Do We Eat Flesh, Bread, Or What?

[nuntym]

NDfan, I believe that you have misunderstood my post. I fully agree that gluten, DNA and alcohol are all substances and not accidents (as claimed by certain RCs here).

Yep, if they are considered as themselves. However, if part of something else, they CAN be accidents.

I think we have to go back to the definition of substance in philosophy:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Substance_theory

What I would like to know from those RCs however, is that, if for argument sake we agree that the various molecules are accidents too, then what else remains to be the substance of a thing such as bread? It seems from their point of view everything is an accident and so I would like to know from them what they believe constitutes the substance of bread.

A statue is a substance. A block of marble is a substance. When an artist sculpts the block into a statue, the block ceases to be a block, but becomes a statue…and yet the composition remains the same: it still is made of marble. In other words, the composition (marble) is an accident of the statue: the marble does not define the statue. In fact, the statue can be made of wood, or clay, or metal, or whatever, but it will remain a statue.

Go back to the original topic. Just as the composition of the statue does not define the statue itself, the (sensible) composition of the Host once It is consecrated does not define what It truly is: the Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity of Christ.

If they respond that the substance of bread is what bread IS,

I do, and, as far as I can understand of her understanding of the mystery, the Catholic Church teaches this.

then it seems to me that they would be saying that the substance is the participant’s concept of bread. If that is the case, then it would follow that those RCs are saying (that b/c transubstantiation changes the substance of bread to the substance of the body) that the concept of bread is changed to the concept of the body. Said another way, the participant looks at bread and thinks about bread to start with, but then considers it body afterwards. The change is in the participant’s mind where the concept dwells…and if is merely the participant’s concept that changes, then it is akin to a symbolic view.

Nope, it does not. One of the defining aspects of the substance of an object is its effects. The statue conveys the artist’s skill and affects the viewer’s sense of appreciation of the arts. A hat, no matter what it’s composition, will cover someone’s head if it fits. A bullet, no matter if it’s lead or copper or steel or silver, when fired from a gun and hits someone’s head, will kill. I do not think these are symbolic.

And the Bread and Wine of Life, no matter if it all the accidents of bread and wine are there, give everlasting life (John 6), kill those that take it unworthily, (1 Cor 11:27-30), wash away our sins (1 John 1:7), and unite the Church into Christ’s body (1 Cor 10:17).

No mere bread and wine can do this.

In short, I am simply at a loss to understand what those RCs think constitutes the substance if molecules are accidents too. Hope that is clear. RCs, please clarify. Thanks.

I hope all of this helps.

 

[nuntym]

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.

No, the error emerged as far back as the first generation of believers. St. Ignatius of Antioch, the third Bishop and Patriarch of Antioch, and was possibly a student of John the Apostle, said:

“I have no taste for corruptible food nor for the pleasures of this life. I desire the bread of God, which is the flesh of Jesus Christ, who was of the seed of David; and for drink I desire his blood, which is love incorruptible” (Letter to the Romans 7:3 [A.D. 110]).

“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” (Letter to the Smyrnaeans 6:2–7:1 [A.D. 110]).

 

[nuntym]

I have misquoted this post to make a point for the Catholics.
Popery has been substituted for “Sola Scriptura” which is being defined for those who believe that the Bible is sufficient for finding the “keys to the kingdom” as something incorrect. I don’t see any evidence of “Go to mass on Sunday and you’ll be saved.”
I do see evidence that “Every word of God is pure: he is a shield unto them that put their trust in him.” Proverbs 30:5 (And do you see the thing about putting your trust in Him, NOT a man pretending to stand-in for Him?)

And I see evidence from Scripture that Scripture can be used to mislead. As St. Peter says

And count the forbearance of our Lord as salvation. So also our beloved brother Paul wrote to you according to the wisdom given him, speaking of this as he does in all his letters. There are some things in them hard to understand, which the ignorant and unstable twist to their own destruction, as they do the other scriptures.

2 Peter 3:15-16 (RSV), emphases mine

Heck, even the Devil is a quoter of “the pure word of God” (Matthew 4:6)

So how sure are you — heck, how can WE be sure — that you or anyone are not ignorant and unstable, and do not twist the Scriptures to our own destruction?

 

[Patrick_Murebil]

NC no I didn’t miss that. I was only commenting on the elements of the supper as being symbolic. I didn’t even think to comment on the rest. But we don’t get confirmation Jesus drank from the 4th cup. Only that HE was offered it and then died. Do you consider the offering a completion of the 4th cup? What’s interesting is that on the way to the cross Jesus refuses wine initially. I guess what I would ask is what impact does that have on the bread being symbolic or not??

We do have confirmation that Jesus drank from the 4th cup, after it was offered to him:

John 19:28Later, knowing that all was now completed, and so that the Scripture would be fulfilled, Jesus said, “I am thirsty.” 29A jar of wine vinegar was there, so they soaked a sponge in it, put the sponge on a stalk of the hyssop plant, and lifted it to Jesus’ lips. 30When he had received the drink, Jesus said, "It is finished." With that, he bowed his head and gave up his spirit.

After Jesus received the drink offered to Him, He declared that “It is finished” and gave up His spirit in willing sacrifice for us as the Lamb of God.

Jesus refused the wine-vinegar on the way to the cross because the fulfillment of the Passover would not be complete on the way to Calvary…only when He was in the postion to freely offer Himself as the true Lamb of God for our sins…which He did after He received the drink, declared it finished, bowed His head, and freely died for us.

God bless all!!!

 

[sandusky]

ncgolf:

Maybe it is a good idea to set the context of John 6 … this writing is written for Jews … the context must be you should put yourself as a first century Jew. This was not written specifically for the Gentiles so at the time if a Gentile would have read this … he would not have understood but a Jew would.

What you’re saying has nothing to do with the context, but with the audience. Those who are God’s possession, Jew or Gentile, will understand His revelation.

ncgolf:

In the beginning are 2 details that are important … 1. John writes the time of Passover is nearing in John 6:4 and 2. Jesus walks across the water in John 6:21.

These 2 details would not have been overlooked by Jews at the time. They speak of Passover and of the exodus … reminding them of their deliverance from captivity. Moses parting of the sea would have come to mind in point 2.

The only accurate truth you’ve related from the passage is the time of year given by John—it’s prior to the Passover.

According to John, what was on the mind of the Jews who were following Jesus at that time, were the miracles that Jesus had been performing on the sick (6:2).

ncgolf:

Given that then the context of John 6 is in light of the Passover …

That’s the time of year; the context is the people’s interest in the miracles He had been performing (6:2).

…the eating of the lamb required and the posting of blood on the door lentils.

The consequential requirement was the marking of the door with blood; had the lamb or goat not been eaten, it was to be burned in the fire—there was no consequence to not eating the lamb. However, if the blood of the lamb had not marked the doorpost, then the plague would have befallen that household.

…We see this in John 6. The meeting of the Old and New Covenant’s and all its ramifications is about to take place…the confusion necessary to establish Jesus as the New Covenant.

You’re timing is off—the Lord’s Supper and Crucifixion are at least another year in the future.

ncgolf:

John, IMO, wants to evoke the imagery necessary to tie Jesus to the Passover … John wants his audience to see this connection. Eventually the early Jewish Christians saw this and made this connection.

It’s you who wants to make that connection; as I said, your timing is off by at least a year.

 

[Tonks40]

Wow, sandusky, that’s the biggest stretch of using “context” that I’ve ever seen in John 6! So you’ve totally missed Christ’s teachings in this chapter. Nice way to deny Christ.

 

[Radical]

Greetings nuntym, I had said:
*If they respond that the substance of bread is what bread IS, *
…and you responded:

I do, and, as far as I can understand of her understanding of the mystery, the Catholic Church teaches this.

