Transcript

Let us ask Our Lady's intercession to help penetrate more deeply into the mystery of the Eucharist.

Hail Mary, full of grace, the Lord is with thee.

Blessed are thou among women, and blessed is the fruit of thy womb, Jesus.

Holy Mary, mother of God, pray for us sinners now and at the hour of our death.

Amen.

So in this fifth episode, we're going to examine something less familiar probably to my, to an- to the viewers, and that is the Berengarian controversy, um, over the real presence in the 11th century, and we'll also look at an even more obscure controversy in the ninth century.

So what we're doing here is we're transitioning, um, to the real presence, to look at the, the mystery of presence, but at the same time, we're continuing our historical survey.

So in the last episode, we looked at the fathers of the church, and now we're going to look at the next period, the, um, the time, um, from the 9th to the 11th or 12th centuries, um, in, in which time the real presence became for the first time really, um, since the Gnostics, um, an object of controversy.

So the Patristic Period was full of all kinds of controversies, as we know, over the Trinity, over the Incarnation, original sin, Pelagianism, the necessity of grace, use of images.

But the Eucharist was not a key subject of controversy after the- the initial, um, kind of controversy over Docetism.

But it became a subject of controversy, um, beginning brief- in a brief episode in the ninth century and then much more strongly in the 11th century, as we'll see in this talk.

And this controversy, um, in the 11th century was fruitful as we'll see also, leading the church to have to, um, in order to- to respond to Berengarius, to clarify her understanding of the mystery.

So let's start with a very obscure, um, dispute in the 9th century.

The 9th century was that brief Carolingian renaissance, about the- after the time of, um, Charlemagne.

There was a certain, um, cultural stability in Europe for a very brief period, and in this time, um, we have our first Eucharistic treaties written by, um, Saint Paschasius Robertus, not a household name, but, um, he's worthy of being known for the great, um, treaties on the Eucharist in that, um, year 833 on the body and blood of the Lord.

And interestingly, one of his students, another monk in the same abbey named Ratramnus, um, took issue, disagreed with his master and wrote a work with the same title rebutting, um Saint Paschasius' treatise, and Ratramnus posed two questions which will help our- um, help us to clarify the mystery of the real presence.

So the first question he asked was, "Does the Eucharist contain the body of Christ in figure or in truth?" And then the second question, "Does the Eucharist contain the very same body which was born of Mary, suffered, died, was buried, which rose again, ascended to heaven, and sits on the right hand of the Father?" And he- he poses that question, Saint Paschasius very strongly affirmed that, but Ratramnus, um, was disputing it.

Uh, so let's look at the first question.

"Does the Eucharist contain the body of Christ in figure or in truth?" Right, this is a classic example of a bad way of posing a question, because the question is posed as an either/or, right, in figure or in truth?

And the- the answer is, as so often the case in Catholic theology, is both/and.

Right, Christ is present in figure, and that is through the appearances of the bread and wine, right?

The appearances are sacramental signs.

But under those sacramental signs, Christ's body is present in truth.

Right?

Ratramnus thought that his master Saint Paschasius was only affirming the truth, um, and not affirming the, um, the sign, and so he, um, held that Christ is present only in sign and not in truth, and what he didn't consider was the both/and.

And so the right answer is yes.

The signs of bread and wine continue, but under them, after the consecration, Christ is present in the truth of his body.

All right.

What kind of bodily presence is this?

Is it the very same body born of Mary, suffered, died, and was buried, rose again, ascended into heaven, and now sits at the right hand of the- of the Father?

Um, Ratramnus answered no because he saw it just as a figure, right?

If it's just a figure, if it's just bread and wine pointing as a sign of Christ's body and blood, clearly it's not the same body.

But Saint Paschasius, um, rightly affirmed it is the very same body, born of Mary, suffered, died, was buried, and rose.

But after this, so this contrary was left open.

It wasn't determined by, um, um, papal or met- um, episcopal authority because of the Dark Ages, right?

The, um, the-...

the peace of the time of Charlemagne disintegrated and, um, and the, the country was simply left.

And, um, came back two centuries later, um, through Berengarius, um, who was a theologian, um, and philosopher of the 11th century, mid-11th century, and he, um, came upon Retramnus' treaties, um, and basically revived Retramnus' um, position, that the Eucharist is just a sign or figure of Christ's body and blood, and therefore, is not the same body, born of Mary, um, nailed to the cross, risen, and ascended into heaven, but a mere sign.

And the reason he held this was, um, he was, um...

So this is a time of the- the beginning of the discovery of Aristotle, and of his- above all, his logical works, The Categories of Aristotle...

Uh, sorry, um, Aristotle's Categories speak of the different modes of being, substance and accidents, and, um, Berengarius thought that it would simply be impossible for Christ, for the, um, the bread and the wine to, um, become another substance while keeping the accidents or appearances of the previous one.

Um, and so he thought that was, um, contradictory and impossible.

And likewise, he thought it would be impossible for Christ to be one, present in heaven, and also, um, on many altars in numerous hosts throughout the world.

Um, and he thought it would be, yeah, contradictory for the accents to remain while the substance was changed.

Now, it's, h- he held that Christ was present in some way, spiritually present, and there were two opinions among his followers.

Some held, all right, he's present simply as a sign.

Others held that he's present in some more mysterious way, um, in the bread and wine.

Um, and, um, interestingly, these two understandings of the Doctrine of Berengarius would resurface four centuries later at the time of the Reformation.

Um, the more radical, um, part of the Reformation championed by Zwingli, and continued by Calvin, held, um, really a f- e- simply a figure of Christ physically present in heaven, whereas Luther, um, held that Christ was really present in the bread and the wine, um, but all of them denied a conversion of bread and wine into Christ's body and blood, and likewise, Berengarius clearly denied that.

All right, so this caused a huge controversy, and Berengarius was forced to retract his position and take an oath to them.

And there was an initial oath that was required of him, which was imperfectly, um, imperfectly expressed the Church's faith.

I'll come back to it in a few minutes.

And then a more perfect formulation, um, that he was required to- to make it, uh, towards the end of his life.

And I'm just gonna read that to you, the great text.

So, he was required to say this, "I, Berengarius, in my heart believe and with my lips confess that through the mystery of the sacred prayer, and the words of our Redeemer, the bread and the wine that are placed on the altar are substantially changed into the true and proper and living flesh and blood of Jesus Christ, our Lord." So the key words there are substantially changed.

Then he continues, "And that after the consecration, it is the true body of Christ that was born of the Virgin, and that offered for the salvation of the world, was suspended on the cross, and that sits at the right hand of the Father, and the true blood of Christ, which was poured out from his side, not only through the sign and power of the sacrament, but in its proper nature and in the truth of its substance." In fact, that was the oath.

This was composed by Pope, um, Gregory the s- Saint Gregory VII.

And it's a milestone in Catholic theology because it's the first magisterial statement, um, speaking of a substantial conversion of bread and wine into Christ's body and blood, and the substantial presence of Christ in, um, present in the truth of his nature.

That is, human nature.

And so it affirmed what was, um, um, what Retramnus had asked two centuries earlier, "Is it the same body born of Mary?" And th- this definition clearly says, "Yes, it is the true body of Christ, born of the Virgin, um, nailed to the cross, sits at the right hand of the Father, and the blood that was poured out from his side, um, at his death." Now, this controversy ended up being extremely fruitful, as I mentioned, for the development of Scholastic theology on the Eucharist, and Scholastic theology in general.

The heirs of Berengarius, which came from a- a Rationalist perspective and a poor philosophy, were met, um, not by simply re- So, there could have been a temptation for Catholic theologians to be saying, "You're using too much philosophy.

We just simply have to believe in the mystery, period." And that's not what the- the great theologians of the 11th and 12th century did.

Rather, they thought to counter, um......

rationalist conclusions, um, we need to make a better use of reason not, um, not reject reason.

And, um, and so we find several theologians, um, responding to Berengarius.

Now, none of these are well known.

Um, I had never heard of them either, before studying this more closely.

Um, but I'm going to name them just simply because they contributed greatly to the church's, um, theology of the Eucharist.

Um, Lanfranc of Canterbury, um, lived in the 11th century.

Griedmund of Aversa, likewise, died about the end of the 11th century, and Alger of Liege, who lived on into the 12th century.

