The case is made, for me, entirely on the weight of the biblical evidence. These letters of Ignatius were never included in the canon nor did he claim that they should be.
The curiosity I noted was that the Didache did not support the language of the present doctrine of Rome. To that I add that the language of the Didache is unlike that of Ignatius.
You will want to cite other fathers, ones with whom I will likely be familiar, yet my response will likely be the same. Holy Scripture not Holy Tradition.
Enjoy your time at the shore, my friend.
Question: If someone unfamiliar with the issues, etc. were to read the instructions concerning the Eucharist/Lord's Supper (1 Cor. 11) and then attend your church's mass and the Lord's Supper at my church (we are an evangelical Protestant church holding a memorial view of the Lord's Supper), which one would he see as most like the New Testament instructions?
Question: If someone unfamiliar with the issues, etc. were to read the instructions concerning the Eucharist/Lord's Supper (1 Cor. 11) and then attend your church's mass and the Lord's Supper at my church (we are an evangelical Protestant church holding a memorial view of the Lord's Supper), which one would he see as most like the New Testament instructions"
. Answer: Depends. I know that sounds corny, but, if the man went to mass when the 6th Chapt of John was read, he likely, one prays, would hear an exegesis on the eal Presence.
To me, the more crucial question is which exgesis/explanation is true? There is an unbroken line of teaching right from the get-go, even in the NT, attesting that Jesus' Body and Blood in the Eucharist is real food, real blood.
So, the man could be persuaded either way. But, I would not like to be the man whose exegesis/explanation was contrary to an unbroken tradition.