On Apr 25, 2005, at 12:40 PM, Dennis Martin wrote:
. . . since theologians after about 1225 were
very suspicious of miracle hosts and even when they did accept the
possibility, they insisted that any flesh and blood produced by a
miracle could not be the flesh and blood of Christ.
Transubstantiation
in fact makes this impossible since substance, not accidents (sense
data roughly) are what change here. Thomas Aquinas has a good
discussion of all this.
****
It could not be the _transubstantiated_ body of Christ, because by
defintion that sacramental presence is not sense-perceptible and
non-local. Agreed. But would not these same theologians have agree
that Christ did appear after his resurrection in a sense-perceptible,
local manner and is present in heaven in that manner. Would not the
question then be how something not normally associated with the
miracle of transubstantiation could be taking place, not that such a
mode of Christ's corporeal presence (sense-perceptible, local) is
simply impossible? In other words, whether or how a miracle added
upon the sacrament-as-miracle could or should be taken as true?
****
The theologians who discuss miracle hosts would argue that
this may be flesh and blood, but cannot be Christ's flesh and blood
since that can only be in one "locus". Theoretically, Christ could
change locus, so he could appear to someone by leaving heaven, but
that would be quite different from the continuing presence of flesh
and blood in a miracle host.
Secondly, theologians including Thomas Aquinas
would have held that a belief in the actual physical (that is sensed)
presence of the body and blood of Christ would be a heresy
(Capharnaism).
****
Would this not apply only to claims of a sensed, local presence _in
the sacrament of the Eucharist_? Otherwise the post-resurrection
appearances would be Capharnaism? Or were they distinguishing between
post-resurrection and pre-ascension appearances (local,
sense-perceptibel) on the one hand and post-ascension appearances in
visions etc. (all non-sense-perceptible, non-local)? Or does the
non-local, non-sense-perceptible qualification apply only to the
claims made about the substantial presence in the Eucharist, not to
other apparitions or miraculous phenomena?
****
Capharnaism is the heresy that believes Christ is present in
the Eucharist in a sensed fashion. As far as I know, this heresy
applies only to the Eucharist since only in the Eucharist does Christ
appear in a non-spatial, non-perceptible manner.
So, for many theologians in the thirteenth and
fourteenth century . . . any suggestion that the sensed, physical body
and blood of Christ is present in a miracle would be suspect at best
and heresy at worst. The presence they would accept and describe by
the term "transubstantiation" would be a substantial presence which
could be accessed only by the mind since that is how one accesses
substances.
****
"only by the mind" =/ non-sense-perceptible--Aquinas himself says "by
faith"--is faith a matter only of mind? Certainly in involves will,
heart, person, one's being as a whole. Excluding sense-perception
does not reduce everything to mind, does it? Are substances
accessible only by the mind? Normally the substance and
sense-perceptible are the same so we access the substance of a thing
by both mind and senses; in this case of the Eucharist, substance is
not the same as the appearance, so the normal mode of mind-perception
(via senses) fails, but does that mean that all that is left is
mind-access? Aren't you getting a bit Kantian or Zwinglian here? Or
are you using "mind" in a premodern sense, in the sense of _mens_?
Using the word "mind" without explanation runs as much danger of
misstating things in a Zwinglian or perhaps Berengarian manner as
using "physical" runs the risk of misstating things in a Capharnaistic
manner. The technical language does use _corporeal_ alongside
substantial, but immediately qualifies it as a unique non-local and
non-sense-perceptible corporality.
I didn't want to complicate matters too much in my original
missive, but I agree with you that the medieval understanding of mind
cannot be equated with our understanding of mind. In general,
however, substances for them were accessible only through the mind.
That form of access did not rule out faith, however. Here the much
more important issue of the whole point of the Eucharist (the res in
medieval terms) comes to the fore. The point of the Eucharist was,
for them, not the real presence which in itself cannot save anyone.
The point of the ritual was to aid or empower a person to live a life
of faith and active love. Without that (the res), the whole ritual is
pointless, as one theologian after another insisted. As Hugh of St.
