Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-94fs2 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-04T18:07:09.042Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Invention of Transubstantiation

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  29 July 2016

Joseph Goering
Joseph Goering*
Affiliation:
University of Toronto
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

‘The origin of the notions transubstantiatio and transubstantiare has frequently been sought.’ With this classic understatement Ludwig Hödl began a section of his magisterial study ‘Der Transubstantiationsbegriff in der scholastischen Theologie des 12. Jahrhunderts.’ Interest in the origins and the originator of this influential idea, however, has cooled in recent decades. In part, this is due to changing fashions in scholarship. The philosophical and confessional interests that fueled much of the earlier research into Eucharistic doctrines hold less attraction in an ecumenical age.

Type
Articles
Information
Traditio , Volume 46 , 1991 , pp. 147 - 170
Copyright
Copyright © The Fordham University Press 

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 Recherches de Théologie ancienne et médiévale 31 (1964) 230–259, at 235.Google Scholar

2 See Macy, G., The Theologies of the Eucharist in the Early Scholastic Period (Oxford 1984) 1–17. The lack of interest in transubstantiation is evident in Macy's own study, where the idea and its history are mentioned only twice outside the introduction (pp. 37 and 140). The recent Dictionary of the Middle Ages has no entry for ‘Transubstantiation,’ or for ‘Eucharist.’ Under ‘Transubstantiation’ in the temporary index we are referred only to the brief article on ‘Accident’ (one misses a corresponding entry for ‘Substance'). Transubstantiation is mentioned also in the entry ‘Mass, Liturgy of the,’ but only to repeat the erroneous notion that the doctrine ‘was defined by the Fourth Lateran Council (1215)'; cf. Macy, pp. 140–141.Google Scholar

3 See the painstaking catalogue of occurrences of the term ‘transubstantiation’ before 1215 in de Ghellinck, J., ‘Eucharistie au xii e siècle en Occident,’ DThC 5 (Paris 1924) 1233–1302, at 1290–1293. This inventory has served as the basis for all subsequent discussions. H. Jorissen's excellent study of the term in the late-12th and early-13th centuries only repeats de Ghellinck's conclusions about its origins; see his Die Entfaltung der Transubstantiationslehre bis zum Beginn der Hochscholastik (Münster 1965). For a summary of scholarship on 12th-century theology, see Landgraf, A. M., Introduction à l'histoire de la littérature théologique de la scolastique naissante (rev. Landry, A. M., trans. Geiger, Louis B.; Montreal 1973).Google Scholar

4 Transubstantio rather than transubstantiatio seems to be the original form of the word, as will appear below.Google Scholar

5 ‘Verumtamen si necessitate inminente sub alterius panis specie consecraretur, profecto fieret transubstantiatio, sanguinis autem numquam fit nisi de vino transubstantiatio.’ Die Sentenzen Rolands nachmals Papstes Alexander III (ed. Gietl, A. M., 1891; rpt. Amsterdam 1969) 231. The discussion of Eucharistic change per se is found on pp. 223–26 of the edition. On the date of these Sentences see van den Eynde, D., ‘Nouvelles précisions chronologiques sur quelques œuvres théologiques du xii e siècle,’ Franciscan Studies 13 (1953) 106–10, who argues that Roland Bandinelli, the future Pope Alexander III, could only have composed them in 1149–1150. More recently Noonan, J. T. has argued that the author is not Roland Bandinelli but another Roland who taught law and theology at Bologna; see his ‘Who was Rolandus?’ in Pennington, K. J. and Somerville, Robert, edd., Law, Church, and Society: Essays in Honor of Stephan Kuttner (Philadelphia 1977) 21–48. Noonan's arguments are supported with further evidence in Weigand, R., ‘Magister Rolandus und Papst Alexander III,' Archiv für katholisches Kirchenrecht 149 (1980) 3–44. Wiegand suggests that the Sententiae Rolandi be dated ca. 1155–1156.Google Scholar

6 ‘Si autem queratur, utrum uinum, quod ea die [Good Friday] sumitur in communione, adtactu dominici corporis consecretur, licet plurimorum scripta hoc uideantur astruere, nos magis ueritatem sequentes et sanctorum patrum traditiones dicimus illud uinum non esse consecratum adtactu illo, sed sanctificatum. Est enim differentia inter consecratum et sanctificatum. Consecratum est, quod in consecratione transsubstantiatur, sanctificatum, quod per uerborum sanctificationem efficitur sanctum sine transsubstantiatione ut aqua benedicta’(cap. 99); Iohannes Beleth, Summa de ecclesiasticis officiis (ed. Douteil, H., CCCM 41A; Turnhout 1976) 183.Google Scholar

7 ‘Oral memory’is used here in the sense intended, for example, by Brady, I., ‘Peter Manducator and the Oral Teachings of Peter Lombard,' Antonianum 41 (1966) 454–490.Google Scholar

8 See Coxe, H. O., Catalogus codicum MSS qui in collegiis aulisque Oxoniensibus hodie adservantur. II. Catalogus … Collegii Corporis Christi (Oxford 1852) 9–11. For further description of the manuscript, see below, Appendix A.Google Scholar

9 The questions are listed below in Appendix A; the Eucharistic tract with its questions is printed in its entirety in Appendix B, below. Both the questions and the tract are copied by the same scribe, with no indication that the two might be different works or derive from different sources. That the questions were originally distinct from the Eucharistic tract is clear from the introduction to the latter, which presupposes a foregoing discussion of penance not found in the questions as preserved in this codex. Both may, however, derive ultimately from the teachings of a single master. They are homogeneous in style and content (with some exceptions; see below, App. B). The Eucharistic tract is manifestly part of a larger work; perhaps the 80 questions have been excerpted from that same work. Google Scholar

10 Compare, for example, Cicero, Oratio pro Caecina 33.95: ‘quae cum se disposuit, et partibus suis consensit, et, ut ita dicam, concinuit’ (and, so to speak, chimes in). Google Scholar

11 In the Eucharistic tract (App. B), the author uses dicimus (or dicimus nos) 16 times. Other forms of the first-person plural used to express the author's teaching include: dicere debemus (1), dicere poterimus (1), dicere solemus (1), dicere recusamus (4), dicere uolumus (1), diceremus (1), and dicamus (2). The first-person singular, dico, occurs only twice, and in the same paragraph as the sole use of the subjunctive dicam. Google Scholar

12 See Appendix B., 6. Google Scholar

13 The older word transmutatio, found in the Vulgate (Iac. 1.17) and in ecclesiastical writers, is less fruitful in this context. Whereas trans-formatio describes a change of form (forma), and trans-substantio a change of substance (substantia), transmutatio is simply a redundancy. For later discussions of the inadequacy of transmutatio or mutatio as descriptions of the Eucharistic change see Appendix C, below; cf. Hödl, ‘Transubstantiationsbegriff’ (n. 1 supra) 248–59; e.g., ‘Vide, quod magis proprie locutio “panis transubstantiatur in corpus Christi” quam “mutatur,” quia immutari qualitatum est proprie remanente eadem substantia, ut aliquod corpus de albo fit nigrum, transubstantiari vero est, quando substantia in substantiam aliam mutatur, sed indifferenter ponunt auctores “mutari” pro “transubstantiari,”’ 249, n. 70, from the ‘Bamberg gloss’ on Lombard's sentences (1160 x 1170). Google Scholar

14 See van den Eynde, D., Les Définitions des sacraments pendant la première période de la théologie scholastique (1050–1240) (Rome 1950) 18–27.Google Scholar

15 Ibid., p. 70; cf. Macy, , Theologies (n. 2 supra), 39–40, 51–53.Google Scholar

16 App. B. 15. Google Scholar

17 In Q. 18 (see below, Appendix A) the author asserts that those who have done inadequate penance on earth will be punished further in hell, where the lack of temporal penance will be supplied. ‘Cum ergo peccatum plene punitum non fuisset, pro eo in inferno punitur; ergo pro illo peccato eterna pena in inferno punitur … . Solutio. Qui non temporaliter satisfaceret punitur grauius in inferno, et quod minus fecerat de peccato suppletur in eterna pena’ (fol. 107rb). The absence of ‘purgatory’ is also clear in Q. 35: ‘Quidam tamen dicunt quod pro ueniali temporalis pena in inferno irrogatur. Ad tempus enim illo peccato in inferno punitur ut dicunt. Alii uero melius dicunt quod pro ueniali non punitur in inferno set in ista uita, uel morte, uel in ipso raptu quo trahitur in infernum, temporaliter quidem tantum, nisi innumerabilia sint uenialia, que propter multitudinem possunt equiparari uni criminali’ (fol. 111rb). A third example of it is found in Q. 54. The author asks about those people liberated from hell by Christ in his descent, whether they immediately entered paradise. He argues that they ascended to heaven with Jesus, but ‘where they were in the meantime God only knows:’ ‘Solutio. Vere et latro et iusti ab inferis educti statim fuerunt in paradiso; paradisus enim uita eterna que est Deus. Fuerunt ergo in paradiso quia Deum uiderunt sicut est. Postea uero celum ascendunt cum Christo. Ubi uero interim fuerint, Deus nouit’ (fol. 115 ra).Google Scholar

