The Dilemma of Quoting from Early Christian Preacher Ignatius of Antioch
The early Christian preacher Ignatius of Antioch tends to be quoted by Roman Catholics. He has some quotes which are often misquoted by Roman Catholics.
Wherever the bishop appears, there let the people be; as wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the catholic Church. It is not lawful to baptize or give communion without the consent of the bishop. On the other hand, whatever has his approval is pleasing to God. Thus, whatever is done will be safe and valid.
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.
Roman Catholics tend to point it out and mock at born again Christians with the quotes from Ignatius of Antioch. However, there are several points that are missed. These are the words catholic and eucharist. Do you know the meaning of the words? Let me explain it then.
Catholic means universal. I believe that the true Church is catholic but not Roman Catholic. How can it even be apostolic if the teachings are inconsistent with the writings of the apostles? The earlier version of the Apostles' Creed (which was a summary of the beliefs of the early church) used catholic to describe the Church as a universal church. Catholic means universal. The Greek words "all throughout" are spelled in Acts 9:31 is a translation of kath-oles where we get the term catholic from. Catholic is meant to be a synonym for universal. Older English writings tend to use catholic instead of universal. There is also a difference between the catholic Church and the Catholic Church. Catholic in Roman Catholicism always refers to the follows as Catholics. However, Jesus never said that they were to be called Catholics. Neither were the Christians in Antioch first called Catholics either but as Christians.
Eucharist which actually means communion or coming together. Eucharist also means to give thanks or thanksgiving. To have the eucharist is not at all about the bread and wine. Rather, every fellowship in the Christian church is a eucharist whether or not the Lord's supper was served on that Sunday.
The blog One Fold also points out in the article "Early Church Refutes Real Presence" the following truth about misquoting Ignatius of Antioch:
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.
A real lack of understanding has really led to misquoting the works of a wonderful Christian saint!