February
800-865 A.D. Paschasius Radbertus—Scholarly Monk of
Corbie/Corvie, France; Taught
Transubstantiation; Author of De
Corpore et Sanguine Domini.
Schaff,
Philip. Ҥ126. The Theory of Paschasius
Radbertus.” History of the Christian Church, Vol. IV: Medieval Christianity. http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/hcc4.i.xi.xxi.html. Accessed 2 Oct 2014.
§ 126. The Theory of
Paschasius Radbertus.
Paschasius Radbertus (from
800 to about 865), a learned, devout and superstitious monk, and afterwards
abbot of Corbie or Corvey in France704 is the first who clearly taught the doctrine of
transubstantiation as then believed by many, and afterwards adopted by the
Roman Catholic church. He wrote a book “on the Body and Blood of the Lord,” composed
for his disciple Placidus of New Corbie in the year 831, and afterwards
reedited it in a more popular form, and dedicated it to the Emperor Charles the
Bald, as a Christmas gift (844). He did not employ the term transubstantiation,
which came not into use till 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. The change is brought about by a miracle
of the Holy Spirit, who created the body of Christ in the womb of the Virgin
without cohabitation, and who by the same almighty power creates from day to
day, wherever the mass is celebrated, the same body and blood out of the
substance of bread and wine. He emphasizes the identity of the eucharistic body
with the body which was born of the Virgin, suffered on the cross, rose from
the dead, and ascended to heaven; yet on the other hand he represents the
sacramental eating and drinking as a spiritual process by faith.705 He therefore combines the sensuous and spiritual
conceptions.706 He
assumes that the soul of the believer communes with Christ, and that his body
receives an imperishable principle of life which culminates at last in the
resurrection. He thus understood, like several of the ancient fathers, the
words of our Saviour: “He that eateth my flesh and drinketh my blood hath
eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day” (John 6:54).
He supports his doctrine
by the words of institution in their literal sense, and by the sixth chapter of
John. He appealed also to marvellous stories of the visible appearances of the
body and blood of Christ for the removal of doubts or the satisfaction of the
pious desire of saints. The bread on the altar, he reports, was often seen in
the shape of a lamb or a little child, and when the priest stretched out his
hand to break the bread, an angel descended from heaven with a knife,
slaughtered the lamb or the child, and let his blood run into a cup!707
Such stories were readily
believed by the people, and helped to strengthen the doctrine of
transubstantiation; as the stories of the appearances of departed souls from
purgatory confirmed the belief in purgatory.
The book of Radbert
created a great sensation in the West, which was not yet prepared to accept the
doctrine of transubstantiation without a vigorous struggle. Radbert himself
admits that some of his contemporaries believed only in a spiritual communion
of the soul with Christ, and substituted the mere virtue of his body and blood
for the real body and blood, i.e., as he thinks, the figure for the verity, the
shadow for the substance.708
His opponents appealed chiefly to St. Augustin, who made
a distinction between the historical and the eucharistic body of Christ, and
between a false material and a true spiritual fruition of his body and blood.
In a letter to the monk Frudegard, who quoted several passages of Augustin,
Radbert tried to explain them in his sense. For no divine of the Latin church
dared openly to contradict the authority of the great African teacher.
704 Corbie,
Corvey, Corbeia (also called Corbeia aurea or vetus), was a
famous Benedictine Convent in the diocese of Amiens, founded by King Clotar and
his mother Rathilde in 664, in honor of Peter and Paul and the Protomartyr
Stephen. It boasted of many distinguished men, as St. Ansgarius (the Apostle of
the Danes), Radbert, Ratramnus, Druthmar. New Corbie (Nova Corbeia) was
a colony of the former, founded in 822, near Höxter on the Weser in Germany,
and became the centre for the christianization of the Saxons. Gallia
Christiana, X., Wiegand, Gesch. v. Corvey, Höxter, 1819; Klippel, Corvey,
in Herzog2III. 365-370.
705 He
denies the grossly Capernaitic conception (”Christum vorari fas dentibus non
est“) and the conversion of the body and blood of Christ into our flesh and
blood. He confines the spiritual fruition to believers (”iste eucharistiae
cibus non nisi filiorum Dei est“). The unworthy communicants, whom he
compares to Judas, receive the sacramental “mystery” to their judgment, but not
the “virtue of the mystery” to their benefit. He seems not to have clearly seen
that his premises lead to the inevitable conclusion that all communicants alike
receive the same substance of the body and blood of Christ, though with
opposite effects. But Dr. Ebrard is certainly wrong when he claims Radbert
rather for the Augustinian view, and denies that he was the author of the
theory of transubstantiation. See his Dogma v. heil. Abendmahl I. 406,
and his Christl. Kirchen- und
Dogmengesch. II. 27 and 33.
706 See
Steitz on Radbert, and also Reuter (I. 43), who says: ”Die Radbertische Doctrin war das synkretistische Gebilde,
in welchem die spiritualistische Lehre Augustin’s mit der uralten Anschauung
von der realen Gegenwart des Leibes und dei Blutes Christi, aber in Analogie
mit dem religiösen Materialismus der Periode combinirt wurde; die gegnerische
Theorie der Protest gegen das Becht dieser Combination.“
707 See
several such examples in ch. 14 (Opera, ed. Migne, col. 1316 sqq. ).
708 He
clearly contrasts the two theories, probably with reference to Ratramnus, in
his comments on the words of institution, Matt. 26:26 (Expos. in Matt.,
ed. Migne, col. 890 sq.): “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’ (ver. 57). Unde miror quid velint uno quidam
dicere, non in re esse veritatem carnis Christi vel sanguinis; sed in
sacramento virtutem carnis et non carnem, virtutem sanguinis et non sanquinem;
figuram et non veritatem, umbram et non corpus, cum hic species accipit
veritatem et figuram, veterum hostiarum corpus. Unde veritas cum porrigeret
discipulis panem, ’Hoc est corpus meum,’ et non aliud quam, ’quod pro vobis
tradetur;’ et cum calicem, ’Hic est calix Novi Testamenti, qui pro multis
effundetur in remissionem peccatorum.’ Necdum itaque erat fusus, et tamen ipse
porrigetur in calice sanguis, qui fundendus erat. Erat quidem jam in calice,
qui adhuc tamen fundendus erat in pretium; et ideo ipse idemque sanguis jam
erat in calice. qui et in corpore sicut et corpus vel caro in pane. Erat autem
integer Christus et corpus Christi coram oculis omnium positum; necnon et
sanguis in corpore, sicut et adhuc hodie integerrimum est et manet, qui vere
dabatur eis ad comedendum, et ad bidendum, in remissionem peccatorum, quam in
Christo.”
No comments:
Post a Comment