What I would like from someone who holds to transubstantiaton is this:
a) In a post, tell me all about the substance of the bread before the consecration. Tell me all about its effects that form part of the defining aspects of the substance. Tell me all about the other things that constitute form part of the defining aspects of the substance. Give as much detail as you can without going over the single post limit of 6000 characters.
b) in the next post, copy your post that told me all about the substance of the bread and then place in bold or blue all of those aspects of the substance of bread that have been eliminated or changed upon the consecration such that it is accurate to say that the substance of the bread is no longer present.

Nope, it does not. One of the defining aspects of the substance of an object is its effects.

I believe that this has been NDfan’s point all along. One of the effects of wine is to make people drunk (if consumed in enough volume). One of the effects of bread (made with gluten) is to cause a nasty reaction in those that can’t tolerate gluten. The effects of bread and wine are still present.

I hope all of this helps.

it is a start.

 

[allhers]

This question on Transubstantiation was just answered on EWTN by the experts, basically what Father said in his answer is this:
The “accidents”, the way it looks, tastes, and what it is made of, for the Host, flour, for the Precious Blood, alcohol, those remain unchanged . The “substance” of the host changes. After Transubstantiation, the Sacred Body still looks as it did before and the Precious Blood still looks the same. They still have their flour and alcohol because those are part of the “accidents”, not the “substance”.

ewtn.com/vexperts/showresult.asp?RecNum=567473&Forums=0&Experts=0&Days=14&Author=&Keyword=&pgnu=1&groupnum=0&record_bookmark=7&ORDER_BY_TXT=ORDER+BY+ReplyDate+DESC&start_at=

 

[ncgolf]

What you’re saying has nothing to do with the context, but with the audience.

They are both in the same. John did not write blindly to all … but for a specific audience. The audience and context is key. The reader must try to see what the writer intended … John’s audience is key … it was written for a Jewish audience. Put yourself as a first century Jew … read John 6 from that point of view. What do you see?

Those who are God’s possession, Jew or Gentile, will understand His revelation.

Then why are we having this discussion, since I believe both of us to be followers of the same God.

Only if e only accurate truth you’ve related from the passage is the time of year given by John—it’s prior to the Passover.

So what does walking over the sea evoke? … for me it is Moses and the final deliverance from Pharoah’s rule. In both cases the sea was crossed … literally without a boat … is this not what you see? John wants us to begin to see the significance of the Passover in a whole new light … that of Christ. John’s use of the lamb is all through his writings. John wants us to make the see the connection between lamb/Passover/Jesus

According to John, what was on the mind of the Jews who were following Jesus at that time, were the miracles that Jesus had been performing on the sick (6:2).

I agree somewhat but there is more …follow me here. Jesus had just fed the 5000 … John is evoking the manna from the desert imagery. Both events took place far from where anyone could reasonably find food for large groups … one where Moses had the recently released captivees and Jesus with followers who are captivated by His teaching. Both groups yearning to be fed … they are hungry … not only physcially but spiritually.

That’s the time of year; the context is the people’s interest in the miracles He had been performing (6:2).

John writes nothing without a purpose … the mention of Passover would give particular meaning to that timeframe for 1st century Jews. It does not evoke the same for you since you are not Jewish … you seem to dismiss this as puffery in John. You have not put yourself properly into the story.

The consequential requirement was the marking of the door with blood; had the lamb or goat not been eaten, it was to be burned in the fire—there was no consequence to not eating the lamb. However, if the blood of the lamb had not marked the doorpost, then the plague would have befallen that household.

Only the remants were to be burned if the lamb could not be finished. The whole ritual is contained in Exodus 1:20. The marking of the door is the final outward sign of the faithful fulfillment of the requirements … what of one family baking their lamb … instead of roasting whole … what of the blood from that lamb, would it have sufficed?

You’re timing is off—the Lord’s Supper and Crucifixion are at least another year in the future.

The Passover is Passover whether it is this year or next.

