Evangelical Answers : A Transformation Does Not Necessitate a Change of Substance

Friday, September 6, 2024

A Transformation Does Not Necessitate a Change of Substance

Note: Click here for a list of the abbreviations used in the bibliographical citations.

Outline:

i. Prolegomena.

1. A Transformation Does Not Necessitate a Change of Substance.

A. Excursus: A “Transformation?”

B. An Object “Becomes” Yet the Substance Remains (Examples).

C. An Object “Transformed” Yet the Substance Remains (Examples).

D. An Object “Trans-Made” Yet the Substance Remains (Examples).

E. An Object “Trans-Elemented” Yet the Substance Remains (Examples).

F. Appendix: An Object “Transformed” Yet the Substance Remains (Additional Examples).

2. Endnotes (Alternate Translations and Additional Testimony).

i. Prolegomena. Return to Outline.

Edward Bouverie Pusey:

Roman Catholics assume that the “change” of a material object must necessarily be a material change, a total change of its very substance. The whole strength of their argument lies in this assumption. Wherever a word implying “change” is used of the consecrated elements, they assume that this change must be a total change of its physical substance or matter, and that, a change into another substance, or rather, an annihilation of the former.

The Fathers, on the contrary, at times are led to point out, that a change in a physical object does not imply any such alteration of substance.

(Edward Bouverie Pusey, The Doctrine of the Real Presence, [Oxford: John Henry Parker, 1855], pp. 171-172.)

1. A Transformation Does Not Necessitate a Change of Substance. Return to Outline.

Tertullian of Carthage (c. 155-240 A.D.):

A distinction, however, must be made between a change, however great, and everything which has the character of destruction. For undergoing change is one thing, but being destroyed is another thing. …But if you maintain that a transfiguration and a conversion amounts to the annihilation of any substance, then it follows that “Saul, when changed into another man,” passed away from his own bodily substance; and that Satan himself, when “transformed into an angel of light,” loses his own proper character. Such is not my opinion.

(Tertullian of Carthage, On the Resurrection of the Flesh, 55; trans. ANF, 3:588, 589.) See also: ccel.org. [1.] (See Tertullian’s full exposition in endnote 1.)

Ambrose, Bishop of Milan (c. 340-397 A.D.):

Thou seest, then, how powerful in working is the word of Christ. If, then, there is such power in the word of the Lord Jesus, that those things which were not should begin to be, how much more is it operative, that the things which were, should still be, and be changed into something else [ut sint quæ erant et in aliud commutentur]? …it was not the Body of Christ before the consecration; but after the consecration I say to thee that now it is the Body of Christ. ‘He spake, and it was made; He commanded, and it was created.’ Thou thyself wert [eras], but thou wert [eras] an old creature; after thou wert consecrated, thou begannest to be a new creature.

(Sancti Ambrosii, De Sacramentis, Lib. IV, Cap. IV, §§. 15, 16; PL, 16:440-441, trans. Edward Bouverie Pusey, The Doctrine of the Real Presence, [Oxford: John Henry Parker, 1855], pp. 282, 283. Cf. FC, 44:302-303. Cf. JHT-TCF, 169.) [2.] (See Ambrose’s full exposition in endnote 2.)

Note: Note that Ambrose compares the change which occurs to the elements of the Lord’s supper with the change which occurs to the regenerate believer (i.e., real and true but not corporeal or carnal). [3.]

Cf. Edward Bouverie Pusey:

“Ut sint quæ erant, et in aliud commutentur.” Algerus (de Sacram. i. 7, Bibl. P. xxi. 257) paraphrases the words, “that the bread and wine should be what they were, and be changed into what is better,” and admits, that “the passage seems to establish that they are substantially what they were, and are changed into something else.” I have translated the words as Card. Perron, because the bread and wine are not the immediate antecedents, and the contrast is between ‘inciperent esse quæ non erant,’ and ‘sint quæ erant.’ But according to the later Roman doctrine, the things themselves cease to be. As one says, “the consecration being completed, nothing whatever of the substance of bread remains; nor is it actually, any more than if it had never been, or was before the creation of the world.” (Gamach. T. 3, q. 74, c. 4, quoted by Albertin. p. 510.) Nor is that any real answer which is made in the Perpetuité de la Foi (T. iii. 1. vi. c, 6, 7, quoted by the Bened. in S. Ambr. ii. 369), that air and river-water are continually changed, and yet are spoken of as the same. We may say, “the air of the room is corrupted,” “the air is fresh,” yet we do not mean the same air, but that portion of the air of which we are at the time speaking. We imply by our very way of speaking that we mean different air. We give the name of a whole to its parts, and might say, “this crowd,” when thinking, immediately, now of this, now of that, part of the crowd; but if we were speaking of parts of it, we should not mean that the individuals were the same. But here the author of the De Sacram. is speaking of the same individual substances, the bread and the wine, and says that after consecration they “are and are changed.” Modern writers say “they are not, but are replaced, and cease to be, as if they had never been.”

(Edward Bouverie Pusey, The Doctrine of the Real Presence, [Oxford: John Henry Parker, 1855], p. 282.) [4.]

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

…for that ‘becoming’ (γενέσθαι) does not wholly imply a change of nature, will be evident, for that one says to God, ‘Become Thou to me God my Shield.’ And again, ‘The Lord became to me a Refuge,’ and, ‘The Lord became my Salvation.’

(S. Cyrilli Alexandrini Archiep., Thesaurus de Sancta et Consubstantiali Trinitate, Assertio XX (Aliud, ex eodem syllogismo illaium; Solutio objectionis); PG, 75:340; trans. Edward Bouverie Pusey, The Doctrine of the Real Presence, [Oxford: John Henry Parker, 1855], p. 175. Cf. JHT-TCF, 170.) [5.] (See Cyril’s full exposition in endnote 5.)

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

But He is likened to a coal, because He is understood to be of two unlike substances, which, however, so come together as to be in truth all but bound together in oneness. For fire, having entered into wood, transelements [μεταστοιχειοῖ] it after a fashion into its own glory and power, albeit retaining what it was.

(S. Cyrilli Alexandriæ Archiepiscopi, Adversus Nestorii Blasphemias, Lib. II; PG, 76:61; trans. Edward Bouverie Pusey, The Doctrine of the Real Presence, [Oxford: John Henry Parker, 1855], p. 120.)

Theodoret, Bishop of Cyrus (c. 393-458/66 A.D.):

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 [μεταβολῇ] 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 [μεταβαλών] their nature, but because to their nature He had added grace.

(Theodoret of Cyrus, Dialogue I.—The Immutable. Orthodoxos and Eranistes; PG, 83:56; trans. NPNF2, 3:168.) See also: ccel.org.

Leontius of Byzantium (c. 485-543 A.D.):

The supernatural leads up and elevates the natural, and empowers it for more perfect actions, such as it could not accomplish if it remained within the limits of the natural. The supernatural therefore does not destroy the natural but educes and stimulates it both in its capacity for actions of its own and in its receiving power for those things which are beyond this capacity.

(Leontii Byzantini, Contra Nestorianos et Eutychianos: Liber Secundus; PG, 86:1333, trans. Darwell Stone, A History of the Doctrine of the Holy Eucharist: In Two Volumes: Vol. I, [London: Longmans, Green, and Co., 1909], p. 135.)

Berengar of Tours (c. 11th Century A.D.):

For something converts, or rather perishes, through destruction of the subject so that something can be raised of it through generation of the subject; similarly, something converts, not through destruction of the subject, so that it would cease to be what it was and something else would be generated according to the subject through its destruction, but rather so that it remains the same as to the account of the subject, but not the same in the respect that through divine will it advances into something better or lapses into something worse: yet no one is more hesitant to say ‘to convert’ in the latter case than they would be to say it in the former.

(Berengarii Turonensis, De Sacra Coena Adversus Lanfrancum: Liber Posterior: Primum Ediderunt, ed. A. F. et F. Th. Vischer, [Berolini: Sumtibus Haude et Spener, 1834], p. 161; trans. Toivo J. Holopainen, Dialectic and Theology in the Eleventh Century, [Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1996], p. 99.)

Cf. Berengar of Tours (c. 11th Century A.D.):

Similarly, of two posited things that exist simultaneously according to the account of the subject, one is said to convert into the other, but in such a way that nothing happens in this conversion by way of destruction or generation of the subject: even concerning this kind of case, no one who speaks according to the Scriptures avoids the name of conversion or change; and what the Holy Spirit says: He converted their waters into blood (Psalms 104:29) is not truer than what he says of the prior people: they have converted into a deceitful bow (Psalms 77:57), nor than what is said: Lebanon will be converted into Carmel (Isaiah 29:17), nor than what the Evangelist does not withhold: the hearts of the fathers will be converted into the sons (Luke 1:17).

