|
medieval-religion: Scholarly discussions of medieval religion and culture
While it is true that the reality of Christ's presence is not sense-perceptible and many of the bleeding host miracles were declared frauds by those who investigated, I think one more layer of subtlety needs to be introduced here if we are to understand one aspect (not all aspects) of the bleeding host claims. Some of the bleeding hosts that have survived to this day have been tested for their sense-perceptible characteristics and it is claimed that in one case, at least, the molecular structure is that of human flesh, specifically heart tissue.
Theologically, while the nature of the bodily presence of CHrist is not sense-perceptible, for the sake of those of weak faith, as an exception that proves the rule, a miracle in which the non-sense-perceptible becomes sense-perceptible. Miracles (as I noted in a post about Boniface Ferrer's tract on miracles) are granted to strengthen the faith of their recipients. Of course, one must test carefully the claimed miracle by empirical observation to make sure it is not an illusion. Medieval folk were not able to run sophisticated tissue tests. The obvious fact that bleeding host claims were used for fraud both monetarily and politically was motivation enough to invoke the theological principle that the non-sense-perceptible real presence made the bleeding hosts extraordinary instances of what was already a miracle (substance without accompanying accidents). Under those circumstances, Aquinas and Nicholas of Cusa etc. were excercising commendable prudence in judging these claims false.
But did Aquinas absolutely rule out the possibility of a miracle in which the normally non-sense-perceptible becomes sense-perceptible? I would think that he would not have gone that far. Prudence might very well compel him to cast as much cold water as he could on the likelihood of the extra miracle, but did he rule it out absolutely?
For scholars of popular religion, it seems to me, the issue would be both the inherent risk involved in these claims and the prudent efforts by authorities to put the kabosh on them but also the entire question of the reasons people believed. Just as remarkable as the fact that some (and increasingly more) people in the later Middle Ages seemed to require this "extra" miracle in order to believe is the fact that for centuries most did not require it. Paying attention to both ends of the dynamic might actually get us a bit closer to understanding both the adherents of the bleeding host cults and those who developed strong Eucharistic devotion without this external aid.
Dennis Martin
>>> [log in to unmask] 9/16/2005 8:33 AM >>>
medieval-religion: Scholarly discussions of medieval religion and culture
Dear Kevin,
Most twelfth century theologians and all theologians in the
thirteenth century (at least after about 1230) would emphatically
deny that a consecrated host could bleed the real blood of Christ.
Aquinas, among others, is pretty snide about miracle hosts in general
(see Summa theologiae, Part III, Q. 76 art. 8). Transubstantiation
(in any of its different articulations) does not allow for any sensed
experience of the body and blood of Christ in the Eucharist.
Actually, that's the point of transubstantiation; it is an attempt to
explain a real presence that is not available to the senses. I wrote
a long (and boring) explanation of transubstantiation and its several
forms in "The Dogma of Transubstantiation in the Middle Ages,"
Journal of Ecclesiastical History, vol. 45 (1994), 11-41. It's
probably dated by now, but it does summarize the opinions of the
theologians and canonists on the subject and so might be helpful to
you. I gave a paper this summer on the opinion of theologians about
miracle hosts and would be happy to send you a copy if you interested.
On Sep 16, 2005, at 8:37 AM, Eliana Corbari wrote:
> medieval-religion: Scholarly discussions of medieval religion and
> culture
>
> Dear Kevin
> you may alrady know this classic:
> Corpus Christi :the Eucharist in late medieval culture by Miri Rubin.
> Cambridge : Cambridge University Press, 1991
>
> sincerely
>
> ---------------
> eli corbari
> [log in to unmask]
>
>
>
> mimesis. Are there any books which can point me out to the doctrine
>
>> of > Real Presence and its sustained developments over the course of
>>
> the
>
>>> Middle Ages?
>>>
>>
>> Thank you very much.
>>
>> Sincerely,
>> Kevin Teo
>>
>>
>
> **********************************************************************
> To join the list, send the message: join medieval-religion YOUR NAME
> to: [log in to unmask]
> To send a message to the list, address it to:
> [log in to unmask]
> To leave the list, send the message: leave medieval-religion
> to: [log in to unmask]
> In order to report problems or to contact the list's owners, write to:
> [log in to unmask]
> For further information, visit our web site:
> http://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/lists/medieval-religion.html
>
**********************************************************************
To join the list, send the message: join medieval-religion YOUR NAME
to: [log in to unmask]
To send a message to the list, address it to:
[log in to unmask]
To leave the list, send the message: leave medieval-religion
to: [log in to unmask]
In order to report problems or to contact the list's owners, write to:
[log in to unmask]
For further information, visit our web site:
http://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/lists/medieval-religion.html
**********************************************************************
To join the list, send the message: join medieval-religion YOUR NAME
to: [log in to unmask]
To send a message to the list, address it to:
[log in to unmask]
To leave the list, send the message: leave medieval-religion
to: [log in to unmask]
In order to report problems or to contact the list's owners, write to:
[log in to unmask]
For further information, visit our web site:
http://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/lists/medieval-religion.html
|