It’s you who wants to make that connection; as I said, your timing is off by at least a year.

If the Gospel accounts are to be used only in a purely historical framework you would be correct … but they are not so I do not see an issue. I am not trying to connect this writing with a particular point in time Passover ( that never crossed my mind) but with the meaning and symbolism of the Passover … to give a new understanding of the OT Passover sacrifice and the NT sacrifice of Christ … which was done at Passover.

 

[Stephen168]

What I would like from someone who holds to transubstantiaton is this:
In a post, tell me all about the substance of the bread before the consecration. Tell me all about its effects that form part of the defining aspects of the substance. Tell me all about the other things that constitute form part of the defining aspects of the substance. Give as much detail as you can without going over the single post limit of 6000 characters.

Before is it a hand held staple food

b) in the next post, copy your post that told me all about the substance of the bread and then place in bold or blue all of those aspects of the substance of bread that have been eliminated or changed upon the consecration such that it is accurate to say that the substance of the bread is no longer present.

After it is the body, blood, soul, and divinity of Christ

Everything else are accidents.

 

[Patrick_Murebil]

You’d understand what I was saying.

The same with the bread and wine. The Lord and I have spoken no differently.

As are the bread and wine mere representations of the body and blood. (I don’t live in Maryland, sorry).

Neither can you eat the Lord.

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.

So one who treats his brother badly while at the supper partakes in an unworthy manner.

It’s not “dropping the photograph” or "spilling oil” on the photograph, or the bread, but the mistreating of those in the church about which Paul is speaking.

Paul tells us, in the words of Jesus, that the supper is to be done “in remembrance” of the Lord.

Neither does Jesus say that at the Last Supper, but that we are to remember Him.

The Lord is my strength and my song.

Jesus defines His terms in the passage. Coming, eating and drinking in the passage all have to do with God’s calling, and giving faith.

I talked about that above.

While it’s interesting to study the different positions of the Church throughout history, it’s not always a good idea to adopt her positions.

Hi Sandusky,

Too bad you don’t live in Maryland

Anyway, You and The Lord have spokend very differently, based on your example and what Jesus said at the Last Supper.

First, for Jesus’ words at the Last Supper to comply with your example, Jesus phrasing of words at the Last Supper would have to be as follows:

1. You hold up a photograph of your Harley, and say to me, "This is my Harley,"

For that to be the same as what Jesus said,

1. Jesus would have to have held up a picture (drawing or painting, since there were no photographs), of bread and say to His disciples "This is my bread"

And then held up a drawing of a cup of wine and say to His disciples "This is my cup of wine"

OR,

Second, to make your words comply with Jesus words at the Last Supper, your phrasing regarding the photograph of your Harley would have to be as follows:

1. Jesus holds up bread and says "This is my body"

Jesus holds up a cup of wine and says "This is my blood"

For your example of the Harley photograph to comply with Jesus’ words, your phrasing would have to be as follows:

1. You hold up a photograph of your Harley and say “This is my body”.]…“This is my blood”

or,

1. You hold up your acutal Harley and say,** “This is my body”**]…“This is my blood”

What Jesus spoke at the Last Supper, and what you spoke regarding the photograph of your Harely are very different.

God bless all!!!

 

[Radical]

Before is it a hand held staple food

After it is the body, blood, soul, and divinity of Christ

You would be hard pressed to produce a response that is more lacking in substance. You have merely substituted one term (hand held staple food) for another (bread) and done no more than declared, “Before it is bread and after it is body.”

Please note again that my request is for detail. Specifically, it was to first tell me all about the substance of the bread before the consecration. Tell me all about its effects that form part of the defining aspects of the substance. Tell me all about the other things that constitute form part of the defining aspects of the substance. Give as much detail as you can without going over the single post limit of 6000 characters.

That would require enough detail to allow one to distinguish between bread and cake, between bread and a potato etc.

 

[Patrick_Murebil]

Neither can you eat the Lord.

Yes I can because Jesus made it possible at the Last Supper.

And Yes it is necessary that I do, because Jesus said that unless we eat His flesh and drink His blood we do not have eternal life.

It is eating Jesus flesh, and drinking Jesus blood, as He commanded which gives us eternal life.

This eating and drinking is both a physical participation in receiving His sacrifice as the true Passover Lamb, as the Hebrews did in eating the four legged Passover Lamb which was a symbol of the true Passover Lamb; as well as an act of faith that God through His Son Jesus Christ provided the true and real sacrifice that will deliever us from the bondage of sin, and give to us the gift of eternal life!

Not only can I eat Jesus flesh and drink His blood as He intructed and made possible…it it imperative and necessary for my eternal life that I do so.

God bless all!!!

 

[Stephen168]

You would be hard pressed to produce a response that is more lacking in substance. You have merely substituted one term (hand held staple food) for another (bread) and done no more than declared, “Before it is bread and after it is body.”

Please note again that my request is for detail. Specifically, it was to first tell me all about the substance of the bread before the consecration. Tell me all about its effects that form part of the defining aspects of the substance. Tell me all about the other things that constitute form part of the defining aspects of the substance. Give as much detail as you can without going over the single post limit of 6000 characters.

That would require enough detail to allow one to distinguish between bread and cake, between bread and a potato etc.

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.

 

[Non_Serviam]

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.

I had previously questioned this explanation of “accidents” and “substance” with the following example:

Using this explanation I can take a branch and without changing its “branch” accidents, use it a cane, changing its “branch” substance into “cane” substance without changing its accidents at all. Thus I have performed transubstantiation using your definition of substance.

Are you sure this is the way you want to define “substance” and “accidents”?

Again-are you sure this is the way you want to define things?

 

[nuntym]

Greetings nuntym, I had said:
*If they respond that the substance of bread is what bread IS, *
…and you responded:

What I would like from someone who holds to transubstantiaton is this:
a) In a post, tell me all about the substance of the bread before the consecration. Tell me all about its effects that form part of the defining aspects of the substance. Tell me all about the other things that constitute form part of the defining aspects of the substance. Give as much detail as you can without going over the single post limit of 6000 characters.
b) in the next post, copy your post that told me all about the substance of the bread and then place in bold or blue all of those aspects of the substance of bread that have been eliminated or changed upon the consecration such that it is accurate to say that the substance of the bread is no longer present.

I believe that this has been NDfan’s point all along. One of the effects of wine is to make people drunk (if consumed in enough volume). One of the effects of bread (made with gluten) is to cause a nasty reaction in those that can’t tolerate gluten. The effects of bread and wine are still present.
it is a start.

I will answer you, if you answer this:

a) In a post, tell me all about the substance of a non-Christan before Baptism…or if you like, before he “accepts Jesus Christ as his personal Lord and Savior.” Tell me all about its effects that form part of the defining aspects of the substance. Tell me all about the other things that constitute form part of the defining aspects of the substance. Give as much detail as you can without going over the single post limit of 6000 characters.

b) in the next post, copy your post that told me all about the substance of the non-Christian and then place in bold or blue all of those aspects of the substance of a Christian right after Baptism/after he “accepts Jesus Christ as his personal Lord and Savior” that have been eliminated or changed upon the event such that it is accurate to say that the substance of the non-Christian is no longer present.

 

[ncgolf]

The consequential requirement was the marking of the door with blood; had the lamb or goat not been eaten, it was to be burned in the fire—there was no consequence to not eating the lamb. However, if the blood of the lamb had not marked the doorpost, then the plague would have befallen that household.

Another item relating to my previous response … what is the significance of marking the door … I think to mark where the slain lamb resides … the slain lamb dwells in this place.

The lamb in the Jewish Passover meals foreshadows the true sacrifice of the Lamb of God … the one who does free us from our bondage … the bondage of sin.

We believe, as Catholics then, we still are the places where the lamb resides except unlike the Jews of the OT we consume the true Lamb of God.

