Note: Last Updated 9/12/2024.
Outline:
1. Paschasius Radbertus, Abbot of Corbie (c. 785-865 A.D.).
2. Excursus: A Somatic (Corporeal) Presence is not Transubstantiation.
2.1. Excursus: Historical Background.
3. Endnotes (Alternate Translations and Additional Testimony).
1. Paschasius Radbertus, Abbot of Corbie (c. 785-865 A.D.). Return to Outline.
Paschasius Radbertus, Abbot of Corbie (c. 785-865 A.D.):
Therefore, when He says: “This is My body” or My flesh, or: “This is My blood,” I do not think that He insinuated any other flesh than his own, which was born of the Virgin Mary, and hung upon the cross, nor any other blood than that which was shed upon the cross, and was then in His own body.
(S. Paschasii Radberti Abbatis Corbeiensis, Epistola de Corpore et Sanguine Domini ad Frudegardum; PL, 120:1351; trans. JHT-TCF, 239.)
Paschasius Radbertus, Abbot of Corbie (c. 785-865 A.D.):
Let them, who will, dare extenuate this word of body, that that is not the true flesh of Christ, which is now celebrated in the Church of Christ, nor His true blood; wishing to approve of, or invent, I know not what, as if there were a certain virtue only of the flesh and blood in that Sacrament. …Wherefore I wonder what certain will now say, that the truth of the flesh or blood of Christ is not in reality, but that in the Sacrament there is a certain virtue of the flesh, and not the flesh; there is a virtue of the blood, and not the blood; a figure, and not the truth: a shadow, and not the body. …I have said these things more at length, and more expressly for this reason, because I have heard that some blame me, as if in that book which I had published concerning the Sacraments of Christ, I intended to attribute to these words [This is My body] something more, or something else than the truth warrants.
(S. Paschasii Radberti Abbatis Corbeiensis, Epistola de Corpore et Sanguine Domini ad Frudegardum, Expositum Paschasii Radberti, In Illud Matthæi, Matth. XXVI, PL, 120:1356-1357; trans. JHT-TCF, 239-240. Cf. S. Paschasii Radberti Abbatis Corbeiensis, Expositio in Matthæum, Lib. XII, Cap. XXVI; PL, 120:890-891.) [1.]
Paschasius Radbertus, Abbot of Corbie (c. 785-865 A.D.):
As it is the true flesh of Christ which was crucified and buried, truly is it the sacrament of his flesh, which is divinely consecrated through the Holy Spirit on the altar by the agency of the priest in Christ’s word. The Lord himself proclaims, “This is my body.” Do not be surprised, O man, and do not ask about the order of nature here; but if you truly believe that that flesh was without seed created from the Virgin Mary in her womb by the power of the Holy Spirit, so that the Word might be made flesh, truly believe also that what is constructed in Christ’s word through the Holy Spirit is his body from the Virgin. If you ask the method, who can explain or express it in words? Be assured, please, that the method resides in Christ’s virtue, the knowledge in faith, the cause in power, but the effect in will, because the power of divinity over nature effectively works beyond the capacity of our reason.
(Paschasii Radberti Abbatis Corbeiensis, De Corpore et Sanguine Domini, Caput IV, §. 3; PL, 120:1279; trans. LCC, 9:103.)
Cardinal Robert Bellarmine, S.J. (Canonized Roman Catholic Saint):
This author was the first, who seriously and profusely wrote concerning the truth of the body and blood of our Lord in the Eucharist…
(Robertus Bellarminus, De Scriptoribus Ecclesiasticis: Testamenti Novi, “De Paschasio Rutberto”; In: Cardinalis Roberti Bellarmini, S.J., Opera Omnia: Tomus Duodecimus, ed. Justinus Fèvre, [Parisiis: Ludovicum Vivès, 1874], p. 423; trans. JHT-TCF, 240.)
2. Excursus: A Somatic (Corporeal) Presence is not Transubstantiation. Return to Outline.
Thomas S. L. Vogan:
Early in this century, Paschasius Radbertus, a monk of Corby, near Amiens, is stated by Bellarmine and Sismondus, to have been “the first who seriously and copiously wrote concerning the truth of Christ’s body and blood in the Eucharist,” and to have “so explained the genuine sense of the Catholic Church, that he opened the way to the rest, who afterwards in great numbers wrote upon the same argument.” But his doctrine met with great opposition as novel and erroneous; and his assailants suffered no reproofs from Popes or Councils, which we may be sure would have been administered, if the doctrine had been commonly received.