Rupert, Abbot of Deutz (c. 1075/80-1129 A.D.):

You must attribute all to the operation of the Holy Ghost, who never spoils or destroys any substance He useth, but to that natural goodness it had before, adds an invisible excellency which it had not.

(Ruperti Abbatis Tuitiensis, De Trinitate Et Operibus Ejus: Libri XLII, In Exod. Lib. II, Cap. X; PL, 167:617, trans. John Cosin, The History of Popish Transubstantiation, ed. John Sherren Brewer, [London: J. Leslie, 1840], p. 183.)

A. Excursus: A “Transformation?” Return to Outline.

Note: It is worth noting that when Rome speaks of a transformation of the Eucharistic elements this is somewhat of a misnomer. A transformation implies a change from one thing into another (usually with the substance remaining unchanged, e.g., A caterpillar transforms into a butterfly—a real change has occurred and yet the substance is the same before the transformation as it is after). When Rome speaks of the Lord’s supper She speaks not of a transformation but rather of the annihilation of one thing and the replacing of it with something totally different. [6.]

B. An Object “Becomes” Yet the Substance Remains (Examples). Return to Outline.

Note: There are far too many examples to list in full, however I have provided several for the perusal of the reader.

Cyril, Bishop of Jerusalem (c. 313-386 A.D.):

For this body shall be raised not remaining weak as now; but raised the very same [αὐτὸ τοῦτο] body, though by putting on incorruption it shall be fashioned anew [μεταποιεῖται, trans-made],—as iron blending with fire becomes [γίνεται] fire, or rather as He knows how, the Lord who raises us.

(Cyril of Jerusalem, Catechetical Lectures, 18.18; PG, 33:1040; trans. NPNF2, 7:139.) See also: ccel.org.

John Chrysostom, Archbishop of Constantinople (c. 349-407 A.D.):

For great indeed is the might of baptism (φωτίσματου): it makes them quite other men than they were, that partake of the gift; it does not let the men be men (and nothing more). …But besides, consider how many, after their baptism, have of men become [γεγόνασι] angels!

(John Chrysostom, Homilies on the Acts of the Apostles, Hom. 23 [on Act. 10:43]; PG, 60:181, 182-183; trans. NPNF1, 11:152-153, 154.) See also: ccel.org.

John Chrysostom, Archbishop of Constantinople (c. 349-407 A.D.):

“For we, who are many, are one bread, one body.” “For why speak I of communion?” saith he, “we are that self-same body.” For what is the bread? The Body of Christ. And what do they become [γίνονται] who partake of it? The Body of Christ: not many bodies, but one body. For as the bread consisting of many grains is made one, so that the grains no where appear; they exist indeed, but their difference is not seen by reason of their conjunction; so are we conjoined both with each other and with Christ: there not being one body for thee, and another for thy neighbor to be nourished by, but the very same for all.

(John Chrysostom, Homilies on the First Epistle to the Corinthians, Hom. 24 [on 1 Cor. 10:17]; PG, 61:200; trans. NPNF1, 12:140.) See also: ccel.org.

Augustine, Bishop of Hippo (c. 354-430 A.D.):

You become the bread, that is the body of Christ [et efficimini panis quod est corpus Christi].

(S. Augustini Episcopi, Sermon CCXXVII(a) [In die Paschæ, IV: Ad Infantes de Sacramentis]; PL, 38:1100, trans. Edward J. Kilmartin, S.J., The Eucharist in the West: History and Theology, [Collegeville: The Liturgical Press, 2004], p. 25. Cf. WSA, III/6:255.) [7.]

Cf. Garry Wills (Roman Catholic Historian):

Here is his most explicit claim that what is changed in the Mass is not the bread given out but the believers receiving it…

(Garry Wills, Why Priests? [New York: Penguin Books, 2013], p. 55.)

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

Leo the Great, Bishop of Rome (c. 400-461 A.D.):

He that is received of Christ, and receives Christ, is not the same after the laver that he was before Baptism, but the body of the regenerated one becomes the flesh of the Crucified [sed corpus regenerati fiat caro Crucifixi].

(S. Leonis Magni, Sermones, Sermo LXIII, Cap. VI; PL, 54:357; trans. JHT-TCF, 170.)

Cf. Leo the Great, Bishop of Rome (c. 400-461 A.D.):

As the Lord Jesus was made our flesh by being born, so are we made his body by being new-born. Therefore we are both members of Christ and a temple of the Holy Spirit [sicut factus est Dominus Jesus caro nostra nascendo, ita et nos facti sumus corpus ipsius renascendo. Ideo et membra Christi, et templum sumus Spiritus Sancti].

(S. Leonis Magni, Sermones, Sermo XXIII [Al. XXII], Cap. V; PL, 54:203; trans. William Goode, The Nature of Christ’s Presence in the Eucharist: Vol. I, [London: T. Hatchard, 1856], p. 380.)

John of Damascus (c. 675/6-749 A.D.):

‘Why do I speak of a communion?’ he says. ‘We are that body itself’ (αὐτό ἐσμεν ἐκεῖνο τὸ σῶμα). For the bread is a body of Christ, and the receivers are made (γίγνονται) not many bodies, but one. Even as the bread, while composed of many grains, has been made one, so that the grains are no more seen, but yet they exist in themselves, with their distinction lost to view in their union, so also are we united with one another, and with the Christ. For we are not nourished, one of one body, and another of another body, but all of the same [Greek, αὐτοῦ ‘of itself,’ but English idiom requires us to say, ‘the same’]. Wherefore he says, ‘For we all of us partake of the one bread.’ But if of the same [here we have really τοῦ αὐτοῦ], and we are all made to be the same thing [εἰ τὸ αὐτὸ γιγνόμεθα πάντες], why do we not also show the same love, and thus become one?

(S. Joannis Damasceni, In Epistolam Primam ad Corinthios, Cap. X, Vers. 17; PG, 95:649; trans. Lucius Waterman, The Primitive Tradition of the Eucharistic Body and Blood, [New York: Longmans, Green and Co, 1919], p. 218.)

Cf. Lucius Waterman:

Further, we shall find S. John insisting that we ourselves, as the result of our communions, are not many bodies, but one. This last statement is to me extraordinarily interesting, because I find in it a confirmation by S. John of Damascus of my interpretation of that phrase of our anonymous author, “We speak not of two bodies, but of one body of the Lord.” S. John of Damascus had read that treatise in which the phrase I have just quoted stands out so uniquely. He had read the treatise, and he quoted from it as a writing of S. John Chrysostom. It would seem as if that very passage was in his mind, when he wrote that we “are made not many bodies, but one.” We are many bodies. Nothing can change that fact. But according to S. John, we become so identified with our Lord’s body in heaven, that our existence as in so many separate bodies may be set aside, and dropped out of view. So, it would seem, he would understand the writer whom he mistakenly supposed to be Chrysostom, saying “we speak not of two bodies, but of one body.” Two bodies there are in literal fact, but their unification makes it right to speak as if they made but one.

(Lucius Waterman, The Primitive Tradition of the Eucharistic Body and Blood, [New York: Longmans, Green and Co, 1919], p. 216.)

Theophylact, Archbishop of Ohrid (c. 1050-1107 A.D.):

“For we, being many, are one body; for we all partake of one bread.” Since he said, “It is a communion of the body,” it follows that what partakes is different from that of which it partakes. He now shows the greater point, and says that we are that body itself. For what is the bread? The body of Christ. And what do those who partake become? The body of Christ; not many bodies, but one body. Just as the bread, made from many grains, becomes one; so we, being many, become one body of Christ. [«Ὄτι εἷς ἄρτος, καὶ ἐν σῶμα οἱ πολλοί ἐσμεν.» Ἐπειδὴ εἶπε· «Κοινωνία τοῦ σώματός ἐστι·» τὸ δὲ κοινωνοῦν ἕτερόν ἐστιν ἐκείνου οὗ κοινωνεῖ· νῦν δείκνυσι τὸ μεῖζον, καί φησιν, ὅτι αὐτό ἐσμεν ἐκεῖνο τὸ σῶμα. Τί γάρ ἐστιν ὁ ἄρτος; Σῶμα Χριστοῦ. Τί δὲ γίνονται οἱ μεταλαμβάνοντες; Σῶμα Χριστοῦ· οὐχὶ σώματα πολλὰ, ἀλλὰ σῶμα ἔν. Καθάπερ γὰρ ὁ ἄρτος ἐκ πολλῶν κόκκων εἷς γίνεται· οὕτω καὶ ἡμεῖς, πολλοὶ ὄντες, ἓν γινόμεθα σῶμα Χριστοῦ.]

(Theophylacti Bulgariæ Archiep., Commentarius In Epistolam I ad Corinthios, Cap. X, Vers. 17; PG, 124:685.)

Note: Believers “become” the body of Christ, just as the bread “becomes” the body of Christ. Either those who partake are transubstantiated into the body of Christ, or the bread is not.

