CONSTITUTIONS
322
CONSUBSTANTIATION
tions, with their separate tribunals, their consultors,
and trained officials, has brought about a change in
the preparation of papal constitutions. It is to these
congregations that the pope looks for aid in preparing
the subject-matter of liis letters to the Church. (See
Roman Congreg.\tions.)
The binding force of pontifical constitutions, even without the acceptance of the Church, is beyond question. The primacy of jurisdiction possessed by the successor of Peter comes immediately and directly from Christ. That this includes the power of making obligatoiy laws is evident. Moreover, that the popes have the intention of binding the faithful directly and immediately is plain from the mandatory form of their constitutions. Bishops, therefore, are not at liberty to accept or refuse papal enactments because, in their judgment, they are ill-suited to the times. Still less can the lower clergj' or the civil power (see Exequa- tur ; Placet) possess any authority to declare pon- tifical constitutions invalid or prevent their due pro- mulgation. The Galilean opinions to the contrary- are no longer tenable after the decrees of the Council of the Vatican (Sess. IV, ch. iii). If a papal constitu- tion, published in Rome for the whole Church, were not formally promulgated in a particular region, the faithfid would nevertheless be bound by it, if it con- cerned faith or morals. If it referred to matters of discipline only, its observance would not be urgent, not ijecause of any defect in its binding force, but solely because in such circumstances the pope is pre- sumed to have suspended the obligation for the time being. This leads to the question of the proper pro- mulgation (q. V.) of papal laws (see Law). The com- mon teaching now is that promulgation in Rome makes them obligatory for the whole world. The method employed is to affix the decrees at the portals of St. Peter's, o St. John Lateran, of the Apostolic Chancery and in the Piazza de' Fiori
Smith. EJem. of Eccl. Law (New York, 1895). I; Aichner, Comp. Jur. Eccl. (Brixen, 1895); Reiffenstuel, Jus Can. Universum (Paris, 18G4;.
William H. W. Fanning. Constitutions of the Apostles. See Apostolic Constitutions.
Constitutions of the French Clergy. See French
Revolution.
Consubstantiation. — This heretical doctrine is an attempt to hold the Real Presence of Christ in the Iloly Eucharist without admitting Transubstantia- lion. According to it, the substance of Christ's Body exists together with the substance of bread, and ill like manner the substance of His Blood together with the substance of wine. Hence the word Con- si bs'.antia'.ion. How the two substances can co- exist is variously explained. The most subtle theory is (hat, just as God the Son took to Himself a human body without in any way destrojang its substance, so dors He in the Blessed Sacrament assume the nature of bread. Hence the theory is also called "Inipana- tio;i", a term founded on the analogy of Incarnation.
The subject cannot be treated adequately except in connexion with the general doctrine of the Holy Eucharist (q. v.). Here it will be sufficient to trace briefly the history of the heresy. In the earliest ages of the Church Christ's words, "This is my body", were understood by the faithful in their simple, nat- ural sense. In the course of time discussion arose as to whether they were to be taken literally or figura- tively; and when it was settled that they were to be taken literally in the sense that Christ is really and truly present, the question of the manner of this presence began to be agitated. The controversy lasted from the ninth to the twelfth century, after which time the doctrine of Transubstantiation, which teaches that Christ is present in the Eucharist by the change of tlie entire substance of bread and wine into
His Body and Blood, was fully indicated as Catholi(
dogma. In its first phase it turned on the question
whether the Body was the historical body of Christ
the very body which was born, crucified, and risen
ThLs was maintained by Paschasius Radbert anc
denied by Ratramnus in the middle of the nintl
century. What concerns us here more closely i
the next stage of the controversy, when Beren
garius (1000-1088) denied, if not the Real Presence
at least any change of the substance of the breac
and wine into the substance of the Body and Blood
He maintained that "the consecrated Bread, retain
ing its substance, is the Body of Christ, that is, no
losing anything which it was, but assiuning some
thing which it was not" (panis sacratus in altari
salva sua substantia, est corpus Christi, non amitten
quod erat sed assumens quod non erat — Cf. JIarten
and Durand, "Thesaurus Novus Anecd.", IV
col. 10.5). It is clear that he rejected Transubstan
tiation ; but what sort of presence he admitted woul(
seem to have varied at different periods of his loni
career. His opinions were condemned in variou
councils held at Rome (lOoO, 1059, 1078, 1079), Ver
celli (1050), Poitiers (1074), though both Pope Alex
ander II and St. Gregory VII treated him witl
marked consideration. His principal opponent
were Lanfranc, afterwards Archbishop of Canter
bur}' (De Corpore et Sanguine Bomini adversus Ber
engariimi Turonensem), Durandus of Troarn (q. v.)
Guitmundus of Aversa, and Hugh of Langres. Al
though it cannot be said that Berengarius foimc
many adherents during his lifetime, yet his heres;
did not die with him. It was maintained bv Wvcli
(Trialog., IV, 6, 10) and Luther (Walch, XX
1228), and is the view of the High Church part;
among the Anglicans at the present time. Beside
the covmcils above-mentioned, it was condemned b;
the Fourth Lateran Council (1215), the Council o
Constance (1418. — "The substance of the materia
bread and in like manner the substance of the ma
terial wuie remain in the Sacrament of the altar"
the first of the condemned propositions of Wyclif)
and the Coimcil of Trent (1551).
Berengarius and his modern followers have ap pealed chiefly to reason and the Fathers in suppor of their opinions. That Transubstantiation is no contrary to reason, and was at least implicitly taugh by the Fathers, is shown in the article Transub stanti.^tion. In the discussions of the Fathers aboir the two natures in the one Person the analogy be tween the Incarnation and the Eucharist was fre quently referred to, and this led to the expression o views favouring Irapanation. But after the definitivf victory of St. CjTil's doctrine, the analogy was seen te be deceptive. (See Batiffol, Etudes d'histoire, etc. 2nd series, p. 319sqq.) The great Schoolmen unani; mously rejected Consubstantiation, but they differed in their reasons for doing so. Albertus Magnus, Sti Thomas, and St. Bonaventure maintained that thij words, "This is my body", disproved it; while Alexj ander of Hales, Scotus, Durandus, Occam, ani( Pierre d'Ailly declared that it was not inconsistent with Scripture, and could only be disproved by th* authority of the Fathers and the teaching of thji Church (Turrael, Hist, de la th^ol. posit., ]:] 'M'A sqq.). This line of argument has been a stumjj bling-block to Anglican writers, who have quote some of the Schoolmen in support of their erroneouil opinions on the Eucharist; e.g. Pusey, "The Doctrin of the Real Presence" (1855).
In addition to the works mentioned, see Harper. Pea^j through the Truth (l.ond.in, 18tj6), 1; Fhanzelin. DeSS.EticS (Rome, l.S7;i).f!ios. xi\-; .SrnwANE, Z>0ffmen(7«scAicAte (Freibuu im Br., ISS-M. II 1 ; \ekm:t in DiW. de thcol. cath. a.v. Bireng\ de Tours; i^TKKuVAt. in Ktrrhenlcx. s.w Consubstantiatio: He: LEY, The Holy EuclMristd^M'): Vf AGOETT. The Holy Eucha ist (Anglican, Londou, 190G) : Gore, The Body of Christ (Lo'l don, 1907).
T. B. SCANNELL.