The doctrine of Paschasius, however, was far short of the doctrine of Transubstantiation. Bishop Cosin justly says that “in that whole book of Paschasius there is nothing that favours the transubstantiation of the bread, or its destruction, or removal.” He wrote against some who held that “this bread and cup was nothing else than what is seen with the eyes and is tasted with the mouth;” and that “it is not the true flesh of Christ, nor his true blood, which is celebrated in the Sacrament, but only a certain virtue of his body and blood.” And he represented such opinions as virtually imputing a lie to Christ, since they made it “not his true flesh, nor his true blood, in which his true death is shown forth; whereas the very Truth says, ‘This is my body,’ and likewise of the cup, ‘Drink ye all of this, for this is my blood of the New Testament,’ not any kind whatsoever, but that ‘which shall be shed for you for the remission of sins.’”
He, therefore, asserted on the contrary, that “nothing else than the flesh and blood of Christ is to be believed after the consecration” of the bread and wine:—that flesh “which was born of Mary, and suffered on the cross, and rose again from the tomb:”—that it is the “true flesh and true blood, in a mystery,” which the unworthy did not receive, but, on the contrary, judgment: that “the body and blood of the Lord, according to truth, are received by faith:” that the mystery “remains in the figure of bread and wine:” that “we cannot deny that the Sacrament is a figure,” while “it is at the same time rightly called truth:” and that since it behoved our Lord to penetrate the heavens, according to the “flesh, in order that they who are born again in Him might have their desire more confidently directed thither, He has left to us this visible Sacrament for a figure and image of his flesh and blood, that by these our mind and our flesh may be more fruitfully nourished to lay hold of invisible and spiritual things by faith.” And he thus illustrates the sense in which he asserted both figure and truth in the Sacrament: citing Heb. i. 3, he says that, “in these words the apostle sets forth two substances in Christ, and both of them true. For when he says, ‘who, being the brightness of the glory’ of the Divinity, he declares Him to be consubstantial. But when he says ‘the figure of image of his substance,’ he designates the nature of his humanity, where the fulness of the Divinity dwells bodily, and yet in both [forms of words], the one and true Christ God is celebrated in accordance with Catholic truth. Whence he takes one thing for the demonstration of two substances, which he called the figure or image of the substance: because, as by images or figures of letters our childhood first gets on gradually to reading, and then to the spiritual senses and intelligence of the Scriptures; so from the humanity of Christ we come to the Divinity of the Father: and, therefore, He is rightly called the figure or image of his substance.—Neither may the man Christ be called an untruth, nor any other than God, although He be rightly called a figure, that is, an image of the substance of the Divinity.”
It follows, therefore, that Paschasius, in calling the Sacrament of the Eucharist both a figure and the truth, intended to set forth two substances, the substance of the bread and wine, and the true flesh and the true blood of Christ. And, on the one hand, however literally he may assert the true flesh and the true blood of Christ in the Sacrament, he does not teach what is called the real presence of that flesh and blood in or with the elements; but that the bread and wine are the body and blood of Christ, the true body and blood: a distinction the importance of which will be seen in another place: while, on the other hand, he teaches no transubstantiation of the elements, no change or annihilation of their substance.
Paschasius, however, in insisting upon the letter of our Lord’s words, overlooked the fact that he was taking only part of the letter; and failed to see that the whole would have led him by the same system of interpretation to another and sounder doctrine.
(Thomas S. L. Vogan, The True Doctrine of the Eucharist, [London: Longmans, Green, and Co., 1871], pp. 59-62.) [2.]
2.1. Excursus: Historical Background. Return to Outline.
John C. L. Gieseler:
The ecclesiastical mode of speaking, that bread and wine in the Lord’s Supper became by consecration the body and blood of Christ, may have been frequently understood of a transformation of substance, by the uneducated; but among the theologians of the west, this misconception could not so readily find acceptance, in consequence of the clear explanations given by the celebrated Augustine. When, therefore, Paschasius Radbert, a monk and abbot of Corbey, from 844-851 (†865), expressly taught such a transformation, he met with considerable opposition. Rabanus Maurus rejected the new doctrine as erroneous. Ratramnus, in the opinion for which he was asked by the emperor, and which has subsequently been often attributed erroniously to John Scotus, declared against it; and the most distinguished theologians of this period firmly adhered to the Augustinian view, so that Paschasius saw that he was called upon to defend his sentiments, for many reasons. Still the mystical, and apparently pious, doctrine, which was easier of apprehension, and seemed to correspond better to the sacred words, obtained its advocates too; 10 and it was easy to see, that it only needed times of darkness, such as soon followed, to become general.
In the same spirit Radbert also taught a miraculous delivery of Mary, but here again he was opposed by Ratramnus.
(John C. L. Gieseler, A Text-Book of Church History: Vol. II.—A.D. 726-1305, trans. Samuel Davidson, John Winstanley Hull, ed. Henry B. Smith, [New York: Harper & Brothers, 1865], pp. 79-84.) [3.]
