« PreviousContinue »
THE LORD'S SUPPER.
1. The Controversy on the Eucharist previous to the Rise of Scho
lasticism. Paschasius Radbert and Ratramn. Berengar.
Marheineke (comp. vol. i. & 73), p. 66, 88. Ebrard, i. 385. Gfrörer, Uber Pseudo-Isidor,
in the Freib. Kath. Zeitschrift, 1847, p. 237, sq.
Though at the beginning of this period, forms of statement are sometimes employed, which can be interpreted of the Lord's Supper in a symbolical sense,' yet the usage,' fixed by the liturgies, was constantly shaped more in favor of the doctrine of transubstantiation. The violent controversy between the monks, Paschasius Radbert and Ratramn,' which degenerated into the most obscene discussions, and gave rise to appellations not less offensive, became the signal for new contests. The most eminent theologians of the age, such as Rabanus Maurus,' and Scotus Erigena,' took an active part in the dispute. Gerbert, whose reputation was great in those days, endeavored to illustrate the doctrine propounded by Paschasius, of a real change of the bread into the body of Christ, by the aid of geometrical diagrams.' It had been so generally adopted, as the orthodox doctrine, towards the middle of the eleventh century, that Berengar, Canon of Tours, and afterwards Archdeacon at Angers, who ventured to express doubts concerning its correctness in a letter addressed to Lanfranc, was condemned, and obliged by several synods (at Vercelli and Rome, 1050-1079) to retract. He would have suffered still more, if Pope Gregory VII. had not at last succeeded in protecting him against the rage of his enemies." Berengar, however, was far from rejecting every more spiritual conception, than that of a inere sign. Nor did he take offence at the use of the phrase, “ to partake of the body and blood of Christ,” but he explained it in a more or less ideal manner.' On the other hand, Cardinal Humbert was carried so far by his violent zeal, as to interpret the phrase in question in the grossest (Capernaitic) manner. It then became impossible to adopt any moderate view; and later theologians found little more to do than to conceal the more objectionable aspect of the doctrine by an increased subtlety of argumentation, and to surround the impenetrable mystery, as it were, with a thorny hedge of syllogisms, as is exemplified in the scholastic distinction made by Lanfranc between the subject and the accidents."
· Thus in the Venerable Bede (in Marci Evangel. Opera, Tom. v. p. 192, and elsewhere), the passage in Münscher, edit. by von Cölln, p. 223, 89.
[He says, it is instituted, in suæ redemptionis memoriam : and, panem certi quoque gratia sacramenti, priusquam frangeret, benedixit. In his Homil. Hiemalis (Tom. vii., col. 320), he says that the bread and wine-in sacram tum carnis et sanguinis ejus ineffabili Spiritus sanctificatione transfertur.] So, too, in Walafried Strabo (Ebrard, 366), Alcuin, etc. As early as the times of Charlemagne, however, theologians seemed agreed, that, in the bread and the wine of the Lord's Supper, we are to adore more than mere signs, De impio Imaginum Cultu Lib. vi. c. 14, p. 461); see Münscher, von Cölln, 224, sq. Amalarius of Metz speaks out with special emphasis (about 820); in the Spicileg. T. vii. (see Ebrard, 368) Ecclesiæ sacrificium præsens mandendum esse ab humano ore; credit namque corpus et sanguinem Domini esse, et hoc morsu benedictione cælesti impleri animas sumentium. Moreover, he will not decide, utrum invisibiliter assumatur in cælum an reservetur in
usque in diem sepulturæ, an exhaletur in auras, aut cxeat de corpore cum sanguine, an per poros emittatur.
Compare Ebrard, ubi supra, 370, 89. • Paschasius Radbert (monachius Corbeiensis) in his Liber de Corpore et Sanguine Domini (addressed to the Emperor Charles the Bald, between the years 830 and 832.) See Martène and Durand, T. ix. col. 367-470, and extracts from it in Rössler, x. p. 616, ss. He started from the omnipotence of God, to whom all things are possible, and consequently maintained ii. 2: sensibilis res intelligibiliter virtute Dei per verbum Christi in carnem ipsius ac sanguinem divinitus transfertur. He looked upon the elements as no more than a veil (in a Docetic way) which deceives our senses, and keeps the body of Christ concealed from us: Figura videtur esse dum frangitur, dum in specie visibili aliud intelligitur quam quod visu carnis et gustu sentitur. It is the same body which was born of Mary.-At times the true body of Christ has appeared to those who doubted (in order to encourage them), as well as to those who were strong in the faith (in order to reward them), instead of the bread (for the most part in the form of a lamb), or stains of blood have been perceived, etc.*-He was opposed by Ratramn (Bertramn) in his treatise : De Corpore et Sanguine Domini ad Carolum Calvum (it was written at the request of the king; extracts are given by Schröckh, xxiii. p. 445; Neander, iv.; and Münscher, edit. by von Colln, p. 230–235.) [Extracts in Gieseler (New York ed.) ii. 80, 89. An English translation of Ratramn was published in 1548, 1549. Sir Humphrey Lynde made another, 1623, reprinted, 1686. Dr. Hopkins, canon of Worcester, published the text and an English version, 1686, exposing the corruptions of Boileau's version; another edition, 1688. It has been republished at Oxford several times. An American edition was published in Baltimore (with the Saxon Homily of Ælfric), in 1843.] Ratramn properly distinguished between the sign, and the thing represented by it (figura et veritas), the internal and the external, and pointed out the true significance of the mysteries, which consists in this, that through their medium the mind of man rises from the visible to the invisible. If it were possible to cat the body of Christ, in the proper sense of the word, faith would be no longer required, and the
* Concerning such miraculous appearances, compare also Bossuet, edited by Cramer, v. 2. p. 105.
mystery, as such, would lose all its significance. The gross reality would destroy the idea, and nothing but a mere materialialism would remain. Ratramn also supposed a conversio of the bread and wine into the body of Christ, but only in the ideal sense of the word, as the ancient church held to a transition from the profane to the pure (sub velamento corporei panis corporeique vini spirituale corpus Christi spiritualisque sanguis existit). The mnemonic character is emphasized; and he also appealed to the authority of earlier writers. Respecting the later appellation, Stercoranists (in allusion to Matt. xv. 17), which had its origin in these discussions (Paschasius, C. 20, 2), see Schröckh, xxiii. p. 493, ss., and Pfaff. C. M. ; Tractatus de Stercoranistis medii ævi. Tub. 1750, 4°.* [Comp. Neander, Hist. Dogm. 457, 89.]
The treatise of Rabanus addressed to Egilo, abbot of Prum, was professedly edited by Mabillon (Acta SS. T. vi.) ; but both Münscher, ed. by von Cölln, p. 229, and Neander, Church Hist. iii. 457, 89., deny the genuineness of that edition. The real opinion of Rabanus may be inferred from the following passage (De Justit. Cleric. i. c. 31, and iii, 13, quoted by Gieseler, ii. p. 80, $ 14, note, and Münscher, ed. by von Cölln, 1. c.): Maluit enim Dominus corporis et sanguinis sui sacramenta fidelium ore percipi, et in pastum eorum redigi, ut per visibile opus invisibilis ostenderetur effectus. Sicut enim cibus materialis forinsecus nutrit corpus et vegetat, ita etiam verbum Dei intus animam nutrit et roborat. ... Sacramentum orc percipitur, virtute sacramenti interior homo satiatur. Sacramentum in alimentum corporis redigitur, virtute autem sacramenti æterna vita adipiscitur.
* This was at least the common opinion (compare the letter of Berengar to Lanfranc). It is, however, uncertain, whether the treatise (de Eucharistia) commonly ascribed to Scotus, which was condemned by the Synod of Vercelli (A. D. 1050), is the same with the treatise ascribed to Ratramn (as De Marca says, who ascribes it to Scotus), or whether we have here two distinct treatises ; see Gieseler, as above. F. W. Lauf (Studien und Kritiken, 1828, part 4, p. 755, ss.), ascribes the authorship to Ratramn, and denies it of Scotus. Compare also Neander, as above; he thinks it probable, that Scotus gave his opinion on the subject in question, though the notion of a lost treatise written by him may have arisen from a mistake. To judge from some passages contained in his treatise De Div. Nat. (quoted by Neander, 1. c.) he would not have given countenance to the doctrine propounded by Paschasius. (Neander, Hist. Dogm. 459, says that the doctrine of Scotus was as follows: He taught like some of the Greek Fathers, that the glorified body of Christ by its union with the divinity was freed from the defects of a sensuous nature. He impugned those who said, that the body of Christ after the resurrection occupied some limited space, and held to its ubiquity. He denied the doctrine of transubstantiation, and admitted a spiritual presence at the Supper : Christ's presence here is a symbol of his presence everywhere.]
