Folks online, who wish to rewrite church history to turn church fathers into symbol only affirming and real presence denying teachers, love to use articles like this that purport to set the record straight:
https://onefold.wordpress.com/early-church-evidence-refutes-real-presence/
The writing boldly claimed at the start: “This article will examine the writings of Clement of Alexandria, Tertullian of Carthage, Irenaeus of Lyons, Justin Martyr, Ignatius, and a contribution from Origen in order to show that the ancient church never believed, taught or even conceived any doctrine like the real presence dogma.”
Then it added, “Within these writings are clear references to the flesh and blood of Christ in the eucharist being symbolical, and the words, ‘Eat My flesh and drink My blood’ spoken by Jesus in the bread of life discourse as being metaphorical.”
Rather than respond by order of paragraphs in that article, this series of posts as blog responses will go by church fathers in chronological order, starting with Ignatius of Antioch in this post.
The article correctly quoted his epistle to the Smyrnaeans chapter 7 as:
“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.”
To get around what Ignatius saying the Eucharist to be the flesh of Christ, the article asserted, “They do not confess the Eucharist to be the flesh of Christ because they didn’t believe he truly suffered.”
Saying they didn’t believe Christ truly suffered don’t undo the fact that Ignatius asserted the Eucharist to be the flesh of Christ. In fact, back then denial of Christ coming in the flesh and sacraments as means of grace go hand in hand. Such denials of both were what Gnostics were routinely condemned for, whether the sacrament was Baptism or Eucharist.
Then the article states, “And the Eucharist itself, Ignatius describes, is: ‘our Savior Jesus Christ, which suffered for our sins, and which the Father, of His goodness, raised up again.’”
Notice it changes Ignatius’ words to fit its argument. Ignatius said the Eucharist is the flesh of our Savior Christ. The article (after initially quoting Ignatius correctly) says the Eucharist is our Savior Christ, omitting His flesh from Ignatius’ words to push its narrative that Ignatius denied real presence.
This is so that Ignatius’ epistle can be creatively retranslated into saying, “In other words, the Eucharist is the celebration of the passion and resurrection of our Lord.”
Even with the omission of Christ’s flesh from what Ignatius wrote, even having him say the Eucharist is our Savior Christ who suffered for us (rather than what he actually said which was the Eucharist is the flesh of our Savior Christ who suffered for us), it does not even come close to saying the Eucharist is just celebration of what Christ did as symbol only.
But add to the fact that the article willfully omitted the word “flesh” of Christ from what Ignatius wrote, to push its false narrative, it is ironic the article then said, “It is utterly criminal what the catholic apologists have done to the compassionate work of Ignatius. They attempt to make it look as though the Dosetists 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.”
No, it is utterly criminal for the article to take Ignatius’ words saying the Eucharist is the flesh and blood of Christ to twist those words to have him say held to remembrance or symbolic only view of the Eucharist. The Docetists were precisely condemned as Ignatius said for denying the Eucharist is the flesh of Christ.
The Docetist denials of the Eucharist being the flesh of Christ came indeed from their denials of the Incarnation and the atonement of Christ. The article wished to claim Ignatius condemning their denials of the Incarnation and the atoning sacrifice of Christ must mean Ignatius wasn’t condemning denials of the Eucharist is the flesh of Christ.
But wishing it so doesn’t make it reality. Denials of all of the above by Gnostics then go hand in hand, as Ignatius put it. And the fact that the article had to omit the direct reference to the flesh of Christ, as to what Ignatius actually said the Eucharist is, show why the article has no legitimate case to claim Ignatius on its symbol only side view of the Eucharist.
So it is easy after such key omission of the flesh of Christ in Ignatius’ quote to then say,
“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.”
Again, here’s Ignatius’ own words: “They abstain from the eucharist and from prayer, because they confess not the eucharist to be the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ.”
He said the Docetists denied the Eucharist to be the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ, yet the article can say, “There is absolutely no contextual support for claiming that Ignatius was referring to the Eucharist bread as being the literal flesh of Christ.”
No, there is absolutely no contextual support for claiming Ignatius denied the Eucharist was the flesh of God. The article in its arguments omitted the words “flesh” of Christ as what the Eucharist is from what Ignatius said to argue “context.”
In actually then this quote from the article applies to itself and its author: “. That is merely assumed by those who already believe it.”
The author assumed Ignatius cannot possibly affirmed Eucharistic real presence so try to change what Ignatius said (by omitting flesh) and by creating a false narrative that condemning denials of the Incarnation and the atonement of Christ meant one cannot condemned denials of Eucharistic real presence, when Ignatius actually said Gnostic denials of Eucharistic real presence came because they denied the Incarnation and the atoning sacrifice of Christ.
The article closed on this epistle by Ignatius by saying,
“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.”
The article seems oblivious to the fact that there are different variations of real presence. Not all of them affirmed sacrifice of the mass or even Eucharistic adoration. But Ignatius did indeed include in his letter that the Eucharist is the flesh of Christ.
Also from the article, we get this quote from Ignatius:
“For though I am alive while I write to you, yet I am eager to die. My love has been crucified, and there is no fire in me desiring to be fed; but there is within me a water that liveth and speaketh, saying to me inwardly, Come to the Father. I have no delight in corruptible food, nor in the pleasures of this life. I desire the bread of God, the heavenly bread, the bread of life, which is the flesh of Jesus Christ, the Son of God, who became afterwards of the seed of David and Abraham; and I desire the drink of God, namely His blood, which is incorruptible love and eternal life.” (To the Romans, Chapter 7)
The article remarked, “Ignatius speaks of the Spirit of God within him (there is within me a water) beckoning him to come. He had no delight in corruptible food such as earthly bread, but rather the living bread come down from heaven, namely, the flesh of Christ that was sacrificed for the sins of the world. And for drink he desired not corruptible wine, but the incorruptible blood of Christ shed for the remission of sins. Ignatius was about to encounter his Lord face to face!”
So somehow Ignatius saying He desire to drink the incorruptible blood of Christ meant he wasn’t referring to the Eucharist drinking but to encountering Christ face to face?
Furthermore, the claim that Ignatius denied the heavenly bread, the flesh of Christ is reference to “earthly bread” of the Eucharist is false. He didn’t divide the earthly and the heavenly as the article is doing.
Let me quote Ignatius’ epistle to the Ephesians chapter 20:
“Especially [will I do this ] if the Lord make known to me that you come together man by man in common through grace, individually, in one faith, and in Jesus Christ, who was of the seed of David according to the flesh, being both the Son of man and the Son of God, so that you obey the bishop and the presbytery with an undivided mind, breaking one and the same bread, which is the medicine of immortality, and the antidote to prevent us from dying, but [which causes] that we should live for ever in Jesus Christ.”
Note especially this part from Ignatius: “breaking one and the same bread, which is the medicine of immortality, and the antidote to prevent us from dying, but [which causes] that we should live for ever in Jesus Christ.”
Ignatius could look forward to seeing Christ as a martyr because he affirmed he received in the “earthly bread” of the Eucharist the heavenly bread of life (Christ). He said the bread that is broken is “the medicine of immortality.” That’s hardly holding to the Eucharist as only symbolic of the flesh and blood of Christ.
So here’s the irony when the article claimed, “Attempts to use Ignatius’ words here to support transubstantiation are nothing short of ridiculous. It is incomprehensible to think that anyone could ignore the obvious context of this letter (or any of Ignatius’ letters) just to promote their agenda. Unfortunately it will continue to be the case. But for those who truly desire truth and are willing to take the time, the agendas of some will not prevail over truth.”
First off, the article conflate the terms real presence and transubstantiation. The two are not necessarily the same.
Secondly, while Ignatius’ words don’t necessarily mean transubstantiation (which this Lutheran blog here don’t affirm anyways), it’s the article that is being nothing short of ridiculous to use Ignatius’ words here to support denials of any kind of real presence or to support a symbol only view of the Eucharist.
Thirdly, on a repeatedly basis the article does a hatchet job on the context of the letters of Ignatius, even omitting his words that the Eucharist is the flesh of Christ, to push an agenda. It requires a real creative readings of what Ignatius wrote to claim he denied real presence as the article did.
Finally, indeed for those who seek truth, those with false agendas will not ultimately prevail. That includes agenda from that article.
Here we stand.
No comments:
Post a Comment