Note: For extensive primary source documentation regarding the novel nature of Paschasius Radbertus’ Eucharistic theology, see: “The Medieval Continuation of the Patristic Understanding of John 6 as Spiritual” also see: “The Medieval Continuation of the Patristic Understanding of the “Real Presence” as Spiritual not Carnal/Corporeal.”
3. Endnotes (Alternate Translations and Additional Testimony). Return to Outline.
Those who want to diminish the truth of this word of the body, that it is not the true body of Christ, which is now celebrated in the sacrament in the Church of Christ, nor His true blood, wishing to applaud or fabricate something, as if the virtue [virtus] of flesh and blood were in that sacrament, so that the Lord would lie and there would be no true body or true blood, in which the true death of Christ is proclaimed, when the Truth itself says: “This is my body.” Similarly, regarding the cup: “Drink from it, all of you; for this is my blood of the New Testament, which is shed for you for the remission of sins.” He did not say when He broke the bread and gave it to them, “This is, or in this mystery is, the virtue [virtus] or figure of my body,” but said truly, “This is my body.” Where Luke adds, “Which will be given for you,” or as other manuscripts have it, “will be given.” And John, from the Lord’s perspective, says, “The bread that I will give is my flesh,” not another, “for the life of the world.” And then, “He who eats my flesh and drinks my blood abides in me, and I in him.” Hence, I wonder what some now want to say, that the truth of Christ’s body or blood is not in reality, but in the sacrament the virtue [virtutem] of flesh and not flesh, the virtue [virtutem] of blood and not blood; a figure and not the truth, a shadow and not the body, when the species receive truth and figure, the body of ancient sacrifices. [Audiant qui volunt extenuare hoc verbum corporis, quod non sit vera caro Christi, quæ nunc in sacramento celebratur in Ecclesia Christi, neque verus sanguis ejus: nescio quid volentes plaudere vel fingere, quasi virtus sit carnis et sanguinis in eo admodum sacramento, ut Dominus mentiatur, et non sit vera caro ejus, neque verus sanguis, in quibus vera mors Christi annuntiatur, cum ipsa Veritas dicat: Hoc est corpus meum. Similiter et de calice: Bibite, inquit, ex hoc omnes, hic est enim sanguis meus Novi Testamenti, non qualiscunque, sed quod pro vobis effundetur in remissionem peccatorum. Neque itaque dixit cum fregit et dedit eis panem, hoc est, vel in hoc mysterio est virtus vel figura corporis mei, sed ait non ficte, Hoc est corpus meum. Ubi Lucas addidit, Quod pro vobis tradetur, vel sicut alii codices habent, datur. Sed et Joannes ex persona Domini, Panis, inquit, quem ego dabo caro mea est, non alia quam, pro mundi vita (Joan. VI, 52). Ac deinde, Qui manducat meam carnem, et bibit sanguinem meum, in me manet, et ego in illo (Ibid., 57). Unde miror quid velint nunc quidam dicere, non in re esse veritatem carnis Christi vel sanguinis; sed in sacramento virtutem carnis et non carnem, virtutem sanguinis et non sanguinem; figuram et non veritatem, umbram et non corpus, cum hic species accipit veritatem et figuram, veterum hostiarum corpus.]
(S. Paschasii Radberti Abbatis Corbeiensis, Expositio in Matthæum, Lib. XII, Cap. XXVI; PL, 120:890. Cf. S. Paschasii Radberti Abbatis Corbeiensis, Epistola de Corpore et Sanguine Domini ad Frudegardum, Expositum Paschasii Radberti, In Illud Matthæi, Matth. XXVI, PL, 120:1356-1357.)
Note: Regarding the novelty of Paschasius Radbertus’ Eucharistic views, see below.
Cf. Augustine, Bishop of Hippo (c. 354-430 A.D.):
But so far as relates to that death, concerning which the Lord warns us by fear, and in which their fathers died: Moses ate manna, Aaron ate manna, Phinehas ate manna, and many ate manna, who were pleasing to the Lord, and they are not dead. Why? Because they understood the visible food spiritually, hungered spiritually, tasted spiritually, that they might be filled spiritually. For even we at this day receive visible food: but the sacrament is one thing, the virtue [virtus] of the sacrament another. How many do receive at the altar and die, and die indeed by receiving? Whence the apostle saith, “Eateth and drinketh judgment to himself.” For it was not the mouthful given by the Lord that was the poison to Judas. And yet he took it; and when he took it, the enemy entered into him: not because he received an evil thing, but because he being evil received a good thing in an evil way. See ye then, brethren, that ye eat the heavenly bread in a spiritual sense; bring innocence to the altar.
