Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-g8jcs Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-23T20:56:01.207Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Was John Wyclif's Theology of the Eucharist Donatistic?

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  30 January 2009

Ian Christopher Levy
Ian Christopher Levy
Affiliation:
Theology Department, Marquette University Milwaukee, WI 53233, USA
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

The heresy of Donatism has often been associated with the fourteenth-century theologian John Wyclif. This study focuses on whether or not Wyclif's eucharistic theology had in fact lapsed into this heresy. For if Wyclif was guilty of Donatism it is certainly no small matter. Donatism violates one of the most fundamental tenets of Catholic Christianity, viz. that the validity of the sacraments is not dependent upon the personal sanctity of the human beings who administer them. Medieval canon law dealt at some length with the issue of sacramental administration, upholding the Augustinian position that the determining factor in the proper administration of the sacraments is not the merit of the celebrant, but rather the power of God operating through him. Indeed, such a principle would have to be maintained if the foundation of the Church's sacramental system, and the ecclesiastical structure as a whole, was to be preserved from the prospect of disintegration.

Type
Research Article
Information
Scottish Journal of Theology , Volume 53 , Issue 2 , May 2000 , pp. 137 - 153
Copyright
Copyright © Scottish Journal of Theology Ltd 2000

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 For relevant canonical texts see C. 1, Q. 1, c.1–130; Friedberg, A., ed., Corpus Iuris Canonici (Leipzig: 1879; reprint, Graz: Akademisehen Druck-U. Verlagsanstalt, 1959), 357–407Google Scholar. See especially C. 1, Q. 1 c. 10–37; 77–89. For Augtustine's doctrine (contra the Donatist Christians of North Africa) that even in sacraments accepted from an evil cleric the grace of Christ is untainted, the worthy recipient obtaining only the holiness of the sacrament, see De Baptismo IV, 16; CSEL 51, 240; IV, 18; 244. And along these same lines, that the present Church is an admixture of good and evil which must he endured until the judgment day see Contra Epistulam Parmeniani II, 4, 9; CSEL 51, 54–5.

2 For the Blackfriars propositions see Fasciculi Zizaniorum, ed., Shirley, W. W. (London: Rolls Series, 1858, hereafter cited as FZ), 277–282Google Scholar. Proposition Four: ‘Item quod si episeopus vel sacerdos existat in peccato mortali, non ordinat, non conficit nee baptizat’ For a discussion of the events surrounding the Blackfriars Council see Dabmus, J., The Prosecution of John Wyclyf (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1952), 89–128Google Scholar; Workman, H. B., John Wyclif: A Study of the English Medieval Church, vol. 2 (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1926), 246–293Google Scholar. FT, provides a number of texts pertaining to proceedings against Wyclif and the Lollards. For dating and manuscript history of the various works of Wyclif cited throughout see Thomson, W. R., The Latin Writings of John Wyclyf (Toronto: Pontifical Institute of Medieval Studies, 1983)Google Scholar.

3 For the Council of Constance list see Enchiridion Symbolorum, ed. Denzinger, H. (Freiburg: Herder, 1968), 1151–1195Google Scholar.

4 Dahmus, 90–7. For Courtenay's letter to Stokes see FZ, 275–7.

5 See especially Sermones III; liv, ed., Loserth, J. (London: 1889; reprint, New York: Johnson Reprint Co., 1966), 468–471Google Scholar. See ibid., III, 1, 436; ibid., III, li, 441–2. See also Trialogus IV, xxvii, ed., Lechler, G. (Oxford: 1869), 338–341Google Scholar. Excerpts of Wyclif's responses are also preserved in FZ 283–5.

6 Workman, , John Wyclif, vol. 2, 12–13Google Scholar.

7 Leff, G., Heresy in the Later Middle Ages, vol. 2 (Manchester: Manchester University Press, 1967), 526–527; 556–7Google Scholar.

8 Kenny, A., Wyclif (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1985), 72Google Scholar.

9 Dahmus, 96–7.

10 De ecclesia iii, ed., Loserth, J. (London: 1886; reprint, New York: Johnson Reprint Co., 1966), 60–61Google Scholar.

11 Ibid., xix, 441–2.

12 Ibid., xix, 44–5.

13 Ibid., xix, 448.

14 De ecclesia xix, 448–9. See Si fuerit (C. 1, Q. 1, c.30); Friedberg I, 371. Sciscitantibus (C. 15, Q.8, c.5); Friedberg I, 760–1. Wyclif appeals also to the decretal Vestra duxit (L.3, T.2, c.7); Friedberg II, 455–6.

15 The study of canon law was prevalent at Oxford and Cambridge in the fourteenth century, and many clerics would have pursued law study at some time in their careers in the hope of preferment. On this see Boyle, L., ‘The Summa Summarum and Some Other English Works of Canon law’, in Proceedings of the Second International Congress of Medieval Canon Law (Vatican City: 1965), 425–456Google Scholar. Workman has noted Wyclif's numerous references to not only the Decretum specifically, but papal decretals as well, speculating that Wyclif may have at one time considered taking a degree in canon law. See Workman, , John Wyclif, vol. I, 101–102Google Scholar. Wilks goes further than Workman and claims that Wyclif had actually been a papalist in the early stages of his career, only to vehemently reject papal authority later. There are, however, serious difficulties with Wilks' argument. See Wilks, M., ‘The Early Oxford Wyclif: Papalist or Nominalist?’, in Studies in Church History 5 (Leiden: E. J. Brill), 69–98Google Scholar.

