Skip to main content

Understanding Ignatius of Antioch's Statement on the Eucharist

It's already expected that Roman Catholicism takes Scriptures out of context and/or purposely misreads it. If they can't even handle the Word of God with reverence then I don't expect them to handle anything else with reverence except it be the writing of the past Popes and the Roman Catholic priests. One such man is the Christian bishop or overseer. In case Roman Catholics want to argue that the term "bishop" would prove he's one of their kind then they are mistaken. To be a bishop according to 1 Timothy 3:1-7 is to be a church leader. Besides, the same passage says that bishops must be family men of moral dignity which is impossible for a Roman Catholic priest who's bound to celibacy. Please note 1 Corinthians 7:35-37 is not a command for priests to stay single all their lives!

Now here's a popular misquote from the very passage of Ignatius of Antioch to justify the doctrine of transubstantiation:
They abstain from the eucharist and from prayer, because they confess not the eucharist to be the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ, which suffered for our sins, and which the Father, of His goodness, raised up again. (From Chapter 7)

We should know what does the term eucharist mean to start with or the context of usage in that time. It's like "for" is either "to result to" or "because of" like Acts 2:38 says baptism is not for the forgiveness of sins but because of the forgiveness of sins in contrast to saying believing in Christ is for the forgiveness of sins. The Merriam-Webster's dictionary defines it as a synoynym with the word communion. Dictionary.com defines eucharist in lowercase as giving of thanks or thanksgiving. So what was Ignatius trying to say here with the word eucharist? Did he mean it like in the context of the Roman Catholic or for some Protestant definition where it's also a synonym for the Lord's supper? No. Rather, what eucharist here means thanksgiving.

What should we understand about this context of Ignatius? Did he talk about the bread and wine to be literally the body and blood of Jesus? On the contrary, what he means by eucharist in its context is celebration. Here's more from Ignatius of Antioch to help define what he meant by the eucharist:
He [Jesus] suffered truly, even as also He truly raised up Himself, not, as certain unbelievers maintain, that He only seemed to suffer, as they themselves only seem to be Christians. (ibid, Chapter 2) 
For what does any one profit me, if he commends me, but blasphemes my Lord, not confessing that He was [truly] possessed of a body? But he who does not acknowledge this, has in fact altogether denied Him, being enveloped in death. (ibid, Chapter 5)
Those, therefore, who speak against this gift of God, incur death in the midst of their disputes. But it were better for them to treat it with respect, that they also might rise again. It is fitting, therefore, that ye should keep aloof from such persons, and not to speak of them either in private or in public, but to give heed to the prophets, and above all, to the Gospel, in which the passion [of Christ] has been revealed to us, and the resurrection has been fully proved.

This was the battle against the Docetists, these people denied that Jesus existed in human form. If you even take a look at the statement, he wasn't even talking about the bread and wine that Christians celebrate with the Lord's supper. Rather, he was talking about thanksgiving and prayer that Jesus is indeed God the Son in the flesh. This was a serious heresy because the Bible already says in John 1:14 that the Word became flesh and dwelt among us. It's clear as day that Jesus came in human form yet the Docetists deny it. It was talking about Jesus' human incarnation.

Here's what One Fold also has to say about Ignatius of Antioch and how Roman Catholicism has taken it out of context which I have done a few minor edits without otherwise changing the meaning:
It is utterly criminal what the  (Roman, emphasis mine) Catholic Apologists have done to the compassionate work of Ignatius. They attempt to make it look as though the Docetists objected to the Eucharist because they didn’t believe the bread and wine used to celebrate it to be the literal flesh and blood of Christ. That simply isn’t true; rather, Ignatius conveys that the gift of God is eternal life made possible by the sacrifice of Christ. That sacrifice is what the Eucharist is all about. It is the sacrifice and suffering of Christ the Docetists spoke against and, therefore, abstained from celebrating the Eucharist in which thanksgiving is offered for Christ’s passion.
There is absolutely no contextual support for claiming that Ignatius was referring to the Eucharist bread as being the literal flesh of Christ. That is merely assumed by those who already believe it. We should also keep in mind that Ignatius was about to be martyred, and this letter to the Smyrnaeans was written to exhort the church to keep the unity in truth, obeying the Gospel of Christ, and to be aware of heresies like Docetism. If there had been anything like the sacrifice of the mass or Eucharistic adoration existing during that time, Ignatius would have certainly included something about it in this letter.

It's a sad thing how the eucharistic celebration of the Lord's supper is perverted by the Roman Catholic institution. They still insist that the bread and wine have become the literal body and blood of Jesus even if it still tastes like bread, smells like bread and looks like bread. If some Roman Catholics claim that transubstantiation won't make the arsenic disappear as said in the book "Catholicism and Fundamentalism: The Attack on Romanism by Bible Christians". Hmmm that should be interesting if priests had that power then why couldn't make the arsenic disappear? Unfortunately, the author has created another loophole there. At the same time, if it became literally the Body and Blood of Christ then where's the bleeding? The elements have supposedly changed then why does it still taste like bread and wine?

The Biblical view is that the Lord's supper is not something to be taken lightly even if the bread and wine didn't become Jesus' literal body and blood. It's impossible to be a Christian and to treat it lightly. Here's what Got Questions has to say about the spiritual and/or symbolic presence of the body and blood of Christ which some call as consubstantiation:
Most Protestants today hold to the spiritual presence of Christ in the Lord’s Supper. The elements do not change or become the body and blood of the Lord in any way. The elements are symbols of His body and blood. While Jesus did say, "This is My body" and "This is my blood," it was in the context of a Passover meal in which every element had a symbolic meaning. It would have been entirely out of context for the disciples to suddenly interpret these two items literally—especially since Jesus had not yet been crucified.
When we partake of the elements of communion today, we recognize that they are more than just symbols of something that happened a long time ago. Whenever we gather together to observe the Lord’s Supper, Christ is present with us spiritually. It is not just the memory of Him that is present; He is in the midst of the congregation. The emphasis is upon His presence within the worshiping body, not within the elements of the table. The believer communes with the Lord through the act of remembrance and worship.

What should also be very interesting is how often the Roman Catholic Mass actually perverts everything. Should it be mentioned that the eucharistic celebration is done during the morning, noon and afternoon? Only an evening worship service for Roman Catholics would count as a Lord's supepr. Yet where's the wine for the laity? Even the Good News Translation of their Bible commands that they should observe with both bread and wine:
1 Corinthians 11:26-27
This means that every time you eat this bread and drink from this cup you proclaim the Lord's death until he comes. It follows that if one of you eats the Lord's bread or drinks from his cup in a way that dishonors him, you are guilty of sin against the Lord's body and blood. 

To use "or" as an excuse not to drink from the cup is ridiculous since the Bible says that you eat this bread and drink of this cup. The "or" if we are going to take it into context is that it doesn't matter which one you did dishonorably. You eat the unleavened bread without reverence you are guilty of sin against the Lord's body and blood. You drink the wine without reverence you are guilty of sin against the Lord's body and blood. Even if it isn't the literal body and blood but to disrespect the Lord's supper is to make a mockery of what He did. No, born again Christians don't believe that you can take the Lord's supper lightly just because they believe it's symbolic. They practice the principle that backsliders in their assembly shouldn't attend the Lord's supper unless they are first restored to fellowship.

What's so incredibly ironic is that many Roman Catholics today take the Lord's supper lightly. They may go ahead and think of the bread to be the literal body of Christ but their lifestyles make fun of the Lord's supper. It can be observed how many religious Roman Catholics live in a lifestyle of sin. It can be observed with how they live sinfully, go to confession, priest grants absolution, they attend the Sunday worship service, partake in communion and they still live sinfully. It's not even surprising at how many big time crooks are indeed religious Roman Catholics. They are in fact condemning themselves because if they truly believe that the bread and wine have become Jesus' literal flesh and blood then living like you have a license to sin shouldn't be their lifestyle. What should also be asked if they say you need to drink Jesus' blood to attain eternal life then where's the wine?

See also:

Popular posts from this blog

Pastor Robert Kent Jesalva Evangelizing to Manny Pacquiao

Apparently Manny Pacquiao has already received Jesus Christ as his Lord and Savior.  Here is a picture of Pastor Robert Kent Jesalva evangelizing Manny Pacquiao to the Lord.  Now pray that his was a real conversion and that his family will follow too.  Now looks like the Vatican has lost another faithful ally... pray that the Lord will lead Pacquiao's life to a different direction.  I just hope though our churches will continue the type of preaching that Pastor Ray Comfort carries out namely the use of the Law in preaching.

Let's just pray that if Pacquiao had a false conversion, it would be a real one as Paul Washer would repeatedly warn, "The only evidence of eternal security is continued fellowship."  True Christians will definitely continue to receive trials as life goes by to continue assuring them this that their conversion was real and to cure all doubts that they possess salvation and can't lose it.

What's Wrong with the Ang Dating Daan Movement?

