The Law of the Eucharist

Radbertus vs. Ratramnus—Their Controversy as to the Nature of the Eucharist

George J. Gatgounis

• Publisher: Wipf and Stock
• Year: 2021
• Print ISBN:
  9781725261228
  9781725261235
• eBook ISBN:
  9781725261242
• Topic: Theology & Religion
• Subtopic: Christian Denominations

Christians have been debating for centuries what Jesus meant at the Last Supper when he held out a piece of bread to his disciples and said, "This is my body, which is given for you. Do this in remembrance of me." Christians regularly celebrate the Eucharist, or Holy Communion, based on those words of Jesus, with some form of bread and wine. Most Christians believe that Christ is somehow present but disagree on what that actually means. The Law of the Eucharist: Radbertus vs. Ratramnus--Their Controversy as to the Nature of the Eucharist by the Rev. Dr. George Gatgounis, Esq., examines the issue from the writings of two ninth-century monks. Their arguments can be illuminating to modern exegetes who have to answer the same questions.

Chapter 1

The Interrelation of Radbert and Ratramn on the Nature of the Eucharistic Elements

Who Is Responding to Whom?

The most thorough treatment of Ratramn’s Eucharistic views is John F. Fahey’s The Eucharistic Teaching of Ratramn of Corbie. In it Fahey argues that Ratramn and Radbert must be understood in relation to each other:

It is no more misleading to quote a sentence out of context than it is to study a controversial book apart from its historical setting . . . like so many pieces of a jig-saw puzzle, the individual treatises seem misshapen and patternless until fitted together.32

To Fahey, a point/counterpoint relation between the two theologians is “historical fact.”33

Moreover, Fahey believes beyond any doubt that Ratramn wrote his treatise around 850 to offer an alternative theological model to ever-growing transubstantiationism articulated in Radbert’s first edition written in 831 (which was revised to its final form in 844).34 But Fahey believes Radbert wrote with Ratramn’s teachings in mind, at least from an oral tradition. If Fahey’s historical reconstruction is correct, Radbert fixed Ratramn as his adversary, furthering the personal and political forces that had already driven them into different positions.35 Personally, Radbert was an abbot and teacher who focused primarily on instruction of the plain folk, and his treatise was designed to be read by the unlettered faithful—while Ratramn was an erudite scholarly monk who purposed to suffuse himself with Augustine.36 To Fahey, the theological disagreement became another dimension of distance between them.37

Calogero Gliozzo disagrees with Fahey, however. He argues that Radbert indeed wrote first but with an another adversary in mind: “Paschase [Radbert], it is true, speaks of adversaries who oppose his doctrine; it seems, however, that he is referring to discourses made against him rather than to written words.”38 Gliozzo elaborates:

We may conclude that the adversaries of Paschase [Radbert] are not found together with him, because he had heard of their objections, that they were men more talkative than learned, and that Paschase knew of no work written in his time, which contained an error concerning the Eucharist.39

Because Ratramn was a scholar resident at Corbie, Gliozzo concludes that Radbert, who wrote first, had some other adversary(s) in mind. Accordingly, Charles, perhaps curious about the fantastic narratives in Radbert’s treatise, asked Ratramn for clarification because Ratramn was an Augustinian scholar.40

Fahey rebuts Gliozzio, however, because Radbert identified his adversary on the issue of the nature of Mary’s childbirth as “one of his brethren.”41 Fahey thinks the only “one of his brethren” who ever publicly opposed Radbert was Ratramn. Accordingly, Fahey concludes Radbert wrote first, responding to Ratramn’s oral teaching.42

Common Ground and Point of Divergence

Regardless of who is responding to whom, the interrelation between Ratramn’s and Radbert’s works on the Eucharist is a divergence not without common ground. This common ground includes both Ratramn and Radbert calling for faith, stressing divine power, agreeing that Christ’s body is present to give life, and affirming the role of the Word and Holy Spirit.43 The specific point of disagreement between the two scholars is the relation of the Eucharist to Christ’s historical body.44 Ratramn argued against the doctrine advanced by various unknown German teachers that Christ was naturally born, but “broke forth mirac...

Table of contents

• Title Page
• Radbertus and Ratramnus—Their Controversy Regarding the Eucharist
• Introduction
• Chapter 1: The Interrelation of Radbert and Ratramn on the Nature of the Eucharistic Elements
• Chapter 2: Radbert’s View of the Elements in the Eucharist
• Chapter 3: The Result of Worthy Partaking of the Elements
• Chapter 4: Ratramn’s View of the Elements in the Eucharist
• Chapter 5: Ratramn’s Theology of Transformation
• Chapter 6: The Nature of Transformation
• Chapter 7: The Place of Ratramn in the Diachronic Development of the Theology of the Eucharist
• Chapter 8: Conclusion
• Appendix
• Bibliography