Beggar: You have opportunely introduced a word about
the divine mysteries, for directly I will prove to you that the body of the
Master (του δεσποτικου σματος) is changed
into another nature (την εις ετεραν
φυσιν μεταβολην). Do but
answer my questions.
True believer: I will answer.
Beggar: What do you call the gift that is presented,
prior to the priestly invocation)?
True Believer: it is not proper to divulge this; for it is
probable that some of the uninitiate are present.
Beggar: You can call it enigmatically.
True Believer: Food from certain seeds.
Beggar: And how do we call the other token (το δε
ετερον συμβολον)?
True Believer: It is a common name, signifying a species of
beverage.
Beggar: And after the consecration (τον αγιασμον) how do you
address them?
True Believer: Body of Christ and Blood of Christ.
Beggar: And do you believe you receive the Body of
Christ and His Blood?
True Believer: That is what I do believe.
Beggar: Well then, just as the tokens of the Body
and Blood of the Master are one thing before the priestly invocation, and after
this epiclesis are changed and become something else, so too after the
assumption [of flesh] the body of the Master is changed into the divine essence
(την ουσιαν
την θειαν).
True Believer: you are hoist with your own petard! For
after the consecration the mystical tokens do not retire from their own nature
(ουδε γαρ
μετα τον
αγιασμον μυστικα
συμβολα της
οικειας εξισταται
φυσεως. The mystical tokens
or signs or symbols are the bread and wine);
for they remain with their former essence and outward appearance and shape,
and they are visible and tangible just as they were before. They are
understood, however, to be what they have become; and by faith they are
believed; and they are adored as that which they are believed to be. (Theodore
of Cyrus, Eranistès or Polymorph: A Dialogue Between a Beggar and a True
Believer 2, ca. A.D. 447-451, The Faith of the Early Fathers, 3 vols.
[trans. William A. Jurgens; Collegeville, Minn.: The Liturgical Press, 1979],
3:243-44)
προ της ιερατικης επικλησεως.
Literally, before the priestly epiclesis. The προ here is temporal. The True Believer is asked
what we all the bread and wine before it has been consecrated; and he shows as
a by-the-way in his question that he regards the epiclesis or invocation as
consecratory. As the dialogue continues it is interesting to see that the
arcane discipline prevents the True Believer from speaking openly of the tokens
or symbols of the Body and Blood of Christ before the consecration as bread and
wine. Yet he can speak openly of the Eucharist as Body and Blood of Christ. (Ibid., 244 n. 8)
μενει γαρ επι της προτερας ουσιας και του σχηματος και του ειδους. The “they,” of course,
is το μυστικα
συμβολα of the previous
clause; remember that in Greek a nominative neutral plural subject regularly
takes a singular verb. I am convinced that my translation is correct, but I am
not entirely certain of what Theodoret means in this instance by ουσια; and I have perforce
translated it as essence as synonymous with substance. If it is
clearly a verbal denial of transubstantiation, we must remember that that
terminology will not be determined until long after Theodoret’s time; and no
matter his explanation, he does very clearly affirm at last a belief in the
real presence. That is all that might be expected at so early a period.
It might have been argued that though he says that the former essence or
substance remains, it is not certain that he does not in this place intend σχημα and ειδος, the outward
appearance and shape (or species), as qualifiers to what he
means by ουσια rather than as being a second and third thing that remain. Possibly it were not necessary to take the και . . .και as mere consecutives,
but as specifying limits to the ουσια thus: “For the mystical tokens remain by their former
substance, both as to outward appearance and as to shape.” But if we do that to
try to force a modern orthodoxy upon Theodoret or the True Believer, we destroy
the effectiveness of His argument against Eranistes toe Beggar, who said that
the flesh assumed by Christ is transformed into the Divine Essence, and who
demonstrates a transubstantional understanding of the Eucharistic
transformation in establishing a parallel. Since Theodoret denies the
parallelism of Eranistes’ argument, it is necessary to accept that Theodoret is
really saying that after the consecratory epiclesis, when the bread and wine
has really become what it is believed to be, the Body of Christ, the substance
of bread remains. If that is really what Theodoret means, then he is an
impanationist and a very good Lutheran. (Ibid.,
244 n. 13)
