About the Sacrament of the Divine Eucharist

The essay “On the Sacrament of the Divine Eucharist” is part of the work of St. Nicodemus the Holy Mountain "Confession of Faith" (῾Ομολογία πίστεως), written in 1809 in connection with accusations of unbelief. St. Nicodemus expounds his confession of faith in the Sacrament of the Eucharist. The key thesis is that the Body and Blood of Christ in the Gifts are both “real” and “spiritual.” “Real” because the consecrated Bread and Wine is the truest, real Body and Blood of Christ, which participated in the events of the Savior’s earthly life. “Spiritual” because their presence is carried out in a supernatural way, incomprehensible to the senses, by analogy with how the soul is present in the whole body. From this it follows “that the sacrament of the Eucharist is the true Sacrifice and the perfect Offering, in which Christ Himself is present, and the Priest and Sacrifice, who with the Father accepts the Sacrifice, and the Priest and the Lamb, and the Bringer and the Offered, and the One to whom the Offering is made.” With them, the Gifts remain incorruptible, despite the corruption of external appearances (accidents): “It follows that just as the spirit or soul, despite the corruption of the body, remains incorruptible, so the Body and Blood of the Lord, despite the corruption of the accidents of Bread and Wine, remain incorruptible.” To substantiate his position, Rev. Nicodemus relies on the opinion of the holy fathers (St. John Chrysostom, St. John of Damascus), later theologians (Meletius Siriga, Gennady Scholarius) and documents of local Councils of the 17th century. Chapter from the Confession of Faith In the 2nd half of the 18th century. Along with the dispute over the commemoration of the dead, the issue of frequent communion, which gradually came to the fore, also became a subject of controversy between participants in the Kollivad movement and their opponents. Domestic researcher of this topic O.A. Rodionov notes that “attempts to present the debate about the Kolyva as the first phase of the debate, and the question about St. Communion - as the main topic of the next one... do not look convincing, since the frequent communion of the Holy Mysteries becomes a subject of discussion and a reason for clashes almost simultaneously with the emergence of the problem of commemorating the dead on Sundays” 1. However, the issue of frequent communion was not the only subject of controversy related to the theology of the Eucharist. Directly in the camp of the Kollivads, a dispute broke out about the perishability of the Body of Christ in the Sacrament, the initiator of which was Neophyte Kavsokalivit 2. The latter was misled by the treatise “On the Most Pure Body, of which we partake” 3, inscribed with the name of St. John of Damascus and created by supporters of the 12th century mathematician and astronomer. Michael Glicki (Sikidite), who argued that the Showbread in nature (κατὰ φύσιν) was the same as the holy Flesh of Christ, given as food to the disciples at the Last Supper, that is, St. The gifts are perishable, and the communicant does not receive “the whole Christ” (ὅ λον τὸν Χριστ ό ν). According to Glick, the Eucharistic Body of Christ is perishable; at each Liturgy it is actually sacrificed, refracted, divided into parts and eaten by the communicants. Glicka's teachings combined extreme Eucharistic realism (St. Bread after consecration is the very Body of Christ, and not an image, icon or symbol, and everything that happens to the Bread after consecration also happens to the Body) and the Origenist doctrine of the resurrected Body of the Savior, which is inaccessible to sensory perception and which cannot be communed: it cannot be refracted, tasted and crushed by the teeth of believers during the Liturgy. However, the sacrificed and crushed and inanimate Body of Christ nevertheless rises in the communicant, as in the tomb, and makes him a sharer of incorruption. The neophyte accepted the teaching contained in the pseudepigraph as the true opinion of the saint. John of Damascus and sent the essay “On the Body of the Lord” in 