The Real Presence in the Eucharist...

[Ignatius33]

And there is indeed evidence that the Ante-Nicene church understood Jesus to be speaking metaphorically in the Bread of Life discourse.

Here, you quoted St. Clement of Alexandria who, like Origen, offers an allegorical view of the Eucharist in some passages (both were from Alexandria and both employed the allegorical method, to an excess).

Yet, like Origen, his successor at the catechetical school of Alexandria, Clement also affirms the Real Presence:

“The Blood of the Lord, indeed, is twofold. There is his corporeal Blood, by which we are redeemed from corruption; and His spiritual Blood, that with which we are anointed. That is to say, to drink the Blood of Jesus is to share in His immortality. The strength of the Word is the Spirit, just as the blood is the strength of the body. Similarly, as wine is blended with water, so is the Spirit with man. The one, the Watered Wine, nourishes in faith, while the other, the Spirit, leads us on to immortality. The union of both, however, – of the drink and of the Word, – is called the Eucharist, a praiseworthy and excellent gift. Those who partake of it in faith are sanctified in body and soul" (The Instructor of Children [before 202 AD]).

 

[Ignatius33]

It is utterly criminal what the catholic apologists have done to the compassionate work of Ignatius.

True, as you point out, St. Ignatius is speaking against the Docetists, who taught that Jesus was purely a spiritual being and only “seemed” to have a body. Nevertheless, your analysis does not disprove that Ignatius believed in the Real Presence. In fact, Protestant patristics scholars like J.N.D. Kelly, Paul Bradshaw and Jaroslav Pelikan (writing while he was still Protestant) concur that Ignatius believed in the Real Presence. Conversely, I have never heard of any patristics scholar denying that Ignatius believed in the Real Presence (and no, James White is not a patristics scholar, he is a Baptist apologist).

Ignatius’ words speak for themselves. He refers to the Eucharist as the “medicine of immortality,” recalling St. John’s words in John 6:53-54 (Letter to the Ephesians [ca. 105 AD]).

He repeatedly refers to the Church as “the place of sacrifice” (id.; Letter to the Trallians [ca. 105 AD]; Letter to the Philadelphians [ca. 105 AD]). Four words repeatedly crop up in Ignatius’ writings: body, blood, alter and sacrifice.

He admonishes:

“Take care, then, to use one Eucharist, so that whatever you do, you do according to God: for there is one Flesh of our Lord Jesus Christ, and one cup in the union of His Blood; one altar, as there is one bishop with the presbytery and my fellow servants, the deacons” (Letter to the Philadelphians [ca. 105 AD]).

On this point, J.N.D. Kelly comments that “Ignatius’ reference to the ‘one altar, just as there is one bishop,’ reveals that he too thought in sacrificial terms” (Early Christian Doctrines, pg 196).

Finally, Ignatius observes:

“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. For love they have no care, nor for the widow, nor for the orphan, nor for the distressed, nor for those in prison or freed from prison, nor for the hungry and 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 the Father, in His goodness, raised up again. They who deny the gift of God are perishing in their disputes.”

“You must all follow the bishop as Jesus Christ follows the Father, and the presbytery as you would the Apostles. Reverence the deacons as you would the command of God. Let no one do anything of concern to the Church without the bishop. Let that be considered a valid Eucharist which is celebrated by the bishop, or by whom he appoints. Wherever the bishop appear, let the people be there; just as wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church” (Letter to the Smyrnaeans [ca. 105 AD]).

As Johannes Quaten observes, Ignatius’ statement that the “Eucharist is the Flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ” is “clear and unmistakable” (1 Patrology, pg 66).

And as Historian Warren Carroll writes, at the time of his martyrdom Ignatius was “at least thirty years a bishop, probably trained by the Apostle John, and was apparently at this time the most venerated living member of the whole Church” (1 The Founding of Christendom, pg 455).

Incidentally, Ignatius is my confirmation name, in honor of this great bishop and martyr of the Church.

 

[brb2]

How very odd that all those experts that produced the various translations of the Bible somehow didn’t think to insert that “really” or that “actually” that you think ought be there…could it be that you are inserting your bias into the text?

