3/17/23
Scholarly Reflections
Mazza, Enrico. "Chapter Twelve: The Scholastic High Middle Ages." The Celebration of the Eucharist: The Origin of the Rite and the Development of Its Interpretation. Collegeville, MN: The Liturgical Press/Pueblo, 1999, 199-224.
As Mazza moves to the High Middle Ages he immediately discusses Thomas Aquinas, who sought a coherent view of the eucharist through the lens of Aristotelian philosophy (Mazza 1999, 199). The eucharist comes to be understood in terms of a metaphysical reality. In the 12th century Mazza finds an important conceptual shift in eucharistic understanding. "[A]ll medieval theologians took as the scriptural basis of their discussion of the Eucharist, not the sentence; 'Do this in memory of me,' but the words 'This is my body' and 'this is my blood' (Mazza 1999, 200). The key text also shifted from John 6:53 to 1 Corinthians 11:28-29. Mazza notes that over time Thomas' use of Scripture and of patristic sources developed in its abundance and intricacy (Mazza 1999, 201).
Mazza observes that Matthew 28:20 was early and often taken as evidence for Christ's physical presence in the eucharist (Mazza 1999, 202). Thomas, in contrast, considered the presence of Christ in communion to be illocal in nature, thus he rejected an actual bodily presence of Christ. While Christ is present in communion, Thomas would reject the bodily presence, at least in any way that could be perceived physically (Mazza 1999, 203-204). This is a significant departure from Paschasius.
At the root of Thomas' evaluation is a sharp distinction between substance and accidents. If this were not the case, we would conclude that when bread or wine become body or blood, the physical, perceptible product would have to change as well (Mazza 1999, 204). The accidents of bread and wine do not change, though the substance does. Because Aristotelian philosophy required the substance and accidents to remain consistent with each other, Thomas was forced to propose that the substance of Christ's body and blood in the eucharist were not bound to an accidental object, therefore the substance could change without changing the physical, oliteral bread and wine (Mazza 1999, 205). To deal with a third problem, that of Chrsit being present anywhere in the eucharist and not being consumed until gone, the problem of quantity, Thomas has no answer except that God's power can accomplish this (Mazza 1999, 206).
Though we could think Thomas was denying the body of Christ in the eucharist, in fact, Thomas affirmed the true body and blood of Christ were present in the eucharist (Mazza 1999, 207). More important to Thomas than the liturgy or the practice of celebrating the eucharist is what it signifies, and whether it actually accomplishes what it shows as a cause (Mazza 1999, 208). Analysis of these issues leads Thomas to move from a concept of ex opere operato to seeing the eucharist as something caused by the work of the officiant whose virtue is transferred to the elements and empowers them to accomplish something (Mazza 1999, 209-210). He understands this as occurring at the Words of Institution, not during the eucharistic prayer, thus making the prayer optional (Mazza 1999, 210).
Thomas sees symbolism and representation present throughout the eucharist (Mazza 1999, 211). He maintains that the true sacrifice took place in Christ's death. This is the locus of the sacrament, which serves to represent the actual event. He further classifies nine points at which the priest's making the sign of the cross indicates the passion of Christ (Mazza 1999, 212). Mazza details these in brief, indicating the symbolic significance Thomas sees in them.
In the end, Mazza observes Thomas is unable to reach a definitive proof of whether the body of Christ is present in veritate or only in figura (Mazza 1999, 214). He is not able to tell in what way the Chrsitian is a partaker of Christ and His passion.
Bonaventure, Thomas' contemporary, while holding to a concept of transubstantiation, would speak of a change of substance (Mazza 1999, 215). He held to the interpretation of Matthew 28:20 as significant of a bodily presence of Christ. The bread and wine thus became a cover for the body and blood of Christ, also providing numerous physical symbols, such as nourishment and hospitality (Mazza 1999, 216). Bonaventure confesses the corpus verum - the true body of Christ present in the eucharist (Mazza 1999, 217). Yet, at times, Bonaventure will suggest a third elvel of reality, neither a symbol nor the item itself. This develops into a tendency to admit both a symbol and reality at the same time, a philosophical and logical difficulty. In some way, Bonaventure says, the sacrament involves causality, but it is not altogether clear how this works (Mazza 1999, 220).
Mazza illustrates the difficulties of these inquiries by surveying the question, quid mus sumit? (Mazza 1999, 220-222). If a mouse were to eat the consecrated bread, would it be bread, the body of Christ, or possibly both? While most of the high medieval theologians would affirm the consecrated bread remained the body of Christ, some would propose that it changed back to mere bread. The question was important not because of rodents but because of the issue of whether heretics received the true body of Christ (Mazza 1999, 222). In general, the opinion grew that the consecrated bread was for sacramental use and that it would not bear its sacramental power when misused.
Mazza notes in conclusion that the different approaches to the theology of the eucharist could be rooted in different conceptions of salvation. Exploration of the theology is thus important.
