may require a little knowledge of early Gnosticism since that is the background to the quotes in question, but I invite any and all comments to my inquiry.

Please note: To any Catholic members who might respond, please don't think I am "bashing" the Catholic faith simply because I am calling their interpretation into question. This is NOT my objective in the least. I simply want an open and honest dialogue with those learned enough to discuss the topic in a loving and Christ-like manner.

That having been said, here is the passage in question. Starting from Chapter 5 of The Epistle to the Smyrnaeans, where he is discussing the Gnostics in particular:

___________________________
Chapter 5. Their dangerous errors

Some ignorantly deny Him, or rather have been denied by Him, being the advocates of death rather than of the truth. These persons neither have the prophets persuaded, nor the law of Moses, nor the Gospel even to this day, nor the sufferings we have individually endured. For they think also the same thing regarding us. For what does any one profit me, if he commends me, but blasphemes my Lord, not confessing that He was [truly] possessed of a body? But he who does not acknowledge this, has in fact altogether denied Him, being enveloped in death. I have not, however, thought good to write the names of such persons, inasmuch as they are unbelievers. Yea, far be it from me to make any mention of them, until they repent and return to [a true belief in] Christ's passion, which is our resurrection.

Chapter 6. Unbelievers in the blood of Christ shall be condemned

Let no man deceive himself. Both the things which are in heaven, and the glorious angels, and rulers, both visible and invisible, if they believe not in the blood of Christ, shall, in consequence, incur condemnation. He that is able to receive it, let him receive it. Matthew 19:12 Let not [high] place puff any one up: for that which is worth all is faith and love, to which nothing is to be preferred. But consider those who are of a different opinion with respect to the grace of Christ which has come unto us, how opposed they are to the will of God. They have no regard for love; no care for the widow, or the orphan, or the oppressed; of the bond, or of the free; of the hungry, or of the thirsty.

Chapter 7. Let us stand aloof from such heretics

They abstain from the eucharist and from prayer, because they confess not the eucharist to be the flesh of our Saviour Jesus Christ, which suffered for our sins, and which the Father, of His goodness, raised up again. Those, therefore, who speak against this gift of God, incur death in the midst of their disputes. But it were better for them to treat it with respect, that they also might rise again. It is fitting, therefore, that you should keep aloof from such persons, and not to speak of them either in private or in public, but to give heed to the prophets, and above all, to the Gospel, in which the passion [of Christ] has been revealed to us, and the resurrection has been fully proved. But avoid all divisions, as the beginning of evils.

_________________________

Ok, here's my question: The context here is that he is countering the position of the Gnostics that Jesus did not actually come in the flesh and die in the flesh for our sins, as Chapter 5 makes clear. Is this not the proper context in which he makes the statements, "They abstain from the eucharist and from prayer, because they confess not the Eucharist to be the flesh of our Saviour Jesus Christ, which suffered for our sins, and which the Father, of His goodness, raised up again... It is fitting, therefore... to give heed to the prophets, and above all, to the Gospel, in which the passion [of Christ] has been revealed to us, and the resurrection has been fully proved"? Is he not making reference to the actual passion of Christ on the cross rather than to the bread and wine in context? I have no problems with changing my theological positions or affiliations whenever I encounter flaws in previously held notions. But in looking at this verse in its context, the logical conclusion for me is to assume Ignatius is simply using the words "because they confess not the eucharist to be the flesh of our Saviour Jesus Christ" to restate that the Gnostics opposed the doctrine of Christ having come in the flesh, i.e. as represented in the eucharist. If this is not the case, it seems to me that those who take the opposite position are required to find source quotes from the early fathers that specifically prove the Gnostics were opposed to the eucharist itself on this grounds.

I'm open to replies, and honestly and respectfully simply curious to know what the Catholic defense is to this particular line of questioning.

God bless,
Hidden In Him

 

[chevyontheriver]

Well, the text of Ignatius' letter does say "They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer, because they confess not the Eucharist to be the flesh of our Saviour Jesus Christ, which suffered for our sins, and which the Father, of His goodness, raised up again..."