Really? According to Ben Witherington III in ** New Testament History** “…Jesus would have said something like, ‘This—my body,’ for the verb “is” found in the Greek would not be in the Aramaic.”

Your interpretation is misguided
IMHO, these sort of over-the-top assertions may fool some of the people some of the time, but…

.

As you say above, you have your opinion about Catholic interpretation of scripture.

Here’s your problem. You don’t really know for sure. You have only ‘theoretical’ idea. The H.S. has yet to convince you re: Real Presence.

Why not do as Thomas, and ask Christ to make himself known to you ? Many former Protestants have testified to having misunderstood the Real Presence in the Eucharist … until they converted and ‘experienced’ Christ in the Transubstantiation of Bread/Wine in the Catholic Mass.

Get off your pew, and on your knees … @ the Mass, begun by the 12 Apostles.

 

[Radical]

Hello Ignatius33

True, as you point out, St. Ignatius is speaking against the Docetists, who taught that Jesus was purely a spiritual being and only “seemed” to have a body. Nevertheless, your analysis does not disprove that Ignatius believed in the Real Presence.

You are right…it doesn’t disprove, but it does provide a plausible alternate explanation to a real presence meaning.

In fact, Protestant patristics scholars like J.N.D. Kelly, Paul Bradshaw and Jaroslav Pelikan (writing while he was still Protestant) concur that Ignatius believed in the Real Presence.

Why mention that they were Protestant? Did they believe in a Real Presence or not? IIRC Kelly was high Anglican and Pelikan was conservative Lutheran and so both would be solidly inclined to a real presence, correct? As far as Bradshaw goes, wasn’t he a prof at Notre Dame and isn’t that a Catholic school? In other words, are you sure that he is Protestant?

BTW, what is your reference re Pelikan’s comment on Ignatius? Is it this, from his first volume of *The Christian Tradition * :

Yet it does seem ‘express and clear’ that no orthodox father of the second or third century of whom we have record declared the presence of the body and blood of Christ in the Eucharist to be no more than symbolic (although Clement and Origen came close to doing so) or specified a process of substantial change by which the presence was effected (although Ignatius and Justin came close to doing so). Within the limits of those excluded extremes was the doctrine of the real presence . . .

If so, can you tell me what passage(s) Pelikan had in mind when he claimed that Ignatius came close to specifying a process?

Ignatius’ words speak for themselves.

Yes, they do. …and so when he makes flowery comments such as this:

… and for my drink I desire His Blood, that is, incorruptible love. ………

…we should be cautious in claiming that we know Ignatius was speaking literally when he spoke about the Eucharist and the consumption of Jesus’s body and blood.

 

[Verbum_Caro]

…it doesn’t disprove, but it does provide a plausible alternate explanation to a real presence meaning.

Radical,

That passage doesn’t seem to me to provide an alternative plausible explanation because it doesn’t seem to follow that a)the fact that the Docetists didn’t believe the Christ truly suffered in the flesh and b) the fact that Ignatius points out that “they confess not the eucharist to be the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ” somehow indicates that c) Ignatius himself doesn’t think the Eucharist is the flesh of Christ.

In fact, it seems to indicate, in that passage at least, that he does think it is the flesh of Christ. Wouldn’t the contrapositive to the Docetist disbelief that the Eucharist is the flesh of Christ be Ignatius’ belief that it is the flesh of Christ?

Perhaps I misunderstand though.

Thanks,
VC

 

[Radical]

Hi VC,

Radical,

That passage doesn’t seem to me to provide an alternative plausible explanation because it doesn’t seem to follow that a)the fact that the Docetists didn’t believe the Christ truly suffered in the flesh and b) the fact that Ignatius points out that “they confess not the eucharist to be the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ” somehow indicates that c) Ignatius himself doesn’t think the Eucharist is the flesh of Christ.

the alternates lie in the “how” Ignatius could think the Eucharist is the flesh…literally, symbolically, sacramentally, representatively, mysteriously etc. The Docetists seemed to deny that Christ came in the flesh. As such, they would not confess that the Eucharist was literally the flesh of Christ b/c no such flesh existed. Likewise, they would not confess that the Eucharist was symbolically the flesh of Christ b/c no such flesh existed.

