Theodoret of Cyrus and Transubstantiation

Q. Did Theodoret advocate the Roman dogma of transubstantiation?

 

Theodoret, Bishop of Cyrus (c. 393-458/466 A.D.):

Eran.—As, then, the symbols of the Lord’s body and blood are one thing before the priestly invocation, and after the invocation are changed and become another thing; so the Lord’s body after the assumption is changed into the divine substance.

Orth. — You are caught in the net you have woven yourself. For even after the consecration the mystic symbols (σύμβολα) are not deprived of their own nature (φύσεως); they remain in their former substance (ουσίας) figure and form (σχήματος και του είδους); they are visible and tangible as they were before. But they are regarded as what they are become, and believed so to be, and are worshipped as being what they are believed to be. Compare then the image with the archetype, and you will see the likeness, for the type must be like the reality. For that body preserves its former form, figure, and limitation and in a word the substance of the body; but after the resurrection it has become immortal and superior to corruption; it has become worthy of a seat on the right hand; it is adored by every creature as being called the natural body of the Lord. 

(Philip Schaff, NPNF2, Vol. III, Theodoret, Dialogue II.—The Unconfounded. Orthodoxos and Eranistes). Here

 

Orth.—But our Saviour changed the names, and to His body gave the name of the symbol and to the symbol that of his body. So, after calling himself a vine, he spoke of the symbol as blood. 

Eran.—True. But I am desirous of knowing the reason of the change of names. 

Orth.—To them that are initiated in divine things the intention is plain. For he wished the partakers in the divine mysteries not to give heed to the nature of the visible objects, but, by means of the variation of the names, to believe the change wrought of grace. For He, we know, who spoke of his natural body as corn and bread, and, again, called Himself a vine, dignified the visible symbols by the appellation of the body and blood, not because He had changed their nature, but because to their nature He had added grace. 

Eran.—The mysteries are spoken of in mystic language, and there is a clear declaration of that which is not known to all. 

Orth.—Since then it is agreed that the body of the Lord is called by the patriarch “robe” and “mantle” and we have reached the discussion of the divine mysteries, tell me truly, of what do you understand the Holy Food to be a symbol and type? Of the godhead of the Lord Christ, or of His body and His blood? 

Eran.—Plainly of those things of which they received the names. 

Orth.—You mean of the body and of the blood? 

Eran.—I do. 

Orth.—You have spoken as a lover of truth should speak, for when the Lord had taken the symbol, He did not say “this is my godhead,” but “this is my body;” and again “this is my blood” and in another place “the bread that I will give is my flesh which I will give for the life of the world.” 

(Philip Schaff, NPNF2, Vol. III, Theodoret, Dialogue I.—The Immutable. Orthodoxos and Eranistes). Here

 

Alternate Translation:

For who called what is by nature a body, grain and bread, he honored visible symbols with the appellation of his body and blood, not changing the nature, but adding grace to nature.

(J. P. Minge, Patrologiæ Cursus Completus, [1864], Patrologiæ Græcæ, Tomus LXXXIII, Theodoreti Episcopi Cyrensis, Dialogus I., Immutabilis., Col. 56). Here Trans. (Francis Turretin, Institutes of Elenctic Theology, Volume Three, trans. George M. Ginger, ed. James T. Dennison, Jr., [Phillipsburg: P & R Publishing, 1997], p. 479).

 

Orth.—Tell me now; the mystic symbols which are offered to God by them who perform priestly rites, of what are they symbols? 

Eran.—Of the body and blood of the Lord. 

Orth.—Of the real body or not? 

Eran.—The real. 

Orth.—Good. For there must be the archetype of the image. So painters imitate nature and paint the images of visible objects. 

Eran.—True. 

Orth.—If, then, the divine mysteries are antitypes of the real body, therefore even now the body of the Lord is a body, not changed into nature of Godhead, but filled with divine glory. 

(Philip Schaff, NPNF2, Vol. III, Theodoret, Dialogue II.—The Unconfounded. Orthodoxos and Eranistes). Here

commenting on Psalm 110:4: 

Christ, sprung from Judah according to the flesh, now serves as priest, not himself offering anything but acting as head of the offerers: he calls the Church his body, and in it he as man serves as priest, and as God receives the offerings. The Church offers the symbols of his body and blood, sanctifying all the dough through the first fruits. 

