Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-mlc7c Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-04T20:18:46.316Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Dogma of Transubstantiation in the Middle Ages

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  06 February 2009

Gary Macy
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Under the heading ‘transubstantiation’ in the Oxford dictionary of the Christian Church, one finds that the word was in widespread use in the later part of the 12th cent., and at the Lateran Council of 1215 belief in Transubstantiation was defined as de fide; but the elaboration of the doctrine was not achieved till after the acceptance of the Aristotelian metaphysics later in the 13th cent., when it found classic formulation in the teaching of St Thomas Aquinas.

Type
Articles
Information
The Journal of Ecclesiastical History , Volume 45 , Issue 1 , January 1994 , pp. 11 - 41
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1994

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 Oxford dictionary of the Christian Church, ed. Cross, F. L. and Livingstone, E. A., 2nd edn, Oxford 1974, 1390.Google Scholar

2 The growth of medieval theology (600–1300), III: The Christian tradition: a history of the development of doctrine, Chicago 1978, 268. For a recent and excellent discussion of the first use of transubstantiation see Goering, J., ‘The invention of transubstantiation’, Traditio 46 (1990. 147–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

3 The text of the council has been critically edited by Antonio, García y García, Corutitutiones Concilii quarti Lateranensis una cum commentariis glossatorum, Vatican City 1981. This section of the creed appears on p. 42. García y García feels that the wording may well be that of Innocent m himself (pp. 6–8). The relevant text of the creed reads: ‘Vna vero est fidelium universalis ecclesia, extra quam nullus omnino salvatur, in qua idem ipse sacerdos est sacrincium Iesus Christus, cuius corpus et sanguis in sacramento altaris sub speciebus panis et vini veraciter continentur, transsubstantiatis pane in corpus et uino inGoogle Scholar sanguinem potestate divina, ut ad perficiendum mysterium unitatis accipiamus ipsi de suo quod accepit ipse de nostro.’

4 The entire passage reads: ‘Idem vero pontifex, postquam haereticos esse pronunciavit quicumque deinceps: “Christi corpus et sanguinem in sacramento altaris, sub speciebus panis et vini, transubstantiatis pane in corpus et vino in sanguinem, veraciter contineri' negaverint; eosdem omnes, cujuscunque tandem dignitatis aut officii sunt, secularibus potestatibus animadversione debita puniendos, id est cremandos tradit, in suspectos inquiri jubet, receptores et fautores eorum infames, intestabiles, atque haereditatum et officiorum omnium incapaces essejudicat, et reliquos christianos adversus eos extimulat’: Historia transubstantiationis papalis, London 1675, 150. John Cosin wrote this work in 1656, but it was not published until after his death in 1672. On his life and works, see the Oxford dictionary of the Christian Church, 350.

5 The entire passage reads: ‘Verum omittere nequeo quod cum haec Innocentiana definitio substantialem conversionem panis et vini in corpus et sanguinem Christi praescribat esse de fide, neutiquam tamen integra potuit obtinere, imo ex disputandi, ut videtur, aestu, quo ferebantur qui Joannis Parisiensis impetebant sententiam de panis subsistentia, illius annihilatio defensa est a plurimis, cui successura fuit Christi corporis e coelis deductio in locum substantiae panis et vini’: Determinatio Fr. Joannis Parisiensis praedicatoris, de modo existendi corpus Christi in sacramento altaris, London 1686, 77. The Historia is contained in a long preface to Allix's edition of the Determinatio of John of Paris. Allix's treatise is a rambling affair, in which he recorded the teaching of several medieval scholars who disagreed openly with Thomas Aquinas's teaching on transubstantiation, or who argued that the question of the mode of change in the eucharist was still an open one. The most important of these for Allix was, of course, John of Paris. On Allix see John, HilaryMartin, , ‘The eucharistic treatise of John Quidort of Paris’, Viatorvi (1975), 197–9 and trie Dictionnaire de théologie catholique, i, cols 894–5.Google Scholar

6 Hans, Jorissen, Die Entfaltung der Transsubstantiationslehre bis zum Beginn der Hochscholaslik, Münster 1965.Google Scholar

7 This is the terminology used, for example, by McCue, James F., ‘The doctrine of transubstantiation from Berengar through the Council of Trent’, Harvard Theological Review 59 (1968), 385–430.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

8 ‘De conversione triplex est opinio. Quidam dicunt quod non est ibi aliqua mutatio, sed remanente substantia panis et substantia vini ad prolationem illorum verborum incipit sub eisdem speciebus esse caro et sanguis Christi, cum prius non esset ibi nisi substantia panis et vini, et ubicumque legitur aliquid de conversione, sic intelligitur: ubi prius erat tantum panis et vinum, incipit esse etiam caro Christi et sanguis.

9 ‘Sufficit enim ad pietatem fidei, quam hie intendimus stabilire, credere, et tenere, quod sub forma panis materialis atque visibilis, in altari post benedictionem sacerdotalem rite factam apponitur panis vitae, et sub forma vini visibilis, potus vitae’: Magisterium divinale, De sacramentis in William of Auvergne, Opera omnia, Paris 1674, repr. Frankfurt 1963, 434

10 Jorissen, , Entfaltung, 55.Google Scholar

11 See the references given in nn. 60, 64 below for a more detailed discussion.

12 Jorissen, , Entfaltung, 56.Google Scholar

13 Ibid. 57–8.

14 Ibid. 56, 57, esp. nn. 170, 171. The discussion recorded in the acts of the council does not differentiate between the different theological understandings of transubstantiation, cf. the Acts of Sessions 6, 12 in Acta genuina ss. oecumenici concilii Tridentini, ed. August Theiner, Zagreb 1874, i. 406–63, 488–529. The council settled for the rather restrained wording, ‘Si quis dixerit, in sacrosancto eucharistiae sacramento remanere substantiam panis et vini, una cum corpore et sanguine Christi, D. N. Jesu, negaveritque mirabilem illam et singularem totius substantiae panis in corpus, et totius substantiae vini in sanguinem, manentibus dumtaxat speciebus panis et vini, conversionem, quam catholica ecclesia aptissime transubstantiationem appellat: anathema sit’:Google Scholaribid. 525.

