MULTIPLE CHOICE: TRANSUBSTANTIATION? CONSUBSTANTIATION? NONE OF THE ABOVE?

Click for large image	Anonymous Italian (Bolognese) A Standing Franciscan Monk 17th century red chalk, heightened with white on blue-gray. University of Michigan Museum of Art, Gift through the Estate of Edward Sonnenschein, 1970/2.24.

DOCUMENT CITATION:
Archivio di Stato di Firenze, Mediceo del Principato 529a, f. 782
(Entry 8903 in the "Documentary Sources" database.)

TRANSLATION:

On the 19^th of the present month, while celebrating mass in the Cathedral of this city, singing and taking communion, the priest registered a most fetid taste and odor in the act of receiving the consecrated wine. However, he swallowed it down as best he could. Then, when he came to the purification, he wanted none of the wine that they wished to give him, saying that he didn’t want any more of that piss. After expressing his displeasure to the choir master and the sacristan, he was brought another chalice and given good wine, which he was told he could purify. From all of this, I deduce that he was given urine to consecrate in place of wine. Though the Vicar has not been able to uncover the truth regarding who is responsible for such an obscenity, he has put a priest named Giobbo in solitary confinement, since the two sacristans who serve the Cathedral gave Giobbo the task of organizing and overseeing everything necessary for the service of the Mass. The Vicar also imprisoned two clerics in hope of discovering who is guilty of so villainous an act. This was evidently perpetrated by those who frequent the sacristy and I don’t imagine that he will have any difficulty getting to the bottom of things. I am only now bringing this to the attention of Your Most Illustrious Excellency because I was unable to learn the full truth; the canons and other priests tried to keep the occurence as secret as they could in order to avoid scandalizing the people.

TRANSCRIPTION:

[...] Egli è accaduto che sotto li 19 dello stante celebrandosi nel duomo di questa città la messa cantando et comunicandosi il sacerdote in nel pigliare il vino consacrato sentì sapore et odore molto fetente nondimeno lo mando giù il meglio che possette, e quando poi ne venne alla Purificatione, non volse del vino, che gli era voluto dare con dire che non voleva più piscio, et così ne fece alquanto di risentimento con il magiscola, et sacrestano, et li fu portato un altro calice e datoli del vino buono con dir si possette purificare et per quanto ritraggo egli venne a consecrare urina in cambio di vino. Ma chi sia colpevole d'una cosa tanto oscena per ancora il S.or vicario non ha possuto ritrovarne il vero, egli ha fatto mettere nelle secrete un prete Giobbo che quella mattina li dua sacrestani che servano al duomo toccava a lui a ordinare et haver cura di provedere quanto faceva di bisogno per servitio delle messa. Et ancora ha carcerato dua cherici per vedere di ritrovar chi sia colpevole di cosa tanto scelerata qual bisogna sia stata fattura di quelli che praticano la sacrestia e crederò che il S.or vicario facilmente sia per ritrovarne il tucto. Non ho prima di adesso datone notitia à V. E.I. per non haverne possuto sapere interamente il vero perché li canonici, et così li altri preti ha cerco di tener questo facto più secreto che gli hanno possuto a fine che li popoli con habbino da pigliare scandalo[...]

HISTORICAL CONTEXT:

Piero Gianfigliazzi’s story was a sensational one: Someone, somehow, substituted urine for the eucharistic wine in the Cathedral of Pisa, an ancient mercantile city that had become a secondary seat of the Medici ducal court. More than merely an outrageous exercise in bad taste, such an action would have been seen as striking at the very roots of civil and religious order. The perpetrator was risking life and limb, not to mention his or her immortal soul.

The very timing of the sacrilege was provocative, coming soon after the conclusion of the Council of Trent (1545-63.) During these years, the authorities of the Church of Rome had worked to streamline the tenets of Catholic belief and Catholic practice, rooting out elements of ambiguity, indiscipline and disorder. Monasteries, convents and cathedral chapters were especially under fire, since they had become hotbeds of self-indulgent and deviant behavior (with "self-indulgence" and "deviance" defined by the newly rigorous standards of Tridentine Catholicism.)

Since the identity of this particular culprit is yet to emerge from the archives, we are left with one massive question: What on earth could have motivated someone to do something so bizarre and dangerous? Various possible explanations come to mind:

1. It was a hoax: The substitution of the wine never really happened.

2. It was an enemy of the Priest who celebrated mass. Personal conflicts were getting out of hand.

3. It was witchcraft or sorcery: A diabolically subverted Catholic ritual took place.

4. It was the Protestants: A point was being made about Catholic liturgical practice.

5. It was the Jews: The Foes of Christ were at it again.

6. It was a practical joke: Someone thought it was funny.

7. It was insanity: A crazy person was responsible.

Though the substitution of urine for wine scarcely appears to be serious doctrinal commentary, the fundamental nature of the eucharist was then under heated discussion. During the summer of 1562, this had been the chief issue facing the 21^st session of the Council of Trent. Then in the following autumn, at the beginning of the 22^nd session, the Council published its decrees, declaring that the sacrifice of the mass was an authentic repetition of the sacrifice of Christ on the cross (not merely a symbolic evocation), that the mass should be offered in Latin (not in the local vulgar language) and that masses could be offered in honor of the saints and in aid of souls in purgatory (not only for the benefit of the living.)

Though this liturgical program was staunchly Catholic (that is to say, anti-Protestant) in its thrust, one fundamental point was left unresolved. This was the question of whether the chalice of consecrated wine (the blood of Christ) could be offered directly to lay communicants or if they should receive only the consecrated host (the body of Christ.) The Holy Roman Emperor lobbied aggressively for the "concession of the chalice", which he saw as an essential gesture if he was to maintain political and moral authority among the numerous Protestants and quasi-Protestants in his realm. After a protracted and ultimately inconclusive debate, the Council decided to evade the issue by leaving it to the discretion of the Pope. Pius IV Medici di Marignano (reigned 1560-65) took a conciliatory view and in the Spring of 1564 began issuing briefs (formal letters) to various German bishops authorizing the "concession of the chalice." However, his successor Pius V Ghislieri (1566-72) took the opposing view and moved quickly to make this a matter of liturgical obligation.

Throughout the centuries, the Jews had often been blamed for startling cases of the defilement of the eucharist, including the theft of sacramental vessels and even the torture of consecrated hosts. Pisa had the largest and most visible Jewish community in Tuscany with some 94 members in 1570 (as documented in Magistrato Supremo 4950 in the Archivio di Stato di Firenze, f.172 recto.) And the mid-years of the sixteenth-century saw the rise of anti-Jewish activity in Italy, culminating in their expulsion from the Kingdom of Naples in 1541, then their partial expulsion from the State of the Church in 1555 and the Dukedom of Florence in 1570. Though the time was seemingly ripe for an anti-semitic interpretation of the sacrilege in Pisa Cathedral, there is no indication of such a response. During the summer of 1570, when the Medici administration was doing their best to unearth evidence of Jewish misconduct in order to justify the creation of a Ghetto in Florence, allegations of this kind were conspicuous by their absence. (See "Upstairs, Downstairs", the January 2000 "Document of the Month.")

The "practical joke" argument is not as far-fetched as it might seem. Pisa was the seat of the principal university in Tuscany and its students were notorious for their outrageous pranks. In some circles, tampering with the eucharist might not have appeared more outré than—let’s say—body-snatching. (See "Pisa University (Noir)", the March 2001 "Document of the Month.") Though the University was not in session in July and many students were presumably out of town, there were perhaps others with too much free time on their hands.

Until we find more documentary evidence, such theories remain only theories. The insanity defense, however, is always attractive since we are hard-put to imagine anyone in their right mind taking such astonishing risks to no rational end. As Piero Gianfigliazzi ("Commissario di Pisa", the ranking civil official in that city) noted to Crown Prince and Regent Francesco de’ Medici (later Grand Duke Francesco I), the sacrilege was evidently an inside job. Within the small world of a cathedral chapter, daily tensions could easily spin out of control and express themselves in aberrant ways. Whatever the facts of the case, we see that the members of the chapter quickly closed ranks in the face of a common danger, whether to shield the perpetrators or defend the faithful from "scandal" and disillusionment.

ILLUSTRATION NOTE:

A Miracle from the Life of a Monastic Saint by an unidentified seventeenth century Italian artist (perhaps Bolognese), showing the appearance of the Christ Child in place of the consecrated host. The drawing is in red chalk heightened with white on blue-gray paper. (University of Michigan Museum of Art, Gift through the Estate of Edward Sonnenschein, 1970/2.24. On the web at:
http://www.si.umich.edu/Art_History/ UMMA/1970/1970_2.74.jpg)

To the Document Highlights Archive