C. An Object “Transformed” Yet the Substance Remains (Examples). Return to Outline.

Clement of Alexandria (c. 150-215 A.D.):

For instruction harmonizes [μεταρρυθμιζει] man, and by harmonizing [μεταρρυθμίζουσα] makes him natural; and it is no matter whether one was made such as he is by nature, or transformed [μετατυπωθῆναι] by time and education. The Lord has furnished both; that which is by creation, and that which is by creating again and renewal through the covenant.

(Clement of Alexandria, The Stromata, or Miscellanies, 4.23; PG, 8:1357; trans. ANF, 2:437.) See also: ccel.org.

Clement of Alexandria (c. 150-215 A.D.):

And the one whole Christ is not divided: “There is neither barbarian, nor Jew, nor Greek, neither male nor female, but a new man,” transformed [μεταπεπλασμένος] by God’s Holy Spirit.

(Clement of Alexandria, Exhortation to the Heathen, 11; PG, 8:229; trans. ANF, 2:203.) See also: ccel.org.

Gregory, Bishop of Nyssa (c. 335-395 A.D.):

For this holy altar, too, by which I stand, is stone, ordinary in its nature, nowise different from the other slabs of stone that build our houses and adorn our pavements; but seeing that it was consecrated to the service of God, and received the benediction, it is a holy table, an altar undefiled, no longer touched by the hands of all, but of the priests alone, and that with reverence. The bread again is at first common bread, but when the sacramental action consecrates it, it is called, and becomes, the Body of Christ. So with the sacramental oil; so with the wine: though before the benediction they are of little value, each of them, after the sanctification bestowed by the Spirit, has its several operation. The same power of the word, again, also makes the priest venerable and honourable, separated, by the new blessing bestowed upon him, from his community with the mass of men. While but yesterday he was one of the mass, one of the people, he is suddenly rendered a guide, a president, a teacher of righteousness, an instructor in hidden mysteries; and this he does without being at all changed in body or in form; but, while continuing to be in all appearance the man he was before, being, by some unseen power and grace, transformed [μεταμορφωθείς] in respect of his unseen soul to the higher condition.

(Gregory of Nyssa, On the Baptism of Christ; PG, 46:581, 584; NPNF2, 5:519.) See also: ccel.org.

Gregory, Bishop of Nyssa (c. 335-395 A.D.):

Christ, as the history of David tells us that he, being the son of Jesse, and a keeper of the flocks, was anointed to be king: not that the anointing then made him to be a man, but that he, being what he was by his own nature, was transformed [μετατεθείσης] from an ordinary man to a king.

(Gregory of Nyssa, Against Eunomius, 6.4; PG, 45:733, 736; trans. NPNF2, 5:190.) See also: ccel.org.

John Chrysostom, Archbishop of Constantinople (c. 349-407 A.D.):

For great indeed is the might of baptism (φωτίσματου): it makes them quite other men than they were, that partake of the gift; it does not let the men be men (and nothing more). Make thou the Gentile (τὸν ῞Ελληνα), to believe that great is the might of the Spirit, that it has new-moulded [μετέπλασεν], that it has fashioned [μετεῤῥύθμισε, transformed] thee anew.

(John Chrysostom, Homilies on the Acts of the Apostles, Hom. 23 [on Act. 10:43]; PG, 60:181; trans. NPNF1, 11:152-153.) See also: ccel.org.

John Chrysostom, Archbishop of Constantinople (c. 349-407 A.D.):

So then let us also deal with the heathen sort: with condecension, with love. For love is a great teacher, and able both to withdraw men from error, and to reform [μεταῤῥυθμίσαι, transform] the character, and to lead them by the hand unto self-denial, and out of stones to make men.

(John Chrysostom, Homilies on the First Epistle to the Corinthians, Hom.33.7; PG, 61:284 [§. 6]; trans. NPNF1, 12:200.) See also: ccel.org.

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

...transforming the corrupted nature of humanity into a newness of life [κατεφθαρμένην τοῦ ἀνθρώπου φύσιν εἰς καινότητα μεταρυθμίζων ζωῆς]...

(S. Cyrilli Alexandriæ Archiepiscopi, Homilia Pascialis, Hom. VI; PG, 77:532.)

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

…and having transformed everything within us into a better order [καὶ πάντα μεταρυθμἰσας τὰ ἐν ἡμῖν εἰς ἀμείνονα τάξιν]…

(S. Cyrilli Alexandriæ Archiepiscopi, Homilia Pascialis, Hom. VII; PG, 77:549.)

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

...transforming into holiness, justifying by faith those who approach [μεταρυθμίζων εἰς ἁγιασμόν, δικαιῶν τῇ πίστει τὸν προσερχόμενον]…

(S. Cyrilli Alexandriæ Archiepiscopi, Homilia Pascialis, Hom. XIV; PG, 77:725.)

Note: Transforming through sanctification.

Note: See “Appendix” (below) for more.

D. An Object “Trans-Made” Yet the Substance Remains (Examples). Return to Outline.

Irenæus, Bishop of Lyon [Lugdunum] (c. 130-202 A.D.):

But as the engrafted wild olive does not certainly lose the substance of its wood, but changes the quality of its fruit, and receives another name, being now not a wild olive, but a fruit-bearing olive, and is called so; so also, when man is grafted in by faith and receives the Spirit of God, he certainly does not lose the substance of flesh, but changes the quality of the fruit [brought forth, i.e.,] of his works, and receives another name, showing that he has become changed [transmutationem, transmuted] for the better, being now not [mere] flesh and blood, but a spiritual man, and is called such.

(Irenæus of Lyon, Against Heresies, 5.10.2; PG, 5:1037; trans. ANF, 1:536.) See also: ccel.org.

Basil the Great, Bishop of Cæsarea Mazaca (c. 329/30-379 A.D.):

The whole city is transmade (μεταπεποίηται) into a feast.

(S. Basilii Magni, Homilia XXIII: In Sanctum Martyrem Mamantem, §. 2; PG, 31:592; trans. Edward Bouverie Pusey, The Doctrine of the Real Presence, [Oxford: John Henry Parker, 1855], pp. 189-190.)

Basil the Great, Bishop of Cæsarea Mazaca (c. 329/30-379 A.D.):

He whose feast we celebrate, for whom we are all thus bright, for whom life is transmade [μεταπεποίηται].

(S. Basilii Magni, Homilia XXIII: In Sanctum Martyrem Mamantem, §. 3; PG, 31:593; trans. Edward Bouverie Pusey, The Doctrine of the Real Presence, [Oxford: John Henry Parker, 1855], p. 190.)

Cyril, Bishop of Jerusalem (c. 313-386 A.D.):

But especially mark this, how very pointedly Paul says, For this corruptible must put on incorruption, and this mortal must put on immortality. For this body shall be raised not remaining weak as now; but raised the very same [αὐτὸ τοῦτο] body, though by putting on incorruption it shall be fashioned anew [μεταποιεῖται, trans-made],—as iron blending with fire becomes [γίνεται] fire, or rather as He knows how, the Lord who raises us. This body therefore shall be raised, but it shall abide not such as it now is, but an eternal body; no longer needing for its life such nourishment as now, nor stairs for its ascent, for it shall be made spiritual, a marvellous thing, such as we cannot worthily speak of.

(Cyril of Jerusalem, Catechetical Lectures, 18.18; PG, 33:1040; trans. NPNF2, 7:139.) See also: ccel.org.

Cf. Edward Bouverie Pusey:

S. Cyril of Jerusalem uses it of the change of the body at the Resurrection, but expressly stating that the body remains “the very same,” and illustrates it by fire penetrating iron.

(Edward Bouverie Pusey, The Doctrine of the Real Presence, [Oxford: John Henry Parker, 1855], p. 189.)

Gregory Nazianzen, Archbishop of Constantinople (c. 329-390 A.D.):

He who reverences and follows good for its own sake, since he loveth that which abideth, hath also an abiding desire for it. So, having in him the mind of God, he also may use the words of God, ‘I am the same, and change not.’ He then will not be transmade nor removed [μεταποιηθήσεται οὐδὲ μετατεθήσεται]…

(S. Gregorii Theologi, Oratio XXXVI [De Seipso], §. IX; PG, 36:276; trans. Edward Bouverie Pusey, The Doctrine of the Real Presence, [Oxford: John Henry Parker, 1855], p. 190. Cf. FC, 107:227.) [8.]

Gregory Nazianzen, Archbishop of Constantinople (c. 329-390 A.D.):

Say to him relying on the Seal, “I am myself the Image of God; I have not yet been cast down from the heavenly Glory, as thou wast through thy pride; I have put on Christ; I have been transformed [μεταπεποίημαι, trans-made] into Christ by Baptism…

(Gregory Nazianzen, Oration 40.10; PG, 36:372; trans. NPNF2, 7:363.) See also: ccel.org. [9.]

