Some Later Medieval Theories of the Eucharist: Thomas Aquinas, Giles of Rome, Duns Scotus, and William Ockham by Marilyn McCord Adams (review)

BOOK REVIEWS 483 leading voice in historical theology and a model for scholarship that is erudite, careful, challenging, and accessible. COREY L. BARNES Oberlin College Oberlin, Ohio Some Later Medieval Theories of the Eucharist: Thomas Aquinas, Giles of Rome, Duns Scotus, and William Ockham. By Marilyn McCord Adams. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2010. Pp. viii + 318. $55.00 (cloth). ISBN 9780 -19-959105-3. In the Introduction to her study of later medieval Eucharistic theology, Marilyn McCord Adams informs the reader that “the core of this book” consists of chapters 4-9. In fact, it seems fair to say that this core is really a complete book unto itself which can be read as it stands apart from the rest. However that may be, these chapters which comprise part 2: “The Metaphysics and Physics of Real Presence,” do make for very interesting reading. Those familiar with Adams’s work on medieval Scholastic thought (most notably her comprehensive William Ockham [1987]) have come to expect deeply learned discussions of some very complicated material, and have also grown accustomed to the clarity with which she presents such material. They will not be disappointed by her treatment of the four major figures indicated in the subtitle of this volume: Thomas Aquinas, Giles of Rome, Duns Scotus, and William Ockham. A word of caution, however, to the avid Thomist: Thomas Aquinas does function as something of a foil for Duns Scotus in these discussions. Nevertheless, Adams presents the arguments of all concerned with precision and sympathy. She explains the fundamental problems these theologians face, the objections they must meet, and the means by which they attempt to integrate their doctrine of real Eucharistic presence into a larger coherent view of the universe. Among the myriad questions that the Eucharist raised formedieval theologians the central one is this: how does the one body of Jesus Christ—the very same body that was born of the Virgin Mary, died on the cross, was raised on the third day, and ascended into heaven—manage to turn up on so many different altars at the same time? On the one hand, an explanation of real presence must allow for the fact that Jesus Christ now possesses a glorified and impassible body which is located at the right hand of God the Father. On the other hand, one must address the following philosophical premises: two bodies cannot be extended in the same place at the same time, and one body cannot be extended in two different places simultaneously. Nor can a suitable explanation propose anything less than ‘real’ or ‘substantial’ presence; it is not enough for the consecrated host BOOK REVIEWS 484 to function as a symbol (sacramentum) of a nonpresent reality (res). The body of Christ on the altar must be a real thing (res) in itself even as it also serves as a symbol (sacramentum) for the further reality (res) of the believer’s mystical union with the Lord. That much was agreed upon in the thirteenth century; precisely how this could be accomplished had not yet been officially determined. This last point is worth bearing mind, because the medieval thinkers under review here often felt constrained by the Fourth Lateran Council’s use of the term ‘transubstantiation’, which they took to affirm one specific explanation of real presence. The term itself appeared in the council’s opening statement of faith, which was subsequently incorporated (under the title Firmiter) into the official decretal collection promulgated under Pope Gregory IX in 1234. One can add to this the letter that Pope Innocent III had sent to the Archbishop of Lyons in 1202 which also used the term ‘transubstantiation’ and entered the collection as Cum Marthae. In any event, canonists from Johannes Teutonicus to Hostiensis had no qualms about counting conversion, annihilation, and consubstantiation all as orthodox Eucharistic theories, precisely because each theory in its own way preserved the real presence of Christ’s body over against bare symbolism. One could even say that Scholastic theologians got out ahead of the Church in defining the limits of acceptable Eucharistic formulations when they read their own metaphysical explanations back into earlier documents. At any rate, Thomas Aquinas settled on a...