“I find it interesting that you have to go to some ambiguous statements of St. Augustine in the 4th century to refute to plain words of St. Justin Martyr in the 2nd century.”
The quotes from Augustine, that are exactly the same as Justin Martyr’s, are ambiguous. His explanation for them, on the other hand, is not. There’s no reason to think that Augustine, a Pope and another Bishop all had heretical views on the Eucharist. If Augustine had no problem saying that the Eucharist is the body of Christ, yet say in the same sermon that it only signifies the body of Christ, I don’t think anyone else would either. The only thing ambiguous about them, and of the assertions by that Pope and other Bishop on the “substance” of the bread and wine remaining the same, exists in your own mind since you will not explain them.
On to Ignatius:
The Epistle to the Romans was Ignatius’s final letter before martydom. He expected, soon, to be eaten alive by lions. He uses metaphorical language such as desiring to be “the wheat of God, and let me be ground by the teeth of the wild beasts, that I may be found the pure bread of Christ.” Does Ignatius believe he will be transubstantiated into bread? How can Ignatius be desiring the Eucharist in the Roman Catholic sense, and even assert that he is gaining a victory in this, if he thinks of the Eucharist according to modern Roman Catholic teaching? Is someone going to give him communion in the arena? Or is he actually asking his brethren to let him be martyred, and that he eagerly seeks it out? If the latter, it does not follow that he expects to chew and digest with his stomach the body of Christ. He expects to confirm His membership in the body of Christ through his faithfulness unto death. I think we can easily conclude that Ignatius, like Augustine, considered “eating” Christ the same as believing:
“This is then to eat the meat, not that which perisheth, but that which endureth unto eternal life. To what purpose dost thou make ready teeth and stomach? Believe, and thou hast eaten already.” (Augustine, as quoted previously)
In the second epistle you quote from, Ignatius is not attacking people who don’t believe in transubstantiation. He is against people who deny that Christ even had a body or suffered with a body in the first place. That is the actual context:
“Now, He suffered all these things for our sakes, that we might be saved. And He suffered truly, even as also He truly raised up Himself, not, as certain unbelievers maintain, that He only seemed to suffer, as they themselves only seem to be [Christians]. And as they believe, so shall it happen unto them, when they shall be divested of their bodies, and be mere evil spirits. For I know that after His resurrection also He was still possessed of flesh, and I believe that He is so now. When, for instance, He came to those who were with Peter, He said to them, Lay hold, handle Me, and see that I am not an incorporeal spirit. And immediately they touched Him, and believed, being convinced both by His flesh and spirit.” (Same letter as quoted by you)
The Docetists did not believe Christ even had a body, and that is why they abstained from the celebration of the Lord’s Supper. There’s no reason in any of this to believe that Augustine and Ignatius did not have the same view of the Eucharistic celebration. In fact, considering Ignatius’ letter to the Romans, wherein he declares his great desire to have the flesh of Christ, while in the context of his desire to be martyred, I think we can safely conclude that the two had the same position. Not the mechanical and ritual position of the RCC, but the spiritual position established by Christ Himself.
In reaction to the disciples who thought He literally meant for them to take a bite out of His body:
Joh 6:62-63 What and if ye shall see the Son of man ascend up where he was before? (63) It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life.
On Irenaeus, 3 quotes in response to yours:
“For when the Greeks, having arrested the slaves of Christian catechumens, then used force against them, in order to learn from them some secret thing [practised] among Christians, these slaves, having nothing to say that would meet the wishes of their tormentors, except that they had heard from their masters that the divine communion was the body and blood of Christ, and imagining that it was actually flesh and blood, gave their inquisitors answer to that effect. Then these latter, assuming such to be the case with regard to the practices of Christians, gave information regarding it to other Greeks, and sought to compel the martyrs Sanctus and Blandina to confess, under the influence of torture, [that the allegation was correct].” (Irenaeus, Fragment 13)
” But our opinion is in accordance with the Eucharist, and the Eucharist in turn establishes our opinion. For we offer to Him His own, announcing consistently the fellowship and union of the flesh and Spirit. For as the bread, which is produced from the earth, when it receives the invocation of God, is no longer common bread, but the Eucharist, consisting of two realities, earthly and heavenly; so also our bodies, when they receive the Eucharist, are no longer corruptible, having the hope of the resurrection to eternity.” (Against Heresies, Book IV, Chapter 18)
“Thus, then, He will Himself renew the inheritance of the earth, and will re-organize the mystery of the glory of [His] sons; as David says, He who has renewed the face of the earth. He [Christ] promised to drink of the fruit of the vine with His disciples, thus indicating both these points: the inheritance of the earth in which the new fruit of the vine is drunk, and the resurrection of His disciples in the flesh. For the new flesh which rises again is the same which also received the new cup. And He cannot by any means be understood as drinking of the fruit of the vine when settled down with his [disciples] above in a super-celestial place; nor, again, are they who drink it devoid of flesh, for to drink of that which flows from the vine pertains to flesh, and not spirit.” (Against Heresies, 5:33:1)
These three quotes better lend themselves to a view of consubstantiation. As he writes in the first one, as if it was absurd to think that the communion bread and wine were “really” flesh and blood. In the second, Irenaeus tells us that the bread and wine, once blessed, “[consists] of two realities, earthly and heavenly.”
This is the same position as Pope Gelasius when he writes: “Surely the sacrament we take of the Lord´s body and blood is a divine thing, on account of which, and by the same we are made partakers of the divine nature; and yet the substance of the bread and wine does not cease to be.”
The existence of “two realities” or a continuation of the same “substance” in the bread and wine directly contradicts the Roman view of transubstantiation, because only the form is bread and wine, but the substance is really the flesh and blood of Jesus Christ.
The last quote from Irenaeus refers to the communion wine as the “fruit of the vine.” Which, it most certainly isn’t, it is, according to the RCC, really the blood of Christ.
Therefore, you have no defense of transubstantiation with Irenaeus.
On Athanasius:
“I saw an example of this in the Gospel of John, where treating concerning the eating of his body, and seeing many offended there by, he said, “Does this offend you, what if ye shall see the Son of man ascend where he was before? It is the spirit that quickeneth, the flesh profiteth nothing. The words which I speak unto you, they are spirit and life.” He spake both of the spirit and the flesh, and made a distinction between his spirit and flesh, that not only believing in what was visible to their eyes, but also in his invisible nature, they might learn that the things which he said were not carnal, but spiritual : for, for haw many would his body have sufficed for meat that it should become the nourishment of the whole world? For this reason, therefore, he mentions the Son of man’s ascension into heaven that he might draw them from the corporeal sense, and that they might understand, that the flesh he spoke of was heavenly nourishment and spiritual food given to them from above. For the words which I speak unto you, they are spirit and life. As if he had said, This my body which is shown to you and is given for the world, shall be given as food, so as to be imparted spiritually within each, and to become to each a safe guard against the resurrection of eternal life.” (Festal Letter, 4.19)
Athanasius prefers the spiritual interpretation of John 6, virtually identical to Augustine’s own commentary. No defense for transubstantiation here.
On Cyril of Jerusalem:
“Therefore with fullest assurance let us partake as of the Body and Blood of Christ: for in the figure of Bread is given to thee His Body, and in the figure of Wine His Blood; that thou by partaking of the Body and Blood of Christ, mightest be made of the same body and the same blood with Him. For thus we come to bear Christ in us, because His Body and Blood are diffused through our members; thus it is that, according to the blessed Peter, (we become partaker of the divine nature.)” - Catechetical Lectures [22 (Mystagogic 4), 3]
Here Cyril calls it the “figure” of the body of Christ, which cannot be if he believes in transubstantiation. No defense for your theology here.
Sources, please.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/religion/3025320/posts?page=40#40
I don’t see a live source in this post.
If Augustine had no problem saying that the Eucharist is the body of Christ, yet say in the same sermon that it only signifies the body of Christ, I don’t think anyone else would either.
But nowhere does Augustine state that the Eucharist only signifies the Body of Christ. You are inserting this in like manner as Luther inserted "alone" in the passage that "we are saved by faith." Nothing that Augustine states contradicts his assertion that "That bread which you see on the altar, having been sanctified by the word of God, is the blood of Christ."
The only thing ambiguous about them, and of the assertions by that Pope and other Bishop on the “substance” of the bread and wine remaining the same, exists in your own mind since you will not explain them.
As to Pope Gelasius and Theodoret, not having the full documents from which your quotes were derived I must comment only on what you have posted. You would be wrong to attribute the precise late medieval scholastic meaning of "substance" to these writers of the 4th and 5th centuries. This is clearly seen in the quote from Theodoret which you give. Using the term "substance" he refers to the figure and form of the Eucharist, what in scholastic terminology would be referred to as their "accidents." He expressly states that the bread and wine do change:
But they are regarded as what they are become, and believed so to be, and are worshipped as being what they are believed to be.Notice that he states that they are to be worshipped, something which would be denied if they were only bread and wine. Again when speaking of the substance of our Lord's resurrected Body he states that this is its "form, figure, and limitation." Again, these are what the scholastics would call its accidents, not substance.
In his letter to the Romans St. Ignatius states that his desire for the bread of life is for the flesh of Jesus Christ, not for his death or sacrifice. This is what he would have received in Communion during the celebration of the Mass, just as stated by St. Justin Martyr. Nor would his inability to actually receive Communion take away his desire. Those imprisoned desire freedom even though they cannot achieve it.
Given that the major concern of Ignatius in his letter to the Smyraeans is the denial that our Lord possessed a body or suffered, nevertheless he does point out their rejection of the Christian understanding of the Eucharist:
[T]hey do not confess that the Eucharist is the Flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ.You mischaracterize the meaning of your first quote from St. Irenaeus. The Greeks mistook the Christians' sacramental Body and Blood for carnal flesh and blood. But this misunderstanding could only have happened because the Christians spoke of the Eucharist as the real Body and Blood of Jesus.
As for your second quotation, the Eucharist does indeed have two realities, a divine substance and earthly accidents.
Your quote from St. Athanasius takes nothing away from his statement that "after the great and wonderful prayers have been completed, then the bread is become the Body, and the wine the Blood, of our Lord Jesus Christ."
St. Cyril's use of the term "figure" refers to what the scholastics would call the accidents of the sacrament. Again notice how he insists:
[T]he invocation having been made, the bread becomes the Body of Christ and the wine the Blood of Christ.And:
He Himself, therefore, having declared and said of the Bread, "This is My Body," who will dare any longer to doubt? And when He Himself has affirmed and said, "This is My Blood," who can ever hesitate and say it is not His Blood?Can there be a stronger statement that the bread and wine changes and becomes the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ?