One of the things I find bizarre in Catholic/Protestant relations is the things which seem to be huge issues to Protestants (Catholics views on justification and our alleged over-devotion to Mary) compared to the things which are shrugged off (Catholics worshipping the Eucharist). I don’t see how someone can simultaneously think it’s so gravely sinful for us to honor the Mother of God as we do that they cannot worship God with us, and hold that our views on the Eucharist are insignificant. After all, of the two, we only worship One, and it’s not our Mother.
Case in point: this seemingly Evangelical Protestant blog has done a series on St. Ignatius of Antioch and the Eucharist. If you’re unfamiliar, here’s what the author is up against: St. Ignatius, a student of St. John the Apostle, writes things like:
- “They [heretics] abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer, because they confess not the Eucharist to be the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ which suffered four 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” (The Epistle of Ignatius to the Symrnaeans Ch. VII).
- “Let no man deceive himself: if any one be not within the altar, he is deprived of the bread of God. For if the prayer of one or two possesses (Mat_18:19) such power, how much more that of the bishop and the whole Church! He, therefore, that does not assemble with the Church, has even by this manifested his pride, and condemned himself. For it is written, “God resisteth the proud” (Epistle of Ignatius to the Ephesians Ch.V).
- Also, “It is manifest, therefore, that we should look upon the bishop even as we would upon the Lord Himself. And indeed Onesimus himself greatly commends your good order in God, that ye all live according to the truth, and that no sect18 has any dwelling-place among you. Nor, indeed, do ye hearken to any one rather than to Jesus Christ speaking in truth” (Ch. VI).
These writings date no later than 110 A.D., when he’s put to death for the Faith. So this passionate Christian, defender of the Faith, student of a Gospel writer and Apostle, thinks these things. How, from an Evangelical perspective, to explain how that happened?
Here’s how it breaks down.
- In part one, the blogger argues that Ignatius’ opponents deny Christ, not just the Eucharist. This is sort of true – at the least, they deny the Incarnation. But he uses their heretical views on the Eucharist as proof of their heresy! And even if you give full weight to this argument, that the Eucharist is so taken for granted as true that all orthodox Christians believe in it, how does that help the Protestant position, which rejects this view?
- In part two, the blogger tries to show how John’s Gospel doesn’t require a believe in transubstantiation. Even if that were true, who would know what John meant, and believed? His student of many years, who learned Christianity from him? Or a blogger taking a position held by not more than 25% of Christians today, and held by far fewer throughout history? Even if both views are possible from Scripture, wouldn’t John’s student have a pretty good idea which he believed?
- In part three, he makes a bizarre claim: “In the case of John, it would seem as though he makes the reality of the matter evident without overstating it. After all, considering the context, attacking any minor misunderstanding of this kind might detour from John’s purpose.”
John’s purpose is to draw people to belief in Christ. If he sees a heresy catching on that encourages the worship of bread rather than Christ, he’s supposed to write this off simply as a “minor misunderstanding”? Let’s assume that John is this crazy. Would he then write a Gospel which provided fuel for the fire (see John 6)? Let’s assume John (and the Holy Spirit) is this reckless. Would John not at least clarify this “minor misunderstanding” with his own student? I understand not attacking other Christians for minor misunderstandings (although the Eucharist, if false, isn’t minor); but shouldn’t you correct even minor misunderstandings in your students? And particularly in the first generation of Christianity! If John doesn’t stop this “minor misunderstanding,” he knows no one will, and that it’ll carry the weight of his name and authority if it’s parroted by his disciple.
At the end of the day, I’m left with this: the students of the Apostles, this blogger has all but admitted, held to Catholic views on the authority of bishops within the Church, and on the Reality of the Body and Blood of Christ in the Eucharist. This view can find Biblical support, but so, perhaps, can a contrary view, a view which apparently isn’t held by any even remotely orthodox Christians in the first millenium of the Faith (at least, none that anyone I’ve read can find). Who would you believe?
You’re assuming that it’s so taken for granted that the bread is literally Jesus that it’s hardly ever mentioned or stressed. We would say, it’s hardly ever stressed or mentioned because that’s NOT what they believed and you’re misinterpreting the few times they say something that could be interpreted like that today. Indeed, it must have been so unquestioned, that it wasn’t made doctrine for another 1,000 years. But whether or not Jesus actually came in the flesh as a man – huge topic! But coming as bread? Obviously!
The Trinity itself wasn’t formally defined until Nicaea, yet we know this is what the Church believed. Your point is off.
Ignatius also lays bare one the arguments made by the mere symbologists… Ive’ heard them say in debates that at the Lord’s Supper, how could He be giving the apostles His Body, when He was still alive? When He ate of it, was Jesus eating his own Body?
Everyone, or nearly everyone, is merely assuming, contrary to what is written in the Gospels, that Christ ate or drank at the Last Supper. Not that it would be any stumbling block to Him, to give His Body and His Blood to His apostles, and yet only drink and eat the mere substances when He ate and drank of it. He could have ate/drank first, then made the blessing. Or, in that the new nature did not apply to what He ate and drank, as if they were One spiritual substance. According to John, Judas Iscariot was given the sop and the Devil entered him. Catholics today should remember the Church’s warnings against unworthily partaking of the Sacrament. Still, it is not entirely clear that in the institution of the Eucharist, including the Cup, that Christ Himself partook of any of it. They are clear that He gave the Bread and the Cup to the apostles. None of them say that He partook Himself, and we do not know for sure, as far as I can tell if He did, or was it not the same, or the same, or not at all… and only for the 12. Or even only for the 11, and that Judas did not receive the Eucharist ?
Nonetheless, we know why the Church felt it necessary to alter the methods of celebrating this great mystery. The agape love-feasts had already begun being misunderstood at the earliest times, as St. Paul describes. Ignatius is repeating the current conditions of his day, that there were those who did not understand what they were doing. Feasts and too much drinking. No proper regard for the Eucharist. This is why the Bishops did away with those loose, bring-your-own, banquet-style Eucharists. They turned into an abuse and were not what any of the apostles or St. Paul or the first Popes taught. Hence, Ignatius’ instruction in the same letter to follow the Bishops was necessary – and we follow the Bishops to keep the teaching of Christ, so that the Eucharist is regarded properly as the Lord’s Body and Blood. This is what most Protestants also believed, Lutherans and Calvinists. It was only later that the symbologist interpretation was adopted by some, but not all, Protestant sects.
In this letter, Ignatius also wrote: “For I know that after His resurrection also He was still possessed of flesh, and I believe that He is so now.” – I believe this makes any argument that the unleavened bread and the fruit of the vine given by Our Lord to His apostles at the Last Supper was not His Body because He was not Dead yet, entirely moot. Did the apostles not remember Him in this way until after His Ascension? And when they saw His Body rise to Heaven, did they suppose it no longer existed as His Body? No. This is why we believe in a bodily resurrection at the end of time. The Eucharist, body and blood, inseparable, and given fully as one or both, indivisibly, is our link with that Body. It is the mystery of our faith. We believe because He told us so.