Victor (probably the most influential theologian on this issue) put it
-- when Jesus was alive many people met him, but not all accepted him
and were saved. So too in the sacrament. Jesus might be present, but
the presence alone won't save you. So I guess I would say that
active faith and love were more important than the real presence, and
so more important than what one could access "substantialiter." The
majority of theologians did not even think that communion was
necessary if one lived an active life of faith and love, hence the
role of spiritual communion.
An excessively "idealist" glossing of transubstantiation, out
of fear of Capharnaism is a real danger in a modern world for which
"mind" and "faith" mean something quite different than for Thomas
Aquinas and the technical theologians of his day.
I also think it important to recall that the basic principles of the
technical theology were set forth in the Corpus Christi sequences and
hymns for the Office. The language there is careful to avoid local,
sense-perceptible presence, but also underscores real reality,
substantiality. How this all played out in the minds and hearts of
those who learned enough Latin to understand those hymns poses a real
challenge for modern scholars but I don't think that the technical
transubstantiation theology was entirely inaccessible to people other
than expert theologians. It surely was frequently misunderstood and
the bleeding host miracles in many, probably most, instances represent
such misunderstandings and indeed, Capharnaism. But I would not
assume that every single instance of apparitions or visions or
apparently tangible appearances of Christ associated with the
Eucharist necessarily have to have been Capharnaitic. The theologians
properly were concerned about this danger, but in a situation where
the doctrine of substantial, corporeal, yet non-sense perceptible
presence was under attack as being merely in the mind or merely
symbolic, it would not be surprising that reports of unusual phenomena
of this sort would occur, nor do I think that the theology of the
Eucharist rules them out. It does urge very great caution, extreme
skepticism, but not a priori impossibility of a visionary experience
of Christ associated with but not identical with the non-visible,
non-local substantial sacramental presence.
I am not sure that the doctrine was under attack by anyone who thought
the presence was merely in the mind. That challenge would come later
in the sixteenth century. The Cathars attacked the idea that anything
physical could be of spiritual value which is not quite the same
thing. Berengar's challenge, I would argue, had a much more limited
impact and again does not quite argue that the presence is "merely"
symbolic. Certainly theologians did accept that miracle hosts could
occur to strengthen belief in the real presence, but whatever
continued to exist in the form of flesh and blood could not be
Christ's flesh and blood.
That distinction, of course, would have been lost on nearly
everyone--it seems to be lost on most scholars addressing the issue
today--the reports get reduced in one direction or another when
handled by modern scholars. But if we are going to address the matter
by introducing theological fine-points, why not fine-tune it just a
bit more?
I really appreciate your fine tuning. It is so very difficult to
capture the medieval thinking on this issue without conjuring up the
entire modern problem of mind and body as well as the Reformation
debates on faith. The medieval theologians, just to complicate life
for us I am sure, also did not agree as to how transubstantiation
worked. I tried to spell out some of the differences in my article,
"The Dogma of Transubstantiation in the Middle Ages," (Journal of
Ecclesiastical History, vol. 45 (1994): 11-41). Thomas, for example,
uses "substantialiter" interchangeably with "spiritualiter" and
"intellectualiter" in his discussion of the Eucharist. To say however
that he understood the substantial presence as "spiritual" or
"intellectual" in the modern sense would be very misleading and
inaccurate. Finding the right modern terminology to express this
(that is without reverting to Latin and Aristotle) is a real
challenge. It gets even tougher with Scotus and Ockham who have a
very sophisticated rejection of Thomas' understanding of
transubstantiation while at the same time accepting both the real
presence and transubstantiation.
Again, thanks so much for your clarifications.Times New Roman
Dennis Martin
****
**********************************************************************
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
Gary Macy, Ph.D.
Professor
Department of Theology and Religious Studies
Associate Director of the Center for the Study of Latino/a Catholicism
University of San Diego
5998 Alcalá Park
San Diego, CA 92110
619-260-4053