1771 to Nikephoros Theotoki. A correspondence took place between them, which has not yet been published in full 4. The opinion about the perishability of the Eucharistic Body of Christ was attributed to all the collivades, and their opponents did not fail to connect this opinion with the question of frequent communion: the faithful need to approach the Sacrament as often as possible, since they do not partake of the entire Body of Christ. Venerable St. Nicodemus the Holy Mountain in his Confession of Faith, etc. Athanasius of Paros. Thus, in the 2nd half of the 18th century. The Byzantine Eucharistic dispute of the end of the 12th century was updated, which became a logical continuation of the disputes of the mid-12th century. about the nature of the Eucharistic sacrifice in connection with the opinions of Sotirich Pantevgen and which did not receive a council decision at that time. Unfortunately, there are still disputes between the 12th and 18th centuries. have not been studied and analyzed 5 sufficiently in the context of the history of Byzantine and post-Byzantine theology of the Eucharist. In addition, as already mentioned, to date, not all sources on the dispute of the 18th century. published, including the work of Neophyte Kavsokalivit “On the Body of the Lord,” which marked the beginning of the controversy. From our point of view, the disputes of the 12th century. and XVIII century. are of utmost importance for understanding the paths followed by Byzantine and, in general, Eastern theology of the Eucharist. Glicka's opinion was an attempt to bring together a number of trends in Byzantine theology of the Sacraments (including the tradition of Eucharistic miracles and symbolic interpretations of the Liturgy), especially emerging in the post-iconoclastic period. The opposite side, to which Niketas Choniates belonged, who reflected the events of the controversy in his “History”, was of the opinion about the presence of the resurrected Body of the Savior in the consecrated Gifts, could not answer anything meaningful at that moment 6, since there was no necessary theological tools for formulating the doctrine of the method of the presence of the incorruptible and resurrected Body under the forms of bread and wine. In turn, in the 18th century. Nicodemus the Holy Mountain and Athanasius of Paros polemicized with Neophyte Kavsokalibit (and with the teachings of Michael Glicka, respectively), using the doctrine of transubstantiation, adopted on Greek soil by the Patriarch of Constantinople Gennadius Scholarius in the 15th century. and passed church reception at local Councils of the 17th century. Below, in anticipation of the publication of a study we are preparing on the Eucharistic debate about the corruption of the Body of Christ in the Eucharist, we offer a commented translation of the chapter from the “Confession of Faith” 7 of Nicodemus the Holy Mountain, in which the monk refutes the accusations of his opponents that he adheres to a false understanding of the Sacrament. The translation is based on the 1st edition of the Confession, published in Venice in 1819 8. Cases of affiliation of notes by prp. Nicodemus is given special mention. About the Sacrament of the Divine Eucharist Some slander us in the way we understand the sacrament of the divine Eucharist, namely, that the most pure Body of the Lord and the honorable Blood are subject to suffering and corruption, and that in each part of the consecrated bread there is not the whole Body of the Lord, and in all parts of the consecrated wine there is not the whole Blood. However, such [slanderers] are ridiculous: after all, they should have read the prayers that we compiled in the form of ikos to our Lord Jesus and which we published in 1796 along with a book called “The Invisible Warfare” 9 in order to learn from that [book] how we understand this [Sacrament]. But since those [slanderers] were blind and did not read these prayers, we quote verbatim what we wrote there about this [Sacrament], to the eternal shame of those who unjustly accuse us. So, on page 334 of the mentioned book we write the following: “The