¹ “The Dogma of Transubstantiation in the Middle Ages,” Journal of Ecclesiastical History 44 (1994): 11–41. See also Macy, The Theologies of the Eucharist in the Early Scholastic Period (Oxford, 1984). Other important works on the subject include: David Burr, Eucharistic Presence and Conversion in Late Thirteenth-Century Franciscan Thought, Transactions of the American Philosophical Society, 74 (Philadelphia, 1984); Pierre-Marie Gy, “La doctrine eucharistique dans la liturgie du haut moyen âge,” Settimane di studio del Centro italiano di studi sull'alto medioevo (11–17 Aprile 1985), 33 (Spoleto, 1987), 533–57; Joseph Goering, “The Invention of Transubstantiation,” Traditio 46 (1991): 147–70. Until Goering's work appeared, it was commonly believed that the term was introduced to scholastic theology by Roland Bandinelli (Pope Alexander III, who died in 1181). Goering argues tentatively for the “invention” of the word by the Parisian master Robert Pullen (ca. 1140).Google Scholar

² Die Entfaltung der Transsubstantiationslehre bis zum Beginn der Hochscholastik, Münster Beiträge zur Theologie, 28.1 (Münster, 1965).Google Scholar

³ “The Doctrine of Transubstantiation from Berengar Through the Council of Trent,” Harvard Theological Review 61 (1968): 385–430.Google Scholar

⁴ Pelikan, Jaroslav, The Growth of Medieval Theology (600–1300), vol. 3, The Christian Tradition: A History of the Development of Doctrine (Chicago, 1978), 268. The text of the decree of Lateran IV simply refers to transubstantiation of the bread and wine — “transsubstantiatis pane in corpus et uino in sanguinem potestate diuina” — without providing an explicit or precise definition of the term. The complete text can be found in Antonio García y García, ed., Constitutiones Concilii quarti Lateranensis una cum Commentariis Glossatorum, Monumenta Iuris Canonici, series A, vol. 2 (Vatican City, 1981), 42.Google Scholar

⁵ Macy, “The Dogma of Transubstantiation,” 13. The first option would have the substance of bread and wine remain present along with the substance of the body and blood of Christ; in the second, the substance of bread and wine would be “annihilated,” with only the substance of the body and blood of Christ remaining; in the third, the substance of bread and wine would undergo “transmutation” into the body and blood of Christ at the words of consecration. Cf. McCue, “Doctrine of Transubstantiation,” 390.Google Scholar

⁶ Ibid., 40. Thomas Aquinas was the first thirteenth-century writer to declare particular definitions of transubstantiation heretical. In his commentary on Lombard's Sentences (ca. 1252–56), he labels “coexistence” both impossible and heretical. In the third part of the Summa Theologiae (ca. 1272–73), he rejects both “coexistence” and “substitution.” For Aquinas's eucharistic theology, see Burr, Eucharistic Presence and Conversion, 10–15. Despite Aquinas's claims to the contrary, the well-known dictum of the Parisian master, Peter of Capua (ca. 1201–1202), still held true at the end of the thirteenth century: “Nec est articulus fidei quod sic vel sic fiat illa conversio, sed tantummodo credere quod corpus Christi ad prolationem illorum verborum sit in altari.” Latin text in Jorissen, Die Entfaltung der Transsubstantiationslehre, 24.Google Scholar

⁷ Pelikan, The Growth of Medieval Theology, 3:204.Google Scholar

⁸ Idem, Reformation of Church and Dogma (1300–1700), vol. 4, The Christian Tradition: A History of the Development of Doctrine (Chicago, 1984), 56.Google Scholar

⁹ Macy, “The Dogma of Transubstantiation,” 26 n. 51.Google Scholar

¹⁰ De sacro altaris mysterio, PL 217:775–916. For a critical edition of portions of the text, see David Wright, F., “A Medieval Commentary on the Mass: Particulae 2–3 and 5–6 of the De missarum mysteriis (ca. 1195) of Cardinal Lothario of Segni (Pope Innocent III)” (Ph.D. diss., University of Notre Dame, 1977). According to Wright (53–55), the treatise was misnamed in the PL edition; it is called De missarum mysteriis in the vast majority of medieval MSS, while De sacro altaris mysterio never once appears in any of the extant MSS of the work (including fragments).Google Scholar

