with the most reverend and venerable Fathers and lords aforesaid and my notary undersigned, I was present, and I saw and heard that it was done thus: therefore I have subscribed this present public instrument, written by the interpreter of this holy ecumenical council, together with the said notary, and have reduced it into this public form, and with my usual and customary sign and name, I have signed at their request and A as a witness to the things aforesaid.
I, Julian, cardinal priest of the title of St. Sabina, commonly called of St. Angelus, was present at all the aforesaid; and I recognize the letter written by the hand of the aforementioned Nicolaus Sagudinus, common interpreter of the Latins and Greeks: and for the lasting reminder of the matter, I have signed with my own hand.
OF BESSARION, BISHOP OF TUSCULUM, CARDINAL OF THE HOLY ROMAN CHURCH, PATRIARCH OF CONSTANTINOPLE, ON THE SACRAMENT OF THE EUCHARIST AND BY WHICH WORDS CHRIST IS MADE PRESENT.
The mystery of the Eucharist is sacred and divine, by which we are made sons of God, and heirs, and co-heirs, and of the same body with the Lord, provided that we participate worthily B therein. But it is usually asked among Christians by which words, in particular, within the solemn rites of the Masses, the most holy body and blood of the Lord are consecrated. For some think that this is done by other words; the Latins, following Ambrose, Augustine, Gregory, and their other doctors, who are outstanding for their doctrine as well as for the holiness of their lives, assert most clearly that the Lord’s words accomplish this: *This is my body; and this is my blood*, and they opine that the priest’s prayer is entirely vain without them. The Greeks, however, especially the more recent ones, feeling as did James the brother of the Lord, Basil, and Chrysostom, men of singular example and holiness, think that Christ’s body and blood are consecrated not by those words of our Savior, but by certain prayers of the priests that follow. In which, in the offices of the Masses that each of them composed, long after the recitation of the Lord’s words which we mentioned above, they still call the bread and wine offerings made to God, and they invoke and pray that the Holy Spirit may descend upon them, bless, sanctify, and make them the body and blood of the Lord. Since, therefore, there is such great and notable dissension regarding a most important matter between the Latins and the Greeks, if the controversy were only among those present and men of our own age, anyone could more easily argue for his own opinion regarding them: but when the contention is stirred up among the common doctors of the Church and our ancient and most holy Fathers (for these are they who seem both to dissent among themselves and to cause others also to dissent), I would not rashly constitute myself an arbitrator between them, had I not been C compelled to do so by the petitions of those justly praying, and by a desire for the utility of our fellow men, whose salvation and glory I have always been most eager for, and had I not hoped, relying on divine aid, to render them concordant among themselves. Therefore, in order that our discourse may proceed correctly, and the truth of the matter which we seek may shine forth more easily, some things must be considered more deeply before we address the sequence of the proposed question.
Before all else, therefore, it must be known that this most holy sacrament of communion, of which we speak, as well as the other sacraments of the Church, are for this reason called sacraments, because they hold within themselves one thing that is seen, another that is comprehended not by the eyes of the body, but by the intellect alone. The things that are seen are sensible; those which are perceived by the intellect are spiritual: whence they are called spirit and life. *The words that I have said to you*, says the Lord, *are spirit and life*. Moreover, each and every one of these sacraments is received in two ways: for either a sacrament is a sign, or it is that which is signified. The former indeed is both and is called only a sign. The latter, however, is the thing which is signified by that sign: for all theological doctrine, as Augustine testifies, consists of signs and things. And things are those which are received as being signified, while signs are those whose entire use lies in signifying. For even if every sign is a thing (for what is not a thing, as the same Augustine says, is nothing at all, and thus cannot be a sign), in this place, however, a sign is taken not as a signified thing, but as a sign signifying the thing itself, insofar as it is a sign, and not insofar as it is some thing. Just as when we see smoke rising, not insofar as it is some substance or thing, but insofar as
A it is a sign of fire, we say it is a sign, because it is a substance and a certain thing. For every sign is indeed a certain thing, but not every thing is a sign of another thing. For there are some things only as signified, but not as signs signifying something else, which can be easily understood in other sacraments.
For in the sacrament of baptism, the washing of the flesh by water is such a sacrament as to be merely a sign of the washing away of sins. For the remission of sins itself is the thing signified, signifying nothing beyond itself. The same holds true for the remaining sacraments. Therefore, even in the sacrament of the Eucharist, one thing is only a sign, such as the visible species of bread and wine: another is the thing signified, such as the true body and blood of the Lord itself, which He assumed from the immaculate blood of the Blessed Virgin. But this divine sacrament of the Eucharist has this peculiarity beyond others, that in it the thing signified is also a sign of another thing. For the true body and blood of the Lord itself, while it is the thing signified by the sign of bread and wine, as we shall show presently, is nevertheless a sign of another thing, when it signifies the mystical body of Christ and the unity of the Church in the Holy Spirit: this, indeed, signifies no other thing further, but is only signified. Thus it comes about that the visible and sensible species of bread and wine is a signifier of a twofold thing: for it signifies both the true body of the Lord, and it is both the thing signified and a sacred sign, and the mystical body of the Church. Wherefore, bread and wine is merely a sign, but the true body and blood of Christ itself, which is covered under the shadow of bread and wine, being signified indeed by the bread and wine, but signifying the mystical body of the Church, is both a thing and a sign: but the mystical body, being signified by both, is only a thing, and is not further a sign of another thing. Furthermore, that which is only a sign is a sign of two things, namely, the true and the mystical body. But that which is a thing, and no longer a sign, is the thing of two sacred signs, that is, of the visible species of bread and wine, and of the true body of the Lord contained in them. But the true body and blood, if you look to the other invisible sacrament, is a thing; if you look to the mystical body, it is a sign. Again, the first, which is only a sign, falls D under the eyes; the second, which is a thing and a sign, is transcended by the mind; the third, which is only a thing, is perceived by the heart. Moreover, the first not only signifies, but also contains the second. For in the species of bread and wine, the truth of the body and blood is contained, since it is changed in that substance of bread and wine. Truly the third, although it signifies, does not however contain. Since these things are most true, it also follows that, of those who become partakers of the divine body, some become partakers sacramentally and spiritually, such as those who receive communion worthily, while others A sacramentally, and not spiritually, are those who communicate unworthily: for they receive the true body of Christ, but do not receive the effect of the sacrament, nor are they united to Christ. Concerning them says the Apostle, that they eat and drink judgment to themselves. For they would not eat and drink judgment and condemnation, if they had communicated spiritually, and were already united to Christ. There are others who, even if they are not participants sacramentally, yet communicate spiritually, as for instance if an infant after baptism, or one advanced in age, not yet having received the body of Christ due to some unavoidable necessity, were to fail by sudden death. For they become no less participants of the sacrament, than if they had received communion: for they become members of Christ and heirs of the heavenly kingdom.
Concerning the Sacrament of the Eucharist
These things therefore, since they are manifest to all (for who would deny, from among those who receive communion, that some receive no grace, but rather for grace, judgment and punishment, while others receive grace most abundantly: and that some, even without communion, provided it happens not by contempt or negligence, but by necessity, merit divine grace?): since, I say, these things are so clear and perspicuous, they prove that this tripartite distribution of divine sacraments is true and necessary, from which it seems to follow that the body of Christ also is twofold, one true, the other mystical. And true indeed it is, that in this divine sacrament of the Eucharist it is consecrated and effected under the visible C species of bread and wine. This is the same as that body which was conceived from the Blessed Virgin by the overshadowing of the Holy Spirit. Regarding which the Lord Himself, in the exhibition of the sacrament, when He had shown us the sensible bread and wine, says: This is my body; and, This is my blood; then He added, which is given for you, and which is poured out for you for the forgiveness of sins. But His mystical body is the Church, and the congregation of the faithful. For no one would dare to deny that this is the body of Christ, especially hearing the Apostle saying that Christ is the head of the Church. For the head, without the members, would not be the head. Wherefore we are the members of Christ, and our head is Christ. Whence cries D the Apostle: You are the body of Christ and members individually. And again: The bread which we break, is it not the communion of the body of the Lord? And again: We being many, He says, are one bread and one body. And rendering the reason for it He adds: For we all partake of the one bread. Which words, while our Chrysostom strives to expound, he says thus: What do I say communion? We are that very body. For what is the bread, if not the body of Christ? Not many bodies, but one body. For just as bread, consisting of many grains, is so composed that the grains are nowhere seen; and indeed they are grains, but on account of their conjunction they are without distinction
and are discerned; so we too are joined to each other in Christ. Damascene also, where he treats of the most holy mysteries, says: "Let us honor the body of Christ with all purity of mind and body, for it is twofold." Augustine, too, the light of the Western Church, says: "Just as from many grains one bread is made, and from many grapes one cup is pressed, so from many believers one mystical body is integrated." Indeed, just as every body consists of many members and parts, so the unity of the Church is made up of diverse persons, namely, the foreknown, the predestined, the called, the justified, and the glorified. "For those whom God foreknew, he also predestined; and those whom he predestined, he also called; and those whom he called, he also justified; and those whom he justified, he also glorified," says the Apostle. B The efficient cause of this mystical body is the very true body of Christ and the communion of it, if it is done worthily. This is signified by the words of those who say: "We pray that this thy body may provide those who partake of it with sobriety of soul, remission of sins, and communion with thee." For what else is communion than unity with Christ, the annexation of members to the head, the convenience of the parts to the whole? Thus, this sacrament is properly called communion. And among Dionysius, it is called *synaxis*, that is, collection. For it gathers what is distant from itself, and makes many one, and evens out things that are unlike, and reduces scattered things into one. Wherefore the same Damascene, in the place we mentioned above, says that it is called Communion, and is so because through it we communicate with Christ, and become partakers of his flesh and divinity, and are joined and united to one another. For when we partake from one bread, we all become one body of Christ, and one blood, and members, one of another, of the same body with Christ. And again in the same place: "Through the body and blood of Christ, being purified, we are united to the body of the Lord and his spirit, and we are made the body of Christ." Whence the Lord is called Messiah, or Mediator, and corner stone, as if joining extremes and uniting divided things. "Mediator is not of one, but of two," says Paul, and "he is the bond and conjunction of two walls." After these things, it must also be added in the third place, that the word of the Lord, body, is both truth and figure. Since it has been shown that, just as the visible species of bread and wine is a figure or sign of the true and Lordly body contained within them, and also of the mystical body, so the true body is a figure of the mystical and ecclesiastical body. To this, Damascene, in the place we mentioned above, testifies that the true body of the Lord, which is consecrated on the altar, is called a figure of things to come. "They are called," he says, "significative of things to come, not because they are not the true body and the true blood of Christ, but because now we are made partakers of his divinity through them, but then we shall enjoy it through the intellect by vision alone." C And Gregory says this more openly, that now indeed we partake of the body and blood under the species of bread and wine, but then we shall see it by clear vision, and as it truly is.