 

[skeyes]

Curtishouse30;

Folks have given lots for you to read, meditate upon and pray about. I would like to give you a short testimony. I know that the “Real Presence” is real because I have experienced Jesus, while receiving Communion and while adoring Jesus in the Blessed Sacrament, in ways that are beyond human understanding. As time goes on, I realize the great yearning I have to be with Him. Spiritually, yes, but also Sacramentally. I would never have understood this before I converted and I am sure I don’t understand all the aspects of Transubstantiation, but I do know that there is tremendous power in receiving and in adoring jesus in the Eucharist. Thanks for the time and God bless you in your journey.

Stan Keyes

 

[Ignatius33]

Why mention that they were Protestant? Did they believe in a Real Presence or not? IIRC Kelly was high Anglican and Pelikan was conservative Lutheran and so both would be solidly inclined to a real presence, correct? As far as Bradshaw goes, wasn’t he a prof at Notre Dame and isn’t that a Catholic school? In other words, are you sure that he is Protestant?

Yes, Bradshaw is Protestant. He is not conservative—I would even say he’s quite radical, and is unduly skeptical in his treatment of many historical questions. I mention Protestant patristic scholars to show that no scholar of which I am aware, Protestant or Catholic, denies that Ignatius believed in the Real Presence in the Eucharist (certainly, no Catholic scholar denies it). This is the realm of accepted Christian scholarship. People who deny that Ignatius believed in the Real Presence (I presume you are one of them) are on the fringe regarding Ignatius’ writings. That is my point.

 

[Ignatius33]

Why mention that they were Protestant? Did they believe in a Real Presence or not? .

It is irrelevant whether Protestant patristics scholars themselves believe in the Real Presence. What matters is what they say the Church Fathers themselves believed.

 

[Ignatius33]

BTW, what is your reference re Pelikan’s comment on Ignatius? Is it this, from his first volume of *The Christian Tradition *.

Yes, that is the passage. He means by this that Ignatius and Justin come close to giving a doctrine of “substantial change [of the bread and wine]”—which by definition is transubstantiation (the change of substance from bread and wine to the Body and Blood of Christ). Accordingly, we have here an established expert saying Ignatius “comes close” to teaching transubstantiation.

That is a far cry from saying that Ignatius denied the Real Presence, however you want to define that term. As a Catholic, I obviously believe that Ignatius held the Catholic view, although I admit it would be going beyond the evidence to say that Ignatius clearly taught transubstantiation, as the Church would later define it.

In saying Ignatius believed in the Real Presence I meant this: Ignatius believed that Christ was truly (that is, physically and ontologically) present in the Eucharist. But in saying Jesus is present I do not commit Ignatius to a theory of how he is present. The manner or mode of Christ’s presence could be variously explained. For example, Lutherans traditionally say Christ is really present in the Eucharist, but they deny transubstantiation. Some Christians would even say Christ is physically present, but only at the moment a person receives the elements with faith. Both of these theories are compatible with the claim that Christ is present in the Eucharist, but neither of them is compatible with transubstantiation.

 

[Verbum_Caro]

Hi VC,

the alternates lie in the “how” Ignatius could think the Eucharist is the flesh…literally, symbolically, sacramentally, representatively, mysteriously etc. The Docetists seemed to deny that Christ came in the flesh. As such, they would not confess that the Eucharist was literally the flesh of Christ b/c no such flesh existed. Likewise, they would not confess that the Eucharist was symbolically the flesh of Christ b/c no such flesh existed.

Thanks Radical. I understand, I think, but it doesn’t seem a very plausible indication. Taking Ignatius words at face value – “. . .Eucharist (is) the Flesh of Christ, which suffered for our sins. . .” – seems a safer course. It’s awfully difficult to read symbolic into the phrase “to be” there, in my opinion.