¹¹ Pelikan, Growth of Medieval Theology, 3:184–204.Google Scholar

¹² There is one marginal reference to Innocent's commentary in Pelikan, Reformation of Church and Dogma, 4:56.Google Scholar

¹³ Although there is no incontrovertible documentary evidence that Innocent actually wrote the decree, two leading scholars are convinced that he did. Antonio García y García (Constitutiones Concilii quarti Lateranensis, 6–8), states that the wording of the text leads him to believe that it was, in fact, written by the pope. Michele Maccarone is even more emphatic, insisting that Innocent drafted the decree: “La dottrina eucaristica formulata in queste professioni di fede manifesta una continuità di pensiero con il De missarum mysteriis, che trovò un coronamento, e la sua solenne sanzione, al concilio generale celebrato da Innocenzo III quasi al termine del suo pontificato (1215). La parte data a questa materia, come il modo di trattarla, confermano infatti che il papa fu il principale autore delle costituzioni conciliari.” Maccarone, M., “Innocenzo III teologo del'eucharistia,” in Studi su Innocenzo III, Italia Sacra, 17 (Padua, 1972), 391.Google Scholar

¹⁴ For Durand's life and works see: Victor Le Clerc, “Guillaume Duranti, Évêque de Mende, surnommé le Spéculateur,” Histoire Littéraire de la France, vol. 20 (Paris, 1895), 411–80; Michel Andrieu, Le Pontifical Romain au moyen-âge III: Le Pontifical de Guillaume Durand, Studi e Testi, 88 (Vatican City, 1940), 3–22; Louis Faletti, “Guillaume Durand,” DDC 5 (1953), 1014–75. The most up-to-date bibliography of Durand scholarship can be found in Pierre-Marie Gy, ed., Guillaume Durand Évêque de Mende (v. 1230–1296): Canoniste, liturgiste et homme politique (Paris, 1992).Google Scholar

¹⁵ There is an enormous amount of literature on medieval liturgical exposition. Among the most important works are: Adolf Franz, Die Messe im deutschen Mittelalter. Beiträge zur Geschichte der Liturgie und des religiösen Volkslebens (Freiburg, 1902; reprint Darmstadt, 1963); André Wilmart, “Expositio missae,” DACL 5.1:1014–27; Joseph Jungmann, A., The Mass of the Roman Rite. Its Origins and Development, trans. Francis Brunner, A., 2 vols. (New York, 1951–55; reprint Westminster, Md., 1986); A. Häussling, “Messe (Expositiones Missae),” Dictionnaire de Spiritualité 10 (1980):1083–90; Roger Reynolds, E., “Liturgy, Treatises on,” Dictionary of the Middle Ages (New York, 1986), 7:624–33; Cyrille Vogel, Medieval Liturgy. An Introduction to the Sources, trans. and rev. William Storey, G. and Rasmussen, Niels K. (Washington, D.C., 1986).Google Scholar

¹⁶ The term “Mass exposition” is really a misnomer since the majority of these texts treat a variety of subjects ranging from the Mass and Divine Office to church architecture, liturgical vessels, and vestments.Google Scholar

¹⁷ Notable exceptions are McCue, “Doctrine of Transubstantiation” (n. 3 above), and Miri Rubin, Corpus Christi. The Eucharist in Late Medieval Culture (New York, 1991).Google Scholar

¹⁸ Amalarii episcopi opera liturgica omnia, ed. Hanssens, I. M., Studi e Testi, 138–40 (Vatican City, 1948–50).Google Scholar

¹⁹ For a complete list of medieval liturgical expositors from the ninth to thirteenth century, see Vogel, Medieval Liturgy, 12–16.Google Scholar