18 See Le Goff, J., La Naissance du Purgatoire (Paris 1981 ), who argues that purgatory is first identified as a separate physical locale in the period 1170–1200. Le Goff's thesis has been much discussed; for comments and criticisms see Bredero, A. H., ‘Le Moyen Age et le Purgatoire,' Revue d'histoire ecclésiastique 78 (1983) 429–452; Massaut, Jean-Pierre, ‘La vision de l'au-delà au Moyen Age: a propos d'un ouvrage récent' Le Moyen Age 91 (1985) 75–86. Although the idea of purgatory is an old one, the graphic representation of a separate place between heaven and hell for the purging of sins seems to emerge in the second half of the 12th century.Google Scholar

One may compare our author's dilemma with that of Robert Pullen in his Sententiae (?1140–1142): ‘[Ubi sint modo purgandi] … Sed disciplina haec' [i.e., post-mortem penance for sins] ‘ubi fit? num in coelo? num in inferno? sed nec coelum tribulationi, nec tartarus correctioni, praecipue nostro tempore, competere videtur … . Ubi sunt ea? nondum scio’ (4.22, PL 186.826). ‘[Quomodo purgandi fuerunt in inferno.] Sed sicut inferioribus quies disconvenit, ita superioribus afflictio dissentit, nec in Scriptura tertium facile invenies apud inferos locum purgandis, deputatem… . Absurdum enim videtur duas inferno dare mansiones, alteram quieti, alteram tormentis, et tamen asserere aut inter tormenta quietem, aut inter quietos laborem. Si tamen juxta quietos oportuit esse purgandos, quomodo convenientius id dicetur, quam ut poena atque quies sint insimul, praetermissa divisione locorum …’ (4.24, PL 186.827–828).

19 Smalley, B., The Study of the Bible in the Middle Ages (2nd ed.; Notre Dame 1964) 249–50. She mentions Peter Comestor, Gerald of Wales, and Stephen Langton as sharing this opinion.Google Scholar

20 ‘Sed quae cui praeferenda est: utrum actio contemplationi an econtra? Et quidem si attendimus hinc Liam et Martham, inde Rachelem et Mariam, utraque apparebit bona, melior tamen contemplativa… . Sed Christus imo et apostoli ejus in labore et anxietate actionum maluerunt exerceri, nec inter agendum fructus defuerant contemplativi; verumtamen ex actione exstiterunt et mundo utiliores et Deo gratiores… . Exutis saeculo commoda est contemplatio; involutis, concordat actio; praelato autem utraque incumbit …’ Sententiae 7.25 (PL 186.938–939). Google Scholar

21 ‘Item prelati ecclesie et doctores ut apostoli et eorum uicarii de actiua vita sunt qui etiam supra contemplatores sunt et eos regunt… . Ad hoc quod potest bene concedi, actiuam utiliorem et potiorem esse, scilicet secundum quandam partem sui, scilicet secundum illam que continet doctores et prelatos …’ (fol. 120 va-vb).Google Scholar

22 These questions are listed by Hödl, L., Die Geschichte der scholastischen Literatur und der Theologie der Schlüsselgewalt (Münster 1960) 119–122. The questions numbered by Hödl 4–5, 7–9, 22–30, 39–43, 44–50, 51–57, 58–62, 64–71, and 73, are found in precisely that order in the Corpus Christi manuscript (see App. A). Hödl transcribes three of the questions from Clm 2624 (his nos. 44, 45, and 46 = nos. 33, 34, and 35, below), and, except for minor variants, the texts correspond exactly with those in Corpus Christi MS 32.Google Scholar

23 Ibid, p. 122: ‘Dilectionem magister Rubertus cancellarius dicit dulcedinem misericordiae Dei, sed magister Hugo …; Magister Rubertus praetendit multas auctoritates… .’ These references occur in questions not found in Corpus Christi MS 32.Google Scholar

24 See ibid., pp. 118–19, 123–25.Google Scholar

25 See Baron, R., Études sur Hugues de Saint-Victor (Paris 1963).Google Scholar

26 ‘Reuersus itaque in fine triennii repperi magistrum Gilebertum, ipsumque audiui in logicis et diuinis; sed nimis cito subtractus est. Successit Rodbertus Pullus, quem uita pariter et scientia commendabant.’ Ioannes Saresberiensis, Metalogicon (ed. Webb, C. C. T.; Oxford 1929) 82. It is unclear in this text whether Robert Pullen succeeded to Gilbert's chair, or simply succeeded Gilbert as John's teacher. Gilbert left Paris to become bishop of Poitiers in 1142.Google Scholar

27 Courtney, F., Cardinal Robert Pullen: An English Theologian of the Twelfth Century (Rome 1954).Google Scholar

28 ‘Die Sententie Magistri Gisleberti Pictavensis Episcopi,’ AHDL 45 (1978) 83–180, and ibid. 46 (1979) 45–105.Google Scholar

29 Ibid. (1978) 84–87. That the two MS copies are not two recensions of an existing reportatio is clear from the textual variants: ‘Sie sind, mit anderen Worten, ursprünglich nicht die Abschrift einer einzigen Sammlung von dicta, denn dann könnten die Text-Varianten nicht so bedeutend sein’ (p. 86).Google Scholar

30 Ibid. (1978) 105.Google Scholar

31 ‘Queritur autem de pane illo ante consecrationem si posit[!] dici de illo: “Hic panis erit corpus Christi” uel post consecrationem: “Hoc corpus fuit panis”’(T), IV. 21, ibid. ( 1978) 136; ‘Queritur utrum possimus dicere: “hic panis erit corpus Christi,” uel “hoc corpus Christi fuit panis”’ (F), ibid. (1979) 63.Google Scholar

32 Ibid. (1978) 99: ‘Dieser quidam war offenbar der in F IV, 21 genannte m(agister) R. und das dort zu ergänzende Wort wird das damals noch ungewohnte Wort transubstantiatio sein.’Google Scholar

33 Ibid. (1978) 99.Google Scholar

34 Master R<obert> P<ullen> is quoted unambiguously elsewhere in the Sententie Gisliberti (see [ 1978] 100; [1979] 85). Although the word transubstantio does not occur in Robert Pullen's published Sententiae, all the elements of the doctrine as described in the Corpus Christi text are to be found there: ‘Cum autem panis in carnem, vinum quoque virtute Christi vertatur in sanguinem, substantia utique vini et panis desinit esse quod fuerat, idque fit quod prius non erat: proprietates tamen amborum transeuntium manent, unde fit ut id quinque sensus nostri post consecrationem inveniant, quod ante consecrationem inveniebant… . Transit itaque substantia, sed remanet forma; neutrum miraris, sed omnipotentem contemplaris. Quamobrem non est sensum delusio, sed vera rei comprehensio, quod cum Dominica in mensa sit solum caro et sanguis, nihilominus tamen vini natura percipiatur et panis. Non tamen quod caro et sanguis hujusmodi sint qualitatis, verum quod, post mutationem utriusque substantiae, non mutatur qualitas naturae’ (8.5, PL 186.966–67).Google Scholar

35 These propositions are discussed obliquely in the published Sententiae of Robert Pullen: ‘Num tamen ideo postquam ita erit, concludam corpus Christi fuisse panem, pastam, farinam? Non enim id ante consecrationem fuit; quippe quod nunc omnino et tunc exstitit, nisi quis ridicule, imo et periculose dicere audeat, quod idem corpus, sit simul caro in coelo, pasta in alveolo, triticum in horreo? Panis transit in corpus, unde Dominus accepto pane et benedicto ait: Hoc est corpus meum; similiter accepto calice post gratiarum actionem subjunxit: Hic est sanguis meus, quasi diceret: Quod sub specie vini cernitis, sanguinem esse meum sciatis; quodque adhuc panis apparet, nemo corpus meum esse dubitet. Et quoniam sicut ante benedictionem panis fuerat, ita post benedictionem corpus suum aiebat; et sicut vinum ante exstitit, ita post gratias, sanguinem suum dixit. Nemo audeat aliud astruere, quam quod Dominum, verba indicant, voluisse. Quare nec panem fieri carnem neges, nec aliud fieri putes. Vinum post gratias sanguinem factum credas; nec in aliud mutari contendans’ (8.5, PL 186.965D–966A). Google Scholar

36 MS 255; see James, M. R., A Descriptive Catalogue of the Manuscripts in the Library of Peterhouse, Cambridge (Cambridge 1899) 314–21.Google Scholar

37 Cambridge, Peterhouse MS 255, fol. 139 r = pt. II, fol. 22. The entire quaestio is printed below in Appendix C.Google Scholar

38 See Appendix C, below. Google Scholar

39 On William's career and writings, see MacKinnon, H., ‘William de Montibus: A Medieval Teacher,' in Essays in Medieval History Presented to Bertie Wilkinson (ed. Sandquist, T. A. and Powicke, Michael R., Toronto 1969) 32–45; Goering, Joseph, ‘The Diffinicio Eucaristie formerly attributed to Robert Grosseteste,’ Journal of Theological Studies, NS 37 (1986) 91–104; idem, William de Montibus (c. 1140–1213): The Schools and the Literature of Pastoral Care (Toronto, in press).Google Scholar