Obrazy na stronie
PDF
ePub

§ 192.

CONFIRMATION.

Klee, Dogmengeschichte, ii. p. 160-170.

Confirmation (xgioua, confirmatio) had originally been connected with baptism, but was, in the course of time, separated from it not only as a particular rite, but also as a sacrament which the bishop alone could administer.1 As the first motion to spiritual life is the effect of baptism, so its growth is promoted by the rite of confirmation. Its characteristic is vigour,2 and thus those who were made members of this spiritual knighthood were smitten on the cheek. It is necessary that baptism should precede confirmation. Nor ought the latter rite to be performed without godfathers and godmothers. All these regulations were confirmed by Pope Eugen IV.6 But Wycliffe and Huss declared confirmation to be an abuse."

1 Compare Augusti, Archæologie, vii. p. 401 ss.

2 Melchiades in Epist. ad Hisp. episcopos in Peter LombardSent. Lib. iv. Dist. 7. Thomas Aquinas Art. 6. and 7. quoted by Münscher, edit. by Von Cölln, p. 211, 212. Bonavent. Brevil. P. vi. c. 8. quoted by Klee, Dogmengeschichte, ii. p. 165.

3 According to Augusti (1. c. p. 450, 451,) this strange usage was not known previous to the thirteenth century; but Klee asserts (Dogmengesch. ii. p. 165) that it existed as early as the eleventh century. At all events, it seems more likely that it had its origin in the customs of the Knights (as Klee supposes), than in certain rites which were observed when apprentices had served out their time (according to Augusti.) But the proper element of this sacrament was the Chrisma confectum ex oleo olivarum. Compare notes 2 and 6.

4 Thomas Aquinas, 1. c.: Character confirmationis ex necessi

tate præsupponit characterem baptismalem, etc. Confirmation, too, has a character indelebilis; hence it is not to be repeated.

5 Concerning the godfathers and godmothers, see Augusti 1. c. p. 434. Thomas Aquinas, Art. 10. Münscher, edit. by Von Cölln, p. 214. The relation in which godfathers and godmothers stand to each other founds ecclesiastical relationship.

6 Conc. Florent. Col. 1055, quoted by Münscher, ed. by Von Cölln, p. 215.

7 Trialog. Lib. iv. c. 14. Schröckh, Kircheng. xxxiv. p. 508. He doubted whether confirmation could be proved from Acts. viii. 17, (as was generally supposed,) and called it blasphemy, to maintain that bishops might again impart the Holy Spirit, which had already been imparted by baptism.-Huss Art. ii. apud Trithem. Chron. Hirsaug. ann. 1402. Klee l. c. p. 164.

$193.

THE LORD'S SUPPER.

Paschasius Radbert

1. The Controversy respecting the Eucharist previous to
the Rise of Scholasticism.
and Ratramnus. Berengar.

Marheineke, (comp. vol. i. p. 197,) p. 66 ss.

The violent controversy between Paschasius Radbert and Ratramnus, which degenerated into the most obscene discussions, and gave rise to appellations not less offensive,1 became the signal for new contests. The most eminent.theologians of the age, such as Rabanus Maurus, and Scotus Erigena, took an active part in that controversy. Gerbert, whose reputation was great in those days, endeavoured to illustrate the doctrine propounded by Paschasius, of a real change of the bread into the body of Christ, by the aid of geometrical diagrams. It had been so generally adopted, as the

[ocr errors]

orthodox doctrine, towards the middle of the eleventh century, that Berengar, Canon of Tours, and afterwards Archdeacon at Angers, who ventured to express doubts concerning its orthodoxy in a letter addressed to Lanfranc, was condemned, and obliged by several synods (at Vercelli and Rome, 1050 1079) to retract. He would have suffered still more, if Pope Gregory VII. had not succeeded in protecting him against the rage of his enemies.5 Berengar, however, was far from rejecting that more spiritual mode of perception which does not rest satisfied with the notion of a mere sign. Nor did he take offence at the use of the phrase, "to partake of the body and blood of Christ," but he explained it in a more or less spiritual manner.6 On the other hand, Cardinal Humbert was carried so far by his violent zeal, as to interpret the phrase in question in the grossest manner. Thus it became impossible to adopt any moderate view, and later theologians found little more to do than to conceal the more objectionable aspect of the doctrine by skilful argumentations, and to surround the impenetrable mystery, as it were, with a hedge of syllogisms, as we see exemplified in the scholastic distinction made by Lanfranc between the Subject and the Accidents.8

1 As early as the times of Charlemagne, theologians seemed agreed, that, in the bread and the wine of the Lord's Supper, we have to adore more than mere signs (de impio imaginum cultu Lib. vi. c. 14. p. 491), though we also meet with passages in which the figurative signification of the elements is spoken of. Compare Münscher, edit. by Von Cölln, p. 225. But the true doctrine of transubstantiation was first propounded by Paschasius Radbert (monachius Corbeiensis) in his liber de corpore et sanguine Domini (addressed to the Emperor Charles the Bald, between the years 830 and 832.) See Martène and Durand, T. ix. Col. 367-470, and extracts from it in Rössler, x. p. 616 ss. He

proceeded from the omnipotence of God, to whom all things are possible, and consequently maintained ii. 2.: sensibilis res intelligibiliter virtute Dei per verbum Christi in carnem ipsius ac sanguinem divinitus transfertur. He looked upon the elements as no more than a veil which deceives our senses, and keeps the body of Christ concealed from us: Figura videtur esse dum frangitur, dum in specie visibili aliud intelligitur quam quod visu carnis et gustu sentitur. It is the same body which was born of Mary. At times the true body of Christ has appeared to those who doubted (in order to encourage them), as well as to those who were strong in the faith (in order to reward them), instead of the bread, (for the most part in the form of a lamb), or stains of blood have been perceived, etc. He was opposed by Ratramnus (Bertramnus) in his treatise: de corpore et sanguine Domini ad Carolum Calvum (it was written at the request of the emperor; extracts from it are given by Schröckh xxiii. p. 445. Neander iv. p. 466 ss. and Münscher, edit. by Von Cölln, p. 230235.) Ratramnus properly distinguished between the sign, and the thing represented by it (figura et veritas), the internal and the external, and pointed out the true significance of the mysteries, which consists in this, that through their medium the mind of man rises from the visible to the invisible. If it were possible to eat the body of Christ, in the proper sense of the word, no faith would be any more required, and the mystery, as such, would lose all its significance. The gross reality would destroy the idea, and nothing but a mere materialism would remain. Ratramnus also supposed a conversio of the bread and wine into the body of Christ, but only in the ideal sense of the word, as the ancients supposed a transition from the profane to the pure. He also appealed to the authority of earlier writers. Respecting the later appellation, Stercoranists (according to Matt. xv. 17), which has its origin in these discussions, see Paschasius, c. 20. 2. Schröckh xxiii. p. 493 ss. and Pfaff. C. M.; Tractatus de Stercoranistis medii ævi. Tub. 1750. 4°.b

a Concerning such miraculous appearances, compare also Bossuet, edited by Cramer v. 2. p. 105.

b A controversy of quite as unprofitable a nature was carried on between Amalarius (who composed a liturgical work about the year 820), and the priest Guntrad, concerning spitting during the celebration of the mass; see d'Achery, Spicil. T. iii. in Schröckh, Kirchengesch. xxiii. p. 496.

2 The treatise of Rabanus addressed to Egilo, abbot of Prum, was professedly edited by Mabillon (Acta SS. T. vi.); but both Münscher, ed. by Von Cölln, p. 229, and Neander, Kirchengesch. iv. 1. p. 91, deny the genuineness of that edition. The real opinion of Rabanus may be inferred from the following passage (de instit. cleric. i. c. 31. and iii. 13. quoted by Gieseler ii. 1. p. 100. § 14. note d., and Münscher, ed. by Von Cölln, 1. c.): Maluit enim Dominus corporis et sanguinis sui sacramenta fidelium ore percipi, et in pastum eorum redigi, ut per visibile opus invisibilis ostenderetur effectus. Sicut enim cibus materialis forinsecus nutrit corpus et vegetat, ita etiam verbum Dei intus animam nutrit et roborat....Sacramentum ore percipitur, virtute sacramenti interior homo satiatur. Sacramentum in alimentum corporis redigitur, virtute autem sacramenti æterna vita adipiscitur.

3 This was, at least, the common opinion (compare the letter of Berengar to Lanfranc.) It is, however, uncertain, whether the treatise (de eucharistia) commonly ascribed to Scotus, which was condemned by the Synod of Vercelli (A. D. 1050), is the same with another treatise ascribed to Ratramnus, or whether we have here two distinct treatises, the one of which is now lost. Both P. de Marca (Epist. ad d'Acherium) and F. W. Lauf. (Studien und Kritiken, 1828. part 4. p. 755 ss.) asserted their identity; but the former ascribed the authorship to Scotus, the latter to Ratramnus. Compare also Neander p. 471; he thinks it probable, that Scotus gave his opinion on the subject in question, though the notion of a lost treatise written by him may have arisen from a mistake. To judge from some passages contained in his treatise de div. nat. (quoted by Neander 1. c.), he would not have given countenance to the doctrine propounded by Paschasius.

4 De corpore et sanguine Domini, edited by Pez, in Thesaur. anecdd. noviss. T. i. P. ii. f. 133. Schröckh xxiii. p. 493.a

5 On the external history of the controversy, see: Mabillon, J. dissert. de multiplici Berengarii damnatione, fidei professione et relapsu, deque ejus pœnitentia, in J. Vogtii Biblioth. hære

a Gerbert's method of illustrating such supernatural truths by ocular demonstration, was imitated even by later theologians. Thus Melancthon informs us, that his tutor. Lempus at Tubingen, had drawn the transubstantiation on a board (Ep. de suis studiis, written A. D. 1541. See Galle, Melancthon, p. 6.)

« PoprzedniaDalej »