I’m not trying to argue to my position Radical. I just don’t think that one passage is as open to the various possibilities as you do.

By the way, do you know of any Patristic scholars that take the view of that passage as you’ve laid out?

Thanks again,
VC

 

[Radical]

Yes, Bradshaw is Protestant. He is not conservative—I would even say he’s quite radical,….

hmmm…radical, you say. Sounds like a quality fellow.

…… and is unduly skeptical in his treatment of many historical questions.

I think that is the growing trend….and that the history preferred by the conservative Catholic is only going to be viewed in a less and less favorable light by those who are free to be skeptical (which, of course, is the growing majority).

I mention Protestant patristic scholars to show that no scholar of which I am aware, Protestant or Catholic, denies that Ignatius believed in the Real Presence in the Eucharist (certainly, no Catholic scholar denies it). This is the realm of accepted Christian scholarship. People who deny that Ignatius believed in the Real Presence (I presume you are one of them) are on the fringe regarding Ignatius’ writings. That is my point.

No, I am of the group that would say that we can’t say with certainty what Ignatius believed…and I don’t think the fringe categorization is appropriate. I am aware that there is a minority view that thinks all the letters attributed to Ignatius are forgeries and that another minority view exists that holds that the short recension contains the only legitimate letters (Romans, Ephesians and Polycarp). Both of those minorities should fall into the “we don’t know” camp.

A patristic scholar would most certainly be light years ahead of me in determining which recension contains the legitimate letters (if any) and what interpolations (if any) exist within those letters determined to be actually authored by Ignatius. That said, we could each grab our copies of the Apostolic Fathers, which utilizes the middle recension and read everything attributed to Ignatius in an hour and could read the Eucharistic passages in less than five minutes. As such, a patristic scholar is not possessed of a vast knowledge about Ignatius writings that the rest of us can’t hope to match. Where the patristic scholar gains superiority is in his knowledge of what the other early church father wrote and believed…and in that regard, I believe that a “backward projection” has often had an effect. By “backward projection” I mean the approach that holds that if something was declared in the fourth century, then it was believed in the third century and if it was believed in the third century then it was taught in the second century…and so on, until we get to Ignatius and conclude that he must have been speaking of a real presence in his letter to the Smyrnaeans. Such a backward projection is tied to the tendency (amongst the conservative) to believe that the early church fathers did not greatly evolve their theology (wrt the Eucharist) and possessed a great deal of uniformity in their beliefs (wrt the Eucharist…some might even label it a unanimous consent). IMHO such a projection and tendency is what actually enables a patristic scholar to say he is certain that Ignatius believed in a RP. What I believe is gaining momentum amongst scholars is the view that there was a considerable evolution of beliefs and also the view that what existed was far, far short of uniformity. As those two views gain acceptance (and I think we are a ways down that road already) I expect we will see more scholars challenging the assertion that we know what Ignatius believed as far as a RP goes.

 

[Verbum_Caro]

Radical,

Thanks for a very thoughtful post.

St. Ignatius is one of my favorite Church Fathers. For my part, when I read his writings in the aggregate I come away with a sense that he believed Christ is truly present in the Eucharist (“medicine of immortality”, etc.). You are right to say that the theology of the Eucharist has deepened over time, and you make a good point about reading things “back” into history. On the other hand, however, that can be done with a notion of “symbolism” as well. From my point of view the idea of the Eucharist as mere symbol (meaning bare symbol) is a more modern viewpoint that doesn’t seem to fit into Ignatius’ world. I think it much easier for the modern mind to gravitate to bare symbol than for someone like St. Ignatius. Think of things he witnessed! Think of the things he learned from eyewitnesses. After you see a man walk on water and raise Himself from the dead. . . well, the idea that the Eucharist really is His flesh doesn’t seem too burdensome.

Thanks for the discussion.
St. Ignatius, pray for us.

VC

 

[Radical]

Yes, that is the passage. He means by this that Ignatius and Justin come close to giving a doctrine of “substantial change [of the bread and wine]”—which by definition is transubstantiation (the change of substance from bread and wine to the Body and Blood of Christ). Accordingly, we have here an established expert saying Ignatius “comes close” to teaching transubstantiation.