 

[Patrick_Murebil]

The consequential requirement was the marking of the door with blood; had the lamb or goat not been eaten, it was to be burned in the fire—there was no consequence to not eating the lamb. However, if the blood of the lamb had not marked the doorpost, then the plague would have befallen that household.

There were two consequential requirements for the passover:

1. Marking the door with the blood of the slaughtered lamb
and,
2. Eating the lamb.

If all of the lamb was not eaten the leftovers were to be burned, but make no mistake about it…it was to be eaten.

Exodus 12:1 The LORD said to Moses and Aaron in Egypt, 2 "This month is to be for you the first month, the first month of your year. 3 Tell the whole community of Israel that on the tenth day of this month each man is to take a lamb for his family, one for each household. 4 If any household is too small for a whole lamb, they must share one with their nearest neighbor, having taken into account the number of people there are. You are to determine the amount of lamb needed in accordance with what each person will eat. 5 The animals you choose must be year-old males without defect, and you may take them from the sheep or the goats. 6 Take care of them until the fourteenth day of the month, when all the people of the community of Israel must slaughter them at twilight. 7 Then they are to take some of the blood and put it on the sides and tops of the doorframes of the houses where they eat the lambs. 8 That same night they are to eat the meat roasted over the fire, along with bitter herbs, and bread made without yeast. 9 Do not eat the meat raw or cooked in water, but roast it over the fire—head, legs and inner parts. 10 Do not leave any of it till morning; if some is left till morning, you must burn it. 11 This is how you are to eat it: with your cloak tucked into your belt, your sandals on your feet and your staff in your hand. Eat it in haste; it is the LORD’s Passover.

God bless all!!!

 

[Radical]

I will answer you, if you answer this…

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.
Finally, I am not here to play games. If you think my request is unfair, then simply say so. If you can’t answer, don’t have the time to answer or think that taking the time to answer isn’t merited given my skepticism, then simply say so…and I’ll know that I should look for an explanation elsewhere.

 

[Radical]

No, the error emerged as far back as the first generation of believers.

well, I don’t know that I am prepared to agree with your assertion that the error goes back that far. I fine RC fellow going by Pneuma07 and I have been discussing this.

St. Ignatius of Antioch, the third Bishop and Patriarch of Antioch, and was possibly a student of John the Apostle, said
“I have no taste for corruptible food nor for the pleasures of this life. I desire the bread of God, which is the flesh of Jesus Christ, who was of the seed of David; and for drink I desire his blood, which is love incorruptible” (Letter to the Romans 7:3 [A.D. 110]).

hmm, so blood is love incorruptible? Ignatius doesn’t restrict himself to the literal, now does he?

“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” (Letter to the Smyrnaeans 6:2–7:1 [A.D. 110]).

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 interpret that passage as follows (with my additions in bold):

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 (symbolically or spiritually) the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ, flesh which suffered for our sins and which that Father, in his goodness, raised up again. **They do not confess such b/c they do not believe that Jesus possessed flesh such that he could suffer in the flesh or die in the flesh. As such, on the basis that Jesus did not have flesh, they deny that he gave us a symbol of his flesh even though we know that the Eucharist was instituted by Christ himself **

Now if I am right and Christ and the Apostles did not teach a real bodily presence, then the first addition would be unnecessary as that would be the meaning that should be understood by all. The second addition is merely repeating what Ignatius had said in the earlier paragraphs and then applying the consequences of the heretical belief to the Eucharist. Hopefully you can now see how I can reasonably believe that Jesus could have taught a symbolical eucharist and that Ignatius was not in any way contradicting that teaching. It should be also noted that Ignatius wasn’t all that clear or prescise in what he said. First, how is caring for the poor etc. related to understanding that Jesus came in the flesh? How is their refusal to pray related to their denial?
If you care to follow up on this, I have started a thread called:
On the Corruption from the Original Non Real Presence Church, to the V century Real Presence Church