Gregory Nazianzen, Archbishop of Constantinople (c. 329-390 A.D.):

Let us be healed also in the smell, that we be not effeminate; and be sprinkled with dust instead of sweet perfumes, but may smell the Ointment that was poured out for us, spiritually receiving it; and so formed and transformed [μεταποιούμενοι, trans-made] by it, that from us too a sweet odour may be smelled.

(Gregory Nazianzen, Oration 40.38; PG, 36:413; trans. NPNF2, 7:374.) See also: ccel.org.

Gregory, Bishop of Nyssa (c. 335-395 A.D.):

Assuredly this is plain, that because we are by birth flesh and blood, as the Scripture saith, “He Who for our sakes was born among us and was partaker of flesh and blood,” purposing to change [μεταποιεῖν, trans-make] us from corruption to incorruption by the birth from above, the birth by water and the Spirit, Himself led the way in this birth, drawing down upon the water, by His own baptism, the Holy Spirit; so that in all things He became the first-born of those who are spiritually born again, and gave the name of brethren to those who partook in a birth like to His own by water and the Spirit.

(Gregory of Nyssa, Against Eunomius, 2.8; PG, 45:501; trans. NPNF2, 5:112.) See also: ccel.org.

Gregory, Bishop of Nyssa (c. 335-395 A.D.):

For, in the manner that, as the Apostle says, a little leaven assimilates to itself the whole lump, so in like manner that body to which immortality has been given it by God, when it is in ours, translates and transmutes [μεταποιεῖ καὶ μετατίθησιν, trans-makes and transfers] the whole into itself. For as by the admixture of a poisonous liquid with a wholesome one the whole draught is deprived of its deadly effect, so too the immortal Body, by being within that which receives it, changes [μετεποίησεν, trans-makes] the whole to its own nature.

(Gregory of Nyssa, The Great Catechism [Oratio Catechetica], 37; PG, 45:93; trans. NPNF2, 5:504-505.) See also: ccel.org.

Cf. Edward Bouverie Pusey:

Here, then, in the outset, S. Gregory twice uses the word, μεταποίησις, of the change of our bodies, even while yet in the flesh, from being subject to mortality, to being immortal, through their hidden conformity to the Body of our Lord which we receive in them. Yet whatever that is which they acquire, plainly they do not part with any thing of their own substance, although he says, “His Body, coming to be in ours, transmakes and transfers the whole to itself,” “transmakes the whole [of us] into Its own nature.”

(Edward Bouverie Pusey, The Doctrine of the Real Presence, [Oxford: John Henry Parker, 1855], p. 181.)

Note: For an extensive list of examples from Gregory of Nyssa regarding his use of the word μεταποίησις [trans-make] see endnote 10. [10.]

John Chrysostom, Archbishop of Constantinople (c. 349-407 A.D.):

And as the leaven, though it be buried, yet is not destroyed, but by little and little transmutes [μεταποιεῖ, trans-makes] all into its own condition; of like sort will the event be here also, with respect to the gospel.

(John Chrysostom, Homilies on the Gospel of Matthew, Hom. 46.2; PG, 58:478; trans. NPNF1, 10:289.) See also: ccel.org.

John Chrysostom, Archbishop of Constantinople (c. 349-407 A.D.):

The forgiveness of sins is a source of salvation and a prize of repentance, because repentance is a surgical procedure that excises sin; it is a heavenly gift and a marvelous power that by grace defeats the consequence of the laws. For this reason, repentance does not deny the prostitute, it does not scare away the adulterer, it does not turn away the drunkard, it does not abominate the idol worshipper, it does not banish the reviler; it chases away neither the blasphemer nor the proud; rather, it changes [μεταποιεῖ, trans-makes] all of them, because repentance is a melting pot of sin.

(John Chrysostom, Homilies on Repentance, Hom. 7.2; PG, 49:323; trans. FC, 96:87.)

Œcumenius, Bishop of Trikka (fl. c. 990):

...and having regenerated us to a living hope through the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead, he trans-made us, and transferred us to a living hope [καὶ ἔλεον διὰ τῆς ἐκ νεκρῶν ἀναστάσεως Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ ἀναγεννήσας ἡμᾶς ἦτου μεταποιήσας, καὶ μεταθέμενος εἰς ἐλπίδα ζῶσαν]…

(Œcumenii Triccæ Episcopi, Petri Apostoli Prior Epistola Catholica, Cap. I, Vers. 1, 2; PG, 119:513.)

E. An Object “Trans-Elemented” Yet the Substance Remains (Examples). Return to Outline.

Gregory, Bishop of Nyssa (c. 335-395 A.D.):

For since this universal feast of creation, which is celebrated every year throughout the whole world at the return of the annual cycle also celebrates the resurrection of him who has fallen—for sin is a fall and resurrection is the raising up again from the fall of sin—it would be well that on this day that we bring forward not only those who are transformed [μεταστοιχειουμένους, trans-elemented] by the grace of God through the washing of regeneration (Tit. 3.5), but lead also those who through repentance and conversion are rising up again from dead works to the living way (Heb. 9.14), to the saving hope from which they had been estranged.

(S. Gregorii Nysseni, Epistola Canonica: Ad S. Letoium Melitines Episcopum, Can. 1 et 2; PG, 45:221; trans. Anna M. Silvas, Gregory of Nyssa: The Letters: Introduction, Translation and Commentary, [Leiden: Koninklijke Brill NV, 2007], Letter 31: To Letoius Bishop of Melitene, pp. 214-215.)

Cf. Anna M. Silvas:

μεταστοιχειουμένους. Gregory uses the same term for the transformation of the elements of bread and wine in the Divine Liturgy, in Catechetical Discourse 37.

(Anna M. Silvas, Gregory of Nyssa: The Letters: Introduction, Translation and Commentary, [Leiden: Koninklijke Brill NV, 2007], Letter 31: To Letoius Bishop of Melitene, p. 215, fn. 5.)

Gregory, Bishop of Nyssa (c. 335-395 A.D.):

Therefore He Who transformed the elements [μεταστοιχειώσας, trans-elemented] of our nature into His divine abilities, rendered it secure from mutilation and disease, because He admitted not in Himself the deformity which sin works in the will.

(Gregory of Nyssa, Letter 17 [To Eustathia, Ambrosia, and Basilissa]; PG, 46:1021 [Epistola III]; trans. NPNF2, 5:543.) See also: ccel.org.

Gregory, Bishop of Nyssa (c. 335-395 A.D.):

The Divine gifts were amnesty of evils, removal of sin, transelementing [μεταστοιχείωσις] of nature, transmaking [μεταποίησις] of the corruptible to the incorruptible, delight of paradise, royal dignity, endless joy.

(S. Gregorii Nysseni, Commentarius in Canticum Canticorum, Hom. I; PG, 44:772; trans. Edward Bouverie Pusey, The Doctrine of the Real Presence, [Oxford: John Henry Parker, 1855], p. 186.)

Gregory, Bishop of Nyssa (c. 335-395 A.D.):

The kingdom of life has come, and the power of death has been abolished. And a new birth has occurred, a different life, a different kind of existence, the trans-elementing of our very nature. [Ἦλθεν ἡ τῆς ζωῆς βασιλεία, καὶ κατελύθη τοῦ θανάτου τὸ κράτος. Καὶ γέγονεν ἄλλη γέννησις, βίος ἕτερος, ἄλλο ζωῆς εἶδος, αὐτῆς τῆς φύσεως ἡμῶν μεταστοιχείωσις.]

(S. Gregorii Nysseni, In Christi Resurrectionem: Oratio I; PG, 46:604.)

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

For by the Spirit is the spirit of man sanctified, by the sanctified water again, his body. For as the water poured into the kettle, being associated with the vigour of fire, receives in itself the impress of its efficacy, so through the inworking of the Spirit the sensible water is trans-elemented [μεταστοιχειοῦται, and alternate reading has ἀναστοιχειοῦται, re-elemented] to a Divine and ineffable efficacy [δύναμιν], and sanctifieth those on whom it comes.

(S. Cyrilli Alexandrini, In Joannis Evangelium: Liber Secundus, III, 5; PG, 73:244, 245; trans. A Library of Fathers of the Holy Catholic Church: Commentary on the Gospel According to S. John, By S. Cyril, Archbishop of Alexandria: Vol. I: S. John I-VII, [Oxford: James Parker & Co., 1874], on Jhn. 3:5, pp. 168-169.) See also: tertullian.org.

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

(S. Cyrilli Alexandriæ Archiepiscopi, Adversus Nestorii Blasphemias, Lib. II; PG, 76:61; trans. Edward Bouverie Pusey, The Doctrine of the Real Presence, [Oxford: John Henry Parker, 1855], p. 120.)