One must take care, however, that no one, because the mystery of the Eucharist is said to be a figure, should dare to say or even suspect that it is not the true body of the Lord. Far be such a great blasphemy from the minds of the faithful. In this way, his precious death would not be a true death, because in part it is a figure of the washing away of our sins, and in part a figure of our justification. For it is the vessel of election who says: "Christ died for our sins, and rose again for our justification." And Peter: "Christ suffered for us, leaving us an example." Therefore the death of Christ was a figure of our death according to sin, and his resurrection was an example and figure of our life through justification, according to the opinion of the chief apostles. Yet his death and resurrection were not therefore *not* a true death and resurrection: therefore, the sacrament of the Eucharist is both truth and figure, from which nothing absurd seems to follow. For the very name of the sacrament signifies nothing else than the figure of something and the sign of another. Indeed, a sacrament ought to be a secret covered in mysteries, and to carry one thing outwardly, and to have another which is understood inwardly. But the name of "figure" ought to trouble no one, nor that which Damascene says, that bread and wine is nothing but a figure of the body and blood of Christ. Far be it! Rather, it is the deified body of the Lord itself, with the Lord himself saying, "This is my body," and not, "a figure of my body"; and, "This is my blood," and not, "a figure of my blood." For first, by the name of bread and wine, he understands not the very visible species of bread and wine, but that which is substantially transmuted into body and blood. Next, in this place, he understands by "figure" that shadow which is nothing other than a figure, signifying something else simply, having no power or potency of effecting anything at all. Just as the sacraments of the old law were a figure of the sacraments of the New Testament, like circumcision to baptism, the blood of goats and calves to the Lord's blood poured out on the ark of the cross, and the serpent hanging in the desert to the body of the Lord hanging on the cross. Truly, those were only figures, and significative of other things, not effective, and indeed significative of holy things, but not holy themselves. But ours are not only significative and figures of salvation, but also soul-saving, that is, effective of salvation; and they are holy things themselves, and the figures of holy things. For this is the difference between the sacraments of the old and new law: that those only signified salvation, but these also provide it; and those were not holy, but only significative of holy things; but these are both significative of holy things and effective. Hence Saint Hilary says: The body
A which we partake of in the altar is, in one sense, a figure, insofar as bread and wine appear to the external senses, but it is truth, insofar as it is believed in truth of heart to be the body and blood. And Augustine says: The body of Christ, he says, is both truth and figure: truth, in that by the power of the Spirit it is made body from the substance of bread and wine; but it is a figure in that which lies beneath the external senses. We therefore receive "figure" in this place in such a way that it signifies, with respect to the sensible species of bread and wine, one thing, while with respect to the true body of Christ it signifies something else, and yet it is truth. Just as Damascenus also, as we remembered a little before, following the ancient doctors, called the true body and blood of Christ the figurative forms of future things. For where he said "figurative," he could have said "figure" without distinction. But we have discussed these things sufficiently, as I judge; now let us proceed to what remains. Our entire discourse will be tripartite. First, we shall endeavor to show that the most divine body and blood of Christ are accomplished by no other words or prayers of priests than those words of the Lord which we mentioned above: *This is my body;* and, *This is my blood.* After this, we shall declare that the view of the holy doctors of the Church and our Fathers is one and the same. Finally, with the Lord as our guide, whose cause this is, we shall dissolve what seem to be in opposition to this opinion.
That it is therefore impossible for the sacrament of the Eucharist to be accomplished by any words other than the Lord’s appears most evidently and clearer than light. For indeed, there is no one from whom it is hidden how the transubstantiation of bread and wine into the body and blood of Christ, accomplished in an instant, exceeds all human capacity, and is a vast work, and certainly divine: so also the words of the efficacy of this sacrament must, like the sacrament itself, be of some extraordinary virtue. However, it is manifest that there is nothing more powerful, nothing that can be more efficacious than the divine words of Christ. Wherefore it must be confessed that this divine sacrament can be accomplished by those words of the Lord, and by no others. For no one can deny that the most divine things are accomplished by divine power, nor that the words of Christ have nothing of efficacy, since He is not only man but also God, and creator of all things, who produced all things by His nod alone, who by a word cured the sick, raised the dead, and performed the other miracles which are recounted in the Gospels. Moreover, human prayers D obtain what they pray for most easily when they are deserved, and are poured forth by the meritorious. Yet the transmutation of bread and wine into body and blood is effected not by the merits of those who request it, but by the power of Him who produced all things from nothing, through the priest as it were by a certain instrument. Whence it is consecrated no less by unworthy and perverse priests than by good and holy ones. From which it is manifest that it is not the holiness of the one praying, but the Lord Himself, by His own words uttered by the priest, who transmutes the bread and wine into His own body.
A For if human prayers could do this, the prayers of good men, even if not those of priests, would rather accomplish this divine work than the prayers of wicked priests. But it would be indecent, and alien to human salvation, to deem so great a sacrament to depend upon a doubtful matter; for it is doubtful and ambiguous whether our prayers and supplications are to be accepted by God: from which it would result that even our salvation, expected through the virtue of this mystery, would be doubtful. Lest this happen, and rather that our salvation—which this sacrament offers to the worthy participants—be certain and indubitable, it is necessary that so great a sacrament be accomplished by the Lord's words alone, and by no others. Besides this, by our prayers we do not accomplish the sacrament, but we merely ask that it be accomplished. But the words that operate this divine body must be of the efficacy of the sacrament, not that they may be accomplished by entreaty. Therefore, to our words, which do not accomplish it but pray that it be accomplished, such a work is not to be attributed, but rather to the Lord's words, which do indeed accomplish it, in the way that the Lord Himself consecrated by the same words, as is read in the Gospel. Moreover, the words of the Lord are brought forth by the priest as having the power to accomplish those things which the words themselves signify. But the same priest asks for power by his prayers as if he did not yet have it. And yet, a matter is accomplished better and more certainly by one who has the power than by one who does not yet have it but asks to have it, and he who can already do it performs it more easily than he who hopes that he can. Therefore, it must be believed that these holy mysteries are effected not by the suppliant prayers of priests, but by the declarative words of the Lord. Item, while the priest prays, he either asks to obtain the power of accomplishing the mystery, or he does not; if he asks, then that power did not inhere in the priest's prayers (for who would ask for what he already holds?) But if he does not ask, he asks in vain. Wherefore it is manifest that it is not the prayers of the priests themselves, but the words of the Lord, that accomplish the Eucharist. Add that there must be no diversity, no change in the words that accomplish these mysteries: for there is one and an immutable form of each thing, by the change of which the whole thing is also changed. Whence Matthew and Mark and Luke, and with them the apostle Paul, when they make mention of this consecration, which was perfected by the Savior on the night in which He was betrayed, all pronounce the words in the same way: although they have spoken differently in the preceding and following parts. Here, together, all said: *This is my body;* and, *This is my blood.* But the prayers and supplications of priests, by which some think this mystery is accomplished, we see to be different among different people and indeed far diverse. For some do it by wishing, others by commanding. Indeed, Clement and James say: We ask that you send your Holy Spirit upon this sacrifice, that He may make this bread the body of your Christ, and what is in this chalice, the blood of your Christ. James, however, says: We ask that the Holy Spirit coming by His holy, good, and glorious presence
sanctify and make this bread the very precious body of your holy Christ, and this chalice the precious blood of your holy Christ. But the great doctor Basil says: We pray, he says, that your Holy Spirit may come upon us and upon these gifts set forth, and bless them, and sanctify, and make this bread the very precious body, and the wine the precious blood of our Lord, and God, and Savior Jesus Christ, which is shed for the life of the world. The divine Chrysostom, however, says: Send your Spirit, and make this bread the precious body of your Christ, and what is in this chalice, the precious blood of your Christ, transmuting them by your Holy Spirit. Since, therefore, there is such great B difference and variety in these, yet the words of the sacrament which are efficient must be immutable, it is surely manifest that not those which are different among some, but these words of the Lord, which are the same among all and are uttered by all in the same way, are the form of such a great mystery, and that the power of perfecting is to be attributed to them; for by them it comes to pass that it is what it is. That also must be considered, that they are the efficient causes of a thing, by which that thing is produced into being and is distinguished from others. But of this divine mystery, no other efficient causes appear to exist C than the words of the Lord. Therefore, they alone, and not the priestly prayers, are to be said to accomplish so great a work. The first part of this argument is per se known, wherefore, passing it over, we shall prove the lesser. The work of consecration itself is certainly performed, and the holy mystery is effected through the consecration, in the final utterance