Chapter 42: Cyril and the Council of Ephesus
passage from Origen on Matthew 15, where he interprets the words, "That which goes into the mouth does not defile a man." He states that if it does not defile, neither does it sanctify. But what shall we say of the Lord's bread? Does it neither sanctify nor defile? He answers that if anything seems impure, it does not defile us unless it is through an evil conscience.
Similarly, that which is seen and called holy does not sanctify us unless righteousness and integrity of life accompany it. For if the bread had the power to sanctify by its nature, there would not have been so many weak and feeble and so many who slept among the Corinthians.
Therefore, the material part of the Lord's bread passes into the belly and is cast into the draught. But whatever comes by prayer and by the word of the Lord profits the soul according to the measure of faith. Thus, the matter itself is not profitable, but the word added to it profits the soul. To clarify,
Origen explicitly states that these things concern the mystical body of Christ. No one will object that Origen sometimes erred in doctrine, as Jerome, Epiphanius, and the ancient fathers, who diligently examined his errors, never mentioned any false judgment regarding the Eucharist. They would have addressed this if he had transgressed in such a significant matter.
In the same passage, Origen plainly adds that the wicked do not eat the body of Christ, because it is a life-giving body, and he who eats it dwells in Him. Therefore, against John Damascene, who is a later and less renowned writer, let Origen be opposed—a most ancient father of great renown.
Chapter 42:
Cyril and the Council of Ephesus
After these matters, it was objected what Cyril, in the name of the Council of Ephesus, wrote to Nestorius, the Bishop of Constantinople. At that time, there was a disputation against him, who affirmed that the human person in Christ was altogether separate and distinct from the person of the Son of God, so that there should be no other manner of conjunction except in dignity. Against him, the argument was from the nature of Sacraments. If the flesh of Christ is so severed from the person of God, it follows that it is no quickening flesh. If we grant the flesh of Christ to be in the Sacraments, we should eat the flesh of man, albeit sanctified and excellent, but it would not give us eternal life according to the promise.
This is the scope of those disputations. The Fathers did not contend, nor did they attempt to prove that the flesh of Christ lies hidden in the bread, but they wanted us to eat the same in a Sacrament, and truly so, to eat such flesh as will give us eternal life. We do not deny this if it is understood that the eating pertains to the soul and to faith. We grant that in a Sacrament, the flesh of Christ is eaten spiritually but truly. We do not fabricate a flesh severed and divided from the divine person of the Word.
They object against us the Council of Rome or the Vercellentian Council, wherein Berengarius was condemned and compelled to recant. As for these councils, since their Acts are not extant, we cannot answer much. Therefore, it is profitable to weigh the recantation prescribed to Berengarius by Pope
Nicholas in the Council. By examining this, we can judge the credibility of the Council and the rationality of those who had the chief rule in it.
In the decrees "De Consecratione," the second distinction in the Chapter "Ego Berengarius," his recantation is described. He was compelled to confess that the body of Christ is sensibly handled with the hands of the priests, broken, and rent with the teeth. Let every wise man judge how well these claims align with the glorified body of Christ and with that Sacrament. The Glosser upon the decrees, a man otherwise of gross