February
800-865 A.D. Paschasius Radbertus—Scholarly Monk of
Corbie/Corvie, France; Taught
Transubstantiation; Author of De
Corpore et Sanguine Domini; Author of
Varied Exegetical Works; Corbie, France is About 142 Miles Near Truth North to
Paris, France
Rosenthal,
Shane. “Radbertus & Ratramnus: A Ninth Century Debate over the Lord’s
Supper.” Free Republic. 2000.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/1113755/posts. Accessed 2 Oct 2014.
Radbertus &
Ratramnus: A Ninth Century Debate over the Lord's Supper
Reformation Ink | 2000 | Shane Rosenthal
Reformation Ink | 2000 | Shane Rosenthal
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 )
To: drstevej; OrthodoxPresbyterian; CCWoody; RnMomof7; Wrigley;
Gamecock; Jean Chauvin; jboot; ...
Pinging the Great Freeper Reformation Revival for your
enjoyment.
2
posted on 4/8/2004 12:10:45 PM by HarleyD (For
strong is he who carries out God's word. (Joel 2:11))
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.
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 4/8/2004 1:11:27 PM by Jerry_M (I
can only say that I am a poor sinner, trusting in Christ alone for salvation.
-- Gen. Robt E. Lee)
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)
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 4/8/2004 2:22:34 PM by HarleyD (For
strong is he who carries out God's word. (Joel 2:11))
To: HarleyD
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.
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 4/9/2004 8:30:56 PM by Jack Armstrong (a
Post Modern America adrift in the Dark)
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]
"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).
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.
Quite the opposite, actually: See Reply 8 above.
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 4/12/2004 8:07:56 PM by HarleyD (For
strong is he who carries out God's word. (Joel 2:11))
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.
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.
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.
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 4/12/2004 8:41:36 PM by HarleyD (For
strong is he who carries out God's word. (Joel 2:11))
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 4/12/2004 8:46:00 PM by HarleyD (For
strong is he who carries out God's word. (Joel 2:11))
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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:
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.
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.
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 4/13/2004 7:26:11 AM by HarleyD (For
strong is he who carries out God's word. (Joel 2:11))
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 4/13/2004 7:48:25 AM by HarleyD (For
strong is he who carries out God's word. (Joel 2:11))
To: polemikos
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.
I agree that why Jesus said that man shall not live by bread alone but by every word that proceedith from the mouth of God.
Just because it is spiritual does not mean that it not literal. Something to think about.
I agree that why Jesus said that man shall not live by bread alone but by every word that proceedith from the mouth of God.
Just because it is spiritual does not mean that it not literal. Something to think about.
To: Warlord David
I agree that why Jesus said that man shall not
live by bread alone but by every word that proceedith from the mouth of God.
I don't follow your point. You agree with what?
Just because it is spiritual does not mean that it not literal. Something to think about.
Are you saying that you now agree with the literal (Catholic) interpretation of John 6? I don't follow your point.
I don't follow your point. You agree with what?
Just because it is spiritual does not mean that it not literal. Something to think about.
Are you saying that you now agree with the literal (Catholic) interpretation of John 6? I don't follow your point.
No comments:
Post a Comment