Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Radbertus & Ratramnus: A Ninth Century Debate over the Lord's Supper
Reformation Ink ^ | 2000 | Shane Rosenthal

Posted on 04/08/2004 9:08:23 AM PDT by HarleyD

In the middle of the ninth century, an important debate arose over the nature of the Lord's Supper. Two monks of the same monastery in Corbie had outlined differing conceptions of the Lord's Supper in two respective tracts. The first monk, Paschasius Radbertus, had emphasized the reality of Christ's bodily presence in the bread and wine, while Ratramnus, his opponent, focused on the important difference between the sacramental signs and the thing signified. This paper will look at these two sacramental theologies, and will seek to evaluate both of these views in light of later eucharistic development. The conclusion reached by this paper is that Radbertus, although there are some notable exceptions, does appear to conceive of the Lord's Supper in a way not inconsistent with what later comes to be known as transubstantiation, the official position of the Roman Catholic church. Ratramnus on the other hand, being critical of this view, emphasized the spiritual presence of Christ in the sacrament, a view which bears a close, although not identical, resemblance to the Eucharistic theology of John Calvin and the Reformed tradition.

Before I begin bearing out the assertions of my thesis, a little historical background will no doubt be helpful. Paschasius Radbertus wrote his little tract "De Corpore et Sanguine Domini" for a friend in 831, and later revised it and sent it as a gift to Charles the Bald in 844. Ratramnus, on the other hand, wrote his tract of the same title on behest of King Charles personally­­probably somewhere between 845-850. Whether or not the King sought Ratramnus' assistance because he was concerned about some of the implications of Radbertus' position, cannot with certainty be established, but it does seem likely.

According to Paul H. Jones, Radbertus in his tract appears to have four important questions: 1) What is the relationship between the eucharistic body and the historical body of Christ? 2) How it is that the real presence can be explained, given that the sacrament is celebrated in many places and at many times? 3) What is the difference between bread and wine before and after consecration? and 4) What is the relation between signs and things signified. Charles the Bald on the other hand, seemed to be concerned with only two of these questions. In his letter to Ratramnus for assistance on these matters, the King inquired concerning "whether that which in the church is received into the mouth of the faithful becomes the body and blood of Christ in mystery or in truth," and secondly, "whether it is that body which was born of Mary, suffered, died, and was buried" Ratramnus' tract then is an attempt to answer those two questions; i.e., whether or not the Supper is only a sign or a real body, and if it is a real body, is it the same as the one born of Mary or something else?

Radbertus when he set out to answer his questions identified the eucharistic body as that of the exact same historical body of Christ, and he asserted that this body was placed in the believer's mouth in reality, and not merely symbolically. But this being the case, how is Christ's "one" body available for everyone around the world? Radbertus finds the solution to this problem of time and locality in God's creative decree, "The Spiritfrom the substance of bread and wine daily creates the flesh and blood of Christ by invisible power...though outwardly understood by neither sight nor taste." In fact, he argues that just as the true flesh of Christ was originally produced by the power of God through the vessel of the Virgin Mary, the same holds true in the Eucharist as well where "true flesh is created without union of sex." He elaborates:

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

So what is in the sacrament is true body and blood, but only "veiled" to the senses as bread and wine. Commenting on this, Paul H. Jones writes, "Using the language of a later era, Radbertus inferred that the bread and wine were 'annihilated' although their appearances remained. This notion that at every Eucharist there is a new creation of the body of Christ represents Radbertus' most notable contribution to the tradition." Phillip Schaff found this monk's view so close to the Roman doctrine that he actually calls Radbertus "the famous promulgator of the doctrine of Transubstantiation." According to this historian:

He did not employ the term transubstantiation, which came not into use until two centuries later; but he taught the thing, namely, that 'the substance of bread and wine is effectually changed (efficaciter interius commutatur) into the flesh and blood of Christ,' so that after the priestly consecration there is 'nothing else in the Eucharist but the flesh and blood of Christ,' although 'the figure of bread and wine remain' to the senses of sight, touch and taste.