So unless you know Ignatius didn't mean what he wrote, and instead he intended as you suggest, it's rather clear that the Gnostics abstained from the Eucharist because it was way to 'material' for them. Understanding the Gnostics, which you can learn about from Irenaeus of Lyon, it would be a distatsteful thing for them if the Eucharist was presented as 'real' and not instead 'spiritual'. Gnostics would have trouble with Catholic realism but no trouble at all with most Protestant 'symbolism'.

I think you have to read Ignatius either for what he says, or for what you want him to say, or not read him at all. For me, I'm stuck reading this that the Gnostics didn't like the Eucharist because it was way too much body for them. They would not have complained about a spiritual or metaphorical presence at all.

 

[Hidden In Him]

Understanding the Gnostics, which you can learn about from Irenaeus of Lyon, it would be a distatsteful thing for them if the Eucharist was presented as 'real' and not instead 'spiritual'. Gnostics would have trouble with Catholic realism but no trouble at all with most Protestant 'symbolism'.

I fully understand this. But my point was, is there additional evidence that they opposed the eucharist on this grounds other than the supposition taken from this passage.

For me, I'm stuck reading this that the Gnostics didn't like the Eucharist because it was way too much body for them. They would not have complained about a spiritual or metaphorical presence at all.

Agreed. But again, I'm questioning if the eucharist as the Real Presence is even in view here. I'm guessing the Catholic position is to attribute Ignatius' bounce in focus from talking about the actual passion to then talking about the eucharist, to then going back to discussing the actual passion is attributable to the mystery of how the two interrelate with one another. But I would again take this as based on a supposition unless further proof could be presented to substantiate that the Gnostics specifically objected to the eucharist on the grounds that the early church purported it to be the Real Presence.

Thank you for your gracious response.

 

[Albion]

Greetings all.

I just read an interesting thread posted on "What if Protestants were right about the Eucharist," and the article cited in it gives what appears to be the primary historical source material for how the doctrine of transubstantiation came to be established.

The problem is that what Ignatius and some others from that era said supports the doctrine of the Real Presence, but not Transubstantiation (which was a doctrine that surfaced much later in history).

 

[Hidden In Him]

what Ignatius and some others from that era said supports the doctrine of the Real Presence

Ok, explain this then. I think I know what you mean, but I'd rather not assume and let you explain it yourself.

 

[Albion]

The evidence you are pointing to shows (if it does) that the bread and wine become the flesh and blood of Christ in some sense or in some way. That's the doctrine of the Real Presence.

It does not show us that the bread and wine cease to exist altogether, even though they seem to our senses to remain, having been totally replaced by the literal, carnal, flesh of Jesus. That is the doctrine of Transubstantiation which appeared as a theory in the ninth century and became an official teaching of the Roman church in the thirteenth century.

 

[Hidden In Him]

The evidence you are pointing to shows (if it does) that the bread and wine become the flesh and blood of Christ in some sense or in some way. That's the doctrine of the Real Presence.

Ok. Thanks. But now, I'm arguing here that the Real Presence isn't even in view anywhere in Chapter 7. I'm saying I think he's using metaphor by saying the eucharist is the flesh of Christ in Chapter 7, similar to how he says Christ is our resurrection towards the end of Chapter 5.

Again, my reasoning is that there appears to be no real evidence that the Gnostics taught against the Real Presence. Everything in both this letter and throughout the early church writings seems merely to refute the Gnostic claim that Christ had not come in the flesh.

 

[Albion]

I don't want to involve the Gnostics overly much, but I agree that it is possible to read Ignatius' words and similar ones by other church leaders of that era in the way you said. I think it is very hard to do, however. IF there were but one lonely statement by one church father it would make for a stronger argument.

 

[tz620q]

Greetings all.

I just read an interesting thread posted on "What if Protestants were right about the Eucharist," and the article cited in it gives what appears to be the primary historical source material for how the doctrine of transubstantiation came to be established.

here's my question: The context here is that he is countering the position of the Gnostics that Jesus did not actually come in the flesh and die in the flesh for our sins, as Chapter 5 makes clear. Is this not the proper context in which he makes the statements, "They abstain from the eucharist and from prayer, because they confess not the Eucharist to be the flesh of our Saviour Jesus Christ, which suffered for our sins, and which the Father, of His goodness, raised up again... It is fitting, therefore... to give heed to the prophets, and above all, to the Gospel, in which the passion [of Christ] has been revealed to us, and the resurrection has been fully proved"? Is he not making reference to the actual passion of Christ on the cross rather than to the bread and wine in context? I have no problems with changing my theological positions or affiliations whenever I encounter flaws in previously held notions. But in looking at this verse in its context, the logical conclusion for me is to assume Ignatius is simply using the words "because they confess not the eucharist to be the flesh of our Saviour Jesus Christ" to restate that the Gnostics opposed the doctrine of Christ having come in the flesh, i.e. as represented in the eucharist. If this is not the case, it seems to me that those who take the opposite position are required to find source quotes from the early fathers that specifically prove the Gnostics were opposed to the eucharist itself on this grounds.

I'm open to replies, and honestly and respectfully simply curious to know what the Catholic defense is to this particular line of questioning.

God bless,
Hidden In Him

Hidden in Him, I am not sure how you are getting from what Ignatius wrote to saying that it is does not support a Real Presence in the Eucharist? First, do you have research that ties these unbelievers in Smyrna to the Gnostics? They could well have been; but they could also have been Zoroastrian or some other precursor of the later Christian Gnostics. I just don't want to read into Ignatius' letter a rebuttal of Gnosticism without some evidence that that was what he was speaking against. It is evident from most of the letter that he was addressing the faithful in Smyrna that believed in Christ coming in real flesh and blood and placing these in opposition to what he called unbelievers and dead in their beliefs those who denied a real Incarnation that included real flesh and blood. That is the main thrust of his letter. The part on the Eucharist could be viewed as merely pointing out that if someone does not believe in Jesus having come in the flesh, then saying they could believe in the real flesh of Jesus in the Eucharist does not follow. In denying the first Incarnation, they would have to deny the incarnation of Christ in the Eucharist. As a Catholic, I would never use this solely as a defense of the Real Presence; but it does show a very early way of thinking about Incarnation and Eucharist as being tied together.

 

[Hidden In Him]

Hidden in Him, I am not sure how you are getting from what Ignatius wrote to saying that it is does not support a Real Presence in the Eucharist? First, do you have research that ties these unbelievers in Smyrna to the Gnostics? They could well have been; but they could also have been Zoroastrian or some other precursor of the later Christian Gnostics. I just don't want to read into Ignatius' letter a rebuttal of Gnosticism without some evidence that that was what he was speaking against. It is evident from most of the letter that he was addressing the faithful in Smyrna that believed in Christ coming in real flesh and blood and placing these in opposition to what he called unbelievers and dead in their beliefs those who denied a real Incarnation that included real flesh and blood. That is the main thrust of his letter. The part on the Eucharist could be viewed as merely pointing out that if someone does not believe in Jesus having come in the flesh, then saying they could believe in the real flesh of Jesus in the Eucharist does not follow. In denying the first Incarnation, they would have to deny the incarnation of Christ in the Eucharist. As a Catholic, I would never use this solely as a defense of the Real Presence; but it does show a very early way of thinking about Incarnation and Eucharist as being tied together.

A reasoned response, and gracefully put. I would reply, however, that the fathers never commented on Zorostrianism, making it unlikely that Ignatius would be doing so here without qualifying his refutation as applying specifically to them. The obvious assumption is he's referring to the Gnostics, the primary proponents of this theology throughout the first two centuries, and such a significant threat to the early church that entire volumes had to be dedicated to them alone.

 

[tz620q]

A reasoned response, and gracefully put. I would reply, however, that the fathers never commented on Zorostrianism, making it unlikely that Ignatius would be doing so here without qualifying his refutation as applying specifically to them. The obvious assumption is he's referring to the Gnostics, the primary proponents of this theology throughout the first two centuries, and such a significant threat to the early church that entire volumes had to be dedicated to them alone.