IMHO that’s reading a heck of a lot into Pelikan’s words….I am lost as to what words from Ignatius Pelikan could have in mind when he talked about Ignatius almost describing a ** process **……or, what words, from Ignatius, did Pelikan have in mind when he said (as you claim) that “Ignatius “comes close” to teaching transubstantiation.” I can’t find anything that supports such contentions. Frankly, I think Pelikan (or his editor) screwed up…he was trying to define the two excluded extremes of early Eucharistic views and given what little we have from Ignatius, I don’t see Ignatius as being a proper example of the one extreme. In any event, Pelikan was a very respected and established scholar (far from radical) who understood that early Eucharistic views were very diverse with one extreme being close to a purely symbolic view. What does one need to believe in order to hold to something which is just less than a purely symbolic view? Is it that the bread is viewed as a symbol, but that it is understood that the symbol and the act possess the power to unify the participants in the body of Christ (aka the church)? Incidentally, I know of scholars who would argue that the preceding sentence is close to describing Augustine’s view….and those scholars aren’t either radical or fringe-dwellers. (I make this last comment to give an indication of the “winds of change” that I think are in the works and with the hope that it won’t lead to yet another discussion of Augustine.)

Thanks, and may God bless you.

 

[Radical]

Radical,

Thanks for a very thoughtful post.

You are welcome…it is a pleasure communicating with you.

You are right to say that the theology of the Eucharist has deepened over time, and you make a good point about reading things “back” into history. On the other hand, however, that can be done with a notion of “symbolism” as well.

agreed

From my point of view the idea of the Eucharist as mere symbol (meaning bare symbol) is a more modern viewpoint that doesn’t seem to fit into Ignatius’ world.

I also agree that the purely symbolic view is rather modern…Zwingli most certainly thought it was more than a mere symbol

I think it much easier for the modern mind to gravitate to bare symbol than for someone like St. Ignatius. Think of things he witnessed! Think of the things he learned from eyewitnesses. After you see a man walk on water and raise Himself from the dead. . . well, the idea that the Eucharist really is His flesh doesn’t seem too burdensome.

well I don’t know if it was all that easy. When an eye witness saw water turned to wine, he could actually see and taste wine. When an eye witness saw Jesus walk on water, he didn’t have to be told that Jesus was walking on water as the fact could be observed. This RP thing, is a whole different kettle of fish…

Thanks again and may God bless you.

 

[Radical]

oops…I neglected to answer this:

By the way, do you know of any Patristic scholars that take the view of that passage as you’ve laid out?

No I don’t…but I haven’t looked very hard either

 

[Ignatius33]

hmmm…radical, you say. Sounds like a quality fellow.

I think that is the growing trend….and that the history preferred by the conservative Catholic is only going to be viewed in a less and less favorable light by those who are free to be skeptical (which, of course, is the growing majority).

Sad but true.

 

[Ignatius33]

No, I am of the group that would say that we can’t say with certainty what Ignatius believed.

Ok, I understand.

 

[Verbum_Caro]

You are welcome…it is a pleasure communicating with you.

A pleasure here as well.

This RP thing, is a whole different kettle of fish…

Yes, I agree. (But, I think that is partly the point of the Real Presence, a’la Aquinas: “On the cross thy godhead made no sign to men, Here thy very manhood steals from human ken”)

Thanks again for sharing your insights. God bless,
VC

 

[brb2]

well I don’t know if it was all that easy. When an eye witness saw water turned to wine, he could actually see and taste wine. When an eye witness saw Jesus walk on water, he didn’t have to be told that Jesus was walking on water as the fact could be observed. This RP thing, is a whole different kettle of fish…

.

Why stuggle with this ? What if you became blind and lost sense of taste/smell.

Would you rely on your remaining senses, which couldn’t help you, … or would you accept what Christ tells you in the Gospels ?

Does it really matter what Ignatius says/believed ? Christ’s question to you/us is “Why did you doubt what I proclaimed in scriptures ?”