¹ A concise presentation of the doctrine can be found, for example, with the thirteenth-century Dominican Aquinas, Thomas, Summa theologiae, ed. Caramello, P., 4 vols. (Rome: Marietti, 1948), 3:494–505Google Scholar (3.75). For an important overview of medieval eucharistic theology, see the collected essays of Macy, Gary, Treasures from the Storeroom: Medieval Religion and the Eucharist (Collegeville, Minn.: Liturgical Press, 1999)Google Scholar.

² Shirley, W. W., ed., Fasciculi Zizaniorum Magistri Johannis Wyclif cum Tritico, Rolls Series 5 (London: Longman, Brown, Green, Longmans, Roberts, 1858), 277–278Google Scholar. For a recent study of Wyclif's eucharistic theology, see Levy, Ian Christopher, John Wyclif's Theology of the Eucharist in Its Medieval Context (Milwaukee: Marquette University Press, 2014)Google Scholar; in addition to the insightful analysis of Lahey, Stephen, John Wyclif (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2009), 102–134CrossRefGoogle Scholar, whose work has proved exceptionally valuable in developing the themes of this article.

³ Many medieval schoolmen reckoned that consubstantiation made the most sense precisely because it avoided so many metaphysical pitfalls. They were nevertheless willing to accept transubstantiation, which they believed to be endorsed by canon law. See Duns Scotus, Sentences, in Opera Omnia editio nova, 26 vols. (Paris: Vivès, 1891–1895), 17:352 (4, d. 11, q. 3); William of Ockham, Tractatus de corpore Christi, in Opera Theologica, ed. Charles Grassi, vol. 10 (St. Bonaventure, N.Y.: St. Bonaventure University Press, 1986), 100–101; and Pierre d'Ailly, Sentences (Paris, 1515), fols. 265rb–265va (4, q. 6, a. 1). Consider that Martin Luther specfically appealed to d'Ailly (aka Cardinal of Cambrai) to the effect that consubstantiation seems the most reasonable explanation of real presence: Martin Luther, De captivitate Babylonica ecclesiae, in D. Martin Luthers Werke, 56 vols. (Weimar: Hermann Böhlau, 1888), 6:508.

⁴ Robson, J. A., Wyclif and the Oxford Schools (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1961), 187–190Google Scholar; and Leff, Gordon, “The Place of Metaphysics in Wyclif's Theology,” in From Ockham to Wyclif, ed. Hudson, Anne and Wilks, Michael (Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1987), 217–232Google Scholar.

⁵ Catto, J. I., “John Wyclif and the Cult of the Eucharist,” in The Bible in the Medieval World: Essays in Honor of Beryl Smalley, ed. Walsh, Katherine and Wood, Diana (Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1985), 269–286Google Scholar. For an overview of late medieval eucharistic piety, see Rubin, Miri, Corpus Christi: The Eucharist in Late Medieval Culture (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1991)Google Scholar.

⁶ John Wyclif, De potencia productiva dei ad extra, in De ente librorum duorum excerpta, ed. Michael Henry Dziewicki (London: Wyclif Society, 1909), 289 (chap. 12).

⁷ Aristotle, Categories 2.1a–b, 5.2a–3a; and Artistotle, Metaphysics 7.1028a. See also the discussion in Jörgen Vijgen, The Status of Eucharistic Accidents “sine subiecto”: An Historical Survey up to Thomas Aquinas and Selected Reactions (Berlin: Akademie Verlag, 2013), 21–29.

⁸ Wyclif, John, De ente predicamentali, ed. Beer, Rudolf (London: Wyclif Spociety, 1891), 38Google Scholar. See also the discussion in Alessandro Conti, “Wyclif's Logic and Metaphysics,” in John Wyclif: Late Medieval Theologian, ed. Ian Christopher Levy (Leiden: Brill, 2006), 67–125 (chap. 5), esp. 108–113.

⁹ John Wyclif, Sermo 25, in Sermones, ed. Johann Loserth, 4 vols. (London: Wyclif Society, 1887–1890), 3:193; and John Wyclif, De materia et forma, in Johannis Wyclif Miscellanea Philosophica, ed. Michael Henry Dziewicki, 2 vols. (London: Wyclif Society, 1902–1905), 1:165–170 (chap. 1).

¹⁰ John Wyclif, De apostasia, ed. Michael Henry Dziewicki (London: Wyclif Society, 1889), 138–139 (chap. 11). See Thomas Aquinas's attempt to resolve all the problems attendant upon the separation of subjects and accidents, Summa theologiae 3.77.1.

¹¹ John Wyclif, De eucharistia tractatus maior, ed. Johann Loserth (London: Wyclif Society, 1892), 78–79 (chap. 3); and Wyclif, De apostasia, 119–120 (chap. 10), 132–133 (chap. 11). The fourteenth-century Dominican Robert Holcot freely admitted in his Sentences commentary (4, q. 3) that God could, in fact, rearrange the created order in such ways but reckoned it unlikely that God would actually do so. For further discussion, see Denery, Dallas, “From Sacred Mystery to Divine Deception: Robert Holkot, John Wyclif and the Transformation of Fourteenth-Century Eucharistic Discourse,” Journal of Religion 29 (2005): 129–144Google Scholar.

¹² Wyclif, De eucharistia, 15 (chap. 1), 318 (chap. 9); and John Wyclif, De blasphemia, ed. Michael Henry Dziewicki (London: Wyclif Society, 1893), 20–21 (chap. 2).

¹³ Lotario di Segni, De missarum mysteriis [De sacro altaris mysterio], in J. P. Migne, Patrologiae cursus completus: Series Latina, 221 vols. (Paris: Migne, 1844–1864) (hereafter cited as PL), 217:868c–d. Note that Thomas Aquinas, in Summa theologiae 3.78.1, did not accept Lotario di Segni's explanation and felt free to dissent since the future Pope Innocent III had merely been expressing an opinion at the time rather than rendering a formal determination.

¹⁴ Gregorii XIII, Corpus juris canonici emendatum et notis illustratum, 3 parts in 4 vols. (Rome, 1582), col. 2518 (D 2 de cons. c. 25). See also Emil Friedberg, ed. Corpus Iuris Canonici, 2 vols. (Leipzig, 1879; repr., Graz: Akademische Druck- u. Verlagsanstalt, 1959), 1:1322.

¹⁵ Irène Rosier-Catach, La Parole Efficace: Signe, Rituel, Sacré (Paris: Éditions du Seuil, 2004), 392–394.

¹⁶ The Fishacre text is transcribed in the annex of Rosier-Catach, La Parole Efficace, 461.

¹⁷ See Thomas Winterton, Absolutio, in Fasciculi Zizaniorum Magistri Johannis Wyclif cum Tritico, ed. W. W. Shirley, Rolls Series 5 (London: Longman, Brown, Green, Longmans, Roberts, 1858), 215–217.

¹⁸ William Woodford, De causis condempnationis articulorum, in Fasciculus rerum expetendarum et fugiendarum prout Orthuino Gratio [. . .] editus est Coloniae, A. D. MDXXXV, ed. E. Brown (London, 1690), 194.

¹⁹ John Wyclif, De logica, ed. Michael Henry Diziewicki, 3 vols., (London: Wyclif Society, 1893–1899), 1:39 (chap. 12).

²⁰ John Wyclif, Sermo 34, in Sermones, ed. Johann Loserth, 4 vols. (London: Wyclif Society, 1887–1890), 3:278.

²¹ Wyclif, De logica, 1:14 (chap. 5). See Gabriel Nuchelmans, Theories of Proposition: Ancient and Medieval Conceptions of the Bearers of Truth and Falsity (Amsterdam: North-Holland, 1973), 165–176.

²² Panaccio, Claude, “Semantics and Mental Language,” in The Cambridge Companion to Ockahm, ed. Spade, Paul Vincent (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1999), 53–75CrossRefGoogle Scholar; and Normore, Calvin, “Some Aspects of Ockham's Logic,” in The Cambridge Companion to Ockahm, ed. Spade, Paul Vincent (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1999), 13–52Google Scholar. See Ockham's discussion in his Summa logica 2.2.

²³ Nuchelmans, Theories of Proposition, 209–211.

²⁴ Note that Wodeham developed his theory of “complex signifiables” partially in reply to Walter Chatton, whose own response to Ockham he reckoned overly simplistic. See Jack Zupko, “How it Played in the Rue de Fouarre: The Reception of Adam Wodeham's Theory of the Complexe Significabile in the Arts Faculty at Paris in the Mid-Fourteenth Century,” Franciscan Studies 54 (1994–1997): 211–225; Gedeon Gál, “Adam of Wodeham's Question on the ‘Complexe Signficabile’ as the Immediate Object of Scientific Knowledge,” Franciscan Studies 37 (1977): 66–102; and Lahey, John Wyclif, 76–79.

²⁵ Wyclif, De logica, 1:14–15 (chap. 5). See Richard Gaskin, “John Wyclif and the Theory of Complex Signifiables,” Vivarium 47 (2009): 74–96; and Laurent Cesalli, “Le ‘pan propositionnalisme’ de Jean Wyclif,” Vivarium 43 (2005): 124–155.

²⁶ John Wyclif, De universalibus, ed. Ivan Mueller (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1985), 140 (chap. 7). See Alessandro Conti, “Wyclif as an Opponent of Ockham: A Case of Realist Reaction to Ockham's Approach to Logic, Metaphysics, and Theology,” in A Companion to Responses to Ockham, ed. Christian Rode (Leiden: Brill, 2016), 109–139.

²⁷ Wyclif, De universalibus, 49 (chap. 1).

²⁸ Laurent Cesalli, “Intentionality and Truth-Making: Augustine's Influence on Burley and Wyclif's Propositional Semantics,” Vivarium 45 (2007): 283–297.

²⁹ Wyclif, De universalibus, 21 (chap. 1).

³⁰ Wyclif, De universalibus, 147–148 (chap. 7).

³¹ Paul J. J. M. Bakker, “Hoc est corpus meum: L'Analyse de la formule de la consécration chez des théologiens du xiv et dù xv siècles,” in Vestiga, Imagines, Verba, ed. Constantino Marmo (Turnhout: Brepols, 1997), 427–451; and Alain de Libera and Irène Rosier-Catach, “L'Analyse Scotiste de la formule de la consécration eucharistique,” in Vestiga, Imagines, Verba, ed. Constantino Marmo (Turnhout: Brepols, 1997), 171–201.

³² Wyclif, De logica, 1:15 (chap. 5). See Laurent Cesalli, Le Réalisme Propositionnel (Paris: J. Vrin, 2007), 327. The above quote from De logica follows Cesalli's correction of the text.

³³ John Wyclif, De scientia Dei, ed. Luigi Campi (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2018), 49 (chap. 5).

³⁴ William of Ockham, Quodlibeta Septem, in Opera Theologica, ed. Joseph Wey, vol. 9 (St. Bonaventure, N.Y.: St. Bonaventure University Press, 1980), 193–194 (Quodlibet 2, q. 19).

³⁵ Ockham, Quodlibeta Septem, 196 (Quodlibet 2, q. 19).

³⁶ Ockham, Quodlibeta Septem, 196–197 (Quodlibet 2, q. 19).

³⁷ John Wyclif, Trialogus, ed. Johann Lechler (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1869), 323 (4.32). See Laurent Cesalli, “Wyclif on the Felicity (Conditions) of Marriage,” Vivarium 49 (2011): 258–274. Regarding the canon law on valid marriage contracts, see Richard H. Helmholz, The Spirit of Classical Canon Law (Athens: University of Georgia Press, 1996), 238–240.

³⁸ Wyclif, De eucharistia, 123 (chap. 5).

³⁹ Thomas Netter, Doctrinale Antiquitatum Fidei Catholicae Ecclesiae, ed. B. Blanciotti, 3 vols. (Venice, 1757–1759; repr., Farnborough: Gregg, 1967), 2:193–194.

⁴⁰ For the formal list of Wyclif's condemned errors, see Henry Denzinger and Adolf Schönmetzer, eds., Enchiridion Symbolorum, 36th ed. (Rome: Herder, 1976), nos. 1151–1195.

⁴¹ Netter, Doctrinale Antiquitatum Fidei Catholicae Ecclesiae, 2:193–194.

⁴² Netter, Doctrinale Antiquitatum Fidei Catholicae Ecclesiae, 2:194. Cf. Wyclif, De eucharistia, 123 (chap. 5). For more on Netter's eucharistic theology, see I. C. Levy, “Thomas Netter on the Eucharist,” in Thomas Netter of Walden: Carmelite, Diplomat and Theologian, ed. Johan Bergström-Allen and Richard Copsey (Rome: St Albert's Press, 2009), 273–314.

⁴³ Irène Rosier, La Parole comme Acte: Sur la grammaire et sémantique au XIII siècle (Paris: J. Vrin, 1994), 198–206.

⁴⁴ Peter Auriol, Sentences (Rome, 1605), 75 (4, d. 8, q. 2, a. 2).

⁴⁵ The text is partially edited by Paul J. J. M. Bakker, “Les Septuaginta duae quaestiones de sacramento eucharistae de Guillaume Woodford O.F.M. Présentation del'ouvrage et édition de la question 51,” in Chemins de la Pensée Médiévale: Etudes offertes à Zénon Kaluza, ed. Paul Bakker, Emmanuel Faye, and Christophe Grellard (Turnhout: Brepols, 2002), 440–449, esp. 488–491. Bakker followed as his main text British Library MS Royal 7 B III, and I have consulted alongside his edition MS Bodley 703, fols. 140r–143r.

⁴⁶ Wyclif, De apostasia, 188 (chap. 14).

⁴⁷ Wyclif, Trialogus, 251–252 (4.3).

⁴⁸ Rosier-Catach, La Parole Efficace, 417–419.

⁴⁹ Wyclif, De eucharistia, 293 (chap. 9).

⁵⁰ While pointedly declining to speak of the conversion of the bread into Christ's body—which, he remarks, “the church calls transubstantiation,” but which he finds “inscrutable”—Wyclif nevertheless did address the principles of substantial change wherein it is prime matter that remains constant; see Wyclif, De materia et forma, 1:189–190 (chap. 4). Note Wyclif's subsequent discussion of the Trinity as a paradigm such that the Father is the matter, the Son the form, and the Holy Spirit the compound of both: De materia et forma, 1:195 (chap. 4). Wyclif proceeds to argue that prime matter does exist in some measure even without form, since it must first be capable of receiving form and therefore be naturally prior to it: De materia et forma 6, 1:207–208.

⁵¹ Wyclif, De eucharistia, 89 (chap. 4).

⁵² Decretales Gregorii IX, L. 3, t. 41, c. 6; Friedberg, Corpus Iuris Canonici, 2:637–638.

⁵³ Richard FitzRalph, Summa in questionibus Armenorum (Paris, 1512), fol. 66v (9.2).

⁵⁴ Wyclif, De eucharistia, 90–91 (chap. 4).

⁵⁵ Wyclif, De eucharistia, 92 (chap. 4). Note that in the Middle Ages, Latin was pronounced as the vernacular in one's own region, such that an English priest would pronounce the Latin Mass differently than a German or an Italian. See Henry Ansgar Kelly, “Lawyers’ Latin: Loquenda ut Vulgus,” Journal of Legal Education 38 (1988): 195–207.

⁵⁶ John Wyclif, De contrarietate duorum dominorum, in Polemical Works in Latin, ed. Rudolf Buddensieg, 2 vols. (London: Wyclif Society, 1883), 2:700–701 (chap. 3). Cf. John Wyclif, De veritate sacrae scripturae, ed. Rudolf Buddensieg, 3 vols. (London: Wyclif Society, 1905–1907), 1:109 (chap. 6).

⁵⁷ Augustine of Hippo, De trinitate, ed. William J. Mountain, Corpus Christianorum: Series Latina, vol. 50a (Turnhout: Brepols, 1968), 486–489 (15.11.20). See also Andrew Louth, “Augustine on Language,” Literature and Theology 3 (1989): 151–158.

⁵⁸ Wyclif, De universalibus, 34 (chap. 1). See also Alessandro Conti, “Wyclif's Logic and Metaphysics,” 99–102.

⁵⁹ John Wyclif, De fide catholica, in Opera Minora, ed. Joahnn Loserth (London: Wyclif Society, 1919), 118 (chap. 6).

⁶⁰ Wyclfi, De apostasia, 185 (chap. 14).

⁶¹ John Wyclif, Sermo 2, in Sermones, ed. Johann Loserth, 4 vols. (London: Wyclif Society, 1887–1890), 4:15.

⁶² Wyclif, De apostasia, 52 (chap. 3). See John Damascene, De fide orthodoxa, in J. P. Migne, Patrologia cursus completus: Series Graeca, 161 vols. (Paris: Migne, 1857–1866) (hereafter cited as PG), 94:1150 (chap. 4). Martin Luther would use this very sort of imagery to describe the union with distinction of the bread's substance and that of Christ's body in his De captivitate Babylonica ecclesiae, 6:510.

⁶³ Wyclif, De apostasia, 106 (chap. 9).

⁶⁴ Wyclif, De eucharistia, 271 (chap. 8).

⁶⁵ John Wyclif, De officio regis, ed. Alfred Pollard and Charles Sayle (London: Wyclif Society, 1887), 92–93 (chap. 5). Cf. Wyclif, De eucharistia, 306 (chap. 9).

⁶⁶ Wyclif, De apostasia, 115–116 (chap. 9).

⁶⁷ Wyclif, De apostasia, 118 (chap. 9).

⁶⁸ Wyclif, De eucharistia, 123 (chap. 5).

⁶⁹ John Wyclif, Confessio, in Fasciculi Zizaniorum Magistri Johannis Wyclif cum Tritico, ed. W. W. Shirley, Rolls Series 5 (London: Longman, Brown, Green, Longmans, Roberts, 1858), 115–116.

⁷⁰ Wyclif, Confessio, 117.

⁷¹ Wyclif, De apostasia, 196 (chap. 15).

⁷² Wyclif, De apostasia, 184 (chap. 14).

⁷³ See Anne Hudson, “Wyclif's Works and their Dissemination,” in Studies in the Transmission of Wyclif's Writings (Aldershot: Ashgate, 2008), 1–16; Anne Hudson, “From Oxford to Prague: The Writings of John Wyclif and his English Followers in Bohemia,” Slavonic and East European Review 75 (1997): 642–657; Zdenek David, “Religious Contacts with England during the Bohemian Reformation,” Bohemian Reformation and Religious Practice 11 (2018): 157–176; Katherine Walsh, “Wyclif's Legacy in Central Europe in the late Fourteenth and Early Fifteenth Centuries,” in From Ockham to Wyclif, ed. Anne Hudson and Michael Wilks (Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1987), 397–417; and František Šmahel, “‘Doctor evangelicus super omnes evangelistas’: Wyclif's Fortune in Hussite Bohemia,” Bulletin of the Institute of Historical Research 43 (1970): 11–34.

⁷⁴ Michael Van Dussen, From England to Bohemia: Heresy and Communication in the Later Middle Ages (Cammbridge: Cambridge University Press, 2012), 63–85.

⁷⁵ Ota Pavlícek, “Wyclif's Early Reception in Bohemia and His Influence on the Thought of Jerome of Prague,” in Europe after Wyclif, ed. J. Patrick Hornbeck II and Michael van Dussen (New York: Fordham University Press, 2017), 89–114.

⁷⁶ Marcela Perett, “A Neglected Eucharistic Controversy: The Afterlife of John Wyclif's Eucharistic Thought in Bohemia in the Early Fifteenth Century,” Church History 84 (2015): 64–89, esp. 68–72.

⁷⁷ Perett, “A Neglected Eucharistic Controversy,” 80–84. See also these recent studies: Barry Graham, “The Evolution of the Utraquist Mass, 1420–1620,” Catholic Historical Review 92 (2006): 553–573; Pavel Kolár, “The Feast of Corpus Christi and Its Changes in Late Utraquism,” Bohemian Reformation and Religious Practice 11 (2018): 111–128; Pavel Kolár, “Petr Chelcicky's Defense of Sacramental Communion: Response to Mikulas Biskupec of Tabor,” Bohemian Reformation and Religious Practice 6 (2007): 133–142; David Holeton, “The Evolution of a Utraquist Eucharistic Liturgy: A Textual Study,” Bohemian Reformation and Religious Practice 2 (1998): 97–126; and David Holeton, “The Bohemian Eucharistic Movement in its European Context,” Bohemian Reformation and Religious Practice 1 (1996): 23–47.

⁷⁸ Andrew of Brod, Epistula ad Zbynkonem, Archepiscopum Pragensem, cum Tractatu contra Errorem Remanentiae, in Studien und Texte zum Leben und Wirken des Prager Magisters Andreas von Brod, ed. Jaroslav Kadlec (Münster: Aschendorff, 1982), 126–128.

⁷⁹ Andrew of Brod, Epistula ad Zbynkonem, 136–137.

⁸⁰ Jan Příbram, Tractatus de venerabili eukaristia contra Nicolaum falsum episcopum Taboritatum, in Táborské Traktáty Eucharistické, ed. Jan Sedlák (Brno: Otisk z Hlídky, 1918), 63 (chap. 3).

⁸¹ Peter Payne, Petri Payne Anglici Tractatus II: De corpore Christi, in Táborské Traktáty Eucharistické, ed. Jan Sedlák (Brno: Otisk z Hlídky, 1918), 34. Cf. Wyclif, De eucharistia, 116 (chap. 5). Payne had debated Jan Příbram at Prague in 1429 before a panel of eight thelogians, six of whom voted in support of Jan against Payne's eucharistic definitions. See Thomas Fudge, “Václav the Anonymous and Jan Příbram: Textual Laments on the Fate of Religion in Bohemia (1424–1429),” Filosofický Časopis, supplementum 3 (2011): 115–132, at 118.

⁸² Note that Jan Hus's treatment of the Eucharist in his Sentences commentary is entirely traditional. There he readily employed the term “transubstantiation” and affirmed in a separate eucharistic treatise that the true body and blood are consumed under alien species. Nor did Hus make the case for lay reception under both kinds, noting that the laity do receive both the body and blood under the bread alone in keeping with the doctrine of concomitance. See Jan Hus, Magister Johannis Hus Super IV. Sententiarum, in Opera Omnia, ed. W. Flašhans and M. Komínková, 3 vols. (Prague: 1905; repr., Osnabrück: 1966), 2:553–588 (4.8–13); and Jan Hus, De corpore Christi, in Opera Omnia, ed. W. Flašhans and M. Komínková, 3 vols. (Prague: 1905; repr., Osnabrück: 1966), 1:23–27.

⁸³ Jakoubek of Stříbro, Tractatus de remanencia, in Jacobelus de Stříbro: Premier Théologien de Hussitime, ed. Paul de Vooght (Louvain: Publications Universitaires de Louvain, 1972), 320 (chap. 1).

⁸⁴ Jakoubek, Tractatus de remanencia, 339–340 (chap. 2).

⁸⁵ Jakoubek, Tractatus de remanencia, 344 (chap. 3).

⁸⁶ Jakoubek, Tractatus de remanencia, 344–345 (chap. 3). Jakoubek's argument runs close to Wyclif, Sermo 34, 3:278; including a reference to Jerome's Ad Hedibiam, in PL 22:986 (chap. 2).

⁸⁷ Jakoubek, Tractatus de remanencia, 344–345 (chap. 3).

⁸⁸ Jakoubek, Tractatus de remanencia, 345–346 (chap. 3).

⁸⁹ Jakoubek, Tractatus de remanencia, 346 (chap. 3). The Taborite priest Jan Nemec of Zatec had similarly argued that Christ's use of the pronoun hoc rather than hic, as one would expect to modify panis, is evidence that he had been speaking figuratively. See Jan Nemec of Zatec, Tractatulus de eucharistia, in Táborské Traktáty Eucharistické, ed. Jan Sedlák (Brno: Otisk z Hlídky, 1918), 6.

⁹⁰ Jakoubek, Tractatus de remanencia, 323–324 (chap. 1). See again John Damascene, De fide orthodoxa, in PG 94:1150–1151.

⁹¹ Jakoubek, Tractatus de remanencia, 330 (chap. 2). One finds a similar presentation of remanentist theology with the Prague theologian Stanislaus of Znojmo, who reinterpreted traditional categories and terminology in an effort to construct a new way of speaking of Christ's eucharistic presence—one that could accommodate the bread's transformation into something it had not been before without, however, sacrificing its essential nature in the process. To that end, Stanislaus was willing to employ the term “transubstantiation” in such a way as to allow for the bread's substantial remanence. This enabled him to assert that, by the power of God's almighty word, the bread may remain in its own proper nature even as it is infinitely and efficaciously transubstantiated into the body of Christ. The bread is thereby sanctified such that it may be said to become Christ's body even as it remains bread through its own nature. Stanislaus likewise pursued an Incarnational model as a means to explain the bread's new and dynamic relationship to Christ the Word. See Stanislaus of Znojmo, Tractatus Primus de Eucharistia, in Miscellanea hustica Iohannis Sedlák (Prague: Univerzita Karlova Press, 1996), 289–297.

⁹² De adorare et colere, in Táborské Traktáty Eucharistické, ed. Jan Sedlák (Brno: Otisk z Hlídky, 1918), 53–54.

⁹³ Jakoubek of Stříbro, Tractatus Ihesus Christus Dominus et Salvator, in Jacobelus de Stříbro: Premier Théologien de Hussitime, ed. Paul de Vooght (Louvain: Publications Universitaires de Louvain, 1972), 400–401 (chap. 12).

⁹⁴ Jakoubek, Tractatus Ihesus Christus Dominus et Salvator, 401–402 (chap. 13).

⁹⁵ Holeton, “The Bohemian Eucharistic Movement in its European Context,” 42.