Was Ignatius of Antioch Roman Catholic?

He's been discussed a lot lately by various Catholics. See this recent video by Cameron Bertuzzi, for example. And Ignatius has often been cited in support of Catholicism and against Protestantism for many years. It's not just a recent development. It's been popular for a long time in Catholic circles to cite Ignatius as a major problem for Protestants, because of comments he makes about issues like the monarchical episcopate and how the eucharist is the flesh and blood of Christ.

But some Protestants believe in the monarchical episcopate and a bodily presence of Christ in the eucharist. And the sort of language Ignatius uses about the eucharist is also used by him in other contexts that aren't interpreted by anybody the way advocates of a bodily presence of Christ in the eucharist are interpreting his eucharistic comments. See my discussion here. And here are some other examples not discussed in that thread I just linked:

More Pre-Reformation Support For Reformation Beliefs Among The Lollards

I've discussed their support for Reformation views in other posts, like here and here. And here's one about a book on Lollard heresy trials in the first half of the fifteenth century.

Baptismal real presence?

We're frequently told that we should hold a highly efficacious view of baptism or the eucharist because the church fathers and other pre-Reformation sources often expressed such a view. As I've mentioned before, we also find other views among the pre-Reformation sources, so we need to take those other views into account as well. Another problem with appeals to highly efficacious language in these sources is that they also used such language in many other contexts, including contexts in which modern proponents of a highly efficacious view of baptism or the eucharist don't hold such an efficacious view of those other things. See the many examples discussed in my post here on pre-Reformation views of initiatory rites. That post cites a book by G.W.H. Lampe, and here are some other comments he made in that same book:

He [Melito of Sardis] strongly emphasizes the theory of the Spirit's presence in the [baptismal] water, which, though quite unscriptural, becomes a commonplace in the Fathers and is developed by some ancient authors into a doctrine approximating to that of a 'Real Presence' of the Spirit in the font....

Again, on the other hand, the doctrine of a sort of 'Real Presence' of the Spirit in the water of Baptism is clearly expressed in the Homily on the Blessing of Jacob [attributed to Hippolytus]...

Zeno of Verona describes the baptismal water as 'aqua viva Spiritu sancto et igne dulcissimo temperata', and Gaudentius connects the miracle of Cana with the presence of the Spirit in the water and its reception by the baptized. These are, no doubt, expressions of pious rhetoric, but Cyril has a genuine doctrine of the Spirit's 'real presence' in the water, a theory amounting almost to a conception of the transubstantiation of water into Spirit, John of Damascus explains that the Spirit comes upon the water through epiclesis, and we must not ignore the significance of the common practice of dipping torches into the font

(The Seal Of The Spirit [Eugene, Oregon: Wipf & Stock Publishers, 2004], 115, 144, 211-12)

Problems With Transubstantiation In The Last Supper's Context

Mike Winger just posted a good video on the subject. And here's a post in which I discuss some other problems with transubstantiation in the earliest Christian contexts. On later sources, see here.

Do the bread and wine turn into the body and blood of Christ?

I recently read a high-level exchange about the metaphysics of transubstantiation. On one side was a Protestant philosophy prof. (Kyle Blanchette). I mention that because his argument is the stimulus for this post. I'm not trying to develop his argument. Perhaps the argument in this post is different from how he'd understand his own argument. That's not the purpose of my post. My objective isn't to reproduce his argument. It simply gave me an idea to think about and run with. But I wish to credit the stimulus. 

Transubstantiation is often challenged on philosophical grounds. Philosophy isn't for everyone, but this isn't just an academic issue. Transubstantiation is Catholic dogma. If a single Catholic dogma is false, that falsifies Catholicism at one stroke. 

According to Trent, by the consecration of the bread and of the wine, a conversion is made of the whole substance of the bread into the substance of the body of Christ our Lord, and of the whole substance of the wine into the substance of His blood; which conversion is, by the holy Catholic Church, suitably and properly called Transubstantiation.

