Chapter Five -- The Eucharist in the Theology of Ignatius
Chapter Five -- The Eucharist in the Theology of Ignatius
{L157} In the previous chapter we observed how the unity of the church was central to Ignatius's theology, and how that unity implied the holiness, catholicity, and apostolicity of the church. More importantly, we noted that in Ignatius's mind the unity of the church has its source in Christ's pastoral care of the church. The deeper source of unity is in God himself. That is why the Eucharist is so important for Ignatius. The Eucharist is the instrument through which the unity that is in God is communicated to the members of the church so they may be truly one.
{L158} Because Ignatius was writing occasional letters to the churches of Asia Minor, he does not address the subject of the Eucharist in any direct way, just as he does not address any major theological topic in a direct manner. However, by examining his passing comments on the Eucharist as reflections of his deeper theology, we come to see this mystery as intimately connected to other aspects of his thought. Ignatius mentions the Eucharist explicitly in three of his letters (Letter to the Ephesians, Letter to the Philadelphians, and Letter to the Smyrneans) but there are clear eucharistic allusions in other letters such as the Letter to the Romans. The passages in the first three letters have to do with the liturgical celebration proper while other allusions are embedded within other aspects of Ignatius's theology. The relevant passages seem on the surface to be unproblematic, but the history of the study of Ignatius reveals quite disparate opinions of what Ignatius actually believed. Pierre Battifol has noted two opposing assessments of Ignatius's sacramental theology. The first claims that Ignatius believed in the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist; the other is that Ignatius saw the Eucharist in less realistic and more symbolic terms. [1] The latter conclusion seems rather odd given the realistic language that Ignatius uses. Let us carefully examine the context of Ignatius's eucharistic statements.
{L159} 1 Pierre Battifol L'Eucharistie: La Presence Reelle et la Transubstantiation (Paris: Libraire Victor Lecoffre, 1913) 5th ed. p. 40 n.1.
{L160} The theme of unity, so germane to Ignatius's theology, surfaces again in his references to the liturgy. The Letter to the Philadelphians seems especially concerned with the ravenous wolves which can tear the church apart (Philad 2:2). The answer to division and evil teaching (cf. 2:1) is to follow the shepherd appointed for the church. Schism must be consciously rejected by believers if they are to remain faithful to Christ. Avoiding schism can best be accomplished by liturgical unity and so Ignatius exhorts the Philadelphians,
{L161} Therefore, be diligent to employ only one Eucharist. For there is [only] one flesh of our Lord Jesus Christ and there is [only] one cup for unity in his blood. There is one altar as there is one bishop together with the presbytery and the deacons, my fellow servants. The purpose of all this is so that your practices will be in accord with God's intention (Philad 4:1).
{L162} The structure of this exhortation is worth noting closely. "Eucharist" (eucharistia) provides the overarching term for the entire liturgy while the succeeding terms designate specific parts of or actors in the liturgy (flesh, cup, altar, and bishop). In each case the repetition of "one" leaves us in no doubt that Ignatius is distinguishing between an aberrant, unauthorized liturgy and a legitimate celebration under the authority of the bishop. The emphasis on the "one flesh" and "one cup for unity in his blood" reveals the deepest ground for Ignatius's idea of the Eucharist. The "one flesh of our Lord Jesus Christ" evokes the continuity between the historical Jesus and the liturgical celebration of the church. The "one cup for unity in his blood" is reminiscent of Paul's words in his letter to the Corinthians:
{L163} is not the cup which we bless a participation in the blood of Christ? Is not the bread which we break a participation in the body of Christ? Because there is one bread, we who are many are one body because we all partake of the one bread (1 Cor 10:16,17).
{L164} Paul teaches that it is the body and blood of Christ which makes the members of the church truly one. It is "because we all partake of the one loaf" that we become one body.
{L165} Ignatius draws on Paul's teaching and extends it into a new situation that allows for a clear view of the meaning of the eucharistic liturgy. Implied in the phrase "one flesh of our Lord Jesus Christ" is the reality of the God-man Jesus. This becomes evident if we ask in what sense many different churches with different altars can all be said to be one. One answer might be found in the symbolic actions of each church. If, for example, all the churches of Asia Minor have the same liturgy, they are symbolically representing their unity. However, Ignatius places the emphasis elsewhere. His command to celebrate "one Eucharist" is based, not on a common liturgy, but on the "one flesh" of the real Incarnation. One can hear the docetic denials just below the surface. If, as the Docetists claimed, Christ only appeared to have taken on human flesh, and only appeared to have suffered, then the celebration of the Eucharist only appears to have his body too. In countering the virtual denial of Christ's humanity, Ignatius carefully chooses "one flesh" as the reason why unity is more than symbolic. The churches are one because they all ultimately have the same altar (the heavenly), the same bishop (Christ), and most of all the same nourishment (one flesh).
{L166} If the Docetists are just beneath the surface in Ignatius's exhortation in Philad 4:1, they are front and center in his condemnation of them in the Letter to the Smyrneans where the problem of unity and liturgy seems to have been quite acute:
{L167} They abstain from the Eucharist and [appointed times] of prayer because they do not confess that the Eucharist is the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ which suffered for our sins and which the Father in his kindness raised. Those who speak against God's gift will die in their disputes. It was better for them to love so they may be raised (Smyrn 7:1).
{L168} It is important not to read these lines with a modern mentality. The Docetists' abstention from the liturgy was more than a decision in favor of diversity of opinion and practice. They abstained from the authorized liturgy because they would not confess the faith of the church in the real humanity of Jesus in the Eucharist. When Ignatius says they abstained from prayer, he does not mean all prayer but public prayer with the church. [2] The refusal of the Docetists to pray with the church at the eucharistic feast was grounded in their denial of a true Incarnation. [3] Denial of the Incarnation leads to denial of the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist. If the eternal Word never truly became a man, how could his humanity be conveyed in the Eucharist? Yet we should not suppose that the Docetists necessarily denied any presence at all. Perhaps they even confessed Jesus's body in the sacrament. Their belief might be inferred from Ignatius's explanation of what they denied when he adds, "the flesh ... which suffered for our sins and which the Father in his kindness raised." They denied any identity between the historical body of Jesus and the eucharistic body. [4] Thus, it is impossible not to view Ignatius as teaching the real human presence of Jesus Christ in the Eucharist.
{L169} 2 Almost all commentators on Ignatius agree on this point. Luke speaks in the same fashion in describing the day of Pentecost when he says that the new converts "devoted themselves to the apostles' teaching, to fellowship, to the breaking of bread, and to prayers" (Acts 2:42). The word "prayer" in Smyrn 7:1 may in fact refer to eucharistic prayer as we have indications that already this early in the church the celebration of the Eucharist was guided by set prayers as it is clearly in Didache 9: "Concerning the Eucharist, give thanks like this. First, the cup. We thank you, our Father, for the holy vine of David, your servant which you have made known to us through Jesus your servant. To you be glory forever," etc.
{L170} 3 See Smyrn 3:1-3 for the extent of Ignatius's concern about the Docetists' denial of the Incarnation: "I know and believe that after the resurrection he [Christ] was in the flesh. And when he came to those around Peter, he said to them, 'Take, handle me, and see that I am not a bodiless demon.' And immediately they touched him and believed, once they were mingled with his flesh and blood. For this reason, they despised death and were found beyond death. And after the resurrection, he ate and drank with them as a fleshly man, although he was spiritually united with the Father."
{L171} 4 The issue of whether the eucharistic body is the same as the historical body of Jesus which suffered and rose surfaced again in the Berengar controversy. Two extremes were avoided by the church. One was a denial of any continuity between the historical Jesus and the eucharistic Jesus; the other was a naive and crude identification of the two. The ultimate answer embraced by the church was the notion of a substantial identity. While Jesus's accidents (hair, skin, etc.) are not present in the Eucharist, the substance of his humanity is present.
{L172} What might overcome their denial of the Eucharist? The last two lines of the quotation from Smyrn 7:1 above speak of love. Denying God's gift leads to destruction; loving God and the church leads to resurrection. That is why Ignatius goes on to reaffirm that only the Eucharist authorized by the legitimate bishop is valid:
{L173} You all should follow the bishop as Jesus Christ does the Father. Follow too the presbytery as the apostles, and honor the deacons as the command of God. Let no one do anything that is proper for the church without the bishop. Let that Eucharist be considered valid that is under the bishop or performed by one to whom he entrusts it (Smyrn 8:1).
{L174} Taken out of the wider context of Smyrn 7 or of the letters of Ignatius in general, this text might be interpreted as an attempt on Ignatius's part to exercise raw power and to assert the unchallenged authority of Polycarp as bishop of Smyrna. However, Ignatius is not opting for an authoritarian solution to heresy and schism. Rather, he is reminding the Smyrneans of where the true body and blood of Christ may be found because he seems to be aware of the dissidents' claims to have a valid Eucharist. The underlying question is where to find Jesus Christ and that question amounts to asking where a valid Eucharist may be found. This reasoning makes sense of the famous words that follow:
{L175} Wherever the bishop appears, let there be the fullness [of the church] as wherever Christ Jesus appears, there is the catholic church. It is not lawful to baptize or to hold an agape feast without the bishop. On the other hand, what he approves is pleasing to God so that everything that is practiced may be certain and valid (Smyrn 8:2).
{L176} We examined these words carefully in the previous chapter but here we can now see their relevance to the sacramental issue at stake in Ignatius's letters. The bishop represents Christ to the church, and the liturgy he authorizes is the place where Christ can be found. It is not enough to have any Eucharist. One must have the valid Eucharist in order to have Jesus Christ and the catholic church.
{L177} The last eucharistic text I wish to consider is the famous expression "the medicine of immortality" from the Letter to the Ephesians, chapter 20:
{L178} If Jesus Christ counts me worthy by your prayer, and it is his will, in a second treatise that I am about to write, I will show you the plan which I began leading to the new man, Jesus Christ in his faith, and in his love, in his suffering, and resurrection. (2) This is especially the case if the Lord shows me that each of you gathers together in one faith and in one Jesus Christ who came from the stock of David in the flesh, the Son of Man and Son of God. This results in you obeying your bishop and your presbytery with an undistracted mind as you break bread which is the medicine of immortality, the antidote against death and life forever through Jesus Christ (Eph 20:1,2).
{L179} Ignatius's phrase "the medicine of immortality" (athanasias pharmakon) emphasizes the connection between the celebration of the Eucharist and the salvation Christ wrought through his humanity. Again it is evident how unity of doctrine, obedience to the bishop, and sacramental communion are inextricably intertwined. In Eph 20 these connections show up as "gathering in one faith," obeying the bishop, and presbyters and "breaking one bread." Ignatius uses the Lucan language of "breaking bread" to show an affinity with the churches founded by Paul (cf. Acts 20:7). That the expression refers to the Eucharist is clear from the attribution which follows. The breaking of bread is a "medicine of immortality" that gives nothing less than "an antidote against death" and "constant life in Jesus Christ." Such extravagant claims for such a simple celebration no doubt depend on another contextual factor. Ignatius mentions faith in Jesus Christ and immediately adds that he is the one who is "from the stock of David in the flesh" (i.e. his human nature) glossing the phrase from Romans 1:3 describing Jesus as "the son of man and the son of God." Here we have hints of what we shall see later in the fathers, that the union of humanity and divinity in Jesus Christ brings eternal life to the recipients of sacramental communion. The power of the eucharistic bread to convey eternal life is rooted in the fact that the Eucharist is "the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ" (Smyrn 7:1). If the eucharistic elements are the humanity of Christ, and if this humanity is forever joined with the divinity of Christ, then it follows that the Eucharist imparts an "antidote against death" by granting "continual life in Christ."
{L180} While the connection between the Eucharist and eternal life is not unusual, the metaphor "medicine of immortality" is unique at this stage of history. Ignatius's choice of terminology grows out of his earlier mention of Christ as the divine physician:
{L181} There is one physician, both fleshly and spiritual, born and unborn becoming God in the flesh, true life in death, from Mary and from God, at first suffering then incapable of suffering. This is Jesus Christ our Lord (Eph 7:2).
{L182} Like so many of the later fathers, Ignatius revels in the paradoxes that he can ascribe to the gospel. The union of those opposites makes Jesus Christ unique and indicates his power to convey immortality -- an abstract, divine quality -- through a tangible means -- bread and medicine. The union of opposites is the best way to understand the phrase "medicine of immortality." It should strike the reader as strange and arresting, just as the list of opposites in Eph 7:2 evokes surprise. How could a medicine give immortality? It is because the physician who gives the medicine is himself immortal, and also conveys himself in the medicine. For Ignatius, Christ is both physician and medicine just as he is also both priest and victim.