16 De ecclesia xix, 45–57. See Multi secularium (C. 1, Q. 1, c.84); Friedberg I, 387–8; Omnia sacramenta (C. 1, Qi, c.78); Friedberg I, 385; Cum scriptura (C. 1, Q. 1, c.83); Friedberg I, 387.

17 De ecclesia, xix, 464. See Quomodi exaudit (De cons. IV c.41); Friedberg I, 1377.

18 De ecclesia xix, 457–8.

19 Ibid., xix, 458–9.

20 Ibid., xix, 458–9.

21 Ibid., xix, 459.

22 Quaestiones XIII logicae et philosophiaei, ed., Beer, R. (London: 1891; reprint, New York: Johnson Reprint Co., 1966), 232Google Scholar.

23 De logica III, x, ed., Dziewicki, M. H. (London: 1899; reprint, New York: Johnson Reprint Co., 1966), 137Google Scholar.

24 De civili dominio I, xxxvi, ed., Poole, R. L. (London: 1885; reprint, New York: Johnson Reprint Co., 1966), 260Google Scholar.

25 Ibid., I, iii, 24.

26 De eucharistia iv, ed., Loserth, J. (London: 1892; reprint, New York: Johnson Reprint Co., 1966), 53Google Scholar.

27 Ibid., i, 15.

28 Ibid., i, 23.

29 Ibid., viii, 271.

30 Ibid., 14–15.

31 Ibid., i, 15.

32 Ibid., iv, 85–6.

33 Ibid., iv, 87.

34 Ibid., i, 16.

35 De apostasia, xiv, ed., Dziewicki, M. H. (London: 1889; reprint, New York: Johnson Reprint Co., 1966), 184Google Scholar.

36 De eucharistia, i, 16. Leff concurs with Wyclif's aforementioned opponents, arguing, despite Wyclif's protestations, that a derogation of sacerdotal power was ‘the outcome of making Christ's presence independent of human agency and physical change’. See Leff, 557. Yet it must be noted that transubstantiation posits only a substantial change, not a physical one, since the accidents do in fact remain. Moreover, to say that God operates through the priest in order to consecrate the sacrament is perfectly orthodox, and does not discount the role of the priest as the properly ordained agent.

37 De eucharistia iv, 112.

38 Ibid., iv, 113.

39 Ibid., iv, 113.

40 Ibid., iv, 113–14.

41 Ibid., iv, 114.

42 Ibid., iv, 114.

43 De eucharistia, iv, 114–15.

44 De blasphemia ii, 31 [ed., Dziewicki, M. H. (London: 1893; reprint, New York: Johnson Reprint Co., 1966)]Google Scholar.

45 See Sacerdotes qui euchasistiae (C. 1, Q. 1, c.90); Friedberg I, 391.

46 Friedberg I, 392.

47 See Quod quidam (C. 1, Q. 1. c.97); Friedberg I, 393–4.

48 Friedberg I, 395–6.

49 Friedberg I, 396.

50 Per Ysaiam (C. 1, Q. 1, c.98); Friedberg I, 396–7.

51 De blasphemia v, 72.

52 Ibid., vii, 97.

53 For a list of the members of Berton's council and the letter of condemnation see FZ, 110–13.

54 FZ, 116. Thomson assigns the date 10 May 1381. See Thomson, 69–71.

55 Ibid., 115–16.

56 Ibid., 116: ‘Et sicut secundus modus praeexigit primum, ita tertius modus secundum praeexigit, quia impossibile est praescltum carentem fide secundum justitiam praesentem conficere.’

57 Ibid., 116: ‘Qui ergo credit, sive conficiat, sive non conficiat, manducat, ut dicit B. Augustinus super Johannem, Homilia 25. Et iste modus essendi spiritualis est verior in anima. Est etiam verior et realior quam primus modus essendi, vel secundum membrum secundi modi essendi in hostia consecrata, cum sit per se causa illius modi [essendi in hostia consecrata] …’. The bracketed Section is omitted in some MSS. See also Augustine, Tractatus in Iohannis Evangelium XXV; CCL 36, 254.

58 FZ, 204.

59 Ibid., 204–5. Winterton cites Multi secularium (C. 1, Q. 1, c.84); Friedberg I, 387. The Interogo vos cited is in modern editions Neque potest (C. 1, Q. 1, c.95); Friedberg I, 392.

60 FZ, 206: The Si ergo cited is in modern editions Dominus declaravit (C. 1, Q. 1, c.87) Friedberg I, 389. Cited also is Per Ysaiam (C. 1, Q. 1, c.98) Friedberg I, 396–7.

61 Sermones I, iv, ed., Loserth, J. (London: 1887; reprint, New York: Johnson Reprint Co., 1966), 25Google Scholar.

62 Ibid., I, xl, 268.

63 De antichristo I, xlviii, ed., Loserth, J. (London: 1896; reprint, New York: Johnson Reprint Co., 1966), 175–176Google Scholar.