I think your summary of the letter seems fair but your interpretation doesn’t make sense to me without showing Ignatius using ‘flesh’ symbolically in chapters one thru five. Your premise that the theme was to show heretics that Christ lived in the flesh is reinforced by Ignatius using the word flesh to mean the fleshly human body of Christ. I don’t see it being used symbolically in this letter at all.Here is what I have written about this in previous threads:
…but you see, a response that is directed against a heresy that denied that Jesus came and suffered in the flesh can reasonably explain why Ignatius would criticize those heretics by saying that they deny that the eucharist is the flesh of Jesus.
If you look at the letter (to the Smyrnaeans) you will note that the “Jesus came in the flesh” theme dominates the first half of the letter. At paragraph 1 Ignatius stresses that Jesus was truly nailed in the flesh (as opposed to spiritually nailed, which he also mentions). All of paragraph 2 is concerned with stressing that Jesus truly suffered (against the idea that he only appeared to suffer as he was a disembodied spirit). All of paragraph 3 is concerned with showing that after the resurrection Jesus possessed flesh and blood (against the claim that he was only spirit). Paragragh 4 warns about those gnostic teachings. Paragraph 5 argues that those who do not confess that Jesus was clothed in flesh must be excluded until they change their minds. Paragraph 6 starts by saying that those who do not accept that Jesus came in the flesh will be judged. At that point Ignatius provides the oft quoted statement:
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 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. 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.
I included Baptism to try to illustrate that the principles of transubstantiation as understood by the Catholic Church are actually accepted by almost every Christian in the world, in the guise of sanctifying grace.Please explain how this would advance our discussion. I am not making any claim regarding substance and baptism and so your request seems misplaced. I don’t hold to a Thomistic philosophy so I would have to first pretend that I thought something called substances were involved and then make up an answer from there. Further, I kept it simple and merely asked about the elimination of the substance of the bread rather than the addition of the substance of the body. Regarding the Christian and baptism, you haven’t clarified if you wanted the explanation to focus on the substance of the mind, body, spirit or soul of the person or some combination of them.
well that makes sense…though my view of baptism and the Eucharist differs greatly from yours……but let’s work with yours for argument sake.I included Baptism to try to illustrate that the principles of transubstantiation as understood by the Catholic Church are actually accepted by almost every Christian in the world, in the guise of sanctifying grace.
And yet scientists (even in the far future I’d wager) will be hard pressed to find ANY change in composition of a person before and after Baptism. For there is NO physical change brought about by Baptism, only spiritual. But this is no symbolic change: before, the person has no assurance of salvation; after, there is.
In other words, the substance…the ESSENCE…of the person changed (which is why there is such a thing as a Christian), and yet there was no change in any physical accident of the person from being a non-Christian to being a Christian.
I am not sure about terms such as “substance” or “essence” but fully agree that a spiritual change has occurredI do not think any Christian will dispute this…even you Radical.
I think you do have a choice. Only ordinary water is involved in baptism, and you say a change of substance occurs with it. It is all about what God does through an act of faith involving ordinary water. Likewise the Eucharist can be understood as being all about what God does through an act of faith involving ordinary wine and bread.But (if the interpretation of the Bible by the Catholic Church is correct) this Bread and this Wine (note I, and the Church, still call them Bread and Wine, because of their sensible accidents) gives everlasting life (John 6), kills those that take it unworthily, (1 Cor 11:27-30), washes away our sins (1 John 1:7), and unites the Church into Christ’s body (1 Cor 10:17). And because no ordinary bread and wine can do this, the Church has no choice but to say that there is a change in substance…in ESSENCE… of the Bread and Wine, in spite of no sensible change in its accidents.
Sorry, I thought that there had to be more to the substance of bread than it being simply “a hand held staple food.”I gave you what I believe is the essence/idea/substance/concept of bread. I’m sure it would be different for each person and culture. What you seem to want is a list of the accidents of bread. I’m not sure why you want that, because as we have tried to explain; accidents do not change.
Yes, the substance of bread is the concept/essence/idea of bread which can be personal and/or cultural. Everything else are accidents.Sorry, I thought that there had to be more to the substance of bread than it being simply “a hand held staple food.”
…but both you and Nuntym seem to think all else is accidents. Here then is the problem for you and Nuntym (as I see it). After the consecration:
a) I can still hold the bread in my hand and so it is still “hand held”
This are accidents.b) the molecules that will provide nutrients and energy to my body are still all there and as such, my body will benefit from the bread in that fashion and in the very same way as it would have before consecration…and so, it is still the same “staple food”.
No, the accidents remainTherefore, the substance of the bread remains (based on what you have said).
The only way to avoid this criticism is for the critic to understand the difference between substance and accidents. Transubstantiation means the “change of substance.”I believe that NDfan has already pointed out that adding the substance of the body w/o removing the substance of the bread would be compatible with consubstantiation but not with transubstantiation. I would suggest that to avoid this criticism you must be able to point to the removal of something substantive b/c repeating that “the substance of the bread is removed” is not consistent with your description.
Hi Sandusky,Neither is that the gist of what Paul is telling the Corinthians. Paul says that it is the body only that’s not being discerned, and not the body and the blood. If one goes back in the context to v17, the body of which Paul is speaking is the church at Corinth, and not a piece of bread.
Correction - error never entered because Christ established an error free Church with His permanent doctrines guarded 24/7 by the Holy Spirit He sent them. What do you think …‘And the gates of hell shall NOT prevail’ means?This is rather easy to explain. (IMHO) those who believe in a real bodily presence are wrong in that they have misunderstood Jesus’s words…and this error emerged and gained wide acceptance before 400 AD.