of the words that effect it, whatever that may be, and it is done in an instant. For the substance of the bread and wine remains in its own nature until all those words which effect the sacrament are spoken: upon which being said, the consecration immediately occurs, the transubstantiation is perfected, the sacrament is consummated. Which blessed Augustine also says of baptism: Remove, he says, the words, and what is water but D water? Let the word be added to the element, and the sacrament is made. Whence such power of water that when it touches the body, it cleanses the heart, if not from Him who by his word does this? Since, therefore, it is manifest that this sacrament is effected by words, it is fitting that those which relate to this transmutation from substance into substance should have some likeness and be conformable to it. Whence, since in this transmutation it is necessary that these three be present: the term from which, the term to which the transmutation itself is made, and the mode of the transmutation itself, which all these signify; that such are indeed the words of the Lord is easily proven, for in them the term from which is contained, through the word *This*; for unless the term from which were in it, there would be no transmutation; but in it a transmutation from substance into substance is made: therefore, this term is signified by that *This*. In a similar way, the term to which is present in the same words; for without that term there would be no transmutation, but rather corruption, if A it were changed not into existence, but into non-existence. This term, however, we can consider in a twofold manner: sometimes indeed by understanding the body and blood itself, into which the substantiality happens; and this is signified when it is said, "body and blood"; sometimes indeed by considering it such that this transubstantiation may be determined and particular and one. Just as in those things which are made by art, there is one form and species for each: so also there is one effect of one operation, for which reason "my" is added. But the third and final thing, through which the mode of transubstantiation is expressed, is sufficiently aptly expressed by the word "is." For that which is done in an instant is now no longer future, but as if done and now plainly existing, not by the imperative, not by the optative, B or by any other mode of verb, nor indeed by the future time, which are doubtful, nor that which is not, but that which is to be, which could not even come to pass, it signifies, but by the very verb "is" of the present time, and of the indicative mood, which signifies that it already exists, it is sufficiently expressed: nay, indeed, it can be expressed in this way and in no other. Therefore, all these things, so necessary in this natural transubstantiation, since they are contained in no others except the Dominical words, as has been shown, we are surely compelled to think and to confess that they are the very efficiency of so holy a mystery, to which nothing is lacking, C and nothing is superfluous, and not human prayers, to which some things that would be more necessary are lacking. Beyond all these things, since the Lord commanded this immaculate sacrifice to be offered for his remembrance: For this, he says, do in my commemoration, surely a more express memory of him is made when we repeat his words brought forth from that most sacred mouth, than if we should recite any other things whatsoever. This the apostle Paul confirms, when he says the death of the Lord is announced in this sacrifice. For in what way can it be announced more expressively than when his body and blood are, by his own words, made the sacrament, rather than by any others? However, that the Father and the Holy Spirit concur with the Son in this divine work D of the transubstantiation of bread and wine into the body and blood of Christ, must be believed by the faithful. For all operations in creatures are common to the Trinity, and nothing at all is done unless the Son creates, the Father wills, and the Holy Spirit desires. For of him, and through him, and in him are all things, according to the apostle Paul. And again: By whom also he made the worlds. And again: Upholding all things by the word of his power. And John the evangelist: All things were made by him. And the same: It is the Spirit that quickeneth. And Paul: For if his Spirit that raised up Jesus Christ from the dead, dwell in you, who raised up Jesus Christ from the dead, shall quicken also your mortal bodies because of his Spirit that dwelleth in you. And again: But all these things one and the same Spirit worketh, dividing
to each one as he wills. And David: Send forth your Spirit and they shall be created. This must be held simply, and observed as a certain general rule: the operations of the divine Trinity, if one looks at them intrinsically, are A entirely distinct and separate; sometimes, indeed, they have no communication with each other at all, just as the modes of begetting and being begotten, of breathing and being breathed, and other similar things, are distinct. But extrinsically, and in so far as it relates to the creature, the operation is one, and the work of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit is the same; and there is nothing of those things which come to pass in us that does not emanate from the whole Trinity, yet by one operation, by one power, by one will. Wherefore it is also said that one is the Creator, and the Trinity is believed to be the one principle of all those things which exist and which come to pass. But to which words is it more proper that the Father and the Holy Spirit should consent than the Son, who is of the same nature and the same substance as they? This is manifest to all who are not unwilling to contend.
However, a necessary, fit, and sufficient minister is required for these things. He is sufficient who has had the power through consecration and has been made a priest. For words of this kind uttered by whomsoever cannot effect what is sought; nay, indeed, they can do nothing at all unless they are uttered by a priest. The reason for this is that it thus pleased God, so He ordained, and so He laid down the law. A merit worthy of the one who transgresses His law and will is therefore prepared, so that he can accomplish nothing. But the priest must approach those things which the Lord commanded with due intention. For He commanded us that we should perform these things in His remembrance, that we might know that we are announcing His death (performing it ourselves instrumentally, when we perform these things) as His Body and Blood. If anyone, therefore, should utter either the words of the Lord or any other things by which he thinks a sacrament of this kind is brought about, without intending those things which were spoken, and without deeming that he is doing what He commanded, he does nothing at all, but is frustrated and deceived in his own desire.
Furthermore, it is necessary that the matter for these things be fitting and suitable. For bread must be made from wheat, and wine from the vine. Unless the grain of wheat, says the Lord, falling into the ground dies, it will bring forth no fruit. And again: I am the true vine. But if the priest should do otherwise, even with due attention, whether he utters the very words of the Lord or any others whatsoever, all labor is in vain; for never would bread made from barley or millet or some other kind of grain, nor strong drink or milk or honey, be turned into the Body and Blood of the Lord. The canons of the apostles affirm this, and later doctors affirm this. Why is this? Because the Creator of all things has so willed, has so ordained; and it is an impiety to transgress and to avoid any of those things which He has ordained. These things, therefore, are absolutely necessary for the consummation of the holy mystery, and without them nothing at all can happen.
There are, however, other words which, although they might not be strictly necessary to the essence of the matter, nevertheless contribute to the B beauty and perfection of the mystery; if any of these are sometimes omitted out of just necessity, there is no loss incurred. Such are the ritual of celebrating the mystery upon the altar, the donning of priestly vestments, and the many things said by the priests and by the people both before the words of the Lord and after in praise of God, in the narrative of His works, and in the petition for eternal life. Hence it is that some things are said by some in one way, and by others more or fewer things are said. Hence it is that Basil, James, and Chrysostom made their masses briefer than Basil’s, because all the things that were said were not necessary. For no one would have presumed to take away anything necessary. But if anyone now, not out of contempt for the Church, which has so ordained, nor by introducing a new heresy, but compelled by some inevitable necessity, should utter only the Lord’s words with due intention—those very words which He said and did, saying and doing them, provided he is a priest and has the proper matter—he has indeed truly accomplished the Body and Blood of Christ. Conversely, if anyone, while uttering all the other things and almost infinite other things, should omit the words of the Lord, he has labored in vain, as they say, and accomplished nothing.
But if peradventure anyone, not satisfied with these things, should seek authority and desire to hear what the doctors of the Church have felt, let him look first at Ambrose, who in time indeed precedes the others, but in wisdom and holiness of life yields to none, whether of the Orientals or the Occidentals. C He says, in the sermon he wrote about the sacraments: "For how can bread be the body of Christ? By what words or by whose words are these sacraments brought about?" And he adds: "By those of our Lord Jesus Christ." And shortly after: "When the priest effects this sacrament, he does not use his own words, but uses the words of Christ himself: for the words of Christ bring about this sacrament." And after a few lines: "Before the consecration it is bread, but when the words of Christ have been spoken, it is soon the body of Christ. For He says: Take and eat, all of you, this is my body. Similarly, in the chalice, before the words of the Lord, there is wine mixed with water, but with the words of Christ operating, it is made blood."
Again, the same Ambrose, when he had commemorated many signs and miracles which were brought about by the sole word of the Lord, and had shown that the whole world was produced from nothing by the same word, and that many other things were done by human prayers and blessings, finally added these things: "If, therefore, a human blessing had such power to transmute the nature of things, what shall we say of this divine consecration, where the very words of the Savior themselves operate? For this sacrament which you receive is brought about by the word of Christ." In other places the same doctor says much more in this vein most clearly. But the most holy Augustine, he too a doctor, says: "The consecration of the Divine body is brought about by the Catholic Church..."
