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

Hebrews 6:4-6 Explained

Hebrews 6:4-6 says, "For it is impossible for those who were once enlightened, and have tasted of the heavenly gift, and were made partakers of the Holy Ghost, and have tasted the good word of God, and the powers of the world to come, if they shall fall away, to renew them again unto repentance; seeing they crucify to themselves the Son of God afresh, and put him to an open shame."
This verse is another that is being used by the works salvation crowd as a means to prove again that salvation can be lost.  However what does this mean?  This again shows the fact that once a Christian, always a Christian and that means, you cannot lose your salvation.  So notice the words "IF they fall away" but as said, Christians DO NOT fall away from the faith even if they fall into sin because they are still sinners (1 John 1:8, 1 John 2:1) but they have power over sin because of the Lord Jesus Christ's grace in their lives (Titus 2:11-15).  As said, Christians are now partakers…

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…

Misunderstanding "Turn the Other Cheek" Can Be Life Threatening

One of the biggest misconceptions is the statement of "turn the other cheek"? Does that mean that Christians are taught not to sue anyone and not to do self-defense? It's best to understand what turn the other cheek in Matthew 5:39 means.

So what does a slap in the face mean? A slap isn't always a literal slap. It should be known that a slap may also mean an insult or name-calling. The Jewish culture in Jesus' day had already misused and abused the eye for eye and tooth for tooth rule in Exodus 21:24. Instead of using it as a standard for punishing offenses, they have misused it in order to pursue personal revenge or think that God allows personal revenge. They took the whole verse out of context ignoring verses in the Old Testament that clearly forbade revenge. Did they even read Deuteronomy 32:39 that says that revenge is not ours but God's? It's probable that their culture that day that even a mere insult already warranted someone the right to hit the…

Honoring Martin Luther King Jr. as a Hero Continues the Counter-Reformation

The celebration of the 500 years of the Reformation last October 31, 2017 doesn't mean that the Vatican won't continue to celebrate the Counter-Reformation. The Counter-Reformation celebrated its 470th year last December 13, 2015 since it started last December 13, 1545. It was Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.'s birthday day yesterday. Celebrating his day should never be associated with born again Christians regardless of denomination. Whether they're Baptist or Protestant, it's an insult to blend in with the celebration of Dr. King's birthday. If Martin Luther started the Reformation then Martin Luther King Jr. was certainly a tool for continuing the Counter-Reformation.

If a Baptist pastor or a Protestant pastor gets honors and recognition from the Vatican, or is openly working with them -- then that's a time to sound the red alarm that a wolf in sheep's clothing is around. How can any Baptist or Protestant pastor even think for a second that the Reformation…

Professional Christian Apologists Should Avoid Having Formal Discussions With Amateur (or Self-Proclaimed) Catholic Apologists

I remembered watching a couple of old discussions conducted by professional Roman Catholic apologists such as Mitch Pacwa SJ and Dr. Taylor Marshall (the owner of the video above). I have seen through the debates between Evangelical vs. Roman Catholic in the John Ankerburg show or those conducted by Dr. James R. White of the Alpha and Omega Ministries (AOM). But there's a specific group of people that should be brought up namely amateur (or self-proclaimed)Catholic apologists. 
What's with dealing with amateur or self-proclaimed Catholic apologists? Unlike their fellow Roman Catholic apologists that I have mentioned or others who have had a formal debate with Dr. White, these people are merely self-proclaimed. You can check their background and you may find that they don't have any real training in how to be an effective apologist. They may have simply made themselves as apologists without any real training.

You can observe the big difference between the self-proclaimed C…

Warning: Unsaved Pastors Are Seeking to Destroy the Flock

Whether you believe it or not unsaved pastors do exist. They are pastors in name only but not pastors whom God has appointed in Ephesians 4:11 and Jeremiah 3:15. Anybody can be a pastor but not anybody is truly a man of God. The book of Jeremiah is so full of condemnation of wicked pastors (shepherds) and priests who were not men of God. Jeremiah 5:31 has the priests getting popularity as they bear rule by their means. Today, you've got pastors becoming popular as they run things not the biblical way but their own twisted way. It bothers me to think how some quack pastors are  They are the erring pastors in Jeremiah. In the Old Testament, they are comparable to the priests who have erred in so much error. It's just like how the sons of Eli were indeed priests in the Old Testament but the sons of Satan who is also called Belial in the Old Testament (1 Samuel 2:12).

2 Timothy 4:3-5 warns that the last days will be full of false teachers. These are pastors who don't teach the…

The Horrors of the Horrid Family: The Herods and Inbreeding

So here is the family tree of the Herods which I would say is not a happy family.  One can think about the incest and intrigue of this family or the whispers of the world "incestuous" about them considering these events that had transpired in the family tree to the point it's best to call them the Horrids or the Horrors whatever name will fit them better:
1.) Herodias (or Horridias as I want to call her) is the daughter of Aristobulus a much older son of Herod the Great by Mariamne I was married to her half-uncle, Herod Philip I and had a freak daughter named Salome.  Salome wouldn't be a normal child either considering she was born of incest between half-uncle and half-niece.  So she was both granddaughter and great-granddaughter to the wicked Herod the Great.  I guess Salome was a retard too though she did live long enough.  Note also that Herodias was the sister of Herod Agrippa I who was later eaten of worms as the throne was later lost out of her greed.  Also H…

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…

Paul Washer's Quote to Slam the Prosperity Gospel

I really am so annoyed with all the prosperity gospel garbage because it is not biblical doctrine.  When I became a Christian, it is not about what it has done for me but what I have done for God.  If I am going to follow Christ, I can only expect to be ridiculed and persecuted.  If I am going to follow Christ then I expect the whole world to leave me behind.  Why do I expect that?  John 15:18-19 warns that the Christians are not of the world.  James 4:4 warns that you cannot be a friend of both the world and of God.

It is utterly foolish to say, "Receive Jesus Christ as your Lord and Savior and you will get healing and prosperity.  You will get a Mercedes Benz."  The more I read through the words of Jesus, the more I realize He did not promise any of those garbage that the prosperity crowd promises.  Instead, I read more warnings about persecution for His Name's sake.  Being a Christian can also mean being unpopular, hated, rejected, a laughingstock for the wrong reas…

Do You Give Your Tithes and Offerings from a Loving Heart?

It's time to talk about the topic of giving. This would be a very touchy topic because man is inherently selfish after the fall. I remembered reading across the rules on offerings and one verse struck me the most. I remembered what Malachi 3:10-11 says that people can rob God in tithes and offerings. The tithes and offerings were used to support the Levites' work. Anyone who says tithes are unbiblical need to reread that verse.

Tithing has been silent in the New Testament. I haven't read much about tithing being emphasized. Instead, we have the emphasis of the cheerful giver (2 Corinthians 9:7). It's amazing how some pseudo-Christian sects and some churches that's supposedly Christian (ex. some Baptist and Evangelical churches) have even gone as far as to monitor and chase their members for not tithing. While I do still believe in tithing is necessary to help maintain the local churches but no church should coerce the tithes out of their members.

Do you know that w…