* A controversy of quite as unprofitable a nature was carried on between the above Damed Amalarius (who composed a liturgical work about the year 820), and the priest Guntrad, concerning spitting during the celebration of the mass; see d'Achery, Spicil. T. iii. in Schröckh, Kirchengesch. xxiii. p. 496. Gerbert (De Corpore et Sanguine Christi) remarks against the Stercoranistic inferences : Et nos sæpe vidimus non modo infirmos, sed etiam sanos, quod per se intromittunt, per vomitum dejecisse.....subtilior tamen succus per membra usque ad ungues diffundebatur. “That surely was medicinal;" Ebrard,
• De Corpore et Sanguine Domini, edited by Pez, in Thesaur. Anecdd. Noviss. T. i. P. ii. f. 133. Schröckh, xxiii. p. 493.* Gerbert also tried to make clear the relation between Christ, the Supper, and the church, in a logical way, by the three terms of the syllogism, or the three parts of an arithmetical proportion ; sec Ritter, vii. 304; Ebrard, 438.
'On the external history of the controversy, see Mabillon, J. Dissert. de multiplici Berengarii Damnatione, Fidei Professione et Relapsu, deque ejus Pænitentia, in J. Vogtii Biblioth. Hæresiolog. Hamb., 1723. Tom. i. Fasc. i. p. 99, ss.; Schröckh, xxiii. p. 507, ss.; Neander, iv.: and Gieseler, ii. 8 29. -Sources from which his opinions may be ascertained, are: the Epistles of his school-fellow, Adelmann, De Veritate Corp. et Sang. Domini, ad Beren. garium (which he wrote previous to his nomination as bishop of Brixen in Tyrol, A. D. 1049), edited by J. Coster, Lovan, 1551, in Biblioth, Patrum T. xviii., and by Schmidt, Brunsv., 1770. 8; Hugonis Lingonensis Lib. de Corpore et Sanguine Dom. (d'Achery in Opp. Lanfranci. Append. p. 68, ss. Biblioth. Patrum T. xviii. p. 417, ss.); Lanfrancus, de Corp. et Sang. Dom. adversus Berengar. Turonens, which was composed between the years 1063 and 70), in Opp. ed. L. d'Achery, Lutet. 1648, and Biblioth. Patrum T. xviii. P: 763–777. This work also contains the first treatise which Berengar wrote in opposition to Lanfranc, from which we must distinguish his second: Liber de sacra Cæna advers. Lanfrancum (edited by Staudlin in 6 programmes, Gött. 1820-29, 4.)–Comp. Lessing, Gotth. Ephr., Berengarius Turonensis, Braunschweig, 1770, 4 (in the edition of his complete works publ. Berlin, 1825, ss., vol. xii. p. 143, ss.); Staudlins and Tzschirners Archiv für Kirchengeschichte, vol. ii. part. i. p. 1–98. *Berengarii Turonensis quæ supersunt tam edita quam inedita, typis expressa, moderante A. Neandro T. i. Berol. 1834. (Berengarii de Sacra Cæna adv. Lanfrancum, liber posterior, e codice Guelferbytano primum ediderunt A. E. et F. Th. Vischer. ibid. 1834.) A more detailed account of the literature is given by Gieseler, 1.c. Leading historical facts : The first condemnation of Berengar, A. D. 1050, at Rome under Pope Leo IX., without an opportunity of defence. -The repetition of the sentence passed upon him at Vercelli in the same year.-On the supposed council of Paris, see Neander, I. c.—Council at Tours (A. D. 1054.)—Berengar's justification with the assistance of Hildebrand.—Another council at Rome (A. D. 1059.)—The violent conduct of Humbert-The inconstancy manifested by Berengar in this matter.—Correspondence with Lanfranc.-Other Synods at Rome (A. D. 1078 and 1079. -Berengar again submitted to sign the confession of faith drawn up by his enemies, but retracted afterwards.—The Litteræ Commendatitiæ of Pope Gregory VII.-Berengar's death on the isle of St. Côme, Dear Tours, A. D. 1088.
* Gerbert's method of illustrating such supernatural truths by ocular demonstration, was imitated even by later theologians. Thus Melancthon informs us, that his tutor Lempus, at Tubingen, drew a representation of transubstantiation on a board (Ep. de suis studiis, written A. D. 1541. See Galle, Melancthon, p. 6.)
• Berengar combated principally the doctrine of an entire change, in such a manner as to make the bread cease to be bread, and to have nothing left but the accidents, for then in reality a portiuncula carnis was eaten instead of bread. In accordance with the earlier fathers, he retained the doctrine of a change from an inferior to a superior form, and of a mystical participation in the body of Christ under the figure of bread, p. 67 (edit. Vischer): Dum enim dicitur : panis et vinum sacramenta sunt, minime panis aufertur et vinum, et nominibus rerum ita natarum significativis aptatur nomen, quod non data sunt, ut est sacramentum ; simul etiam esse aliud aliquid minime prohibentur, sunt enim, sicut secundum religionem sacramenta, ita secundum aliud alimenta, sustentamenta. The subject, of which anything is predicated, must remain the same, otherwise that which is predicated would have no meaning. Pag. 71: Dun dicitur: panis in altari consecratur, vel panis sanctus, panis sacrosanctus est Christi corpus, omni veritate panis superesse conceditur. Verbi gratia, si enuntias : Soerates justus est, aliquid eum esse constituisti, nec potest justus esse, si contingat, Socratem non esse. Pag. 76: Sicut enim, qui dicit : Christus est lapis angularis, non revera Christum lapidem esse constituit, sed propter aliquam similitudinem, quam ad se invicem gerunt, tale nomen ei imponit, eodem modo, cum divina pagina corpus domini panem vocat, sacrata ac mystica locutione id agit. Pag. 86: Quando autem afferuntur ad altare vel ponuntur in altari, adhuc sunt, ut ait beatus Augustinus contra Faustum, alimenta refectionis, nondum sacramenta religionis, (h)ac per hoc, nondum corpus Christi et sanguis existentia, non tropica, sed propria sunt locutione pendenda. Dicens ergo Humbertus ille tuus, panem, qui ponitur in altari, post consecrationem esse corpus Christi, panem propria locutione, corpus Christi tropica accipiendum esse constituit, et illud quidem recte, quia ex auctoritate scripturarum.-Pag. 90: Dicitur autem in scripturis panis altaris de pane fieri corpus Christi, sicut servus malus dicitur fieri de malo servo bonus filius, non quia amiserit animæ propriæ naturam aut corporis.—Pag. 91 : Unde insanissimum dictu erat et christianæ religioni contumeliosissimum, corpus Christi de pane vel de quocunque confici per generationem subjecti...... ut pane absumto per corruptionem subjecti corpus Christi esse incipiat per generationem subjecti, quia nec pro parte, nec pro toto potest incipere nunc esse corpus Christi.—Pag. 95: Novit autem revera secundum carnem Christum, qui Christi corpus asserit adhuc esse corruptioni vel generationi obnoxium, vel quarumcunque qualitatum vel collineationum, quas prius non babuerit, susceptivum.—Pag. 98: Denique verbum caro factum assumsit quod non erat, non amittens quod erat, et panis consecratus in altari amisit vilitatem, amisit inefficaciam, non amisit naturæ proprietatem, cui naturæ quasi loco, quasi fundamento dignitas divinitus augeretur et efficacia. (A comparison is drawn between the change in question, and the change at the conversion of Saul into Paul, p. 144.) Pag. 161: Est ergo vera procul dubio panis et vini per consecrationem altaris conversio in corpus Christi et sanguinem, sed attendendum, quod dicitur: per consecrationem, quia hic est hujus conversionis modus, etc.... Pag. 163: Per consecrationem, inquam, quod nemo interpretari poterit: per subjecti corruptionem.–Pag. 167 : Sed quomodo manducandus est Christus? Quomodo ipse dicit : qui manducat carnem meam et bibit sanguinem meum,