15 Determination 36–8, 41–51.

16 Jorissen, , Entfalttmg, 9. The text of Pius' condemnation is given in Heinrich Denzinger and others, Enchiridion symbolorum definitionum el declarationum, 36th edn, Barcelona-Freiburg-Rome 1976, n. 2629.Google Scholar

17 Jorissen, , Entfaltung, 10, 59–64.Google Scholar

18 See n. 7 above.

19 Jorissen, , Entfaltung, 62 n. 183.Google Scholar

20 ‘Ecclesia declaravit istum intellectum esse de veritate fidei in illo symbolo edito sub Innocentio III in Concilio Lateranensi Firmiter credimus etc … Et breviter, quidquid ibi dicitur esse credendum, tenendum est esse de substantia fidei, et hoc post istam declarationem solemnem factam ab Ecclesia’: IV Sent., d. u, q. 3 Questions in liber quartum sententiarum, Opera omnia, viii, Lyons 1639, repr. Hildesheim 1968, 618–9. See McCue, , ‘Doctrine of transubstantiation’, 405–6, but also David, Burr, Eucharistic presence and conversion in late thirteenth-century Franciscan thought, Philadelphia 1984, 92.Google Scholar

21 Ibid. 91–3 has a very intriguing discussion on this point of which I will quote only a part: ‘Thus two different factors would seem to coalesce in the formation of Scotus’ more “positivistic” approach. On the one hand, emphasis upon divine freedom leads to emphasis upon the contingency of the divinely instituted order, which in turn leads to greater emphasis upon revelation as opposed to natural theology. On the other hand, a critical evaluation of the “proofs” provided by previous theologians leads to a greater awareness of the insufficiency of these “proofs” which in turn leads to a similar emphasis upon revelation as opposed to natural theology.’

22 McCue, ,‘Doctrine of transubstantiation’, 409.Google Scholar

23 Ibid.

24 ‘ [Luther's] question was whether the Church should, indeed whether it can, require as a sine qua non of communion the confession of a doctrine that is neither necessary nor important’: ibid. 429, cf. 412–17.

25 Ibid. 417–28. McCue is disputing the contention of the modern theologian, Edward Schillebeeckx, who argues that Trent saw transubstantiation as a necessary corollary to an assertion of the real presence.

26 Ibid. 430.

27 Ibid. 403–7. The discussion by Burr, , Eucharistic presence, 76–98 is much to be preferred. See also idem, ‘Scotus and transubstantiation’, Medieval Studies 36 (1972), 336–5O.Google Scholar

28 ‘Quia tamen determinatio Ecclesiae est in contrarium, sicut patet Extra, De Summa Trinitate et fide catholica et De celebratione missarum, et communiter omnes doctores tenent oppositum, ideo teneo quod non remanet ibi substantia panis sed ilia species, et quod illi coexsistit corpus Christi’: lib. 4, q. 8, Questiones in librum quartum sententiarum, Opera philosophica et theologica, vii, St Bonaventure, NY 1984, 139–40.

29 ‘Secunda est communis opinio omnium theologorum, quam teneo propter determinationem Ecclesiae et non propter aliquam rationem. Unde dicit Innocentius tertius, Extravagantes: De Summa Trinitate et fide catholica, Firmiter, sicut allegatum est in praecedenti quaestione, quod corpus Christi continetur sub illis speciebus, transsubstantiatis pane in corpus et vino in sanguinem potestate divina’: Quodlibet 4, q. 30 in Quodlibeta septem, Opera philosophica et theologica, ix, St Bonaventure, NY 1980, 449–50. The editor dates this quodlibetal to 1323, see p. 38*. For a more detailed discussion of Ockham's theology see David, Burr, ‘Quantity and eucharistic presence: the debate from Olivi through Ockham’, Collectanea Franciscana 44 (1974), 5–44.Google Scholar

30 Tractatus de corpore Christi, cap. 6, e.g. ‘Dico tamen quod substantia panis non manet, sed desinit esse et sub illis speciebus incipit esse corpus Christi’: Opera philosophica et theologica, x (1986), 99–101. The editor dates this work 1323/4, p. 27*. The matter is further complicated by the fact that Scotus and Ockham rejected the third of Peter of Capua's alternatives, and accepted the second. It is only later on in both their discussions that it becomes clear that they understand Peter's second alternative in the medieval sense of ‘transubstantiation’ and so felt free to adopt a form of the substitution theory. Again, the best explanation of this appears in the articles of Burr cited above.

31 On the dating of this work see James, Weisheipl, Friar Thomas D'Aquino: his life, thought and work, Garden City, NY 1974, 343,Google Scholar and DMA iv. 313–14. For a discussion of Durand's theology see Kenneth, Plotnick, Hervaeus Natalis, O.P. and the controversies over the real presence and transubstantiation, Munich 1970, esp. pp. 15–19.Google Scholar

32 ‘Sed quia hie modus non debet teneri de facto cum ecclesia determinaverit oppositum, quae non praesumitur errare in talibus, ideo tenendo de facto aliam partem respondendum est ad argumenta quae sunt in contrarium.’ In IV libros sententiarum, 1. IV, dist. xi, q. 1, n. 15; Durand of St-Pourcain, D. Durandi a Sancto Porciano …in Petri Lombardi sententias theologicas commenlariorum libri IIII, Venice 1571, repr. Ridgewood, NJ 1964, fo. 3i8vb; McCue, ‘Doctrine of transubstantiation’, 411. Cf. Allix's use of Durand, Determinate, 36–7, 41–2.