And the catechism says 1375 It is by the conversion of the bread and wine into Christ's body and blood that Christ becomes present in this sacrament. 

So the dogma of transubstantiation seems to require that the bread and wine turn into or change into the body and blood of Christ. The unconsecrated communion elements become the body and blood of Christ. That, however, raises the issue of what's required for one thing to become something else. 

Suppose on Monday I see a mouse. Suppose on Tuesday I see a Porsche. Suppose you tell me that the Porsche used to be the mouse. The mouse turned into a Porsche.

A problem with that claim is that, at the level of a mouse and a Porsche, they have nothing in common. They have some constitutive elements in common, like atoms and molecules, but in no respect is a mouse a Porsche. There's complete discontinuity at that higher level. A difference in kind, not degree. 

The Catholic position is actually more radical than my illustration. On the Catholic position, the two substances don't even share any constitutive elements in common (see below). 

Put another way, it's consistent that a Porsche was never a mouse. It was always a Porsche. It didn't originate as a mouse. Consistent for each to have separate origins. 

What really happened is that the mouse ceased to exist, and (let's say) a Porsche suddenly sprang into existence. The mouse didn't become a Porsche. Rather, the mouse existed, then it ceased to exist. The Porsche didn't exist, then a day later it came into being. There's succession but no continuity. No continuum between what was the case on Monday and what was the case on Tuesday. 

But this generates a contradiction between what transubstantiation claims and what it implies. The claim is that the bread and wine turn into the body and blood. But the implication of the dogma is that the body and blood replace the bread and wine. The bread and wine cease to exist. Something else takes their place. So there's no continuity between the two things. 

Given the claim, there's no reason a priest has to start with bread and wine to get the same result. Since the end-result replaces the bread and wine, you could, in principle, have the replacement directly, without the bread and wine as a starting-point, just as you don't to start with a mouse to produce a Porsche. There's no essential relationship between the bread and wine and the replacement. It isn't necessary for a Porsche to be the end-product of a mouse. Indeed, that would be very strange way to create a Porsche.

At this point a Catholic might object that they do share something in common: the secondary properties of bread and wine. The phenomenal/sensory properties of bread and wine.

But that won't do. According to the metaphysics of transubstantiation, those are accidental properties. But at the substantive level, the body and blood share nothing in common with the bread and wine. One substance didn't become or change into another substance. Rather, one substance replaces another substance, but it has the same accidental properties. So the fundamental dichotomy remains. 

"Historical Christianity"

Just a debate with a Catholic:

I think they [the Jews in John 6] could have thought of cannibalism, but that only indicates that they took his words seriously! And I think we should too. Where the Jews make a mistake is that partaking in the Eucharist, which as you have mentioned was not instituted at the time of the bread of life discourse but came later, is not partaking in cannibalism but in partaking in living flesh and blood, not of the dead. To reiterate, the reaction of the crowd supports the literal reading of Jesus’s Words.

1. Jesus explained: "the flesh counts for nothing" or "the flesh is no help at all" (Jn 6:63b). So if one takes these words literally, as in literal flesh and literal blood, then they've missed Jesus' point. Jesus' point is: "It is the Spirit who gives life...The words that I have spoken to you are spirit and life" (Jn 6:63a,c). It's Jesus' "words" that give life (cf. Jn 5:24). And this has precedence in the OT as well. For example, Jer 15:16 and Ezk 2:8–3:3:

Your words were found, and I ate them, and your words became to me a joy and the delight of my heart.

and

"But you, son of man, hear what I say to you. Be not rebellious like that rebellious house; open your mouth and eat what I give you." And when I looked, behold, a hand was stretched out to me, and behold, a scroll of a book was in it. And he spread it before me. And it had writing on the front and on the back, and there were written on it words of lamentation and mourning and woe. And he said to me, "Son of man, eat whatever you find here. Eat this scroll, and go, speak to the house of Israel." So I opened my mouth, and he gave me this scroll to eat. And he said to me, "Son of man, feed your belly with this scroll that I give you and fill your stomach with it." Then I ate it, and it was in my mouth as sweet as honey.

