Ἅγιος ὁ Θεός, Ἅγιος ἰσχυρός, Ἅγιος ἀθάνατος, ἐλέησον ἡμᾶςKatholikon

Library › St Ambrose of Milan › On the Sacraments

On the Sacraments

St Ambrose of Milan, tr. Thompson, 1919

Book 4, The Bread and Wine of the Eucharist Become Christ’s Body and Blood in Virtue of…

Who then is the author of the sacraments but the Lord Jesus? From heaven those sacraments came; for all counsel is from heaven. But it was truly a great and divine miracle that God rained down manna from heaven, and the people ate without toiling.

Thou sayest perhaps, “My bread is1 of the usual kind.” But that bread is bread before the words of the sacraments; when consecration has been added, from bread it becomes the flesh of Christ. Let us therefore prove this. How can that which is bread be the body of Christ? By consecration. But in what words and in whose language is the consecration? Those of the Lord Jesus. For all the other things which are said in the earlier parts of the service are said by the priest—praises are offered to God, prayer is asked for the people, for kings, and the rest;2 when it comes to the consecration of the venerable sacrament, the priest no longer uses his own language, but he uses the language of Christ. Therefore, the word of Christ consecrates this sacrament.3

What is the word of Christ? That, to be sure, whereby all things are made. The Lord commanded, and the heaven was made; the Lord commanded, and the earth was made; the Lord commanded, and the seas were made; the Lord commanded, and every creature was produced. Thou seest, therefore, how effective is the word of Christ. If, therefore, there is such power in the word of the Lord Jesus, that the things which were not began to be, how much more is it effective, that things previously existing should, without ceasing to exist, be changed into something else?4 The heaven was not, the sea was not, the earth was not; but hear David saying, He spake, and they were made: he commanded, and they were created.5

Therefore, that I may answer thee, it was not the body of Christ before consecration; but after consecration, I tell thee, it is now the body of Christ. He spake, and it was made: he commanded, and it was created. Thou thyself didst formerly exist, but thou wast an old creature; after thou wast consecrated, thou didst begin to be a new creature. Wilt thou know how thou art a new creature? Everyone, it says, in Christ is a new creature.6

Hear, then, how the word of Christ is wont to change every creature, and changes, at will, the ordinances of nature. In what way? thou askest. Hear; and, first of all, let us take an example from his generation. It is usual that a man is not generated save from a man and a woman and the use of marriage; but because the Lord willed it, because he chose this mystery,7 Christ was born of the Holy Spirit and the Virgin, that is, the mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus.8 Thou seest, then, that he was born contrary to the ordinances and course of nature, he was born as man from a virgin.

Hear another example.9 The people of the Jews were hard pressed by the Egyptians; they were shut in by the sea. At the divine command Moses touched the waters with his rod, and the wave divided, certainly not according to the use of its own nature, but according to the grace of the heavenly command. Hear another.10 The people thirsted, they came to the spring. The spring was bitter; holy Moses cast wood into the spring, and the spring which had been bitter was made sweet, that is, it changed the use of its nature, it received the sweetness of grace. Hear also a fourth example.11 The axe head had fallen into the waters; as iron it sank by its own use. Elisha cast wood; straightway the iron rose, and swam upon the waters, certainly contrary to the use of iron, for the matter of iron is heavier than the element of water.

From all these examples, then, dost thou not understand how effectual is the heavenly word? If the heavenly word was effectual in the earthly spring, if it was effectual in other things, is it not effectual in the heavenly sacraments? Therefore thou hast learnt that what was bread becomes the body of Christ,12 and that wine and water are put into the chalice, but become blood by the consecration of the heavenly word.

But perhaps thou sayest, “I do not see the appearance13 of blood.” But it has the likeness; for as thou hast taken the likeness of the death,14 so also thou drinkest the likeness of the precious blood, that there may be no shrinking from actual blood, and yet the price of redemption may effect its work. Thou hast learnt, therefore, that what thou receivest is the body of Christ.

Notes

  1. Some see in this a reference to the offering of bread and wine by the people. But at Milan (see note on iv. 3. 8) the newly-baptized did not “offer” before the octave of Easter. Possibly the meaning is quite general: “the bread which I see is ordinary bread.” With this section cf. de Myst. ix. 50.
  2. In this description Probst (Lit. des viert. Jahrh. p. 249) sees a parallel to the order of the prayers in the Roman Canon. In the Gelasian Sacramentary the Sanctus, which corresponds to the “praises,” is followed by the prayers Te igitur (a prayer for the Church and Pope) and Memento, domine, a prayer for the congregation “who offer this sacrifice of praise.” The letter of Pope Innocent I to Decentius (416 a.d.) shows that at Rome in his time the names of offerers were recited within the Canon. But it is possible that the author of de Sacram. is not observing the strict order and that the prayers referred to are “the prayers of the faithful” earlier in the service. There is no prayer for kings in the Gelasian Canon, but such a prayer is found in the Good Friday prayers (Wilson, Gel. Sacram. p. 76), which are a survival of the “prayers of the faithful.”
  3. Cf. de Myst. ix. 52 (note).
  4. “ut sint quae erant et in aliud commutentur.” The words have also been rendered “that they should be what they were and be changed into something else.” Thus rendered the words have been interpreted as an assertion by the author of the continued existence, after consecration, of the natures of the bread and wine. The passage was discussed in the Eucharistic controversies of the eleventh and twelfth centuries. Lanfranc and Alger of Liège appear to have interpreted the words in the above sense, but sought to evade the conclusions drawn from them by contending that the words refer to the outward appearances of bread and wine. One MS. omits the words altogether. The Roman edition reads ut quae erant in aliud commutentur (“that the things which were should be changed into something else”), and the same reading was known to Lanfranc. The variations in reading reflect the controversial use made of the passage. On the other hand, the translation given in the text, which is supported by Cardinal Perronne, appears to be justified on two grounds:— (1) The author has in mind the parallel passage in Ambrose, de Myst. ix. 52. “The word of Christ could make out of nothing that which was not; cannot it then change the things which are into that which they were not? For to give new natures to things is quite as wonderful as to change their natures” (see notes). (2) In the present passage the author is arguing that creation out of nothing is an even greater miracle than the conversion of existing things into something else. The greater implies the less. If the word of Christ can effect the one, it can effect the other. The words ut sint are not intended to lay stress on the continued existence of bread and wine as bread and wine, but emphasize the fact that the change effected in them does not involve destruction or a new act of creation. That is probably all that is in the author’s mind.
  5. Ps. xxxiii. (xxxii. Vulg.), 9. Cf. de Myst. ix. 52.
  6. 2 Cor. v. 17 (freely quoted).
  7. The mystery (sacramentum) is the Incarnation. Cf. 1 Tim. iii. 16 (T.). For this parallel with the Incarnation see de Myst. ix. 53.
  8. 1 Tim. ii. 5.
  9. Ex. xiv. Cf. for this section de Myst. ix. 51.
  10. Ex. xv. 23-25.
  11. 2 Kings vi. 5-6.
  12. ex pane fit corpus Christi. With this section cf. de Myst. ix. 52.
  13. speciem. Here, as video suggests, it denotes “appearance,” as in de Myst. iv. 25. See de Myst. ix. 52 (note).
  14. Rom. vi. 5.

· Contents ·