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. 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

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…

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…

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…

Ezekiel's Experience in the Valley of Dry Bones Proves It's Stupid to Try Having a Revival Without God's Holy Spirit at Work

I was listening to the very sermon of Pastor Paul Tabanao who is a missionary to Cambodia. It had me thinking of how Cambodia still shakes my very bones with the sad history of the Khmer Rouge. How many percent of the victims were saved? How many of them right now are even tormenting Pol Pot in the very pits of Hell? Hell will be more than hot enough for Pol Pot's depravity. Out of this tragedy came the Khmer Rouge museum which displayed the bones of the many victims and this is where he brought the preaching to Ezekiel 37:1-14.
1 The hand of the LORD was upon me, and carried me out in the Spirit of the Lord, and set me down in the midst of the valley which was full of bones,
2 And caused me to pass by them round about: and, behold, there were very many in the open valley; and, lo, they were very dry.
3 And he said unto me, Son of man, can these bones live? And I answered, O LORD God, thou knowest.
4 Again he said unto me, Prophesy upon these bones, and say unto them, O ye dry bones…

Conspiracy Theories and Guilt by Association Fallacy

Conspiracy theories can be very misleading and are full of logical fallacies which ultimately leads to false information.  Although I find the book "The Babylonian Connection?" by Ralph Woodrow to be faulty, however I would even say one of my former references "The Two Babylons" is also full of logical fallacies rather than testing the pagan practices of Roman Catholicism with how they violate the Bible's principles.  As said, the argument itself has been stemming more on the similarities between the Catholic view of Mary and the pagan goddess Semiramis rather than condemning the whole act as idolatry according to the Bible. Fortunately the book "Truth Encounter" doesn't do that and is rather focused on why Catholicism is unbiblical than spend too much time comparing it to pagan practice.  Conspiracy theories tend to commit logical fallacies like guilt by association, fallacy of division and ad homimen but more importantly, guilt by association l…

The Incredible Irony that the Iglesia Ni Cristo Condemns Itself

Here is a picture from South Dakota Apologetics which shows a page from the what could be a manual of the Iglesia Ni Cristo religion. What should be disturbing is that the Q and A shown above reveals the fall of the INC with their cult: The INC conveniently ignores that the Bible is finished as the Book of Revelation is already finished (Revelaton 22:18-21). We only need pastors and there are no more prophets and apostles. The work of the apostle continues but not the signs and wonders. The INC ministers believe that they were sent to study and interpret God's Word but they are always taking things out of context.They are now condemning themselves when they say that those who are self-proclaimed will be put to destruction when in fact these guys are just self-proclaimed.  
It should be interesting that Dr. James R. White has a vast knowledge. If Joe Ventilacion really knew the Greek then he would see through the doctrines of the INC.

This is where it gets really ironic. As much as…

The Bible is Daily Bread, Not Cake For Special Occasions!

Do you see this picture of the cake?  If you do see the picture of the cake then read the words that says, "The Bible is meant to be bread for daily nourishment, not cake that is taken out for special occasions."  Now I do appreciate people who read from 1 Corinthians 13 during weddings or read the Bible during inaugurations but remember, the Bible is not the cake for the special occasion but it's the daily bread for Christian living.  Matthew 4:4 and Luke 4:4 has Jesus saying to Satan that man does not live by bread alone but by the every Word that comes from the mouth of God.  The verse is quoted from Deuteronomy 8:3 which says God permitted the Israelites to hunger so they will learn to trust on His provision while they do His will.
It becomes a problem when people treat the Bible as cake for special occasions rather than bread for daily sustenance.  Why do they fail to read the Bible daily but only read it when it's needed?  Remembering the Lord's prayer tha…

Christians Are Called to Be Salt, Not Sugar!

If one remembers the song called "The Spoonful of Sugar", it speaks the truth that it helps the medicine go down and how true it is.  Matthew 5:13 has Jesus calling the Christians to be salt and not sugar.  The real Gospel of Jesus Christ is salty and not sugary.  Speaking of sugar, the great preacher Charles H. Spurgeon said, "God chooses not milksops destitute of backbone to wear His glory upon their faces.  We have plenty of men made of sugar nowadays, that melt into the stream of popular opinion but these shall never ascend into the hill of the Lord, nor stand in His holy place, nor wear the tokens of His glory."
I was always reminded of the carnal desires of almost every child that do not like the taste of salt and they prefer things to be sweet.  Most people prefer to eat sweets than food that brings them proper nutrition.  If we expect to grow, we all need proper food cooked with some salt as seasoning.  Do you know that your body also needs salt to functio…

The REAL Reason Why Jesus Attacked the Pharisees

It has become another heresy to teach the lie that Jesus Christ didn't attack other people's beliefs and religion and that the Pharisees were merely just a bad crowd.  However, the Pharisees were more than just another bad crowd- they were worse than the tax collectors and the prostitutes they condemned for going to Jesus Christ for salvation, receiving forgiveness and starting a new life.  Why?  They were SIMPLY self-righteous and were the leaders of a false religion that was permeated with paganism- Judaism is satanic and we extend our heart to Jewish readers to let them know that Jesus Christ is the Messiah they were waiting for.  They many times condemned the fact that Jesus though He hates sin, loved sinners and ate with them (Matthew 9:11, Mark 2:6, Mark 11:19, Luke 5:30, Luke 15:12) and always believed they were better.
So what was really going on?  The Pharisees according to the Bible were more than just the average hypocrites that the publicans and prostitutes were,…

The Problem with Some Independent Fundamental Baptist Churches

Okay I'd like to say I am a fundamental Baptist and I am attending a local Baptist church, yes that's the name of this site.  Some of the best godly preachers like Jonathan Edwards and Charles Haddon Spurgeon were Baptists.  Those who opposed the Great Whore of Revelation before the rise of the Reformers were again... you guessed it; BAPTIST CHRISTIANS... who came before the Protestant Christians ever came to existence and I am proud of my Baptist heritage.  However there has been quite a problem with some fundamental Baptists.  Here has been a few problems that caused divisions in the body of Christ thanks to some Independent Fundamental Baptists:
1.) The Lordship controversy and misrepresenting the Lordship preachers.  It's pretty much something that I used to mistaken Baptist preachers like John Macarthur and Paul Washer (who I pray will revive the Southern Baptist Convention soon) to be works salvation preachers, legalistic or whatsoever until I began reading through …