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.
-- St. Ignatius (Letter to the Smyrnaeans 6:2–7:1 [A.D. 110])
St. Ignatius was trained by St. John. Where did St. Ignatius get the above ideas if not from him?
The belief that Ignatius was a student of St. John ultimately does not rest on any trustworthy evidence, and even students may differ from their masters, while most of what is attributed to Ignatius of Antioch is held to be spurious, and the authenticity of material within the seven letters held to be genuine is also subject to
disputation.
Regardless, all must be subject to wholly-inspired Scripture, and the problem is that unless you hold to a false conception of Christ, this cannot be "the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ, flesh which suffered for our sins," for in contrast to the Eucharistic flesh of Christ, the flesh of the incarnated Christ looked like, felt like, and would taste and scientifically test as real human flesh.
And thus, in contrast to the Christ of 1st century Gnosticism, John stated, That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked upon, and our hands have handled, of the Word of life; (1 John 1:1)
And it is this tangible flesh that the Lord referred to as "my body which is broken for you"
(1 Corinthians 11:24) "my blood...which is shed for many for the remission of sins." (Matthew 26:28)
The NT Christians did not preach of an incarnated Divine Son of God that appeared as bread and wine or any other inanimate object, received by blind faith, by one which manifestly was God in human flesh. Thus John's emphasis on Christ as one who"came by water and blood." (1 John 5:6) A Christ which did not look, feel, like, and would taste and scientifically test as human would be as a false Christ as much as the phantom-type Christ of Gnosticism was.
Thus the flesh and blood referred to in the last supper as being broken and shed - and which, as resurrected, Thomas could see and feel with his fingers (and i believe would test as human flesh - was His manifestly real human flesh or else we have a Christ whose appearance does not correspond to what He physically is. While within Gnosticism you had the belief that Christ only looked corporeal but was not, in Catholicism you have the belief that the crucified Christ only looks, feels, tastes and would test as non-corporeal, but that He "really" is so (present whole and entire in His physical "reality," corporeally present, although not in the manner in which bodies are in a place. .." (Mysterium Fidei)
The only other explanation is that the words at issue in the Lord's supper are as metaphorical as David's in referring to drinking water being the blood of men, and thus pouring it out unto the Lord like a priestly offering, (2 Samuel 23:16-17) or men being referred to as "bread" for Israel, (Numbers 14:9) or the latter being eaten by enemies, (Psalms 14:4; 27:2) or the word of God being physically eaten, (Psalms 19:10; 119:103; Jeremiah 15:16)
among other examples.
And which use corresponds to another statement attributed to Ignatius upon his death, “Allow me to become food for the wild beasts, through whose means it will be granted me to reach God.
I am the wheat of God, and am ground by the teeth of the wild beasts, that I may be found
the pure bread of Christ.” (Epistle to the Romans; emp. mine)
And which metaphorical use of food corresponds to the abundant use of metaphorical language in Johannine writings in inspired Scripture which the writer was familiar with, and which in turn is correspondent to the abundant use of metaphorical language in the OT.
And which metaphorical understanding is the only one which easily conflates with the totality of Scripture, and of John in particular, in which spiritual life is nowhere obtained by literally physically eating anything, but by effectually believing the gospel, and the word of God is said to be "milk" (1 Peter 2:2-3) and "meat," (Hebrews 5:12; cf. 1Co. 3:2) and what spiritually nourishes and builds up the body. (1Tim. 4:6; Acts 20:32)
And in almost every chapter before John 6 then John uses figurative language, from the lamb (John 1:29) or temple (John 2:19) or salvific serpent (John 3:14,15) referring to Christ, or water for eternal life, (John 4:14) or doing the Father's will to be "meat," (John 4:34; cf. Mathew 4:4)
And with the latter showing how he "lived" by the Father, which is how He taught believers are to live by Him in John 6:57.
In reality, the Catholic is faced with an immense difficulty in justifying his Eucharistic theology, for the issue is not whether the post-apostolic church in extra-scriptural literature supports a literalistic view of the words at issue in the Lord's supper, but whether this corresponds to Scripture, especially in the recorded life and teaching of the NT church (Acts onward, which writings are interpretive of the gospels).