All of them wrote a treatise on the Eucharist to, um, counter, um, Berengarius, and, um, all of them contributed to what would culminate in the theology of St. Thomas Aquinas, a century later, in the 13th century.

Right, so we owe them a debt of gratitude for having prepared the way, even though they are obscure and their names are not remembered.

They should be.

And they bring out six key points in countering, um, Berengarius.

So the first of them is what we saw in the definition that, um, Berengarius had to swear, and that is the substantial conversion of bread into Christ's body and of the wine into Christ's blood.

So Griedmund writes this, quote, "For indeed, the belief that the bread and the wine of the altar are substantially changed into the body and blood of the Lord, not as Berengarius says, deliriously, that they're only figures and shadows of the body and blood of the Lord, or that Christ is hidden or concealed within them." That would be the first, would be the view later of Zwingli and the second of Luther.

"Has been confirmed by the consent of the universal church." So he says the, the substantial conversion is simply the faith of the universal church, what we would today call the ordinary universal magisterium, right?

So even though it had only been, um, taught in his own day in that oath, um, by, by Gregory VII, in the oath that Berengarius had to, to profess, um, nevertheless it was taught throughout the, the Catholic Church by, um, so many bishops in the writings of the Fathers and, um, and medieval period.

Alger of Liege, um, writes similarly.

Quote, "In an entirely new and unheard of way, the substance of bread is so changed into the substance of the body of Christ as to cease to be bread, except in appearance, while the body of Christ remains entirely unchanged." Right, so this is very, it's a brief sentence, but very dense.

So it's, first of all, it's something new and unheard of.

This is totally novel.

What happens in, in the mass is unique, right?

It's, it's mysterious because we don't find transubstantiation in nature, right?

So it's something new and unheard of, right?

It was prefigured by the manna, which had the meaning, "What's that?" Right?

So this conversion of bread and wine into Christ's body and blood is mysterious because it's, it's a kind of change that happens only here.

Now, I'll come back to that in a minute.

And it results in the substance of the bread being changed into the substance of the body of Christ, which means that it ceases to be bread, except in appearance, but Christ is unchanged by it.

And that was one of the things that Berengarius was concerned about, right?

He, he thought if you affirm the real presence, then we would be chewing up Christ's body and he would be, I don't know, um...

And again, in, in, he thought that the real presence implied a kind of cannibalistic reception of Christ.

And so that's why, um, these theologians, Alger emphasizes that Christ remains unchanged in the process.

Right?

So what he's describing there is exactly what we mean by the word transubstantiation.

He didn't yet use that word.

It came to be used for the first time a few decades later.

But he's got exactly the, the notion.

Right?

Transubstantiation makes no change in Christ, but it is the bread and the wine that are changed into him, into his body and blood.

All right, second point that they bring out, in order to explain this, you have to distinguish substance and accidents.

Right?

And so here, a brief philosophical review.

Um, substance answers the question, what is it?

Right?

Bread, or body of Christ.

Accidents answers the question, how is it?

Um, how is, how do we perceive it?

Right?

So that would be, you know, big and white, and, and those would be the different categories of accident, and we could s- simply explain it m- more simply as the appearances of the thing.

Right?

Substance is one thing, appearances are another.

They answer different questions.

Substance answers the question, what is it?

And the appearances answer the question, how is it?

In what way is it?

Our senses grasp the accidents or appearances.

It's our intellect that grasps substance.

And accidents are generally changeable, whereas substance, um, is more permanent.

Right?

So, um, we're one substance throughout our life, but our appearances change greatly from being an embryo, to being a baby, to being, um, a grownup, et cetera.So what's happening here in transubstantiation or in the Eucharistic conversion is that the substance of the bread is being made into the substance of Christ's body, the substance of wine into the substance of Christ's blood, while the accidents or appearances of the bread and wine miraculously stay unchanged.

Right?

And that's what Berengarius denied could happen.

But these theologians all say, "All right, it can't naturally happen, but God can make it happen for his omnipotent.

He can make one thing become another thing while making the appearances of the first thing to remain." And we'll talk in a few minutes about why, the reason why he does this is obvious.

He keeps the appearances of the bread and wine so that we can receive him in a way fitting for human beings, to receive spiritual nourishment under the appearances of bread and wine, rather than flesh and blood.

And so there's a double miracle taking place in every mass.

Okay.

And that is one substance becomes another substance, and yet the appearances of the first substance remains suspended.

God sustains them in being so that we can receive him, um, under those appearances in a way fitting for human nature.

Okay.

Third point, this is totally unique, as I mentioned before, right?

This does not happen in nature, and so we can't observe, "Ah, it's like that." Right?

Which we always would like.

Similar problem for the Trinity.

So let's just examine this by comparing it to the other kinds of change that we experience or know about.

So the most, the most obvious kind of change that we experience is accidental change, and that's, for example, the child that grows up, right?

So the appearance changes, but the what it is, a human being, a human person, remains the same.

Substantial change happens when one substance becomes another substance.

An example of that would be wood in a fire becoming ash, or conception, the egg and the sperm becoming a new subject, a new person and a human being.

A third kind of change is creation.

It's not really change, it's something unique, but it's from nothing into something.

Uh, transubstantiation is different from all three of those.

It's, so it's a fourth kind of change, and it's the conversion of bread and wine into a preexisting subject, Christ.

So it's, it's a substantial change, but it's different than ordinary substantial changes.

Here, two things are becoming something that already existed, Christ, who isn't changed by this, and secondly, the accidents of the former, the bread and the wine, remain.

Um, and so it's, it's a new kind of change.

It makes sense for the purpose for which Christ instituted it, to make himself present under the veil of bread and wine so that we can receive him into our- ourselves.

Fourth point.

In transubstantiation, Christ remains whole and entire.

Right?

And so this is very important to affirm against the fears that Berengarius had of an exaggerated realism, like the disciples at Capernaum who were scandalized at the Bread of Life Discourse, right?

They were scandalized because they thought that Christ in saying we had to eat his, his flesh, they were thinking chunk by chunk.

In other words, um, changing Christ in the process, um, and, and were scandalized by it.

And so these theologians explained that that's not what happens.

And yes, Christ is received, but he's received whole and entire, not cut up in parts.

And so Christ has a mode of presence in the Eucharist.

Again, that's totally unique, because he's present whole and entire under each part of the appearances of bread and wine, and our consuming the host doesn't change him.

Rather, we are changed by it, by being, um, converted more into him.

And so Grieftman, one of our theologians, responding to Berengarius says, quote, "We're able to say that he is as much in one little portion of the host as he is in the whole host." Right?

So it, and we all know this also from receiving the Eucharist.

It doesn't matter whether we receive a big host or a tiny host or a fraction of a host.

Everyone receives the same Christ.

So again, prefigured or foreshadowed by the manner.

Didn't matter how much you gathered.

We all receive the same Christ, and that's because he's whole and entire under every part.

And Grieftman continues, "In like manner, if the host seems to be broken by the teeth or in some other way, we understand it to be unbroken." Right?

Christ is unbroken.

The, the host, the appearances of bread and wine are broken, but Christ who is under it remains whole and entire under every part.

Right?

So we know that from our liturgical experience, and again, the constant tradition of the church.

Fifth point, concomitance.

It's a fancy word that means natural accompaniment.

And so this is the consequence of the fact that Christ remains whole and unchanged in the Eucharist.

Um, because of that, he's not changed or affected by the, um, transubstantiation, um, and he's made present as he is today.

And as he is today means with his body, blood, soul, and divinity rejoined at his resurrection....

right?

So Christ, on Easter Sunday, his blood, eh-eh, ah, which would have been separated from his body, was rejoined to it.

His soul rejoined to both, and the divinity never left, um, so when we make one part of him present, let's say, the words "This is my body," making his body present, well, the rest of him comes along because he can no longer be separated.

He's present whole and entire, and that means that under these species of, of bread, we've got his body, but also, indirectly, his blood, his soul, and his divinity.

And likewise, under this species of wine, we have his blood directly, but indirectly by concomitants, his body, his soul and his divinity.

Um, he's made present under two species to make sacramentally present his bloody sacrifice, consisting in the separation of his blood from his body.

But nevertheless, um, under the, um, species of bread, we have the whole of him, and likewise, under this species of wine, we have the whole Christ.

Um, but nevertheless, it has to be sub, celebrated always with both species to make present his sacrifice.

Okay, final point, um, there are three levels in the Eucharist.

All right, what do I mean by that?

Um, in the ob, most obvious aspect of Eucharist is what is seen by the senses, and that is the bread and wine and the words that are said over the bread and wine in the consecration.

And that, we call the sacramental sign, all right?

So, that's what is seen.

And then there's an, an ultimate effect and that is the grace that we receive.

Berengarius didn't have any problem with either of those two, right?

He acknowledged the sacramental sign and the grace received.

What he denied was something intermediate in the middle between them, the real presence.

So, we want to say that in the Eucharist, there are three levels as it were, the sacramental sign, the reality of his body and blood, which is a sign of the grace of divine life that he gives us in holy communion.

So, we can see that the Eucharist is more complex, um, than, um, might be thought at first sight.

Um, in other words, not simply sacramental sign and the grace that it represents, but in between the two, the mystery of his real presence, which is both a reality, right?

It's a, nothing more real than Christ's body and blood, but it's at the same time the sign of the grace that he's communicating to us through holy communion.

In other words, an application sign that communicates what he is to us who receive him.

And so, the theologians of the 12th century were given the task of thinking about these three levels, um, and, um, recognizing that this has an application also to other sacraments.

In fact, the whole sacramental system can be best understood with these three levels.

Let me give it, um, the sacramental sign, which in the case of the Eucharist is the bread and the wine and the words.

The hidden reality, which is a sign of grace, and that is the body and blood, and then finally, the grace and charity, which, um, sanctifies the soul and builds up the unity of the church.

And there's a, a technical language for this, um, usually said in Latin, sorry about that.

But I'll just mention them, um, the sense, sacramental sign is often called the sacramentum tantum, which means simply the sign alone.

The, um, body and blood is referred to as res et sacramentum, reality and sacramental sign, and then the grace is called the res tantum, the reality of grace alone.

And this applies also to other sacraments.

So, for example, in baptism, there's the sacramental sign, right, the, the, um, pouring of the water with the words of the baptismal formula, and then there's, um, the effect of grace, that's the ultimate effect, um, sanctifying grace, being made a son of or daughter of God and the forgiveness of, of sins.

But in between the two, there's a durable sign that's also a reality on the soul, and that is sacramental character, right?

And that's also true in confirmation and in, um, holy orders.

And so, we can see that, um, not just the Eucharist but, um, the other sacraments of what, as well in different ways have these three levels and can be best understood, um, and so they're complex realities.

Um, we see a, a hint of this in John 6:51, where Jesus says, "The bread which I shall give for the life of the world is my flesh." And there, we've got...

So, the bread, that's the sacramental sign.

The, the life of the world would be the ultimate effect of grace, and then the intermediate reality is my flesh, right?

All three are present, right?

The Eucharist, um, the sacramental sign remains as long as the, the appearance of bread and wine are not corrupted and Christ's flesh and blood remain under them and his whole personal reality, again, as long as the appearances, the sacramental sign is not corrupted and it communicates divine life.

And we can see these three levels also in the formula for benediction.

Um, "O God, who in this wonderful sacrament have left us a memorial of your passion," that, that's the sign, "grant us, we pray, so to revere the sacred mysteries of your body and blood," that's the intermediate level, the real presence, "that we may always experience in ourselves the fruits of your redemption, the effect of grace." And so, this controversy ended up being very fruitful for the life of the church in terms of theology, leading to, um, what we'll examine in the next episode, the theology of Thomas Aquinas, and then in terms of, um, Eucharistic devotion, leading to a proliferation of, um, of Eucharistic celebrations, and in particular, leading to the institution of the Feast of Corpus Christi in the 13th century for which Thomas Aquinas wrote the Liturgical Office.

Right?

And so, it's interesting how God makes, brings out, he permits evil, in this case heresy, for the sake of a greater good, um, devotion to the Eucharist and a greater penetration.

So, we'll leave it there and in the next episode, we'll take up the theology of Thomas Aquinas, which brings this, um, theology to, um, greater perfection.

We give you thanks for this mystery through Christ our Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.

Amen.