Chapter 40: Examination of Theophylact
The joining of Christ to us is greater because the union with the signs was invented for our sake. Moreover, the words and spirit that consecrate the signs belong even more to men than to other things.
Chapter 40:
Examination of Theophylact Of Theophylact, we note that he is a later writer, possibly from the time when many questions about Transubstantiation arose under Nicholas the Bishop of Rome, during the time of Lanfranc and Berengarius. Further, he was a man of no great judgment, as evidenced by his interpretation of John
3, where he criticised the Church of the Latins regarding the procession of the Holy Ghost from both the Father and the Son. Hence, we do not consider his authority to be so significant as to prejudice the truth.
Nevertheless, we will examine his statements.
Theophylact affirms that bread is not merely a figure of the body of Christ in his treatise on Matthew. If he means it is not an empty or vain figure, we agree, as we do not endorse such a figure. We doubt not that this is his interpretation, for in his commentary on Mark, he says it is not just a figure.
If he utterly denied it to be a figure, he would oppose the other fathers, who clearly affirm it is both a sign and a figure.
He states that the bread is transformed, changed, and transelementated. If he understands these terms sacramentally, we do not disagree, for bread and wine are sacraments that pass into elements of divine things, adopting a signifying form. However, Theophylact writes that the flesh and blood are not seen lest we should abhor them. If we take these words strictly, we counter with his own words on Mark, where he says the bread and wine are changed into the virtue of the body and blood of the Lord. If he says they
are changed into the body and blood of the Lord, we interpret this to mean the signs adopt the virtue of the things, by which the sacraments hold as much as if the things themselves were present. The abhorrence is avoided if we say the signs are changed not into the thing but into the virtue.
Another statement by Theophylact on John 6 seems more forceful, where he writes: "Even as while Christ lived on earth, the bread was changed into His flesh by a natural process of nourishment, so this bread is changed into the body of Christ." We acknowledge this comparison in general terms. We deny not that there is a sacramental change in this sacrament. However, if taken strictly, it implies that the accidents of the signs must not be retained in the sacrament, as they were not in Christ's sustenance on earth.
Furthermore, in his commentary on John 6, Theophylact writes on the words: "He that eats my flesh and drinks my blood dwells in me, and I in him." He says this happens as we are, after a sort, transelemented and mingled with Christ. Here, as with other fathers, he affirms a significant change in us into Christ, writing that we are transelemented into Him. This much about Theophylact suffices.
Examination of Later Theologians Among later theologians, they cite Anselm, Hugo, and Richard of St. Victor.
Since in their time the opinion of Transubstantiation was introduced, their writings reflect the prevailing views of the time. However, these newer opinions should not prejudice the ancient Church's beliefs and the old fathers' opinions.
Particular emphasis is placed on John of Damascus, who wrote extensively on this matter in the 4th book of "The Orthodox Faith," chapter 14. John lived under Leo Isauricus, Emperor of Greece, approximately 120 years after Gregory the Great, Bishop of Rome. By Gregory's time, many
superstitions and human inventions had accumulated in the Church, which worsened over time. It is no wonder that John of Damascus inclined towards many superstitions and errors.
John's judgment in doctrinal matters and scriptural interpretation is questionable. He strongly favoured images, defending them fervently, even advocating their worship and honour. He esteemed the relics of saints highly, calling them fountains of God's gifts and boldly stating that saints should be worshipped by faith, a claim that is intolerable since faith is due only to God and His word.
John wrote a sermon on Purgatory, claiming that Emperor Trajan, an idolater and persecutor of martyrs, was delivered from hell's pains by Gregory's prayers. He also recounted a fable of Macarius speaking with a dead man's skull, learning that during Mass, the souls in torment experienced some relief. These tales filled his sermon.
John's attempt to prove the Resurrection from Genesis, interpreting God's command to Noah about not eating flesh with blood as a reference to the Resurrection, showed a lack of understanding of Exodus law, where God commanded the ox that kills a man to be slain. In "De Virginitate," he argued that if Adam had not sinned, humans would not need marriage for procreation, suggesting an alternative means of multiplication, an idea not found among school divines.
John misunderstood Basil, interpreting "bread and wine are ἀντίτυπα," patterns or examples of Christ's body, as referring to them before consecration. This is absurd, as before consecration, they are common food.
If they signified Christ's body and blood beforehand, they would already be sacraments before the Lord's words. Furthermore, in the Greek Mass, prayers for the bread to become the body and blood of Christ follow the consecration. Similarly, in our Canon, the bread is named after consecration.
But now we must examine his arguments. The first is taken from the power of God. He argues that since God was able by His word to make heaven and earth, to bring forth plants, beasts, birds, and fishes, why can He not make
His own body from bread? This argument is most weak. The dispute is not about God's power, for we do not deny that God can turn bread into flesh, but rather whether He wills to do it. Another argument is derived from the speech of Christ. He asserts that Christ did not say, "This is a figure or sign of my body," but pronounced it to be the Lord's own body. We have already addressed this argument. If he denies the sacrament is a figure of the Lord's body absolutely, he contradicts almost all the fathers who acknowledge it as a figure. If he means it is not merely a figure, a void or empty sign, we agree.
He further asserts that the bread of the communion is no simple bread but has the Godhead joined with it. We willingly accept this, for we do not say it is common or simple bread, but that it is now sanctified and turned into the nature of a sacrament. It can be said that the Godhead is joined to it because the Holy Ghost uses it as an instrument for our salvation. He compares it to Baptism, where God condescends to our customs and joins
His grace and Spirit to water and oil. Similarly, He joins His Godhead to bread and wine in the sacrament. If Theophylact followed the transubstantiators, he would extinguish the natures of bread and wine, but he implies that their natures remain, just as water remains in Baptism.
He says God condescended to our custom so that through things usual and agreeable to nature, we may attain to that which is above nature, touching on our transformation into Christ. He acknowledges the sacramental change but implies the nature of the bread remains. He uses words like "changed,"
"consumed," and "become the body of Christ," which, if understood sacramentally, do not contradict us. The sacrament is made of common bread supernaturally, just as the water of regeneration in Baptism is used supernaturally.