No CrossRef data available.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 21 March 2016
In the two ninth-century treatises on the Eucharist written by Paschasius Radbertus and Ratramnus two opinions are expressed which seem to be in complete contradiction with each other. Both, however, are founded in the liturgy of the Church and spring from the same orthodox root. Their doctrines, therefore, do not differ from each other in every detail of the argumentation. The one may be characterised as the realistic-metabolic doctrine, the other as the symbolic doctrine. J. R. Geiselmann in his penetrating studies of the eucharistic doctrine in the early Middle Ages prefers to distinguish between three tendencies: (1) the metabolism of St Ambrose and the Gallican liturgies; (2) the realism of the Roman liturgy; (3) the dynamism of St Augustine’s more spiritual doctrine. The most diverse answers were inspired by closer inquiries into the realisation of the sacrament, i.e. the question firstly how the conversion of the elements should be understood and, secondly, how the relation should be seen between the consecrated elements and the body of Christ ascended to heaven. In these answers the terminology used is not always the same, so that a reliable interpretation offers great difficulties.
page 54 note 1 Radbertus, Paschasius, De Corpore et Sanguine Domini, PL 120, 1267-350.Google Scholar
page 54 note 2 Ratramnus, , De Corpore et Sanguine Domini, PL 121, 125-70Google Scholar; J. N. Bakhuizen van den Brink, Ratramnus, De Copore et Sanguine Domini. Texte établi d’après les manuscrits et notice bibliographique. (Verhandelingen der Koninklijke Nederlandse Akademie van Wetenschappen, afd. Letterkunde, N.R., dl. LXI. no. I), Amsterdam 1954. Ratramn’s text is quoted from this edition.
page 54 note 3 PRF3 16, 397, 40-59 (art. Radbert).
page 54 note 4 Geiselmann, J., Die Eucharistielehre der Vorschokstik (Forschungen zur chr. Literatur-und Dogmengeschichte von A. Ehrhard und J. P. Kirsch, 15. Bd.Google Scholar), Paderborn 1926, 55. In this paper I am much indebted to Prof. Geiselrnann's studies. See also his later book: Die Abendmahlslehre an der Wende d a christlichen Spätantike zum Frühmittclalter, Munich 1933, on Isodore of Sevilla and the Sacrament of the Eucharist.
page 55 note 1 Bach, Jos., Die Dogmengeschichte des Mittelalters vom christalogischen Standpunkte oder die mittelalterliche Christologie vom 8. bis 16. Jahrhundert, Vienna 1873, 1, 156–69.Google Scholar
page 55 note 2 On Rhabanus Maur, see Geiselmann, Die Eucharistielehre, 104-22.
page 56 note 1 PRE3 i6, 395, 396.
page 56 note 2 Hispalensis, Isidori Etymologiae VI, xix, 40 (ed. Lindsay, )Google Scholar.
page 57 note 1 Augustine, s. 272; cf. Ratramnus, ch. xciii, and note.
page 57 note 2 Ph. 32, 143, A.
page 58 note 1 Geiselmann, op. cit. 205.
page 62 note 1 Ambrose, , De Sacr. V, i, 1 Google Scholar. See Pl. I and p. 51 in my edition of Ratramnus.
page 64 note 1 For the bibliographical details in the following pages see my edition of Ratramnus, 99-122.
page 64 note 2 Ridley, Jasper Godwin, Nicholas Ridley. A Biography, 1957, 96 Google Scholar. He refers to Ridley, Gloucester, The Life of Dr. Nicholas Ridley, sometime bishop of London: shewing the Plan and Progress of the Reformation. In which he mas a principal Instrument, and suffered Martyrdom for it in the Reign of Queen Mary, London 1763 Google Scholar. This author only reminds of the Aphorismi of Vadian, sent to Cranmer but rejected by him; he does not hint at Vadian as the editor of Ratramn’s treatise, Jasper Godwin Ridley must have misinter preted him.
page 65 note 1 Dugmore, C.W., The Mass and the English Reformers, 1958, 177.Google Scholar
page 65 note 2 Simler, Iosias, De vera Jesu Christi Domini et Salvatoris nostri secundum humanam naturam in his terris praesentia, orthodoxa et brevis expositio, Tiguri 1579, 17 v and 28.Google Scholar
page 65 note 3 Henri Bullinger, in his letter to the Margrave of Brandenburg, had introduced Ratramn’s treatise as the best weapon against Lutheran consubstantiation-doctrine.
page 66 note 1 Vermilius, Petrus Martyr, Defensio doctrinae veteris et apostolicae de ss. Eucharistiae sacramento adv. Steph. Gardineri librum, Tiguri, Froschouer 1559, fol.Google Scholar
page 68 note 1 Greenslade, S. L., The English Reformers and the Fathers of the Church, 1960, 11.Google Scholar
page 68 note 2 Dugmore, op. cit. 144-8.
page 68 note 3 Tunstallus, Cuthbertus, De Veritate Corporis et Sanguinis Domini nostri Jesu Christi in Eucharistia, Paris 1554 (two editions)Google Scholar. Sturge, C., Cuthbert Tunstall, 1938, 331–8.Google Scholar
page 68 note 4 Messenger, E. C., The Reformation, the Mass and the Priesthood. A documented History with special Reference to the Question of Anglican Orders, I, The Revolt from the Mediaeval Church, 1936 Google Scholar. Ratramn refutes the idea that the Body of Christ could be said to be present to our senses, ‘and holds a theory similar to that of Paschasius: the Eucharist is at once figure and reality, figure according to the visible appearances, but the Body and Blood according to the substance. But on the other hand, Ratramn errs inasmuch as he holds what is thus present is not the historic Body of Christ, but his “spiritual” Body.’ A similar idea was advanced by Rhaban Maur, 96; cf. li, 107, quoted by Dugmore, op. cit. 153.
page 69 note 1 Sturge, op. cit. 112-13.
page 69 note 2 Dugmore, op. cit. 154.
page 69 note 3 DThC XIII, 2, 1637-8. Radbert (p. 1354B) quotes Faustus of Riez: (Christus) ‘invisibilis sacerdos, visibiles creaturas in substantiam corporis et sanguinis sui, verbo suo, secreta potestate, convertit’; his own words are: ‘substantia pañis et vini in Christi cameni et sanguinam efficaciter interius commuta tur.’
page 70 note 1 Sturge, op. cit. 384; Dugmore, op. cit. 192.
page 70 note 2 See my edition of Ratramnus, 99, 100 and notes. Gardiner, Steph., Confutatio Cavillationum qutbus Sacrosanctum Eucharistiae Sacramentum ab Impiis Capharnaītis Impeti Solet, Paris 1551.Google Scholar
page 71 note 1 Hudson, W. S., John Ponet (1516?-1556), Advocate of Limited Monarchy, The University of Chicago Press, 1942, 79–83.Google Scholar
page 71 note 2 Ibid. 80 and n. 66.
page 73 note 1 Foxe, John, The Ecclesiasticall History conteyning the Actes and Monuments etc., London 1576, 11, 1373, 1375.Google Scholar
page 73 note 2 Messenger, op. cit. 329 n.5: ‘Ridley abandoned the doctrine of the Real Objective Presence in favour of a theory of Virtualism, in 1545, when Vicar of Herne in Kent.’ Both notices in The Works of Nicholas Ridley, ed. for The Parker Society, by Christmas, H., Cambridge 1834, 159 Google Scholar, are also erroneous. J. G. Ridley, op. cit. 96n.
page 73 note 3 John Foxe, op. cit. 1334, Pollard, A. W. and Redgrave, G. R., A short-title Catalogue of Books printed in England, Scotland & Ireland and of English Books printed abroad 1475-1640, 1926, no. 16860.Google Scholar
page 74 note 1 Dugmore, op. cit. 128.
page 74 note 2 Dugmore, op. cit. 182, 183.
page 74 note 3 H. C. G. Moule, Bishop Ridley on the Lord’s Supper. Brief Declaration of the Lord’s Supper inritten by Nicholas Ridley, Bishop of London. Registered, with Introduction, Notes and Appendices, and prefaced by a Life of the Writer, 1895. The review of the editions of Ratramn’s treatise in England, which Moule in his Appendices gives, is well done but not quite complete. In an unpublished treatise of Peter Gunning (1614-84), bishop of Ely, entitled ‘Of the Holy Eucharist, Real Presence and Adoration of Christ Therein’ (MSS Rawl c. 619. fos. 195-204, c. 620 fos. 168-73), Bertram’s opinion is shortly mentioned in connection with Augustine’s, as the Rev. H. A. Lloyd Jukes told me.
page 75 note 1 , C. C. J. De conscr., Dist. 2 c. 48, Friedberg t. 2, col. 1331, 1332.Google Scholar
page 75 note 2 Professor Greenslade, op. cit. 14, is right in stating that the English divines learned from each other. ‘In the eucharistie controversy Lambert and Hutchinson drew on Firth, Ridley influenced Cranmer, but also borrowed from him, Jewel used Cranmer, Cooper used Jewel, just as Gardiner used Fisher, and Fisher the medieval authorities.’ Therefore it is of great interest to find out as exactly as possible how far Ratramn has played his part in this controversy.
page 75 note 3 See my edition of Ratramnus, 108, n.3.
page 76 note 1 Foxe, John, o.c., II, 116A-21BGoogle Scholar. Dubois, M. M. in her book on Aelfric, sermonnaire docteur et grammairien, thesis, Paris 1942, 84 and 166 Google Scholar, says: ‘Aelfric qui a aussi bien suivi l’enseignement de Paschase Radbert que celui de Ratramne, comprena que la divergence entre ces deux théologiens résidait plus dans les mots que dans les idées, à cause même de l’imprécision d’une terminologie indécise.’ The first part of this verdict is quite correct; the second lacks penetration of the historic situation of the ninth century and the development of eucharistie thinking.
page 76 note 2 See my edition of Ratramnus, no, c.2.
page 76 note 3 Prebendary of Worcester, chaplain to Coventry, English Ambassador in ‘Sweed-land’ and ‘esteemed an excellent divine, well read and critical in English histories and antiquities,’ Moule, op. cit., 216.
page 76 note 4 Beekenkamp, W. H., De Avondmaalsleer van Berengarius van Tours, The Hague 1941, iv, 36–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
page 77 note 1 London 1880.