Throughout the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries the authorities of the Western Church consistently aimed at suppressing any attempts to find or assert a doctrine of the Eucharistic presence other than that which had become usual by the end of the thirteenth century. It has already been mentioned that John of Paris was deprived of his professorship by the Bishop of Paris at the beginning of the fourteenth century for his guarded statements on the subject of the substance of the bread and wine in the consecrated Sacrament. And the controversy with Wyclif led to very explicit utterances on the part of the Church authorities.
In 1381 a solemn declaration was made by the Chancellor and doctors of the University of Oxford against the opinions of Wyclif on the Sacrament of the altar. In the formal document issued by the Chancellor it was said—
“Certain persons, … endeavouring to rend the coat of the Lord and the unity of our holy Mother the Church, renew, alas! in these days certain heresies formerly solemnly condemned by the Church, and publicly teach them both in the University and outside it, saying two things among their other pestilential assertions, first, that in the Sacrament of the altar the substance of material bread and wine, which were before consecration, remain after consecration; secondly, which is dreadful to hear, that in this venerable Sacrament the body and blood of Christ are not essentially or substantially or corporally, but figuratively or symbolically (tropice), so that Christ is not really there in His own proper bodily presence; from which assertions the Catholic faith is endangered, the devotion of the people is lessened, and this our Mother University is to no small extent defamed. We therefore … have summoned many doctors of sacred theology and professors of canon law, whom we believed to be of great skill, and, when the aforesaid assertions had been openly explained and carefully discussed in their presence, it was at length finally decided and declared by their judgment that the assertions are erroneous and opposed to the decisions of the Church and contrary to truths which are Catholic and plainly result from the words of the saints and the decisions of the Church, namely, that by the sacramental words, duly pronounced by a priest, the bread and wine on the altar are transubstantiated or substantially converted into the real body and blood of Christ, so that after consecration there do not remain in the venerable Sacrament the material bread and wine, which were there before, in the two substances or natures, but only in the species of the same, under which species the real body and blood of Christ are actually contained, not only figuratively or symbolically (tropice), but essentially, substantially, and corporally, in such a way that Christ is really there in His own proper bodily presence.”
At the Council of London of 1382 each of the four statements about the Eucharist already mentioned as ascribed to Wyclif at this council was separately declared to be “heresy,” and the four statements were placed in the group of errors described as “heretical and contrary to the decision of the Church”.
In 1401 a priest named William Sawtry was burnt at Smithfield after maintaining, among other opinions, that “after consecration duly made by a priest the bread remains in the same nature as before”.
Statements made by, and a recantation received from, a priest named Richard Wyche early in the fifteenth century are of very considerable interest. Wyche was accused of false doctrine before the Bishop of Durham, probably in the year 1401; and one of the subjects about which he was questioned was that of the Eucharist. An account of his examination contained in a letter by Wyche himself has been preserved in a manuscript which was found in the University Library at Prague by Professor Loserth of Czernowitz. His first statement during his examination was that he believed that “the consecrated host is after consecration the real body of the Lord,” and that, after it is divided, “each part is the real body of the Lord in the form of bread”. On being asked whether he believed that “after consecration the real flesh and the real blood of Christ are there,” he answered, “I believe that the host is the real flesh and the real blood of Christ.” To the further question, “Is bread there after consecration?” he replied after some hesitation, “I believe that the host is the real body of Christ in the form of bread”. He refused to accept the correction that the consecrated host “is the body of Christ in the species of bread, not in the form”; and when asked, “Is material bread there or not?” answered, “Holy Scripture does not call the host material bread, therefore I am unwilling to believe the same as an article of faith”. In subsequent examinations, in reply to similar questions whether the bread remains after consecration, he answered on different occasions, “I am not bound to believe otherwise than Holy Scripture says”; “I have never seen the term ‘material’ in Holy Scripture”; “It is enough for any believer to believe as Christ said without adding to His words”. As a result of the examinations Wyche was excommunicated, and imprisoned, with a view to his degradation and the confiscation of his property. Eventually, he signed a recantation, which contained fourteen retractations and six positive statements. The affirmations on the subject of the Eucharist were:—
“The bread made of flour derived from corn and of water, which is placed on the altar to be consecrated by the ministry of the priest, after the words of consecration duly uttered by the priest does not remain the bread of corn which was before placed there, but is transubstantiated into the real body of Christ which was born of the Virgin and suffered on the cross; and the accidents of material bread remain there, being set there without any substance of the same;”
“The wine which is placed on the altar to be consecrated by the ministry of the priest, after the words of consecration uttered over it by the priest is not wine, but is transubstantiated, and it is transubstantiated into the real blood of Christ which was shed for our redemption on the cross; and there remain only the accidents of wine without any substance of the same.”
Years after, Wyche was known to teach contrary to this recantation, and he was tried and degraded and burnt for heresy. A proclamation of King Henry VI., dated 15th July, 1439, set forth the facts of his trial and abjuration “many years now past,” and of his more recent teaching and trial before the Bishop of London, and degradation and execution; and prohibited the making of pilgrimages to the place where he had been burnt, or other devotion to him on the plea of miracles worked by him.
In a letter addressed to Archbishop Arundel of Canterbury and the Bishops of the Province of Canterbury in the year 1412, the University of Oxford placed among condemned propositions the statements that “as Christ is at the same time God and Man, so the consecrated host is at the same time the body of Christ and real bread, because it is the body of Christ at least in representation (in figura) and is real bread in nature,” that “the consecrated host” “is real bread by way of nature and the body of Christ by way of representation (figuraliter),” and that “a Catholic says that the sacramental bread is the body of Christ, and the wine in the cup is His blood, in such a way” as the expressions “the seven kine are seven years,” and “the rock was Christ,” and “this is Elijah,” are used in Holy Scripture.
In 1413 Archbishop Arundel of Canterbury delivered to Sir John Oldcastle a statement of doctrine declared to be obligatory, in which it was said:—
“The faith and the determination of Holy Church touching the blissful Sacrament of the altar is this, that after the sacramental words be said by a priest in his Mass the material bread that was before is turned into Christ’s very body, and the material wine that was before is turned into Christ’s very blood, and so there leaveth on the altar no material bread nor material wine, the which were there before the saying of the sacramental words.”
The doctrine of the Eucharist was prominent among the matters considered at the Council of Constance in 1415 and 1416. The representation of Wyclif’s teaching in the propositions in which the Council of London of 1382 stated it, and which that council declared to be heretical, was condemned; and these propositions were among the statements which Jerome of Prague was required by the council to repudiate. It was asserted that “the whole body and blood of Christ are really contained both under the species of bread and under the species of wine”. One of the reasons given for the condemnation of Jerome of Prague was that, though “he professed that he held and believed what the Church holds about the Sacrament of the altar and the Transubstantiation of the bread into the body,” yet he “adhered to the condemned propositions and errors of Wyclif and Hus”. Among the questions which the council required Hus to answer were the following:—
“Whether he believes that after the consecration by the priest there is not in the Sacrament of the altar under the veil of bread and wine material bread and material wine, but wholly the same Christ who suffered on the cross and sitteth at the right hand of the Father.”
“Whether he believes and asserts that, when the consecration by the priest has taken place, under the species of bread alone by itself and apart from the species of wine there is the real flesh and blood and soul and deity of Christ and the whole Christ, and the same body absolutely and under each one of those species severally.”
One of the chief literary opponents of the teaching of the followers of Wyclif was Thomas Netter or Notter, usually known as Thomas Waldensis. He was born at Saffron Walden about 1380, was a member of the University of Oxford, and became a Carmelite. He died in 1430 at Rouen on his way to Paris. Besides whatever share he may have had in the collection of the documents in the treatise Bundles of Tares of John Wyclif, he wrote an elaborate treatise on the doctrine of the Catholic Church, one part of which, begun in 1425 and finished in 1427, is entitled On the Sacraments. In this, the teaching of Wyclif is very fully and severely criticised. The positive doctrine and the general lines of thought are those inherited from the middle ages. A point of interest is in the assertions that the body of Christ is received in the Eucharist bodily (corporaliter) and in the flesh (carnaliter) as well as spiritually. These assertions are subject to the ambiguity which has often to be noticed whether the meaning is that the reception is of the real body and flesh of Christ or that the body of Christ is received in a natural and carnal way. The question is difficult to decide, and the alternatives would not present themselves to a fifteenth century writer in quite the same way as at the present time; but the probability seems to be that the point intended to be emphasised was that what is in the Sacrament and is received by the communicant is actually the real flesh and blood of Christ which He took of the Virgin and which suffered on the cross and rose from the dead and ascended into heaven. Some of the passages which bear on this question are the following:—
“Let us lay down and assert that the venerable consecrated host is the sacred flesh of Christ in its nature under the sensible form of bread.”
“That Christ is to be adored not only in His Godhead but also in the fleshly portion of His manhood, Ambrose proves, because the Apostles adored Him, rising in the glory of the flesh, that is, the flesh rising in glory. If then the faithful adore on the altar this same flesh, this consecrated host alone existing in the same glory, why are they to be called idolators? There we neither know nor revere any other consecrated host. Our chief Sacrament and the consecrated host of all Christians is simply the living and divine flesh of Christ.”
“The mystery and Sacrament of the altar is simply the body and blood of the Saviour substantially in reality of nature, but veiled by the figure of bread and wine.”
“We have to prove the absence of material bread in the consecrated host.”
“The Church of Christ declares and teaches that the words of the Gospel are to be understood concerning bodily and fleshly eating, and naturally and yet also spiritually, as the object in the Sacrament is flesh that according to its essential being is natural and naturally, although also spiritually, as it is in heaven in glory.”
“The body of Christ is not carnal (carnalis) food, but spiritual; yet it has not been made spirit, and it has not ceased to be a fleshly (carnale) body.”
“Christ abides in us bodily through this Sacrament, but not bodily by the bodily character of bread, … but of the flesh, in which the Word was made flesh. And according to this flesh also He abides in us naturally, and not only by the consent of the will. Do I sin then if I add, Therefore not only spiritually, but also bodily, naturally, and carnally He is eaten? For, as you [that is, Wyclif] said above, to eat this food spiritually is to abide in Christ by love; but Christ is eaten not only in this way by the consent of the will, but also corporally and carnally; therefore He is eaten carnally and not only spiritually.”
“The flesh of Christ, of which the species is not there seen, is believed to be there substantially; and the species of bread, the substance of which is not believed to be there, is there seen; and the real body of Christ, which hung on the tree, is there under the species of bread, and is not only signified by the bread.”
The matters before the Council of Florence in 1439 were very different from those discussed at Constance in 1415 and 1416; but the fact already stated in a different connection that the Definition of that council included incidental statements that “the body of Christ is really consecrated” and that “the holy sacrifices” benefit the departed may also be mentioned here; and the following passage may be quoted from the Decree of Pope Eugenius IV. to the Armenians, which was a result of the proceeding of the council.
“The words of the Saviour, by which He consecrates this Sacrament, are the form of this Sacrament; for the priest consecrates this Sacrament speaking in the person of Christ. For by the power of these words the substance of the bread is converted into the body of Christ, and the substance of the wine into His blood, nevertheless in such a way that the whole Christ is contained under the species of bread and the whole Christ is contained also under the species of wine. Also, under any part of the consecrated host and the consecrated wine, when a division is made, is the whole Christ. The effect of this Sacrament which it produces in the soul of one who receives it worthily is the uniting of the man to Christ. And, because through grace man is incorporated in Christ and united to His members it follows that through this Sacrament grace is increased in those who receive it worthily; and every effect which material food and drink produce for the bodily life by sustaining and increasing and restoring and delighting it, this Sacrament produces for the spiritual life; and in it, as Pope Urban says, we recall the pleasant memory of our Saviour, we are held back from evil, we are strengthened in good, and we advance to growth in virtues and graces.”