Abstract
The theology of eucharistic sacrifice is one of the most important and complex issues in the study of the sacraments. Although treated in medieval theology, it did not really become a controversial subject until the sixteenth century during the Reformation and at the Council of Trent.
In this study, Reginald Lynch, OP, fills a significant lacuna in historical theology by analyzing the treatment and use that Thomas Aquinas’s Summa Theologiae received in early modern Catholic theology, bringing a sharper focus to the issue than the more general studies of Marius Lepin and Francis Clark.
The book begins with a description of Aquinas’s treatment of sacrifice in the Tertia Pars (qq. 73–83) on the sacrament of the Eucharist, as well as in the Prima Secundae (qq. 90–108, esp. q. 102), and his treatment of the virtue of religion in the Secunda Secundae (qq. 81–86, esp. q. 85). Situating Aquinas’s treatment of eucharistic sacrifice in the Summa’s sections on theological anthropology and the virtues is essential for understanding how the early modern Catholic theologians were to make use of the Angelic Doctor. L. judiciously evaluates both text and context in his authors, acknowledging that these theologians were not doing theology in a vacuum but, for example, in the context of Reformation debates, or, in the case of the Dominicans of the Salamanca School, the context of sacrifice in light of the Spanish encounter with the cultures of the Americas.
A chapter on Thomas de Vio (Cajetan) follows. It was Cajetan who set the scene in the early sixteenth century with a commentary on the Summa, but also with an approach to Scripture that was heavily indebted to humanist scholars. He was one of the first theologians to engage Martin Luther’s critique. L. astutely observes that much of the Catholic theology of this period was obliged to trace its origins as much to Protestant as to Catholic sources. He also notes that Cajetan’s biblical commentaries, more than the Summa, had a significant influence on Trent’s doctrine of eucharistic sacrifice.
L. then turns to Spain and the Salamanca School of Dominican theologians: Francisco de Vitoria, Melchior Cano, Dominic Soto, and Domingo Bañez. Like Cajetan, these theologians had an influence on Trent’s doctrine of eucharistic sacrifice. For L., the Indies controversy regarding the status of indigenous peoples and their practices of sacrifice led these theologians to a careful consideration of Aquinas’s Secunda Pars. In addition, the members of the Salamanca School paid attention to the unfolding of the Mass liturgy itself. Cano pointed to the fraction rite and the consumption of the consecrated elements as essential features of the eucharistic sacrifice. There were different ways that theologians could interpret what Aquinas meant when claiming that in a sacrifice (as opposed to a simple oblation) something had to be done to the elements of the sacrifice (ST II-II.85.3, ad. 3). Much of the interpretation with regard to change would hang on the relation of the rest of the Mass to the separate consecration of the bread and the wine, which Aquinas argued was a representation of the passion of Christ (ST III.77.7).
The last section of the book deals with certain Jesuit theologians after Trent: Robert Bellarmine, Francisco Suarez, and Gabriel Vasquez (though not Juan de Lugo). To the Jesuits, L. adds John of St. Thomas, who builds on Suarez and Vasquez, with a special emphasis on sacrifice and moral acts. Although Trent had affirmed the reality of the Eucharist as a propitiatory sacrifice, identical to Christ’s on Calvary (with only the mode—unbloody—being different), it was left to later theologians to continue to speculate on the exact nature of how this worked out in the Eucharist. They did this with an eye to Trent as well as to controversial dialogue with the Protestants.
Bellarmine insisted that sacrifice had to involve some sort of destruction, and so in addition to the change represented by the separate consecration of the bread and wine, he insisted that consumption (communion) was essential. L. notes that subsequent theologians followed Bellarmine on the idea of destruction, but with modifications. Suarez saw the sacrificial change involving more creation than destruction. Vasquez emphasized the mystical slaying signified by the separate consecration. The Dominican John of St. Thomas differed from his Jesuit predecessors by stressing the interior or moral dimension of sacrifice.
L.’s contention that Aquinas’s own theology of sacrifice in the second and third parts of the Summa had a major influence on the various theologians surveyed is well substantiated by his analysis. Although a number of contemporary Catholic theologians like David Power, Edward Kilmartin, and Robert Daly have questioned the theological and practical assumptions that Aquinas and the early modern Catholic theologians took for granted, as a work of historical theology this volume is a valuable asset in understanding just what Aquinas and these early modern theologians taught. I would judge it a “must read” for anyone seriously interested in the theology of eucharistic sacrifice.