Paul H. Jones takes a slightly different view. While he does admit that Radbertus contributed to the tradition of transubstantiation, he is nevertheless not willing to state that he formally taught the doctrine.

Ratramnus on the other hand did not want to conceive of the sacrament in such a carnal manner. For this monk, the bread and wine were not so much "changed" into something different (ontologically speaking), but rather, they were "called" something different; "And although the Lord's body, in which he once suffered is one thing, and the blood, which was shed for the salvation of the world, is one thing, yet the sacraments of these two things have assumed their names, being called Christ's body and blood, since they are so called on account of a resemblance with the things they represent." Ratramnus then brings Augustine to bear on this point, "By virtue of their resemblance [sacraments] derive their names from those things of which they are sacraments." The point being made is that a sacramental sign is one thing, and the thing the sacrament points to (the thing signified) is another thing altogether. Therefore, the bread and the wine physically remain bread and wine after the words of consecration, but they represent the body and blood of Christ. Now, it should not be thought at this point that Ratramnus is advocating a bare memorialist position. While it is true that he teaches the bread and wine represent and recall to our minds the body and blood of Christ, he also says much more:

We are taught by the Saviour, as well as by Saint Paul the apostle, that that bread and that wine which are placed on the altar are placed there as a figure or a memorial of the Lord's death, so that what was done in the past may be recalled to memory in the present. Let it not therefore be thought that, since we say this, in the mystery of the sacrament either the Lord's body or his blood is not taken by the faithful when faith receives what the eye does not see but what it believes; for it is spiritual food, spiritually feeding the soul, and bestowing a life of eternal satisfaction.

Ratramnus writes elsewhere that "under cover of the corporeal bread and of the corporeal wine Christ's spiritual body and spiritual blood do exist." It is clear therefore from these two selections that this author is not advocating the same doctrine as that which would later be propounded by Ulrich Zwingli. Here, the signs not only represent, but also convey Christ's spiritual body and blood.

Ratramnus also takes a different view of the kind of body that is conveyed in the Eucharist. Radbertus, you will remember, held that there was absolutely no difference between the eucharistic elements and the historical body and blood of Christ. But Ratramnus argued that the two bodies were "not identical."

A great difference separates the body in which Christ suffered, and the blood which he shed from his side while hanging on the cross, from this body which daily in the mystery of Christ's Passion is celebrated by the faithful, and from that blood also which is taken into the mouth of the faithful...they differ between themselves as much as differ things corporeal and things spiritual, things visible and invisible, things divine and human.

Thus the person receiving the sacrament does receive Christ, but he receives Christ spiritually by faith. By conceiving of the sacrament in this way, Ratramnus avoided the difficult questions that Radbertus faced, such as how Christ's physical body could be available in many places and at many times, and yet in no way minimized the reality of Christ's presence. Paul Jones again is on the point, "Without compromising the integrity of sacramental signs or the necessity of faith for perceiving them, Ratramnus averred a real presence that permitted the elements to be more than mirages that concealed raw flesh and dripping blood." Thus, for Ratramnus, Christ's historical body was neither re-created nor multiplied. In his view of the Eucharist, Christ is a spiritual reality, not an ontological substance.

A Place of Agreement? It cannot be overstated that the mode of reception in the position of Ratramnus is faith. He himself elaborates:

Outwardly it has the shape of bread which it had before, the color is exhibited, the flavor is received, but inwardly something far different, much more precious, much more excellent, becomes known, because something heavenly, something divine, that is, Christ's body, is revealed, which is not beheld, or received, or consumed by the fleshly senses but in the gaze of the believing soul.

Elsewhere he writes, "...what is pressed by the teeth, what is broken into bits, is not considered, but what is in faith received spiritually." Believing Christians are the only ones who can avail themselves of Christ in the Supper, since he is spiritually present, and faith is the only link to the spiritual reality.