[505 A] and is believed to exist no more from the good priest than less from the evil one; for it is brought about not by the merit of the consecrator, but by the word of the Creator." And elsewhere: "It must be believed that the sacrament is brought about by the words of Christ: for by the word of Him by whose power the things that are were first created, they are certainly transformed for the better." The same author in his *On the Sayings of the Lord*, 2, says: "Before the words of the Lord, which say 'This is my body' [are said], what is offered is called bread; but once those words are said, it is no longer called bread, but body." And again, in his *Exposition upon John*, it is called the body and flesh of Christ, which flesh cannot contain. But the words of the flesh itself, which were the very words of the flesh of Christ, bring it about. For He says: "This is my body." What is clearer than these testimonies? What could be more manifest? For no person of sound mind, and desiring to be a Christian, would reject these doctors whom all holy synods and the common doctors of the Church have accepted, whom they have extolled with great praises as holy and most acceptable to God, and whose memory the Church, not only of the West but even of the East, celebrates with the highest praise. Therefore, it is manifest that they thought, not obscurely nor doubtfully, but openly and manifestly, that this sacrament is brought about by those most sacred words of the Lord: "This is my body," and, "This is my blood." What then? [505 C] The [West] indeed say it in this way, but the Orientals think otherwise. But the Spirit would not have spoken the same thing in them in such a way: their utterances would not be of the Holy Spirit, but the eructations of their own belly. But in fact, one and the same Spirit has spoken through the mouths of both. And just as they are in agreement with the Westerners in all other matters, so also are they in this sacrament. For hear what that mouth of John says, in his thirty-second homily *Upon Matthew*: "The things which are set forth," he says, "are not works of human power; He who did these things then at the Supper, He himself also performs them now; we occupy the place of ministers. But He who sanctifies and changes them is He Himself." Again, the same author in his twenty-seventh homily *Upon I Corinthians* says thus: "How did Paul receive it from the Lord? For he was not present then, but was one of the persecutors. In order for you to understand," he says, "that that table had nothing more than these later ones have. For today, too, He is the one who performs and hands it down, just as He did then. [505 D] Do you see, therefore, how we occupy the place of ministers; but He who truly sanctifies and changes them is He Himself. Do you see that it is He who performs and hands down all things, just as then! Persuade yourself, therefore, that it is He who changes them: and do not attribute this to your own reason, which is something doubtful, but to His infinite power. Perhaps you will say that you do not contradict this doctor: for you too feel and profess that it is He who performs these things, but through the orations and prayers of the priest. Yet there is a great difference between performing something and performing all things. For you [say] that you sanctify these gifts by your prayers while the Holy Spirit descends, even though the words of the Lord also perform something. But this most holy doctor [506 A] says that the Savior Himself performs these things, and he does not add that it is done by the prayers of the priests, which he certainly would have added if he had known it to be necessary; but he remained silent as if it were not necessary. For He who does all things has need of no operator. But from those words of Chrysostom, which we have recalled above, a certain not-to-be-despised consideration is learned. For he says that Paul did not receive this tradition from Christ, though he asserts that he himself received it. And Chrysostom is indeed correct. For Paul was at that time a persecutor and enemy of the name of Christ, and it was long after the Ascension of the Savior into heaven that he had learned the sacred faith from Him who had appeared to him on the way. From whom, then, did he receive it as he passed it on? Surely from the apostles, and indeed not only from those teaching by word, but from those demonstrating by deed. Paul, however, handed on to us what he had received. But since he handed on only those things which he writes in the Epistle to the Corinthians, he certainly received only those, and he saw the apostles do only those. For if he had seen them do more, he would have handed those on as well. But he says nothing more in that Epistle than that Christ took bread into His hands, blessed it, gave it to the disciples, and said: "Take and eat, this is my body." Therefore, the apostles, from whom Paul received it to hand on, were doing the same thing in every respect. Paul received only this from them and handed this on to us. But afterwards, whether it was Clement, or James, or anyone else, they added other orations and hymns and canticles, not out of necessity, but for adornment. Since these things are so, it is sufficiently certain that the testimony of the blessed Chrysostom is so clear and open that no excuse, no subterfuge is left for those who calumniate. Let us now hear the same doctor explaining himself, and declaring this matter in such a way that no one, however bold and contentious, would dare to contradict. In the homily which he wrote *On the Betrayal of the Traitor and the Tradition of the Sacraments*, he says: "Christ is present now also; He who made that table, He Himself also adorns it now. For it is not man who makes these gifts into the body and blood of Christ, but Christ who was crucified for us. The priest stands there fulfilling the role, pronouncing those words; but all the power and grace is Christ’s. 'This is my body,' He says. This word transmutes the things proposed. [506 D] For just as that voice by which it was said: 'Increase and multiply and fill the earth,' was indeed said once, but always provides the nature of our work with the power to generate, so this voice also, said once at every altar from that time on until the present day, and until the coming of Christ, makes this sacrament complete." But you are accustomed to say to these things: "Just as the Word by whom all things were created is not enough by itself for the production of the things that come to be, but the conjunction of male and female is required so that the species of animals may be propagated, and the cultivation of lands and the labors of farmers are necessary so that the things which are born from the earth may grow and coalesce, in the same way only
A revealing the matter of the bread and wine which they themselves also use, He delivered to them the form by which they might perform the sacrament. Now these are His words: *This is my body*, and, *This is my blood*. The most holy doctor says that these words, once spoken by the Savior, always operate, do not cooperate, and do not need the aid of anyone. For human words would have a great, nay, the greatest force of all, if they added anything of authority or power to divine words; nay, indeed, they would excel them in dignity, which it is even impious and nefarious to think. “The prayers of the priest,” says the Ephesian, “cooperate with the dominical words.” How, O good man, do they cooperate? Is it as if they were in themselves insufficient, or as if they were sufficient? If as though sufficient, your entire prayer is certainly superfluous and vain; if as though insufficient, alas! what wickedness and what blasphemy it is to say that the prayers of a man supplement what is lacking in the divine words! Furthermore, when you say that these words, together with the prayer, perform the whole, you consider both to be imperfect; it is necessary, therefore, that some third thing arriving should do it. But pray, open to us what this is. For you will not say it is the Holy Spirit: since this is the very question, whether each of them by itself, or both together, inclines the Holy Spirit to perform it. But if you contend that both can do it, you must understand that if both together can do this, insofar as the dominical words are contained therein, they are the things which constitute the sacrament, whether the prayer follows or does not follow. Thus the prayer of the priest adds nothing to them for this purpose, nor is any necessary aid from elsewhere required for them. But if, insofar as the priest supplicates that the Holy Spirit descending may sanctify those gifts, they are sanctified only to that extent, then the dominical words do nothing, and Chrysostom does not speak truly when he asserts that they always operate, and transmute, and perfectly complete; nor does the supplication of the priest, as you say, cooperate with Him, but rather it performs the whole. Why then do you corrupt the words of the holy doctor, not interpreting them correctly, and hold a false opinion concerning the sacrament of the Eucharist? Yet, you say, even Baptism is performed by the sole prayer of the priest. Even in this you err, and the truth is not in you. D For indeed, Baptism also is performed by the dominical words. “Go, therefore,” He says, “baptize them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit.” Then Baptism is performed when the priest says: “May the servant of God be baptized,” or, “I baptize thee in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit.” Hence, if anyone were to say nothing else besides these words, he baptizes correctly, and whoever has been baptized in this manner has attained salvation. Conversely, however, if anyone were to say the other things and offer infinite prayers to God, but were to omit these words, he does nothing at all. In this manner the apostles baptized through the laying on of hands and the blessing and the pronunciation of these words; in this manner they consecrated the mystery of the Eucharist.
