QL 95 (2014) 183-193 doi: 10.2143/QL.95.3.3075943 © 2014, all rights reserved 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.