Ryan, although an unrelated topic, just as with the bible, we have to be careful not to take early church writings out of context to prove something which they do not say. The "Letter to the Smyrnaeans" for example I believe was referring to the gnostic heresies.
It is in reference to the gnostics who did not partake in the eucharist because they did not believe Jesus came in the flesh. Now whether the bread and wine was believed to be actually the flesh of Christ, or merely symbolic, these passages mean exactly the same when read in context. It offers no proof that the early church believed the Eucharist was actually the flesh of Christ. Whether it was symbolic or literally believed to be so, cannot be drawn from these passages.
I'm not sure if you refer to the non-symbolic nature of the Eucharist as meaning transubstantiation or not, but I will just say this:
Regarding the symbolic nature of the sacrements, symbolic or figurative language is employed throughout early church writings including Ignatius. The Roman doctrine of transubstantiation is not well supported by early church writings. "The difficulties of Romanism" by Faber is one old and quite lengthy thesis on the topic. Refer to post #5 at
http://christianchat.com/showthread.php?t=3256
for a selection of quotations.
That is not to deny that there is a non-symbolic meaning and intent in the Eucharist. But this is far from the doctrine of "substance change" as the Roman Catholics adhere to.
Orthodox don't have
transubstantiation (say that 7 times fast).
Yeah, taking things out of context is bad. We can still see that St. Ignatius didn't consider the Eucharist as merely symbolic. There is a strong movement today to spiritualize everything (see fasting) and to disregard the material. It's not unlike self-help disguised as Christianity. Just visit a "christian" book store and peruse. Like the Gnostics, many Christians seem to view the material as evil. Many modern theologies, like the heretical theologies that Paul and the other Apostles were refuting in the bible (and there are quite a few allusions to them), attempt to disembody existence. Many modern theologies seem to be centered around, not participating in Him, but a cognitive ascent (like the Gnostics). If we can't wrap our noggins around it, it seems like we place no value in it. So everything seems only as good as we can reduce it - to make it cognitively manageable. It
must be explained!
Luke 10:21-24 (New International Version)
21At that time Jesus, full of joy through the Holy Spirit, said, "I praise you, Father, Lord of heaven and earth, because you have hidden these things from the wise and learned, and revealed them to little children. Yes, Father, for this was your good pleasure.
22"All things have been committed to me by my Father. No one knows who the Son is except the Father, and no one knows who the Father is except the Son and those to whom the Son chooses to reveal him."
23Then he turned to his disciples and said privately, "Blessed are the eyes that see what you see. 24For I tell you that many prophets and kings wanted to see what you see but did not see it, and to hear what you hear but did not hear it."
If we look at Adam and Eve pre-disobedience we see that God gave to them, not meat but plant-life that when eaten would be made "Flesh". The pre-disobedience age was incredibly Eucharistic.
Post-disobedience we see an interesting change that involved rituals and sacraments that stood in as mere shadows of things that were only placeholders for the Kingdom which would come. Then, He came and is now Risen. Everything changed. The early Christians continued to be be liturgical (sorely misunderstand as simply a form of worship) and sacramental (now much more like Adam and Eve's pre-fall era). Jesus took us back to the garden but instead of Eden, its boundaries were expanded to include the entire cosmos. However, outside of Christ, the entire cosmos has already passed away - is dead and dying. Inside of Christ, the author of life, there is only eternal and true *life.
If interested in some good sacramental *theology, read Alexander Schmemann's works, particularly, "For the Life of the World", and take note of the chapters on the Eucharist (you can get a cheapo used copy online sent to you via Barnes N Nobles or something).
The way it's been going in some circles, communion sounds like cognitive nugget-wafers of brain enhancing, post-modernist "progressive" food which should be mass-distributed to anyone that says the "sinners" prayer. People take it like they do ginko biloboa. It's good fer yer memory! 100 years from now perhaps we'll have a communion pill.
There's nothing wrong with appreciating a good mystery. Jesus is present in the Eucharist. Just is.
Orthodox don't use wafers but a loaf. Some Orthodox families cook their own loaf at home, put themselves into the making of it, all of themselves. Each family offers this loaf and then partake of it once they've constituted* the Church. Pretty neato if you ask me.
We are to offer right sacrifices to the Lord. And if we have a healthy understanding of baptism we'll understand that what we offer and sacrifice to Him is our entire life and all that we cling to. All of this ties into the Eucharist. All of this has to do with what Church is, what being the body of Christ "means", why it is "universal" and "local" and even found within the self (provided the self has been buried in Christ).
People recoil at the idea of The Church being infallible because all they can see is some corporation or a hierarchical structure with special emphasis on the "higher ups". Or can't or refuse to see past their own or others denominational shortcomings.
However, no one would recoil if we said that the body of Christ is infallible. But that's because if we're honest with ourselves, many of us can't actually reconcile that some of us have actually embraced a divided body of Christ, disembodied His body from the body of believers. As if they were separate.
1 Corinthians 10:16-17 (New International Version)
16Is not the cup of thanksgiving for which we give thanks a participation in the blood of Christ? And is not the bread that we break a participation in the body of Christ? 17Because there is one loaf, we, who are many, are one body, for we all partake of the one loaf.
I was just offering a view on what The Church is, in regards to being the "body" of Christ. If you can see "communion"/Eucharist is strongly tied to becoming
the body, then not much if anything falls outside of it other than death. Can't get much more universal than that.
*extra
This is why you hear Catholics say that outside of The Church, there is no Salvation. Apostolic Succession is also tied to the Eucharist but that sounds like a can of worms that would best be served unopened (for now)
Romans 8:10
But if
Christ is in you, your
body is dead because of sin, yet your spirit is alive because of righteousness.
(insert baptism)
1 Corinthians 10:16
Is not the cup of thanksgiving for which we give thanks a participation in the blood of
Christ? And is not the bread that we break a participation in the
body of
Christ?
(insert Eucharist)
Ephesians 3:6
This mystery is that through the gospel the Gentiles are heirs together with Israel, members together of one
body, and sharers together in the promise in
Christ Jesus.
(insert "universal")
Colossians 1:24
[
Paul's Labor for the Church ] Now I rejoice in what was suffered for you, and I fill up in my flesh what is still lacking in regard to
Christ's afflictions, for the sake of
his body, which is the church.
Colossians 1:21-23 (New International Version)
21Once you were alienated from God and were enemies in your minds because of[
a] your evil behavior. 22But now he has reconciled you by Christ's physical body through death to present you holy in his sight, without blemish and free from accusation— 23
if you continue in your faith, established and firm, not moved from the hope held out in the gospel. This is the gospel that you heard and that has been proclaimed to every creature under heaven, and of which I, Paul, have become a servant.
He is risen.
God bless