33 ‘Unde semper, salvo meliori iuditio, non videtur mihi quod ante determinationem sanctae matris ecclesiae, quam superius recitavi, ista opinio fuerit haeretica reputanda. Nee scio aliquem qui post illam determinationem istam opinionem asseruerit, nisi Ioannes Parisiensis ordinis praedicatorum qui posuit paneitatem remanere ne accidentia in isto sacramento essent sine subiecto: propter quod, ut dicitur, excommunicatus fuit per episcopum Parisiensem’: Thomae ab Argentina… Commentaria in III. libros sententiarum… Venice 1564, repr. Ridgewood, NJ 1965, fo. 93 va. See McCue, , ‘Doctrine of transubstantiation’, 411–12.Google Scholar For the dating of Thomas's work see Trapp, D., ‘Thomas v. Strassbourg,’ LThK x, cols 147–8.Google Scholar

34 Commentaria in III. libros sententiarum, fo. 93 ra.

35 ‘Quia vel ista opinio supponit conversionem panis in corpus Christi, vel sic ponit annihilationem, quod negat huiusmodi conversionem… Si secundo modo, tune auctoritates sanctorum, et determinatio sanctae matris ecclesiae non minus sunt contra istam opinonem, quam contra primam. Ex quo sequitur, quod sicut opinio praecedens non est asserenda ab aliquo catholico, sic nee ista’: ibid. fo. 94ra–b. Since Ockham, and later Biel, insisted that the form of substitution theory they espoused was a theory of conversio, these theologians would not fall under Thomas's condemnation.

36 ‘Substantia panis materialis et similiter substantia vini materialis remanent in sacramento altaris’: Denzinger, Enchiridion, n. 1151. See also n. 1152: ‘Accidentia panis non manent sine subiecto in eodem sacramento’. Cf. McCue, ‘Doctrine of transubstantiation’, 412.

37 ‘In primis an post consecrationem sit in altari verum corpus Christi et non substantia panis materialis neque vini’. The list of questions is published and discussed by Anne, Hudson, Lollards and their books, London 1985, 125–39Google Scholar. A second list of questions contains the following:’ An corpus sic confectum sit in altare terrestri corpus Christi naturale et non panis naturalis neque vinum’: ibid. 135. Dr, Hudson contends that this list was actually used, and that similar questions were asked of Lollards in other places in England. I want to thank Dr Thomas Goodman of the University of Miami for this reference. Cf. also the ‘Interrogationes Wyclifitis et Husitis proponendae’ of Martin V, nos 16, 17: ‘16. Item, utrum credat, quod post consecrationem sacerdotis in sacramento altaris sub velamento panis et vini non sit panis materialis et vinum materiale, sed idem per omnia Christus, qui fuit in cruce passus et sedet ad dexteram Patris. 17. Item, utrum credat et asserat, quod facta consecratione per sacerdotem, sub sola specie panis tantum, et praeter speciem vini, sit vera caro Christi et sanguis et anima et deitas et totus Christus, ac idem corpus absolute et sub unaqualibet illarum specierum singulariter’: Denzinger, Enchiridion, nos 1256–7.Google Scholar

38 Quaestiones super libros sententiarum cum quibusdam in fine adjunctis, Strassburg 1490, repr. Frankfurt 1968, n. p.; lib. 4, q. 6.‘ Ideo aliter describo transsubstantiationem et dico quod est successio immediata duarum rerum non habentium communem materiam, vel subiectum quarum posterior est substantia quam incipit de per se, vel principaliter esse ubi alia res totaliter desinit esse.’ Francis Oakley,The political thought of Pierre d' Ailly, New Haven-London 1964, 10, dates this work 1377–8. Gabriel Biel held a similar opinion to that of d'Ailly: Jorissen, Entfaltung, 57–8.

39 ‘Sciendum est quod licet catholici concordaverint in hoc quod corpus Christi vere et principaliter est in sacramento sub speciebus panis et vini sive ubi apparent species, tatnen sicut recitat magister distinctione xi et glossa De celebratione missarum, Cum marie, circa modum ponendi fuerunt diverse opiniones’: Quaestiones, lib. 4, q. 6.

40 The entire passage reads: ‘Quarta opinio et communior est quod substantia panis non remanet sed simpliciter desinit esse. Cuius possibilitas patet quia non est deo impossibile quod ilia substantia subito desinat esse quamvis non esset possibile creata virtute. Et licet ita esse non sequatur evidenter ex scriptura nee etiam videre meo [sic] ex determinatione ecclesie quia tamen magis favet ei et communi opinioni sanctorum et doctorum ideo teneo earn. Et secundum hanc viam dico quod panis transsubstantiatur in corpus Christi ad sensum expositum in descriptione transsubstantiationis’: ibid.

41 ‘Some time ago, when I was studying scholastic theology, I was greatly impressed by d'Ailly, Dr Pierre, cardinal of Cambrai. He discussed the fourth book of the Sententiae very acutely, and said it was far more likely, and required the presupposition of fewer miracles, if one regarded the bread and wine on the altar as real bread and wine, and not their mere accidents - had not the church determined otherwise… I adopted this view, because I saw that the opinions of the Thomists, even though approved by pope and council, remained opinions still, and would not become articles of faith even if decreed by an angel from heaven’: ‘The Babylonian captivity of the Church’, in John, Dillenberger (ed.), Martin Luther: selections from his writings, Garden City, NY 1961, 265. Cf. McCue, ‘Doctrine of transubstantiation’, 414–15.Google Scholar

42 ‘sub speciebus: Et ita albedo, rotunditas et alia accidentia sunt ibi sine subiecto et hoc miraculose, uelsuntin aere. Vin[centius]. Panis et uini: Cum aqua, Extra iii. De celebrati[one]. missar[um]. Cum Marthe’: García y García, Constitutiones Concilii, 288. The teaching that the species existed supported by the substance of the surrounding air was the teaching of the school of Abelard: Macy, Theologies, 114–18.1 have filled in the abbreviations by providing the missing letters in square brackets. I will use this format for all the canonical texts cited in this paper.