(The Fathers of the Church, Theodoret of Cyrus: Commentary on the Psalms 73-150, Vol. 102, [Washington D.C.: The Catholic University of America Press, 2001], Psalm 110, p. 212.) Here

 

commenting on Hebrews 8:4-6: 

It is clear to those versed in divine things, however, that it is not another sacrifice we offer; rather, we perform the commemoration of the one, saving sacrifice. The Lord himself, remember, required this of us, “Do this in memory of me,” so that we should recall with insight the type of sufferings undergone for us, kindle love for the benefactor and look forward to the enjoyment of the good things to come. 

(PG 82: 763) see (Thomas C. Oden, Gen. Ed., Ancient Christian Commentary on Scripture, New Testament X, Hebrews, eds. Erik M. Heen, Philip D. W. Krey, [InterVarsity Press, 2014], p. 123). Here 

 

See also:

It is clear to those versed in divine things, however, that it is not another sacrifice we offer; rather, we perform the commemoration of the one, saving sacrifice. The Lord himself, remember, required this of us, “Do this in memory of me,” so that we should recall with insight the type of sufferings undergone for us, kindle love for the benefactor and look forward to the enjoyment of the good things to come. 

Robert Charles Hill, Theodoret of Cyrus: Commentary on the Letters of St. Paul, Vol. 2, [Brookline: Holy Cross Orthodox Press, 2001], pp. 169-170.

 

Moreover the Lord Himself promised to give on behalf of the life of the world, not His invisible nature, but His body. "For," He says, "the bread that I will give is my flesh which I will give for the life of the world," and when He took the symbol of divine mysteries, He said, "This is my body which is given for you." 

(Phillip Schaff, NPNF2, Vol. III, Letter CXXX, To Bishop Timotheus). Here

 

And again “Therefore doth my Father love me because I lay down my life for the sheep,” and again “Now is my soul troubled” “my soul is exceeding sorrowful even unto death” and of His body He says “The bread that I will give is my flesh which I will give for the life of the world,” and when He delivered the divine mysteries and broke the symbol and distributed it, He added “This is my body which is being broken for you for the remission of sins,” and again “This is my blood which is shed for many for the remission of sins,” and again “Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink His blood ye have no life in you” and “Whosoever eateth my flesh and drinketh my blood hath eternal life” “in himself” he adds. 

(Phillip Schaff, NPNF2, Vol. III, Letter CXLV, To the Monks of Constantinople). Here

~ Soli Deo Gloria

Nestorius and Transubstantiation

Q. Did Nestorius Advocate the Roman dogma of transubstantiation?

Nestorius, Archbishop of Constantinople (c. 386-450 A.D.):

Is the bread the body of Christ by a change of ousia, or are we His body by a change, or is the body of the Son of God one in nature with God the Word? 

...How is it that, when He said over the bread ‘This is My body,’ He did not say that the bread was not bread and His body not body? But He said ‘bread’ and ‘body’ as showing what it is in ousia. But we are aware that the bread is bread in nature and in ousia. Yet Cyril [That is, St. Cyril of Alexandria] wishes to persuade us to believe that the bread is His body by faith and not by nature: that what it is not as to ousia, this it becomes by faith. 

(Bazaar of Heraclides, pp. 27ff, 326, in [Bethune Baker, Nestorius and his Teaching, [Cambridge: At The University Press, 1908], pp. 145-146.] Here) see also (Darwell Stone, A History of the Doctrine of the Holy Eucharist, [1909], Volume I, pp. 98-99). Here

See Also:

For example, [in] what he says of the bread: 'It is my body,' he says not that the bread is not bread and that his body is not a body, but he has said demonstrably bread and body, which is in the ousia. But we are persuaded that the bread is bread in nature and in ousia. Yet in believing that the bread is his body / by faith and not by nature, he seeks to persuade us to believe in that which exists not in ousia in such wise that it becomes this by faith and not in ousia. If it is [a question of the] ousia, what is the faith worth? For he has not said: 'Believe that the bread is bread,' because every one who sees the bread itself knows that it is bread, nor further does he make it be believed that the body is body; for it is seen and known of every one. But in that which it is not he requires us to believe that this is [so], in such wise that it becomes this by faith to them that believe.

