Levy, Ian Christopher. John Wyclif: Scriptural Logic, Real Presence, and the Parameters of Orthodoxy. Marquette University Press, 2003.
John Wyclif is best known for his Bible translation, but what is often overlooked is the strong metaphysical realism that undergirds his view of the Bible and will determine what conclusions he draws about the Eucharist.
Medieval Philosophical Background
In his response to the Neo-Pelagians Wyclif places himself in the conservative wing of the medieval church. Most important is the distinction between potentia Dei absoluta and potentia Dei ordinata. While it was never intended to speculate on what outrageous things God could or couldn’t do, it led in that direction.
The Metaphysics of John Wyclif
Wyclif was a strong realist.
Grosseteste: all knowledge found in the divine intellect (Levy 49-50).
Wyclif’s three-fold scheme:
1. Universal of causation (God). universale ante rem
2. Universal of communication (human nature; angelic, etc). They are communicated to a number of subjects. Universale in re
3. Universal of representation. They represent real universals. Universale post rem.
Wyclif’s Theological Realism
God knows his creation primarily through universals and secondarily through individuals. God knows the creature’s essence even when it doesn’t yet have existence. We distinguish between the creature’s essence and the means by which it subsists through the divine exemplar (55).
Christ the Word is the principal of all creation.
Predication: all words of predication are grounded in the Word (57). “All things are created in their effects from an eternal intellectual knowledge.” To lose universals is to get lost in theories of signs (per Occam). Levy doesn’t mention it, but that is the entire project of Derrida.
There is an immediate payoff in his eucharistic theology. No particle of the universe can be annihilated. This means that the essence of bread can’t be destroyed as the Mass would require.
Medieval Eucharistic Theology
Ratramnus: relationship between truth and figure. Christ’s resurrected body is impassible and can’t be crunched on and decayed as in the Mass.
Berengar vs Lanfrac
The Confession of 1059. Even though Berengar lost the debate, his “Confession” created more problems. If the elements do not remain, then there is no subject to which the predicate (corpus meum) applies (139).
The elements undergo a conversion in dignity but not in substance.
The conversion is one of transition, not union. A substance isn’t being added to another substance.
The Early Wyclif
Wyclif accepted transubstantial language early in his career. At the heart of his concern, though, was the intention of the Divine Author (217). Doubts plagued him, though. If the elements “disappear” or are annihilated, would this not call the integrity of God’s creation into question?
The annihilation of a substance requires the annihilation of its eternal form. This part is tricky. He isn’t saying that when a thing is temporally destroyed (a person’s dying; food eaten, etc) that its eternal form is also threatened. What realist metaphysics demands is that the eternal Idea causes the form’s exemplar. The eternal idea of x is found in the mind of God. There is a correlation between its existence and the existence of the Idea. Wyclif is saying that if the ectype of the bread ceases to exist, then the eternal idea of the bread no longer exists. This needs some work.
Think of it this way. Imagine that there is a string between the eternal exemplar in God’s mind (x) and its instantiation in the world (y). Imagine that both are “attached” to their respective places (e.g., God’s mind and the world). Wyclif’s argument seems to be that if you rip out y and throw it away, you rip out x as well, leaving holes in God’s mind.
Perhaps. The argument is open to several rebuttals, namely that there might be an exemplar without its instantiation.
Wyclif’s Negative Argument
In the phrase “Hoc est corpus meum,” Wyclif argues that “Hoc” refers to a figural presence (though he does allow for some sort of bodily presence later on). “If the pronoun demonstrates what is already Christ’s body, then nothing new is constituted; and if the pronoun connotes the body of Christ as that which is under the accidents without functioning as their subject, then that is just contrary to Scripture” (246).
Wyclif’s other main argument is that accidents can’t subsist without a subject. If this holds, then it strikes at the heart of transubstantiation.
Levy does a fine job surveying the Latin sources. Each page is about ⅔ English with ⅓ Latin text at the bottom.