43 Thomae de Chobham summa confessorum, ed. Broomfield, F., Louvain, Paris 1968, pp. 9–42.Google Scholar

44 ‘Est autem sciendum et firmiter credendum quod post confectionem corporis et sanguinis domini nulla remanet substantia panis, nulla substantia vini, sed sola accidentia, scilicet sapor et color, et ilia per miraculum, vel sunt sine omni subiecto, vel sunt in aere circumposito, nee homo ibi videt vel tangit vel gustat aliquam substantiam sive materiam panis et vini, sed tantum accidentia, et per miraculum ex illis solis accidentibus posset pasci et nutriri homo’: Summa confessorum, 121.

45 On the formation of this text see Stanley Chodorow, ‘Decretum’, DMA iv. 128–30; idem, ‘Law, canon: after Gratian’, ibid. vii. 431–17; Kenneth Pennington, ‘Huguccio’, ibid. vi. 327–8; Stickler, A. M., ‘Bartholomaüs v. Brescia’, LThK 2, col. 11;Google Scholar idem, ‘Benecasa’, ibid, ii, col. 200, and J. Griindel, , ‘Johannes Zemecke (Semeca) Teutonicus’,Google Scholaribid, v, cols 1091–2. The edition of the glossa which I was able to consult was printed in Venice in 1584 and also contains material by the canonist Benedictus de Benedictis who wrote c. 1420. Identification of the authors of the various glosses is possible, however, since glosses on the text are ascribed to different canonists by use of abbreviations: ‘Io’ is used for Johannis Teutonicus, and ‘Bar’ for Bartholomew of Brescia. Two other abbreviations appear as well. ‘H’ or ‘Hug’ for Huguccio, a canonist writing c. 1188–98 who is much quoted by Johannes, and ‘Ben’, an ambiguous abbreviation which might stand for Benecasa - a late twelfth-century canonist often quoted by Bartholomew-or Benedictus, the fifteenth-century canonist. Unmarked passages are assumed to be from the original gloss of Johannes.

46 See Chodorow, ‘Law, canon: after Gratian’.

47 On the dating of this work see Thomas, Aquinas, Expositio super primam et secundam decretalem ad Archidiaconum Tudertinum, ed. Dondaine, H. -F., Opera omnia, 9, Rome 1969, E38.Google Scholar

48 On Henry of Susa and his works see Elisabeth, Vodola, ‘Hostiensis’, DMA 6. 289–90, and Clarence, Gallagher, Canon law and the Christian community: the role of law in the Church according to the Summa aurea of Cardinal Hostiensis, Rome 1978, 21–45.Google Scholar

49 See Chodorow, , ‘Law, canon: after Gratian’, as well as Paul Ourliac, ‘Bernard de Parme’, Dictionnaire de droit canonique, 2, cols 781–2.Google Scholar

50 On Innocent iv and his works see Vodola, , ‘Innocent IV’, DMA 6. 465–7. The edition of this work I used was Commentaria Innocentii quarti pont. maximi super libros quinqueGoogle Scholar decretalium, Frankfurt 1570, repr. Frankfurt 1968.

51 Decretales D. Gregoriani IX, Lib. m, tit. 41, De celebratione missarum, c. 6, Cum Marthae, ed. Emil, Friedberg, Corpus Iuris Canonici, Leipzig 1879, repr. Graz 1955, 2, cols 638–9.Google Scholar Part of Innocent's letter was copied directly from his De sacro altaris mysterio written before he became pope. Cf. PL ccxvii. 878D.

52 ‘In sacramentorum [c. 1] …De eo tamen quod dicitur quod panis convertitur in corpus Christi variae sunt opiniones. Una asserit quod ilia substantia quae fuit panis primo postea est caro et sanguis Christi; argumentum infra eadem. Panis est in altari [De consecratione, II, c. 55] et c. Quia corpus [c. 35]. Secunda opinio tenet quod substantia panis et vini ibi desinit esse et remanent accidentia tantum, scilicet sapor, color, pondus, et similia, et sub illis accidentibus incipit ibi esse corpus Christi. Tertia tenet quod remanet ibi substantia panis et vini et in eodem loco et sub eadem specie est corpus Christi. argumentum infra eadem Ego [c. 42] Quelibet tamen opinio fatetur ibi esse corpus Christi. Secunda opinio verior est, ut Extra De summa. Trinitate, Firmiter [c. 1] ¶ una’: Decretum Gratiani emendatam el notationibus illustratum una cum glossis, Venice 1584, col. 2504.

53 Jorissen, , Entfaltung, 29–30, cites this passage to show that the glossators accepted a variety of opinions, and that they preferred the substitution theory.Google Scholar

54 ‘Sunt. [c. 34 Species et similitude] id est. retinent et ita vox interitu rei non amittit significationem, liceat res pereat. Et hie est argumentum contra eos qui dicunt substantiam panis et vini ibi esse post consecrationem quia non convertuntur in corpus Christi ut dicunt. Sed contra eos est infra eadem. Nos autem [c. 41] et Panis, c. [c. 55]. Sed exponunt quia antea fuerunt sola, sed modo non sunt sola, quia ibi iam latet corpus Christi. Alii dicunt quod desinit ibi esse panis et vinum sed differunt nam quidam dicunt ipsa mutari et converti in corpus Christi, alii in nihilum redigi vel in primordialem materiam resolvi. Istis utriusque obiicitur de forma, sapore, colore et aliis accidentibus in quo subiecto sunt. Et eorum quidam dicunt quod in aere, alii esse sine subjecto miraculose nam cedit natura miraculo. Extra. De celebr[atione] mis[se] cum Marthe ¶ i’: Decretum Gratiani, col. 2523.Google Scholar

55 ‘Convertuntur. Bene dicit convertuntur vel transubstantiantur ut alii transeunt vel transeant, sed non fiunt nee incipiunt. Nihil enim fit vel incipit esse corpus Christi. Potest tamen concedi quod de pane conficiatur vel fiat corpus Christi sicut de aqua fit crystallus, non tamen est crystallus, sed securius non conceditur hoc et ubicumque invenitur panis vel de pane fit vel conficitur corpus Christi, sic intelligatur, id est transit in corpus Christi, ut infra eadem Panis [c. 39]… Non intelligas ergo quod aliquod augmentum sumat ex tali conversione, nee eo modo quo cibus convertitur in carnem, sed est ibi corruptio, id est desinit ibi esse substantia panis et vini, nulla tamen generatio. Unde potest dici quod sit ibi vera transubstantiatio quantum ad hoc ut nova essentia ibi generetur’: ibid. col. 2525.

56 ‘Determinabat autem earn sic: Id quod fuit panis etc. convertitur, transformatur, transsubstantiatur in corpus Christi; cum enim omnia verba communionis admittantur, ut transsubstantiatur convertitur et huiusmodi, transsubstantiatum ut est vel erit vel fuit non admittitur, ne tanquam ex materia fieri credatur ut avis ex ovo, ita enim panis convertitur in corpus, ut non sit verum hoc: erit illud, vel ex hoc tamquam ex materia fiet illude’: von Schulte, Johann Friedrich, Die Summa des Stephanus Tomacensis iiber das Decretum Gratiani, Giessen 1891, 274. Stephan wrote c. 1166;Google Scholar see Schulte, , Die Summa, pp. 19–11.Google Scholar

57 See text in no. 55 above. Cf. also ‘Significatur. [c. 40 Ante benedictionem] Et licet verba successive proferantur, non tamen successive consecratio fit, sed in uno instanti corrumpitur panis, scilicet in ultimo instanti prolationis verborum. Et licet panis fit corpus compositum, momentanea est tamen eius corruptio, secundum eadem Quia corpus [c. 35] verbis. ergo’: Decretum Gratiani, col. 2529.

58 ‘In terram [c. 27 Si per negligentiam] Id est in tabulam terrae adhaerentem ut patet per capitulum sequens. Sed nunquid sacramento cadente cecidit ibi corpus et sanguis? Dic quod sic et tamdiu credas ibi esse corpus et sanguinem quamdiu apparuerint ibi accidentia. Cum vero propter rasuram non apparuerint, die ibi non esse’: ibid. col. 2520. ‘Sacramentum. [c. 55 Panis est in altare] Dum panis est nullum est ibi sacramentum quia nihil significat. Sed cum incipit transire in corpus Christi statim species panis incipit significare corpus Christi et esse sacramentum. Cum autem nihil significant, tune non erat sacramentum, non tamen panis vel sacramentum vel corpus Christis consecratur precibus, sed in sacramentum quod est corpus Christi panis sit transubstantiatio.]: ibid. col. 2542. ‘Adoraverit [c. 92 Accesserunt ludei] Argumentum hie quod mus non potest accipere corpus Christi. Argumentum contra infra eadem Qui bene [c. 94] sed statim desinit esse.’: ibid, col. 2571.

59 ‘Miscere. [c. 23 Tribus gradibus] Sed nee species ille aliis cibis permiscentur, non enim in stomachum descendunt quare per secessum non emittuntur. Licet enim ex ipsis aliquis reficiatur, non tamen incorporantur nee in stomachum descendunt nee per secessum emittuntur. Interdum enim odore recreatur homo qui tamen nee in stomachum nee in secessum dirigitur. Dici potest quod species bene descendunt in stomachum nam aliter quomodo evomerentur, infra eadem Si quis per ebrietatem [c. 28] unde forte per sudorem emittitur de corpore. Certum est quod species quam cito dentibus teruntur, tarn cito in celum rapitur corpus Christi.’: ibid. col. 2517. See also text in n. 58 above.

60 ‘Comederit. ‘c. 94 Qui bene] Nee dicend um quod mus sumat corpus domini, statim enim desinit esse sacramentum ex quo ab eo tangitur. Si tamen dicatur quod sumat non est magnum inconveniens cum sceleratissimi homines illud sumant. Sed B[enecasa? Benedictus?] non concedit quod ab eo sumi possit, immo statim desinit esse sacramentum. Sed iterum non posset consecrari, quia non est ibi iam panis, immo tantum species. Sed numquid desinit esse sacramentum si transit super illud corpus mus vel aranea? Non credo quod desinat esse sacramentum’: ibid. col. 2572. This opinion concerning reception by the wicked was held by Honorius Augustodunensis, based on a story of Cyprian of Carthage. For reference see Gary, Macy, ‘Berenger's legacy as heresiarch’, in Peter Ganz, Huygens, R. B. C. and Friedrich, Niewöhner (eds), Auctoritas und Ratio: Studien zu Berengar von Tours, Wiesbaden 1990, 50–2.Google Scholar

61 On the differences between the theology of Albert, and Thomas, , and that of Alexander and his followers, see Burr, Euckaristicpresence,Google Scholar but also Gary, Macy, ‘Reception of the eucharist according to the theologians: a case of diversity in the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries’, in John, Apczynski (ed.), Theology and the university, Lanham, MD 1990. 15–36.Google Scholar

62 ‘tamen in scientia sacramentorum non multum attendenda est sententia decretistarum quia pro certo multa falsa de cordibus vel talibus scribunt et dicunt, eo quod sunt homines ignari in sacram scriptura, nescientes originalia sanctorum, nee possunt non peccare docentes in fide Catholica quae ignorant’: De corpore domini, dist. 3, tr. 3, c. i, n. 2, B. Alberti Magni… Opera omnia, xxxviii, ed. Bognet, A. and Bognet, E., Paris 1899, 307. See Jorissen, Entfaltung, 47 n. 145.Google Scholar

63 ‘De corpore autem Christi tres sunt opiniones. Una dicit quod ilia substantia quae prius fuit panis et vinum, postea sit corpus et sanguis; De conse[cratione] dist. 2, Panis est in altari [c. 55] et c. Quia corpus [c. 35]. Secunda asserit quod remanet ibi substantia panis et vini, et in eodem loco et sub eadem specie est corpus et sanguis Christi; argumentum. de consec[ratione] dist. 2, Ego. [c. 42]. Tertia dicit, quod substantia panis et vini desinit ibi esse; transsubstantiatur enim in corpus et sanguinem, et tantum accidentia ipsorum ibi remanet, scilicet sapor et color et pondus, et sub illis speciebus, id est accidentibus, est corpus Christi; infra titulus 1, Cum Marlhae [c. 6] ¶ quaesivisti. Et hanc tertiam videtur comprobare concilium generale, secundum De summa trinitate ca. 1 ¶ una est et Innoc[entius] III infra titulus 1, Cum Marthae [c. 6] ¶ verum inter opiniones. Quaelibet autem istarum fatetur verum corpus esse in altari. Sed est alia quarta pessima opinio, quae astruere nititur, non esse in altari corporis et sanguinis veritatem sed imaginem tantum et speciem et figuram et haec reprobatur; infra titulus i Cum Marthae [c. 6] ¶ ex eo’: Summa aurea Henrici de Segusio Cardinalis Hostiensis summa aurea, Venice 1573, repr. Turin 1963, liber 3, De consecratione ecclesiae vel altaris, col. 1183.

64 The entire passage reads: ‘Dicit autem sub speciebus panis el vini ad excludendum errorem quorundam qui dixerunt quod in Sacramento altaris simul continetur substantia panis et substantia corporis Christi, quod est contra verbum Domini dicentis, “Hoc est corpus meum”, esset enim secundum hoc magis dicendum “Hie est corpus meum”; ut ergo ostendat quod in hoc sacramento non remanet substantia panis et vini sed solum species, id est accidentia sine subiecto, dicit sub speciebus panis et vini’: Expositio super primam et secundam decretalem ad Archidaconum Tudertinum, E38, col. 2.

65 Cf. ‘Dicit autem veraciter ad excludendum errorem quorundam qui dixerunt quod in hoc sacramento non est corpus Christi secundum rei veritatem, sed solum secundum figuram sive sicut in signo’: ibid.

66 ‘Veraciter… Circa hoc tamen tres sunt opiniones. Nam quidam dicunt quod ilia substantia que prius fuit panis et vinum, desinit esse; De cons[ecratione] di. 2, Panis est in altari [c. 55] et c. Quia corpus [c. 35] Secundum quod ille substantie transsubstantiantur et remanet color et sapor sub illis accidentibus et corpus et sanguis Christi et istam tene. Tertii dicunt quod remanet substantia panis et vini et sub eadem specie est corpus Christi; De conse[cratione]. di. 2, Ego [c. 42]. Et quilibet istorum asserunt corpus verum esse in altari. Quarti asserunt in sacramento altaris non esse corporis et sanguinis veritatem. Hoc reprobatur De cel[ebratione] mis[se], Cum Marthe [c. 6], ¶ quesivisti. Opinio vero secundarum bi approbatur et hie ut sequitur’: In primum decretalium librum commentaria Henrici de Segusio Cardinalis Hostiensis… in primum decretalium librum commentaria, Venice 1581, repr. Turin 1965, fo. 6va.

67 ‘In prima vero opinione omnes catholici conveniunt, scilicet quod ilia substantia, quae prius fuit panis et vinum, postea fit corpus et sanguis. Ita tamen ut hoc quid dicit fit, notet conversionem. Omnia enim verba quae notant conversionem vel transubstantionem, proprie hie ponuntur, ut si dico panis transubstantiatur in corpus Christi, haec est vera. Item si dico convertitur vel mutatur’: In tertium decretalium librum commentaria, Henrici de Segusio Cardinalis Hostiensis… in tertium decretalium librum commentaria, Venice 1581, repr. Turin 1965, fo. 163ra.

68 ‘Secunda etiam opinio catholica est’: ibid.

69 ’Secundum Vin[centium] ita quod panis esse desinit et corpus Christi succedat. Si quaeritur quid de substantia panis et vini fiat? Dicunt quod in praeiacentem materiam resolvitur vel in nihilum rediguntur, quod potest ille facere qui de nihilo cuncta creavit. Hanc vero quidam reprobant, dicentes quod si quis induatur vestibus alterius non ideo dicitur converti vel transire in ilium cuius vestes induit. Tamen et haec videtur approbari secundum De summa Tri[nitate] c. I, in fine’: ibid.

70 ‘Transubstantiatur Et haec vera est et ita desinit ibi esse species panis et vini’: ibid. fo. 163 V a.

71 ’Sanguinis veritatem De corpore Christi tres sunt opiniones. Una dicit quod ilia substantia quae prius fuit panis et vinum, postea fit corpus et sanguis Christi; de conse[creatione] dist. 2 panis in altari [c. 55] et c. quia corpus [c. 35]. Secunda tenet quod substantia panis et vini desinit esse et tantum accidentia ipsorum remanent, scilicet sapor et pondus et sub illis accidentibus est corpus Christi. Et hoc approbatur secundum de summa trinitate etfide cath[olicae], c. 1. Tertia dicit quod remanet substantia panis et vini et sub eadem specie est corpus Christi. Io[hannis]’: Decretales D. Gregorii Papae IX. suae integritati una cum glossis restitutae, Rome 1582, col. 1370.

72 David, Burr, The persecution of Peter Olivi, Philadelphia 1976.Google Scholar

73 Quoted in ibid. 31.

74 Ibid. 55.

75 Ibid. 57.

76 Quoted ibid. 59.

77 Ibid. 8–9.

78 Ibid. 67.

79 The entire passage reads:‘Vides ergo quod ilia evasio magnam absurditatem contra phylosophiam ponit, et veritati quam tenet sancta ecclesia de sacramento altaris derogat cum firmissime tenet sancta ecclesia et firmiter debemus tenere cum ea, quod in sacramento altaris remanet per divinam potentiam quantitas, sine substantia panis et vini, haec etiam quantitas panis sine substantia panis et quantitas vini sine substantia vini’: quolibet 2, art. 2, q. 2, Quodlibeta Doctoris eximii Ricardi de Mediavilla… Quaestiones octuaginta, Brescia 1591, 50, col. 2. For a more thorough discussion, see Burr, ‘Quantity and eucharistic presence’, 22–3. I have used Burr's translation of this passage.

80 I am basing myself on the summary of previous scholarship given by Frederick, Roensch, Early Thomist school, Dubuque, Iowa 1964, 98–104,Google Scholar but see also Plotnick, , Hervaeus Natalis, 57, and Martin, , ‘Eucharistic treatise’.Google Scholar

81 Glorieux, P., ‘Un mémoire justificatif de Bernard de Trilia’, Revue des sciences philosophiques el théologiques 17 (1928), 408.Google Scholar Glorieux has wrongly ascribed this text to Bernard of Trilia. The change in attribution in favour of John Quidort was made by Glorieux himself, and is widely accepted: Muller, J. P., ‘À propos du mémoire justificatif de JeanQuidort’, Recherches de theologie ancienne el médiévale 19 (1952), 343–51.Google Scholar

82 A copy of John's, Commentaria super sententias has survived in Paris, Bibliotheque Mazarine, MS 889. The discussion of this question on fo. 83V a supports his contention that he copied the teaching of Thomas Aquinas.Google Scholar

83 The entire passage reads: ‘Quod albedo sine quantitate esset visibilis actu, quia esset extensa quadam extensione effecta ab extensione quantitatis, sicut apparel de vase et aqua, sigillo, etc. Item huiusmodi albedo esset visibilis, etiam dalo quod non esset extensa, et hoc non actione sed aptitudine. -Hoc duos articulos quandoque investigando tetigi, scilicet primo libro, et etiam in quarto libro ubi quesivi: utrum in sacramento altaris sint accidentia sine subiecto; et modum inquisitionis mee vidi in reportatione fratris N. et aliorum fratrum 4. Sed tandem totam illam inquisitionem retractavi expresse dicens quod circa illam hoc solum teneretur quod Deus potest facere accidentia sine subiecto et albedinem sine quantitate, et animam extra corpus. Cetera vero in duobus articulis continentur, dixi in scolis quod nolebam tenere sed volebam pro non dictis haberi; quod patet in reportatione de Sancto Vic[tore] super 4’: Glorieux, ‘Mémoire justificatif’, 412–13. Here John is being somewhat disingenuous; e.g. ‘Propter quartum, scilicet, color in isto sacramento si separaretur a quantitate esset visible’: Commentaria, Bibliothèque Mazarine, MS 889, fo. 84V b.

84 For a thorough discussion of this issue see Plotnick, , Henaeus Natalis, 19–25.Google Scholar

85 E.g. ‘ut substantia panis maneat sub accidentibus suis, non in p r o p r i o supposito, sed tracta ad esse et suppositum Christi, ut sic sit unum suppositum in duabus naturis: et sic est verum substantiam panis manere sub suis accidentibus in sacramento altaris’: Martin, , ‘Eucharistic treatise’, 215, lines 23–6.Google Scholar

86 Ibid. 203–5. William of Auxerre had argued that the human Jesus had an accidental relationship to the Word in a similar fashion: Walter, Principe, William of Auxerre's theology of the hypostatic union, Toronto 1963.Google Scholar

87 ‘Dico quod imo sit festum de Impanatione, sicut in die Coenae’: Martin, ,‘Eucharistic treatise’, 22, lines 308–9.Google Scholar

88 ‘Panis etiam est transsubstantiatus, vel conversus in corpus Christi’: ibid. 220, lines 232–3; see also 221, lines 274–9.

89 Ibid. 218, lines 140–78; 220, lines 226–35; 221 Junes 263–79. The Determinatio ends with a summary which includes the following: ‘ Dicit tamen quod nullus est determinatus per Ecclesiam, et idcirco nullus cadit sub fide, et si aliter dixisset, minus bene dixisset, et qui aliter dicunt, minus bene dicunt. Et qui determinate assereret alterum praecise cadere sub fide, incurreret Sententiam Canonis et Anathematis’: ibid. 225.

90 Roensch, Early Thomist school, 144 n. 198; Etienne Gilson, History of Christian philosophy in the Middle Ages, New York 1955, 731–2.

91 ‘Ad hec dicendum quod magister in littera recitat opinionem illorum qui ponunt quod substantia remanet cum corpus Christi. Sed opinio illorum non stat. Immo error erit dicere’: Commentaria, Bibliotheque Mazarine, MS 889, fo. 84ra. See also Plotnick, Hervaeus Natalis, 57.

92 Ibid.

93 ‘Et licet teneam et approbem illam solemnem opinionem, quod corpus Christi est in Sacramento altaris per conversionem substantiae panis in ipsum, et quod ibi maneant accidentia sine subjecto; non tamen audeo dicere quod hoc cadet sub fide mea; sed potest aliter salvari vera et realis existentia corporis Christi in sacramento altaris’: Martin, ‘Eucharistic treatise’, 214, lines 5–8.

94 Gilson, History of Christian philosophy, 413.

95 Martin, ‘Eucharistic treatise’, 196–7; Roensch, Early Thomist school, 100.

96 Ibid.

97 David Burr, ‘Ockham, Scotus, and the censure at Avignon’, Church History xxxvii (1968), 144–59.

98 Roensch, Early Thomist school, 100.

99 Quoted by Margaret Aston, ‘Wyclif and the vernacular’, in her From Ockham to Wyclif, Oxford 1987, 313. On the question of what the clergy and laity were expected to know about the eucharist see Miri Rubin, Corpus Christi: the eucharist in late medieval culture, Cambridge 1991, 83–129.

100 ‘Atque in hunc modum Innocentius tertius per excommunicationes, exercitus, rebelliones, carnificinas, et vivicomburia novum fidei suae dogma stabilire voluit’: Historia transubstantiationis, 151.

101 The entire matter is described in Eymeric's Directorium inquisitorum. The condemned articles read: ‘Primus quod si hostia consecrata cadat seu proiiciatur in cloacam, lutum seu aliquem turpem locum quod speciebus remanentibus sub eis esse desinit corpus Christi et redit substantia panis. Secundus quod si hostia consecrata a mure corrodatur seu a bruto sumatur, quod remanentibus dictis speciebus sub eis desinit esse corpus Christi et redit substantia panis. Tertius quod si hostia consecrata a iusto vel a peccatore sumatur quod dum species dentibus teritur, Christus ad coelum rapitur, et in ventrem hominis non traiicitur’: Directorium inquisitorum F. Micolai Eymerici, Venice 1595, 44a.

102 Nicholas recorded the papal missive, the bulk of which reads: ‘Miseratione divina Petrus sancti Eustachii et Guillermus sancti Angeli diaconi cardinales reverendis patribus Tarraconensis et Cesaraugustanensis provinciarum, archiepiscopis eorumque suffraganeis necnon inquisitoribus haereticae pravitatis a sede apostolica in ipsis provinciis deputatis, salutem et sinceram in Domino caritatem. Relatione religiosi fratris Nicholai Eymerici magistri in theologia ac in dictis provinciis haereticae pravitatis inquisitoris ad audientiam domini nostri pape nuper pervenit quod tarn in vestris quam in suffraganeorum vestrorum ecclesiis palam et publice per certos religosos predicati fuerunt tres articuli subsequentes in effectu… Idem dominus noster papa, nobis ibidem praesentibus vivae vocis oraculo expresse commisit quatenus acutoritate sua apostolica vobis mandaremus ut omnis morae sublato dispendio in dictis vestris provinciis sub poena excommuncationis inhibeatis ne quis deinceps dictos articulos publice praesumat praedicare. Nos igitur Petrus et Guillermus cardinales praedicti huiusmodi mandatum apostolicum cupientes exequi ut tenemur, vobis et vestrum cuilibet in virtute sanctae obedientiae praecipimus et mandamus ne ab inde in antea dictos articulos seu eorum alterum sub eisdem vel aliis verbis idem sonantibus in substantia seu in effectu in vestris ecclesiis vel alibi palam seu publice praedicari a quoquam permittatis et hoc sub pena excommunicationis qua contrarium facientes innodetis ipso facto. Notificantes vobis nihilominus simili mandato per ipsum dominum nostrum papam nobis facto quod idem dominus noster papa fratri Iohanni de Latone ordinis fratrum minorum qui aliquos de dictis articulis in vestris ecclesiis frequenter recitando praedicaverat inhiberi fecit sub poena excommunicationis ne dictos articulos de caetero publice praedicare presumat’: ibid.

103 See Macy, ‘Reception of the eucharist’, 15–36, as well as nn. 58, 59, 60 above.

104 Two private repositories of orthodoxy do include these teachings as condemned. Carolus du Plessis d'Argentre’, Collectio iudiciorum de novis erroribus qui ab initio XII saeculipost incamationem verbi, usque ad annum 1632 in ecclesia proscripti sunt et notati, i, Paris 1728, pars I, 390 col. 1–391 col. 2, included this teaching under the year 1371, the date of the papal letter to Nicolaus Eymeric. Du Plessis d–Argentre was copied by Denziger, Enchiridion, nn. 1101–3.

105 ‘fra Nicolau Eimeric, que havia d'esdevenir l'inquisidor mes tenac,, mes agressiu i mes dur de tota la histbria de la Inquisici6 catalana’: Eufemia Fort y Cogul, Catalunya i la Inquisicio, Barcelona 1973, 87

106 On Eymeric's life, see Andre Duval, Dictionnaire de spiritualite, xi, cols 277–9; R. Chabanne, Dictionnaire de droit canonique, vi, cols 1007–9, and Forty Cogul, Catalunya i la Inquisicio, 87–112.

107 Ibid. 87–102. See also Marcelino Mendndez Pelayo, Historia de los heterodoxos espanoles, I I: Obras completas, xxvi, Santander 1947, 302–11, 339–44.

108 Jorissen, , Entfaltung, 56–7;Google ScholarAllix, , Determinatio, 77–80.Google Scholar The exact meaning of the teaching of the Council of Trent on the eucharist is much debated among Roman Catholic theologians. For an exhaustive discussion of this issue see Josef, Wohlmuth, Realpriisenz und Transsubstantiation im Konzil von Trient, Frankfurt 1975.Google Scholar

109 The extremely interesting question of how such a belief started and why it continues to persist is unfortunately beyond the scope of this paper. The author hopes to present his research on this matter in a future article.