A Prayers, hymns, and the other things that are said in the Church were not yet composed. For let us consider a thing that could certainly have happened: that on the very day of the Passion or the following one, Peter or any other of the apostles wished to consecrate the sacrament of the altar in memory of Christ and His Passion (for it is not credible that they did not assiduously remember Him in whose commemoration He commanded this to be done); in what other words, we shall think, did they make it happen except the Lord’s own? And this after the supper, which was observed even over a long interval of time, and while wearing common garments? But you say, these words, recited in a narrative way, cannot bring about the sacrament. B Yet the priest does not bring forth these words as if narrating a series of past events, but as if clothed in the person of Christ; as if, in bringing them forth, it were the Lord Himself who was speaking, and he holds the intention that, through those words, according to the command of Him who so ordained, he might bring about the body and blood of Christ, just as He did—He who brought it about through the words we mentioned above. Surely these can be understood in two ways: either as related by an evangelist, and then they are taken narratively, since the evangelists are recounting what Christ did on that night of the life-giving Passion; or as brought forth by the priest, who has the intention of performing this sacrament according to the order handed down by the Savior, and then they are brought forth not narratively but performatively, with the intention of bringing about the mystery according to the imitation of Christ, just as if he himself were the one speaking and acting. C For this reason, the holy doctors assert that a right intention and purpose is, above all, necessary for the priest to perform the things that have been said, since without it absolutely nothing can be brought about. Just as if one of the kings, wishing to make his will manifest to his subjects through some one of those who have favor and authority with him, should decree that those words be related in the first person just as they were spoken by him, and that the people, hearing the words brought forth thus, should obey them as if instructed by the king himself. For it is manifest that if, with this law given, a messenger coming to the people should say: "The King, desirous of your salvation and wishing to keep your commonwealth in happiness and abundance of all things, constantly keeps watch over these matters and establishes the laws which he deems useful and necessary for this. Wherefore, D while having followed the examples of others in many things, he himself, the inventor of many, sanctions this law: I wish any of you who has obeyed the laws established by me to receive a talent of gold from the public treasury every so many years." Certainly he does not say these things narratively, but as soon as they are said, the things commanded become ratified. For what reason? Because the King has so decreed. In the same way, this must be understood—that the power handed down by the Lord to the priests is such that His words brought forth by them in the first person, and as if spoken by Him at the same moment, bring everything to completion. Or why did those words suffice for Him, while to us they do not suffice? For if they sufficed for them, they must certainly suffice for us, by His power and as if brought forth by Him who speaks. But if it is necessary for us to add something, then His words are imperfect. Yet far be such a thought from pious minds. For what other power do priests receive through consecration, unless it be that of being able to assume the person of Christ, and to be present for us in His stead, and just as He did, to be able to consecrate His body? And He did that through the words which we have stated. In truth, anyone could pray simply, and indeed, many who are not priests would often pray more effectively than some priests. Since many priests live in such a way that they are not acceptable to God; yet many laypeople are so dear and pleasing to God on account of their goodness that they often deserve to be adorned with miracles. If, therefore, these sacraments were brought about by prayer alone, or principally by it, they would certainly be brought about more by righteous laymen than by unworthy priests. But this is false. For a priest brings about the sacrament in the same way, however evil and perverse he may be, as the best and most holy one. A lay person, however much he may excel in faith and religion, can do nothing at all, because he received no power from the Lord to perform it, whereas the priest has received the greatest power. If, therefore, it is not the force of the prayer that does this (for it would be common to all), it remains that priests are present for us in place of Christ, having the same power in this, B and the ability to work in His likeness and announce to the people what He commanded. For "do this," He said, "in my commemoration." This, clearly, which I myself did, taking the bread and wine into my hands, looking up to heaven, breaking, blessing, giving thanks to God the Father, and moving them into the body and blood through those words: "This is my body; and, This is my blood." For this moves them, this brings them completely to effect, as the blessed Chrysostom says. These things, indeed, unless my mind deceives me, seem to be enough and more than enough to stop the mouths of all who attempt to contradict a matter so open and manifest. Let us listen, however, if it pleases you, also to Gregory of Nyssa, a man excellent in both doctrine and the sanctity of life. He speaks thus in his catechetical sermon concerning the divine sacraments: "Rightly, therefore, do we believe that the bread now sanctified by the divine word is transmuted into the body of the Word of God. For even that body (he understands, however, the body assumed from the Virgin) was bread by potentiality, but it was sanctified by the habitation of the Word dwelling in the flesh, by whom the bread which was in that body was thus transsubstantiated into divine power; so now too it is done in like manner by Him; for there too the grace of the Word had made that body holy which consisted of bread. And that in a certain way was also bread, and this bread in like manner, as the Apostle says, 'is sanctified by the word of God and prayer' (1 Tim. iv, 5), not by consumption, to this pur-"
- A pose, that it becomes the body of the word, but it is presently transformed to the body by the word, just as it was said by the Word himself: "This is my body." What could you desire to hear that is clearer or more certain than this? Bread, he says, is sanctified by the word of God. This proves, first and most clearly, that this sacrament is accomplished by the word of God. Then the mode of the proof shows the same thing more openly. The body, he says, is potentially bread because it consists of bread. For nourishment (as Aristotle teaches) is first unlike, but afterwards becomes like that of which it is the nourishment. Therefore, the body which the Lord assumed from the Virgin was potentially bread. But such a body assumed from the Virgin, which was potentially bread, would not have been sanctified in any other way unless that Word had inhabited that flesh. So now, the bread of the altar also is sanctified in no other way than by the word of God and prayer. As a witness to this matter, he cites Paul. But that which he says, "by prayer," does not at all strengthen the reasoning of the adversaries. Forasmuch as in the first Epistle to Timothy he says this regarding common foods. Here, however, the teacher is using the testimony not of the common foods which are spoken of there, but only insofar as it pertains to the confirmation of his own proposition concerning the transmutation which occurs through the word of God. Whence, concluding a little later, he says: "It is presently transformed into flesh." And to the confirmation of this he subjoins, "Because he himself said: This is my body." Observe, I pray, both all other things and what he says at the end, that it is presently transformed by the word. He says, however, the word is: "This is my body." Does not that word, I pray you, presently, leave no room for prayers? If, therefore, that word, "This is my body," transforms it at once, it is manifest that that alone is what transforms it; for otherwise the transmutation would not happen at once, but at some interval, not a small one, intervening. Thus, certainly, the holy Fathers and our doctors agree among themselves; thus they speak consistently with one another, whether they be Orientals or Occidentals. Indeed, Damascene in his book of Sentences, ch. 23, says thus: "It is not that the bread is a figure of the body and blood of Christ, God forbid, but the very deified body of Christ itself." And whence this, most holy doctor? "We have this," he says, "from the Lord himself, saying, not: This is a figure of a body, but: This is my body, and not a figure of blood, but: This is my blood." Those words, therefore: B "This is my body," even according to the judgment of that doctor, ensure that the bread of the altar is the true body of Christ and is believed to be so. But upon all these things which we have mentioned above, he imposes, as it were, the final hand, the Epistle of the teacher of the Gentiles to the Corinthians, speculating on the tradition of this most sacred mystery. "For I," he says, "have received of the Lord that which also I delivered unto you." Then he enumerates what he received. Therefore, first let us see, if you please, whether he delivered it sufficiently. For it is manifest that he did indeed deliver it: for he neither received it imperfectly, nor did he deliver less than he had received, but whatever was fitting and necessary concerning the mystery of this sacrament to be made, he both received it and delivered it. He received, however, these things, that indeed the Lord Jesus on the night he was betrayed, took bread, and giving thanks, broke it, and said: "Take and eat. This is my body which is broken for you: do this in remembrance of me." Similarly also the chalice after he had supped, saying: "This chalice is the new testament in my blood: do this as often as you drink it in remembrance of me." And he added nothing besides: for because he had received nothing more, he delivered nothing more. And he added the mode of the consecration of the divine body and blood, sufficient and perfect in every respect, such as Christ used, and such as he received from him: namely, to take bread, to give thanks, to break it, and to say: "Take and eat, this is my body," and in this way to accomplish the sacrament. What, I pray, of these things consecrates that most divine gift? Certainly not the taking of the bread; for this is the subject of the consecration which must be transubstantiated into the body of the Lord; not the act of thanksgiving, not the breaking, of which the one is necessary for the commemoration of the ineffable benefits of God toward us, the other for the distribution. It remains, therefore, that those words are what consecrate: "This is my body"; and, "This is my blood." And thus it is to be thought, both that it was then consecrated, and is now being consecrated, with the Father, surely, and the Holy Spirit concurring, as has been said, since all works in the creature are common to those three. C But for the Savior indeed it was not necessary to invoke the Father and the Holy Spirit openly for this work, since he is one and the same and of one substance with them, on account of which whatever was done or said by him was also done and said by the others. But to us it is fitting both to invoke them by name, and to pray that they may sanctify our gifts: yet not to do this in one way and another, nor at one time and another, but at the time when we pronounce the words of the Lord, and in the way the words signify. But if we were to say that he, as man, while he was giving thanks for the benefits received, prayed also silently to the Father and the Holy Spirit that they might concur in that consecration, and then, with the words pronounced, accomplished the mystery, we would not be speaking without reason. In the same way, therefore, it is necessary for us to act, having invoked, namely, the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit, by name and manifestly, whether before the words of the Lord or after, or in both ways; for it makes no difference, as we shall discuss later, thus finally, with the Lord's words pronounced, to accomplish this sacred mystery. Thus Paul received it, thus he delivered it to us; but we can neither, nor ought we to, transgress his tradition, if we desire both to be and to be called his disciples, nay rather, indeed, Christ's. And it has been abundantly demonstrated above that Paul received this tradition not from Christ, but from the apostles, not only by this word, but by the work also in this way D
