Catholic apologists often appeal to certain passages in the authentic epistles of Ignatius of Antioch (written c. 107 AD) as evidence that Ignatius held to a substantial presence of Jesus in the Eucharist and that it was a propitiatory sacrifice.
It is true that Ignatius referred to the Eucharistic bread and wine as the “body/flesh” and “blood” of Christ, such as Letter to the Smyrnaeans 6, 2. However, the question is not, “did Ignatius identity the body and blood of Jesus with the elements of the Eucharist?” but “What did Ignatius mean when he identified the bread and wine with the Body and Blood of Jesus?” When one reads the epistles of Ignatius of Antioch, a much stronger argument can be made that he held to the mystical/symbolic view of the Eucharist and the elements thereof, not the later theology dogmatised at the Fourth Lateran Council (1215) which was further developed by, and hammered out in, the Council of Trent and elsewhere. Consider the following (the following quotations come from Kirsopp Lake, ed. The Apostolic Fathers [2 vols.; 1912-13]):
I have no pleasure in the food of corruption or in the delights of this life. I desire the "bread of God," which is the flesh of Jesus Christ, who was "of the seed of David," and for drink I desire his blood, which is incorruptible love. (To the Romans, 7:3)
The underlying Greek is τὸ αἷμα αὐτοῦ, ὅ ἐστιν ἀγάπη ἄφθαρτος, wherein "his blood" (τὸ αἷμα αὐτοῦ) is coupled with the verb "to be" (ειμι; here, εστιν ["it is"]). As Catholic apologists often harp on the use of ειμι in the institution narratives in the Synoptics and 1 Cor 11, if they wish to be consistent, they would have to argue, based on the use of εστιν, Christ's blood is transubstantiated into "incorruptible love" at the moment of consecration(!)
It is not that I know that there is anything of this kind among you, but I warn you because you are dear to me, and I foresee the snares of the devil. Therefore adopt meekness and be renewed in faith, which is the flesh of the Lord, and in love, which is the blood of Jesus Christ. (To the Trallians, 8:1)
The Greek underlying the section in bold is πίστει ὅ ἐστιν σὰρξ τοῦ κυρίου, καὶ ἐν ἀγάπῃ, ὅ ἐστιν αἷμα Ἰησοῦ Χριστου. As with To the Romans 7:3, both faith and love are said “to be” (εστιν) the “flesh” (σαρξ) and “blood” (αιμα) of Jesus Christ, respectively.
If Ignatius were to have said this in the context of the Eucharist, Catholic apologists would harp on such as “proof” of their theology and how it is present in 107 AD. Notwithstanding, in this case, the context is clearly symbolic/mystical, not substantial and (sacramentally) literal, and serves as evidence against Catholic dogmatic theology concerning the Eucharistic sacrifice of the Mass.
Brethren, I am overflowing with love to you, and exceedingly joyful in watching over your safety. Yet not I, but Jesus Christ, whose bonds I bear, but am the more fearful in that I am not yet perfected; but your prayer will make me perfect for God, that I may attain the lot wherein I found mercy, making the Gospel my refuge as the flesh of Jesus, and the Apostles as the presbytery of the Church. (To the Philadelphians, 5:1)
"The gospel my refuge as the flesh of Jesus" in Greek is προσφυγὼν τῷ εὐαγγελίῳ ὡς σαρκὶ Ἰησου. While the Greek does us ὡς, showing it is a simile, the text does show, with other instances within his authentic epistles, that Ignatius associated the flesh and blood of Christ with various elements that clearly were not, in his view, transmuted into the literal flesh and blood of Jesus, let alone their being offered up as part of a propitiatory sacrifice re-presenting his sacrifice on the cross, again showing that Ignatius held a symbolic/mystical understanding of the elements of the Eucharist, not the theology defined at Fourth Lateran (1215).
For more essays refuting Catholic apologists on the Mass from both the Bible and patristic literature, see: