Transubstantiation: Sign and Reality in Ecumenical Dialogue
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
Transubstantiation: Sign and Reality in Ecumenical Dialogue by Brett David Salkeld A Thesis submitted to the Faculty of Regis College and the Theology Department of the Toronto School of Theology In partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in Theology awarded by the University of St. Michael's College © Copyright by Brett David Salkeld 2013 Transubstantiation: Sign and Reality in Ecumenical Dialogue Brett David Salkeld Doctor of Philosophy in Theology Regis College 2013 Abstract The first generation of dialogue following the Catholic Church’s entry into the ecumenical movement tended to downplay transubstantiation, preferring to speak of Christ’s real presence in less loaded terms. This decision, however understandable in its context, has been partly responsible for the impasse reached on this question after such promising and unexpected achievements in the early years. An investigation of the responses to ecumenical milestones like the Anglican-Roman Catholic International Commission (ARCIC) and Baptism, Eucharist, Ministry (BEM), demonstrates that transubstantiation required a more forthright treatment. The doctrine is such an important identity marker and has such a hold on the popular imagination – of both those who affirm and those who reject it – that it needs to be addressed in a straightforward and unambiguous manner if the Christian people are to recognize their faith in the agreed statements of ecumenical commissions. In response to both ARCIC and BEM, Protestants were concerned that transubstantiation had been allowed in through the back door, while Catholics were equally concerned that it had been quietly scuttled. With this in mind, I investigate the history and development of transubstantiation and its classic exposition in the work of Thomas Aquinas, highlighting that it emerged as a solution to a ii Eucharistic controversy not unlike the one that currently divides Catholics and Protestants. I also trace the development of the concept after Thomas, showing that what it had come to mean for nominalist theologians on the eve of the Reformation was far removed from both the doctrine’s original intent and Thomas’s careful articulation of it. I then show that, though the Reformers of the 16th century unanimously rejected the term “transubstantiation,” both Martin Luther and John Calvin, in their attempts to maintain the Church’s traditional faith in real presence, end up unwittingly reproducing many of its most salient features. iii Acknowledgments This dissertation is dedicated to the memory of Margaret O’Gara, beloved Doktormutter, under whose careful mentorship it was conceived, planned and begun, and through whose intercession it was brought to completion. Requiescat in pace. iv Table of Contents Chapter 1: Introduction ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1 Rejection of Transubstantiation ----------------------------------------------------------------------- 4 Agreement on Transubstantiation? ------------------------------------------------------------------ 12 The Marginalization of Transubstantiation -------------------------------------------------------- 25 Confusion about Transubstantiation ---------------------------------------------------------------- 41 The Corruption of Transubstantiation -------------------------------------------------------------- 48 Chapter 2: Transubstantiation ------------------------------------------------------------------------- 77 Origins of Transubstantiation ------------------------------------------------------------------------ 77 Transubstantiation and Real Presence -------------------------------------------------------------- 99 Transubstantiation and Aristotle ------------------------------------------------------------------ 105 Transubstantiation in the Summa Theologiae --------------------------------------------------- 115 “Quid Sumit Mus?” And Transignification: Two Test Cases for Understanding-------- 180 Chapter 3: Martin Luther ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 187 Real Presence without Transubstantiation ------------------------------------------------------- 190 Luther and the Swiss --------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 202 Replacing Transubstantiation ---------------------------------------------------------------------- 215 Signs, Signification, and the Persistence of Bread and Wine --------------------------------- 230 The Incarnational Pattern and the Persistence of the Bread and Wine -------------------- 242 Chapter 4: John Calvin -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 252 Sign and Reality --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 260 Res Tantum in Calvin --------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 273 Zwinglian or Thomist? ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 276 Ascension and Real Presence ----------------------------------------------------------------------- 285 The Holy Spirit ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 299 An Obstacle and a Way Forward ------------------------------------------------------------------ 307 Conclusion ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 321 Bibliography ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 328 v Chapter 1 Introduction At the very outset of the Reformation, in what was to become one of its foundational documents, Martin Luther decried what he termed the threefold Roman captivity of the Eucharist.1 And while the Reformers would themselves divide on questions of Eucharistic doctrine – with Luther himself announcing at one point that, “Sooner than have mere wine with the fanatics, I would agree with the pope that there is only blood”2 – the Reformers were unanimous in their rejection of withholding the cup from the laity, transubstantiation, and Eucharistic sacrifice. Though the former practice has been largely abandoned in the Roman Catholic Church, the last two concerns of the Reformers remain divisive to this day. Despite the fact that progress towards understanding the Eucharist, especially the question of Christ’s presence, has been one of the great successes of the ecumenical movement, Walter Cardinal Kasper, President Emeritus of the Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity, has recently highlighted the need for further work on the questions of presence and sacrifice.3 He asks, in particular, “Can consensus be found about the meaning of the term transubstantiation repudiated by all the Reformers, or does the rejection of this term demonstrate that a deeper difference still remains in the understanding of the real presence of the Lord?”4 And he suggests that “more 1 LW 36, 27-57. (The Babylonian Captivity of the Church, 1520) 2 LW 37, 317. (Confession Concerning Christ’s Supper, 1528) By “fanatics,” Luther was indicating the Swiss Reformers at Zurich under the leadership of Ulrich Zwingli. 3 Walter Kasper, Harvesting the Fruits: Basic Aspects of Christian Faith in Ecumenical Dialogue (London: Continuum, 2009), 205–206. 4 Ibid., 192, see also 205–206. 1 2 clarification is required as to how, and in what sense, the Eucharist is the memorial representation of the one and unique sacrifice of Christ on the cross, through the Church’s Eucharistic celebration understood as sacrifice.”5 This dissertation is concerned with the first of these two issues, namely transubstantiation. In it, I will assert that wide-ranging confusion about the precise meaning and intention of the doctrine, often inexorably tied up with questions of ecclesial identity, has obscured the fact that, understood in its proper historical and theological context, transubstantiation need not be a stumbling block on the path to Christian unity.6 In fact, I will argue, transubstantiation is in harmony with and supportive of basic Christian convictions held by Catholics and Protestants together. As Cardinal Kasper notes, transubstantiation was uniformly rejected at the time of the Reformation. Nevertheless, two names stand out above all others in this regard. Martin Luther and John Calvin both rejected transubstantiation (Calvin the more vehemently), and both developed their own articulations of Christ’s Eucharistic presence in the wake of that rejection. It is generally recognized that these two articulations are the major competitors with transubstantiation in Western Christianity’s attempt to understand Christ’s presence in the Eucharist.7 In order to demonstrate my claims about 5 Ibid., 205–205. 6 Margaret O’Gara, “Toward the Day When We Will Keep the Feast Together,” Pro Ecclesia 19, no. 3 (Summer 2010): 265: "If its intention, its apologetic purpose, and its cultural context could be recovered, transubstantiation might be heard more sympathetically by those outside the Roman Catholic tradition.” 7 Virtually every book on the history of Eucharistic doctrine has chapters on Thomas, Luther and Calvin, and many articles are written precisely to compare and contrast their three articulations. See, e.g., Benedict XVI, “The Problem of Transubstantiation and the Question About the Meaning of the Eucharist,” in Collected Works of Joseph Ratzinger, trans. Father Kenneth Baker, S.J. and Michael J. Miller, vol. 11 (San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 2012);