²⁰ For a discussion of medieval allegorical liturgical exposition in both a broad and technical sense, see my “Enigmata Figurarum: Biblical Exegesis and Liturgical Exposition in Durand's Rationale,” Harvard Theological Review 86 (1993): 65–79.Google Scholar

²¹ The groundbreaking work on the manuscript tradition was done by Clarence Menard, C., “William Durand's Rationale divinorum officiorum. Preliminaries to a New Critical Edition” (Ph.D. diss., Gregorian University, Rome, 1967). Menard's work has been updated and superseded by Anselme Davril and myself, who along with other scholars, have discovered several more manuscripts of the work. See Anselme Davril, “Les états succesifs du texte du Rationale et la préparation de l’édition critique,” in Gy, Guillaume Durand (n. 14 above), 137–42. A critical edition of the entire Rationale (3 vols.) is being prepared by Davril and myself for CCM. The first volume, CCM 140 (Turnhout, 1995), contains books 1–4 of the Rationale. Google Scholar

²² See Michel Albaric, “Les Editions imprimées du Rationale divinorum officiorum de Guillaume Durand de Mende,” in Gy, Guillaume Durand, 183–200.Google Scholar

²³ Guéranger, Institutions liturgiques, 2 vols. (Paris, 1840), 1:355.Google Scholar

²⁴ For Durand's indebtedness to previous liturgical expositors, see my “William Durand: ‘Compilator Rationalist,’ ” Ecclesia Orans 9 (1992): 97–113, and idem, “Les Sources du Rationale de Guillaume Durand,” in Gy, Guillaume Durand, 143–53. Durand was not alone in his predilection for incorporating verbatim passages from previous liturgical expositions. Virtually every liturgist after Amalarius of Metz (d. 852/853) relied heavily on the texts and interpretations of their predecessors. See Reynolds, “Liturgy, Treatises on” (n. 15 above), 624–33.Google Scholar

²⁵ Rationale 8.14, ed. V. d’Avino and Doard, N. (Naples, 1859), 752: “Hoc enim tam ex diuersis aliorum libellis et commentariis, more mellificantis apis, quam ex hiis que mihi diuina gratia propinauit, fructuose collegi.” All translations of Latin texts are my own.Google Scholar

²⁶ Mitrale seu de ecclesiasticis officiis summa, PL 213:13–434.Google Scholar

²⁷ Summa de officiis ecclesiasticis. Unfortunately, there is no printed edition of this text. It is extant in at least thirteen MSS, one of which I have employed for this study: Douai, Bibliothèque municipale MS 65 (early fourteenth century). See Martineau, R. M., “La Summa de officiis ecclesiasticis de Guillaume d’Auxerre,” Études d'histoire littéraire et doctrinale du XIII ^e siècle, 2ième série (Paris, 1932), 25–58.Google Scholar

²⁸ In his Mass exposition, Durand also made ample use of John Beleth [d. 1182] Summa de ecclesiasticis officiis, CCM 41–41A, ed. Herbert Douteil (Turnhout, 1976), and Hugh of St. Cher [d. 1263] Tractatus super missam seu speculum ecclesiae, ed. Gilbertus Sölch (Aschendorff, 1940).Google Scholar

²⁹ Durand received his doctorate in canon law at the University of Bologna (ca. 1263) and went on to have an illustrious career as a legal scholar and author of a number of important treatises on law, most notably the Speculum iudiciale (ca. 1271–72). For Durand's career as a legal scholar, see Friedrich Carl von Savigny, Geschichte des römischen Rechts im Mittelalter (2nd ed, Heidelberg, 1850), 5:571–602; Johann Friedrich Ritter von Schulte, Die Geschichte der Quellen und Literatur des canonischen Rechts von Gratian bis auf die Gegenwart (Stuttgart, 1880), 2:144–56.Google Scholar

³⁰ For a detailed analysis of the eucharistic theology of Innocent III's De missarum mysteriis, see Maccarrone, “Innocenzo III teologo del'eucharistia” (n. 13 above).Google Scholar

³¹ Rationale 4.1.2, CCM 140:240: “Quia igitur misse officium ceteris diuinis officiis dignius et sollempnius est; ideo de illo, prius quam de aliis officiis, est in hac quarta parte dicendum, in qua, aliquibus additis et detractis, Speculum Innocentii pape III prosequemur.” By “Speculum” Durand, of course, means the De missarum mysteriis. Google Scholar

³² Wright, “A Medieval Commentary on the Mass” (n. 10 above), 85. By his calculation, roughly eighty-five percent of the text of the De missarum mysteriis found its way into the Rationale. Innocent's treatise was one of the most widely circulated Mass expositions of the later Middle Ages. Wright discovered 124 complete medieval MSS and roughly seventy fragments or abbreviated versions. Maccarone concludes that Innocent's commentary on the Mass became a resounding success precisely because of Durand's inclusion of it in the Rationale. Maccarone speaks, therefore, of “l'elevazione a classico della Messa grazie all'opera di Guigielmo Durando, diedero ad Innocenzo III una posizione ed una fama di maestro rispettato ed autorevole nel campo della dottrina eucaristica.” Maccarone, “Innocenzo III teologo del'eucharistia,” 411.Google Scholar

³³ There are three accounts of the institution of the eucharist in the synoptic Gospels: Matt. 26:26–29; Mark 14:22–25; Luke 22:19–20. Scholastic commentators such as Durand viewed these passages as “sacred words” that “consecrated” an object called the eucharist (i.e., a piece of bread). Pierre-Marie Gy offers a nuanced discussion of the differences between Greek patristic and Latin medieval definitions of the term eucharistia, which in Greek patristic theology was defined as “thing” and an “act of thanksgiving” (from the verb eucharistein). As he notes: “[D]ans le passage du grec au latin chrétien, le latin a gardé le mot grec tel quel pour la chose concrète, l’eucharistia qui est le Corps et le Sang du Christ, et employé un mot latin pour désigner l'action: gratias agere, gratiarum actio. De ce fait les chrétiens de langue latin, déjà à l’époque patristique et pendant toute la période médiévale, jusqu’à la Renaissance, ont ignoré le lien entre gratias agere et eucharistia.” Gy, “La doctrine eucharistique (n. 1 above),” 539–40.Google Scholar

³⁴ Deshusses, Jean, ed., Le Sacramentaire grégorien. Ses principales formes d'après les plus anciens manuscrits, Spicilegium Friburgense, 16 (Fribourg, 1971), 89.Google Scholar

³⁵ De missarum mysteriis 4.5–23, PL 217:858B–873C. Oddly enough, Wright chose not to include these chapters in his edition, arguing that they are not part of a Mass exposition, per se. Wright's editorial decision is questionable, since Innocent III does not radically alter his style of composition or his exegetical approach to the text of the canon in this portion of his commentary.Google Scholar

³⁶ Rationale 4.1.8–9, CCM 140:241–42. Durand does not name precisely what group of “heretics” he has in mind, but it is more than likely the Cathars or Albigensians, who were particularly numerous and vociferous in his native land of Provence.Google Scholar

³⁷ Rationale 4.1.2, CCM 140:240: “Hoc autem officium ipse Christus instituit cum nouum condidit testamentum, disponens heredibus suis regnum, sicut Pater suus sibi disposuit, ut super mensam eius edant et bibant in regno quod Ecclesia consecrauit. Cenantibus enim illis accepit Iesus panem et gratias agens benedixit ac fregit deditque discipulis suis dicens: Accipite et comedite, hoc est corpus meum quod pro uobis tradetur, hoc facite in meam commemorationem. Hac igitur institutione formati, ceperunt apostoli sacrosanctum frequentare misterium propter causam quam Christus expresserat, et formam seruantes in uerbis et materiam tenentes in rebus, sicut Apostolus ad Corinthiis protestatur dicens: Ego accepi a Domino quod et tradidi uobis, quoniam Dominus Iesus in qua nocte tradebatur accepit panem etc.”Google Scholar

³⁸ Rationale 4.41.16–17, CCM 140:447: “Notandum autem est quod in corpore Christi undecim miracula considerantur, de quibus expressa ratio reddi non potest, licet similitudinarie rationes ad hoc deseruiant. Primum est quia panis et uinum transsubstantiantur in corpus et sanguinem….”Google Scholar

³⁹ Rationale 4.41.31–32, CCM 140:450: “Sequitur: ‘Fregit.’ Queri solet quid Christus in mensa tunc fregit et quid sacerdos nunc in altari frangit. Et fuerunt qui dixerunt quod, sicut post consecrationem uera panis remanent accidentia, sic et uera panis substantia. Quia sicut subiectum non potest subsistere sine accidentibus, sic accidentia non possunt subsistere sine subiecto, quoniam accidentis esse non est aliud quam inesse. Sed, panis et uini substantiis permanentibus, ad prolationem illorum uerborum corpus et sanguis Christi ueraciter incipiunt esse sub illis; ita quod sub eisdem accidentibus utrumque uere suscipitur, scilicet panis et caro, uinum et sanguis, quorum alterum probat sensus, reliquum credit fides. Hii dicunt quod substantia panis frangitur ac atteritur…. Et secundum eos, cum sacramentum a mure corroditur, ipsa panis substantia comeditur sub qua corpus Christi mox esse desinit cum corrodi incipit. Innocentius III dixit, in Speculo Ecclesie, quod forma panis frangitur et atteritur, sed corpus Christi sumitur et comeditur; ea que notant corruptionem referens ad formam panis, ea uero que notant acceptionem ad corpus Christi.” This passage is taken almost verbatim from De missarum mysteriis 4.9, PL 217:861D–862D.Google Scholar

⁴⁰ The new edition of the Rationale features a separate apparatus — in margine — which presents the marginal references to juridical sources that appear throughout Durand's treatise.Google Scholar

⁴¹ The text can be found in De cons. D.2 c.42, in Corpus Iuris Canonici, ed. Aemilius Friedberg, 2 vols. (Leipzig, 1879), 1:1328–29. The best recent study of the problematical nature of the Berengarian confession is Henry Chadwick, “Ego Berengarius: Reply to Lanfranc by Berengar of Tours,” Journal of Theological Studies 40 (1989): 415–45.Google Scholar

⁴² It is interesting to note that Durand routinely uses the terms forma and figura (outward appearance or shape) instead of accidentia (accidents), and veritas or virtus (truth and power) instead of substantia (substance). On the whole, his eucharistic language is more distinctly Augustinian than it is Aristotelian. Augustine, as he found him in the De consecratione of Gratian's Decretum, is one of Durand's favorite sources for eucharistic theology.Google Scholar

⁴³ De missarum mysteriis 4.20, PL 217:871c: “Sicut ineffabilis est illa unio qua Deus factus est homo, sic ineffabilis est illa conversio qua panis fit caro.”Google Scholar

⁴⁴ Rationale 4.41.51, CCM 140:462: “Licet igitur fides sufficiat ad salutem, iuxta illud Augustini: ‘Crede et manducasti.’ ” The quotation comes from Augustine's In Iohannis evangelium tractatus 25.12; 26.1; (ed. Willems, R., CCL 36 [Turnhout, 1954], 254, 260). Durand cites the text as he found it in Gratian Decretum: De cons. D.2 c.47, in Corpus Iuris Canonici (ed. Friedberg), 1:1331.Google Scholar

⁴⁵ Rationale 4.36.1, CCM 140:418: s“Expositioni canonis hic uacare preuidimus. Verumptamen quicquid exponendo conamur exprimere, uix ullius apparet esse momenti. Deficit namque lingua, sermo disparet, superatur ingenium, opprimitur intellectus.”Google Scholar