Stercoranist

[T]his very thing that Mr. Arnaud [i.e., Antoine Arnauld] believes Amalarius vvas a Stercoraniſt ought to convince him on the contrary that this Author did not believe the change or converſion of the ſubſtance in the Euchariſt.

[…] Humburtus Biſhop of Silvâ Candida calls Nicetas Stercoraniſt. […] If Cardinal Humbert drevv up Berengarius his Recantation, he vvas the verieſt Stercoraniſt vvho called Stercoraniſt firſt, and Pope Nicolaus the ſecond vvith the vvhole Councel that impoſed that Form of Abjuration upon him, vvere Stercoraniſts to ſome purpoſe; vvho taught him, That Chriſts body is truly and ſenſiby handled and broken by the Prieſts hands, and ground by the Teeth of the Faithful.

Great conteſts have ariſen in the church of Rome, vvhether the ſacramental bread and vvine vvere ſo far digeſted, as that ſome part of them, like other food, vvas turned into excrements: thoſe vvho held the affirmative, vvent by the name of Stercorarians or Stercoraniſtæ. Cardinal Humbert, in his anſvver to Nicetas Pectoratus, treats him as a Stercoraniſt, merely for holding that the euchariſt breaks the faſt; vvhich opinion he imagined led directly into Stercoraniſm.

He [Humbert of Silva Candida] designated his adversary [Niketas Stethatos] a Stercoranist, because he had said that the eucharist broke the fast; he anathematised him, and all who thought with him, until they should forsake their errors.

Adherents of Christ's material presence in the Eucharist had also to answer (or deflect, with ridicule) the stercoranists, those who took seriously the possibility of Christ's body being not only masticated, but excreted, subject to all cloacal indignities.