deliverance of the mortal race, O my Jesus, You conveyed the Sacrament to the secret servants (μύσταις), having at the Supper transposed bread into Your very Body, and wine into Your very Blood; I commanded them to do this in remembrance of You. Constantly partaking of them [i.e. e. Body and Blood] I am sanctified and, adoring, I cry out to You the following...” Below, on page 335, we add: “Jesus, wholly in all the Sacrament and wholly in every part thereof, I confess to Thee that I approach Thy holy throne without due preparation.” This is [our] pious understanding, which we not only held and hold about this incomprehensible Sacrament, but which we also set out in writing with our own hands. And not only did they put it in writing, but they also published it not a year or two or three ago, but more than ten years ago, as if we had already foreseen that some ill-wishers intended to slander us, and therefore we got ahead of them and shut their chattering lips with these words [from ikos]. Indeed, despite their brevity, they are still enough to silence the slanderers, since they contain all the sting and rennet leaven (τὴν πυτίαν), so to speak, refutations of the slanderers. However, in order to put a sufficient rein on their lips, we will add the following here. For a deeper and quicker understanding of what will be said, we reduce here all the constituent signs and features of the divine sacrament of the Eucharist to two generic and general concepts, from which the rest follows, in order to show what we think about this Sacrament. So, we undoubtedly believe with our hearts, we confess with our lips for salvation and with our hands we write as assurance that the most pure Body of the Lord and His life-giving Blood, firstly, are “real” (πραγματικόν), and secondly, “spiritual” (πνευματικόν). “Real” - because after consecration, the Bread presented on the holy throne is the very true Body of our Lord Jesus Christ and nothing else; in the same way, the Wine found in the chalice after consecration is the true life-giving Blood of the Lord and nothing else. Since [Bread] is no other Body than one and the same real [Body], it follows that the consecrated Bread is the very Body of the Lord, really conceived by the Holy Spirit, really born of the Virgin, really received Baptism, really suffered, really crucified, really buried, really resurrected, really ascended into heaven, really sitting at the right hand of the Father and really coming to judge the living and the dead. Therefore, Meletius Sirig said: “At our holy Liturgy we commemorate the entire House of Christ, with a meditative voice singing with a laudatory voice His Nativity and the preaching of the Gospel that He performed, and the Holy Passion, the Cross, the Descent from the Cross 10, the three-day Resurrection, the Ascension into heaven. But we do all this on the Bread that is set before us.” 11 And in the 17th chapter [of the acts] of the two Councils convened against Cyril Lucaris (one of which was in Constantinople, and the other in Iasi 12), the following is written: “We believe that in the sacred rite our Lord Jesus Christ is truly and truly present, so that after the consecration of bread and wine, the bread is broken (μεταβάλλεσθαι), transubstantiated ( μετουσιοῦσθαι), transformed (μεταποιεῖσθαι), transformed (μετα ῤῥ υθμ ί ζεσθαι) into the truest Body of the Lord, which was born in Bethlehem from the Virgin and Mother of God Mary, baptized in the Jordan, suffered, buried, resurrected, ascended, sits at the right hand of God and the Father, has to come on the clouds of heaven. Wine is transformed and transubstantiated into the very true Blood of the Lord, which was shed for the life of the world 13 when [the Lord] hung on the Cross” 14. From what has been said, it follows that the sacrament of the Eucharist is the true Sacrifice and the perfect Offering, in which Christ Himself is present, and the Priest and Sacrifice, who with the Father accepts the Sacrifice, and the Priest (ἱερεύς) and the Lamb (ἱερεῖον), and the Offerer and the Offered, and the One to Whom it is performed Offering. Why did Zlatoslov say: “And