Theophylact, Archbishop of Ohrid (c. 1050-1107 A.D.):

But now that God hath united unto himself flesh after an unspeakable contemperament, the flesh is also become life-making. Not for that it passed away into the nature of God, beware of that; but after the likeness of fiery iron, which abideth iron, and sheweth the operation of fire, even so, the flesh of our Lord, abiding flesh, is life-making, as being the flesh of God the Word. Then ‘as I live by the Father,’ who is life, ‘so he that eateth me shall live by me,’ being tempered with me, as also being transelemented [μεταστοιχειούμενος] into me, who have power to vivificate or give life.

(Theophylacti Bulgariæ Archiep., Enarratio In Evangelium Joannis, Cap. VI, Vers. 57-59, PG, 123:1312; trans. The Works of John Jewel, Bishop of Salisbury. The Third Portion, Containing, Apologia Ecclesiæ Anglicanæ. An Apology Of The Church Of England. The Defence Of The Apology, Parts I-III, ed. John Ayre, [Cambridge: Printed at the University Press, 1848], A Defence Of The Apology of the Church of England, Pt. II, p. 491.)

Note: For Theophylact, we (believers) are trans-elemented into the Lord Jesus Christ — οὕτω καὶ ὁ τρώγων με, ζήσεται δι’ ἐμὲ ἀνακιρνώ μενος, ὥσπερ καὶ μεταστοιχειούμενος εἰς ἐμὲ τὸν ζωογονεῖν ἰσχύοντα.

F. Appendix: An Object “Transformed” Yet the Substance Remains (Additional Examples). Return to Outline.

Note: There is no substantial (i.e., relating to substance) or carnal (i.e., corporeal) transformation. The substance remains the same after the transformation.

Sextus Julius Africanus (c. 160-240 A.D.):

But after 94 years Prometheus arose, according to some, who was fabulously reported to have formed men; for being a wise man, he transformed them from the state of extreme rudeness to culture.

(Julius Africanus, The Extant Fragments of the Five Books of the Chronography of Julius Africanus, 13 [From Georgius Syncellus, Chron., Third Book. In Euseb., Præpar., x. 40]; trans. ANF, 6:134.) See also: ccel.org.

Origen of Alexandria (c. 184-253 A.D.):

For if the heavens are to be changed, assuredly that which is changed does not perish, and if the fashion of the world passes away, it is by no means an annihilation or destruction of their material substance that is shown to take place, but a kind of change of quality and transformation of appearance.

(Origen of Alexandria, De Principiis, 1.6.4; trans. ANF, 4:262.) See also: ccel.org.

Cf. Origen of Alexandria (c. 184-253 A.D.):

But to blame, on the other hand, the mere constitution of the body, is absurd; for the disciplinary reason, taking hold of those who are most intemperate and savage (if they will follow her exhortation), effects a transformation, so that the alteration and change for the better is most extensive,—the most licentious men frequently becoming better than those who formerly did not seem to be such by nature; and the most savage men passing into such a state of mildness…

(Origen of Alexandria, De Principiis, 3.1.5; trans. ANF, 4:304-305.) See also: ccel.org.

Cf. Origen of Alexandria (c. 184-253 A.D.):

And although Celsus, or the Jew whom he has introduced, may treat with mockery what I am going to say, I shall say it nevertheless,—that many have been converted to Christianity as if against their will, some sort of spirit having suddenly transformed their minds from a hatred of the doctrine to a readiness to die in its defence, and having appeared to them either in a waking vision or a dream of the night.

(Origen of Alexandria, Against Celsus, 1.46; trans. ANF, 4:415.) See also: ccel.org.

Cf. Origen of Alexandria (c. 184-253 A.D.):

But on the third day He rose from the dead, in order that having delivered them from the wicked one, and his son, in whom was falsehood and unrighteousness and war and everything opposed to that which Christ is, and also from the profane spirit who transforms himself into the Holy Spirit, He might gain for those who had been delivered the right to be baptized in spirit and soul and body, into the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, which represent the three days eternally present at the same time to those who by means of them are sons of light.

(Origen of Alexandria, Commentary on the Gospel of Matthew, 12.20; trans. ANF, 9:462.) See also: ccel.org.

Archelaus, Bishop of Carrhae (c. 3nd Century A.D.):

These things, moreover, he has said with the view of showing us that all others who may come after him will be false apostles, deceitful workers, transforming themselves into the apostles of Christ. And no marvel; for Satan himself is transformed, like an angel of light. What great thing therefore is it, if his ministers also be transformed into the ministers of righteousness?—whose end shall be according to their works.

(Archelaus of Carrhae, The Acts of the Disputation with the Heresiarch Manes, 35; trans. ANF, 6:208.) See also: ccel.org.

Lactantius [Lucius Caecilius Firmianus] (c. 250-325 A.D.):

But when the thousand years shall be completed, the world shall be renewed by God, and the heavens shall be folded together, and the earth shall be changed, and God shall transform men into the similitude of angels, and they shall be white as snow…

(Lactantius, The Divine Institutes, 7.26; trans. ANF, 7:221.) See also: ccel.org.

Acts and Martyrdom of St. Matthew the Apostle:

Therefore the wicked and unclean devil who had come forth from the king’s wife, and his son, and his daughter-in-law, put to flight by Matthew, having transformed himself into the likeness of a soldier, stood before the king… And the demon who had before appeared to the king in the form of a soldier, being again transformed into the form of a soldier, stood before the King…

(Acts and Martyrdom of St. Matthew the Apostle; trans. ANF, 8:530.) See also: ccel.org.

Athanasius, Archbishop of Alexandria (c. 296/8-373 A.D.):

For even if, now that he is a creeping serpent, he shall transform himself into an angel of light, yet his deception will not profit him; for we have been taught that ‘though an angel from heaven preach unto us any other gospel than that we have received, he is anathema.’

(Athanasius of Alexandria, To the Bishops of Egypt, 1.2; trans. NPNF2, 4:224.) See also: ccel.org.

Basil the Great, Bishop of Cæsarea Mazaca (c. 329/30-379 A.D.):

Wood existed before carpentering took possession of it, and transformed it each day to supply new wants, and made us see all the advantages derived from it, giving the oar to the sailor, the winnowing fan to the labourer, the lance to the soldier.

(Basil the Great, The Hexæmeron, Homily 2.2; trans. NPNF2, 8:60.) See also: ccel.org.

Gregory Nazianzen, Archbishop of Constantinople (c. 329-390 A.D.):

Gold is changed and transformed into various forms at various times, being fashioned into many ornaments, and used by art for many purposes; yet it remains what it is—gold…

(Gregory Nazianzen, Letter 21 [To Sophronius, Prefect of Constantinople]; trans. NPNF2, 7:464.) See also: ccel.org.

Gregory, Bishop of Nyssa (c. 335-395 A.D.):

Then let us look to this too. In Holy Baptism, what is it that we secure thereby? Is it not a participation in a life no longer subject to death? I think that no one who can in any way be reckoned amongst Christians will deny that statement. What then? Is that life-giving power in the water itself which is employed to convey the grace of Baptism? Or is it not rather clear to every one that this element is only employed as a means in the external ministry, and of itself contributes nothing towards the sanctification, unless it be first transformed itself by the sanctification…

(Gregory of Nyssa, On the Holy Spirit [Against the Followers of Macedonius]; trans. NPNF2, 5:322.) See also: ccel.org.

Ambrose, Bishop of Milan (c. 340-397 A.D.):

Even Satan transforms himself into an angel of light; what wonder then if Arius imitates his Author in taking upon himself what is forbidden?

(Ambrose of Milan, Exposition of the Christian Faith, 5.19.229; trans. NPNF2, 10:314.) See also: ccel.org.

Cf. Ambrose, Bishop of Milan (c. 340-397 A.D.):

Auxentius, to imitate this, sent a flying sword through all cities. But Satan, too, transforms himself into an angel of light, and imitates his power for evil.

(Ambrose of Milan, Selections from the Letters of St. Ambrose: Sermon Against Auxentius on the Giving Up of the Basilicas, 16; trans. NPNF2, 10:432.) See also: ccel.org.

John Chrysostom, Archbishop of Constantinople (c. 349-407 A.D.):

For what can be more difficult, I ask, than when any young person delivering himself up to those, who undertake to make his limbs supple and pliant, uses his most strenuous exertion to bend his whole body into the exact shape of a wheel, and to turn over upon the pavement; his powers being tasked at the same time through the eyes, and through the movement of the hands, as well as other convolutions for the purpose of being transformed into the likeness of woman-kind.

(John Chrysostom, The Homilies on the Statues to the People of Antioch, Hom. 19.13; trans. NPNF1, 9:470.) See also: ccel.org.

Cf. John Chrysostom, Archbishop of Constantinople (c. 349-407 A.D.):

He washed his teacher, he set food before him, and rejoiced. Paul’s chain entered into the prison, and transformed all things there into a Church; it drew in its train the body of Christ, it prepared the spiritual feast, and travailed with that birth, at which Angels rejoice.

(John Chrysostom, Homilies on the Epistle to the Ephesians, Hom. 8 [Eph. 4:1-2]; trans. NPNF1, 13:89.) See also: ccel.org.

Cf. John Chrysostom, Archbishop of Constantinople (c. 349-407 A.D.):

For they ought to go from their father’s house to marriage, as combatants from the school of exercise, furnished with all necessary knowledge, and to be as leaven able to transform the whole lump to its own virtue.

(John Chrysostom, Homilies on the First Epistle to Timothy, Hom. 9 [1Ti 2:11-15]; trans. NPNF1, 13:437.) See also: ccel.org.

Jerome of Stridon (c. 347-420 A.D.):

For a long time you lived together, and as many ladies shaped their conduct by your examples, I had the joy of seeing Rome transformed into another Jerusalem.

(Jerome of Stridon, Letter 127.8 [To Principia]; trans. NPNF2, 6:256.) See also: ccel.org.

Cf. Jerome of Stridon (c. 347-420 A.D.):

Unhappy man! you transformed yourself into an angel of light; and while you were in reality a minister of Satan, you pretended to be a minister of righteousness.

(Jerome of Stridon, Letter 147.11 [To Sabinianus]; trans. NPNF2, 6:294.) See also: ccel.org.

Salamanes Hermias Sozomenos [Sozomen] (c. 400-450 A.D.):

It is said that he manifested much zeal in behalf of those who entertained the same sentiments as himself, and that he rendered himself formidable to the heterodox. When he wished he could easily throw them into alarm; but he at once transformed himself and would appear meek. Such is the information which those who knew the man have furnished.

(Sozomen, Ecclesiastical History, 8.27; trans. NPNF2, 2:417.) See also: ccel.org.

2. Endnotes (Alternate Translations and Additional Testimony). Return to Outline.

[1.] Full Text. Tertullian of Carthage (c. 155-240 A.D.):

A distinction, however, must be made between a change, however great, and everything which has the character of destruction. For undergoing change is one thing, but being destroyed is another thing. …Now, things which are absolutely different, as mutation and destruction are, will not admit of mixture and confusion; in their operations, too, they differ. One destroys, the other changes. Therefore, as that which is destroyed is not changed, so that which is changed is not destroyed. To perish is altogether to cease to be what a thing once was, whereas to be changed is to exist in another condition. Now, if a thing exists in another condition, it can still be the same thing itself; for since it does not perish, it has its existence still. A change, indeed, it has experienced, but not a destruction. A thing may undergo a complete change, and yet remain still the same thing. In like manner, a man also may be quite himself in substance even in the present life, and for all that undergo various changes—in habit, in bodily bulk, in health, in condition, in dignity, and in age—in taste, business, means, houses, laws and customs—and still lose nothing of his human nature, nor so to be made another man as to cease to be the same; indeed, I ought hardly to say another man, but another thing. This form of change even the Holy Scriptures give us instances of. The hand of Moses is changed, and it becomes like a dead one, bloodless, colourless, and stiff with cold; but on the recovery of heat, and on the restoration of its natural colour, it is again the same flesh and blood. Afterwards the face of the same Moses is changed, with a brightness which eye could not bear. But he was Moses still, even when he was not visible. So also Stephen had already put on the appearance of an angel, although they were none other than his human knees which bent beneath the stoning. The Lord, again, in the retirement of the mount, had changed His raiment for a robe of light; but He still retained features which Peter could recognise. In that same scene Moses also and Elias gave proof that the same condition of bodily existence may continue even in glory—the one in the likeness of a flesh which he had not yet recovered, the other in the reality of one which he had not yet put off. It was as full of this splendid example that Paul said: “Who shall change our vile body, that it may be fashioned like unto His glorious body.” But if you maintain that a transfiguration and a conversion amounts to the annihilation of any substance, then it follows that “Saul, when changed into another man,” passed away from his own bodily substance; and that Satan himself, when “transformed into an angel of light,” loses his own proper character. Such is not my opinion.

(Tertullian of Carthage, On the Resurrection of the Flesh, 55; trans. ANF, 3:588, 588-589.) See also: ccel.org.

Cf. Lucius Waterman:

It should be acknowledged that Tertullian has another passage (Adv. Praxeam, 27) in which he says just the opposite: “Whatsoever is transfigured into some other thing ceases to be that which it had been, and begins to be that which it previously was not.” But he gives no proof for this judgment, as he does for the opposite one.

(Lucius Waterman, The Primitive Tradition of the Eucharistic Body and Blood, [New York: Longmans, Green and Co, 1919], p. 51, fn. 1.) Return to Article.

[2.] Full Text. Ambrose, Bishop of Milan (c. 340-397 A.D.):

What is the word of Christ! That by which all things were made. The Lord commanded, and the Heaven was made; the Lord commanded, and the earth was made; the Lord commanded, and the seas were made; the Lord commanded, and all creatures were brought forth. Thou seest, then, how powerful in working is the word of Christ. If, then, there is such power in the word of the Lord Jesus, that those things which were not should begin to be, how much more is it operative, that the things which were, should still be, and be changed into something else [ut sint quæ erant et in aliud commutentur]? The Heaven was not; the sea was not; the earth was not; but hear David saying, ‘He spake, and they were made; He commanded and they were created.’

So then, that I may answer thee, it was not the Body of Christ before the consecration; but after the consecration I say to thee that now it is the Body of Christ. ‘He spake, and it was made; He commanded, and it was created.’ Thou thyself wert [eras], but thou wert [eras] an old creature; after thou wert consecrated, thou begannest to be a new creature.

Alt. Trans. Ambrose, Bishop of Milan (c. 340-397 A.D.):

What is the word of Christ? That, to be sure, whereby all things are made. The Lord commanded, and the heaven was made; the Lord commanded, and the earth was made; the Lord commanded, and the seas were made; the Lord commanded, and every creature was produced. Thou seest, therefore, how effective is the word of Christ. If, therefore, there is such power in the word of the Lord Jesus, that the things which were not began to be, how much more is it effective, that things previously existing should, without ceasing to exist, be changed into something else [ut sint quæ erant et in aliud commutentur]? The heaven was not, the sea was not, the earth was not; but hear David saying, He spake, and they were made: he commanded, and they were created.

Therefore, that I may answer thee, it was not the body of Christ before consecration; but after consecration, I tell thee, it is now the body of Christ. He spake, and it was made: he commanded, and it was created. Thou thyself didst formerly exist, but thou wast an old creature; after thou wast consecrated, thou didst begin to be a new creature. Wilt thou know how thou art a new creature? Everyone, it says, in Christ is a new creature.

(Sancti Ambrosii, De Sacramentis, Lib. IV, Cap. IV, §§. 15-16; PL, 16:440-441, trans. St. Ambrose: On the Mysteries and the Treatise on the Sacraments, trans. T. Thompson, ed. James Herbert Strawley, [London: Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge, 1919], The Treatise on the Sacraments, 4.4.15-16, pp. 110-111. Cf. Idem, fn. 3. Cf. FC, 44:302-303.)

Alt. Trans. Ambrose, Bishop of Milan (c. 340-397 A.D.):

What is the expression of Christ? Surely that by which all things were made. The Lord ordered, the heaven was made; the Lord ordered, the earth was made; the Lord ordered, the seas were made; the Lord ordered, every creature was generated. You see then how the creating expression of Christ is. If then there is so great force in the expression of the Lord Jesus, that those things might begin to be which were not, how much more creating, that those things be which were, and be changed to something else. The heaven was not, the sea was not, the earth was not, but hear David as he says: ‘He spoke and they were made; He commanded and they were created.’

Therefore, to reply to you, there was no body of Christ before consecration, but after the consecration I say to you that now there is the body of Christ. He Himself spoke and it was made; He Himself commanded and it was created. You yourself were, but you were an old creature; after you were consecrated, you began to be a new creature. Do you wish to know how a new creature? It says: ‘Every creature is new in Christ.’

(Ambrose, The Sacraments, 4.4.15-16; PL, 16:440-441, trans. FC, 44:302-303.) Return to Article.

[3.] Cf. Charles Gore:

The author goes on to compare the change in the elements to that in the regenerate person.

(Charles Gore, Dissertations on Subjects Connected with the Incarnation, [London: John Murray, 1895], “Transubstantiation and Nihilianism,” I, p. 231, fn. 1.)

Cf. Lucius Waterman:

“To change the nature of the elements,” “change things which already are into that which they were not.” The Roman teaching does not fit with S. Ambrose, for his “transfiguring” leaves the elements still in existence.

(Lucius Waterman, The Primitive Tradition of the Eucharistic Body and Blood, [New York: Longmans, Green and Co, 1919], p. 52.) Return to Article.