And thus the Catholic must show that the record and teachings of the NT church support the Catholic literalistic view that "take eat, this is my body which is broken for you" (1 Corinthians 11:24) and "my blood...which is shed for many for the remission of sins" (Matthew 26:28) means that they were literally consuming the "real" body and blood of Christ, but that it was in a form that does not correspond to the manifest incarnated body and blood of Christ, but refers to an invisible, undetectable change in "substance," which explanation requires Neoplatonic thought and Aristotelian metaphysics to justify.
And that this means that this change is only instrumentally effected by a separate sacerdotal class of believers distinctively called "priests," and offered as a sacrifice for sin, with this being their primary distinct active function, and which is eaten by believers in order to obtain spiritual life.
And that this was a formal ritual and the supreme central overarching daily sacrament of the NT church, "the source and summit of the Christian life" (CCC 1324) “the medicine of immortality, the antidote for death, and the food that makes us live for ever in Jesus Christ," (CCC 1415) "a kind of consummation of the spiritual life, and in a sense the goal of all the sacraments," (Mysterium Fidei, Encyclical of Pope Paul VI, 1965) through which “the work of our redemption is carried out,” (CCC 1364)
However, not only does Scripture not known of an incarnated Christ who looked, felt and would taste as an inanimate object (that He did so as per Catholicism is what must be established), or of obtaining spiritual life by literally physically consuming something, but n
owhere is there even a separate sacerdotal class of believers distinctively called "priests," let alone even one example of them conducting the Lord's supper, or instructions to do so in this record of the NT church.
Nor therein is there any discussion, discourse or manner of explanation on the basic issue of transubstantiation, despite its critical importance in Catholicism, and the material given to actual issues of like importance in the NT record and teachings of the NT church.
Instead of a separate sacerdotal class of believers distinctively called "priests" whose primary active function is that of offering the Lord's supper as a sacrifice for sin, we have presbuteros (senior/elder) or episkopos (superintendent/overseer) - and which, contrary to Ignatius, refers to one office (Titus 1:5-7; Acts 20:17,28; cf. Acts 14:23; Phil. 1:1) - whose primary active function is that of preaching the word, which is how they fed the flock as charged, (Acts 20:28; 1Co. 1:17; 2Tim. 4:2 1Pt. 5:2) with the "milk and "meat" of the word, which nourished and builds them up, as showed.
And instead of the Lord's supper being and the supreme central overarching daily ritual sacrament of the NT church, the books of Acts merely mentions a daily breaking of bread, (Acts 2:42; 20:7) "with gladness and singleness of heart," (Acts 2:46) and with the only particular mention of leadership in this being that of the apostles stating it was not their particular function to physically feed the flock but instructed that deacons be elected and ordained for this. (Acts 6:1-4)
After that, aside from the mention of Jude to the communal Christian "feast of charity," (Jude 1:12) the Lords supper is only manifestly described in just one epistle. And in which the fellowship of the body and blood of Christ corresponds to the fellowship idolators have with the object of their dedicatory feasts, which fellowship was not by consuming the flesh and blood of the object of their worship, but eating as a body in signifying unity with such in devotion to them. (1Corithians 10:14-22)
Likewise in the next chapter the body of Christ which is not being discerned is that of the church, for they were neglecting some for who Christ died, feasting in the communal feast of charity which was to signify communion with the Lord who purchased them with His sinless shed blood, while others were left hungry, completely contrary to what they were supposed to be remembering/showing! (
1Co. 17-34) The next chapter also focuses on the church as he body of Christ.
Besides these, and in contrast to the constant mention and centrality of the Catholic Eucharistic, the Lord's supper is not mentioned at all. It is not recommended as a means of grace, nor partaking of it commended, nor neglect of it censored, despite the extensive teachings, exhortations, censures and commendations in the record and teachings of the NT church.
In contrast, it is hearing and believing the preaching of the word of God that one is saved by and builds one up as a means of grace, and doing so commended, and neglect of it censored. All of which is confirmatory of the metaphorical understanding of Jn. 6, that it is ingesting and feeding off of the word of God, and living by it that is being taught. For as the Lord said, "As the living Father hath sent me, and I live by the Father: so he that eateth me, even he shall live by me," (John 6:57) which living He said was by every word of God, (Mt. 4:4) and which He said was His "meat." (Jn. 4:34) "For the flesh profiteth nothing as far as eating is concerned, but "the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life." (John 6:63)
Now to do hear and live by the Word better.