just as He (Christ) who is offered in many places is one Body, and not many bodies, so the Sacrifice is one. He is our High Priest, who offered the Sacrifice that purifies us; We also offer this [Sacrifice] now, then offered, but not lacking" (Conversation 17 [of St. John Chrysostom] on the Epistle to the Hebrews 15; see also about this page 807 of the Twelve Books 16). However, the Body and Blood of the Lord in the Sacrament are also “spiritual”. Although, of course, as we said above, the Body and Blood in the Sacrament are real and true, nevertheless they are not physical or visible or generally perceived by the senses, but “spiritual”. The latter is understood in two ways. Firstly, the Body and Blood of the Lord in the Sacrament are performed (ἐνεργεῖται) and sanctified (τελεσιουργεῖται) through the all-powerful energy and power of the All-Holy and Ultimate Spirit, and not through the laws of nature. Therefore, this Sacrament is supernatural, mysterious, incomprehensible and, therefore, ineffable and inexpressible and accepted only by faith alone. Secondly, the Body and Blood of the Lord in the Sacrament are “spiritual” due to the fact that their [presence] is understood not in the image of the human body, but in the image of the soul, which is spirit, as Meletius Sirigus says 17. It follows from this that just as the spirit or soul is invisible and not subject to the senses, so the Body and Blood of the Lord in the Eucharist are invisible and not subject to the senses, being above the senses. After all, the same Sirig says: “We believe that the Body of the Lord [in the Gifts] is not visible and not perceived at all, but we say that it is hidden under the cover of bread and therefore is present invisibly in the Eucharist.” Thus, those who, using the expression “real [Body]” (ὄνομα τοῦ Πραγματικοῦ), using the expression “real [Body]”, assume a sensual slaughter of the Body and a sensual outpouring of Blood in the sacrament of the Eucharist are wrong. After all, if this were so, then it would be necessary for all the sensory instruments that serve for such a slaughter and outpouring of the Blood of the Lord to be visibly present together (συνδράμουν), namely: the Cross, nails, spear, etc. But this is not happening, no! Therefore, although the Sacrifice of the Lord’s Body in the Sacrament is real, it is also spiritual, that is, mysterious, invisible and above the senses, and for this reason the Sacrifice is called bloodless. After all, the Sacraments require faith, not feelings. From this it follows that just as the whole spirit or soul is present in the whole body and the whole [spirit] is present in every part of the body, so in the Eucharist the Body is all present in all the bread and the whole [Body] is in every part of the bread. In the same way, the Blood is all present in all the wine and all in every part of the wine. It follows that just as the spirit or soul, despite the corruption of the body, remains incorruptible, so the Body and Blood of the Lord, despite the corruption of accidents (τῶν συμβεβηκότων) of Bread and Wine, remain incorruptible. Thus, just as the spirit or soul, being one, is divided inseparably in all members and parts of the body and is divided indivisibly, in the same way the Body and Blood of the Eucharist are divided inseparably in all parts of the bread and wine and are divided indivisibly. That’s why it is said: “Fragmented and indivisible, always poisonous and never consumed...” 18. That is why during the [reign of] Emperor Alexius, brother of Isaac [Angel], in 1195, when a certain monk called Sikidite asked: “Is the Body of Christ in the Sacrament incorruptible, as it was after the Passion and Resurrection, or corruptible, as it was before the Passion and Death?” 