The Eucharist Controversy

[Circle_Master]

The Eucharist controversy of the ninth century.

Monk Ratramnus of the Benedictine order from the Abbey of Corbie in 868 wrote a work entitled "De corpore et sanguine Domini". This is a treatise on the 'Holy Eucharist' in which Monk Ratramnus argued that the eucharist Christ was not identical to the historic Christ "who was born of Mary, suffered, died, was buried, ascended into heaven and sitteth at the right hand of the Father". He goes on to argue not for a symbolic presence as some have false interpreted, but for merely a spiritual presence such as Calvin taught. He termed those who believed that Christ was physically present in the eucharist "stercorianists" indicating that what they ate - still came out later. He was never declared a heretic.

(another summary available from http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/12659c.htm)

Berengarius of Tours, bishop, and noted intelligent man in 1047 began teaching on the 'Holy Eucharist'. Unlike Radbert Paschasius in 'De Corpore et Sanguine Domini' of 832, he maintained that the eucharist was merely symbolic. He built off of the work of John Scotus Erigena who was not condemned a heretic, and despite his case in 1050 he was imprisoned in jail without council discussions. The council of Vercelli, without Berengarius, discussed his doctrine and condemned it. Berengarius later signed a profession of faith (1059) recanting his view, yet on his return home, attacked this view again declaring it to be erroneous. He then wrote 'De Sacra Coena adversus Lanfrancum Liber Posterior' which discussed and denounced the decision of the Council of Rome. He was condemned again at the Council of Poitiers (1075), and of St. Maixeut (1076), and in 1078 signed another profession of faith. On his return again, Berengarius attacked the view and eventually in 1080 signed a final document and then retired on the island of St. Cosme where he died. Berengarius was noted for putting reason first in his studies, and calling on the works of Jerome, Ambrose, and Augustine as they showed the eucharist as a figure, a sign, and a token of the body/blood of the Lord. The council of Rome in 1079 was the first to clearly express that the eucharist must be physically present. Hildebert of Lavardin - a contemporary of Berengarius was the first to use the word "transubstantiation."

(another summary available from http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/02487a.htm)

In conclusion note that Monk Ratramnus' teaching of the spiritual presence of Christ was never denounced in his life. It was only considerred heretical after the council of Rome in 1079 when Berengarius not only said the physical wasn't there, but the spiritual wasn't as well. A question for you:

Since infallible protects verse false teaching, why was Ratramnus never declared a heretic and ordered to recount for teaching that only the spiritual presence of Christ was in the Eucharist?

[hyperdulia again]

No one has ever suggested that inaction was infallible. And Catholic believe in the development of Doctrine.

[jasJis]

Since infallible protects verse false teaching, why was Ratramnus never declared a heretic and ordered to recount for teaching that only the spiritual presence of Christ was in the Eucharist?

His writings were not taken seriously at the time, nor were they wide spread. In otherwords, it wasn't a big enough bug to use the big fly swatter.

Review CMom's response to you that shows how infallibilty works. The Church is not fallible, but it's members are. The Church is the Holy Spirit and us. Some members (Bishops) receive the grace of guidance of the Holy Spirit which is the infallible Holy Spirit maintaining and protecting the effectiveness of the Word of God on earth. Catholics must respect the tremendous graces give to the Bishops, but individually, Bishops do not have infallibility. Monks certainly don't either! Bishops must work together (College) to function as an effectively graced instrument of the Church that is infallible. Even the Pope must work with the Church in a formal and involved matter to make use of the graces in the Church ALONG with graces given to the Bishop of Rome (the Pope) to operate infalliblely. Remember "ex-cathedra" means in official capacity and that means working with the graces of the Holy Spirit that abides in the Church. A pope must consult other Bishops, Dogma, Define Doctrine, etc., and not go against any of that to issue an infallible decree.

General infallibility of the Church is a grace that requires us to respect and acknowledge the Graces God works through the institution of His Church for our benefit. Even the Catholic Church teaches a Catholic who goes against his own conscience in following the Church is commiting a Mortal Sin. But we also cannot ignore what the Church teaches to form our consceince. Again, and again, the Catholic Church is not a list of "either/or" rules. The are "and" guidelines. A Christian must pray and listen to the Holy Spirit speaking in their private conscience "and" listen to the Holy Spirit speaking through the institution of the Church. The Holy Spirit does not reside in our conscience just for our benefit, but for our benefit and also to serve others. The Holy Spirit ALSO resides in the Church, via ordained Bishops, in order to serve us.

We are surrouned by the Holy Spirit, operating in different "official" capacities. Catholics do not limit themselves to just their personal conscience for how they are willing to listen for the guidance of the Holy Spirit

Edited January 11, 2004 by jasJis

[Circle_Master]

for hyper - if this is such an essential in salvation, one would think it would be clear

for jisjas - I won't bother asking how big of a disturbance is required for God to work. Ratramnus was considered one of the most influential writers of the ninth century however. I suppose you would respond, that you just must wait for God to work.

[jasJis]

I won't bother asking how big of a disturbance is required for God to work. Ratramnus was considered one of the most influential writers of the ninth century however. I suppose you would respond, that you just must wait for God to work.

That sounds great!

It'll work for me! :D

Consider this. What does it matter today? The proof is in the pudding. Monk Ratamnus is dead and only people desireing to justify going against the Church teachings would dig him up. The Holy Spirit has corrected, man has erred again. Who said you or I must be infallible?

[Circle_Master]

Consider this. What does it matter today? The proof is in the pudding. Monk Ratamnus is dead and only people desireing to justify going against the Church teachings would dig him up. The Holy Spirit has corrected, man has erred again. Who said you or I must be infallible?

the problem is that the Holy Spirit didn't correct him. The magisterium was fully aware of his writings too. They black listed them for a while because they thought it could lead people to believe in symbolic eucharist, but eventually allowed people to read them again. It wasn't because of the spiritual presence of Christ, but the danger of a symbolic. The spiritual was considered fine in 900ish, but when Berengarius came the spiritual was changed to heretical.

(and yes, digging up a bit, also expanding my knowledge. by interacting with the stuff I remember it better, and also gets you guys to come to a better cohesiveness. some of you were saying that doctrine has not developed in another thread)

[electricdisk]

I will respond to this too...

(analogy)

A police officer in San Antonio said he did not think that robbing liquor stores was wrong... He would therefore not arrest anyone caught robbing a liquor store.

**********

It is his opinion, and firm belief and he wrote letters to the editor of the local paper stating his reasons- but is not, cannot and never will be the policy of the San Antonio police department.

Just because some 'monk' writes something does NOT make it 'official' doctrine of the Catholic Church... It is his OPINION.....

Ratramnus was considered one of the most influential writers of the ninth century however

----who cares?

Hugh Hefner is one of the most influential promoters of pornography in the 20th century... does that make him important, someone who we should listen to and agree with ???? Of course not.... Influence does not make one 'great' or 'important'

*****

The pope could say "this is the best coffee I ever tasted" and it would never become official teaching for the universal church... It is his OPINION.... not subject to the dogmatic revelation and teaching of the church. It is not a matter of faith and morals.....

*********

Give me a break circle....

Edited January 11, 2004 by electricdisk

[Archangel]

A search on the web says that Ratramnus was condemned at the Synod of Vercelli in 1050.

Here is one of the articles I found: http://www.mark-shea.com/realpres.html

[Circle_Master]

I would disagree electricdisk. The spiritual/physical presence of the eucharist is a matter of faith. It deals with the content of faith for the CC. This isn't some ordinary guy either, but a bishop with supposed apostolic ability passed down. He influenced many people, and supposedly his apostolic ability didn't work? The magisterium never condemned him, and never found any problem with spiritual presence of Christ in eucharist. It only condemned the spiritual, after it was really really pushed by Berengarius (who may have been less influential)

[jasJis]

Doctrine does develop as our understanding develops.

One of the great things about Christianity is that we mature in Faith by Grace.

EDIT to add:

Archangel,

Excellent article. A MUST read for all Christian denoms as well as Catholics. Mark Shea has a way of writing that is clear and complete.

Edited January 11, 2004 by jasJis

[Circle_Master]

A search on the web says that Ratramnus was condemned at the Synod of Vercelli in 1050.

Here is one of the articles I found: http://www.mark-shea.com/realpres.html

Berengarius was - not ratramnus. read it again

[Circle_Master]

Doctrine does develop as our understanding develops.

One of the great things about Christianity is that we mature in Faith by Grace.

theoretically then, Catholics know no truth - only what the lies are?

since infallibility only blocks out the errors - all the rest that you believe to be truth, that could be error as well, it just has not been understood as such as of yet.

[hyperdulia again]

what do you mean by the magisterium was aware? the magisterium is never aware. the magisterium is not aperson or a group of persons. it is the church's authority to teach.

[Aloysius]

i don't know who you're referring to. if you're referring to me, i was talking that the doctrine of spirirtual presence came after the Biblical doctrine of physical presence. it developed in clarification of the Biblical spiritual presence, saying it's physical AND spiritual.

there's nothing wrong with spritiual unless it denies physical. they didn't correct him, woops. but ppl loyal to Church teaching would have checked any of his books against the infallible Church position. if they fell into his heresy, God didn't intend to bring them out. he possibly intended them to be tested that their personal rejection of that heresy would strengthen their faith in the Eucharist and bring all of the Church into a strong enough faith that by 1047 the Church would have been strengthened enough that when the guy started widely spreading the merely symbolic teaching they would have responded, no it's spritiual AND physical.

it's just the cool way the Spirit works. we don't try to understand, just trust in Him.

as for the actual thing He said, it kinda helps me realize more now. cuz i was a lil confused about how after it no longer appears to be bread it's no longer Christ, but now it makes much more sense that when it no longer appears to be Christ Christ ceases to make Himself physically present within me, while His Spiritual presence within me has been strengthened greatly in that His superabundant Spiritual Presence has just come into me, and that part doesn't leave.

isn't it funny how certain teachings the Church kinda didn't wanna stifle even though they were wrong can help you understand true doctrine a lil better? :cool:

[jasJis]

theoretically then, Catholics know no truth - only what the lies are?

since infallibility only blocks out the errors - all the rest that you believe to be truth, that could be error as well, it just has not been understood as such as of yet.

Feeling combative tonight?

Read the article and you'll see how mean "theoretically then, Catholics know no truth - only what the lies are?" seemed to me.

ouch, man.

Take your theoretical conclusion and view what the Catholic Church teaches as TRUTHS, how long they've taught it, what they are, how the Church feels they were revealed by God to us, and see if it retains validity.

Theoretical conclusions are just what if statements that are all "ifs" and have not been compared to actual "whats".

Edited January 11, 2004 by jasJis