2 Περὶ τοῦ μυστηριώδους σώματος τοῦ κυρίου ἡμῶν Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ, in Scholarios, Georges (Gennadios), Œuvres complètes, ed. Jugie, M., Petit, L. and Siderides, X. A., 8 vols. (Paris 1928–36) I, 123–36Google Scholar.

3 Georges, Œuvres complètes. I, 125. 32–36; 126. 21–24; PG, 160, 356d, 357b.

4 All translations are my own.

5 Dunaev, A., ‘The Theology of the Eucharist in the context of the Palamite controversies’, Cristianesimo nella storia 29(1) (2008) 33–52 (49, 51)Google Scholar.

6 PG, 94, 1348.

7 This opinion has its followers among the Late Byzantine theologians (for example, Symeon the New Theologian and his disciple Niketas Stethatos).

8 This interpretation has been independently put forward by Archimandrite Ambrosius (Pogodin) (1925–2004) in his Russian translation of the Homily: Геннадий II (Георгий) Схоларий, патриарх Константинопольский, Проповеди, перевод с греческого архимандрита Амвросия (Погодина) (Санкт-Петербург 2007) 279–98. The date of the translation by Pogodin is unknown. (Probably the 1960s, but it was only published in 2007 after his death.)

9 For example, in the Homily on the Transfiguration (Georges, Œuvres complètes, I, 149–61) which was written at about the same time the homily on the Eucharist was composed, one may find a substantial number of borrowings to the letter from Aquinas’ Summa contra gentiles instead of the exposition of the doctrine of Gregory Palamas of the uncreated Divine Light; cf. the characteristic given by Jugie: ‘l'orateur y exprime un palamisme discret’ (Georges, Œuvres complètes, I, XLVI). Only some time after 1443–4 when Scholarios, a former advocate of Union, became the leader of the anti-Union party in Constantinople and dedicated himself to anti-Latin polemic did he come to write two Palamite works (Georges, Œuvres complètes, III, 204–28; 228–39) and a canon to St Gregory Palamas (Georges, Œuvres complètes, IV, 394–7).

10 Georges, Œuvres complètes, I, 129. Jugie referred to this work as a genuine work of Aquinas, which was conventional at that time. There is no extant Greek translation of the treatise. John A. Demetracopoulos suggests that Scholarios used some Latin manuscript: ‘Scholarios’ On Almsgiving, or how to convert a scholastic “quaestio” into a sermon’, in D. Searby (ed.), Never the Twain Shall Meet? Latins and Greeks learning from each other in Byzantium (Berlin 2017) 129–78 (165).

11 Georges, Œuvres complètes, V, 2.10–12.

12 Editors have incorrectly argued that Scholarios used the treatise De sacramento Eucharistiae from chapter 7 onwards ‘<…> à partir d'ici [i. e. from line 11 of page 129. — M. B.], Scholarios s'est évidemment inspiré de S. Thomas, opusc. De sacramento Eucharistiae ad modum praedicamentorum, c. 2’ (Georges, Œuvres complètes, I, 129). G. Podskalsky shares their opinion: ‘<…> aus den zehn aristotelischen Kategorien, unter denen das Sakrament gesichtet wird, greift Scholarios vor allem substantia, quantum und ubi heraus’ (‘Die Rezeption der thomistischen Theologie bei Gennadios II. Scholarios’, Theologie und Philosophie 49 (1974) 305–23, here: S. 311, Anm. 38). All parallels are noted in my new edition of the Greek text of the Homily (forthcoming).

13 Georges, Œuvres complètes, I, 125–26; Latin text of ps.-Thomas: Tractatus Sancti Thome de Aquino … de corpore Christi [=De Eucharista ad modum decem praedicamentorum], ed. Arnold Ther Hoernen, 30 fol. (Coloniae 1476); Sancti Thomae Aquinatis opera omnia ut sunt in Indice Thomistico additis 61 scriptis ex aliis Medii Aevi auctoribus, ed. R. Busa, VII (Stuttgart 1980) 684–7.

14 A reference to the Hippocratic principles of ‘like cures like’ (similia similibus curantur) and ‘opposites are cured by opposites’ (contraria contrariis curantur).

15 ‘For the Body of Christ nourishes and replenishes our soul just as bread does the body. And as we are regenerated in Baptism and acquire being in grace instead of sinful being, and in Anointing are confirmed in the gift of regeneration. <…> Thus the confirmed ought to be nourished and acquire strength and increase of [acquired] grace in the Sacrament of the Eucharist. <…> The body of Christ nourishes it in relation to the body and purifies and sanctifies it by union [of the Body of the Lord] with the Divine nature, and provides us with sufficient spiritual nourishment; being nourished in such manner, we are perfectly returned to spiritual purity and health that the forbidden food had kept us from. For it was necessary that we – who had lost wholeness and this health after having eaten certain corporal food – now be restored to it once again through some kind of corporal nourishment, so that like is cured by like and opposites by opposites. For both foods are corporal: that which had led us to perdition, and that which saves us, and the one leads to salvation, and the other to perdition. But that food had been prohibited by God and this food He encourages us to take and provides us with it. The other is provided by the arch demon, and as for this one, its counsellor and indeed minister is the Son of God.’

16 Lib. 4, cap. 61, n. 3. Summa contra gentiles is referred to henceforth as SG.

17 Frassinetti, P., ‘Il codice Torinese C-2-16 contenente la versione greca della Summa contra Gentes, ad opera di Demetrio Cidone’, in Atti dello VIII Congresso internazionale di studi bizantini (Palermo, 3–10 aprile 1951), I (Rome 1953) 78–85Google Scholar.

18 See the note in the manuscript made after the death of the Patriarch: Ἡ βίβλος αὕτη πρότερον μὲν ἦν τοῦ μακαρίτου κυρίου Γενναδίου πατριάρχου, ὕστερον δὲ γέγονε τοῦ πατριάρχου μακαρίτου κυρίου Μαξίμου. ‘This book previously belonged to the Blessed Lord patriarch Gennadios, and later the Blessed Lord patriarch Maximos had it in his possession.’

19 My access to this manuscript was made possible only thanks to the invaluable help of John A. Demetracopoulos.

20 On the dating see Blanchet, M.-H., Georges-Gennadios Scholarios (vers 1400 — vers 1472): Un intellectuel orthodoxe face à la disparition de l'empire byzantine (Paris 2008) 217–18Google Scholar.

21 In the near future I shall present more developed arguments for the dating of some of Scholarios’ homilies between 1432 and 1438. These arguments are based on theological analysis of his other works. On the dating see also Jugie, M., ‘La forme de l'Eucharistie d'après Georges Scholarios’, Échos d'Orient 33 (1934) 289–97 (291)CrossRefGoogle Scholar. There is no evidence to support the date of the Homily proposed by F. Tinnefeld (‘Georgios Gennadios Scholarios’, in C. G. Conticello et V. Conticello (eds.), La Théologie byzantine et sa tradition. II (XIII^e–XIX^e s.) (Turnhout 2002) 509. He proposes 1464 as terminus post quem since the epitome of Summa theologiae (sic!) was made after 1464 (‘Georgios Gennadios Scholarios’, 506). But it is well known that ‘there is, in any case, no current evidence that Scholarios ever worked on IIIa Pars or its Supplementum’ of Summa theologiae (Demetracopoulos, Scholarios’ On Almsgiving, 159–60), in which Eucharistic doctrine is presented. Also we can be sure that he did not use the Summa theologiae while writing his Homily for another reason. In chapter 9 (Georges, Œuvres complètes, I, 131) Scholarios follows chapter 7 of the treatise by ps.-Thomas, where the Sacrament is viewed in terms of ‘suffering’ (passio). The example of a mirror is used as an analogy for the Eucharist, in which consecrated bread is broken but the imperishable and resurrected Body of Christ remains complete and intact (integrum et illaesum) (since only the accidents of bread are broken but not the of the Body that is present in it by substance): if a mirror is broken, the image of a reflected thing is not broken but can be seen in every piece of the broken mirror. But Thomas Aquinas pointed out in the Summa theologiae that this analogy is incorrect (ST. III q. 76, ar. 3, co; see also Super Sent. Lib. 4, d. 10, q. 1, a. 3, qc. 3 co.). Taking the above-mentioned details into consideration, Tinnefeld's date cannot be accepted.

22 Translation of the Latin text of SG: ‘But it should be considered that one who gives birth and the one born, and the nourishment and the one nourished are conjoined in different ways. In fact, the one that gives birth ought not to be conjoined with the one born by substance but only in similarity and by power; but nourishment ought to be conjoined with the one being nourished by it by substance. Since spiritual acts could correspond to corporal images, the mystery of the incarnate Word is conjoined with us in one way in Baptism, which is spiritual regeneration, and in another way — in the sacrament of the Eucharist, which is spiritual nourishment. For in baptism the incarnate Word is present only by power, and in the sacrament of the Eucharist, as we confess, he is present himself by substance.’

23 Thomas Aquinas, Opera omnia, V (Parmae 1855) 356. Cf. ‘<…> dicendum quod, simpliciter loquendo, sacramentum Eucharistiae est potissimum inter alia sacramenta. Quod quidem tripliciter apparet. Primo quidem, ex eo quod in eo continetur ipse Christus substantialiter, in aliis autem sacramentis continetur quaedam virtus instrumentalis participata a Christo…’ (ST. III q. 65, ar. 3, co).

24 Georges, Œuvres complètes, V, 309. 2–10.

25 Georges, Œuvres complètes, I, 126. 24–5.

26 See, above all, ST. III q. 75–6; SG. Lib. 4, cap. 61–7; Super Sent. Lib. 4, d. 8–10.

27 On the accidents of bread and wine being without their subjects after the transubstantiation see ST. III q. 77; SG. Lib. 4. Cap. 65.

28 Accidents should be distinguished from essential (absolute) qualities of the body, such as mortality, perishability, possibility etc. In his Commentaries on the ‘Sentences’ by Peter Lombard Aquinas argued that at the Last Supper the disciples were given the suffering, i.e. perishable, Body of Christ as it had been before the Resurrection: ‘<…> sed comparatio ejus ad exteriora non est eadem; quia in specie propria comparatur ad exteriora secundum situm propriarum dimensionum; sed in sacramento secundum situm dimensionum panis; unde illae proprietates quae insunt absolute corpori Christi, oportet quod eodem modo insint sibi secundum quod est in sacramento, et secundum quod est in specie propria; sed illae quae conveniunt ei ex comparatione ad aliud corpus extra, non eodem modo, sicut patet de visione. Sed passibilitas est proprietas absolute ipsius corporis; unde cum in propria specie esset passibile, et in sacramento passibile erat…’ — Super Sent. Lib. 4, d. 11, q. 3, a. 3 co.

29 ST. III q. 76 a. 1 ad 1.

30 See also below.

31 ST. III q. 76 a. 4 ad 1.

32 As it also has not attained to the perishable Body given by the Saviour to His disciples at the Last Supper before the Resurrection, this Body ‘through mystic partaking of did not suffer and did not die’ (per sacramentalem sumptionem non patiebatur neque moriebatur) (Super Sent. Lib. 4, d. 11, q. 3, a. 3). See also above.

33 See: ST. III q. 76, a. 1, ad 3; a. 3 co.; q. 76 a. 4 ad 1, 2; a. 5 co.; a. 7 co.

34 See: ST. III q. 76, a. 5 co.; q. 76 a. 7 co.

35 Super Sent. Lib. 4, d. 10, q. 1, a. 3, qc. 3 co.

36 Georges, Œuvres complètes, I, 132. 13–18. ‘In the case of the Body of Christ [in the Eucharist] the situation is not the same [as the case of other bodies existing in space — M. B.] since it is present in place by the quantity [of bread] that had had its being in bread before [i.e., before the transubstantiation — M. B.]. If the quantity of the holy Body is present with it inseparably [in the Sacrament], the quantity is there only by concomitance and by substance [of the Body] that could not exist without its quantity.’

37 Georges, Œuvres complètes, I, 49. 1–16.

38 Demetracopoulos, Scholarios’ On Almsgiving.

39 Γενναδίου τοῦ Σχολαρίου Κωνσταντινουπόλεως γενομένου πατριάρχου ἐπὶ τῆς ἁλώσεως, ἀπόκρισις δογματικὴ πρός τινας ἐρωτήσαντας αὐτὸν περὶ τοῦ ἁγιωτάτου μυστηρίου τῆς ἱερᾶς εὐχαριστίας, ἐν ᾗ ῥητῶς λέγει τὴν λέξιν τῆς μετουσιώσεως. The title belongs to Dositheos.

40 Τοῦ μακαρίτου Μελετίου Συρίγου διδασκάλου τε καὶ πρωτοσυγγέλου τῆς ἐν Κωνσταντίνου Πόλει Μεγάλης Ἐκκλησίας, κατὰ τῶν καλβινικῶν κεφαλαίων καὶ ἐρωτήσεων Κυρίλλου τοῦ Λουκάρεως, ἀντίῤῥησις. Καὶ Δοσιθέου πατριάρχου Ἰεροσολύμων ἐγχειρίδιον κατὰ τῆς καλβινικὴς φρενοβλαβείας (Bucharest 1690) 74–6 (the Enchiridion has got separate pagination from Syrigos’ work).

41 Gennadius Patriarch Constantinopolitanus, Homiliae de sacramento Eucharistiae: Meletii Alexandrini, Nectarii Hierosolymitani, Meletii Syrigi, et aliorum, de eodem argumento opuscula… (Paris 1709) XIII, 29. E. Renaudot made the editio princeps of Scholarios’ Homily on the Eucharist and reprinted the abridged version from the 1690 edition (these texts were reproduced in PG, 160, 351–80). The opinion of Renaudot was uncritically accepted by Tinnefeld, Georgios Gennadios Scholarios, 520. № 151.

42 An explanation is added: ‘<…> i.e., its [bread's] length, weight, width, colour, smell and quality of taste’ (ἤγουν τὸ μῆκος αὐτοῦ, τὸ βάρος, τὸ πλάτος, τὸ χρῶμα, τὴν ὀσμὴν, καὶ τὴν ἐν τῇ γεύσει ποιότητα).

43 Gennadius, Homiliae de sacramento Eucharistiae, 32–3 (=PG, 160, 377cb).

44 Gennadius, Homiliae de sacramento Eucharistiae, 33–4 (=PG, 160, 380a).

45 Georges, Œuvres complètes, I, 134. 20–5.

46 English translation: ‘You should believe unambiguously (and all of us Christians should believe) that in this mystical Body our Lord Jesus Christ is truly present, He who was born of the Virgin Mary and was crucified, who now is in heaven, the same entire, hidden under the accidents of bread and wine, and [He] is present in the sacrament by substance and not by grace or power.’

47 Such a denial resulted from a misinterpretation of transubstantiation in terms of hyperrealism; this attitude was widespread at that time as a result of Protestant polemic. In his Confession Luсaris writes: ‘We confess and believe in the true and real presence of our Lord Jesus Christ but in such [presence] that faith informs us about and not a poorly invented transubstantiation. We truly believe that faithful communicants partake of the Body of our Lord Jesus Christ at the Supper, without tearing the sacrament apart by their teeth sensually but rather communicating through the feeling of the soul. For the body of Christ is not what is seen and perceived by eyes in the Sacrament but what is presented and offered to us by our faith through spiritual perception. Thus, it is true that if we believe than we eat, communicate and partake of [the sacrament] but if we do not, than we do not profit’ (I. N. Karmires, Τὰ Δογματικὰ καὶ Συμβολικὰ Μνημεῖα τῆς Ὀρθοδόξου Καθολικῆς Ἐκκλησίας, II (Athens 1968) 568 [647]).

48 In 1723 the Greek text of the Confession was delivered to Russia to be sent to Great Britain on behalf of the Holy Synod of the Russian Church as part of the ‘Epistle of the Patriarchs of the Eastern Church on the Orthodox Faith’. The Epistle was addressed to the Non-Jurors as an authoritative document containing a true statement of the Orthodox faith. The Eastern Patriarchs (Chrysanthos of Jerusalem, Jeremiah III of Constantinople and Athanasios III of Antioch) put forward agreement with this document as a necessary condition for achieving unity with the Anglican bishops (for details on the correspondence and the texts themselves, see: Williams, G., The Orthodox Church of the East in the 18th century, which is the Correspondence between the Eastern Patriarchs and wicked bishops (London 1868)Google Scholar; Mansi, J. D., Sacrorum conciliorum nova et amplissima collectio, XXXVII (Paris 1905) 369–624Google Scholar; Karmires, Τὰ Δογματικά, II, 863–900).

49 Karmires, Τὰ Δογματικά, II, 762 [842]. There are two versions of the ‘Confession’. The first one, written in 1672, was published together with the acts of the Synod of Jerusalem in Paris in 1676 and 1678 with Latin translation; it was better-known and had been reprinted 11 times. The second version, corrected and enlarged, was published by Dositheos himself in Bucharest in 1690. As far as the cited fragment is concerned there is no differences between the two versions.

50 See Karmires, Τὰ Δογματικά, II, 779–80 [859–60].

51 This research area is supported by the Thomas de Aquino Byzantinus project (2006-) supervised by John A. Demetracopoulos.