No, actually what's funny is that Ignatius was disputing the Docetists and Gnostics who denied Jesus even HAD a physical body! He wasn't defending the Platonic concept of reality where the most “real” things were those grasped by the mind and the least “real” things were those things that were sensed. Seeing the bread and wine as a memorial - as Jesus SAID we should - is the true faith the early Christians were taught and believed. The term "transubstantiation" didn't even enjoy official Roman Catholic sanction until the thirteenth century at the Forth Lateran Council. To presume Ignatius, a second century Christian was referring to this is ludicrous.
Clement of Alexandria wrote,
Further release from evils is the beginning of salvation. We then alone, who first have touched the confines of life, are already perfect; and we already live who are separated from death. Salvation, accordingly, is the following of Christ: For that which is in Him is life. John 1:4 "Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that hears My words, and believes in Him that sent Me, has eternal life, and comes not into condemnation, but has passed from death to life." John 5:24 Thus believing alone, and regeneration, is perfection in life; for God is never weak. For as His will is work, and this is named the world; so also His counsel is the salvation of men, and this has been called the church. He knows, therefore, whom He has called, and whom He has saved; and at one and the same time He called and saved them...
As nurses nourish new-born children on milk, so do I also by the Word, the milk of Christ, instilling into you spiritual nutriment..."Wherefore also I have given you milk to drink," he says; meaning, I have instilled into you the knowledge which, from instruction, nourishes up to life eternal. But the expression, "I have given you to drink" (ἐπότισα), is the symbol of perfect appropriation. For those who are full-grown are said to drink, babes to suck. "For my blood," says the Lord, "is true drink." John 6:55 In saying, therefore, "I have given you milk to drink," has he not indicated the knowledge of the truth, the perfect gladness in the Word, who is the milk?
And to this meaning we may secondly accommodate the expression, "I have given you milk to drink, and not given you food, for you are not yet able," regarding the meat not as something different from the milk, but the same in substance. For the very same Word is fluid and mild as milk, or solid and compact as meat. And entertaining this view, we may regard the proclamation of the Gospel, which is universally diffused, as milk; and as meat, faith, which from instruction is compacted into a foundation, which, being more substantial than hearing, is likened to meat, and assimilates to the soul itself nourishment of this kind.
Elsewhere the Lord, in the Gospel according to John, brought this out by symbols, when He said: Eat my flesh, and drink my blood; John 6:34 describing distinctly by metaphor the drinkable properties of faith and the promise, by means of which the Church, like a human being consisting of many members, is refreshed and grows, is welded together and compacted of both—of faith, which is the body, and of hope, which is the soul; as also the Lord of flesh and blood. For in reality the blood of faith is hope, in which faith is held as by a vital principle. And when hope expires, it is as if blood flowed forth; and the vitality of faith is destroyed. ” (Clement of Alexandria, The Paedagogus, Book I; http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/02091.htm)
And Augustine on "Rule for Interpreting Commands and Prohibitions" states,
24. If the sentence is one of command, either forbidding a crime or vice, or enjoining an act of prudence or benevolence, it is not figurative. If, however, it seems to enjoin a crime or vice, or to forbid an act of prudence or benevolence, it is figurative. "Unless you eat the flesh of the Son of man," says Christ, "and drink His blood, you have no life in you." John 6:53 This seems to enjoin a crime or a vice; it is therefore a figure, enjoining that we should have a share [communicandem] in the sufferings of our Lord, and that we should retain a sweet and profitable memory [in memoria] of the fact that His flesh was wounded and crucified for us. Augustine On Christian Doctrine (Book III, cp. 16) — http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/12023.htm
No, actually what’s funny is that Ignatius was disputing the Docetists and Gnostics who denied Jesus even HAD a physical body
actually, the Gnostics at least had a consistent logical belief. if Jesus did not have a body, than the Eucharist could not be His flesh as Ignatius taught, since He had no flesh.
the followers of the 16th century tradition of men I think believe Jesus had a body, but apparently does not have the power to change bread into His Body.
the one true God CHRISTIANS have put their faith and trust in for 1,982 years, is not only sovereign but He is able to enter into his creation by taking on human flesh, he is able to turn water into wine, he is able to multiply loaves and fishes, walk on water, make the blind see, make the deaf hear, raise the dead, forgive sins, change man’s heart of stone into a heart of flesh and able to preserve His Church for 1,982 years and yes, this one true God is able to come to his followers under the appearance of bread and wine.
to say transubstantiation did not enjoy official Church sanction until the 13th century is to make the same mistake Oneness people make when they say the Church invented the Trinity in the 4th century or Jehovah Witnesses say the Church made Jesus God in the 4th century.
but let’s go with the 16th century position for a minute and suspend belief about what Ignatius, Justin Martyr, the Didache, Irenaeus and all the other Catholic Church Fathers wrote.
we know from the history of the Church whenever someone proposes a new doctrine, or a different doctrine than the Apostolic Faith, we can trace that doctrine to a person, time and place. for example, Arius in the 4th century denied the divinity of Christ, Pelagius in the 5th century denied salvation by grace, etc etc.
who started this belief that the Eucharist is the Body of Christ? if the Apostles taught it was merely symbolic and a memorial only, who changed the doctrine?
where was the upheaval from those who kept faithful to the Scriptures??
the fact is, there was no upheaval because there was no controversy until the 16th century.
if you are going to claim the 13th century, explain to me how the Orthodox, when the Catholic Church split in 1054ad, hold the same belief as the Catholic Church today?
so, we know the doctrine had to have changed before 1054ad, but who did this?
let’s next look at the Coptic Church, which split from the Catholic Church around 440ad over the nature of Christ.
they have the same belief in the Eucharist as the Body of Christ as the Catholics do. in fact every ancient Church that can trace itself back to the Apostles has this belief.
hmm, how did that happen?
the reason we know men like Zwingli at all is the NEW DOCTRINE they invented in the 16th century.
so when Ignatius, who witnessed the Apostle John offer the Eucharist probably hundreds of times, tells us the Gnostics deny the Eucharist IS THE FLESH OF OUR LORD JESUS CHRIST, I would think one would want to stand with him, the Catholic Church and oppose this Gnostic belief. yet, sadly, unbelief reigns in the hearts of many who claim to know Christ.