Ratramnus on the Eucharist (III)

See my outline with introductory remarks here and the opening paragraphs with brief commentary here.  Next post in the series here.

Now we come to the first phase of the argument that Ratramnus wants to make: when Catholics consume the sacrament of the Eucharist, do they consume the body and blood of Christ in mystery or in truth?  He runs down a basic primer of Augustinian signification (which, sadly, I did not study at any length in my school years) before launching into an account of change and some Scripture commentary before finally covering his bases with some Patristic authorities.

By later standards of Lateran orthodoxy, to say nothing of Tridentine, and even by the laxer standards of 20th and 21st century Catholic theology, much of what Ratramnus writes in this book can only be described as heretical.  Some of it is highly dubious even in his own context, and I have no interest in playing the game of defending or rehabilitating the man or his work.  But it is interesting throughout, often thought-provoking, and in the end serves as an excellent set of objections for a quaestio format.  Indeed, that last is the thin justification I gave myself for this project–to prepare material for teaching the theology of the Eucharist to students at my school.

But if you prefer strict adherence to more recent Church teaching on the matter–and I don’t blame you if you do–then you might want to look away from some of what comes next.  There are some eyebrow-raisers!

Some of my grammar notes are still scattered throughout, and the entire work could use a good proof-read.  I’ve gone back over some of the rougher spots but surely there are many errors to be fixed.  A hobby for another day!

The First Question: Is the Body and Blood of Christ consumed in mysterio or in veritate?

6. Harum duarum quaestionum primam inspiciamus; et ne dubietatis ambage detineamur, definiamus quid sit figura, quid veritas, ut certum aliquid contuentes, noverimus quo rationis iter contendere debeamus.

Let us inspect the first of these two questions; and lest we be detained by a round-about story of doubt, let us define what is figure, what is truth, in order that, seeing something certain, we may know whither we ought to hasten the journey of reason.

7. Figura est obumbratio quaedam quibusdam velaminibus quod intendit ostendens; verbi gratia, Verbum volentes dicere, panem nuncupamus: sicut in Oratione Dominica panem quotidianum dari nobis expostulamus (Luc. xi, 3); vel cum Christus in Evangelio loquitur dicens: Ego sum panis vivus, qui de coelo descendi (Joan. vi, 41); vel cum seipsum vitem, discipulos autem palmites appellat: Ego sum vitis vera, vos autem palmites (Joan. xv, 5).  Haec enim omnia aliud dicunt et aliud innuunt.

A figure is a certain covering-over by certain veils, showing what it intends; by way of example, meaning to say “The Word,” we name it “bread,” just as in the Lord’s Prayer we ask daily bread to be given to us (Luke 11:3); or when Christ in the Gospel speaks, saying, “I am the living bread, which from heaven hath descended” (John 6:41); or when He calls Himself the vine and his disciples the branches: “I am the true vine, and you are the branches” (John 15:5).  Indeed all these things say one thing and mean [lit. nod toward] another.

8. Veritas vero est rei manifesta demonstratio, nullis umbrarum imaginibus obvelatae, sed puris et apertis, utque planius eloquamur, naturalibus significationibus insinuatae; ut pote cum dicitur Christus natus de Virgine, passus, crucifixus, mortuus et sepultus.  Nihil enim hic figuris obvelantibus adumbratur; verum rei veritas naturalium significationibus verborum ostenditur; neque aliud hic licet intelligi quam dicitur.  At in superioribus non ita.  Nam substantialiter, nec panis Christus, nec vitis Christus, nec palmites apostoli.  Quapropter hic figura, superius vero veritas in narratione monstratur, id est nuda et aperta significatio.

Whereas truth is the manifest demonstration of a thing covered by no images of shadows, but insinuated by pure and open and, so that we may speak more plainly, natural significations; as when Christ is said to be born of the Virgin, to have suffered, been crucified, died, and buried.  For nothing here is hidden by veiling figures; the truth of the thing is shown to be true by the signification of the natural words; nor is it here permitted that anything be understood other than what is said.  Yet in higher matters it is not so.  For substantially, neither is the bread Christ, nor the vine Christ, nor the branches the Apostles.  For which reason here by figure a higher truth is shown in the narration, that is bare and plain signification.

9. Nunc redeamus ad illa quorum causa dicta sunt ista, videlicet corpus et sanguinem Christi.  Si enim nulla sub figura mysterium illud peragitur, iam mysterium non recte vocitatur.  Quoniam mysterium dici non potest, in quo nihil est abditum, nihil a corporalibus sensibus remotum, nihil aliquo velamine contectum.  At ille panis qui per sacerdotis ministerium Christi corpus conficitur, aliud exterius humanis sensibus ostendit, et aliud interius fidelium mentibus clamat.  Exterius quidem panis, quod ante fuerat, forma praetenditur, color ostenditur, sapor accipitur: ast interius longe aliud multo pretiosus multoque excellentius intimatur, quia celeste, quia divinum, id est Christi corpus, ostenditur, quod non sensibus carnis, sed animi fidelis contuitu vel aspicitur, vel acciptur, vel comeditur.

Now let us return to those things for whose sake these things have been said, namely, the body and blood of Christ.  If indeed under no figure that mystery is perfected, it is not rightly called mystery.  For mystery cannot be said in which nothing is hidden, nothing removed from corporal senses, nothing covered over by some veil.  Yet that bread which through the priest’s ministry is made the body of Christ shows one thing outwardly to human senses, and acclaims another thing inwardly to the minds of the faithful.  Outwardly the bread, which had before been there, the form is pretended, the color shown, the flavor accepted; yet far inwardly something much more precious and much more excellent is intimated, for something heavenly, something divine, that is, the body of Christ, is shown, which not by carnal senses but by the faithful soul’s contemplation is beheld, or received, or tasted.

[iam merely introducing apodosis]

[ast is a truly ridiculous Vergilian archaism for at]

[I cheated on making pretiosus a comparative, but I’m certain it’s what he means.  I guess literally it’s “something worth so much, and much more excellent” but that’s silly]

10. Vinum quoque, quod sacerdotali consecratione Christi sanguinis efficitur sacramentum, aliud superficietenus ostendit, aliud interius continent.  Quid enim aliud in superficie quam substantia vini conspicitur? Gusta, vinum sapit; odora, vinum redolet; inspice, vini color intuetur.  At interius si consideres, iam non liquor vini, sed liquor sanguinis Christi credentium mentibus et sapit dum gustatur, et agnoscitur dum conspicitur, et probatur dum odoratur.  Haec ita esse dum nemo potest abnegare, claret quia panis ille vinumque figurate Christi corpus et sanguis existit.  Non enim secundum quod videtur vel carnis species in illo pane cognoscitur, vel in illo vino cruoris unda monstratur; cum tamen post mysticam consecrationem nec panis iam dicitur nec vinum, sed Christi corpus et sanguis.

The wine also, which by the priestly consecration is made a sacrament of Christ’s blood, shows one thing superficially and contains something else interiorly.  Indeed what else is beheld on the surface than the substance of the wine?  Taste, and it tastes of wine; smell, and it smells of wine; inspect, and the color of wine is beheld.  Yet interiorly if you consider, now it is not the liquid of wine, but the liquid of the blood of Christ to the minds of believers that tastes while it is tasted and is known while it is beheld and is proved while it is smelled.  While no one can deny these things are so, it is clear that that bread and wine exist [to figure?] the body and blood of Christ.  For not according to what is seen is the appearance of flesh recognized in that bread, or the tide of blood shown in that wine; nevertheless after the mystical consecration neither is it called bread nor wine, but the body and blood of Christ.

[cum tamen post…hahaha ok, sure.  The cum is otiose; bye bye!]

11. Nam si secundum quosdam figurate nihil hic accipiatur, sed totum in veritate conspiciatur, nihil hic fides operatur, quoniam nihil spiritale geritur; sed quidquid illud est, totum secundum corpus accipitur.  Et cum fides, secundum Apostolum, sit rerum argumentum non apparentium (Hebr. xi, 1), id est non earum quae videntur, sed quae non videntur substantiarum, nihil hic secundum fidem accipiemus, quoniam quidquid existit, secundum sensus corporis dijudicamus.  Et nihil absurdius quam panem carnem accipere, et vinum sanguinem dicere: nec iam mysterium erit, in quo nihil secreti, nihil adbiti continebitur.