2. Why is living vs. dead the relevant distinction in what does or does not constitute cannibalism? Cannibalism is simply eating literal human flesh, dead or alive. Not to mention drinking literal human blood (e.g. clinical vampirism or Renfield syndrome). Besides, there have been cannibals who have eaten the flesh of living people (e.g. Armin Meiwes and his victim). Suppose a cannibal could feast upon a victim who could remain alive forever and who could regenerate flesh indefinitely. Why wouldn't it still be cannibalism?

Here is How St. Irenaeus Understood the Eucharist

1. Irenaeus wasn't divinely inspired. He used his own reasoning to arrive at his interpretation. Likewise anyone can use their own reasoning to arrive at a particular interpretation. Of course, we'd have to evaluate each interpretation on its own merits or lack thereof to decide which (if any) interpretation is correct. This is done through our God-given cognitive faculties. Logic, reason, critical thinking, analysis, and the like. In this respect, Irenaeus' interpretation is not necessarily to be preferred over a modern biblical scholar's. It comes down to what's the more reasonable interpretation of the biblical text.

2. There were theological errors even in Jesus and his first disciples' own day (e.g. Gnostics, Judaizers). Just because an understanding or teaching is earlier than other teachings doesn't necessarily imply it's true or more true.

3. At best, Irenaeus knew people who knew the apostles (e.g. Polycarp). However, knowing someone who knew an apostle doesn't necessarily mean one's interpretation is correct or even should be preferred. It'd be like saying I knew someone who knew Einstein, but that doesn't necessarily mean people should put more weight on my understanding of special and general relativity than someone else's simply because I knew someone who knew Einstein.

So then, if the mixed cup and the manufactured bread receive the Word of God and become the Eucharist, that is to say, the Blood and Body of Christ, which fortify and build up the substance of our flesh, how can these people claim that the flesh is incapable of receiving God's gift of eternal life, when it is nourished by Christ's Blood and Body and is His member? As the blessed apostle says in his letter to the Ephesians, 'For we are members of His Body, of His flesh and of His bones' (Eph. 5:30). He is not talking about some kind of 'spiritual' and 'invisible' man, 'for a spirit does not have flesh an bones' (Lk. 24:39). No, he is talking of the organism possessed by a real human being, composed of flesh and nerves and bones. It is this which is nourished by the cup which is His Blood, and is fortified by the bread which is His Body. The stem of the vine takes root in the earth and eventually bears fruit, and 'the grain of wheat falls into the earth' (Jn. 12:24), dissolves, rises again, multiplied by the all-containing Spirit of God, and finally after skilled processing, is put to human use. These two then receive the Word of God and become the Eucharist, which is the Body and Blood of Christ.

1. At best, what Irenaeus says might be consistent with a spiritual presence, but that still falls short of Catholic transubstantiation.

2. Irenaeus himself may not have believed it's literal or actual flesh and blood. See Irenaeus' Fragments 13.

I am not manufacturing consensus. Consensus is a fact. I only exclude Protestants as they are not part of Early Church History. Remember, my original claim is if you study Church History you would cease to be Protestant. Imbedded in this claim is that if you study Church history, you would rightly exclude the Protestant position as being ahistorical, illogical, and against the text. But again, this is only AFTER having studied history.

1. Not that I would grant Protestantism is "ahistorical", but an ideological movement can be "ahistorical" without it being "illogical" or "against the text". These are separable arguments.

2. History is no accurate guide to truth. Minimally history is a catalogue of what happened in the past. However that could include all sorts of heresies as well (e.g. Gnostics, Arians, Unitarians, Nestorians).

3. How does one adjudicate what should or shouldn't count as "historical Christianity"? Scripture? Catholic bishops and councils? The Roman Catholic church which according to Catholics gave us the Bible?

4. Catholicism itself has morphed and evolved over the ages. For instance, see Steve's post "Rome's clouded crystal ball".