But it may be assumed that Radbertus, on the other hand, so tied Christ to the elements in the sacrament after the words of consecration that the mode of reception in his view would be through the mouth of the communicant, regardless of faith. But this is not the case, for Radbertus himself writes, "Let the man without faith consider that, unworthy as he is, he can receive worthy and sacred things, not, indeed, expecting anything except what he sees, nor understanding anything other than he feels with his lipIf there is any further power in it he does not sufficiently taste it by faith." Therefore both Radbertus and Ratramnus identify faith as the mode of reception. Radbertus however, will locate the corporeal presence of the true historical body of Christ in the mouth, but only to the faithful by the power of the Holy Spirit.

Making Assessments While I am not inclined to agree with Schaff's assessment that Radbertus was a bona fide transubstantiationist, I do think that he was very close to the position. He taught that the elements of bread and wine were ontologically "changed" into a new substance at the words of consecration. This change was not conceived along the same metaphysical lines as the traditional transubstantiation position was constructed, but the fact that some of the basic elements are there is self evident. Ratramnus on the other hand advocates a clear Augustinian distinction between the sign and the thing signified. The bread and wine physically remain what they are, but after the prayer of consecration they can be called something else by virtue Christ's spiritual presence. This bears a close resemblance to Calvin's understanding of the Lord's Supper as an example of sacramental metonomy. As he explains it himself in the Institutes, "on account of the affinity which the things signified have with their signs, the name of the thing itself is given to the sign figuratively, indeed, but very appropriatelyI say that the expression which is uniformly used in Scripture, when the sacred mysteries are treated of, is metonymical." Calvin also speaks of the Sacraments as food for the soul:

Thus when bread is given as a symbol of the body of Christ, we must immediately think of this similitude. As bread nourishes, sustains, and protects our bodily life, so the body of Christ is the only food to invigorate and keep alive the soul. When we behold wine set forth as a symbol of blood, we must think that such use as wine serves to the body, the same is spiritually bestowed by the blood of Christ; and the use is to foster, refresh, strengthen, and exhilarate. For if we duly consider what profit we have gained by the breaking of his sacred body and the shedding of his blood, we shall clearly perceive that these properties of bread and wine, agreeably to this analogy, most appropriately represent it when they are communicated to us.

Notice the similarity between Calvin's view here and that of Ratramnus above. Both men argue that the bread remains bread, even after consecration. But spiritually by faith, Christ is really and truly present for the feeding of our souls. Ratramnus uses almost the same language when he writes, "for it is spiritual food, spiritually feeding the soul, and bestowing a life of eternal satisfaction."

But lest we get ahead of ourselves, and proclaim Ratramnus to be proto-Reformed, there is an important difference between his and Calvin's view. Calvin is fond of saying that the Christ is "spiritually present" in the sacrament. By this he does not mean that Christ is only present as to his divine nature, but rather means that Christ is present according to both natures according to secret power and work of the Holy Spirit. According to Calvin therefore, Christ and all his benefits are given to the faithful in the Eucharist by the power of the Holy Spirit because he bridges the gap between heaven and earth. Ratramnus however does not conceive of the sacrament in these terms. Rather, Christ's body and blood in his view are made available in non-corporeal forms. For example, he writes "The spiritual flesh which is received in the mouth by the faithful and the spiritual blood...differ from the flesh which was crucified and from the blood which was shed." Calvin would never describe the sacrament as "spiritual flesh" or "spiritual blood." After all, it was real blood that did the atoning work, so what is the benefit in spiritual blood? Rather, Calvin focuses on the spiritual nature of our "partaking" of Christ and all his benefits. This is an important difference that cannot be overlooked.

Interestingly enough, Radbertus does not make this mistake. Repeatedly he speaks of spiritual feeding on Christ rather than feeding on a spiritualized Christ; "The sacrament is his true flesh and blood which man spiritually eats and drinks," and again, "We...spiritually take the flesh and blood for the sake of life eternal."

