Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-rcrh6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-27T20:44:40.054Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Doctrine of Transubstantiation from Berengar through Trent: The Point at Issue

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  10 June 2011

James F. McCue
James F. McCue
Affiliation:
The University of Iowa
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

It will be the purpose of this paper to trace the doctrine of transubstantiation from the point at which the problem begins to come into focus down through the Council of Trent. It is widely supposed that the history of this doctrine is a fairly simple one. The assertion of the physical presence of Christ in the eucharist quite naturally and inevitably evolves into the doctrine of transubstantiation, given the context of Aristotelianism in which theology works from the early thirteenth century on.

Type
Research Article
Information
Harvard Theological Review , Volume 61 , Issue 3 , July 1968 , pp. 385 - 430
Copyright
Copyright © President and Fellows of Harvard College 1968

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 The work of Batiffol, P., L'Eucharistie. La présence réelle et la transsubstantiation (Etudes de théologie positive, 2), 9th ed. (Paris, 1930)Google Scholar, strikes me as altogether too optimistic in this regard.

1a Dz-S. 690: “I am in agreement with the Holy Roman Church and the Apostolic See. In my heart and in word I profess that I have the same belief concerning the sacrament of the Lord's table as my lord the venerable Pope Nicholas and this holy synod by evangelical and apostolic authority have given and commanded me to hold. That is, that the bread and wine placed on the altar are, after the consecration, not merely the sacrament of but also the true body and blood of our Lord Jesus Christ; that these are not only sacramentally but truly handled and broken by the hands of the priests and ground by the teeth of the faithful. This I swear by the holy and consubstantial Trinity and by these holy gospels of Christ; and I proclaim that those who shall oppose this belief are, along with their dogmas and their followers, worthy of everlasting exclusion.”

1b Dz-S. 700: “I Berengarius believe in my heart and confess aloud that the bread and wine which are placed on the altar are substantially changed, through the mystery of the sacred prayer and the words of our Redeemer, into the true, the living, the very own flesh and blood of our Lord Jesus Christ.”

2 Jorissen, Hans, Die Entfaltung der Transsubstantiationslehre bis zum Beginn der Hochscholastik (Münster, 1965), 7.Google Scholar

3 “Nunc contra illos habenda est ratio qui, Ecclesiae rationibus expugnati, jam quidem negare nequeunt substantiam corporis Christi cibo inesse Dominico, panem tamen et vinum per verba Salvatoris in carnem ejus et sanguinem verti nequaquam credentes, sed Christum pani et vino commiscentes, tanquam subtiliori ratione haeresim alteram condiderunt.” “We must argue against those who, defeated by the Church's arguments, now cannot deny that the substance of Christ's body is in the bread. Not believing that through the words of the Savior the bread and wine are changed into his flesh and blood, they mix Christ with the bread and wine, and have thus established another heresy with this more subtle argument.” Guitmundus archiepiscopus aversanus (d. 1079), De corporis et sanguinis Christi veritate libri tres, PL, 149, 1480–1481. It may be that Guitmund is here identifying what I have called consubstantiation with the theory of impanation. For a rejection of this latter as heretical in terms reminiscent of Guitmund see PL, 180, 342; ibid., 754.

3a “That the bread is changed is proved for anyone who considers carefully what it was that Jesus took and what it was that he gave. For it was bread that he took: it was and was called bread. And blessing and breaking it, it was his body that he gave. Therefore, even though the evangelist does not use the word “change,” pious faith believes that a change has taken place in the bread. And inasmuch as the faith of the heart is unto justice (Rom. 10), and the confession in words is unto salvation; just as it is most firmly believed in the heart that the change truly takes place, so is it continually confessed in words. The Church confesses, as is obvious beyond doubt from the tradition of the orthodox Fathers, that by the power of the divine blessing the bread is made the body of Christ, or becomes the body of Christ: and it is transubstantiated, or changed, or converted into the body of Christ: and there are many other ways of expressing what has been firmly established by faith. And though in this confession of faith there is considerable variety of expression, there is but one devout belief and an undivided unity of confession.”

3b “Therefore simply and with confidence, firmly and constantly, we hold, we believe, we confess that the substance of bread is changed into the substance of the flesh of Christ — though the appearance of bread remains — and that this takes place in a way that is miraculous and beyond description or comprehension. …”

4 “There are three opinions about the change. Some say that there is not any mutation here; rather, while the substance of bread and the substance of wine remain, when the words of consecration are spoken, the flesh and blood of Christ begin to be present beneath the same appearances, though at first only the substance of bread and wine were present. And wherever one reads something about change, it is understood as follows: where first there was only bread and wine, there also begins to be the flesh and blood of Christ.

“Others say that the substance of bread and wine are totally annihilated and, while the appearances remain the same, there begins to be present only the flesh and blood of Christ; and it is in this fashion that they explain this change.

“We say (and this is what the commentators assert) that the very substance of the bread is changed into the true flesh of Christ, which the Virgin bore, and the substance of wine into the true blood; and that while the original appearances remain, the flesh and blood of Christ begin to be present.

“It is not an article of faith to believe that this change takes place in one way rather than another, but only to believe that when the words of consecration are spoken the body of Christ is on the altar.” Text as in Jorissen, 24. According to Jorissen, the work quoted here was completed in 1201 or 1202.

5 “Ordinarily many ask about but few understand what it was that Christ broke then at the table and what it is that the priest breaks now at the altar. There were those who said that, just as after the consecration the true accidents of bread remain, so likewise its true substance; for just as a subject cannot exist without accidents, so accidents cannot exist without a subject. For an accident, to be is nothing other than to be-in. The substances of bread and wine remain, and when the words of consecration are spoken, the body and blood of Christ truly begin to be present under these, so that under the same accidents both bread and flesh, wine and blood, are truly received. Sense ascertains the one, faith believes the other …

“They easily solve the problem of what it is that the mouse eats when it eats the sacrament. They say that it is the substance of the bread, under which the body of Christ immediately ceases to be.” De sacro altaris mysterio, IV, ix, PL, 217, 861f. Jorissen dates this work before 1198.

6 Ibid., 860. “What had been bread when he took it was his body when he gave it. Therefore the bread had been changed into his body, and likewise the wine into his blood. For the Lord's words, ‘This is my body,’ are not to be understood as the heretics stupidly think: that is, this signifies my body, as when the Apostle says ‘But the rock was Christ,’ that is, the rock signified Christ.”

7 We need not complicate our considerations here by a prolonged consideration of the ecumenicity of Lateran IV. Dvornik, F., in Which Councils are Ecumenical? Journal of Ecumenical Studies 3 (1966), 314–28Google Scholar (esp. 325), would seem to be correct in asserting that at Florence the Latins did not claim ecumenicity for the medieval Latin councils over against the East. But this notwithstanding, Latin theologians both before and after Florence seem to have treated Lateran IV as an ecumenical and binding council. To limit the question to the matter at hand, I know of no 14th-, 15th- or 16th-century writer who challenged the dogma of transubstantiation on the grounds that the council cited for its support was not ecumenical.

7a Dz-S. 802: “Truly there is one universal Church of the faithful, outside of which there is absolutely no salvation. In this Church the priest himself is the sacrifice, Jesus Christ; and his body and blood are truly contained in the sacrament of the altar under the appearances of bread and wine — the bread being transubstantiated into his body and the wine into his blood by the divine power. Thus the mystery of unity is brought to perfection as we receive from him what he has received from us [i.e., human nature or substance].”

8 See PL, 195, 84; PL, 204, 782.

For futher literature, see art. Albigeois, DTC, I, 686; art. Cathares, DTC, II, 1997f.

9 Sententiarum libri quatuor, IV, dist. xi, PL, 192, 862; emphasis added. “Others have been of the opinion that the substance of bread and wine remains here and that the body and blood of Christ are also present; and for this reason they say that the one substance becomes the other: because where the former is, so is the latter.”

10 Cf. Jorissen, 7, 27.

11 See Jorissen, 29.

12 Corpus Juris Canonici, ed Friedberg, A. (Leipzig, 1879), I, 1314Google Scholar; quoted in Jorissen, 30, n. 78. “There are different views concerning the statement that the bread is changed into the body of Christ. One asserts that the substance which was first bread is subsequently the body and blood of Christ … The second holds that the substance of bread and wine ceases to be present and only the accidents remain — taste, color, weight, and the like — and that the body of Christ begins to be present under these accidents. The third holds that the substance of bread and wine remains, and in the same place and under the same appearance the body of Christ is present … Each view holds that the body of Christ is present, but the second is more true.”

13 Thus, owing to a number of complications of which I am sure he knew nothing, Luther's charge that Aristotle and Aquinas were responsible for the introduction of transubstantiation was not without an element of truth.

14 Summa aurea (Paris, 1500), 257vb, quoted in Jorissen, 40, n. 111. “There are others who maintain that it is the same to say, ‘The bread changes into the body of Christ,’ and, ‘The body of Christ begins to be where the bread is.’ Consequently they say that the bread remains. But from this it follows that the change is not a miraculous one, for a glorified body is naturally able to be present in the same place as an unglorified body.”

15 Quoted in Jorissen, 41, n. 112: Ms. Leipzig, Univ. Bibl., lat. 573, f. 23Orb. “Because of these texts and the many other statements of the saints, it seems to us that the first [reading primae instead of proprie] two views are less true and perhaps less catholic. This is certainly the case with the second of these. Therefore we grant without qualification that the third is true, and maintain that the bread is transubstantiated into the body of Christ and the wine into his blood.”

16 Glossa in quatuor libros sententiarum Petri Lombardi (Quaracchi, 1957)Google Scholar, IV, dist. xi, n. 6 (Bibliotheca Franciscana Scholastica Medii Aevi, XV, 173). “The question is asked: If the flesh of Christ is saving and God — since he is the cause of the continued existence of all things — wills that nothing perish, and if the glorified body of Christ can coexist with an unglorified body, why does the bread cease to exist since the same result [i.e., the presence of Christ's body] is possible without this?

“The masters reply that if the bread had a complete existence, it would not simply lead to something other than itself; and so the sense appearance remained but not the substance, so that it would lead directly to something other than itself. Also, this is so that spiritual and not bodily refreshment would be sought in the sacrament.”

17 Quaestiones disputatae “antequam esset frater,” q. 51, disp. 3, memb. 1, n. 72 (Quaracchi, 1960), II, 921–922 (Bibl. Frans. Schol., XX). “John of Damascus speaks at length about this toward the end of his work. It seemed that Basil said that bread and wine remained, and that these led to the body and blood of Christ. Therefore the heresy is to say: ‘This is my body,’ i.e., this leads to my body; and likewise, ‘This is my blood,’ i.e., this leads to the blood of Christ.”

18 “Respondeo: multiplex est ratio quare decuerit divinam sapientiam quod res huius sacramenti, scilicet corpus Christi, contineretur sub specie non exsistente in subiecto.” “I answer that there are many reasons why it was appropriate to the divine wisdom that the reality of this sacrament, the body of Christ, be contained under an appearance that does not exist in a subject.” de Militona, GuillelmiQuaestiones de sacramentis (Quaracchi, 1961), II (Bibl. Franc. Schol., XXIII), 615.Google Scholar

19 IV, d. 10, a. 1 (Opera Omnia [Paris, 1890–1899], XXIX, 244Google Scholar) ; quoted as in Jorissen, 46.

20 Ibid., d. 11, a. 8 (XXIX, 286); as in Jorissen, 46, n. 137. “If the substance of bread remained, then the Lord's words, ‘This is my body,’ would be false. For in that case the pronoun would designate the substance of bread visible through its accidents.”

21 Ibid., ad. 1 (XXIX, 287); quoted as in Jorissen, 46, n. 140. “It must be said that, though it is possible for a glorified body (and especially the body of the Lord) to be in the same place with the bread, there is a problem because of the nature of sacrament, not because of the nature of place [ratio sacramenti, non ratio loci repugnat] … For the accident would lead only to its own substance, and thus it would fail to function as a sign.”

22 Ibid., d. 11, a. 8, ad. 1 (XXIX, 287); quoted as in Jorissen, 46, n. 141. “It must be said that for these reasons this opinion, like the second, seems false to most, to almost all. Whereas the first is the view of almost all, of almost the entire Church, and the second has still a few defenders, as far as I know no one holds the third.”

23 Ibid., d. 11, a. 1, sol. (XXIX, 266f.); quoted as in Jorissen, p. 47. “It seems to me that it must be said that in this sacrament there is a change which is rightly called ‘transubstantiation.’”

24 Jorissen, 47.

25 De corpore domini, dist. 3, tr. 3, c. 1., n. 1; Opera, XXXVIII, 306. “… is not contained except under sacramental sign …” This obviously is to be understood in a Zwinglian, merely symbolic way. “This opinion is no opinion at all but is clearly a heresy that has already been condemned. The book in which it is contained should be burned.”

26 Ibid., n. 4; Opera, XXXVIII, 308. “I say, without prejudice, that this opinion never pleased me. Though it is not judged to be heretical, it is a very reckless view and quite close to heresy.”

27 Ibid., 307. “And so, after looking closely at this opinion, I say that it is very reckless and very close to heretical wickedness; and consequently it seems to me that this opinion is to be put aside.”

28 Ibid., dist. 4, tr. 2, c. 1, n. 6 (XXXVIII, 369). “… it rests upon a foundation that is not Catholic … For it rests upon the supposition that the bread is not transubstantiated into the body of Christ, nor the wine into his blood … And this is contrary to Catholic truth.”

29 In IV Sent., dist. x, art. un., q. 1; Opera (Quaracchi, ed.), IV, 217.

30 Ibid., dist. xi, art. un., q. 1; Opera, IV, 242.

31 “But this position is contrary both to the authority of the Saints and to reason. To reason, because it takes away the truth, fittingness, and usefulness of the sacrament. Truth: because as a consequence it makes the form [of the words of institution] false. It also posits a change concerning Christ's substance, as we have proved in our refutation. Fittingness: because if the bread remained, it would not lead to something other than itself as well as it does when there remain only accidents, dependent and unable to exist on their own. Usefulness: because it diminishes the merit of faith by seeking to know how it is possible [possibilitatem et rationem].

“And this is why this position is to be rejected and why none of the Doctors defends it. No, the Church generally holds that there is a change here of the bread into the body of Christ — not into a part of the body but into the entire body.” Ibid. Emphasis in printed text. In the Breviloquium, only the argument from local motion is used: “Et quia Christus sub illis speciebus esse debebat non secundum mutationem factam in ipso, sed potius in eis; ideo …” VI, c. 9, n. 4. “And since Christ ought to be present under these appearances not as a result of a change in him, but rather as a result of a change in them, therefore …”

32 Pp. 50–54.

33 Lib. IV, dist. xi, a. 1, solutio 1 (Vivès ed., X, 254). “I reply that to the first question it must be said that this position, asserting that after the consecration the substance of bread remains together with the true body, is inappropriate to this sacrament, is impossible, and is heretical. Inappropriate because it stands in the way of the veneration that is owing to this sacrament; for it would be occasion for idolatry if the host were worshipped when the substance of bread remained there. Also it would run counter to the meaning of the sacrament: the species would not, as a sign, lead to the true body of Christ, but rather to the substance of the bread. Also, it would run counter to the correct use of the sacrament; for then that food would not be purely spiritual but would be bodily food as well.

“That it is impossible is seen from the fact that it is impossible for something now to be when previously it had not been unless it is itself changed or something is changed into it. Not even through a miracle can there be any other possibility, just as not even through a miracle is it possible for something to be a mortal, rational animal and not be a man. For to be different at two points in time is the same as to be moved or to be changed. So if the true body of Christ is now present under the sacrament and was not before, some motion or change must have taken place. But according to this view no change takes place in the bread; and therefore it is necessary that the body of Christ be changed at least spatially, in order that it might be said that the body of Christ is here since it came here through spatial motion. But this is altogether impossible: since the body of Christ is consecrated simultaneously in diverse places, it would be necessary for a single body to move simultaneously to different places. This is impossible because it would result in the presence in a single body of contrary motions, or at least of different motions of the same type.

“That the position is heretical is seen from the fact that it contradicts the truth of Scripture; for if it were true, it would not be true to say: ‘This [neuter] is my body,’ but, ‘This [masculine] is my body.’”

34 IV, 62. “From this it is clear that the opinion is false.”

35 III, 75, a. 3. “Consequently this position is to be avoided as heretical.”

36 I would note in passing that the particular difficulty ascribed here to cons, could just as readily be advanced against the position subsequently developed by Scotus, Bellarmine, and DeLugo; yet though their position is often enough criticized by other Roman Catholic theologians, it is not ordinarily judged heretical. See Schmaus, M., Katholische Dogmatik IV/1, 6th ed. (Munich, 1964), 348–50Google Scholar.

We might also note here that Pierre de Tarantaise, a Dominican contemporary of Aquinas (died 1276 as Pope Innocent V — Sentence Commentary, 1257–1259), opposed cons, on the ground that it would require a local change in the body of Christ. He does not label cons, heretical (he does so label the denial of the real presence) nor does he cite Lateran IV. See In IV libros sententiarum commentaria, dist. 10, q. 1, a. 1.

37 In IV Sent., d. xi, a. 1; Ricardi de Mediavilla Super IV libros sententiarum quaestiones subtilissimae (Brescia, 1591), IV, 131f.

38 In IV Sent., d. xi, q. 3, n. 9 (Vivès ed., XVII, 357). “However matters stand with these views, the reasons given do not appear to succeed in disposing them.”

39 Ibid., n. 13; p. 372. The reader will forgive the length of the quotations from Scotus and Ockham. They are so crucial to the entire argument of this paper that it seemed better to sin by excess rather than by defect.

“As to this article — i.e., what we are to hold — I answer that it is generally held that the bread does not remain (against the first view); neither is it annihilated or reduced to prime matter (against the second opinion); but it is changed into the body of Christ. To this effect Ambrose appears to have spoken explicitly and at length. We have already quoted him twice, and there are many more passages in the second distinction on consecration, and Peter Lombard [Magistro] quotes them in distinctions ten and eleven.

“But the chief reason for holding this seems to be that concerning the sacraments one should hold what the Holy Roman Church holds, as it is stated in the decree on heretics, ‘Ad abolendam.’ What the Roman Church holds is that the bread is transubstantiated into the body and the wine into the blood, as is clear in the decree on the Trinity and on faith, beginning Firmiter credimus [cf. Dz.-S., 800–802] where it is said: Jesus Christ himself is the priest and sacrifice, and it is his body and blood which is truly contained in the sacrament of the altar under the appearances of bread and wine … the bread being transubstantiated into the body and the wine into the blood by the divine power.

“It is fitting that this be so for several reasons. This way the Church does not err when it says, ‘Let this mixing and consecration of the body and blood of our Lord, Jesus Christ, become …’ Also, one who is not fasting cannot fittingly celebrate; yet by Church law a priest may celebrate a second time, as is stated in the decree on the celebration of Mass, ‘Consuluisti.’ For it says: ‘Except on Christmas, it is sufficient that a priest celebrate mass once a day, unless it is a case of necessity.’ This suggests that on Christmas and in cases of necessity it is licit to celebrate several masses on the same day.”

40 Ibid., nn. 14–15 (XVII, 375f.). “Let us consider the arguments for positions one and two. To the first: I grant that also in matters of belief one ought not multiply entities beyond necessity nor posit more miracles than are necessary. But when it is said in the minor that the truth of the eucharist can be preserved if the bread remains (i.e., without transubstantiation), I say that it was certainly possible for God so to arrange things that the body of Christ would truly be present along with the substance of bread [substantia panis manente], or with the accidents after the annihilation of the bread; and in that case the truth of the eucharist would be preserved — a genuine sign and something actually signified.

“But this is not the entire truth of the eucharist. God did not establish the eucharist as the proponents of this view allege. And in response to the assertion that nothing is required for the truth of the eucharist except a genuine sign and something actually signified, I say: this is true if the sign is as instituted and is the sign to which the thing signified is to correspond. But this is not quite the situation here. The eucharist was instituted such that what is signified is only under the accidents as under a sign, and not such that the body of Christ exists along with the bread or is mixed in with the accidents of the bread.

“To the second: I say that an article of faith is not to be restricted to a more difficult interpretation unless that more difficult understanding is true. If it is true, however, and is clearly shown to be true, then the article of faith is to be held according to this understanding when the particular issue is raised, since on this specific point no other understanding is true. But on the basis of the authorities cited, this is taken to be the case concerning the understanding of this article.

“And finally to the third, which is the heart of the matter [ubi stat vis]: We must say that the Church has declared this understanding to belong to the truth of faith in that creed put forth under Innocent III at the [Fourth] Lateran Council, Firmiter credimus, as was stated above, where the truth of certain matters of belief is stated explicitly, more explicitly than in the Apostles', Athanasian, or Nicene Creed. And briefly: whatever is set forth there as to be believed, we must hold to be of the substance of the faith; and we do this after that solemn declaration [of faith] made by the Church.

“But suppose you ask why the Church chose to select so difficult an understanding of this article, since the words of Scripture could be satisfactorily interpreted [salvari] in a simpler and apparently truer way. I reply that Scripture is expounded by the same Spirit by which it was created; and so we must suppose that the Catholic Church has expounded these matters by the same Spirit by which the faith is handed on to us, taught, that is, by the Spirit of truth, and has chosen this understanding of things because this is the true understanding. For it was not in the Church's power to make this to be true or not true; that lay in the power of God, who instituted [the sacrament, the Church?]. Led in this, as we believe, by the Holy Spirit, the Church has explained the understanding given to it by God.”

40a Perhaps a “non” added here would make the text more coherent.

41 “As to the first question we can say that ‘transubstantiation’ here involves the following:

1. substance B succeeds substance A;

2. substance A ceases to exist simply and in itself;

3. this takes place under certain accidents proper to substance A.

“That this is possible is obvious. It is not out of keeping with divine power to destroy a substance in itself and to preserve its accidents, and to make some other substance coexist directly with the same accidents even though they inform it.

“As to the second I say that there is a true transubstantiation of the body of Christ on the altar. But this can be stated in a number of ways:

1. The substance of bread remains and the body of Christ coexists with this substance. The substance of bread bears [reading deferens instead of deserens] the accidents; the body of Christ does not, but merely coexists.

2. The substance of bread suddenly leaves that place for another place. The accidents remain and the body of Christ coexists with them.

3. The substance of bread is reduced to matter and the matter exists either without form or under another form, and this either in the same (?) or in another. The body of Christ coexists with this matter and with the accidents.

4. The substance of bread is annihilated.

“It is evident that the first is possible. This can come about through the simple coexistence of the true body of Christ and the substance of bread. It is no less difficult for quantities to coexist or for substance to coexist with quantity than for substance to coexist. But as is evident in the case of large bodies existing in the same place, one quantity can coexist in the same place with another. Similarly, substance can coexist in the same place with quantity, as in the case of the body of Christ. Therefore it is possible for substances to coexist in the same place.

“But there is question whether the body of Christ can coexist with the substance of bread through union and assumption. Some say — and I believe that it is not contradictory and that it cannot be proved through natural reason that the body of Christ cannot [non added to text] take to itself [assumere … per unionem] the substance of bread — that it is possible for one creature to support [sustinere] another. If this is possible, then the supporting nature will be the supposit and the other will be upheld by the supposit … Each can depend on some supposit.

“The second alternative is possible. If it is not impossible for God to make the body of Christ suddenly to be present under the appearances of the host, then he can make the substance of bread suddenly be some place else, the accidents remain where they are, and the body of Christ coexist with these latter.

“The third alternative is possible as can be shown by the same line of reasoning.

“The fourth is possible, since the existence, or non-existence of the substance under the appearances of bread is in God's power.

“The first view can be held since it does not contradict reason or any biblical text; and of all the explanations offered it is the most reasonable and the easiest to hold since fewer difficulties follow from it than from any other. For it is evident that of all the difficulties that are said to follow from this sacrament the greatest is that there is accident without subject. But this does not follow on the first view. Therefore, etc. But suppose that you object that the greatest difficulty is the simultaneous existence in one place of two bodily substances. I reply that for two bodily substances to coexist is no more difficult or marvellous than for substance and quantity so to exist. The accidents [species] of the host no more allow the coexistence of another host than does a substance with its accidents allow the coexistence of another substance. For we see that the accidents of the host exclude an unconsecrated host just as though the substance of the bread were still present in the consecrated host; and this does not happen because of the body of Christ since this is not opposed to one quantity more than the other. Thus it appears that no difficulty attends the first view that does not attend the second.

“But since the Church has decided to the contrary [determinatio ecclesiae in contrarium existit]—witness De summa trinitate et fide catholica and De celebratione missae — and the Doctors generally hold that the substance of bread does not remain, therefore I too hold that the substance of the bread does not remain, but that the appearance of bread does, and that the body of Christ coexists with the appearance of bread. It is clear that this is possible since nothing is required except that the appearances really remain and that the substance in itself really does not remain, and that the body of Christ really be there in a non-quantitative way. But each of these is possible. Therefore, etc.” In IV Sent. IV, q. 6, C-E. Guillelmus de Occam, Opera plurima (Lyons, 1494–96), IV, no pagination. It should be noted that all but the first book of Ockham's Sentence Commentary is a reportatio, and thus does not owe its final form to Ockham's own hand. I have amplified the frequent word abbreviations and added some punctuation in the interests of intelligibility.

42 “The third opinion would be a very reasonable one were it not for the fact that the Church has decided to the contrary. For this opinion resolves and avoids all the difficulties that follow when you separate accidents from their subject, and it is not contradicted by the Bible nor is it contradictory in itself.” Quodl., IV, 30 (35). Text as in Iserloh, Erwin, Gnade und Eucharistie in der philosophischen Theologie des Wilhelm von Ockham: Ihre Bedeutung für die Ursachen der Reformation (Wiesbaden, 1956), 158, n. 45Google Scholar. For the dating of Ockham's writings on the eucharist, see pp. 12–26.

43 I would simply note that this constitutes two-thirds of the period of scholasticism or university theology. The common classification of Ockbam and even of Scotus as “late scholastics” may obscure the fact that all the writers who are commonly reckoned major figures in scholasticism wrote within a fairly short period of time.

44 “If this way [cons.] were in fact true, many of the problems which arise concerning this sacrament when one supposes that the substance of bread does not remain would be solved. For there is a problem as to how something can be nourished by this sacrament, and how the species can decay and something be generated from them. All these problems would be solved naturally if one took this explanation, as they would be solved if the natures of bread and wine were not taken up into the nature of the sacrament; for these views have the nature of bread and wine remain after the consecration as before. But because this explanation must in fact not be held — for the Church, which in such matters is not presumed to err, has decided the opposite — I therefore in fact hold [reading teneo for tenendo] the other position.” In IV Libros Sententiarum, IV, dist. xi, q. 1, n.15 (Venice, 1571; II, 318vb). The difficulty which later Roman Catholics have had in understanding this quite common late medieval position is illustrated by Stephanus Ehses, the editor of the fifth volume of the Concilium Tridentinum. Ehses informs us, after referring to the material just cited, that Durand “respondetur affirmative ad alteram partem [scil. utrum cum corpore Christi remaneat substantia panis], quia haec solutio minus difficultatis habeat.” Conc. Trid., V, 928, n. 6.

45 Commentaria in IV libros sententiarum, lib. iv, dist. xi, a. 2 (Venice, 1564), IV, 93V. “And so, though a better judgment may be possible, it has never seemed to me that, prior to the decision of Holy Mother Church, which I have spoken of above, this opinion would have to have been repudiated as heretical.”

46 See DeVooght, Paul, La présence réelle dans la doctrine eucharistique de Wiclif, in Hussiana (Louvain, 1960), 292–99.Google Scholar

47 Lenfant, Jacques, Histoire du concile de Constance, 2nd ed. (Amsterdam, 1727; 1st ed., 1714), I, 208Google Scholar. Lenfant says that he is following von der Hardt, H., Magnum oecumenicum Constantiense Concilium (Leipzig, 1697–1700), IV, 150Google Scholar, who in turn was using a Leipzig ms. which purported to give a “courte Censure de 45. Articles de Wiclef par les Théologiens de Constance.” Unfortunately, the von der Hardt volumes were not available to me in the preparation of this paper.

48 Confession Concerning Christ's Supper, AE, 37, 300f. (WA, 26, 442f.).

49 AE, 35, 59 (WA, 2, 749). This work was published in 1519.

50 A Treatise on the New Testament, that is, the Holy Mass, AE, 35, 86 (WA, 6, 359); published July, 1520.

51 AE, 36, 29 (WA, 6, 508).

52 Would a fuller consideration of Luther's discussion of the real presence in his later writings and in the Lutheran Confessional writings erode the rather simple realism of Luther's assertion here? I think not, but the matter is too complicated for an already complicated paper. In any event, the question is not central for the purpose of this paper. I am concerned here with the question which Luther poses to the medieval and Roman Catholic doctrine of transubstantiation and not with the questions which Roman Catholicism might want to raise with respect to Luther's total doctrine of the eucharist. Many 14th- and 15th-century theologians, as well as many theologians and bishops at the Council of Trent, would find nothing inconceivable or impossible in Luther's position: it just happened, as a matter of fact, to be wrong.

53 Ibid., 28f. (WA, 6, 508).

54 There seems to be considerable objection to describing Luther's position with this term. It is, doubtless, a more scholastic turn of phrase than Luther ordinarily uses, and more appropriate designations might be found. However, there is an obvious similarity between Luther's view here and Peter of Capua's first position, and I use the word “cons.” to draw attention to this similarity.

55 Ibid., 30f. (WA, 6, 509).

56 Ibid., 31 (WA, 6, 509).

57 Ibid., 31f. (WA, 6, 509f.). This is in answer to arguments such as the third advanced by Thomas Aquinas, S.Th. III, 72, 2c.

58 Ibid., 32 (WA, 6, 510).

59 Ibid., 35 (WA, 6, 511f.).

60 Die Eucharistie in der Darstellung des Johannes Eck: Ein Beitrag zur Vortridentinischen Kontroverstheologie über das Messopjer (Münster, 1950), 315.Google Scholar

61 Drei Schriften gegen Luthers Schmalkaldische Artikel von Cochlaus Witzel und Hoffmeister (1538 und 1539), ed. Volz, Hans, Corpus Catholicorum, XVIII (Munster, 1932), 167.Google Scholar

62 Concilium Tridentinum: Diariorum actorum, epistularum, tractatuum nova collectio, VII/i, ed. Freudenberger, T. (Freiburg, 1961), vii–viiiGoogle Scholar.

63 CT, V, 869. “In the eucharist the body and blood of Our Lord Jesus Christ are indeed present, but together with the substance of bread and wine. Thus there is not a transubstantiation, but rather a hypostatic union of the humanity and of the substance of bread and wine.”

64 CT, VIII/i, 112. “In the … [as above]. And so it is true to say: ‘This bread is my body,’ and, ‘This wine is my blood.’”

65 It should be noted that the procedure at Trent was for the theologians to discuss a proposed set of propositions, to form judgments about them, and then to pass the propositions with their judgments along to the bishops, who would then discuss the matter further and finally come to some decision in the matter.

66 Since 16th-century non-English names can be Englished in such a variety of ways, I have permitted myself the luxury of simply using these names in the form in which they are found in CT.

67 CT, V, 902. “3. It is heretical; and since the body of Christ remains substantially, it is impossible that the substance of bread remain so that two things are one while remaining the same.”

68 Ibid., 931. “3. This too is heretical. Indeed it is impossible that it not be heretical. Because the body of Christ is in the eucharist, as a previous article states, it is impossible that the substance of bread be present, since two substances cannot be in the same subject at the same time.”

69 Consilii is here taking issue with those who, like Sebastianus de Castello (quoted below), denied the validity of the argument from scripture.

70 Ibid., 946. “We must not listen to those who think that this belief arises from human law and not from the gospel, as some of those who have spoken before me seem to have thought.

“Moreover, we must in no way heed those who, with consummate stupidity (to say no more), think that the body of Christ cannot through the power of God exist with the substance of bread. For clearly it is no more contrary to the divine power that the body of Christ exist with the accidents. Pighius himself neither wishes nor is able to deny this assertion in any way. Therefore, the body of Christ is present in the eucharist without the substance of bread not because God was not able to make it exist with the substance of bread but because he did not so wish.”

71 E.g., the entire point of what Karl Rahner has to say about transubstantiation is that it is a necessary prerequisite to the doctrine of the real presence. See Die Gegenwart Christi im Sakrament des Herrenmahles, Schriften zur Theologie, IV (Einsiedeln, 1962), 357–85.Google Scholar

72 Ibid., 913. “The third article is heretical because transubstantiation really takes place: from bread the body, etc. However, we do not have this transubstantiation expressly in the gospel, but from positive law, as in the Council of Ephesus, Lateran, Constance, etc.”

73 CT, VII/i, 168.

74 CT, VII/i, 163. “What is said about a hypostatic union is not an error of the present time.”

75 A judgment of this sort is obviously in large part a matter of impression and does not lend itself readily to demonstration. It was not the scholastic way — and it was not the way of those at Trent — to label one argument crucial and the others only supportive. Their method of argument was cumulative. I single out Lateran IV because it is the most frequently used, is often used all by itself, and of course because in late medieval theology it was the crucial, often the only witness.

76 CT, VII/i, 124f. An alternate version of the bracketed passage is given in the critical apparatus of CT. The sense of the other version is not significantly different from that of the version preferred by the editor.

“As to the third article, the one on transubstantiation, he declared it to be heretical. He also replied to the adversaries' arguments to the contrary — scil. that this is a new term in the Church. Though he granted that the word seemed new, as to the reality the Church had always agreed. It is not strange that when a new heresy arises a new vocabulary should also be created to condemn it; as Augustine replied concerning ‘Donatists’ rather than ‘Donatiani,’ and also concerning ‘homoousion’ and other words.

“The word was used at the Lateran Council, and the holy fathers asserted the same when they said that the bread is transmuted into the body of Christ, or becomes it, or used similar expressions.

“But he warned that one must note in what way that article is condemned; for though mention is made of transubstantiation in the confession of faith of IV Lateran, this does not seem to pertain to the faith, as is likewise the case in what is said about the nature of angels. And he did not believe that what was said at Florence was in every detail so much a part of the faith that those who deny anything that was said ought to be considered heretics. He believed, however, that one who asserted that the bread was not changed into the body of Christ was a heretic. This the Church has always held, and it is derived from tradition and from the Fathers, — e.g., Gregory and Cyprian in his Exposition of the Lord's Prayer.”

77 CT, VII/i, 149.

78 CT, VII/i, 188.

79 Ibid. “… whose responsibility it was to answer objections in the name of the drafting committee, replied that the first canon states how it is, the second says how transubstantiation comes about and [the word is used] because the heretics condemn it.”

80 Ibid., 201. “Since Christ our Redeemer has said that what is offered under the appearance of bread is truly his body, the Church of God has always been convinced and this holy synod now again proclaims that through the consecration of the bread and wine there takes place a change of the entire substance of bread into the substance of the body of Christ our Lord and of the entire substance of wine into his blood. This change has appropriately and properly been called ‘transubstantiation’ by the holy Catholic Church.”

81 Christus' tegenwoordigheid in de Eucharistie, Tijdschrijt voor Theologie 5 (1965), 136–73Google Scholar. The English quotations are from a partial, unpublished translation of the Dutch. The present writer has checked the crucial passages against the original, and as far as he can see (which in this matter is not very far) the translation is accurate.

82 Ibid., 151f.

83 E.g., Christophorus Patavinus, the Augustinian General.

84 Ibid., 151.

85 CT, VII/i, 176. “Then he summarized the views of the fathers as follows. The first article is Oecolampadius' and all the fathers judged that it should be condemned. Some, however, said that what is said about the divinity should be deleted as superfluous; but this is asserted by the same heretics.

“The second article is likewise condemned by all. Some thought it should be omitted on the ground that it had no author, but it is the error of Bucer and certainly ought to be condemned. It is not contained in the first article, because here mention is made of reception, of which the first article says nothing.

“All likewise condemn the third article. It is Luther's error, and so Fisher and Eck understood it.”

86 Christus' tegenwoordigheid, 158.

87 It would, of course, greatly simplify the problem of continuity or identity in faith amid changes in theological statement if the “essence” of the second Tridentine canon could be reduced to the first, and I take it that one reason why Father Schillebeeckx works so hard at his interpretation of the past is to enhance the responsibility and freedom of the Church in the present. My contention, however, is that the texts are a good bit more recalcitrant than he allows, the work of distilling essences much more problematic.