I think I see where we part on this, Brian.
I think the real difference in our understanding is in the Catholic definition of Christ’s “real presence” in the Eucharist. The Eucharist cannot be separated from the flesh and blood of Christ; it is firmly there. What is disputed is whether or not the substance of the bread and wine change into the substance of Christ. You can never substantiate that claim from Ignatius’ writings. The most you can do is draw conclusions from conjunctures.
You cannot rule out the claim from Ignatius’ writings, either. Ultimately I think we differ where one takes Ignatius to be speaking in metaphor and the other in fact. Whatever conclusions you and I draw from Ignatius’ writings are done so utilizing our understanding of and expectation that the theology presented has systemic meaning, rather than isolated or fetishistic meaning.
Ignatius does not define the Eucharist in a doctrinal sense - for our present purposes, he does not declare the ‘how’ of Christ’s presence in the Eucharist. He does not give, for example, prayers of consecration (nor does he give instructions on Baptism, other than it is not to be performed without the approval of the Bishop, though we trust Baptism was practiced). We can take several conclusions from this - ie, that there is no doctrinal definition, or that there is a doctrinal definition but it was not the intent of his letter to define it, or that there is a doctrinal definition but it was sufficiently understood by his audience that he felt no need to define it thoroughly, etc.
I began to re-post some of my thoughts from previous posts on Ignatius’ admonitions, but I wonder if these would even help to bridge this difference in understanding between us. We’ve already discussed the passage from Smyrnaeans 7 where Ignatius coequates the Flesh of Jesus with the Eucharist, as well as other passages. I find, as I have previously posted, that these are more completely explained by a Real Presence understanding of the Eucharist than by a commemoration/thanksgiving approach. We could perhaps keep going, but I don’t want this discussion to devolve to one where we are tossing one passage after another at each other.
Ignatius desired to die to the world and live to Christ in the realist sense. He was voluntarily martyred for the sake of Christ and desired that which the Lamb of God offered; His broken body and shed blood which cleanses us from our sins and grants to us the hope of eternal life.
If we understand the Eucharist properly, we come to understand, as Ignatius did, that we too are the bread of Christ.
I think you rendered this beautifully - it calls to mind the words of the hymn “We are One Body”. Indeed we are the Body of Christ, and we offer our lives day by day (as we in our temporal bodies are able to do so) in communion with Christ’s once and eternal sacrifice. His Sacrifice is once because He died once, and it is eternal for it is offered for all for all time.
That in mind, Ignatius had several meanings for Bread in his letters, all of which are tightly linked but are not all identical. To the Romans, when he describes his impending martyrdom, he identifies himself with the “pure bread of Christ”, an apt metaphor that he will give his life for the One who gave His for all. To the Smyrnaeans and Ephesians, he describes the Flesh and Blood in the Eucharist as part of worship - intrinsically tied to the Lord Jesus but not the same as one’s own physical martyrdom, although that was something Ignatius and his contemporaries expected.
In Christ, we have eternal life. With Christ we celebrate the Eucharist. For Christ, we give our lives (whether through martyrdom or living in devotion). Ignatius makes all of these points, and ties all of them to the metaphor of Flesh and Blood, Bread and Drink, and all of these meanings are correct. Yet by context we know he is talking about separate events that he and his contemporaries experience: eternal life (which is to come after life), worship (which is to come during life) and martyrdom (which is to end physical life). So yes, we are the Bread of Christ. Yes, we celebrate, commemorate, and participate in Christ’s Sacrifice via the Eucharist. Yes, we desire the Flesh and Drink of God which will unite us to Him in Heaven. All of these are true and all of these are experienced distinctly but related to one another in the same sense that Faith, Prayer and Baptism are all true and all things that a Christian experiences, but all can be written about distinctly though interrelatedly.
So we agree that Christ is present in the Eucharist. We disagree
how He is present. That’s a difference I can live with and still call you Brother.