19 - and when he [thus] reasoned, the right-thinking cited the testimony of Cyril [of Alexandria], [John] Chrysostom, Gregory of Nyssa and Eutyches of Constantinople, “that the Body of Christ in the Sacrament is incorruptible, since after the Resurrection this [Body] is impassive, and is not subject to suffering, as before the Passion. And everyone who accepts part of the Bread accepts the whole Christ 20 and in an amazing way participates in the divine sacred rites in eternal life.” In addition, they also gave illustrative examples from Eutyches [mentioned] above: “So, the entire holy Body and holy Blood is received by the one who has received at least a part of them. For it is divided inseparably in all parts through mixing (διὰ τὴν ἔμμιξιν) just as some seal transfers all its imprints and forms to the receiving [its objects] and remains one even after the transfer [of the imprint], without decreasing or changing into the objects involved [in it] (that is, there are many of these [objects], but there is only one seal 21), even if they are larger in number. Or how a sound uttered by someone and spread through the air, remains entirely in the one who issued it, and, once it is completely in the air, penetrates the ears of everyone. Moreover, none of those who heard perceived [it] more or less than the other, but the whole [sound], although it is a body 22, remains without division and damage to all who heard, even if there are ten thousand or more of them" (see page 807 of the Twelve Books [Dositheus Notara]). Samon of Gaza and Gennady Scholarius 23 use a more understandable comparison of the Body of the Lord in the Sacrament with a mirror. After all, just as the Sun is completely reflected in the whole unbroken mirror, and in each part of the broken mirror, in the same way the entire Body of the Lord is in all the unbroken Bread and in each part of the broken Bread. And the same Samon also says 24: “When the consecrated Bread is cut into pieces, do not think that that most pure Body is crushed, or dismembered, or divided, for it is immortal, incorruptible and inexhaustible; but that fragmentation after consecration reaches exclusively those sensual accidents ( τῶν αἰσθητῶν συμβεβηκότων μόνον ) [Bread] for the sake of the power of faith and the appearance of a visible sign of the future, as well as as a guarantee and way of eternal life" (from the sacred Catechism 25). The divine Chrysostom also says: “So let us approach (the mysterious Eucharist 26) with faith, each one in his own weakness. After all, if those who touched the hem of His garment attracted such [healing] power, then how much more [attract] those who receive the whole Christ into themselves?” 27. And John of Damascus, in his prayer for Communion, says: “I, the accursed one, dare to receive Your whole Body, lest I be scorched” 28 . Let us add here that, in addition to other slander, the slanderous brothers also accuse us of carrying artophorium with Holy Bread under our kamilavka and, when we are on the way to the place we need, we sit down and receive communion. When we heard this outright slander for the first time, we laughed, or rather, grinned at their brotherly hatred. Since we have all freedom and, having tested ourselves every time, according to the Apostle [Paul] 29, we prepare and go to the church of God and the priest gives us communion. And why do we need to wear the holy artophorium? Let the brother-haters be satisfied with the slander against us! The Judge is close, to whom they will give an account, for the sake of which they intrigued against us, inventing non-existent [things]. This is how we confess and understand the incomprehensible Sacrament of the divine Eucharist. Those who say the following are talking nonsense. Allegedly, we wrote in the “Book of Frequent Communion” that it is useful for Christians (who, of course, do not have a canonical obstacle) to frequently partake of the Divine Mysteries with appropriate preparation, because we set the goal of communion of the entire Body of Christ, since having received communion once, we do not partake of His entire Body. Truly [those who say this] are the mouth of the devil, through which the devil speaks and speaks what he inspires in their hearts. But we are so far from such a shameful view that such reasoning, or even just one such idea or thought, never originated from our imagination. Why do we pronounce these [words] of Susanna: “Eternal God, knower of the unseen and knowing all [things] before their existence! You know that they testified falsely against us." 30 Rodionov O. A. Kollivada // PE. 2014. T. 35. pp. 323–335, here: p. 324. For a brief history of the dispute with references to sources and literature, see: Ibid. pp. 330–331. CPG. 8117; PG. 95. Col. 405–412. See: St iernon D. Eugène Boulgaris // La Théologie byzantine et sa tradition. II (XIIIe-XIXe s.). / Sous la direction de C. G. Conticello et V. Conticello. Turnhout, 2002, pp. 773–774. For disputes of the 12th century. It is necessary first of all to note the observations of M. Jugie: Jugie M. Theologia dogmatica christianorum orientalium ab Ecclesia catholica dissidentium. P., 1930. T. 3. P. 321–325. Nicodemus Skrettas's work on the theology of the Eucharist of the collivades (Νικ ό δημος (Σκρέττας), ἀρχιμ. ῾ Η θε ί α εὐχαριστία καὶ τὰ προν ό μια τῆς κυριακῆς κατὰ τὴ διδασκαλ ί α τῶν κολλυβάδων Θεσσαλον ί κη, 2004) in the part of interest to us, unfortunately, is not of great interest from the point of view of analysis, although the researcher outlined the content of the main sources on this issue. Surprisingly, not a single work by Glicka’s opponents has survived, with the exception of a fragment of the treatise of St. Neophyte the Recluse, published by M. Jugie (Jugie M. Un opuscule inédit de Néophyte le Reclus sur l’incorruptibilité du Corps du Christ dans l’Eucharstie // REB. 1949. Vol. 7. N 1. P. 1–11). However, Rev. The neophyte, apparently, received information about the subject of the dispute second-hand and did not fully understand its essence. The Confession of Faith was presented at the Holy Mountain Cinema on June 13, 1807; For more details see: Rodionov. Kollywads. P. 331. Ὁ μολογ ί α π ί στεως , ἤ τοι Ἀπολογ ί α δικαιοτάτη , κατὰ τῶν ὅ σοι ἀμαθῶς καὶ κακοβούλως ἐτ ό λμησαν παρεξηγεῖν καὶ διαβάλλειν Παραδ ό σεις τινὰς τῆς Ἁ γί ας Ἐκκλησ ί ας καὶ ἄλλα τινὰ τῶν περὶ Π ί ?? Νικοδ ή μου τοῦ Ἁ γιορε ί του. Βενετ ί α, 1819. Σ. 76–85. The text of the Confession, without any commentary, was republished in: Πάσχου Π. Ἐν ἀσκήσει καὶ μαρτυρί ῳ. Ἀθῆναι, 1996. Σ. 166–173. When translating, we omit the formal ending of the chapter, since its content already relates to the presentation of events around the justification of St. Nicodemus, and not to the theology of the Sacrament itself. The text of the district message to the monasteries of the Holy Mountain with the proclamation of the innocence of the saint is also given there. 1st edition: 1796. Literally: “removal from nails” (ἡ ἀποκαθήλωσις). We have not found the quote, see also below. The “Orthodox Confession” of Cyril Lucaris was condemned at the Councils of Constantinople in 1638 and 1642. and the Iasi Cathedral of 1642, but below St. Nicodemus quotes not the tomos of the above Councils, but the 17th chapter of the “Confession of Faith” of the Patriarch of Jerusalem Dositheus II Notara, which was included in the 6th chapter of the acts of the Jerusalem Council of 1672. Καρμ ί ρης Ἰ. N. Τὰ Δογματικὰ καὶ Συμβολικὰ Μνημεῖα τῆς Ὀρθοδ ό ξου Καθολικῆς Ἐκκλησ ί ας . Ἀθῆναι, 1968. T. 2. Σ. 761 (841). Ioan. Chrys. Hom. 17. 3 in Heb. //PG. 12. Col. 169. St. Nicodemus refers the reader to page 807 of the 1st edition of the “History of the Patriarchs of Jerusalem” in the 12 books of the Patriarch of Jerusalem Dositheos II Notara, which was carried out, according to the title page, by the Patriarch of Jerusalem Chrysanthos in 1715 in Bucharest (Legrand E. Bibliographie hellénique ou description raisonnée des ouvrages publiés par des grecs au XVIIIe siècle. P., 1918. T. 1. P. 120–122. N 97), but in fact - in 1723, as is clear from the correspondence between Patriarch Chrysanthus and Mitrofan Grigora (see more about the work: Bernatsky M. M. Dosifei II Notara // PE. T. 16. 