(Nestorius, The Bazaar of Heracleides, trans. G. R. Driver, Leonard Hodgson, [Oxford, 1925., reprinted: Wipf and Stock Publishers, 2002], pp. 327-328). Here and Online Here

Eutherius, Bishop of Tyana (c. 5th Century A.D.):

Eutherius of Tyana, a partisan of Nestorius, appears to have taught that objectively “the mystical bread is of the same nature” as earthly bread, but that by faith it subjectively became the body of Christ to the believer. 

(Jaroslav Pelikan, The Christian Tradition: A History of the Development of Doctrine, Volume 1, The Emergence of the Catholic Tradition (100-600), [The University of Chicago Press, 1971], p. 238). Here See: (Gerhard Ficker, Eutherius von Tyana, [Leipzig: Verlag von Johann Ambrosius Barth, 1908], pp. 20-21). Here

~ Soli Deo Gloria

Proclus of Constantinople and Transubstantiation

Q. Did Proclus advocate the Roman dogma of transubstantiation?

Proclus, Bishop of Constantinople (c. ?-446 A.D.):

Instead of the manger let us venerate the altar. Instead of the Infant, let us embrace the bread that is blessed by the Infant. (J. P. Minge, Patrologiæ Cursus Completus, [1864], Patrologiæ Græcæ, Tomus LXV, S. Procli Cp. Episcopi, Oratio In Laudem S. Stephani, Oratio XVII [Lauditio Sancti Protomartyris Stephani], § II, Col. 809). Here Trans. (J. H. Treat, The Catholic Faith; Or, Doctrines of the Church of Rome Contrary to Scripture and the Teaching of the Primitive Church, [1888], p. 194). Here 

~ Soli Deo Gloria

Cyril of Alexandria and Transubstantiation

Q. Did Cyril of Alexandria advocate the Roman dogma of transubstantiation?

Cyril, Patriarch of Alexandria (c. 378-444 A.D.):

Therefore he who asserts that that visible one is a certain other Son and Christ besides the word from God, to whom alone he also attributes the office of the mission, does he not make our mystery the eating of a man, wickedly forcing the minds of the faithful into gross thoughts, and endeavor to subject to human reasonings, that which is received by pure faith only? 

(J. P. Minge, Patrologiæ Cursus Completus, [1863], Patrologiæ Græcæ, Tomus LXXVI, S. Cyrilli Alexandrini Archiep., Apologeticus Pro XII Capitibus Contra Orientales, Col. 373, 376). Here Trans. (J. H. Treat, The Catholic Faith; Or, Doctrines of the Church of Rome Contrary to Scripture and the Teaching of the Primitive Church, [1888], p. 203). Here

For a thing to be made, does by no means signify a change of nature. 

(J. P. Minge, Patrologiæ Cursus Completus, [1863], Patrologiæ Græcæ, Tomus LXXV, S. Cyrilli Alexandrini Archiep., Thesaurus., Aliud, ex eodem syllogismo illaium, Solutio objectionis, Col. 340). Here Trans. (J. H. Treat, The Catholic Faith; Or, Doctrines of the Church of Rome Contrary to Scripture and the Teaching of the Primitive Church, [1888], p. 170). Here

After he said that he would reveal to them through his own Spirit everything that was necessary and useful for them to know, he explains his passion, right after which was his ascention into heaven, which made the coming of the spirit most necessary since he no longer dwelt with the holy apostles in the flesh after he ascended to the Father. 

(Ancient Christian Texts, Commentary on John, Cyril of Alexandria, Volume 2, Trans. David Maxwell, Ed. Joel C. Elowsky, [InterVarsity Press, 2015], Bk. 11, Ch. 2, on John 16:16, p. 260). Here

For although He is absent in the flesh, after having shown Himself to the Father for our sakes, and having sat down at the right hand of the Father, yet He dwells in those who are worthy, by the Spirit, and is ever present with the saints: for He promised that He would not leave us orphans. 

(J. P. Minge, Patrologiæ Cursus Completus, [1859], Patrologiæ Græcæ, Tomus LXXIV, S. Cyrilli Alexandrini Archiep., In Joannis Evangelium, Lib XI, xvi,16, Col. 453, 456). Here Trans. (J. H. Treat, The Catholic Faith; Or, Doctrines of the Church of Rome Contrary to Scripture and the Teaching of the Primitive Church, [1888], pp. 211-212). Here

Alternate Translations:

Even though he departs in the flesh and removes himself to the Father above us and sits at the right hand of the one who begat him, still he dwells with the worthy through the spirit and he is with the saints always. 

(Ancient Christian Texts, Commentary on John, Cyril of Alexandria, Volume 2, Trans. David Maxwell, Ed. Joel C. Elowsky, [InterVarsity Press, 2015], Bk. 11, Ch. 2, on John 16:16, p. 260). Here

For even though He be absent in the body [σαρκὶ, flesh], taking His place for our sake at the Father's side and sitting at His right Hand, still He dwells by the Spirit with those who are worthy of Him, and has perpetual converse with His Saints; for He has promised that He will not leave us comfortless. 

(A Library of Fathers of the Holy Catholic Church, Commentary on the Gospel According to S. John, by St. Cyril, Vol. II, S. John IX-XXI, [London: 1885], on John 16:16, p. 460). Here

The blessed disciples thought the absence of our Saviour would be a great Ioss to them, forsooth in the flesh (for nothing prevents Him from being present as God to whom He will): but they thought that no one could save them after that Christ was taken up into heaven, etc. …But although they were wise and fathers, and the lights of the world, we have no scruple in saying that they ought not only to look to the carnal presence of our Saviour Christ, but to understand that though He be separated from their presence according to the flesh, and though He be not seen by bodily eyes; yet that He is ever present and always assistant by the power of His Divinity, they ought by all means to understand. …Wherefore, since Christ is at the same time God and man, the disciples ought by all means to understand that, although He be absent bodily, He has not wholly deserted them, but is always present by the ineffable reason of His divine power. 

(J. P. Minge, Patrologiæ Cursus Completus, [1859], Patrologiæ Græcæ, Tomus LXXIV, S. Cyrilli Alexandrini Archiep., In Joannis Evangelium, Lib XI, xvii.12,13., Col. 517). Here Trans. (J. H. Treat, The Catholic Faith; Or, Doctrines of the Church of Rome Contrary to Scripture and the Teaching of the Primitive Church, [1888], p. 212). Here

Alternate Translation:

The blessed disciples thought that our Savior's abandonment of them would result in great harm to them. (I mean his abandonment in the flesh—as God nothing can prevent him from being with whomever he wishes.) They thought that no one could save them once Christ had ascended into heaven. …Even though they were wise and fathers and lights of the world, we must not shrink back from saying that they should have looked not only at the incarnate presence of Christ our Savior but also should have realized that even if he were to deprive them of his presence with them in the flesh, and even of they could not see him with the eyes of the body, they should still surely have recognized that he is present and with them always by the power of his divine nature. … Therefore, since Christ is God and human at the same time, the disciples surely ought not to be unaware that even though he may be absent from them in the body, he will not entirely abandon them, but he will surely be with them according to his ineffable God-befitting power. 

(Ancient Christian Texts, Commentary on John, Cyril of Alexandria, Volume 2, Trans. David Maxwell, Ed. Joel C. Elowsky, [InterVarsity Press, 2015], Bk. 11, Ch. 9, John 17:12-13, p. 287). Here

Nestorius’ view of Cyril:

Is the bread the body of Christ by a change of ousia, or are we His body by a change, or is the body of the Son of God one in nature with God the Word? 

...How is it that, when He said over the bread ‘This is My body,’ He did not say that the bread was not bread and His body not body? But He said ‘bread’ and ‘body’ as showing what it is in ousia. But we are aware that the bread is bread in nature and in ousia. Yet Cyril [That is, St. Cyril of Alexandria] wishes to persuade us to believe that the bread is His body by faith and not by nature: that what it is not as to ousia, this it becomes by faith. 

(Bazaar of Heraclides, pp. 27ff, 326, in [Bethune Baker, Nestorius and his Teaching, [Cambridge: At The University Press, 1908], pp. 145-146.] Here) see also (Darwell Stone, A History of the Doctrine of the Holy Eucharist, [1909], Volume I, pp. 98-99). Here

See Also:

For example, [in] what he says of the bread: 'It is my body,' he says not that the bread is not bread and that his body is not a body, but he has said demonstrably bread and body, which is in the ousia. But we are persuaded that the bread is bread in nature and in ousia. Yet in believing that the bread is his body / by faith and not by nature, he seeks to persuade us to believe in that which exists not in ousia in such wise that it becomes this by faith and not in ousia. If it is [a question of the] ousia, what is the faith worth? For he has not said: 'Believe that the bread is bread,' because every one who sees the bread itself knows that it is bread, nor further does he make it be believed that the body is body; for it is seen and known of every one. But in that which it is not he requires us to believe that this is [so], in such wise that it becomes this by faith to them that believe.

(Nestorius, The Bazaar of Heracleides, trans. G. R. Driver, Leonard Hodgson, [Oxford, 1925., reprinted: Wipf and Stock Publishers, 2002], pp. 327-328). Here and Online Here

On John 6:

Commenting on John 6:60-61:

The spiritual man then will delight himself in the words of our Saviour, and will justly cry out, How sweet are Thy words unto my throat, yea, above honey and the comb to my mouth; while the carnal Jew ignorantly esteeming the spiritual Mystery to be foolishness, when admonished by the Words of the Saviour to mount up to the understanding befitting man, ever sinketh down to the folly which is his foster-brother, calling evil good, and good evil, according to the Prophet's voice. 

(A Library of Fathers of the Holy Catholic Church, Commentary on the Gospel According to S. John, by St. Cyril, Vol. I, S. John I-VIII, [James Parker & Co., Oxford, 1874], on John 6:60-61, p. 433). Here

Commenting on John 6:62:

From utter ignorance, certain of those who were being taught by Christ the Saviour, were offended at His words. For when they heard Him saying, Verily, verily, I say unto you, except ye eat the Flesh of the Son of man and drink His Blood, ye have no life in you, they supposed that they were invited to some brutish savageness, as though they were enjoined to eat flesh and to sup up blood, and were constrained to do things which are dreadful even to hear. 

(A Library of Fathers of the Holy Catholic Church, Commentary on the Gospel According to S. John, by St. Cyril, Vol. I, S. John I-VIII, [James Parker & Co., Oxford, 1874], on John 6:62, p. 434). Here

Alternate Translation:

From an exceedingly great ignorance, some of those taught by Christ the Savior were offended by this statement of his. When they heard him saying, "Truely, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you," they understood themselves to be invited to some savage cruelty, as though they were being told inhumanly to eat flesh and gulp blood and were being compelled to commit acts that are horrible even to hear. 

(Ancient Christian Texts, Commentary on John, Cyril of Alexandria, Volume 1, Trans. David Maxwell, Ed. Joel C. Elowsky, [InterVarsity Press, 2013], Bk. 4, Ch. 3, on John 6:61-62, p. 245). Here See: (J. P. Minge, Patrologiæ Cursus Completus, [1864], Patrologiæ Græcæ, Tomus LXXIII, S. Cyrilli Alexandrini Archiep, In Joannis Evangelium, Lib. IV, Cap. III, (VI. 62, 63), Col. 600). Here 

Commenting on John 6:63:

The words then which I have discoursed with you, are spirit, that is spiritual and of the Spirit, and are life, i. e., life-giving and of that which is by Nature Life. 

(A Library of Fathers of the Holy Catholic Church, Commentary on the Gospel According to S. John, by St. Cyril, Vol. I, S. John I-VIII, [James Parker & Co., Oxford, 1874], on John 6:63, p. 437). Here

~ Soli Deo Gloria