THE RELATIONSHIP of THEOLOGY and PRAXIS the Issue of Transubstantiation in the Middle Ages

THE RELATIONSHIP OF THEOLOGY AND PRAXIS

The Issue of Transubstantiation in the Middle Ages

“How can bread be His body? And the cup, or what the cup contains, how can it be his blood? And the reason these things, brothers and sisters, can be called sacraments is that in them one thing is seen and another is to be understood.”1

While Augustine wrote these words in the early fifth century, they were cited by Ratramnus in 843 in his theological response to Emperor Charles the Bald who had posed two distinct questions to the Benedictine monk: do the faithful receive the body and blood of Christ ‘in a mystery’ or ‘in very truth’, and is this the same body and blood to which Mary gave birth?2 While not intended as such, it is these two pointed questions that prompted the theological development and evolution of the Eucharistic doctrine, resulting in The Council of Trent’s decree on the sacrificial and sacramental nature of the Eucharist some seven centuries later. The Council stated once and for all that Christ is “really, truly, substantially contained”3 in the consecrated forms. And indeed it is the distinction between seeing and understanding which not only led to theological conflict and controversy throughout the Middle Ages, but influenced the foundation of arguably the most important doctrine in the history of the Christian Church: the doctrine of transubstantiation,4 or transsubstantiatio.

1. Augustine, “Sermon 272,” The Works of Saint Augustine: A Translation for the 21st Century, tr. Edmund Hill (New Rochelle, NY: New City Press, 1993) 300. 2. Ratramnus, De corpore et sanguine domini, ed. J.N. Bakhuizen van den Brink (Amsterdam: North-Holland Publishing Company, 1954). See also, Gary Macy, The Banquet’s Wisdom: A Short History of the Theologies of the Lord’s Supper (New York: Paulist, 1992) 72. 3. Council of Trent, Session 13, October 11, 1551, Decree Concerning the Most Holy Sacrament of the Eucharist, Decrees of the Ecumenical Councils, Vol. II, ed. Norman Tanner (London: Sheed and Ward, 1990) 692. 4. The precise meaning of the term ‘transubstantiation’ itself was at the heart of many theological discussions, particularly in the Early Middle Ages. In subsequent centuries, its 184 Susan Gray

The intent of this essay is not to present or analyze the theology of this doctrine, but rather to characterize how it was received as it evolved into the High Middle Ages. The concept of substance, as it related to experiential meaning, was not easy for the clergy to grasp, let alone the laity. Thus, how did the developing theology affect the liturgical practice of the Eucharist for Christian worshippers during this period? In an effort to answer this question, this essay is presented in two sections. Part I will offer a brief summary of Eucharistic theology in the period leading to the High Middle Ages, highlighting the historical and social aspects of Western Christendom during this era as they reflected the ongoing development of transubstantiation. This is necessary in order to set the historical context for the practice of the Eucharistic sacrament at that time, offered in Part II, which also illustrates the significance of how the former (the theology) affected the latter (the practice).

1. Eucharistic Theology in the Middle Ages

Very little was written about the Eucharist and its nature from the time of the Church Fathers to the ninth century. So what prompted the theological discussions (and controversies) that ensued in the coming centuries? At this time, Europe was experiencing relative peace, was led by the strong and decisive Charlemagne, and the Church was the centre of Western civilized life. Once crowned Emperor, Charlemagne not only influenced the rise of scholarship and Christian education but his chief priority was unity of the Empire. And liturgy, he believed, was a strong tool toward that end.5 Uniformity in the Church meant uniformity in the Empire, as well as the exploration of questions about how that could be accomplished through Christian scholarship. As such, if the centre of society was Christian life, then how Christian life was carried out would be paramount. This explains the efforts of Amalarius of Metz for liturgical reform. Specifically he attempted to explain the priest’s breaking of the bread into three sections

meaning evolved to a more permanent one. Given the length of this essay, my intent and use of the term will reflect the definition used at the Council of Trent (and since then by the Catholic Church) which is: “by the consecration of the bread and wine, there takes place the change of the whole substance of the bread into the substance of the body of Christ our Lord, and of the whole substance of the wine into the substance of his blood. And the holy Catholic Church has suitably and properly called this change transubstantiation” (ibid., p. 695). Thus, transubstantiation refers to the change that occurs to the bread and wine, once consecrated, to become Christ’s real body and blood. Also see Edward Schillebeeckx, The Eucharist (New York: Sheed and Ward, 1968) 39-40. 5. James F. White, A Brief History of Christian Worship (Nashville, TN: Abingdon, 1993) 79. The Relationship of Theology and Praxis 185 during the mass.6 He was charged with heresy at the Council of Quierzy in 838 for teaching that Christ’s body was divided each time mass was given. More importantly, the Church’s literal approach to such teaching set the tone for the scholarship and ensuing debates about the exact nature of the consecrated bread and wine and what took place to cause the physical change. However, it would seem that unity of thought and practice was lacking at this time, prompting the Benedictine monk Paschasius to write an educational treatise on the Eucharist (On the Body and Blood of the Lord) to a group of Saxon monks.7 As Macy writes, “the barbarian monks were having trouble understanding exactly what use the Lord’s supper might have.”8 Although aware of the symbolism of the Eucharist (based on his understanding of the Church Fathers), Paschasius was staunch in his belief that Christ’s body, present following consecration, was the very same born of Mary. For this ninth century French monk, it was at the same time both reality and figure, or, as we might say, both physical and symbolic.9 However, not all church scholastics held the same belief of the ‘what’ and ‘how’ of the Eucharist. In a reply, Paschasius’ colleague Ratramnus, curtly disagreed: “Great is the difference between the invisible might of the holy housel and the visible appearance of its own nature. By nature it is corruptible bread and corruptible wine and is by power of the divine word truly Christ’s body and his blood; not, however bodily but spiritually.”10 [emphasis added] Nichols characterizes Ratramnus’ explanation of the nature of the consecrated elements as “an enacted metaphor ... [of] how the heavenly Christ feeds believers spiritually with his own life.”11 While opposed in thought and belief, and controversy surely ensued, no Council was called even to reprimand or censure Ratramnus. More importantly, the two monks set the stage for further debate in the mid-eleventh century. The fruits of Charlemagne’s efforts to institute scholarship during his reign were well realized by the eleventh century. Greek philosophy, particularly Aristotelian, had been rediscovered by Western scholars. This sparked a creativity and an awakening in critical thinking that had not been seen in several centuries, affecting all forms of Western life: law,

6. Macy, The Banquet’s Wisdom, 69. 7. Paschasius Radbertus, De corpore et sanguine domini, ed. Paulus Beda, Corpus Christianorum. Continuatio mediaevalis, 16 (Turnhout: Brepols, 1969). 8. Macy, The Banquet’s Wisdom, 70. 9. Aidan Nichols, Holy Eucharist: From the New Testament to Pope John Paul II (Dublin: Veritas, 1991) 59-60. 10. Ratramnus, De corpore et sanguine domini, ed. Bakhuizen van den Brink, 115-116. 11. Nichols, Holy Eucharist, 60-61. 186 Susan Gray philosophy, the arts, music and, of course, theology.12 This is evident in the writings of Berengar of Tours (c.1010-1088), whose thought reflected the diversity of his time and included the framework and philosophy of Aristotle and Plato.13 While it would be simplistic to say that Berengar merely reiterated Ratramnus’ thinking on the Eucharist, he was, like Ratramnus, a literalist. Although couched in Aristotelian terminology, Berengar’s belief concerning the Eucharist’s substance and consecration process was based on Augustine’s emphasis on the spiritual essence of the Eucharist, not the physical presence of Christ’s body and blood. Stubborn and pragmatic, Berengar essentially waged war on his fellow theologians who resolutely disagreed with him. Unlike the debate two centuries previous, this did prompt Church action as Ratramnus’ critics increased. Quite simply, “they felt that Berengar’s insistence on a spiritual rather than a physical or natural presence of the Lord in the sacrament undermined the very possibility of our salvation.”14 The scholar was compelled by the church to account for his position and twice took an oath to counter his belief publicly. Both times he merely ignored them. However it was not his oath taking that is important but rather that the debate was seen by the Church as significant enough to its belief and practice to proclaim its own Eucharistic teaching at the Fourth Lateran Council of 1215 which stated that: “[Christ’s] body and blood are truly contained in the sacrament of the altar under the forms of bread and wine, the bread and wine having been changed in substance, by God’s power, into his body and blood.”15 It is the phrase “changed in substance” that is key: indeed in the original Latin the term “transsubstantiatis” is specifically used. While scholastic discussion on the substance of the Eucharist was not the only reason that this text was included by this Council, as the Church believed it critical to state its opposition to the Cathars who did not believe that Christ’s body was present in the Eucharistic bread, it was the first time that the Church used the term ‘transubstantiation’ in official teaching. It must be pointed out that the three theologians discussed here were by no means the only medieval Christian scholars to tackle the nature of the Eucharist. There were many others, including Peter Lombard and Thomas Aquinas, who devoted five questions to the subject in his Summa. The