A of those who practice it, it is manifest that it was not by any other words than those of Christ that the apostles themselves consecrated after Christ, and handed down the same rite of the mystery to others. Furthermore, the responses of the people to those words show this same thing. For when the priest pronounces those words in a loud voice, as you Greeks are accustomed to do, the attending people respond on both sides, "Amen," as if saying: "Truly it is so, as you say." For since "Amen" is an adverb of affirmation among the Hebrews, in Greek it signifies the same as "truly." Therefore, responding "Amen" to those words, the people say, "Certainly, the bread and wine set before us are the body and blood of Christ; we so believe, we so confess." And how, I ask you, would it not be thought shameful for those who wish to be considered learned to be ignorant of those things which the unlearned, both secular and in sacred letters, by answering "Amen," signify that they manifestly know? Why, does not the deacon assisting the priest and serving him, when the priest pronounces those words in a loud voice (according to the rite of the Eastern Church), "This is my body, and, This is my blood," himself, with his own stole touched by his first two fingers, show the bread and the chalice? Surely designating nothing else but that that bread is the body of Christ, and that which is in the chalice is his blood, just as it is asserted by those words. And the deacon in showing these things certainly does not lie, and, not lying, he agrees with those who say that the words of the Lord alone perfect this holy sacrament. For such ceremonies were not established by the Church in vain. That also seems not to be disregarded: that when two sacraments were handed down to us by the Savior, B baptism and the Eucharist, he ordered both to be perfected by their own words. For baptism, as we mentioned above, is perfected by those words, "Baptize them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit." Testimony of this matter is that our holy Fathers, the doctors of the Church, who determined which of those returning from heretics to the Catholic Church should be rebaptized, and who held that those who had been baptized once in the name of the Trinity should not be rebaptized. Which the expositor of the synodal canons among the Greeks also seems to confirm. For he says in the forty-seventh canon of the apostles: "A person is truly baptized when he is baptized once according to the voice of the Lord, in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, as if through the pronouncement of the Trinity and of faith in it, according to the Lord’s tradition, baptism is perfected." If, therefore, we read that these two sacraments alone were manifestly handed down in the Gospels: and one of them, that is, baptism, is perfected by the Lord’s words, surely it is to be thought that that other one, that is, the Eucharist, is also perfected by those divine words handed down by God. Since in every kind of thing there must be four causes: the efficient, the formal, the final, and the material. The form of this sacrament is the words of the Lord, and nothing else. On account of which it is fitting that everything one and the same should be so, since the form also is one, on account of which that which is, is, and is said to be. These C are truly the words of the Savior, which are the same among all, because they do not at all possess the prayers of the saints, since they supplicate in diverse ways with different and various words for different people. This manner also the apostles, as is to be believed, received from the Savior, and the holy Fathers later, taking it from the apostles, in each of the sacraments of the Church, just as they established a proper matter without which what is proposed would in no way come to be, so also they established a proper form. This, indeed, the Catholic Church of the Latins observes even to the present day. And those words, by which each one is perfected as if by matter, are most well-known to every priest among them. But our people, because of the calamities of the times, lost many other things which originally had their origin among us, and so they have even forgotten these rites. Which will become manifest if anyone turns their mind to the sacrament of chrism. For the Second Ecumenical Synod, in handing down the words which perfect the holy chrism, says in the seventh canon: "Signing, that is, chrismating them with the most holy chrism, we say, 'The seal of the gift of the Holy Spirit.'" And these words, according to them, perfect the sacrament of chrism. A diligent investigator will find the same thing in the others. Therefore, what the opinion of the saints is concerning the divine sacrament of the Eucharist, what was the tradition of Christ, and what was that of Paul, has been sufficiently demonstrated above, unless my mind deceives me. For it appears manifestly that the Orientals and the Occidentals are all of the same opinion, that it is the words of the Lord, to be sure, that perfect the holy body of D Christ and his blood. The Lord himself affirms the same, and asserts the same. Now it remains for us to approach the third part, and by resolving the arguments which are wont to be brought forward to the contrary, we may put an end to the work. There are three principal [arguments]: one is the authority of the holy doctors of the Church, Clement, James, Basil, and Chrysostom, who all appear to perfect this sacrament in the masses, which they themselves composed, after the words of the Lord, by the prayers of the priest, insofar as even after the words of the Lord are uttered, they name not body and blood, but bread and wine. The second, indeed, is the authority of Damascene, saying that the blessed Basil called these gifts prefigurative because they were not yet sanctified after the words of the Lord. The third reason is the opinion of the most holy man Dionysius the Areopagite, who appears to think openly that this sacrament is perfected after the words of the Lord. These arguments must be answered by us in the present. But in the first place, regarding the words of the holy doctors who composed the masses, a single reason suffices. Since those four Fathers clearly say the same thing, let us hear their words before all else. Clement, therefore, in the first place, when he had commemorated the miracles of the Lord and his deeds, and the tradition of the sacraments from the Lord, says after those things: "Being mindful, therefore, of his passion, death and resurrection, etc., we offer to thee, O King and God, according to his precepts, etc. We beseech thee that thou wouldst clemently look upon these things proposed before thee"
A and receive them, O God, who needest nothing, and that thou be well pleased in them for the honor of thy Christ, and that thou send thy Holy Spirit, the witness of the passion of our Lord Jesus, upon this sacrifice, that he may make this bread the body of thy Christ, and this chalice the blood of thy Christ. For although these words of Clement are wont to be commemorated among the apocryphal writings, it is pleasing, however, for the present that we assent to them as if they were true. James also, long after the words of the Lord, beseeches that the Holy Spirit be sent. When he has said much concerning this, he adds: "That he may come and sanctify and make this bread indeed the body of thy Christ, and this chalice the precious blood of thy Christ." Great Basil likewise, after the words of the Savior, invokes the Holy Spirit so that he may descend upon the proposed gifts, and sanctify, and make the bread indeed the precious body of the Lord God and our Savior Jesus Christ, and the chalice the precious blood of our Christ which is shed for the life of the world. B To these Chrysostom, after the words of the Lord and the narration of the things done by him, adds: "We beseech thee, send thy Holy Spirit upon us and upon these proposed gifts, and make this indeed the precious body of thy Christ, but that which is in this chalice the precious blood of thy Christ." After these things he adds: "Changing them by thy Holy Spirit." From all these things, it would be easy for anyone to argue: If by those words of the Lord, "This is my body" and "This is my blood," the holy mystery of the sacrament of the Eucharist is accomplished, the holy doctors of the Church would by no means attempt to accomplish it by their own prayers after those words, nor would they then name bread and wine. But since they do this, and it is not to be thought that these holy men acted in vain, it is plain that they did not think this holy mystery was accomplished by the words of the Lord alone. Wishing therefore to answer this argument, we first repeat what was proven above, that all doctors, both Oriental and Occidental, agree in this, that the mystery of the Eucharist is accomplished by the most holy words of the Lord. Then we hear that these things which we have just cited are not contrary to those mentioned earlier, nor is it that the holy men said or felt one thing here and another there, nor is the opinion of the Occidentals different from the judgment of the Orientals. For if it were so, it would not be one and the same divine Spirit, but a different one, and not a spirit of truth, but rather of falsehood and error, who had spoken in them: which it is not permitted to think even without impiety. It is necessary, therefore, that those things be true, and that these be shown, through a correct exposition, to be consistent with them. Perhaps, therefore, someone could say not without reason that, since the body of the Lord is twofold (as we showed at the beginning of our discourse), namely, real and mystical, the former is accomplished by the words of the Lord himself whose body it is, but the latter—that body which we ourselves are—is fulfilled by the holy prayers of the priests, and by just actions, and by the honesty of life and character, when men worthily take the holy Eucharist, and through it C are made the body with Christ. And this is indeed what the priest is asking for, when he asks that the descending Holy Spirit may make the bread the precious body of Christ, and the chalice the precious blood, that is, that he may make the faithful people the mystical body and blood of Christ, by which, being made members and parts and his body, and united to him and to one another by charity, they live with him the eternal life, and become his coheirs. But we, besides these things, think it should rather be said that, since this divine sacrament is common, and is the work of the whole Trinity, it is necessary for us, as we said above, to invoke both the Father and the Holy Spirit with the Son, that they may perfect the gifts proposed. Which we also do throughout the whole mass, and not only before the words of the Savior, but even after them, invoking with many prayers, and beseeching that we may be made worthy ministers of so great a matter, so that we may be able to perfect those gifts, so that they may become acceptable to them, and the grace of the Holy Spirit may descend upon them. All of which we do not so much that we may ourselves accomplish them, as that we may show the people that they are common works of the Trinity in the creature. For just as by the good pleasure of the Father, and by the will of the Holy Spirit, the Son of God and the Father, who is one in nature in the Trinity, assumed a body from the holy and immaculate blood of the Virgin, so also this body of the altar this same Trinity creates, the Holy Spirit himself by his power transmutes from substance into substance, that is, from bread into body. And it is necessary for us to remember this, so that this thing may be made plain to the faithful people. And this is what those doctors intend who say that this sacrament is accomplished through the advent of the Holy Spirit. But these same men are clearly those who think the sacrament of the Eucharist is accomplished by the words of the Lord alone. For they say both things are the same, not contrary or mutually repugnant, but thinking they are saying the same thing, for both are true. And since both are one and the same, they accomplish one and the same thing, and at one and the same time. For in an instant of time, not in one way or another, nor in one moment and then another, but in the same moment, and if it is lawful to say, the same "now," they both accomplish the same thing, since the persons of the divine Trinity, whom we invoke, are one and the same in substance and inseparable. But if the nature of things could allow of some such word, which would express the whole matter at once and without any interval of time, we would surely at the same time and at the same moment pronounce all the other things along with the words of the Lord, believing in the efficacy of the sacrament by those words alone, and yet not doubting that the grace of the Father and of the Holy Spirit is present, and manifesting this by prayer and supplications. For they too are present along with these words of the Lord, even while we are asking for something more. But since we cannot contain the ardor of our desire, we invoke him by name also, and reveal his presence to the people. But since the nature of things forbids it, and it is necessary to pronounce one word after another through intervals of time, and thus the whole history of the sacrament rė-
re-Agarding the time in which those words of the Lord are spoken, the subsequent invocations also take place, and are referred to that same time; in truth, these themselves must be thought to have been said at the same time, which surely would have happened if the nature of things allowed it. For just as if someone, finding the speech of another annoying and refusing to hear it, were to say, "I have closed my ears to you," when he had not yet closed them; or, not wishing to see something annoying to him, should say, "I have averted my eyes," when he had not yet done so, and other things similar to these; so some such thing can be noticed in those words of the Lord. For when he ought to have spoken in such a way, saying to his disciples, "Take and eat, this is my body," he broke it, and gave it to them. For the order of things itself demanded this: first to consecrate, then to break, afterwards to distribute, which we do at present. Yet he says, "He broke, and gave," saying, "This is my body," having used a figurative expression which they call hysterologia. According to that of the poet, "They were nourished and born at the same time." And elsewhere, "It sounded as it fell." For first someone is born, then he is nourished, and he falls before he makes a sound. It is therefore fitting for us, wishing to judge rightly, to understand everything as it is, as they were said in their own places, and to note not in what time, but for what time they are said; and to deem that the things which are said either before or after some things, are sometimes said as if at the same time as them, and sometimes truly, whether things said later are as if prior, or things said first are as if later.