[4.] Cf. Ambrose, Bishop of Milan (c. 340-397 A.D.):

For that sacrament which you receive is made what it is by the word of Christ. But if the word of Elijah had such power as to bring down fire from heaven, shall not the word of Christ have power to change the nature of the elements? You read concerning the making of the whole world: “He spake and they were made, He commanded and they were created.” Shall not the word of Christ, which was able to make out of nothing that which was not, be able to change things which already are into what they were not? For it is not less to give a new nature to things than to change them [Non enim minus est novas rebus dare, quam mutare naturas].

(Ambrose of Milan, On the Mysteries, 9.52; PL, 16:406-407; trans. NPNF2, 10:324. Cf. FC, 44:25.) See also: ccel.org.

Alt. Trans. Ambrose, Bishop of Milan (c. 340-397 A.D.):

For that sacrament, which you receive, is effected by the words of Christ. But if the words of Elias had such power as to call down fire from heaven, will not the words of Christ have power enough to change the nature of the elements? You have read about the works of the world: ‘that He spoke and they were done; He commanded and they were created.’ So, cannot the words of Christ, which were able to make what was not out of nothing, change those things that are into the things that were not? For it is not of less importance to give things new natures than to change natures.

(Ambrose of Milan, The Mysteries, 9.52; PL, 16:406-407; trans. FC, 44:25.)

Cf. John Cosin:

By these words he plainly declares his opinion, that by virtue of this change the elements of bread and wine cease not to be what they are by essence, and yet by the consecration are made what before they were not.

(John Cosin, The History of Popish Transubstantiation, ed. John Sherren Brewer, [London: J. Leslie, 1840], p. 159.)

Cf. Ratramnus [Bertram] of Corbie (c. ?-868 A.D.):

54. Saint Ambrose says that in that mystery of Christ’s blood and body a change took place, both miraculously because divinely and ineffably because incomprehensibly. Let those who here are willing to receive nothing according to the power inwardly latent, but wish to think that what appears visibly is all there is, say in what respect this change has been made in these elements. For with respect to the substance of things created, what they had been before consecration, that they afterward are [Nani secundum creaturarum substantiam, quod fuerunt ante consecrationem, hoc et postea consistunt]. They were bread and wine before; they seem to remain of this same appearance now when consecrated. Therefore, what faith sees, what feeds the soul, what provides the substance of eternal life, has been changed inwardly by the mighty power of the Holy Spirit.

(Ratramni Corbeiensis Monachi, De Corpore et Sanguine Domini, §. LIV; PL, 121:148-149; trans. LCC, 9:133.)

Alt. Trans. Ratramnus [Bertram] of Corbie (c. ?-868 A.D.):

St. Ambrose saith: that, in that mystery of the body and blood of Christ, a change is made; and that a wondrous change, because divine; and ineffable, because incomprehensible. Let them, who will take nothing here according to any hidden virtue, but who will weigh every thing as it outwardly appeareth: let them say, in what respect the change is here made. For, in respect of the SUBSTANCE of the creatures, they are, after consecration, what they were before. Bread and wine they were before: and, after consecration, they are seen to remain of the same species. So that a change hath inwardly been wrought by the mighty power of the Holy Spirit: and this is that, which faith gazeth upon; this is that, which feedeth the soul; this is that, which ministereth the substance of eternal life.

(Ratramni Corbeiensis Monachi, De Corpore et Sanguine Domini, §. LIV; PL, 121:148-149; trans. George Stanley Faber, Christ’s Discourse at Capernaum: Fatal to the Doctrine of Transubstantiation, [London: R. B. Seeley and W. Burnside, 1840], p. 162. Cf. Bertram or Ratram Concerning the Body and Blood of the Lord, In Latin; With A New English Translation: The Second Edition, [London: H. Clark, 1688], §. 54, p. 197.)

Note: Ratramnus is commenting on the above passage by Ambrose.

Alt. Trans. Ratramnus [Bertram] of Corbie (c. ?-868 A.D.):

Saint Ambrose saith, that there is a change made in that mystery of the body and blood of Christ, and that it is done marvellously and wonderfully, because it is done divinely and heavenly, and that it is done unspeakably, because it is of it self incomprehensible. Now I would fain have them,that will in this mystery, take and underſtand nothing, according to the hidden power that lieth within, but judge of the whole, according to that which visibly and outwardly appeareth,I would fain have these men, I say, to tell me, in what respect, the change is made in this mistery? If they will say, that it is made in respect of the substance of the creatures, I answer that that cannot be so,for in respect of the substance of the creatures, look whatsoever they were before consecration, they are even the fame afterwards: But they were Bread and Wine before, and therefore they remain the same, which is proved because we see, that even when they are consecrated, they remain in the same kind and form. Wherefore that which our faith looketh upon, is changed inwardly, by the Almighty power of the Holy Ghost, and it is that which feedeth the Soul, and ministreth or yieldeth the substance of Eternal life.

(Ratramni Corbeiensis Monachi, De Corpore et Sanguine Domini, §. LIV; PL, 121:148-149; trans. The Book of Bertram the Priest, Concerning the Body and Blood of Christ in the Sacrament, ed. Humphrey Linde, [London: B. Griffin, 1687], pp. 48-50.)

Note: Ratramnus is commenting on the above passage by Ambrose.

Cf. Edward Bouverie Pusey:

It is a miracle, the very greatest miracle, which S. Ambrose has to illustrate. The question is not as to the greatness of the miracle, but as to its nature. Of the miracles which S. Ambrose cites, Roman divines are wont to press just one side of one class only, and that a small class. They observe in some of those miracles a physical change of the natural substances, and that change being prominent in their own minds, they assume it to have been so in the mind of S. Ambrose. It seems, in itself, a ground against pressing these analogies, that when there was a physical change in the substance, there was a change in the appearance also. But, beyond this, this very portion of the illustrations employed by S. Ambrose would, if pressed, be contrary to the doctrine itself; the rest would be irrelevant. On no principle of interpretation, can the illustration be pressed on the one side without being taken strictly on the other also. The two are inseparable. The rod of Moses did not become a serpent without ceasing to be a rod also; true: but the rod of Moses became a serpent, which serpent had no being, until the rod became that serpent. The illustration, if pressed in one way, would imply a physical change; but it would imply a physical change which it would be heresy to believe.

But those other illustrations, the Red Sea, the Jordan, the raising of the axe-head, would not simply be irrelevant; they would, on the contrary, be opposed to the doctrine. The Red Sea, the Jordan, the axe-head, remained identically the same natural substances which they were before; the waters of Marah parted with a noxious ingredient which they had absorbed into them; they retained all their natural substance, as water. When the water gushed from the rock, there was no parting with any natural substance, but either the creation of a new substance, or a passage given in a way above nature, to the waters which lay below. Yet these, S. Ambrose urges, were lesser miracles, the fruits only of prophetic blessing. The instance (as we have seen) upon which he lays especial stress, is our Lord’s Birth of the Virgin. But in that Birth, there was, again, no change of nature, but a Production not in the way of nature. He, through the overshadowing of the Holy Ghost, formed in her that Human Nature, which “for us men and for our salvation” He vouchsafed to take. With that Human Nature which He then took, He, in the very act of giving being to It, united His Divine Nature. God and Man, He “abhorred not the Virgin’s womb.” As He lay hid in the Virgin’s womb, so we believe that (in the words of the Homilies), “under the form of bread and wine” we “receive the Body and Blood of Christ,” and, therewith, Himself.

But all the analogies of S. Ambrose harmonize and blend in one, if, without pressing them as to physical changes of substance, we dwell upon them all as signal instances of the mighty power of God…

(Edward Bouverie Pusey, The Doctrine of the Real Presence, [Oxford: John Henry Parker, 1855], pp. 293-295.)

Note: Dr. Pusey is commenting on: Ambrose, The Mysteries, 9.50-53.

Cf. Edward Bouverie Pusey:

S. Ambrose closes his book with the same argument from the mystery of the Incarnation, as above nature and superseding nature, but in this place he applies it to Baptism…

(Edward Bouverie Pusey, The Doctrine of the Real Presence, [Oxford: John Henry Parker, 1855], p. 296.)

Cf. Ambrose, Bishop of Milan (c. 340-397 A.D.):

So, then, having obtained everything, let us know that we are born again, but let us not say, How are we born again? Have we entered a second time into our mother’s womb and been born again? I do not recognize here the course of nature. But here there is no order of nature, where is the excellence of grace. And again, it is not always the course of nature which brings about conception, for we confess that Christ the Lord was conceived of a Virgin, and reject the order of nature. For Mary conceived not of man, but was with child of the Holy Spirit, as Matthew says: “She was found with child of the Holy Spirit.” If, then, the Holy Spirit coming down upon the Virgin wrought the conception, and effected the work of generation, surely we must not doubt but that, coming down upon the Font, or upon those who receive Baptism, He effects the reality of the new birth.

(Ambrose of Milan, On the Mysteries, 9.59; PL, 16:409-410; trans. NPNF2, 10:325. Cf. FC, 44:28.) See also: ccel.org.

Cf. Ambrose, Bishop of Milan (c. 340-397 A.D.):

What did you see? Water, certainly, but not water alone; you saw the deacons ministering there, and the bishop asking questions and hallowing. First of all, the Apostle taught you that those things are not to be considered “which we see, but the things which are not seen, for the things which are seen are temporal, but the things which are not seen are eternal.” For you read elsewhere: “That the invisible things of God, since the creation of the world, are understood through those things which have been made; His eternal power also and Godhead are estimated by His works.” Wherefore also the Lord Himself says: “If ye believe not Me, believe at least the works.” Believe, then, that the presence of the Godhead is there. Do you believe the working, and not believe the presence? Whence should the working proceed unless the presence went before?

(Ambrose of Milan, On the Mysteries, 3.8; PL, 16:391; trans. NPNF2, 10:318. Cf. FC, 44:7-8.) See also: ccel.org. Return to Article.

[5.] Full Text. Cyril, Patriarch of Alexandria (c. 378-444 A.D.):

Having then, ascribed to the Son so great glory, and having alleged of Him the very properties of the Nature of the Father, then he [S. Paul] saith, that ‘He is made by so much better than the angels, as He hath a more excellent name than they,’ as Son, and Heir, and Brightness, and Express Image, and Likeness, and Co-enthroned, and Creator. But if, for these reasons, He be considered much better and more excellent than the angels, better therefore will be His Ministry than theirs. But the word ‘was made’ is very justly taken here, not to signify the process from not being to being. (For ‘the Word was in the beginning.’) Nor is the change from less to greater. For the Son was Perfect, of a Perfect Father. But, as it were, in comparison of glory and dignity, the appearance was greater and better. For as if a man should be compared with a horse, and should be said to be better than it by those who estimated it, as being a reasonable creature: for that ‘becoming’ (γενέσθαι) does not wholly imply a change of nature, will be evident, for that one says to God, ‘Become Thou to me God my Shield.’ And again, ‘The Lord became to me a Refuge,’ and, ‘The Lord became my Salvation.’ In point of ministry then, and glory, and not of nature, was the comparison of the Son with the angels.

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

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

[6.] Cf. Lucius Waterman:

It may be remarked that this is a very strange use of the word “transformed.” The Roman theology talks of changing one thing into another. It really teaches that one thing is annihilated to make a place for another.

(Lucius Waterman, The Primitive Tradition of the Eucharistic Body and Blood, [New York: Longmans, Green and Co, 1919], p. 225.) Return to Article.

[7.] Alt. Trans. Augustine, Bishop of Hippo (c. 354-430 A.D.):

So the Holy Spirit comes, fire after water, and you are baked into the bread which is the body of Christ.

(Augustine, Sermon 227; PL, 38:1100; trans. WSA, III/6:255.) Return to Article.

[8.] Alt. Trans. Gregory Nazianzen, Archbishop of Constantinople (c. 329-390 A.D.):

And so it is: the man who pursues the good with some object in mind is not secure in his virtue, for once the object is gone, he will abandon the good as well, just as a man who sets sail to make a profit abandons the effort if there is no profit to be had. But the man who honors and cherishes the good for its own sake remains unswerving in his devotion to it because the object of his desire does not change; and so his experience is akin to God’s and he can say with him, I remain the same and do not change. He will not, therefore, alter or shift his position or vary with changing times and circumstances, constantly transforming himself and adopting many colors, just as octopuses adopt the color of the rocks on which they settle.

(St. Gregory of Nazianzus, Oration 36.9; PG, 36:276; trans. FC, 107:227.) Return to Article.

[9.] Cf. Edward Bouverie Pusey:

Χριστὸν ἐνδέδυμαι· Χριστὸν μεταπεποίημαι. The Benedictines render, “I have laid claim to Christ by Baptism,” but this would require a gen. not an acc. The single instance of an accus. alleged (Herod. ii. 178) is clearly an acc. absolute. “Bearing Christ (Χριστοφόρος) the baptized is, as to Satan, as Christ, Who ‘bruises him under his feet.’”

(Edward Bouverie Pusey, The Doctrine of the Real Presence, [Oxford: John Henry Parker, 1855], p. 190, fn. 6.) Return to Article.

[10.] Gregory, Bishop of Nyssa (c. 335-395 A.D.):

If the subsistence of every body depends on nourishment, and this is eating and drinking, and in the case of our eating there is bread and in the case of our drinking water sweetened with wine, and if, as was explained at the beginning, the Word of God, Who is both God and the Word, coalesced with man’s nature, and when He came in a body such as ours did not innovate on man’s physical constitution so as to make it other than it was, but secured continuance for His own body by the customary and proper means, and controlled its subsistence by meat and drink, the former of which was bread,—just, then, as in the case of ourselves, as has been repeatedly said already, if a person sees bread he also, in a kind of way, looks on a human body, for by the bread being within it the bread becomes it, so also, in that other case, the body into which God entered, by partaking of the nourishment of bread, was, in a certain measure, the same with it; that nourishment, as we have said, changing itself into the nature of the body. For that which is peculiar to all flesh is acknowledged also in the case of that flesh, namely, that that Body too was maintained by bread; which Body also by the indwelling of God the Word was transmuted [μετεποιήθη, trans-made] to the dignity of Godhead. Rightly, then, do we believe that now also the bread which is consecrated by the Word of God is changed [μεταποιεῖσθαι, trans-made] into the Body of God the Word. For that Body was once, by implication, bread, but has been consecrated by the inhabitation of the Word that tabernacled in the flesh. Therefore, from the same cause as that by which the bread that was transformed [μεταποιηθεὶς, trans-made] in that Body was changed [μετέστη] to a Divine potency, a similar result takes place now. For as in that case, too, the grace of the Word used to make holy the Body, the substance of which came of the bread, and in a manner was itself bread, so also in this case the bread, as says the Apostle, “is sanctified by the Word of God and prayer”; not that it advances by the process of eating to the stage of passing into the body of the Word, but it is at once changed [μεταποιούμενος, trans-made] into the body by means of the Word, as the Word itself said, “This is My Body.” Seeing, too, that all flesh is nourished by what is moist (for without this combination our earthly part would not continue to live), just as we support by food which is firm and solid the solid part of our body, in like manner we supplement the moist part from the kindred element; and this, when within us, by its faculty of being transmitted, is changed to blood, and especially if through the wine it receives the faculty of being transmuted [μεταποίησιν, trans-made] into heat. Since, then, that God-containing flesh partook for its substance and support of this particular nourishment also, and since the God who was manifested infused Himself into perishable humanity for this purpose, viz. that by this communion with Deity mankind might at the same time be deified, for this end it is that, by dispensation of His grace, He disseminates Himself in every believer through that flesh, whose substance comes from bread and wine, blending Himself with the bodies of believers, to secure that, by this union with the immortal, man, too, may be a sharer in incorruption.

(Gregory of Nyssa, The Great Catechism [Oratio Catechetica], 37; PG, 45:96-97; trans. NPNF2, 5:505-506.) See also: ccel.org.

Cf. Edward Bouverie Pusey:

…here we have the same word used of every sort of change; (1) of our own bodies, while yet mortal and corruptible, so that they should, by union with our Lord’s, have a principle of immortality; and of this he uses that strong language, “transmaking the whole into itself;” (2) of our Lord’s Own Natural Body to a Divine Dignity: (3) the natural assimilation of food taken by our Lord, when in the Flesh, to His Human Body, (4) the Sacramental change of the elements.

All these changes are essentially of different sorts. None of them can be the same as the others. Two were certainly not physical; a third, that of the assimilation of our Lord’s Human Food into His Human Body, was certainly physical; yet it was a physical change wholly distinct from any change which Roman Divines can believe of the Sacramental. For the substance of the food, with which our Lord vouchsafed to support His Bodily Frame, did pass into the substance of His Body. His Human Body received growth and increase through that food. It ceased to be, as to outward form too, what it was; it became what before was not, that part of the Substance of our Lord’s Human Frame, to which it became an accession. But it is confessed that our Lord’s Human Body can now receive no accession; and Roman Divines, when they say that the substance of the bread is changed into the Substance of our Lord’s Body, do not mean that it is changed at all, only that it ceases to be.

In a chapter following immediately, S. Gregory, within a short paragraph, uses seven times this same word, “transmaking,” μεταποίησις, of the change in man through Baptismal regeneration, saying distinctly that it was no change in human nature itself, nor in the natural powers. Clearly then, μεταποίησις, “transmaking,” has, in itself, no such meaning as “change of substance.”

(Edward Bouverie Pusey, The Doctrine of the Real Presence, [Oxford: John Henry Parker, 1855], pp. 183-184.)