Conclusion In this ninth century Eucharistic debate, Paschasius Radbertus appears to have espoused a doctrine close to that of transubstantiationism, and his fellow monk, Radbertus, in opposing the implications of such a crass realism came close to the Reformed doctrine of the real presence. In each case there are a number of striking similarities to the later developed views, but there are also a number of very significant differences. These differences should make us leery of easy labeling and of committing anachronistic fallacies. Nevertheless, it is hoped that the paper has been a useful exercise in the pursuit of a better understanding of the history and development of the debate over the meaning of the Lord's Supper throughout life of the church.

Bibliography

Bennett, William J. E., The Eucharist: It's History, Doctrine & Practice (London: W.J. Cleaver, 1837)

Fahey, John F., The Eucharistic Teaching of Ratramn of Corbie (Mundelein, St. Mary of the Lake Seminary, 1951).

Herbert, Charles, The Lord's Supper: Uninspired Teaching (London: Seeley, Jackson & Halliday, 1879)

Jones, Paul H., Christ's Eucharistic Presence (New York: Peter Lang Publishers 1994).

Schaff, Phillip, History of the Christian Church, Vol. VI (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans )


TOPICS: Catholic; Evangelical Christian; History; Mainline Protestant; Orthodox Christian; Theology
KEYWORDS: eucharist; lordssupper
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-22 next last

1 posted on 04/08/2004 9:08:25 AM PDT by HarleyD
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: drstevej; OrthodoxPresbyterian; CCWoody; RnMomof7; Wrigley; Gamecock; Jean Chauvin; jboot; ...
Pinging the Great Freeper Reformation Revival for your enjoyment.
2 posted on 04/08/2004 9:10:45 AM PDT by HarleyD (For strong is he who carries out God's word. (Joel 2:11))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: All

PRETTY IN PINK


Donate Here By Secure Server

Or mail checks to
FreeRepublic , LLC
PO BOX 9771
FRESNO, CA 93794

or you can use

PayPal at Jimrob@psnw.com

STOP BY AND BUMP THE FUNDRAISER THREAD-
It is in the breaking news sidebar!


3 posted on 04/08/2004 9:19:36 AM PDT by Support Free Republic (Don't be a nuancy boy)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: HarleyD
Hard to equate the view of Ratramnus with the "Reformed" view, when this is one of the areas of greatest divergence amongst those of us who claim a relationship with that tradition. Everything from the Lutheran view to that of us Baptists, and most everything in between.

As a Baptist, a "reformed". 5-Point. Doctrines of Grace Baptist, I see the Lord's Supper as nothing more than a remembrance of Christ's suffering. "This do in remembrance of Me." There is no special presence of Christ in this observance, since He is already present in the lives of believers and in their midst corporately.
4 posted on 04/08/2004 10:11:27 AM PDT by Jerry_M (I can only say that I am a poor sinner, trusting in Christ alone for salvation. -- Gen. Robt E. Lee)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Jerry_M
I agree with you that the Eucharist is symbolic of Christ's suffering.

Since I've became a 5-point Reformer (attending a Southern Baptist Church), I'm interested in the history of where all these church beliefs and customs started from. It is my view the church slowly digress from the original teachings until the Reformation corrected the situation. I’m sure Calvin and Luther would agree. :O)

Much of Luther’s and Calvin’s beliefs stemmed from the early church fathers but while I have just started reading Reformed literature, I hesitate to use these works exclusively. From time-to-time I like to post articles (Reformed or not) I find particularly interesting on the history of the church.

Further information about the Eucharist:

Pope Gelasius (400+ AD) recognized the Eucharist both ways. (www.newadvent.org)

The Eucharist was controversial as late at the 9th century as stated in this article.

