Theories abounded in the late
eleventh and twelfth centuries concerning exactly what caused the presence in
the sacrament. Some commentaries on the Mass suggested that the sign of the
cross made by the celebrant over the bread and wine consecrated; others held
that the entire canon worked the change. Still other commentaries suggested
that the original prayer of consecration in the early Church was the Lord’s
Prayer. The Waldensians, started in the late twelfth century by the wandering
preacher, Valdes of Lyons, were held to follow this practice by using the
Lord’s Prayer as the consecratory formula in their liturgies. The late twelfth
century theologians Peter of Poitiers (c. 1130–1215) and Jacques de Vitry (c.
1160–12140) suggested that Jesus consecrated the bread and wine by means of a
separate blessing, only later instructing the apostles to consecrate using the
words of institution. (Gary Macy, “Theology of the Eucharist in the High Middle
Ages,” in A Companion to the Eucharist in the Middle Ages, Ian
Christopher Levy, Gary Macy and Kristen Van Ausdall [Brill’s Companions to
the Christian Tradition 26; Leiden: Brill, 2012], 368-69)
The reference to the work of Peter of Poitiers is given in a
footnote (369 n. 12) as Peter of Poitiers, “Sententiarum libri quinque 4.11;
PL 211:1245A–B.” Here is a transcription of the work as found in PL 211:1244-46
for a fuller context:
Sed et iterum videtur quod ad
prolationem istorum verborum non mutetur panis in corpus, imo ad probationem
aliorum. Legitur enim in Evangelio hic ordo verborum: Accepit Jesus panem et
benedicens fregit et dedit illis, et ait sumite: Hoc est corpus meum (Matth.
xxvi). Secundum hunc ordinem
verborum prius videtur accepisse panem, postea benedixisse et dedisse illis,
demum dixisse: Hoc est corpus meum, etc. Sed istud ulterius dixit, quod videtur
ex serie verborum Evangelii, et antequam hoc diceret, facta erat transsubstantiatio,
in benedictione scilicet quae jam erat praemissa. Ergo non ad prolationem
istorum verborum facta est transsubstantiatio ne sit bis facta; vel si prius in
illa benedictione protulit illa verba antequam frangeret vel daret, et post
iterum eadem protulit, et ita bis protulit. Non enim alia verba legitur
protulisse ad benedicendum. Ergo bis facta est transsubstantiatio. Vel in una
illorum prolatione nihil transsubstantiatum est, et ita videtur superflua, vel
si bis prolata est forma verborum super eandem hostiam; videtur injuria illata
fuisse sacramento, quia iteratum est. Ad hoc dicendum quod bis protulit
Christus illa verba. Cum enim benedixit, ea protulit; et ita ad eorum
prolationem facta est transsubstantiatio; postea fregit et dedit illis, et iterum
ait: Hoc est corpus meum, etc. Sed tunc non protulit causa benedicendi, et ideo
non fuit iteratum sacramentum. Dicunt tamen quidam quod in consecratione alia
verba protulit quae nescimus, ad quorum prolationem facta est
transsubstantiatio, et ita alia verba protulit in benedictione, et alia
proferunt modo sacerdotes.
Solet quaeri quiddam simile ei quod quaesitum est supra, cum de baptismo
ageretur, utrum prolata medietate verborum, quorum vi sit transsubstantiatio,
ratum esset sacramentum si forte necessitate ibi sisteret sacerdos, vel
obmutesceret, vel morte praeventus, et utrum oporteret super hostiam illam
totam benedictionem repetere ab alio proferendam sacerdote, an esset ibi
incipiendum ubi terminavit. Sed credimus homini non esse revelatum et ibi non
diu immorandum; sed nunquid si prolatis his verbis: Hoc est corpus meum, etc.
integre, quiesceret sacerdos, nil aliud perfecturus (cum jam esset facta
conversio panis in corpus, et ibi esset sanguis) completum esset sacramentum?
Videtur quia ibi est caro et sanguis, et anima, et Deitas. Quod si dicatur nil
obest. Dicunt tamen quidam quod non est completum sacramentum, donec omnino
prolata sint utraque verba, nec facta est transsubstantiatio panis in corpus
donec prolata sint haec verba, Hic est sanguis, etc.
Item, corpus Christi nunquam est sine sanguine, nec sanguis sine corpore,
ad prolationem istorum verborum completam, Hoc est corpus meum, etc. Facta est
transsubstantiatio panis in corpus antequam proferantur haec verba, Hic est
sanguis, etc. Tunc est corpus cum sanguine in altari; ergo tunc est ibi
sanguis. Ergo est ibi conversio vini in sanguinem, vel non. Si conversio vini
in sanguinem, sicut corpus in conversione panis in carnem; ergo ex vi illorum
verborum et panis in corpus, et vinum in sanguinem est conversum. Ita ergo ad
prolationem eorum quae sequuntur, istorum scilicet, Hic est sanguis, etc., non
fit panis vel vini conversio in corpus vel sanguinem; ergo superflue
proferuntur illa verba: vel si ad utramque prolationem utraque fit conversio;
ergo prorsus eandem vim videntur habere, et ita iteratur sacramentum
quemadmodum si repeterentur illa verba semel prolata. Imo potest quaeri quis
panis, vel quod vinum convertitur cum dicitur forma, Hic est sanguis, etc. Non
enim relinquitur panis et vinum super altare cum prolatio istorum verborum est
completa, Hoc est corpus meum, etc., quia jam facta est transsubstantiatio
utriusque in utrumque.
Ad hoc dicendum quod ex prolatione istorum verborum, Hoc est corpus meum,
etc., non convertitur vinum in sanguinem, sed panis in carnem; non est tamen
caro sine sanguine. Est enim ibi sanguis, sed non per conversionem, id est non
est aliquid ibi conversum in sanguinem donec proferantur haec verba, Hic est
sanguis, etc. Ex quibus fit transsubstantiatio vini in sanguinem quod est
positum, quod non est transsubstantiatum donec haec verba proferantur: Hic est
sanguis, etc. Sicut et anima est in corpore illo, non tamen per animae
conversionem.
Sed ad hoc obiicitur, panis
mutatur in corpus Christi prolatione illorum verborum; ergo in corpus cum
sanguine, vel in corpus sine sanguine. Si in corpus cum sanguine; ergo in
sanguinem conversus est panis. Si vero in corpus sine sanguine, ergo corpus est
sine sanguine. Sed patet esse dandum quod panis convertatur in corpus, non
tamen cum sanguine, vel sine sanguine, sicut Christus voluit pati non tamen cum
peccato Judaeorum, vel sine peccato eorum.
Again, it seems that by the utterance of these words
the bread is not changed into the body, but rather for the proof of other
things. For the order of the words is read in the Gospel as follows: “Jesus
took bread, and blessing it broke it and gave it to them, and said, Take: this
is my body” (Matt. 26). According to this order of words, he seems first to
have taken the bread, then to have blessed it and given it to them, and only
afterward to have said, “This is my body,” etc. But he said this further, as seems
clear from the sequence of the Gospel words, and before he said it, the
transubstantiation had already taken place, namely in the blessing that had
already preceded. Therefore the transubstantiation was not made by the
utterance of these words, lest it be made twice; or if first, in that blessing,
he spoke those words before he broke or gave [the bread], and then afterward
spoke them again, then he spoke them twice. For no other words are read to have
been spoken for the blessing. Therefore the transubstantiation was made twice.
Or in one of those utterances nothing was transubstantiated, and then the form
seems superfluous; or if the form of the words was spoken twice over the same
host, an injury seems to have been done to the sacrament, because it was
repeated. To this it must be said that Christ spoke those words twice. For when
he blessed, he spoke them; and so through their utterance the
transubstantiation took place. Afterward he broke it and gave it to them, and
again said, “This is my body,” etc. But then he did not speak for the sake of
blessing, and therefore the sacrament was not repeated. Yet some say that in
the consecration he spoke other words that we do not know, and that through
their utterance the transubstantiation took place; and thus he spoke one set of
words in the blessing, and priests now say another.
A similar question is usually asked to the one
discussed above when baptism was being considered: namely, whether, after half
the words have been spoken, by whose power transubstantiation takes place, the
sacrament would be valid if perhaps the priest were forced to stop there, or
were to fall silent, or were overtaken by death, and whether another priest
ought to repeat over that host the whole blessing from the point where the
first priest ended. But we believe this has not been revealed to man, and there
is no need to dwell on it here for long. But suppose that, after these words,
“This is my body,” etc. have been fully spoken, the priest were to stop,
intending to do nothing further—since the conversion of the bread into the body
had already taken place and the blood was already there—would the sacrament
then be complete? It seems so, because flesh and blood and soul and divinity
are there. If someone says this is no objection, some nevertheless say that the
sacrament is not complete until both sets of words have been fully spoken, and
that the transubstantiation of the bread into the body does not occur until
these words have been spoken: “This is blood,” etc.
Likewise, the body of Christ is never without blood,
nor blood without body, once the utterance of these words is complete: “This is
my body,” etc. The transubstantiation of the bread into the body has already
taken place before these words are spoken, “This is blood,” etc. Then the body
is on the altar with blood; therefore the blood is there. Therefore there is a
conversion of wine into blood, or there is not. If there is a conversion of
wine into blood, as the body is in the conversion of bread into flesh, then by
the force of those words both the bread into body and the wine into blood have
been converted. So then, with the utterance of what follows, namely, “This is
blood,” etc., there is no conversion of bread or wine into body or blood;
therefore those words are spoken superfluously. Or if both utterances bring
about a conversion, then they seem to have exactly the same force, and thus the
sacrament is repeated just as if those words were said once again. Indeed, one
may ask what bread, or what wine, is converted when the formula “This is
blood,” etc. is spoken. For bread and wine are not left on the altar once the
utterance of these words is complete, “This is my body,” etc., because the
transubstantiation of both into both has already taken place.
To this it must be said that by the utterance of these
words, “This is my body,” etc., wine is not converted into blood, but bread
into flesh; nevertheless the flesh is not without blood. For blood is there,
but not by conversion, that is, nothing there has yet been converted into blood
until these words are spoken: “This is blood,” etc. By these words the
transubstantiation of wine into blood takes place; and what was posited was
that it is not transubstantiated until these words are spoken: “This is blood,”
etc. Just as the soul is in that body, yet not by a conversion of the soul.
But against this it is objected that bread is changed
into the body of Christ by the utterance of those words; therefore it is
changed into the body with blood, or into the body without blood. If into the
body with blood, then the bread has been converted into blood. If, however,
into the body without blood, then the body is without blood. But it is clear
that one must grant that the bread is converted into the body, yet not with
blood or without blood, just as Christ willed to suffer, yet not with the sin of
the Jews, nor without their sin.