(Augustine, Lectures or Tractates on the Gospel of John, 26.11; PL, 35:1611; trans. NPNF1, 7:171.) See also: ccel.org.
Cf. Augustine, Bishop of Hippo (c. 354-430 A.D.):
“This is the bread which cometh down from heaven.” Manna signified this bread; God’s altar signified this bread. Those were sacraments. In the signs they were diverse; in the thing which was signified they were alike. Hear the apostle: “For I would not that ye should be ignorant, brethren,” saith he, “that all our fathers were under the cloud, and all passed through the sea; and were all baptized unto Moses in the cloud and in the sea; and did all eat the same spiritual meat.” Of course, the same spiritual meat; for corporally it was another: since they ate manna, we eat another thing; but the spiritual was the same as that which we eat. But “our” fathers, not the fathers of those Jews; those to whom we are like, not those to whom they were like. Moreover he adds: “And did all drink the same spiritual drink.” They one kind of drink, we another, but only in the visible form, which, however, signified the same thing in its spiritual virtue [virtute]. For how was it that they drank the “same drink”? “They drank,” saith he “of the spiritual Rock that followed them, and that Rock was Christ.” Thence the bread, thence the drink. The rock was Christ in sign; the real Christ is in the Word and in flesh. And how did they drink? The rock was smitten twice with a rod; the double smiting signified the two wooden beams of the cross. “This, then, is the bread that cometh down from heaven, that if any man eat thereof, he shall not die.” But this is what belongs to the virtue [virtutem] of the sacrament, not to the visible sacrament; he that eateth within, not without; who eateth in his heart, not who presses with his teeth.
(Augustine, Lectures or Tractates on the Gospel of John, 26.12; PL, 35:1612; trans. NPNF1, 7:171-172. Cf. WSA, I/12:459-460.) See also: ccel.org.
Cf. Bede the Venerable (c. 672/3-735 A.D.):
This is the bread which came down from heaven. This bread was symbolized by the manna; and this bread was symbolized by the altar of God. Those sacraments were different in signs but equal in the reality they signify [Sacramenta illa fuerunt in signis diversa sunt in re, quæ significantur paria sunt]. Listen to the Apostle: “I do not want you to be unaware, brothers, that our ancestors were all under the cloud and all passed through the sea, and all were baptized into Moses in the cloud and in the sea, and all ate the same spiritual food” (1 Corinthians 10:1-3). Indeed, spiritual, not physical. They had a different type because it was manna, while we have something else; but spiritually, it is the same as ours [spiritualem vero eamdem quam nos]. However, our ancestors were not like the ancestors of those who are like us, but rather those who were like them. Therefore, this is the bread that came down from heaven, so that anyone who eats of it shall not die. But what pertains to the power of the sacrament is not what pertains to the visible sacrament [Sed quod pertinet ad virtutem sacramenti, non quod pertinet ad visibile sacramentum]: one who eats inwardly, not outwardly; one who eats with the heart, not with the teeth. I am the living bread that came down from heaven. Therefore, living because I came down from heaven. Manna came down from heaven too; but manna was a shadow, this is the truth. [Hic est panis qui de cœlo descendit. Hunc panem significavit manna; hunc autem panem significavit altare Dei. Sacramenta illa fuerunt in signis diversa sunt in re, quæ significantur paria sunt. Apostolum audi: Nolo enim vos, inquit, ignorare, fratres, quia patres nostri omnes sub nube fuerunt, et omnes per mare transierunt, et omnes in Moyse baptizati sunt in nube et in mari, et omnes eamdem escam spiritualem manducaverunt (1 Cor. x). Spiritualem utique, non corporalem. Alteram illi, quia manna, nos aliud; spiritualem vero eamdem quam nos, sed patres nostri, non patres illorum, quibus nos similes sumus, non quibus illi similes fuerunt. Hic est ergo panis de cælo descendens; ut si quis ex ipso manducaverit, non moriatur. Sed quod pertinet ad virtutem sacramenti, non quod pertinet ad visibile sacramentum: qui manducat intus, non foris; qui manducat in corde, non qui premit dente. Ego sum panis vivus qui de cœlo descendi. Ideo vivus, quia de cœlo descendi. De cœlo descendit et manna; sed manna umbra erat, iste veritas est.]
(Bedæ Venerabilis, In S. Joannis Evangelium Expositio, Caput VI; PL, 92:717.)
Cf. Rabanus Maurus, Archbishop of Mainz (c. 780-856 A.D.):
Our blessed Saviour would have the sacrament of His body and blood to be received by the mouth of the faithful, and to become their nourishment, that by the visible body the effects of the invisible might be known for as the material food feeds the body outwardly and makes it to grow, so the word of God doth inwardly nourish and strengthen the soul. …He would have the sacramental elements to be made of the fruits of the earth, that as He, who is God invisible, appeared visible in our flesh, and mortal to save us mortals, so He might by a thing visible fitly represent to us a thing invisible. …Some receive the sacred sign at the Lord’s table to their salvation, and some to their ruin; but the thing signified is life to every man, and death to none. Whoever receives it, is united as a member to Christ the Head in the kingdom of heaven; for the sacrament is one thing, and the efficacy of it another [quia aliud est sacramentum, aliud virtus sacramenti]; for the sacrament is received with the mouth, but the grace thereof feeds the inward man. …And as the first is turned into our substance when we eat it and drink it, so are we made the body of Christ when we live piously and obediently [Sicut ergo in nos id convertitur cum id manducamus et bibimus, sic et nos in corpus Christi convertimur dum obedienter et pie vivimus]. …Therefore the faithful do well and truly receive the body of Christ, if they neglect not to be His members; and they are made the body of Christ, if they will live of His Spirit.
(B. Rabani Mauri Archiep. Mogunt., De Clericorum Institutione, Lib. I, Cap. XXXIV; PL, 107:316-318; trans. John Cosin, The History of Popish Transubstantiation, ed. John Sherren Brewer, [London: J. Leslie, 1840], pp. 121-122.)
Cf. Rabanus Maurus, Archbishop of Mainz (c. 780-856 A.D.):
Indeed, the Lord willed that the sacraments of His body and blood be received by the mouths of the faithful and turned into their nourishment, so that through a visible act the effect of the invisible might be shown. Just as material food nourishes and sustains the body externally, so too does the word of God internally nourish and strengthen the soul; for man lives not by bread alone, but by every word that proceeds from the mouth of God (Matthew 4:4), and: The Word became flesh and dwelt among us (John 1:14). For the Truth itself says: My flesh is truly food, and my blood is truly drink (John 6:55). Indeed, the flesh of Christ is food because it truly nourishes and sustains man to eternal life, and His blood is truly drink because it satisfies the hungry soul and thirst for justice eternally. Men can have temporal life without this food and drink, but not eternal life, because this food and drink signify eternal union with the head and its members. He who eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me, and I in him (John 6:56). The sacrament of this matter, that is, the unity of Christ’s body and blood, is taken from the Lord’s table; some for life, others for destruction. The reality itself is for every person’s life, none for destruction, for whoever is a participant is united with Christ the head in the heavenly kingdom. For the sacrament is one thing, and the virtue of the sacrament is another. The sacrament is received through the mouth, but the virtue of the sacrament satisfies the inner man. Therefore, since bread confirms the body, it is appropriately called the body of Christ; and wine, because it operates in the flesh as blood, is referred to as the blood of Christ. These, while visible, are sanctified by the Holy Spirit and become the sacrament of the divine body. [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: quia non solo in pane vivit homo, sed in omni verbo quod procedit de ore Dei (Matth. IV); et: Verbum caro factum est et habitavit in nobis (Joan. I). Ait enim ipsa Veritas: Caro enim mea vere cibus est, et sanguis meus vere est potus (Joan. VI). Vere scilicet caro Christi est cibus, quia vere pascit et ad æternam vitam hominem nutrit et sanguis ejus vere est potus, quia esurientem animam et sitientem justitiam in æternum veraciter satiat. Temporalem quippe vitam sine isto cibo et potu habere possunt homines, æternam omnino non possunt quia iste cibus et potus æternam societatem capitis membrorumque suorum significat. Qui manducat, inquit, meam carnem, et bibit sanguinem meum, ipse in me manet, et ego in eo (Joan. VI). Hujus rei sacramentum, id est, unitatis corporis et sanguinis Christi, de mensa Dominica assumitur quibusdam ad vitam, quibusdam ad exitium. Res vero ipsa omni homini ad vitam, nulli ad exitium, quicunque ejus particeps fuerit, idem Christo capiti membrum associatur in regno cœlesti: quia aliud est sacramentum, aliud virtus sacramenti. Sacramentum enim ore percipitur, virtute sacramenti interior homo satiatur. Ergo quia panis corpus confirmat, ideo ille corpus Christi congruenter nuncupatur: vinum autem, quia sanguinem operatur in carne, ideo ad sanguinem Christi refertur. Hæc autem dum sunt visibilia, sanctificata tunc per Spiritum sanctum, in sacramentum divini corporis transeunt.]
(B. Rabani Mauri Archiep. Mogunt., De Universo Libri Viginti Duo, Lib. V, Cap. XI; PL, 111:135-136.)
Cf. Rabanus Maurus, Archbishop of Mainz (c. 780-856 A.D.):
Therefore, whatever is read in the holy Scriptures that seems harsh and almost cruel in both its actions and words, when spoken from the perspective of God or His saints, serves to destroy the kingdom of lust. If it sounds clearly, it should not be referred to as something figurative, as is the case with the Apostle’s words: “You have laid up for yourself wrath against the day of wrath and revelation of the righteous judgment of God, who will repay each one according to his deeds” (Romans 2:5). Thus, in figurative speech, the rule should be such that it is carefully considered for as long as necessary until the interpretation leads to the kingdom of charity. If it already sounds proper, no figurative meaning is to be assumed. If the speech is prescriptive, prohibiting vice or crime, or commanding utility or beneficence, it is not figurative. However, if it seems to command vice or crime, or to forbid utility and beneficence, it is figurative. For example, “Unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink His blood, you have no life in you” (John 6:53). This seems to command a crime or vice. Therefore, it is figurative, instructing that we should share in the Lord’s Passion and recall sweetly and profitably in memory that His flesh was crucified and wounded for us. [Quidquid ergo asperum et quasi sævum factu dictuque in sanctis Scripturis legitur, ex persona Dei vel sanctorum ejus, ad cupiditatis regnum destruendum valet. Quod si perspicue sonat, non est ad aliud referendum, quasi figurate dictum sit, sicuti est illud Apostoli: Thesaurizasti tibi, inquit, iram in die iræ et revelationis justi judicii Dei, qui reddet unicuique secundum opera sua, et reliqua. (Rom. II.) Ergo in locutionibus figuratis regula sit hujusmodi, ut tam diu versetur diligenti consideratione quod legitur, donec ad regnum charitatis interpretatio perducatur. Si autem hoc jam proprie sonat, nulla putetur figurata locutio. Si præceptiva locutio est, aut flagitium, aut facinus vetans, aut utilitatem aut beneficentiam jubens, non est figurata. Si autem flagitium aut facinus videtur jubere, aut utilitatem et beneficentiam vetare, figurata est. Nisi manducaveritis, inquit, carnem filii hominis, et sanguinem ejus biberitis, nou habebitis vitam in vobis (Joan. VI). Facinus vel flagitium videtur jubere. Figurata ergo est, præcipiens passioni Domini esse communicandum, et suaviter atque utiliter recolendum in memoria, quod pro nobis caro ejus crucifixa et vulnerata sit.]
(B. Rabani Mauri Archiep. Mogunt., De Clericorum Institutione, Lib. III, Cap. XIII; PL, 107:390.)
Cf. Ratramnus [Bertram] of Corbie (c. ?-868 A.D.):
…the sacraments are one thing and that the things of which they are sacraments are another. …It is one thing, however, which is outwardly done, but another which through faith is believed. What pertains to the sense of the body is corruptible, but what faith believes is incorruptible. Therefore, what appears outwardly is not the thing itself but the image of the thing, but what is felt and understood in the soul is the truth of the thing.
(Ratramni Corbeiensis Monachi, De Corpore et Sanguine Domini, §§. XXXVI, LXXVII; PL, 121:142-143, 160; trans. LCC, 9:128, 140.)
Cf. Florus of Lyon [Florus Magister] (c. 9th Century A.D.):
Truly, that bread is the body of Christ in the most sacred offering, not in matter or visible species, but by spiritual virtue and power. For neither is the body of Christ generated in the field, nor is His blood produced in the vineyard, nor pressed out in the winepress. The bread is simply made from grains, the wine is simply drawn from grapes; to these are added the faith of the offering Church, the consecration of mystical prayer, and the infusion of divine power; thus, in a wondrous and ineffable way, what is naturally bread and wine from earthly seed becomes spiritually [spiritualiter] the body of Christ, that is, the mystery of our life and salvation, in which we see one thing with bodily eyes and another with the eyes of faith; and not only what we receive with the mouth but what we believe with the mind, we honor. Hence, we sincerely ask that what we touch with our mouth, we may receive with a pure mind. Therefore, this food is of the mind, not of the stomach; it is not corrupted but remains for eternal life, as it brings eternal life to the pious partakers. One partakes piously who, illuminated by the spirit of faith, hungers and thirsts for the virtue of intelligible grace in that visible food and drink; and perceives less of indulgence, and spiritual salvation... no pollution is to be thought or feared in this mystery. For Christ is the power of God and the wisdom of God received therein; which wisdom, as Scripture testifies, is the brightness of eternal light and a certain emanation of God’s purity, and thus nothing impure reaches it, but it retains its purity everywhere. Therefore, as previously stated, the body of Christ is not in visible species but in spiritual virtue, nor can it be polluted by bodily dregs, which it is accustomed to cleanse from the vices of both souls and bodies. [Prorsus panis ille sacrosanctæ oblationis corpus est Christi, non materie vel specie visibili, sed virtute et potentia spirituali. Neque enim in agro nobis corpus Christi gignitur, aut in vinea sanguis ejus exoritur, vel torculari exprimitur. Simplex e frugibus panis conficitur, simplex e botris vinum liquatur, accedit ad hæc offerentis Ecclesiæ fides, accedit mysticæ precis consecratio, accedit divinæ virtutis infusio; sicque, miro et ineffabili modo, quod est naturaliter ex germine terreno panis et vinum, efficitur spiritualiter corpus Christi, id est vitæ et salutis nostræ mysterium, in quo aliud oculis corporis, aliud fidei videmus obtentu; nec id tantum quod ore percipimus, sed quod mente credimus, libamus. Unde et fideliter petimus ut quod, ore contingimus, pura mente capiamus. Mentis ergo est cibus iste, non ventris; non corrumpitur, sed permanet in vitam æternam, quoniam pie sumentibus confert vitam æternam. Pie autem sumit qui, spiritu fidei illuminatus, in illo cibo et potu visibili virtutem intelligibilis gratiæ esurit ac sitit; et minus indulgentiæ, et salutis spiritaliter percipit... nullatenus cogitanda vel metuenda est in hoc mysterio ulla pollutio. Christus enim Dei virtus, et Dei sapientia in eo sumitur; quæ sapientia, ut Scriptura testatur, candorem lucis æternæ, et emanatio quædam claritatis Dei sinceris, et ideo nihil inquinatum in illam incurrit, attingit autem ubique suam munditiam. Corpus igitur Christi, ut prædictum est, non est in specie visibili, sed in virtute spiritali, nec inquinari potest fæce corporea, quod et animarum et corporum vitia mundare consuevit.]
(Flori Diaconi Lugdunensis, Opuscula Adversus Amalarium, Cap. I, §. 9; PL, 119:77-78.) Return to Article.29. But now, about the beginning of the ninth century, started up Paschasius, a monk of Corbie, who first (as some say, whose judgment I follow not) among the Latins, taught that Christ was consubstantiated, or rather enclosed in the bread and corporally united to it in the sacrament; for as yet there was no thoughts of the transubstantiation of bread. But these new sorts of expressions, not agreeing with the Catholic doctrine and the writings of the ancient fathers, had few or no abettors before the eleventh century; and in the ninth, whereof we now treat, there were not wanting learned men (as Amalarius, archdeacon of Triars; Rabanus, at first abbot of Fulda, and afterwards archbishop of Mentz; John Erigena, an English divine; Walafridus Strabo, a German abbot; Ratramus or Bertramus, first priest of Corbie, afterwards abbot of Orbec in France; and many more), who by their writings opposed this new opinion of Paschasius, or of some others rather, and delivered to posterity the doctrine of the ancient Church. Yet we have something more to say concerning Paschasius; whom Bellarmine and Sirmondust esteemed so highly, that they were not ashamed to say that he was the first that had writ to the purpose concerning the eucharist, and that he had so explained the meaning of the Church, that he had shewn and opened the way to all them who treated of that subject after him. Yet in that whole book of Paschasius there is nothing that favours the transubstantiation of the bread, or its destruction or removal. Indeed, he asserts the truth of the body and blood of Christ’s being in the eucharist, which Protestants deny not; he denies that the consecrated bread is a bare figure, a representation void of truth, which Protestants assert not. But he hath many things repugnant to transubstantiation, which, as I have said, the Church of Rome itself has not yet quite found out. I shall mention a few of them. “Christ,” saith he, “left us this sacrament, a visible figure and character of His body and blood, that by them our spirit might the better embrace spiritual and invisible things, and be more fully fed by faith.” Again; “We must receive our spiritual sacraments with the mouth of the soul and the taste of faith.” Item; “Whilst therein we savour nothing carnal; but we, being spiritual, and understanding the whole spiritually, we remain in Christ.” And a little after; “The flesh and blood of Christ are received spiritually.” And again; “To savour according to the flesh is death, and yet to receive spiritually the true flesh of Christ is life eternal.” Lastly; “The flesh and blood of Christ are not received carnally, but spiritually.” In these he teacheth, that the mystery of the Lord’s supper is not, and ought not to be, understood carnally, but spiritually; and that this dream of corporal and oral transubstantiation was unknown to the ancient Church. As for what hath been added to this book by the craft (without doubt) of some superstitious forger (as Erasmus complains that it too frequently happens to the writings of the ancients), it is fabulous; as the visible appearing of the body of Christ, in the form of an infant with fingers of raw flesh; such stuff is unworthy to be fathered on Paschasius, who professed that he delivered no other doctrine concerning the sacrament than that which he had learned out of the ancient fathers, and not from idle and uncertain stories of miracles.
