i knew if i read BB long enough, she would write something that she and i can agree, well that day has come!!
kill the fatted calf, this day calls for celebration.
here is what she wrote:
And, let us not leave out the very critical point that gets missed frequently...the early church “fathers” did not speak infallibly, they were not divinely inspired when they wrote their letters and, if what they wrote contradicts Holy Scripture, it is Scripture which holds preeminence.
now, under her own test, let’s see if Ignatius’s statement that the gnostics abstain from the Eucharist because they did not believe it was the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ “contradicts” Holy Scripture:
Matthew 26:26 now as they were eating, Jesus took bread and blessed and broke it and gave it to his disciples and said, “take, eat; this is my body”
Ignatius said it was his flesh, Jesus said it was his body. contradiction? i don’t think so.
next up, St Paul’s first letter to the Church at Corinth:
10:16 The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not a participation in the blood of Christ? The bread which we break, is it not a participation in the body of Christ?
so Paul calls the Eucharist the body of Christ, but is this a contradiction to Ignatius referring to the flesh of Christ? clearly not.
BTW- the two questions posed by Paul in 10:16 would be answered YES by Paul, Ignatius, Justin Martyr, Cyprian, Irenaeus, Cyril, Ambrose, Jerome, Augustine, Thomas and every other member of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church.
now, the gnostics would answer these 10:16 question NO, the Eucharist is just bread.
so the question i have for BB is - when Holy Scripture contradicts the gnostics and certain 16th century reformers, which holds preeminence?
I have enough experience with your "questions" to know that whatever I say, no matter how much documentation I provide, nor any amount of Scripture nor basic logic will sway someone whose mind is already made up. I'll give the old college try anyway.
Ignatius as well as Athanasius and others (including the Apostle Paul) battled with the Greek Gnostic thinkers who denied that Christ had a PHYSICAL BODY. Not to mention, that that BODY could actually suffer and die. They denied that Jesus had a HUMAN nature. That's why we find writings from theologians from that time arguing against that idea of a nonphysical Jesus. So, when Jesus takes the unleavened bread at the supper and holds it up saying, "This is my body which is broken for you.", he was using a PHYSICAL, TANGIBLE object lesson (not to mention the symbolic rendering of the afikoman as representing the Lamb of God) to tell them that HE was the Lamb of God and HIS body was to be broken for them. Ignatius defends the very real human physical body that Jesus had. He is NOT, as those who like to read back into ancient writings dogmas that were not held at that time do, saying that this bread changes miraculously into his body so that those who eat it obtain a measure of grace to pay for their most current confessed sins so that they can avoid a longer purgatory stay (something Ignatius ALSO never heard of).
The Gnostics, contrary to your opinion, would NOT say the Eucharist was "just bread", they would say, "Why would we use bread at all, Jesus only came here spiritually!?". Holy Scripture contradicts the Gnostics as well as those who would pervert the purpose of the observance of the Lord's Supper. It is a REMEMBRANCE of Him, just like He said.
Constant demonic twisting of scripture, and the cultural forms that it represents.
When asked if it were really his flesh, Yeshua answered “flesh profiteth nothing” and “it is spirit.”
Now, I do not expect a blind catholic to accept the written word of Yeshua, because they seem to think his mommie was wiser.