Transubstantiation became finalized in the Catholic Church at the fourth Lateran Council in 1215. (ref: http://www.justforcatholics.org/a34.htm)

The Council of Trent in 153? banned Ratramnus publications especially his views on the Eucharist from circulation. This was later rescinded in the 1900s. (www.newadvent.org)
5 posted on 04/08/2004 11:22:34 AM PDT by HarleyD (For strong is he who carries out God's word. (Joel 2:11))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: HarleyD
Words on the Holy Eucharist
6 posted on 04/08/2004 1:00:01 PM PDT by ELCore (Cor ad cor loquitur)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: HarleyD
Luk 22:14 And when the hour was come, he sat down, and the twelve apostles with him.
Luk 22:15 And he said unto them, With desire I have desired to eat this passover with you before I suffer:
Luk 22:16 For I say unto you, I will not any more eat thereof, until it be fulfilled in the kingdom of God.
Luk 22:17 And he took the cup, and gave thanks, and said, Take this, and divide [it] among yourselves:
Luk 22:18 For I say unto you, I will not drink of the fruit of the vine, until the kingdom of God shall come.
Luk 22:19 And he took bread, and gave thanks, and brake [it], and gave unto them, saying, This is my body which is given for you: this do in remembrance of me.
Luk 22:20 Likewise also the cup after supper, saying, This cup [is] the new testament in my blood, which is shed for you.


Mar 14:22 And as they did eat, Jesus took bread, and blessed, and brake [it], and gave to them, and said, Take, eat: this is my body.
Mar 14:23 And he took the cup, and when he had given thanks, he gave [it] to them: and they all drank of it.
Mar 14:24 And he said unto them, This is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many.
Mar 14:25 Verily I say unto you, I will drink no more of the fruit of the vine, until that day that I drink it new in the kingdom of God.


Joh 13:31 Therefore, when he was gone out, Jesus said, Now is the Son of man glorified, and God is glorified in him.
Joh 13:32 If God be glorified in him, God shall also glorify him in himself, and shall straightway glorify him.
Joh 13:33 Little children, yet a little while I am with you. Ye shall seek me: and as I said unto the Jews, Whither I go, ye cannot come; so now I say to you.
Joh 13:34 A new commandment I give unto you, That ye love one another; as I have loved you, that ye also love one another.
Joh 13:35 By this shall all [men] know that ye are my disciples, if ye have love one to another.


Mat 26:26 And as they were eating, Jesus took bread, and blessed [it], and brake [it], and gave [it] to the disciples, and said, Take, eat; this is my body.
Mat 26:27 And he took the cup, and gave thanks, and gave [it] to them, saying, Drink ye all of it;
Mat 26:28 For this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins.
Mat 26:29 But I say unto you, I will not drink henceforth of this fruit of the vine, until that day when I drink it new with you in my Father's kingdom.
7 posted on 04/09/2004 5:30:56 PM PDT by Jack Armstrong (a Post Modern America adrift in the Dark)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Jerry_M
Ignatius of Antioch (disciple of John)

"I have no taste for corruptible food nor for the pleasures of this life. I desire the bread of God, which is the flesh of Jesus Christ, who was of the seed of David; and for drink I desire his blood, which is love incorruptible" -- Letter to the Romans, 7:3, [110 AD]

"Take note of those who hold heterodox opinions on the grace of Jesus Christ which has come to us, and see how contrary their opinions are to the mind of God. . . . They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer because they do not confess that the Eucharist is the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ, flesh which suffered for our sins and which that Father, in his goodness, raised up again. They who deny the gift of God are perishing in their disputes" -- Letter to the Smyrnaeans, 6:2–7:1 [110 AD]

Justin Martyr

"We call this food Eucharist, and no one else is permitted to partake of it, except one who believes our teaching to be true and who has been washed in the washing which is for the remission of sins and for regeneration [i.e., has received baptism] and is thereby living as Christ enjoined. For not as common bread nor common drink do we receive these; but since Jesus Christ our Savior was made incarnate by the word of God and had both flesh and blood for our salvation, so too, as we have been taught, the food which has been made into the Eucharist by the Eucharistic prayer set down by him, and by the change of which our blood and flesh is nurtured, is both the flesh and the blood of that incarnated Jesus" -- First Apology, 66 [151 AD]

Irenaeus

"If the Lord were from other than the Father, how could he rightly take bread, which is of the same creation as our own, and confess it to be his body and affirm that the mixture in the cup is his blood?" -- Against Heresies, 4:33–32 [189 A.D.]

"He has declared the cup, a part of creation, to be his own blood, from which he causes our blood to flow; and the bread, a part of creation, he has established as his own body, from which he gives increase unto our bodies. When, therefore, the mixed cup [wine and water] and the baked bread receives the Word of God and becomes the Eucharist, the body of Christ, and from these the substance of our flesh is increased and supported, how can they say that the flesh is not capable of receiving the gift of God, which is eternal life—flesh which is nourished by the body and blood of the Lord, and is in fact a member of him?" (ibid., 5:2)

Clement of Alexandria

"’Eat my flesh,’ [Jesus] says, ‘and drink my blood.’ The Lord supplies us with these intimate nutrients, he delivers over his flesh and pours out his blood, and nothing is lacking for the growth of his children" -- The Instructor of Children, 1:6:43:3 [191 AD]



The Bible is forthright in declaring Jesus is literally and wholly present - body and blood, soul and divinity - (cf. 1 Cor. 10:16–17, 11:23–29; and, most forcefully, John 6:32–71, where Christ speaks about the sacrament that will be instituted at the Last Supper ). The early Church Fathers interpreted these passages literally. Whatever else might be said, the early Church took John 6 literally. In fact, there is no record from the early centuries that implies Christians doubted the constant Catholic interpretation. There exists no document in which the literal interpretation is opposed and only the metaphorical accepted.

In summarizing the early Fathers’ teachings on Christ’s Real Presence, renowned Protestant patristics scholar, J. N. D. Kelly, writes: "Eucharistic teaching, it should be understood at the outset, was in general unquestioningly realist, i.e., the consecrated bread and wine were taken to be, and were treated and designated as, the Savior’s body and blood" (Early Christian Doctrines, 440; emphasis added).
8 posted on 04/12/2004 4:46:17 PM PDT by polemikos (Ecce Agnus Dei)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: HarleyD
It is my view the church slowly digress from the original teachings until the Reformation corrected the situation.

Quite the opposite, actually: See Reply 8 above.
9 posted on 04/12/2004 4:55:23 PM PDT by polemikos (Ecce Agnus Dei)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: polemikos
This was not a belief that first appeared in the 9th century. It had its roots in the early church and fester for centuries. While you've listed some of those who supported transsubstantiation there were others that felt this was more symbolic.
10 posted on 04/12/2004 5:07:56 PM PDT by HarleyD (For strong is he who carries out God's word. (Joel 2:11))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: HarleyD
"While you've listed some of those who supported transsubstantiation there were others that felt this was more symbolic."

Please post your sources for this.

11 posted on 04/12/2004 5:10:08 PM PDT by AlguyA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: HarleyD
"While you've listed some of those who supported transsubstantiation there were others that felt this was more symbolic."

In fact, the article which you, yourself, posted shows it is a mistake to think even Ratramnus in the Ninth Century was taking a symbolic view of the Eucharist

Ratramnus writes elsewhere that "under cover of the corporeal bread and of the corporeal wine Christ's spiritual body and spiritual blood do exist." It is clear therefore from these two selections that this author is not advocating the same doctrine as that which would later be propounded by Ulrich Zwingli. Here, the signs not only represent, but also convey Christ's spiritual body and blood.

12 posted on 04/12/2004 5:16:53 PM PDT by AlguyA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: AlguyA
Well, I guess I'll have to look up Ratramnus' writings. But your logic doesn't make sense.

There apparently were two views by Radbertus and Ratramnus that must have been substantially different. Different enough that the council in 12?? made some kind of major decision and selection. Also the difference must have been significant for the Council of Trent to BAN Ratramnus' writings until 1900s.

If there wasn't any difference there wouldn't have been all this fuss.
13 posted on 04/12/2004 5:41:36 PM PDT by HarleyD (For strong is he who carries out God's word. (Joel 2:11))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: AlguyA
You may wish to check www.newadvent.org the Catholic website. They'll tell you the same thing as this article.
14 posted on 04/12/2004 5:46:00 PM PDT by HarleyD (For strong is he who carries out God's word. (Joel 2:11))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: HarleyD
"Well, I guess I'll have to look up Ratramnus' writings. But your logic doesn't make sense."