(John Cosin, The History of Popish Transubstantiation, ed. John Sherren Brewer, [London: J. Leslie, 1840], pp. 116-120.)
Cf. Joseph Bingham:
…the Ancients did not know any thing of the new doctrine of Transubstantiation, but believed that the bread and wine still remained in the eucharist in their proper nature. He that would see more of this, may consult Bishop Cosin’s History of Transubstantiation, and Mr. Aubertin’s elaborate book of the eucharist, where he may find all the other arguments against this doctrine proposed, and the testimonies of every Father vindicated against the sophistry of Perron and Bellarmin, and all other Romish writers upon this subject; and also see what opposition was made to the new hypothesis of Paschasius Rathbertus, which was rather a consubstantiation than a transubstantiation, as soon as it appeared, by Rabanus Maurus, Amalarius, Walafridus Strabo, Heribaldus, Lupus, Frudegardus, Joannes Erigena, Prudentius Tricassin, Christianus Druthmarus, Alfricus, and the Saxon Homilies, Fulbertus Carnotensis, Leuthericus Senonensis, Berno Augiensis, and others, to the time of Berengarius, after whom it met with greater opposition from Honorius Augustodunensis, Amalricus, Peter and Henry de Bruis, Guido Grossus, Archbishop of Narbo, Francus Abbas, the Waldenses and Albigenses, the Bohemians and followers of John Huss and Jerom of Prague, the Wicklevists here in England, among whom was the famous Reginald Peacock, and many other learned men to the time of the Reformation. The first inventor of the name Transubstaniation, was Stephanus Eduensis, as Albertin there shews: and he lived not long before the Council of Lateran, which first dogmatically established it, Anno 1215.
(Joseph Bingham, Origines Ecclesiasticæ: Of the Antiquities of the Christian Church, And Other Works: In Eight Volumes.—Vol. V, [London: William Straker, 1834], pp. 366-367.)
Note: For extensive primary source documentation regarding the novel nature of Paschasius Radbertus’ Eucharistic theology, see: “The Medieval Continuation of the Patristic Understanding of John 6 as Spiritual” also see: “The Medieval Continuation of the Patristic Understanding of the “Real Presence” as Spiritual not Carnal/Corporeal.” Return to Article.
With respect to your interrogation, Whether the Eucharist, after it has been consumed and in the manner of other food has passed into the draught, returns again into his pristine nature which it had before its consecration upon the altar: a question of this description is superfluous, since in the Gospel the Saviour himself hath said; Every thing, that enters into the mouth, goes into the belly, and passes away into the draught. The Sacrament of the Body and Blood of the Lord is composed of things visible and corporeal: but it produces an invisible sanctification both of the body and of the soul. Why need we, then, on the part of that which is digested in the stomach and which has passed away into the draught, talk of a return to its pristine state when no person ever asserted the occurrence of any such return? Lately, indeed, some individuals, not thinking rightly concerning the Sacrament of the Body and Blood of the Lord, have said that That very body and blood of the Lord, which was born from the Virgin Mary, in which the Lord himself suffered on the cross, and in which he rose again from the sepulchre, is the same as that which is received from the altar. In opposition to which error as far as lay in our power, writing to the Abbot Egilus, we propounded what ought truly to be believed concerning the body itself. For, respecting his body and blood, the Lord says in the Gospel: I, who descended from heaven, am the living bread. If any person shall eat of this bread, he shall live for ever. For my flesh is truly meat, and my blood is truly drink. He, who eateth my flesh and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life. The person, therefore, who eats not that bread and who drinks not that blood, has not the life here intended for mere temporal life, indeed, without any such manducation, may in this world be enjoyed by men, who are not in his body through faith: but eternal life, which is promised to the saints, can never be enjoyed by such individuals. Lest, however, they should fancy, that, in that meat and drink which they receive carnally and understand not spiritually, life eternal is promised in faith; so that they, who receive it, should die neither in soul nor in body he condescended to meet and to anticipate any such cogitation. For, when he had said; He, who eateth my flesh and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life: he immediately subjoined; I will raise him up at the last day; that, meanwhile, he may have eternal life according to the spirit.
(B. Rabani Mauri Archiep. Mogunt., Incipit Pœnitentiale, Caput XXXIII; PL, 110:492-493; trans. George Stanley Faber, Christ’s Discourse at Capernaum: Fatal to the Doctrine of Transubstantiation, [London: R. B. Seeley and W. Burnside, 1840], pp. 160-165.) Return to Article.καὶ αὐτός ἐστιν πρὸ πάντων καὶ τὰ πάντα ἐν αὐτῷ συνέστηκεν ~ Soli Deo Gloria
No comments:
Post a Comment