2007. pp. 78–79). On page 807 is the main part of the 1st paragraph of the 12th chapter of the 8th book of “History”, which sets out the history of the theological disputes of Ser. XII century about the Sacrifice of Christ, which ended with the Councils of Constantinople 1156–1157. In discussions about the “spiritual” presence of the Body of Christ in the Eucharist, St. Nicodemus follows the chapter "Πῶς νοῦμεν τὸ πνευματικῶς εἰς τὰ φρικτὰ μυστήρια" "Refutations of the Calvinian chapters of Cyril Lukarisa" Λουκάρεως, ἀντ ίῤῥ ησις) Meletius Siriga; 1st ed.: Bucharest, 1690. pp. 106–107. In turn, Meletius Sirig borrowed the analogy with the soul to explain the essential presence of the Body of Christ in the Sacrament from the homily of Gennadius Scholarius “On the Mystical Body of Our Lord Jesus Christ” (Oeuvres complètes de Georges (Gennadios) Scholarios “Ed. M. Jugie, L. Petit, X. A. Siderides. 8 Vol. P., 1928–1936. Vol. 1. P. 130; see also: Bernatsky M. M. The presence of Christ in the Eucharist “in essence (οὐσίαν)”: on the question of the interpretation and sources of one passage from the homily of George (Gennadius) Scholarius // BT. Issue 42. pp. 169–182). Sirig's discussions about the correct understanding of the “spiritual” presence were undoubtedly associated with polemics with the Protestant understanding of the Eucharist. Formula for crushing St. Lamb; for the history of the formula that appeared in the order of the Byzantine Liturgy in the 12th century, see: Taft R. F. The Precommunion Rites. (A History of the Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom; Vol. 5). R., 2000. (OCA; 261). P. 350 ff. Here and further until the end of the paragraph, Rev. Nicodemus gives quotes from the 2nd paragraph of the 12th chapter of the 8th book of the “History of the Jerusalem Patriarchs” Patr. Dositheus, which already sets out the content of the dispute around the teachings of Glyka (Sikidite). Dositheus himself, in his presentation, relies on the “History” of Niketas Choniates. Note by Rev. Nicodemus: “Look: those who claim to accept the whole Christ show that those who partake of the Mysteries accept the whole Christ with Divinity and Humanity (that is, with soul and Body). Or, what is the same thing, they accept a perfect God and a perfect Man, since Christ is a perfect God and a perfect Man, according to John of Damascus and all the sacred theologians.” The explanation in parentheses belongs to St. Nicodemus. St. Nicodemus, when indirectly quoting St. Eutychius, Patriarch of Constantinople (Euthychius Constantinopolitanus. Sermo de paschate et de sacrosancta eucharistia. PG. 86(2). Col. 2993), does not finish the sentence and omits the explanation that goes back to Aristotle that sound is a body: “... for sound is nothing other than shaking air.” A difficult issue is the correct use of the authority of St. Eutyches to defend the Orthodox teaching on the communion in the Eucharist of the entire risen and incorruptible Body of the Savior. The teaching of Eutyches about the bodies of the resurrection, which gravitated toward Origenism and was denounced by St. Gregory I the Great (Double-Speaker), was related to his theology of the Eucharist (see, for example: Prozorov V.B. The reality of the flesh of the resurrected body: The dispute between Gregory the Great and the Patriarch of Constantinople Eutyches // Eschatological collection. St. Petersburg, 2006. pp. 109–125; Zheltov M., priest. Byzantine theology of the Eucharist in VI-VII centuries / Eucharist // PE. 2008. T. 17. P. 597–598). As with the mirror (see below), analogies with print and sound cannot adequately reflect the essential presence of Christ in the saint. Darach. In the 9th chapter of the homily “On the Mystical Body of Our Lord Jesus Christ” (Oeuvres complètes. Vol. 1. P. 131), Scholarius follows the 7th chapter of the treatise of Ps. Thomas “De sacramento Eucharistiae ad modum praedicamentorum”, in which the Sacrament is considered from the point of view of the Aristotelian category of “enduring” (passio). As an analogy to the fact that in the Eucharist, when the consecrated bread is crushed, the incorruptible and resurrected Body of Christ remains whole and unharmed (integrum et illaesum) (due to the fact that the fragmentation reaches only the accidents of the bread, but not the Body, which is present in it through substance), the example of a mirror, going back to the blj. Augustine: if a mirror breaks, the image of the reflected object is not broken, but is observed in each individual piece of the broken mirror. It is worth noting that Thomas Aquinas in the Summa Theologica noted the incorrectness of this analogy: “It is true that this is an imperfect comparison, since the multiplication of such images occurs in a broken mirror due to different reflections in different parts of the mirror, but here [in the Eucharist] there is only one sanctification, by which the Body of Christ is present in the Sacrament" (ST. III q. 76, ar. 3, co; see also: Super Sent. Lib. 4, d. 1, a. 3 co.) Samon of Gaza, bishop of Gaza in mid. The 11th century is attributed to the work “The Conversation of Blessed Samon with Ahmed the Saracen, showing that the bread and wine sacredly administered by the priest are true and intact by the Body and Blood of our Lord Jesus Christ” (PG. T. 120. Col. 821–832). However, this essay is a pseudepigraph: it was written in mid. XV century and is a compilation from the works of other authors (St. Anastasius of Sinai, St. John of Damascus, Theodore Abu-Kurra) (see in detail: Jugie M. Une nouvelle invention au compte de Constantin Palaeocappä Samonas de Gaza et son dialogue sur l’eucharistie // Miscellanea Giovanni Mercati. Vol. 3: Letteratura e storia bizantina. Vat., 1946. (Studi e Testi; 123). Note that one of the proofs of the late dating, in addition to the manuscript tradition of the composition and other factors, is the presence of an argument that the fragmentation of St. The bread does not reach the resurrected Body of the Savior, but only the accidents of bread and wine. Using the concept of transubstantiation in Greek. theological literature became possible only from the 2nd half of the 15th century. after its reception by Gennady Scholarius. Attempts to convey the work of Ps. Samon and identify the author with Suleiman al-Gazzi, poet and theologian of the 10th-11th centuries, made by I. Dick (Dick I. Samonas de Gaza ou Sulaïman al-Gazzi, évêque melkite de Gaza, XIe siècle // Proche-Orient chrétien. 1980. Vol. 30 (1–4). P. 175–178) and priest. G. Maksimov (St. Samon of Gaz on Islam // Byzantine writings on Islam. M., 2012. pp. 152–158 (article), 159–166 (Russian translation)), do not stand up to criticism. There is another pre-revolutionary Russian. translation of the treatise made by Archimandrite. Innokenty (Novgorodov) and unknown to Maksimov: Conversation of the Blessed. Samona, Archbishop. Gazsky, with Akhmet Saracen about the sacrament of the Eucharist // Orthodox interlocutor. 1866. Part 3. No. 12. P. 323–333. This is how the priest translates the fundamentally important part of the quotation from Ps. Samon. G. Maksimov: “... but this division is a sensual [way] to unite through one sanctified, [many] believers, and this establishment is a visible sign of intentions, and a guarantee and means of eternal life” (Cit. cit. p. 166). Translation by archim. Innocent is more precise: “... the divisibility here refers only to what remains accidental, sensual in the bread after its consecration, - to strengthen faith through the representation, by a visible sign, of invisible objects, and as a pledge and parting word of eternal life” (Cit. cit. pp. 332–333; italics in quotations are ours). St. Nicodemus quotes Pseudo Samon from the Catechism of Nicholas Voulgaris ἱερὰς λειτουργίας καὶ ἐξέτασις τῶν χειροτονουμένων, μετὰ πολλῶν καὶ ἄλλων τῶν πρὸς ὠ φέλειαν τῶν Πιστῶν τὰ μέγιστα συντεινόντων ). 1st edition in 1678; 2nd edition available to us - Venice, 1769. P. 183 (chapter “On the crushing of the Holy Bread”). In this chapter, Nicholas Voulgaris (1634 - after 1684), a physician and theologian, gives a detailed theological commentary from the standpoint of the doctrine of transubstantiation on the fragmentation formula “Fragmented and indivisible, always poisonous and never dependent...”. Explanation in parentheses by St. Nicodemus. I o a n. Chrys. Hom. in Mattheum. 50. 2 // PG. 58. Col. 507. Prayer before Communion by St. John of Damascus “I stand before the doors of Your church...” Dan. 13, 42–43. Syn. translation with changes. In Greek in the text of “The Tale of Susanna”: “they testified against me.” You might be interested in: