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: