As noted above, the idea that the Lord’s Supper is a repetition of Christ's atoning sacrifice (the sacrifice of the Mass) began to take form in the time of Gregory the Great. The bread and wine are Christ’s body and blood. Exactly how should this be understood? Speculations about this question occupied several Frankish theologians during the first half of the ninth century. As a result of their efforts, the ground was laid for the later medieval doctrine of the Lord’s Supper.It must be noted that at this time the Lord’s Supper was by no means interpreted only in terms of the sacrifice of the Mass. This idea was but one of the elements involved in the concept of the Lord’s Supper in the early Middle Ages. The idea of participation was emphasized with equal enthusiasm. But in the one case as in the other, the question of the Real Presence assumed a central position.
The teaching of the Real Presence, as such, was elevated above all doubt. But the question which arose was this: Should the Real Presence of Christ be understood symbolically or literally? Augustine’s interpretation of the Lord’s Supper contributed much to the way that question was answered. Augustine’s concept was, for all practical purposes, “symbolic”: the sacrament is, he said, a sign (signum), which is to say that the external, visible elements are the bearers of a reality which is invisible and exists only in the realm of the spirit. Augustine sought to solve the problem involved by distinguishing between res and signum, or between sacramentum and virtus sacramenti. The difficulty which occupied theologians in subsequent generations was chiefly this: How do we combine the Augustinian point of view with the common assumption of faith which holds that the bread and wine are more than signs, that they are in reality identical with the body and blood of Christ? (See p. 127 above)
Pasehasius Radbertus gave this question a thorough investigation in his book De corpore et sanguine Domini. He set forth the doctrine of the Real Presence in no uncertain terms: after the consecration, there is nothing other than the body and blood of Christ, albeit under the form of bread and wine. The body which is imparted in the Lord’s Supper is identical with that which was born of the Virgin Mary, which suffered on the cross and arose from the dead. The change which occurs in the elements results from the creative power of the almighty word. Just as Almighty God was able to create ex nihilo, and to bring forth Christ’s body in the Virgin’s womb, so also can He by His word present Christ’s body and blood under the form of bread and wine. It is obvious, however, that this is accomplished in a mysterious and, to a certain extent, figurative manner, inasmuch as the elements retain their external form. Hence the question for Pasehasius was this: How can the sacramental event be both figurative (symbolic) and in the truest sense actual at one and the same time?
As Paschasius came to believe, the symbolic aspect is restricted to that which is perceptible in the purely external sense: the visible elements and their reception by the communicant. But that which is perceived inwardly, the giving of Christ’s body and blood, is a reality (veritas). Through the influence of the word and the Spirit, the bread becomes the body of Christ and the wine becomes the blood of Christ. “What is perceived externally is a figure or mark, but what is perceived internally is entirely reality and no figure at all; and therefore nothing else is here revealed but reality and the sacrament of the body itself—the true body of Christ, which was crucified and buried, surely the sacrament of His body, which is divinely consecrated by the priest above the altar with the word of Christ through the Spirit: whence the Lord Himself exclaims, “This is My body; (Luke 22:19).” (Migne, PL 120, 1279 B)
Paschasius did not altogether reject the Augustinian position with its symbolic interpretation; he rather retained it as an obvious presupposition. At the same time, however, he emphasized the real change in the elements as the essential aspect. Paschasius Radbertus’ ideas concerning the Lord’s Supper formed an important link in the theological chain which led forward to the dogma of transubstantiation.
But while he lived, Paschasius’ position on the Lord’s Supper elicited a variety of contradictions from theologians who wished to emphasize more strongly the symbolic interpretation of Augustine. The Frankish theologian Ratramnus, for example, wrote a book with the same title as that written by Radbertus (see above), in which he replied to the questions posed by Radbertus. Ratramnus interpreted the Lord’s Supper symbolically. The body and blood of Christ are actually received. But this is done in a figurative manner: the external elements are symbolic of an inner reality which can be perceived only by faith. “They are figures according to their visible appearance, but indeed according to the invisible substance, i.e., the power of the divine Word, they are the true body and blood of Christ.” (De corp. et sang., 49; Seeberg, III, 75)
What has just been cited could in itself have been said also by Paschasius. But the difference between the two men was that whereas Paschasius restricted the figurative aspect to the externals, Ratramnus extended it even to the designation “the body and blood of Christ.” The latter maintained that the bread could be referred to as the body of Christ only in a figurative sense—only in the sense that Christ spoke of Himself as the Bread of Life or as the True Vine. The words of institution are not to be taken literally, he said. When the Bible speaks of Christ’s birth of a virgin, and of His suffering and death and burial, these passages must be read literally. In such cases we are dealing with a direct, nonfigurative form of expression. But in the Lord’s Supper the actual significance of the Sacrament—the reception of spiritual or heavenly gifts—is enshrouded in the veil of the external symbols.
What other theologians objected to above all in Radbertus’ position was that he identified Christ’s historical body with the host presented in the Sacrament of the Altar (see above). According to Ratramnus, the body received in the Lord’s Supper is not the earthly, human body but a heavenly, spiritual body which can be received only by faith, in a spiritual way. “The external appearance, therefore, is not the thing itself but its image—that which is perceived and understood by the mind as the truth of a thing” (De corp. et sang., 77, 88; Seeberg, III, 75). “Christ’s body must not be understood physically but spiritually” (ibid., 74; Seeberg, ibid.). This position is very close to Augustine’s: the Lord’s Supper is the external symbol of the internal reception of heavenly gifts, something which can be realized only in faith.
It was for the most part the ideas of Radbertus which were further developed to form the basis of the theory of the Lord’s Supper which came to dominate the Middle Ages. The Augustinian position was gradually pushed side and replaced by the teaching of transubstantiation.
The teaching of the Real Presence, as such, was elevated above all doubt. But the question which arose was this: Should the Real Presence of Christ be understood symbolically or literally? Augustine’s interpretation of the Lord’s Supper contributed much to the way that question was answered. Augustine’s concept was, for all practical purposes, “symbolic”: the sacrament is, he said, a sign (signum), which is to say that the external, visible elements are the bearers of a reality which is invisible and exists only in the realm of the spirit. Augustine sought to solve the problem involved by distinguishing between res and signum, or between sacramentum and virtus sacramenti. The difficulty which occupied theologians in subsequent generations was chiefly this: How do we combine the Augustinian point of view with the common assumption of faith which holds that the bread and wine are more than signs, that they are in reality identical with the body and blood of Christ? (See p. 127 above)
Pasehasius Radbertus gave this question a thorough investigation in his book De corpore et sanguine Domini. He set forth the doctrine of the Real Presence in no uncertain terms: after the consecration, there is nothing other than the body and blood of Christ, albeit under the form of bread and wine. The body which is imparted in the Lord’s Supper is identical with that which was born of the Virgin Mary, which suffered on the cross and arose from the dead. The change which occurs in the elements results from the creative power of the almighty word. Just as Almighty God was able to create ex nihilo, and to bring forth Christ’s body in the Virgin’s womb, so also can He by His word present Christ’s body and blood under the form of bread and wine. It is obvious, however, that this is accomplished in a mysterious and, to a certain extent, figurative manner, inasmuch as the elements retain their external form. Hence the question for Pasehasius was this: How can the sacramental event be both figurative (symbolic) and in the truest sense actual at one and the same time?
As Paschasius came to believe, the symbolic aspect is restricted to that which is perceptible in the purely external sense: the visible elements and their reception by the communicant. But that which is perceived inwardly, the giving of Christ’s body and blood, is a reality (veritas). Through the influence of the word and the Spirit, the bread becomes the body of Christ and the wine becomes the blood of Christ. “What is perceived externally is a figure or mark, but what is perceived internally is entirely reality and no figure at all; and therefore nothing else is here revealed but reality and the sacrament of the body itself—the true body of Christ, which was crucified and buried, surely the sacrament of His body, which is divinely consecrated by the priest above the altar with the word of Christ through the Spirit: whence the Lord Himself exclaims, “This is My body; (Luke 22:19).” (Migne, PL 120, 1279 B)
Paschasius did not altogether reject the Augustinian position with its symbolic interpretation; he rather retained it as an obvious presupposition. At the same time, however, he emphasized the real change in the elements as the essential aspect. Paschasius Radbertus’ ideas concerning the Lord’s Supper formed an important link in the theological chain which led forward to the dogma of transubstantiation.
But while he lived, Paschasius’ position on the Lord’s Supper elicited a variety of contradictions from theologians who wished to emphasize more strongly the symbolic interpretation of Augustine. The Frankish theologian Ratramnus, for example, wrote a book with the same title as that written by Radbertus (see above), in which he replied to the questions posed by Radbertus. Ratramnus interpreted the Lord’s Supper symbolically. The body and blood of Christ are actually received. But this is done in a figurative manner: the external elements are symbolic of an inner reality which can be perceived only by faith. “They are figures according to their visible appearance, but indeed according to the invisible substance, i.e., the power of the divine Word, they are the true body and blood of Christ.” (De corp. et sang., 49; Seeberg, III, 75)
What has just been cited could in itself have been said also by Paschasius. But the difference between the two men was that whereas Paschasius restricted the figurative aspect to the externals, Ratramnus extended it even to the designation “the body and blood of Christ.” The latter maintained that the bread could be referred to as the body of Christ only in a figurative sense—only in the sense that Christ spoke of Himself as the Bread of Life or as the True Vine. The words of institution are not to be taken literally, he said. When the Bible speaks of Christ’s birth of a virgin, and of His suffering and death and burial, these passages must be read literally. In such cases we are dealing with a direct, nonfigurative form of expression. But in the Lord’s Supper the actual significance of the Sacrament—the reception of spiritual or heavenly gifts—is enshrouded in the veil of the external symbols.
What other theologians objected to above all in Radbertus’ position was that he identified Christ’s historical body with the host presented in the Sacrament of the Altar (see above). According to Ratramnus, the body received in the Lord’s Supper is not the earthly, human body but a heavenly, spiritual body which can be received only by faith, in a spiritual way. “The external appearance, therefore, is not the thing itself but its image—that which is perceived and understood by the mind as the truth of a thing” (De corp. et sang., 77, 88; Seeberg, III, 75). “Christ’s body must not be understood physically but spiritually” (ibid., 74; Seeberg, ibid.). This position is very close to Augustine’s: the Lord’s Supper is the external symbol of the internal reception of heavenly gifts, something which can be realized only in faith.
It was for the most part the ideas of Radbertus which were further developed to form the basis of the theory of the Lord’s Supper which came to dominate the Middle Ages. The Augustinian position was gradually pushed side and replaced by the teaching of transubstantiation.
No comments:
Post a Comment