I find your style of posting to be a refreshing break from the normal hack and slash. Your comments on the Gnostics is certainly true and even today in the Jesus Movement we find neo-Gnostics, so it is a hard weed to hoe. As far as the group that Ignatius was talking about as unbelievers, you might want to read the Letter to the Trallians. It parallels in these sections to the Letter to the Smyrneans and seems to refer more to the Docetists than the Gnostics.

 

[Hidden In Him]

As far as the group that Ignatius was talking about as unbelievers, you might want to read the Letter to the Trallians. It parallels in these sections to the Letter to the Smyrneans and seems to refer more to the Docetists than the Gnostics.

I appreciate that. I took a look, and the argument has some plausibility. But I noticed the publishers of it online seem to assume the letter is written in response to the Docetists (CHURCH FATHERS: Epistle to the Trallians (St. Ignatius), see Chapter 11), whereas Docetism doesn't actually appear by name until the late second century (Docetism - Wikipedia). The Letter to the Smyrnaeans was written 90 years earlier than this. I suppose it's a remote possibility that the heresy in its earliest forms could have been circulating already. I just tend to shy away from theoretical "movements" being substituted in for ones far more well-documented.

But it's thought-provoking...

 

[chevyontheriver]

I fully understand this. But my point was, is there additional evidence that they opposed the eucharist on this grounds other than the supposition taken from this passage.

The 'go to guy' for what the Gnostics believed is Irenaeus of Lyon. He has lots of detail about all sorts of Gnostics. I do not know though if he deals with your question. It was a long time ago that I read his 'Against the Heretics'.

Agreed. But again, I'm questioning if the eucharist as the Real Presence is even in view here. I'm guessing the Catholic position is to attribute Ignatius' bounce in focus from talking about the actual passion to then talking about the eucharist, to then going back to discussing the actual passion is attributable to the mystery of how the two interrelate with one another. But I would again take this as based on a supposition unless further proof could be presented to substantiate that the Gnostics specifically objected to the eucharist on the grounds that the early church purported it to be the Real Presence.

The Jesus who bodily suffered and died and was resurrected, is, I think considered by Ignatius as the same Jesus as in the Eucharist. So I think going back and forth is not at all illogical. I get it that you need an overwhelming confirmation that Ignatius means what his words do clearly seem to say. I don't know if there is enough other Patristic evidence on Gnosticism to do that. I'll give it a look tonight, and if I find anything I'll let you know. If I don't find anything, that doesn't mean it's not there, just that I failed to find it.

 

[tz620q]

I appreciate that. I took a look, and the argument has some plausibility. But I noticed the publishers of it online seem to assume the letter is written in response to the Docetists (CHURCH FATHERS: Epistle to the Trallians (St. Ignatius), see Chapter 11), whereas Docetism doesn't actually appear by name until the late second century (Docetism - Wikipedia). The Letter to the Smyrnaeans was written 90 years earlier than this. I suppose it's a remote possibility that the heresy in its earliest forms could have been circulating already. I just tend to shy away from theoretical "movements" being substituted in for ones far more well-documented.

But it's thought-provoking...

I found the same thing. The naming of these unbelievers as Docetists seemed to be a later addition during translation, not necessarily what Ignatius meant. So weak sauce. It seems that the one stumbling block for most people of that time was not so much the Resurrection; but the Incarnation. They had heard of others that had came back from the dead and there are stories in most mythologies of Gods masquerading as humans; but never one that actually became a baby, lived a fully human life with all that that requires and allowed Himself to be put to death.

 

[Hidden In Him]

The 'go to guy' for what the Gnostics believed is Irenaeus of Lyon. He has lots of detail about all sorts of Gnostics. I do not know though if he deals with your question. It was a long time ago that I read his 'Against the Heretics'.

Yeah. I'm more well-read in Irenaeas than I am in Ignatius, so while I was initially a little taken aback by reading the Ignatius quote, when I started reading it in context I thought the case for taking him literally became weaker (though strong on face value). If there were something anywhere else in the fathers to corroborate that would change things, so I thought I'd see if anyone else knew of any.

The Jesus who bodily suffered and died and was resurrected, is, I think considered by Ignatius as the same Jesus as in the Eucharist. So I think going back and forth is not at all illogical.

Certainly not illogical. But I'm not convinced it's the proper reading in the context of early church teachings as a whole. I do appreciate the help, though. Honestly. That's very kind.

It seems that the one stumbling block for most people of that time was not so much the Resurrection; but the Incarnation. They had heard of others that had came back from the dead and there are stories in most mythologies of Gods masquerading as humans; but never one that actually became a baby, lived a fully human life with all that that requires and allowed Himself to be put to death.

Interesting perspective. I've always though that too, in a way. The reason the Gentiles considered the gospel foolish was because of who they purported Jesus to be: The future Ruler of the world. Why such a man would allow Himself to be shamefully crucified at the hands of the Romans was just too much for them to grasp, i.e. as having any wisdom to it. But then they didn't have such strict codes regarding sin as the Jews did either, nor any god who demanded such holiness.

 

[Arsenios]

A reasoned response, and gracefully put. I would reply, however, that the fathers never commented on Zorostrianism, making it unlikely that Ignatius would be doing so here without qualifying his refutation as applying specifically to them. The obvious assumption is he's referring to the Gnostics, the primary proponents of this theology throughout the first two centuries, and such a significant threat to the early church that entire volumes had to be dedicated to them alone.

Igntius' words are more generic specifically, perhaps so as to avoid specific offense to particular groups... eg The important point is anyone's unbelief and its consequences...

Arsenios

 

[Hidden In Him]

Igntius' words are more generic specifically, perhaps so as to avoid specific offense to particular groups... eg The important point is anyone's unbelief and its consequences...

Arsenios

Hi Arsenios. Now to make this point you would have to establish that more than one sect was already in existence that denounced the incarnation. I'm trying to think if a case could be made for any group other than the Gnostics at around 100 A.D.... And the tenor of the letter gives the feel as though he's discussing a particular sect.

 

[Arsenios]

Hi Arsenios. Now to make this point you would have to establish that more than one sect was already in existence that denounced the incarnation. I'm trying to think if a case could be made for any group other than the Gnostics at around 100 A.D.... And the tenor of the letter gives the feel as though he's discussing a particular sect.

Hi HIH...

Well, John also stresses in his epistles that those who deny the BODILY Incarnation of God the Word are not getting saved... Yet he does not name them... And each era has its own issues to deal with... We sure have them now as the US is theologically and Ekklesiologically deconstructing in post-modern America...

However, Real Presence in the Gifts should not be predicated on these warnings, I should think...

It might be reflected in them...

Christ, PRIOR to His Ascent of the Cross, called bread He Blessed His Body...
He was born in a manger - A place where dumb beasts are fed grain...
He said: "I am the Bread of Life..."

It all seem (supra-)normal enough, yes?

Arsenios

 

[Hidden In Him]

Well, John also stresses in his epistles that those who deny the BODILY Incarnation of God the Word are not getting saved... Yet he does not name them...

Point well taken. There are those who claim John's epistles were written with regard to the Gnostics, but I've never been completely sold on that argument. But then I've never given myself to a truly in-depth study of his epistles either. Being forced to identify the antagonists might cause me to change my view on that.

Christ, PRIOR to His Ascent of the Cross, called bread He Blessed His Body...
He was born in a manger - A place where dumb beasts are fed grain...
He said: "I am the Bread of Life..."

I fear responding here because it risks opening the thread up to a wider debate on the Real Presence and this will leave my original argument in the dust, LoL. But at this risk, let me ask: Does the EOC hold that the Presence is inherent in the elements, irregardless of the spiritual state of the congregation? My personal take is that the Presence is inherent in His body of congregants when they are truly Spirit-filled believers joining together (as per say a passage like 1 Corinthians 5:3-5). And because they are partakers of that one and self-same Spirit together, their consuming the elements is a representation of this fact. I also take the "the Bread of Life" as an allusion to how His words are Spirit and Life; therefore whoever partakes of the Word and the Spirit is a true partaker of the Real Presence represented in the bread and wine, yet those who do not can partake of communion all they want yet will not be truly taking part in the Real Presence.

Not sure if I'm explaining my position clearly, but it was an attempt, LoL.

 

[Hidden In Him]

My apologies for the typos, btw. Forgot to spell-check, but I think I have it cleared up now.