Scholarly Reflections
Mazza, Enrico. "Chapter Twelve: The Scholastic High Middle Ages." The Celebration of the Eucharist: The Origin of the Rite and the Development of Its Interpretation. Collegeville, MN: The Liturgical Press/Pueblo, 1999, 199-224.
As Mazza moves to the High Middle Ages he immediately discusses Thomas Aquinas, who sought a coherent view of the eucharist through the lens of Aristotelian philosophy (Mazza 1999, 199). The eucharist comes to be understood in terms of a metaphysical reality. In the 12th century Mazza finds an important conceptual shift in eucharistic understanding. "[A]ll medieval theologians took as the scriptural basis of their discussion of the Eucharist, not the sentence; 'Do this in memory of me,' but the words 'This is my body' and 'this is my blood' (Mazza 1999, 200). The key text also shifted from John 6:53 to 1 Corinthians 11:28-29. Mazza notes that over time Thomas' use of Scripture and of patristic sources developed in its abundance and intricacy (Mazza 1999, 201).
Mazza observes that Matthew 28:20 was early and often taken as evidence for Christ's physical presence in the eucharist (Mazza 1999, 202). Thomas, in contrast, considered the presence of Christ in communion to be illocal in nature, thus he rejected an actual bodily presence of Christ. While Christ is present in communion, Thomas would reject the bodily presence, at least in any way that could be perceived physically (Mazza 1999, 203-204). This is a significant departure from Paschasius.
At the root of Thomas' evaluation is a sharp distinction between substance and accidents. If this were not the case, we would conclude that when bread or wine become body or blood, the physical, perceptible product would have to change as well (Mazza 1999, 204). The accidents of bread and wine do not change, though the substance does. Because Aristotelian philosophy required the substance and accidents to remain consistent with each other, Thomas was forced to propose that the substance of Christ's body and blood in the eucharist were not bound to an accidental object, therefore the substance could change without changing the physical, oliteral bread and wine (Mazza 1999, 205). To deal with a third problem, that of Chrsit being present anywhere in the eucharist and not being consumed until gone, the problem of quantity, Thomas has no answer except that God's power can accomplish this (Mazza 1999, 206).
Though we could think Thomas was denying the body of Christ in the eucharist, in fact, Thomas affirmed the true body and blood of Christ were present in the eucharist (Mazza 1999, 207). More important to Thomas than the liturgy or the practice of celebrating the eucharist is what it signifies, and whether it actually accomplishes what it shows as a cause (Mazza 1999, 208). Analysis of these issues leads Thomas to move from a concept of ex opere operato to seeing the eucharist as something caused by the work of the officiant whose virtue is transferred to the elements and empowers them to accomplish something (Mazza 1999, 209-210). He understands this as occurring at the Words of Institution, not during the eucharistic prayer, thus making the prayer optional (Mazza 1999, 210).
Thomas sees symbolism and representation present throughout the eucharist (Mazza 1999, 211). He maintains that the true sacrifice took place in Christ's death. This is the locus of the sacrament, which serves to represent the actual event. He further classifies nine points at which the priest's making the sign of the cross indicates the passion of Christ (Mazza 1999, 212). Mazza details these in brief, indicating the symbolic significance Thomas sees in them.
In the end, Mazza observes Thomas is unable to reach a definitive proof of whether the body of Christ is present in veritate or only in figura (Mazza 1999, 214). He is not able to tell in what way the Chrsitian is a partaker of Christ and His passion.
Bonaventure, Thomas' contemporary, while holding to a concept of transubstantiation, would speak of a change of substance (Mazza 1999, 215). He held to the interpretation of Matthew 28:20 as significant of a bodily presence of Christ. The bread and wine thus became a cover for the body and blood of Christ, also providing numerous physical symbols, such as nourishment and hospitality (Mazza 1999, 216). Bonaventure confesses the corpus verum - the true body of Christ present in the eucharist (Mazza 1999, 217). Yet, at times, Bonaventure will suggest a third elvel of reality, neither a symbol nor the item itself. This develops into a tendency to admit both a symbol and reality at the same time, a philosophical and logical difficulty. In some way, Bonaventure says, the sacrament involves causality, but it is not altogether clear how this works (Mazza 1999, 220).
Mazza illustrates the difficulties of these inquiries by surveying the question, quid mus sumit? (Mazza 1999, 220-222). If a mouse were to eat the consecrated bread, would it be bread, the body of Christ, or possibly both? While most of the high medieval theologians would affirm the consecrated bread remained the body of Christ, some would propose that it changed back to mere bread. The question was important not because of rodents but because of the issue of whether heretics received the true body of Christ (Mazza 1999, 222). In general, the opinion grew that the consecrated bread was for sacramental use and that it would not bear its sacramental power when misused.
Mazza notes in conclusion that the different approaches to the theology of the eucharist could be rooted in different conceptions of salvation. Exploration of the theology is thus important.
RSS Feed