Since indeed even Chrysostom himself, long before and after the words of the Lord in the prayer which is said after the offering of the gifts, says, "Make us worthy, O Lord, that we may find grace before you, and that our sacrifice may be acceptable to you, and that the Spirit of your grace may dwell kindly upon us, and upon these proposed gifts." Where it must be considered what these words, "Make us worthy that your Holy Spirit may dwell upon these proposed gifts," differ from those words of Clement, or James, or Basil, or the ones of Chrysostom himself which we cited above, by which some think this sacrament is perfected. For they indeed pray to God that he may send the Holy Spirit, who coming down may sanctify and make the bread the precious body of Christ: but this man says, "Make us worthy that your Holy Spirit may dwell upon these proposals." Which words truly have no difference between them. Yet these of Chrysostom are said before the words of the Lord, and long before B those prayers by which some think the sacred mystery of the Eucharist is perfected. But if the sacrament is not perfected by those prior words and this prayer of Chrysostom, then surely it will not be perfected by the later ones, which are the same as them: for the efficiency of the same things is the same. But it is perfected by those words which are in between both, the most principal ones, that is, the words of the Lord. These are the ones which effect the whole, these are the ones to which all things must be referred, whether they are said before or after. This very thing can be perceived more openly even from the words of Basil in the same place. For shortly after the offering of the gifts: "Look," he says, "upon us, O God, and upon this our latria, and may you have it as accepted, just as you have had accepted the gifts of Abel, the sacrificial offerings of Abraham, the priesthood of Moses and Aaron, the peace offerings of Samuel. Just as you accepted this true latria from your holy apostles, so from us sinners, and from our hands, accept these gifts, by your goodness, O Lord." Do you see how, after many things which he says while praying, after the proposed sacrifice of latria, which is owed to God alone and no one else, after the prayers by which he prayed that they might be made acceptable to God, just as the sacrifices of Abel, Noah, and the rest—yet so that no room for contention might be left—he added: "Just as you accepted this true latria from the hands of your holy apostles, so from our hands accept these gifts"? Why then do we prevaricate? In this way we shall say that these words also are sufficient for consecration, when Basil says: "So from our hands accept these gifts, just as you accepted this true latria from your apostles." For if the true body of Christ was consecrated by the hands of the apostles, and Basil asks that it be done now in his hands, why is the sacrament not suddenly perfected by these words? For these differ in nothing from the later prayers, by which some think the sacred mystery is perfected. For hear what he says: "We pray you that your Holy Spirit may descend upon these proposed gifts, and make the bread body, and the cup indeed blood." If therefore the sacred mystery is not perfected by those first prayers, which are very similar to the later ones, then surely it will not be perfected by the last. For very similar prayers would produce very similar effects. It remains, therefore, that this force must be attributed to the words of our Savior, and all other things must be referred to them, whether they are said before or after, and it must be thought that this is said for the time in which those words are said. But we have spent time on this part at length: both because they seemed to bring no small utility to the knowledge of the things said above, and because they were necessary for resolving those things which are accustomed to be opposed from the divine Dionysius and Damascene. To these could be added a third reason, perhaps not inferior to any of the former: that the hierarch, being entirely filled with God and captivated by divine love, according to Dionysius in the *Divine Names*, suffers as it were an ecstasy and a divine zeal; on account of this he is frequently put outside himself, and being entirely clinging to the thing loved, by a certain zeal
A and fear, lest he should not attain what he desires, he stays fixed, and keeps repeating the same things again and again, with a desire of mind that is true and almost incredible; and he is not even ignorant that he has already attained what he was seeking, but with a certain insatiable love he repeats the same things over and over, so that even in certain symbols, as in the most evident signs, those who are present may be able to understand that he is entirely captivated by God, entirely now made divine, and through this, by his imitation, they may be enticed to virtue and integrity of life, and, as they say, be led as if by the hand into the way. This the supreme prophet David does in many places. For when he had said, *When I called, the God of my justice heard me* (Ps. IV, 2), a little later in the same psalm he adds, *Have mercy on me, and hear my prayer*. Which passage Theodoret, following the opinion of Chrysostom, if I am not mistaken (for we do not have Chrysostom with us at present), B explaining, says, "This just man is not satiated by praying, but while supplicating and obtaining, and gathering the fruits of prayer, he still persists in praying and supplicating; for he knows when utility follows from it." Elsewhere also, the same David says, *Let my prayer be directed as incense in thy sight* (Ps. CXI, 2). Why, I ask you, does David cry out that his prayer may be heard? For if it were wicked and unreasonable, it would never have ascended to God, however much he might be asking and beseeching; but if it were right and worthy to be heard, it was already directed to God, even with the prophet himself being silent. It is clear, therefore, that he asks for what he already possessed, and desires what was already present. Our own doctors, who composed the Mass, did the same. For after those words: "Make this bread the body of Christ, and this chalice the blood of Christ," by which alone some think the consecration is effected, they still pray for them, either doing so entirely in vain—which is not even to be thought of—or repeating the same things more often with a certain vehement desire. For "Remember, O Lord," they say, C "my weakness, and grant me forgiveness for every fault of mine, whether voluntary or involuntary, and do not because of my sins withhold the grace of the Holy Spirit from these proposed gifts." And again a little later it is said to the people: "We pray to God for the offered and consecrated precious gifts." Behold how they pray, that the grace of the Spirit may not be warded off from the proposed gifts; behold how they exhort to pray to God for the sanctified proposed gifts, even though they had been sanctified long before, even though they were perfectly consecrated, even according to the opinion of those who both speak and think things contrary to us. What, therefore, shall we say in this place, brothers? Except what Theodoret says, according to the opinion of Chrysostom: "The just man is not satiated by praying," and the rest which we mentioned above. But if perhaps some should say, "It is not done for the divine gifts, but for us," which they signify, I will ask them first: why should our exposition not be more convenient and subtle? For that the hierarch D falls into a certain divine passion, and as it were an ecstasy, and carried away by a certain vehement love, he repeats it as if seized by a certain divine fury, as happens in these worldly loves, so that the lover is inseparable from the beloved, surely this is a great and mystical reason, and not a small and despicable one. But that the righteous man is not satiated by prayers, but continues still seeking the same things, having already attained what he desired, is certainly consistent with the desire and devotion of such and so great a sacrament. But then, let us assume that this argument of our adversaries is valid, and should in no way be refuted. Does it not make more for us? Indeed, has it not been brought by us for the confirmation of our opinion? For this is what we said at almost the beginning of this dispute: that the body of Christ is twofold, true and mystical. And these things, unless my mind deceives me, are sufficient for the solution and confirmation of those things which are accustomed to be said by the adversaries. But as for the fact that some add that even after the words of the Lord the bread and wine are called "proposed gifts" by those holy doctors, which would not seem to be necessary if they were already consecrated (for it would no longer be bread and wine, but the body and blood of the Lord, that both were and were called), the response to them is easy. For who would deny that the true body and blood of Christ can rightly be called bread and wine? For, to pass over many testimonies of different doctors, who indiscriminately even after consecration call it now the body and blood of Christ, now bread and wine (for one should not dwell too long on an easy matter), does not the Lord himself, than whom no one is more worthy of faith, especially when speaking of his own body, indiscriminately call it now this, now that? "He who eats," he says, "my flesh, and drinks my blood, has life everlasting." And again, "My flesh is meat indeed, and my blood is drink indeed." And again: "He that eats my flesh and drinks my blood, abides in me and I in him." Elsewhere indeed, "I am," he says, "the bread of life. Your fathers did eat manna in the desert, and are dead. This is the bread which comes down from heaven, that if any man eat of it, he may not die." And in another place: "If any man eat of this bread, he shall live for ever." And again: "The bread that I will give, is my flesh, for the life of the world." It is manifest, therefore, that the Lord also calls his body bread. But enough of these things; now we come to that which is objected concerning Damascenus. He says likewise that Basil called those gifts "prefigurative" of the body and blood of the Lord, because they were not yet consecrated, and yet Basil used this word in the composition of his Mass, long after the words of the Lord. To these things, we are to respond: first, as sons to a father, we ask for pardon if we prefer truth to two proposed friends. Then we say that the sacraments, even after they are consecrated, are a figure, and therefore can also be called prefigurative of the true body and blood of Christ, which also he himself—
as we discussed somewhat at length a little earlier—held to be a symbol and sign of the mystical body, that is, of the mystical body itself and of ecclesiastical unity. It is fitting, however, as we recalled at that time, to accept these in a dutiful way, and not after the fashion of the sacraments of the old law, which are only figures. This is also confirmed by the testimony of Dionysius, who calls this sacrament, even after consecration, a "symbol" (in the third chapter of *The Ecclesiastical Hierarchy*). For he says: "The hierarch, praising the holy divine operations, consecrates the most divine things, and manifests those things that have been praised through the symbols holily proposed." B And further down: "While the people indeed look only upon the divine symbols." And again: "He leads us into a holy remembrance of the divine supper, which was the principal symbol of those things which are on the altar." Wherefore even the Creator of the symbols rightly rejects him who has not dined on those holy things in a holy and similar manner with Him. Since, therefore, he calls those holy gifts "symbols" even after consecration, and calls the creator of those things which are now daily done in the churches the "principal symbol," and calls that sacramental supper the distribution of the sacraments in it, and calls the Lord Himself the creator of the symbols—namely, of those things which He then created, which were truly the consecration, distribution, and handing down of His own body—why should he not most fittingly call it a "figure" also?
And that the word "prefigurative" does not fit the true body and blood of Christ is testified to by the same Damascene in the same chapter, saying: "They are called prefigurative of things to come; [they are the] true body and blood of Christ, not because they are not the true body and blood, but because now indeed we are made participants of the divinity of Christ through them, but then [we shall be made participants] through vision alone, intelligibly." The blessed Gregory seems to confirm this same thing more clearly, saying that these are called a figure C because we now participate in the body and blood of the Lord in the figure of bread and wine, but then we shall contemplate Him such as He truly is with the most manifest vision. Wherefore I do not see what Damascene was fearing, such that he should reject the word "prefigurative," and so endeavored to explain it thus, when it is possible, both from his own opinion and that of other doctors, to call these either a figure or "prefigurative," even if they are the true body and blood.
We may, therefore, say in this place that Saint Basil, writing to Amphilochius of Iconium, speaks of Dionysius the martyr of Alexandria. For when he was speaking about those who are to be rebaptized, and deemed that the Pepusians, against the opinion of Dionysius, ought to be rebaptized, he says: "I marvel how Dionysius could have determined this, although he was the most expert of all in the canons." Dionysius indeed wished, although he was a saint, and indeed even a martyr, that those who came to the faith from the heresy of the Pepusians should not be baptized. D Basil held the contrary, and did not fear the authority of Dionysius, a saint and martyr, who judged against his opinion, and said that those coming to the faith from that heresy ought to be rebaptized, because they were not rightly baptized in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit.
And so we, too, must wonder how the Damascene said this. But it must be remembered that he was a man, albeit endowed with wondrous holiness, and it could happen at some time that, on account of the weakness of the human intellect, he did not perceive something rightly; but we ought to discern and judge these things not from those [instances], neither concerning him nor others, regarding those things which they have handed down openly and unanimously, but rather from those [general teachings]. Perhaps, however—which is not impossible—someone might say that those words of Basil, by which he called these gifts "prefigurative," had their place in the time of the Damascene before the words of the Lord in the Mass of Basil, and that therefore the Damascene explained them in that way and rightly: now, however, I know not how those words have been transposed. For many things similar to this have happened over so long an interval of time. Indeed, among the Apostle, those words are placed thus: *Do this in my remembrance.* And afterwards: *This is my body.* And afterwards: *This is my blood.* We, however, say these things only once in the holy consecration. Furthermore, the holy particles, that is, the remembrance of the holy dead, were accustomed to be made long before the words of the Lord, according to the same Dionysius; we, however, have become accustomed to do this long after, the order having been changed I know not how. It would therefore not be at all surprising if this word "prefigurative" had been placed before the Lord's words in the time of the Damascene, and then had been changed and moved by more recent people to the place where it is now read.
With these points thus explained, it remains that we finally respond to those things which are wont to be objected by adversaries concerning Saint Dionysius. His words are these: "Then the divine hierarch, approaching the holy altar, praises the aforesaid holy operations of God, of Jesus Himself, which He performed for the salvation of our race, by the good pleasure of the most holy Father, in the Holy Spirit, according to the evangelical words." After he has praised, and has beheld with intellectual eyes the venerable and intellectual speculation of them, he comes to their symbolic consecration, and this according to the divine tradition. Whence, the hierarch piously at the same time, after the praises of the divine operations, responds concerning their consecration: "You said," he says, "*Do this in my remembrance.*" Then, asking that he be made worthy of this consecration, and that he be able to perform these divine things in the likeness of Christ and to distribute them chastely, he consecrates the most divine things, and manifests the things that have been praised through the symbols holily proposed. To these words of Dionysius, although a response may seem difficult, especially among those who are more desirous of contention than of truth, we nevertheless say and sincerely attest to honest and devout ears that there is nothing in these that opposes those things which we have said above. For what, O good Jesus, could be found clearer, what more open, what more manifest, than
the words of the holy doctors, of whom we made mention above, that the words of the Lord change the bread into the body, that they wholly perfect that sacrament, that by the word of God the bread is sanctified, that the bread is changed into the body through the word, that before the words the bread is simply the gift that is offered, but after the words it is straightway changed into the body, and other things of this sort? From these, how, I ask you, would Dionysius dissent, especially since he is their equal and very similar in doctrine, wisdom, and the sanctity of his life? Assuredly, no one of sound mind would admit this. But what Dionysius says is something such as we have said above. Since the works of the entire Trinity in creation are common, in order that this might be plain to all, it is worth the effort for us to invoke the whole Trinity. And since this cannot be done simultaneously and without interval of time, especially since it is necessary to narrate the history of all the things that were done that night, B it is necessary for us to set them forth one after another, according to the power and nature of our speech. Therefore, after the words of the Lord (by which, according to Chrysostom, the sacrament is wholly perfected and the proposed elements are transformed, and by which, as Gregory Nyssenus says, the bread is sanctified and transferred into the body), we invoke the Father and the Spirit openly and clearly. This manifest invocation, indeed, the blessed Dionysius hands down as being more known to the multitude, when he says that the priest, after he has responded for himself, saying: "You said, 'Do this in remembrance of me,'" then at last comes to the consecration. For he calls "consecration" in this place, not that which is the sole and principal one, and without which the mystery could not be perfected, but that which is better known and more manifest to the multitude, and which refers to that first and chief action which is performed by the words of the Lord, which the priest would have brought about in the same moment of time and, as we said above, at the same 'now,' if the nature of things could have borne it. This, moreover, is made more manifest from the fact that it seems that he considers the sacrament already perfected even before these words, when he says that the hierarch, C approaching the holy altar, praises the aforementioned sacred operations, and thus consecrates the most divine things, and manifests the praised things. To manifest the praised things, according to the opinion of the expositor who was a man of the greatest wisdom, Maximus, is to make clear what has been praised, that is, the divine works of Christ which he enumerated, done by our Savior for the remission of sins and for eternal life. These words are those of Maximus, or rather, even of Dionysius. Now it is doubtful to no one that the commemoration of divine benefits takes place before the words of the Lord. And as for what those things are, the doctor himself enumerates them. Therefore they seem to teach most clearly that these things existed even before the words of the Lord. But that the works themselves lead to the remission of sins and eternal life follows directly upon the words of the Lord, or rather, it is contained within the very words of the Lord. For this is, he says, "my body, which is broken for you for the remission of sins; and, This is my blood, D which shall be shed for you and for many for the remission of sins." Wherefore, according to the opinion of this doctor, the sacrament is already perfected when we say that the remission of sins is offered to us. But we say this immediately after the words of the Lord, or rather, in the very words of the Lord. For these words of the Lord, by which the sacrament is perfected, follow these, namely: "This is my body," and, "This is my blood," just as the thing itself follows the thing itself: that is, the remission of sins follows the communion of the Lord's body, of which it is the effect. In that middle time, therefore, in which the divine works are praised before the words of the Lord, and in which the same are made manifest to the people after those words, the consecration takes place, namely, by those words of the Lord. The same holy Dionysius also adds later: "But after he has praised, and has beheld with intellectual eyes their venerable and intellectual contemplation, he comes to their symbolic consecration, and this according to divine tradition." Expounding this passage, Maximus says: "Namely, by blessing the bread and cup of the sacred gifts." Therefore Dionysius says that the blessing of the bread and cup is the consecration, and that it is according to divine tradition. The blessing, therefore, of the bread and cup, which the priests at that time, according to Dionysius, were using when they said: "And giving thanks, he blessed, sanctified, broke, and gave to his disciples, saying: Take and eat, this is my body": this blessing, I say, perfects the sacrament through the words of the Lord. Wherefore Dionysius says that this is done according to divine tradition. For this was the tradition of Christ: to take bread, to give thanks, to bless, and to pronounce those words. Do we not, therefore, see more clearly than light, through the testimony of Dionysius himself, that the mystery of the Eucharist is consecrated through the words of the Lord with a preceding blessing? Especially according to the rite of the Greeks, who, after the offering of the gifts upon the altar, never bless them, neither before nor after, except only when they think that they are consecrating, as if they believe the blessing necessary for the consecration. Because of this, our own people omit this blessing, which Dionysius and Maximus judge should be done before the words of the Lord—though they do not rightly in doing so. But if it is appropriate to bless at that time, as these doctors think, or rather as the Lord handed down, without doubt it must be believed that the consecration takes place then when the words of the Lord are uttered. Dionysius adds then that the hierarch, asking that he may be made worthy of this consecration, and that he may perform these divine things in the likeness of Christ, and may distribute them chastely, and that those who are to participate may participate as is fitting for holy people, he consecrates the most divine things. From which it appears most manifestly that these words "to consecrate and to perfect" ought to be accepted through synecdoche toward those things which follow, that is, toward the chaste distribution and worthy participation, which we are accustomed to pray for and seek after all the consecration of the mystery. Which is easy to understand, if anyone diligently observes the Masses edited by James, Basil, and Chrysostom: for then we pray as suppliants that we may worthily communi-