"There apparently were two views by Radbertus and Ratramnus that must have been substantially different. Different enough that the council in 12?? made some kind of major decision and selection. Also the difference must have been significant for the Council of Trent to BAN Ratramnus' writings until 1900s.

"If there wasn't any difference there wouldn't have been all this fuss."

First, you err in assuming there are only "two positions" -the Catholic position of transubstantion and your Baptist tradition of mere memorialism Hence, my logic makes perfect sense. Ratramnus' position, for lack of a simple yet complete way to say it, was somewhere 'in between.' Essentially, from what I can gather from my reading(and, yes, I've already been to newadvent.org as well as consulting several other sources)Ratramnus was arguing the Eucharist WAS the Body and Blood of Christ, just not His historical Body and Blood. This is a far cry from just a symbolic view of the Eucharist.

Moreover, there is reason to believe his usage of 'figura' and 'veritas' was not all that far after all from the 'accidents' and 'substance' of Aquinas. However, early in the Reformation, Protestants seized on Ratramnus to try to overthrow the theology of transubstantion. Hence its banning.

You may have noticed I complemented your article selection. That should tip you off that, in the main, the author -albeit from a Protestant viewpoint- is at least trying to fairly address just what Ratramnus' really was.

So here's how the historical record really plays out. For the first eight hundred years or so, the Church Fathers held to the view the Eucharist was, in some mysterious fashion, the true Body and Blood, Soul and Divinity of Our Lord Jesus Christ. Then, as theologians contemplated the matter more deeply, disputes arose over just how the Eucharist was the Body and Blood, Soul and Divinity of Our Lord. Finally, from the Catholic position, the issue is resolved with Aquinas' transubstantion -though there is much in the early Church Fathers congruent with Aquinas' thought, even though the word itself was not used. In many ways this is the same process which occurred with the development of Trinitarian doctrine.

No, Harley, the real innovation comes after the beginning of the Reformation, for it is then, for the first time in Christian history, that Christians assert a theology which holds the Eucharist is nothing more than symbolic, is only symbolic, and in no way constitutes the actual Body and Blood of Our Lord. Granted, there were heretics as early as Ignatius who disputed the Eucharist, but then, no one holds the represent the views of the early Church Fathers, the same Church Fathers who developed the doctrine of the Trinity, formulated the canon, etc.

15 posted on 04/12/2004 6:08:08 PM PDT by AlguyA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: HarleyD
This was not a belief that first appeared in the 9th century. It had its roots in the early church and fester for centuries. While you've listed some of those who supported transsubstantiation there were others that felt this was more symbolic.

Catholics don't deny that the Eucharist has symbolic meanings. But saying that something holds a symbolic meaning doesn't deny that it also holds a literal meaning. The literal interpretation has roots all the way back to the Bible (Exodus, actually).

The purely symbolic interpretation is a theological novelty that gained a foothold in the Reformation.
16 posted on 04/12/2004 6:55:38 PM PDT by polemikos (Ecce Agnus Dei)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: HarleyD
You would think that the church would understand the truth about the Lord Supper.

Being a evangelical christian for us the Lord supper represent the intaking of the Living Word of God, into us. The bread and the wine represent the Word of God as Jesus.
In John 6;53-58 These are the verse that has confuse so many. But in John 1:14 is the key to understanding what Jesus was referring to.
And the Word was made flesh and dwelt among us. So when Jesus refered to eating is flesh and drinking his blood he was referring to the Word of God, the bible. When we read, study and meditate on the Word we are entering into communion with the Lord in Spirit. But that what many evangelical christian believe. I find the catholic doctrine on this subject different to say the least.
17 posted on 04/12/2004 8:13:55 PM PDT by Warlord David
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Warlord David
But in John 1:14 is the key to understanding what Jesus was referring to. And the Word was made flesh and dwelt among us. So when Jesus refered to eating is flesh and drinking his blood he was referring to the Word of God, the bible. When we read, study and meditate on the Word we are entering into communion with the Lord in Spirit.