12. Macy, The Banquet’s Wisdom, 74. 13. Miri Rubin, Corpus Christi: The Eucharist in Late Medieval Culture (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1991) 16-17. 14. Gary Macy, Treasures from the Storeroom: Medieval Religion and the Eucharist (Collegeville, MI: Liturgical Press, 1999) 22. For a valuable analysis of the Berengar controversy, also see Henry Chadwick, “Ego Berengarius,” Journal of Theological Studies 40 (1989) 414-445. 15. The Fourth Lateran Council, 1215, “On the Catholic Faith,” Decrees of the Ecumenical Councils, Vol. I, ed. Norman Tanner (London: Sheed and Ward, 1990) 230. The Relationship of Theology and Praxis 187 significance of such ongoing theological discussion at this point in Christian history is important on three counts. First, the manner in which Christ exists in the sacramental meal sits at the heart of Christian belief, and this belief needed to be articulated in the framework of medieval scholarship. It was not enough to continue to perform a ritual, regardless of how it was carried out at that point in the Church’s history, without a fuller exploration into its very meaning. If God was present in the bread and wine of the mass, merely accepting the fact by seeing the substances as they were presented was no longer sufficient for the Church, its practitioners at all levels of society, and Christian scholars. The time had come for the full meaning of the sacrament to be worked out and understood. For faith to deepen, the meaning of the act had to deepen as well. The second point stems from the first in that it speaks to the relationship between the Church and the religious scholars of the time. Given that the Church was the only universal institution of the West during the Middle Ages, it wielded much political and social influence in society regardless of the language spoken or the variety of customs and traditions carried out regionally. Yet it was not autocratic or authoritarian in its power in terms of independent scholarly comment. For example, Thomas enjoyed great latitude in writing his Summa. Despite the concise definition of transubstantiation presented by the Lateran Council of 1215, his questions on the nature of the Eucharist did not echo even the spirit of the Council or Berengar’s two oaths previously. Although he believed in the mystery of the Eucharist and miracles of his faith, Thomas did not accept the realism of Paschasius and other like-minded theologians.16 In question 75 of Part III of the Summa, Thomas maintained that, “He is present after the manner of a body, that is, as it is in its visible appearance, but not as it is spiritually, that is, invisibly, after the manner and by the virtue of the spirit.” In short, Thomas preferred a more spiritual, Augustinian approach to grasping the meaning of the essence of the Eucharist. Like Thomas, Bonaventure also attributed a non-sensualistic explanation of the nature of the Eucharist.17 In fact, he openly characterized the writing of the Roman Synod against Berengar claiming that it was “excessively formulated” and relied too heavily on the importance of the physical senses in determining the substance of the bread and wine.18 The point is this: the development and evolution of Eucharistic thinking during the Middle Ages reflected a huge diversity and scope in thinking that went far beyond what the Church was capable of or directed.

16. Schillebeeckx, The Eucharist, 12. 17. Ibid., 15. 18. Ibid., 14. 188 Susan Gray

Third, the process of determining the meaning of transubstantiation, regardless of what was eventually decreed at Trent, had significant repercussions. The meaning of the Eucharist, by the High Middle Ages, had expanded to include God’s actual presence, the mystery of Christ’s sacrifice and God’s saving grace. To ‘communicate’ during the mass now meant that one actually participated in a miracle caused by God; consuming the body and blood of Christ was to experience true communion with God. Since Christ offered up his body and blood in sacrifice each time the priest conferred consecration, the Eucharist took on unlimited sacrificial meaning beyond its sacramental nature.19 This had the effect of placing it on a pedestal far above all other sacraments. The mysticism of its meaning, coupled with the increasing frequency of accounts of blood relics and Eucharistic apparitions and visions throughout Europe,20 signalled the fact that the communion took on a numinous significance that outshone the finite, predictable and cyclical life of the average Lay Christian. Thus, as the pre-eminent sacrament, the Eucharist evolved into an event of reverence which significantly affected the medieval liturgy, to which I now turn.

2. From Theological Insight to Practice

By the High Middle Ages, the theology of transubstantiation had reshaped Eucharistic practice in a variety of ways throughout Western Christendom, specifically for the Church hierarchy, the religious, and the laity. It also had a tremendous impact on the larger socio-historical context of Europe and the manner in which Christian society would enfold in the coming centuries. In sermon 272, Augustine explained that the Eucharist is more than bread and wine: it is “Unity, truth, piety, love. One bread; what is this one bread? The one body which we, being many, are.” Clearly for him, the supreme power of the Eucharist was more than an individual uniting with God upon consuming the host and the wine, but the uniting of all members of God’s church, acting upon a common belief in the nature of God. The Catholic Church of the Late Middle Ages realized the power of this notion

19. Jaroslav Pelikan, The Growth of Medieval Theology (600-1300) (Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press, 1978) 188. 20. For two valuable and detailed explanations of these accounts, see: Caroline Walker Bynum, “The Blood of Christ in the Later Middle Ages,” Church History 71 (2002) 685- 702, and chapter 8 “High Middle Ages: The Role of the Eucharist in Church and Society,” in David Power’s, The Eucharistic Mystery: Revitalizing the Tradition (New York: Crossroads, 1992). The Relationship of Theology and Praxis 189 of community and unity, particularly with respect to its role and position in Western society. As Rubin notes:21

In a complex world brought together through its language of religion, the eucharist was becoming a focus for claims to universality and efficacy which had to be made stronger, more uniform and applicable everywhere and at every time. [emphasis added]

Since the Church was the centre of medieval life at every level of society, it saw itself as the agent to ensure Christian unity in all aspects of Christian life. The Eucharist was a powerful symbol for that role, one which surpassed the limitations of disparate languages, local customs and traditions; indeed the mass itself was the most important social gathering in the late Middle Ages, at the centre of which was the Eucharistic ritual.22 Yet the reality of medieval society at that time included a variety of elements out of the Church’s control which could be detrimental to Christian unity. Life in medieval Europe included several languages, variations in customs, large scale conflict, endemic diseases and pestilence (e.g. The Plague) and, open dissent against Church practice and thought (e.g. the Cathars). Furthermore, although the Roman liturgy still contained the rites set in the fourth century, there was enormous diversity in how the mass was performed.23 Therefore, the Church viewed conformity of liturgical practice as vital to its continuation, role in society and unity. An example of one such practice was the Feast of Corpus Christi. Although by no means popular in the years following its institution in 1264, the first papally sanctioned church-wide feast grew in significance and stature over the next few centuries to become a “cultural and civic symbol.”24 Aside from Easter celebrations, Corpus Christi brought virtually all of Europe together at the same time for the same purpose ņ worship and festivity. As the event grew over time, the Church introduced mystery plays which served instructional, doctrinal and moral purposes for the laity. “As it continued to develop it was in continuity with the kind of Eucharistic piety that had already woven its way into society.”25 The evolution of the idea of transubstantiation also affected the function of the priest throughout the Church. His role became more sophisticated and grew significantly in stature. Thanks to Lombard’s Sentences, his emphasis on Christ’s sacrifice, and the interpretation of later theologians

21. Rubin, Corpus Christi,13. 22. John Bossy, “The Mass as a Social Institution 1200-1700,” Past & Present 100 (1983) 29. 23. Macy, The Banquet’s Wisdom, 92. 24. Power, The Eucharistic Mystery, 182-183. 25. Ibid., 203. 190 Susan Gray of his writing, the Eucharist was now seen as the remembrance of Christ’s sacrifice for all, and the commemoration of particular people as an additional sacrificial benefit.26 While commemoration of the living and the dead was not a new church practice, the practice became very popular toward the Late Middle Ages when specific masses would be said for past or present individuals, all for a fee. Indeed “huge sums were left in wills for masses” to be held repeatedly for certain people; eventually, the practice evolved (not surprisingly) into the only duty for many priests.27 This practice contributed greatly to the increase in private masses, or celebrating the mass without a congregation in response to the request of a donor.28 Again, all for a fee. With the deepened meaning of the Eucharist’s substance, the idea of who could handle the bread and wine, and how, also changed. “This special food, Christ’s very body, was a small and fragile object which needed protection from abuse and ridicule, from loss, breakage and decay”; therefore, in the early 1200s, diocesan legislation proposed very detailed and elaborate descriptions of the form, size, preparation and handling of the host.29 The vessels to contain and transport the host and wine became extraordinarily elaborate. Even crumbs of the host had to be protected which accounts for the introduction of the housling-cloth in the early 14th century, designed to be held under the chin of the receiver to prevent any remnants of the host from falling to the ground.30 Given the role of the priest as the only one who could actually consecrate the bread and wine, his role in this activity was reconceived. This led eventually to his separation from the laity, and a more heightened stature. Also, when the decree was issued that limited mass to once daily, the priest was then thought to communicate on behalf of the laity, whether or not they were present. Over time, he became increasingly more independent of the laity’s concerns and needs.31 With unity as the prime concern of the Church, direct guidance and control of priestly actions increased dramatically toward the end of the Middle Ages. Every priest would thus celebrate every mass in the same manner, speaking the same words, resulting in the focus shifting further away from the distinct needs of the laity regardless of where they resided. With daily mass said on their behalf, regular communion was no longer required for the average lay

26. Macy, The Banquet’s Wisdom, 115. 27. Ibid. 28. Erwin Iserloh, “Der Wert der Messe in der Diskussion der Theologen vom Mittelalter bis zum 16. Jahrhundert,” Zeitschrift für katholische Theologie 83 (1961) 44- 79. 29. Rubin, Corpus Christi, 38-39. 30. Ibid., 38. 31. Ibid. The Relationship of Theology and Praxis 191 believer which, sadly, led to the recommendation that the laity receive communion only three times per year and mandatory reception only at Easter.32 The celebrating of the Eucharist became a complex affair by the Late Middle Ages to the detriment of the lay believer throughout Europe. Based squarely on the medieval theologies that evolved, it is wholly ironic that the idea of the profound holiness of the Eucharist eventually caused its separation from those to whom it was originally intended. Aside from the realignment of priestly duties regarding his role in the Eucharist, other factors also contributed to the disengagement of the laity for direct participation in the Eucharist. One of the most significant was the banning of the laity from handling the chalice, which occurred throughout the twelfth century and was widely established by the thirteenth. From that point the doctrine of concomitance dictated that the lay could only receive the consecrated bread.33 Based on the fear that the lay believer might drop or spill the sacred contents, the ruling also stemmed from the rationale that since Christ’s body was present in the consecrated bread, it was the only part of the Eucharistic food that the laity needed to receive.34 Thus, although the clergy still received both the bread and wine, communion of one kind was reserved for everyone else. The practice of holding up the host at the moment of consecration then ensued. This allowed the laity to “see” God when they attended mass, since they could not commune with him in the Eucharistic celebration on a regular basis.35 This also deepened the illiterate lay person’s understanding of the Eucharistic since they did not understand the soft-spoken Latin language of the priest during the mass and more often than not were not close enough to the altar to hear him anyhow. However, even if the laity could only take communion three times per year, they were encouraged to participate in ‘spiritual communion’ at any time, during the mass or otherwise. By the late Middle Ages, the practice of spiritual manducation, or simply communion without eating the host, was well established. It began in many women’s religious orders where the presence of a priest was required to officiate the Eucharistic celebration but if no priest was available, the women still wished to commune with God in the same way. Many clergy were also concerned about giving the Eucharist to the sick and dying, in that they were afraid of dishonouring

32. Amy Nelson Burnett, “The Social History of Communion and the Reformation of the Eucharist,” Past & Present 211 (2011) 86. 33. White, Introduction to Christian Worship, 254. Also see Robert Cabié, The Church at Prayer. Vol. II: The Eucharist (Collegeville, MN: The Liturgical Press, 1986) 138-139. 34. Rubin, Corpus Christi, 70-71. 35. Ibid., 55. 192 Susan Gray

God should the host be vomited up by the recipient.36 Given the infrequency of communion for the laity, the practice of spiritual communion not surprisingly grew in popularity. Finally, another barrier to more active participation of the laity in communion was simply fear. For anyone to receive communion at this time, ritual purity was required. One had to be pure of heart and conviction, as well as free of sin. This meant, of course, that one had to make a full confession to a priest. Indeed the myriad of regulations contained in medieval penitentials did not encourage the average lay believer to approach the Eucharist let alone eagerly participate. Such rules included sexual abstinence (including masturbation), fasting, meditation on Christ’s sacrifice, and for women, they could not be menstruating.37 For some women, it was completely feasible that they could miss receiving the Easter host for a number of years if they had experienced their monthly period at the same time as the Easter celebration was held. It is no wonder then, that sacramental communion when the host was consumed, “was approached with fear and trembling.”38 What if a believer was wrong in thinking that he was sufficiently pure and prepared to eat the host? What if she was unsure of her understanding of ritual purity? It could, after all, result in the damnation of one’s soul. Toward the end of Middle Ages, Eucharistic communion with Christ had a very different meaning for the laity than it did in centuries past. As mediators, the clergy received regular communion of the bread and wine, while the laity were relegated to once per year in what was supposed to be a joyous moment between the individual believer and the Almighty God. One had to ask if that is what Christ had intended.

Conclusion

The Christian mass, as it was celebrated by the time of the Council of Trent, had changed significantly. With the evolution of the theology of transubstantiation, it moved from a pious ritual said for all, to a sophisticated ritual centred on the greatest of mysteries – God’s presence in our world and in us. While the many theological discussions about his essence in the Eucharist caused profound changes in thinking and ritual, from the time of Paschasius and Ratramnus to the Council of Trent in the

36. Charles Caspers, “Augenkommunion or Popular Mysticism?,” Bread of Heaven: Customs and Practices Surrounding Holy Communion. Essays in the History of Liturgy and Culture, ed. Charles Caspers (Tilburg: Kok Pharos, 1995) 87. 37. Burnett, “The Social History of Communion and the Reformation of the Eucharist,” 83-85. 38. Caspers, “Augenkommunion or Popular Mysticism?,” 89. The Relationship of Theology and Praxis 193 mid-sixteenth century, those changes did not diminish the experience and significance of communion for the laity even if they were negatively affected by them: they followed the Church, willingly received the sacrament when they could, and their faith continued regardless of the theological debates and disputed definitions surrounding the nature of the host and the wine. For the laity, the distinction between seeing and understanding diminished with the richer, deeper meaning of God’s presence in the Eucharist that had evolved by the end of the Middle Ages. However they were required to participate in communion, they adapted, for at the centre of their Christian life was “Christ’s body and the grace which offered [them] a place in the narrative of redemption.”39

Doctoral Candidate Susan GRAY Faculty of Theology Saint Paul University Ottawa Canada [email protected]

39. Rubin, Corpus Christi,82.