The Ang Dating Daan movement is by the Members Church of God International spearheaded by its pastor (and so-called "prophet") Eliseo Soriano.  While claiming to be an expositor of the Scriptures with his "Itanong Mo Kay Soriano" or "Ask Soriano" In English, this religious group actually isn't Christian as some of the ignorant would want to believe.  Though the group claims the Bible is their only authority (as some cults do) but the problem is that they believe only Eli Soriano may interpret the Scriptures.  This is utter heresy!  Not even a great man in the Scriptures, Charles Spurgeon ever made such a preposterous claim!  This is no better than the "true church" movement by Darwin Fish which is exposed by Pastor Phil Johnson as a heretical movement.  In fact, I'm not going to waste my time debating with ADD members, they are a total waste of my time as every other debate.
Unlike John F. Macarthur of Grace to You that actually encoura…

What Does Pisseth Against the Wall Mean?

It's really getting bad for some of my Independent Fundamental Baptist brethren to actually even take the words "pisseth against the wall" which appears at least six times in 1 Samuel 23:22, 1 Samuel 25:34, 1 Kings 14:10, 1 Kings 16:11, 1 Kings 21:21 and 2 Kings 9:8 where the King James actually has the words "pisseth against the wall".  Now I am a King James only-ist but I do not support the stupid interpretation of "pisseth against the wall" by some IFB preachers who have become in some way similar to the Catholic Faith Defenders that they argue against when they should spend their time soulwinning.  Actually I even heard that rather outrageous "pisseth against the wall" sermon by Steven Anderson that was so taken out of context.
So what does pisseth against the wall mean? Let us take a look at these six verses and take it on a exegetic view NOT an eisegetic (out of context) view:
1 Samuel 23:22- "And so more also do God unto the ene…

Politically Correct People Tend to Think That They Have the Right to Offend Others But Not to be Offended By Others

Politically correct people have this new problem where they tend to think they have the right to offend others while they have the right not to be offended by others. What examples can be pointed out with politically correct people's demands that they can offend others while having the right not to be offended? Here's a few examples that could be enumerated and observed daily with how hypocritical politically people can get:

Feminists get offensive with their so-called "women's rights" but when somebody criticizes them regardless of gender then they tend to go on a full outburst. They get mad when a man hits a woman but think it's okay for a woman to hit a man that is unless if it's the frustrated housewife who slaps her husband for constant infidelity.The LGBT Community of lesbians, gays, bisexuals and transgenders insist that people should accept their homosexuality as "normal", it's okay for them to post hate comments against Christianity …

Testimony of Former Iglesia Ni Cristo Member, Now a Born Again Christian

Editor's note: 
First and foremost, I would like to thank the Bereans for this wonderful story of a former Iglesia ni Cristo minister (or pastor), now he has become a Baptist Christian.  It's a sad story that some people have just jumped from one cult to another.  Some members of the Watchtower Society, Charismatic Movement or the Iglesia ni Cristo have left Roman Catholicism but they have never truly come to know the truth of salvation is by faith in Christ alone and that any good works after Christian life is but the grace of God at work in the believer.  Now for this brave testimony that I can really share after many years of searching for one testimony which I hope will further bring more INC members to Jesus Christ.

May I begin with a word of prayer that in the midst of all these trouble, I call upon Jesus Christ the Son of God who the Iglesia ni Cristo deny is indeed God, the only way to salvation, that they trust upon their works and church membership than Him alone.  I…

The Idea Homosexuality Harms No One is a Huge Lie From the Pits of Hell!

Homosexuals have their tendency to say that if I am not affected by what they do personally then I should just shut up and leave them alone.  They say that they are just a "normal loving couple" and that their activities are "perfectly safe".  They may be able to deceive the public with false statistics but God cannot be fooled.  I can be fooled, I can fall into doubt but my God is greater than all my weaknesses.  The picture above this paragraph shows some facts from Christian Apologetics Research Ministries on some documented research on how homosexuality harms those who practice it.
A lot of painful facts really need to be addressed when it comes to homosexual activities.  Every sin has its consequence that is why God hates sin.  God hates sin because of the harm it brings.  God is not trying to be a cosmic killjoy when He forbids homosexuality because He knows the consequences it will bring to those who practice it.  Instead, He is doing so in order to protect…

Difference Between A "Good Person" (By Worldly Standards) and a Righteous Person

Romans 5:7-8 says, "For scarcely for a righteous man will one die: yet peradventure for a good man some would even dare to die. But God commendeth his love toward us, in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us."  So where is the difference between a "good person" and a righteous person?  There is God's measuring stick vs. man's measuring stick.  Being a "good person" is when a person is compared to the others.  Let's say they compare "Mr. Nice Guy" with the likes of corrupt politicians.  To worldly standards he is a "good person" because he tries to do what is right (by his own flesh).  They are only good according to the worldly standards.  Many may be better than the other like for example, Mr. Nice Guy may treat everybody well.  However here's the real issue with God there is NO such thing as a good person as Romans 3:12 says, "There is NONE that doeth good, no not one." which goes together wit…