St Ignatius, born 35 AD believed in the Real Presence, why do Protestants deny RP?


Yes, because Paul was only in the first century.

Throughout the early Church, as doctrine becomes more and more defined, there are ways of describing doctrines that sometimes become obsolete.

For example, while early Christians sometimes referred to the Eucharistic elements as “signs,” all the while fully believing in the substantial Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist, it became necessary to no longer use the words “signs” because of later controversies and clarifications.

This happens in the history of doctrinal development all the time. Christology especially in the early days.

So re: Paul – he calls the Body and Blood “bread and wine” in the apparent sense. He’s not offering an intricate theological treatise.


Hmm, so that is the excuse for philosophical freelancing where the scriptures are silent, or where the freelancing possibly contradicts scripture? That explains a few things.

Exactly my point. If Paul felt no need to deny the apparent, that we receive the bread and wine, and we receive the body and the blood, and offer an explanation, then we are perfectly within reason and scriptural authority to follow his example and accept Christ’s word as is, unapologetically.


If in kindness, love, and humility, you were to give as a gift, the writings of the Apostolic Fathers of the Church to a non-Catholic devout and faithful Christian believer, he would devour the knowledge with delight. Much better than marveling at how blind and deceived they are which sometimes is what happens in threads like this. They are people just like you and I. Don’t demonize “protestants”.


You said previously you accept the “catholic and apostolic faith.” At the very least, I assume this includes the Great Creeds and Christology of the early councils.

What they did with regard to the doctrine of Christ was precisely “philosophical freelancing.”

I always find the repulsion to doctrinal definition odd, whether from Orthodox or Protestant quarters, since nearly all Christians agree with the specific philosophical definitions from the first ecumenical councils.

If Paul felt no need to deny the apparent, that we receive the bread and wine, and we receive the body and the blood, and offer an explanation, then we are perfectly within reason and scriptural authority to follow his example and accept Christ’s word as is, unapologetically.

  1. This is different from using this verse as a text in support of something akin to consubstantiation. The text simply doesn’t suggest that; or at least, it’s neither here nor there.

  2. “If it’s good enough for Paul…” This is not the model we as Catholics use. Interpretation of Scripture unfolds in the great Tradition, over time.

Paul isn’t saying we shouldn’t clarify the doctrine of the Eucharist over time. Doctrinal definitions happen when there is rejection or controversy. I’m sure Paul would want his Church to clarify orthodoxy over false doctrine!

Paul, or anyone in the first century, didn’t speak the Faith in the language of 13th century Christianity, or 5th century, or even 2nd century.


As for Ignatius, not just Real Presence:


No such reverence existed in my childhood church.

I grew up as a Southern Baptist Church. The Lord’s Supper (as it as called) was held four times a year. The pastor read Scripture about the Last Supper and unworthiness to receive communion. Nothing was ever said about believing in the actual presence. It just wasn’t an issue. It was an ordinance performed at the instructions of Jesus.

The bread and grape juice, distributed separately, were handed out on plates pew by pew. Congregants passed the plates down the pew person to person. The last person on the row handed it to an usher. The grape juice was served in small individual cups. The empty cups were then placed into racks next to the hymnals. My mother, a former Methodist, cringed as people noisily put the cups into the racks. The members weren’t deliberately irreverent. We just weren’t taught otherwise.

The only truly moving ritual was baptism by full immersion. Because I was 10 when I was baptized, I will remember the great holiness of that immersion for the rest of my life.


I was an over the road trucker for 30 years before a racing accident left me paralyzed. I always tried to find a Catholic Church, Lutheran next then non denominal. There was always something missing from the other churches and after my accident I could commit to teaching 5th grade Religious Ed. The more I learned about the Eucharist that’s what I was missing!!! The real presence of our Lord and not a symbol. I hope you will receive that great gift of grace from this Sacrament!!!


Plato and Aristotle’s philosophy was specifically meant to combat the sophists, so I don’t see how you could call their logic sophistic.

The Christian doctrines we take for granted today were reasoned through using Platonic and Aristotelian Logic. Philosophy is not a substitute for faith and vice versa; but rather, reason and faith must work together.


In no way do I mean to demonize. It’s just hard for me to understand as scripture is so appearant and yes, if they ever read the church fathers. I am literally in awe. Part of my question had to do with posting it on Facebook and I wonder if it would shock or if there would still be blindness. I’m genuinely wondering the regular non Catholic Christian thought process and I probably mean Baptists more than anyone. I have an entire list of Protestant friends I pray for. I am praying for their conversions! I love my friends.


I no longer have issues with the doctrine of the Real Presence, though it was a serious block for some time. Father Richard Rohr’s writings finally got me passed this hurdle when he explained that if we can accept that God is present in all things then it need not be a stretch to say He is fully present in the Eucharist.

The question then becomes, for me, how important is this and does it really matter? I can’t honestly say the idea excites me, so I remain a non-Catholic yet very pro-Catholic, Protestant rebel.


I kind of see it as a Holy Spirit thing. The protestants are our separated brethren, but they lack the fullness of worship in receiving Eucharist. Correct me if I am wrong but NO protestant church accepts the teaching of transubstantiation and I think the Holy Spirit allowed things to go that way so that in order to find the fullness of worship, you’d HAVE to come home to the Catholic Church.

I know it’s what brought me in. <3



I have a special place in my heart for separated bretheren so my inclination is to be sensitive to how they’re spoken of. Please forgive my reaction.


They would interpret St Ignatius’s message in a way that suits their thinking, that is, that St Ignatius was speaking about the Eucharist as a symbol.


I posted his writings on Facebook during his feast day last year. My mom read some of it, and responded to the post saying “they are only the opinions of one man.” Not sure how other protestants would see it, but that’s how she did.


Saint Ignatius Epistles were fundamental to my conversion


The response I’ve been waiting for. :sweat_smile: for real. Thanks


Of course not. But again, are you clarifying it, or adding something to it? The apostle’s creed for example is a clarification. It is a summation of what was given to provide a centralized clear statement of what we believe. Transubstantiation is trying to explain what God did not. So again, nothing about what Luther said about the sacrifice of the altar is in contradiction with scripture. It is perfectly orthodox without feeling the need to provide a philosophical explanation where the Holy Spirit didn’t reveal one, and doesn’t bind the conscience of the believer to something that is assumed but not proven from scripture.


Because though the origin means a specific group or philosophical school, the word as it is used today has a different connotation.

Which is exactly what Luther taught; however, where reason and faith came into conflict, Luther always erred on the side of faith because God is not limited to human reason and human reason is tainted by original sin.


Just to return to the original point, you lumped all Protestants into a single camp in saying that we don’t believe in the real presence. My point is that was a false statement due to the broad brush nature of its application. If you read the Lutheran Confessional documents of the Reformation you would see, that it just isn’t the case that we deny the Real Presence of Christ in the sacrament of the altar. The Lutheran reformers vehemently defended the Real Presence of Christ.


Today’s connotation of sophists is that they are clever arguers who use fallacious arguments (which is quite similar to the Greek sophists of old). I’m not sure how Plato and Aristotle can be called sophists. Even if one chooses to disagree with them, they certainly aren’t fallacious and have to be taken seriously.

So are faith and reason in conflict then when it comes to the doctrine of transubstantiation?

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit