Nicene and Post-Nicene Church Fathers Series 2 - The Still Small ...

Of the origin of the word “with,” and what force it has. Also concerning…
Gospel in its very vitals; or, rather, should make our public definition a mere phrase and
nothing more. 1271 For instance, to take the first and most general example, who is thence
who has taught us in writing to sign with the sign of the cross those who have trusted in the
name of our Lord Jesus Christ? What writing has taught us to turn to the East at the prayer?
Which of the saints has left us in writing the words of the invocation at the displaying 1272
of the bread of the Eucharist and the cup of blessing? For we are not, as is well known,
content with what the apostle or the Gospel has recorded, but both in preface and conclusion
we add other words as being of great importance to the validity of the ministry, and these
we derive from unwritten teaching. Moreover we bless the water of baptism and the oil of
the chrism, and besides this the catechumen who is being baptized. On what written authority
do we do this? Is not our authority silent and mystical tradition? Nay, by what written
1271 i.e. if nothing were of weight but what was written, what need of any authorisation at all? There is no
need of κήρυγμα for a δόγμα expressly written in Scripture.
1272 ἐπὶ τῇ ἀναδείξει. The Benedictine note is: “Non respicit Basilius ad ritum ostensionis Eucharistiæ, ut
multi existimarunt, sed potius ad verba Liturgiæ ipsi ascriptæ, cum petit sacerdos, ut veniat Spiritus sanctus
ἁγιάσαι και ἀναδεῖξαι τὸν μὲν ἄρτον τοῦτον αὐτὸ τὸ τίμιον σῶμα τοῦ κυρίου. Haec autem verba ἐπὶ τῇ
ἀναδειξει, sic reddit Erasmus,cum ostenditur. Vituperat eum Ducæus; sicque ipse vertit, cum conficitur, atque
hanc interpretationem multis exemplis confirmat. Videtur tamen nihil prorsus vitii habitura haec interpretatio,
Invocationis verba cum ostenditur panis Eucharistiæ, id est, cum panis non jam panis est, sed panis Eucharistiæ,
sive corpus Christi ostenditur; et in liturgia, ut sanctificet et ostendat hunc quidem panem, ipsum pretiosum
corpus Domini. Nam 1 0 Cur eam vocem reformidemus, qua Latini uti non dubitant, ubi de Eucharistia loquuntur?
Quale est illud Cypriani in epistola 63 ad Cæcilium: Vino Christi sanguis ostenditur. Sic etiam Tertullianus I.
Marc. c. 14: Panem quo ipsum corpus suum repræsentat 2 0 Ut Græce, ἀναδεῖξαι, ἀποφαίνειν, ita etiam Latine,
ostendere, corpus Christi præsens in Eucharistia significatione quodam modo exprimit. Hoc enim verbum non
solum panem fieri corpus Domini significat, sed etiam fidem nostram excitat, ut illud corpus sub specie panis
videndum, tegendum, adorandum ostendi credamus. Quemadmodum Irenæus, cum ait lib. iv. cap. 33: Accipiens
panem suum corpus esse confitebatur, et temperamentum calicis suum sanguinem conformavit, non solum
mutationem panis et vini in corpus et sanguinem Christi exprimit, sed ipsam etiam Christi asseverationem, quæ
hanc nobis mutationem persuadet: sic qui corpus Christi in Eucharistia ostendi et repræsentari dicunt, non modo
jejuno et exiliter loqui non videntur, sed etiam acriores Christi præsentis adorandi stimulos subjicere. Poterat
ergo retineri interpretatio Erasmi; sed quia viris eruditis displicuit, satius visum est quid sentirem in hac nota ex-
ponere.” This view of the meaning of ἀναδείκνυσθαι and ἀνάδειξις as being equivalent to ποιεῖν and ποίησις
is borne out and illustrated by Suicer, S.V. “Ex his jam satis liquere arbitror ἀναδειξαι apud Basilium id esse
quod alii Græci patres dicunt ποιεῖν vel ἀποφαίνειν σῶμα χριστοῦ.” It is somewhat curious to find Bellarmine
(De Sacr. Euch. iv. § 14) interpreting the prayer to God εὐλογῆσαι καὶ ἁγιάσαι καὶ ἀναδεῖξαι to mean “ostende
per effectum salutarem in mentibus nostris istum panem salutificatum non esse panem vulgarem sed cœlestem.”
232
42