Did Cyril of Jerusalem Teach Transubstantiation?

 

In this article, we will be examining some passages from the church father Cyril of Jerusalem commonly used by Roman Catholic apologists to demonstrate that he believed in the doctrine of transubstantiation.

#1 - "the bread in the eucharist, after the invocation of the holy ghost, is mere bread no longer, but the body of Christ" (Catechetical Lecture 21)

Is Cyril teaching transubstantiation here? No. This is clearly seen by simply getting the full context of the passage. In this lecture, Cyril is discussing the issue and nature of water baptism. Here is the part where the quote comes in. Notice carefully the language of Cyril:

"But beware of supposing this to be plain ointment. For as the Bread of the Eucharist, after the invocation of the Holy Ghost, is mere bread no longer , but the Body of Christ, so also this holy ointment is no more simple ointment, nor (so to say) common, after invocation, but it is Christ's gift of grace, and, by the advent of the Holy Ghost, is made fit to impart His Divine Nature."  (emphasis added)

The key words are "so also". Cyril essentially says that the water of baptism communicates grace in the same way that the Eucharist does. However, where in this passage does Cyril teach transubstantiation? Nowhere! I would agree with what John Cosin says in his book The History of Popish Transubstantiation concerning this passage from Cyril:

"Either the ointment is transubstantiated by consecration into the spirit and grace of Christ, or the bread and wine are not transubstantiated by consecration into the body and blood of Christ. Therefore as the ointment retains still its substance, and yet is not called a mere or common ointment, but the charism, or grace of Christ; so the bread and wine remaining so, as to their substance, yet are not said to be only bread and wine common and ordinary, but also the body and blood of Christ." (John Cosin, The History of Popish Transubstantiation, pg. 92)

#2 - "Consider therefore the Bread and the Wine not as bare elements, for they are, according to the Lord's declaration, the Body and Blood of Christ; for even though sense suggests this to you, yet let faith establish you. Judge not the matter from the taste, but from faith be fully assured without misgiving, that the Body and Blood of Christ have been vouchsafed to you." (Catechetical Lecture 22)

It can be granted that if you were to take this passage all by itself (key words) then maybe you could come up with transubstantiation. However, consider what Cyril says about the presence of Christ after His ascension elsewhere:

"For think not that because He is now absent in the flesh, He is therefore absent also in the Spirit. " (Catechetical Lecture 14)

This seems to intimate that while Cyril viewed some sort of change taking place in the Eucharist, he did not necessarily view it as a change of substance, since he clearly says that the Lord Jesus Christ is absent in respect of His flesh. 

#3 - "Wherefore with full assurance let us partake as of the Body and Blood of Christ: for in the figure of Bread is given to you His Body, and in the figure of Wine His Blood; that you by partaking of the Body and Blood of Christ, may be made of the same body and the same blood with Him. For thus we come to bear Christ in us, because His Body and Blood are distributed through our members; thus it is that, according to the blessed Peter, we become partakers of the divine nature (2 Peter 1:4) ." (Catechetical Lecture 22)

All that needs to be done to show that Cyril was not teaching transubstantiation here is to simply look at the next paragraph:

"Christ on a certain occasion discoursing with the Jews said, Unless you eat My flesh and drink My blood, you have no life in you. John 6:53 They not having heard His saying in a spiritual sense were offended, and went back, supposing that He was inviting them to eat flesh." (*)

#4 - "Moreover, the things which are hung up at idol festivals , either meat or bread, or other such things polluted by the invocation of the unclean spirits, are reckoned in the pomp of the devil. For as the Bread and Wine of the Eucharist before the invocation of the Holy and Adorable Trinity were simple bread and wine, while after the invocation the Bread becomes the Body of Christ, and the Wine the Blood of Christ , so in like manner such meats belonging to the pomp of Satan, though in their own nature simple, become profane by the invocation of the evil spirit." (Catechetical Lecture 19, emphasis added)

This is a similar situation to what we dealt with in the first passage. Notice that words "so in like manner". Cyril is making an analogy here. 

The "change" described in the latter clause is the same kind of "change" in the former. Now it is obvious that Cyril did not think that a change of substance took place in the context of invoking evil spirits over food. 

I haven't addressed every passage used by RC apologists from Cyril of Jerusalem to prove transubstantiation, but as far as I can tell, I went after the most significant ones.