5. Ultimately I'd opt for biblical Christianity over "historical Christianity". Of course this would get us into a debate over sola scriptura. But my only point at the moment is that "historical Christianity" is hardly the only way to frame the debate. Your idea of "historical Christianity" is at least as debatable or contestable as sola scriptura.

You obviously did not come to the conclusion that Jesus was speaking symbolically on your own. You were taught this by someone and came to accept it. This is no different than how any of our beliefs are formed. The difference between a Protestant and a Historical Christian is that, I believe, we rightly include the gamut of Church history, especially those most instrumental in the formation of the Church when forming our opinions. I would say the Protestants are more weakly formed by relying on individuals from the 16th and 17th century and took it upon themselves to “reinterpret” the Bible. This “reinterpretation” is basically what this entire thread boils down to. I think if someone is honest and reviews the record, the Historical Christian view is correct, and the Protestant view is incorrect.

1. I came to my conclusions about John 6 primarily by studying the biblical text, studying scholarly works including commentaries on the text, comparing my understanding to theirs, drawing my own conclusions.

2. Sure, it's possible to be "taught" something by someone else, but at the same time it's possible to use one's own logic and reasoning, ask relevant questions, and so forth to see if what's been taught comports with sound reason. These aren't necessarily at odds with one another.

3. Contemporary Protestants don't "rely on individuals from the 16th and 17th century" as if these individuals are our sole or primary reasons we believe what we believe. The exegetical and theological bases for arguments about the eucharist (to take an example) have been refined and developed over the centuries.

4. For that matter, what if Protestants made the same allegation about Catholics. That is, suppose we said Catholics rely on Trent in the same manner. Yet, if so, why is Vatican II so different from Trent?

Men in tights

One of the quirks of human nature is that humans will do weird or unseemly things that feel natural or wonderful so long as everyone around you is doing the same thing. Take eucharistic adoration. For many devout Catholics, that's a central feature of their piety.

But take a step back and consider the spectacle of a grown man who thinks sitting in front of an ornate storage box containing wafers, for hours at a time, is a way to experience Jesus, commune with Jesus, feel the presence of Jesus beaming from the box. That may seem like the most natural thing in the world if you're in a social setting where there's group reinforcement, but if you think about it, isn't that a very artificial act of devotion?

To take a comparison, a few years ago a PCA church had three male ballet dancers perform on stage in the worship service:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lDNG4s4DMac

To the ballet dancers, that seemed like a perfectly normal, reverent thing to do. In the social context of urban elites and the ballet subculture, there was nothing jarring about that.

But to a disinterested outside observer, the performance was a giggle fest. A normal man can't watch it with a straight face.

What's striking is the contrast between the self-image of the dancers and the image they're actually projecting. It never occurred to them that this performance would go viral. They couldn't foresee how this would make their church a laughingstock. 

Consider kings and noblemen who used to dress up in slippers, silk stockings, and powered wigs. When we see those paintings we think how foppish and decadent they are, but that wasn't the impression they had. If everyone's a fop then nobody's a fop. 

Catholicism provides many other examples. The Sistine choir used to have castrati. Popes sincerely thought that was better than having–heaven forbid!–women in the choir. Within the bubble of old-fashioned Catholicism, that seemed to be reverent. Here's one of the Sistine choir castrati:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KLjvfqnD0ws

To a disinterested outside observer, that's an utterly cringey performance. Unintended comic relief. 

By the same token, the traditional wardrobe of popes would be a drag queen's dream come true. Yet until recently, Catholics reveled in that. It doesn't go over as well in the television age, which is why a media savvy pontiff like Pope Francis has mothballed that tradition. 

The upshot is that almost nothing is too ludicrous which may not seem natural or praiseworthy so long as everyone in your peer group is doing it. 

Kenny on transubstantiation

Steve sent this essay on transubstantiation by Anthony Kenny. The source is the first chapter of Reason and Religion: Essays in Philosophical Theology.