I have a hard time with that line of reasoning because I can't reconcile it with the actual words of John 6.

Jesus used very explicit words, and the Jews understood him literally. Jesus starts off using the Greek phago ("to eat") (Jn 6:49, 50, 52, 53), the typical word for eating, but one which can carry a symbolic meaning. But the Jews, having understood Him literally, are disturbed. Interestingly, Jesus ALWAYS explained things to the disciples. Jesus knows they are grumbling, so He changes verbs. He uses the Greek trogo (Jn 6:54, 56, 57, 58) which has the more vivid meaning "to chew, to gnaw" and so far as I can tell, is never used symbolically. Jesus did not say "You knuckleheads, you took me literally." He explained his meaning by moving away from any potentially symbolic meaning and vividly towards the literal. This is the reverse of his general method of teaching, and a clear indication that he meant himself to be taken quite literally. In other words, "Hey, I really meant it!" This is the only time disciples left him over a doctrinal issue.

And at the time of the Last Supper, there were over three dozen Aramaic words to say "this means," "represents," or "signifies," but Jesus used none of them. He said, "This is my body."

Now, imagine how much insight we could gain if we could speak with St. John himself and ask him what he understood our Lord to mean. Well, this is exactly what the Fathers of the Church were able to do. St. Ignatius of Antioch was a disciple of St. John, and St. Ignatius is not silent on the subject. He writes:
"They [the non-orthodox] do not confess that the Eucharist is the flesh of our Savior, Jesus Christ, flesh which suffered for our sins in which the Father in His goodness raised up again. They who deny the gift of God are perishing in their disputes." (Letter to the Smyrnaeans; 6:2–7:1; 110 AD)
This is further underscored by the "Lord's supper" ritual mentioned in I Cor. It is not about Passover or a Jewish rite of unleavened bread. Paul is literally talking about the "Lord's supper". It occurs whenever the church gathers. It is an accurate summation of the Catholic liturgy of the Eucharist "after the order of Melchisedek".

1 Cor 10:16 - "The bread which we break, is it not a participation in the body of Christ?"
1 Cor 10:17 - "Because there is one bread, we who are many are one body, for we all partake of the one bread."

Further, in 1 Cor 11:20-22 Paul explicitly mocks those who treat the Lord's supper as a common meal in fellowship. And in 1 Cor 11:27 Paul makes clear that eating the bread unworthily is akin to killing Christ. How can this be so if the Lord's supper is "the intaking of the Living Word of God, [the Bible] into us"? Aren't the very people who should be taking in the Bible, by definition, unworthy? "They that be whole need not a physician, but they that are sick."

However, I do think you are only a few verses off from the key. John 1:29 is absolutely beautiful. "Behold the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the world." Even my meager grasp of its transcendent grace devastates me beyond words. Which is why I would simply refer you back to Ex. 12:5-7 to see that it is necessary for Christians to eat the paschal lamb.
18 posted on 04/13/2004 1:36:12 AM PDT by polemikos (Ecce Agnus Dei)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: AlguyA
"First, you err in assuming there are only "two positions" -the Catholic position of transubstantion and your Baptist tradition of mere memorialism"

Well, there actually are four views but this article only talks about the two. I'm usually long winded enough without going into other issues. Sometimes its difficult to know where to cut it off.

19 posted on 04/13/2004 4:26:11 AM PDT by HarleyD (For strong is he who carries out God's word. (Joel 2:11))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: AlguyA
"the Catholic position of transubstantion and your Baptist tradition of mere memorialism....This is a far cry from just a symbolic view of the Eucharist."

Just a slight correction. The Lord's Supper in the Baptist tradition is considered a symbol of Christ's death, burial and resurrection. We identify ourselves with the work of Christ through the Lord's Supper and proclaim His return.

It is not a memorialization. A small but significant difference. I noticed that you used the words interchangably so this may have been a slip.

20 posted on 04/13/2004 4:48:25 AM PDT by HarleyD (For strong is he who carries out God's word. (Joel 2:11))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-22 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson