The idea of the connection of the Eucharist to the Incarnation, and by extension, to the Ascension is interesting. I can’t say more than that but thought I’d bring it up again in case it generates more ideas in your fertile brain.

Greetings to you as well and thank you for the kind words. I’m sure you’ve noticed that I don’t have much time to post anywhere any more, so anything I’m able to get out is sporadic at best.

Admittedly, there is some level of mystery to this whole Eucharist thing; but I sincerely believe the RCC took it too far. I don’t think you’re suprised to discover that I don’t think the Church took it too far. And yes, there is a lot of mystery involved!

And I do not accuse you of docetism or gnosticism. But I think your view of a spiritual and/or symbolic presence of Christ in the Eucharist is closer to their view than what Ignatius was defending. We both quoted from the same section. Please re-read it. These heretical sects emphasized the spirituality of Jesus and felt that He could “wear” and change bodies as easily as you and I wear and change clothing. Because of this, they could easily believe that Jesus would spiritually “wear” a new body in the Eucharist. In fact, in Ad Heresies (I think books 4 and 5 – I do not have the reference with me right now) Irenaeus actually accuses the gnostics of doing this very thing! But what does Ignatius do? In the phrase immediately preceding that which you bolded, he states the Eucharist is the body of Christ. Then in the section which you bolded, tells us that this is the same (physical) body which was tortured for our sins! This is the Catholic position.

If you were correct, then Ignatius would have to say that the Eucharist is the spiritual manifestation of the Body of Christ ….

Again, thank you for your kind words. The Peace of Our Lord, Jesus the Christ, be with you.

Randy, thank you for allowing me to express myself on your post.

You don’t seem to. You still seem to be overruling Jesus and saying he is just wrong.

As I wrote above, the docetists and Gnostics refused the Lord’s supper because they rejected the real material and physical incarnation and a real crucifixion.

Protestants don’t reject the Lord’s supper – we eat it and drink it because we believe in the real, physical, historical incarnation and real physical crucifixion. So Ignatius means, “they reject the Eucharist as the flesh and blood of the Lord, who truly was crucified for our sins, etc. – because they reject the incarnation and crucifixion. (Basiledes, and other Gnostics)

“Take note of those who hold heterodox opinions on the grace of Jesus Christ which has come to us, and see how contrary their opinions are to the mind of God. . . . They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer because they do not confess that the Eucharist is the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ, flesh which suffered for our sins and which that Father, in his goodness, raised up again. They who deny the gift of God are perishing in their disputes” (Letter to the Smyrnaeans 6:2–7:1 [A.D. 110]).

You say you can’t. But what if you do? What happens then? Either you are still saved or you are not. If you are then you actually can do whatever. If you are not then you have denied “once saved always saved”. You have, in effect, said there is a mortal sin that can separate someone from God when they are in a state of grace.