For if according to some people (Radbertus?), it is in no way accepted in figure here, but entirely beheld in truth, then here in no way is faith working, for nothing spiritual is being done; but whatever that thing is, it is accepted entirely according to the body [or is it Body?].  And since faith, according to the Apostle, is the argument of things not seen (Hebrews 11:1), that is of those things not seen, but what is not seen of substances, in no way here will we accept according to faith, for whatever exists we di-judge according to the senses of the body.  And nothing is more absurd than to accept bread as flesh and to say wine is blood; nor will there now be mystery, in which nothing secret, nothing hidden, will be contained.

[iam is his cue for the apodosis, so that last sentence is meant to be a hidden conditional]

12. Et quomodo iam corpus Christi dicitur [al. dicetur], in quo nulla permutatio facta esse cognoscitur?  Omnis enim permutatio aut ex eo quod est in id quod est efficitur, aut ex eo quod est in id quod non est, aut ex eo quod est in id quod est.  In isto autem sacramento, si tantum in veritatis simplicitate consideretur, et non aliud credatur quam quod aspicitur, nulla permutatio facta cognoscitur.  Nam nec ex eo quod non erat, transivit in aliquid quod sit, quomodo fit transitus in rebus nascentibus, siquidem non erant prius, sed ut sint, ex non esse ad id quod est esse transitum fecerunt.  Hic vero panis et vinum prius fuere quam transitum in sacramentum corporis et sanguinis Christi fecerunt.  Sed nec ille transitus qui fit ex eo quod est esse ad id quod est non esse, qui transitus in rebus per defectum occasum patientibus existit: quidquid enim interit, prius subsistendo fuit, nec interitum pati potest quod non fuit; hic quoque non iste transitus factus esse cognoscitur, [*quoniam secundum veritatem species creaturae, quae fuerat ante, permansisse cognoscitur.

And how is it now called the body of Christ, in which no permutation is recognized to have happened?  For every permutation is either out of that which is into that which is being made (ex eo quod est in id quod est efficitur), or it is out of that which is into that which is not (ex eo quod est in quod non est), or it is out of what which is into that which is (ex eo quod est in quod est).  But in this sacrament, if it is considered thus in the simplicity of truth, and nothing is believed other than what is beheld, no permutation is recognized as being done.  For neither out of what was not has it crossed over into something that is, as would be the transition in things being born, if in fact they were not previously, but in order that they may be, they were made to cross over from non esse into that which is esse.  Here indeed bread and wine existed before they were made to cross over into the sacrament of the body and blood of Christ.  But nor is that a transition which would be from that which is into that which is not, which transition exists in things suffering through a failed occurrence (something failing to happen?): indeed whatever perishes was previously subsisting, nor can what was not suffer destruction; here also [in the Eucharist] that transition is not recognized to have been done, for according to truth the appearance of the creature, which before had been, is recognized to have remained.

[upon reading the examples, it seems his three changes are just creation, destruction, and change of quality—not super clear from the terms.  He is maddeningly inconsistent with in vs. ad and abl. vs. acc.]

13. Item illa permutatio quae fit ex eo quod est in eo quod est, quae perspicitur in rebus qualitatis varietatem patientibus; verbi gratia, quando quod ante nigrum fuerat in album demutatur; nec hic facta esse cognoscitur: nihil enim hic vel tactu, vel colore, vel sapore permutatum esse deprehenditur.  Si ergo nihil est hic permutatum, non est aliud quam ante fuit.  Est autem aliud, quoniam panis corpus, et vinum sanguis Christi facta sunt.  Sic enim ipse dicit: Accipite et comedite: hoc est corpus meum (Matth. xxvi, 26).  Similiter de calice loquens dicit: Accipte et bibite: hic est sanguis Novi Testamenti, qui pro vobis fundetur (Marc. xiv, 24).

Again, that permutation which would be from that which is in that which is, which is seen in things undergoing change of quality; for example, when what before was black is changed into white; neither is this recognized as having been done: for nothing here either by touch, or color, or flavor is apprehended to have been changed.  If then nothing is here changed, there is no other thing than what was previously.  But there is something, for the bread has become flesh, and the wine the blood of Christ.  For as He himself says: “Take and eat: this is My Body (Matthew 26, 26).  Similarly speaking of the chalice He says: “Take and drink: this is the blood of the New Testament, which for you shall be poured out” (Mark 14:24).

[so we have an absurdity—nothing changed but something has.]

14. Quaerendum ergo est ab eis qui nihil hic figurate volunt accipere, sed totum in veritatis simplicitate consistere, secundum quod demutatio facta sit: ut iam non sint quod ante fuerunt, videlicet panis atque vinum; sed sint corpus atque sanguis Christi.  Secundum speciem namque creaturae formamque rerum visibilium, utrumque hoc, id est panis et vinum, nihil habent in se permutatum.  Et si nihil permutationis pertulerint, nihil aliud existunt quam quod prius fuere.

Therefore it must be asked of them who want to accept nothing here figuratively, but entirely to stand in the simplicity of truth: according to what (how) has a change happened, so that now there are not which before had been, namely the bread and wine; but now would be the body and blood of Christ?  For according to the appearance of the creature and the form of things visible, both of them, that is the bread and wine, have nothing changed in themselves.  And if nothing of change do they bear, nothing else exists than what was there previously.

15. Cernit sublimitas vestra, Princeps gloriose, quo taliter sentientium intellectus evadat: negant quod affirmare creduntur, et quod credunt destruere comprobantur.  Corpus etenim sanguinemque Christi fideliter confitentur: et cum hoc faciunt, non hoc iam esse quod prius fuere procul dubio protestantur: et si aliud sint quam fuere, mutationem accepere.  Cum hoc negari non possit, dicant secundum quod permutata sunt: corporaliter namque nihil in eis cernitur esse permutatum.  Fatebuntur igitur necesse est aut mutata esse secundum aliud quam secundum corpus; ac per hoc non esse hoc quod in veritate videntur, sed aliud quod non esse secundum propriam essentiam cernuntur.  Aut si hoc profiteri noluerint, compelluntur negare corpus esse sanguinemque Christi, quod nefas est non solum dicere, verum etiam cogitare.

Your sublimity discerns, O glorious Prince, how such-wise understanding evades those seeing [why genitive? Makes evasion of?]: they deny what they are believed to affirm, and what they believe they are attested to destroy.  And indeed the body and blood of Christ they faithfully confess; and when they do this, they protest that without doubt this no longer is which previously had been, and that if they be something other than what had been, they accepted the change.  Since it is not possible that this be denied, they say according to which they have been changed: for corporally nothing is discerned to have changed in them.  They confess, therefore, it is necessary either that they have changed according to something other than according to the body; yet through this not to be this which is seen in truth, but something which is discerned not to be according to the proper essence.  Or if they do not wish to profess this, they are compelled to deny that it is the body and blood of Christ, which is nefas not only to say, but truly even to think.

16. At quia confitentur et corpus et sanguinem Dei esse, nec hoc esse potuisse nisi facta in melius commutatione, neque ista commutatio corporaliter, sed spiritualiter facta sit, necesse est iam ut figurate facta esse dicatur; quoniam sub velamento corporei panis corporeique vini spirituale corpus spiritualisque sanguis existit: non quod duarum sint existentiae rerum inter se diversarum, corporis videlicet et spiritus, verum una eademque res, secundum aliud species panis et vini consistit, secundum aliud autem corpus est et sanguis Christi.  Secundum namque quod utrumque corporaliter contingitur, species sunt creaturae corporeae; secundum potentiam vero quod spiritaliter factae sunt, mysteria sunt corporis et sanguinis Christi.

Yet since they confess it to be the body and blood of God, nor that this can be except they be made into something better by commutation, and that that change is done not corporally but spiritually, it is necessary now that they be said to be done figuratively; for under the veil of corporeal bread and corporeal wine there exists spiritual body and spiritual blood: not that they are of two existing things diverse among themselves, namely of body and spirit, truly one and the same thing, according to one thing the species of the bread and wine stands, while according to another it is the body and blood of Christ.  For according to what is corporally touched, they are the species of corporeal creature; according to the power which they are spiritually become, they are the mysteries of the body and blood of Christ.

17.  Consideremus sacri fontem baptismatis, qui fons vitae non immerito nuncupatur, quia descendentes in se melioris vitae novitate reformat, et de peccato mortuis viventes iustitiae donat: num secundum quod aquae conspicitur elementum esse, istam potentiam obtinet.  Attamen nisi sanctificationis virtutem obtineret, labem vitiorum nequaquam diluere posset; et nisi vigorem vitae contineret, nullo modo mortuis praestare vitam valeret, mortuis autem non carne, sed anima.  In eo tamen fonte si consideretur solummodo quod corporeus aspicit sensus, elementum fluidum conspicitur, corruptioni subiectum, nec nisi corpora lavandi potentiam obtinere.  Sed accessit sancti Spiritus per sacerdotis consecrationem virtus, et efficax facta est non solum corpora, verum etiam animas diluere, et spirituales sordes spirituali potentia dimovere.

Let us consider the font of holy baptism, which not unworthily is called the font of life, since it refashions those descending into it by the newness of a better life, and from the sin of death living of justice grants; [let us consider] whether according to what is seen to be the element of water, it has that power.  Yet nevertheless unless it obtain the power of sanctification, it can in no way whatsoever wash the stain of vices; and unless it contain the vigor of life, in no way be it mighty to furnish life to the dead, but to the dead not in flesh, but in soul.  Yet in that font if it be considered only according to what corporeal sense beholds, the fluid element is seen, subject to corruption, nor obtaining the power of washing anything but bodies.  But descends the power of the Holy Spirit through the consecration of the priest, and it is become efficacious not only bodies, but even truly souls to wash, and by a spiritual power to remove spiritual filth.

18. Ecce in uno eodemque elemento duo videmus inesse sibi resistentia, id est corruptioni sub[i]acens incorruptionem praestare, et vitam non habens vitam contribuere.  Cognoscitur ergo in isto fonte et inesse quod sensus corporis attingat, et idcirco mutabile atque corruptibile; et rursus inesse quod fides sola conspiciat, et ideo nec corrumpi posse, nec vitae discrimen accipere.  Si requiras quod superficietenus lavat, elementum est; si vero perpendas quod interius purgat, virtus vitalis est, virtus sanctificationis, virtus immortalitatis.  Igitur in proprietate humor corruptibilis, in mysterio vero virtus sanabilis.

Behold in one and the same element we see two resisting things entwined with each other, that is the underlying thing furnishing incorruption to corruption, and the thing not having life bestowing life.  Therefore it is recognized that in that font that there is entwined what the sense of the body touches, and therefore something mutable and corruptible, and again there entwined what faith alone beholds, and therefore incapable of corruption, nor can [it?] accept any distinction of life.  If you inquire what it is that superficially washes, it is the element; if indeed you search carefully what inwardly purges, it is the vital power, the power of sanctification, the power of immortality.  Therefore in its character there is corruptible humor, while in mystery there is healing power.

19. Sic itaque Christi corpus et sanguis superficietenus considerata, creatura est mutabilitati corruptelaeque subjecta.  Si mysterii vero perpendas virtutem, vita est participantibus se tribuens immortalitatem.  Non ergo sunt idem quod cernuntur, et quod creduntur.  Secundum enim quod cernuntur corpus pascunt corruptibile, ipsa corruptibilia: secundum vero quod creduntur animas pascunt in aeternum victuras, ipsa immortalia.

And just so the body and blood of Christ considered superficially is a creature subject to mutability and corruption.  If indeed you carefully search the power of the mystery, it is life bestowing immortality to those participating in it.  Therefore they are not the same thing, what is discerned and what is believed.  For according to what is discerned they feed a corruptible body, themselves corruptible things; while according to what is believed they feed souls about to live into eternity, themselves immortal.

20. Apostolus quoque scribens Corinthiis ait Nescitis quoniam patres nostri omnes sub nube fuerunt: et omnes mare transierunt: et omnes in Mose baptizati sunt, in nube, et in mari, et omnes eamdem escam spiritualem manducaverunt; et omnes eumdem potum spiritualem biberunt?  Bibebant autem de spirituali consequente eos petra.  Petra autem erat Christus (I Cor x, 1-4).  Animadvertimus et mare baptismi speciem praetulisse, et nubem; patresque prioris Testamenti in eis, id est in nube sive mari, baptizatos fuisse.  Num vel mare, secundum quod elementum videbatur, baptismi potuit habere virtutem? Vel nubes, iuxta quod densioris crassitudinem aeris ostendebat, [add. populum] sanctificare quiverit? Nec tamen Apostolum in Christo locutum audemus dicere quod non vere dixerit patres nostros in nube et mari fuisse baptizatos.

The Apostle also writing to the Corinthians says “For do you not know that all our fathers were under the cloud; and all crossed through the sea; and all in Moses were baptized, in the cloud and in the sea, and all ate the same spiritual food; and all drank the same spiritual drink?  Now they were drinking of the spiritual rock following them.  Now the Rock was Christ” (I Cor 10:1-4).  We notice both sea and cloud bore the species of baptismus; and that the fathers of the prior Covenant in them, that is in the cloud or in the sea, were baptized.  Was the sea, according to which element was seen, able to have the power of baptismus? Or were the clouds, joined to what was showing a thickness of denser air, able to sanctify?  Nor dare we say that the Apostle in Christ said what he truly did not say, namely that our fathers were baptized in the cloud and in the sea.

[lol queo, quire, quivi, quitus is some serious BS way to say “to be able.”  How have I never seen this word in my Latin life?]

[see note in 21 on baptismus]

21. Et quamvis baptismus ille formam baptismatis Christi, quod hodie geritur in Ecclesia, non praetulerit, baptismum tamen exstitisse, et in eo patres nostros baptizatos fuisse, nullus negare sanus audebit, nisi verbis Apostoli contradicere vesanus praesumpserit.  Igitur et mare et nubes non secundum hoc quod corpus exstiterant, sanctificationis munditiam praebuere, verum secundum quod invisibiliter sancti Spiritus sanctificationem continebant.  Erat namque in eis visibilis forma, quae corporeis sensibus appareret, non in imagine, sed in veritate; et interius spiritualis potentia refulgebat, quae non carnis oculis, sed mentis luminibus appareret.

And although that baptismus did not bear the form of Christ’s baptisma, which today is conducted in the Church, nevertheless that a baptismus [existed], and that in it our fathers were baptized, no sane person will dare to deny, unless the madman presumes to contradict the words of the Apostle.  Therefore both sea and clouds [existed] not according to that which was body, to supply the cleansing of sanctification, but according to what they contained invisibly, the sanctification of the Holy Spirit.  For there was in them visible form, which would appear to corporeal senses, not in image, but in truth; and inwardly a spiritual power sparkled, which would appear not to carnal eyes, but to the lights of the mind.

[he seems to be contrasting baptisma with baptismus, sacrament with mere “bathing”; for the moment I leave untranslated]

22. Similiter manna populo de coelo datum, et aqua profluens de petra, corporales exstiterant et corporaliter populum vel pascebant vel potabant: attamen Apostolus vel illud manna, vel illam aquam, spiritualem escam spiritualemque potum appellat.  Cur hoc? Quoniam inerat [sp?] corporeis illis substantiis spiritualis Verbi potestas, quae mentes potius quam corpora credentium pasceret atque potaret (Vide num. 15).  Et cum cibus vel potus ille futuri corporis Christi sanguinisque mysterium, quod celebrat Ecclesia, praemonstraret, eamdem tamen escam spiritualem manducasse, eumdem totum [potum?]spiritualem bibisse patres nostros sanctus Paulus asseverat.

Similarly the manna given to the people from heaven, and the water flowing from the rock, [existed] as corporals and corporally did they feed or water the people; yet nevertheless the Apostle calls that manna or that water, spiritual food and spiritual drink.  Why is this?  For into those corporeal substances entered the spiritual power of the Word, which feeds and waters minds rather than bodies of believers (see n.15).  And that food and drink about to become the mystery of the body and blood of Christ, which the Church celebrates, when it forth-shows, St. Paul nevertheless claims that our fathers ate the same spiritual food, drank the same spiritual drink.

[easy catch on totum-potum mistake in manuscript]

23. Quaeris fortasse quam eamdem? Nimirum ipsam quam hodie populus credentium in Ecclesia manducat et bibit (Vide num. 25).  Non enim licet diversam intelligi, quoniam unus idemque Christus est, qui et populum in deserto, in nube et in mari baptizatum, sua carne pavit, suo sanguine tunc potavit, et in Ecclesia nunc credentium populum sui corporis pane, sui sanguinis unda pascit atque potat.

Do you ask perhaps what is the same?  No wonder that which daily the populace of believers in the Church eats and drinks (see n.25).  For it is not permitted that a diversity be understood, for one and the same is Christ, who both a people in the desert, baptized in the cloud and in the sea, by his own flesh fed, by his own blood then watered, as well as in the Church now a populace of believers with the bread of his own body and the tide of his own blood He feeds and waters.

[structure on that last sentence looks nice in Latin; hard to capture in English]

24. Quod volens Apostolus intimare, cum dixisset patres nostros eamdem escam spiritualem manducasse, eumdemque potum spiritualem bibsse, consequenter adjecit: Bibebant autem de spirituali consequenti eos petra. Petra autem erat Christus (I Cor. x, 4).  Ut intelligeremus, in deserto Christum in spirituali petra constitisse, et sui sanguinis undam populo praebuisse, qui postea corpus de Virgine sumptum, et pro salute credentium in cruce suspensum, nostris saeculis exibuit, et ex eo sanguinis undam effudit quo non solum redimeremur, verum etiam potaremur.

Which thing the Apostle wishing to intimate when he said that our fathers ate the same spiritual food and drank the same spiritual drink, consequently he throws out there: “Now they were drinking from the spiritual rock following them.  Now the rock was Christ (I Cor 10:4).”  In order that we may understand that in the desert Christ was established in the spiritual rock, and furnished to the people the tide of his blood, who afterward a body assumed of the Virgin, and for the salvation of believers suspended on the Cross, exhibited for our ages, and from it poured forth a tide of blood by which we are not only redeemed, but truly made to drink.

25. Mirum certe, quoniam incomprehensibile et inaestimabile!  Nondum hominem assumpserat, nondum pro salute mundi mortem degustaverat, nondum sanguine suo nos redemerat, et iam nostri patres in deserto per escam spiritualem potumque invisibilem eius corpus manducabant et eius sanguinem bibebant: velut testis exstat Apostolus clamans eamdem escam spiritualem manducasse, eumdem potum spiritualem bibisse patres nostros.  Non isthic ratio qua fieri potuerit, disquirenda; sed fides quod factum sit, adhibenda.  Ipse namque qui nunc in Ecclesia omnipotenti virtute panem et vinum in sui corporis carnem et propria cruoris undam spiritualiter convertit ipse tunc quoque manna de coelo datum corpus suum, et aquam de petra profusam proprium sanguinem, invisibiliter operatus est.

It is certainly marvelous, for it is incomprehensible and unjudgable!  Not yet had He assumed man, not yet had He tasted death for the salvation of the world, not yet had He redeemed us by His blood, and already our fathers, in the desert, through spiritual food and invisible drink, ate His body and drank His blood; just as the Apostle stood forth, a witness, crying that our fathers ate the same spiritual food and drank the same spiritual drink.  Herein the reason by which it was able to be done is not to be sought; but faith that it was done is to be applied.  For the one who now in the Church by omnipotent power spiritually converts bread and wine into the flesh of His own body and wave of His blood, the same then also gave His own body as manna from heaven, and poured forth His own blood as water from the rock, invisibly was at work.

[propria is oddly placed…his own omnipotent power, maybe?]

[syntax of last few sentences…ugh]

26. Quod intelligens David in Spiritu sancto, protestatus est: Panem, iniquiens, angelorum manducavit homo (Psal. LXXVII, 25).  Ridiculum namque est opinari quod manna corporeum patribus datum coelestem pascat exercitum, aut tali vescantur edulio, qui divini verbi saginantur epulis.  Ostendit certe Psalmista, vel magis Spiritus sanctus loquens in Psalmista, vel quid patres nostri in illo manna coelesti perceperint, vel quod fideles in mysterio corporis Christi credere debeant.  In utroque certe Christus innuitur, qui et credentium animas pascit, et angelorum cibus existit: utrumque hoc non corporeo gustu, nec corporali sagina, sed spiritualis virtute Verbi.

Understanding which David, in the Holy Spirit, protested, saying, “Man ate the bread of angels (Ps. 77:25).”  For it is ridiculous to opine that corporeal bread given to our fathers fed a heavenly army, or that by suchlike food they ate, who are fattened on the feasts of the divine Word.  Surely the Psalmist shows—or rather the Holy Spirit speaking in the Psalmist—either what our fathered perceived in that heavenly manna, or what the faithful out to believe in the mystery of the body of Christ.  In either surely Christ is referenced, who feeds souls of believers and who proves to be the food of angels; each of these not by corporeal taste, nor corporeal fat, but spiritual by the power of the Word.

27. Et, evanglista narrante, cognovimus quod Dominus noster Iesus Christus pateretur, accepto pane, gratias egit, dedit discipulis suis dicens: Hoc est corpus meum quod pro vobis datur: hoc facite in meam commemorationem.  Similiter et calicem, postquam coenavit, dicens: Hic est calix Novum Testamentum in sanguine meo, qui pro vobis fundetur (Matth. Xxvi, 26, 27; Luc. xxii, 19, 20).  Videmus nondum passum esse Christum, et iam tamen sui corporis et sanguinis mysterium operatum fuisse.

And, by the evangelist narrating, we know what our Lord Jesus Christ made plain, “bread having been taken, He gave thanks, He gave to His disciples saying, ‘This is My Body which for you is given; this do in my commemoration.  Similarly also the chalice, after he supped, saying, ‘This chalice is the New Covenant in My Blood, which for you will be poured out (Matthew 26:26-27; Luke 22:19-20).”  We see that not yet has Christ suffered, and yet already the mystery of His body and blood has been worked.

[Justifying his claim that Christ fed our fathers in the desert with His body—same “not yet” conundrum]

28. Non enim putamus ullum fidelium dubitare panem illum fuisse Christi corpus effectum, quod discipulis donans dicit: Hoc est corpus meum quod pro vobis datur; sed neque calicem dubitare sanguinem Christi continere, de quo idem ait: Hic est calix Novum Testamentum in sanguine meo, qui pro vobis fundetur.  Sicut ergo Paulo antequam pateretur, panis substantiam et vini creaturam convertere potuit in proprium corpus quod passurum erat, et in suum sanguinem qui post fundendus exstabat; sic etiam in deserto manna et aquam de petra in suam carnem et sanguinem converetere praevaluit, quamvis longe post et caro illius pro nobis in cruce pendenda, et sanguis eius in ablutionem nostram fundendus superabat.

For we do not think that any of the faithful doubt that yon bread was made the body of Christ, giving which to His disciples He said, “This is My Body which for you is given;” but neither that they doubt the chalice contains the blood of Christ, about which the Same says, “This chalice is the New Covenant in My Blood, which for you will be poured out.”  So just as before it was revealed to Paul He was able to convert the substance of bread and the creature of wine into His own body which was about to suffer, and into His own blood which later stood forth to be poured out; so also in the desert He was mighty to convert manna and water from the rock into His flesh and blood, although long after would conquer His flesh for us hanging on the Cross, and His blood in be poured out unto our cleansing.

29. Hic etiam considerare debemus quemadmodum sit accipiendum quod ipse dicit: Nisi manducaveritis carnem Filii hominis, et sanguinem eius biberitis, non habebitis vitam in vobis (Joan. vi, 54).  Non enim dicit quod caro ipsius quae pependit in cruce, particulatim concidenda foret et a discipulis manducanda; vel sanguis ipsius, quem fusurus erat pro mundi redemptione, discipulis dandus esset in potum: hoc enim scelus esset si, secundum quod infideles tunc acceperunt, a discipulis vel sanguis eius biberetur vel caro comederetur.

We ought also consider in what way should be understood what He says here, “Unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink His blood, you shall not have life in you (John 6:54).”  For He does not say [quod—how/on what grounds—ignore it and it will go away…] His flesh which hung on the Cross would be chopped up bit-by-bit and eaten by the disciples, or that His blood which was going to be poured out for the redemption of the world would eventually be given to the disciples in drink; for this would be a travesty if His blood be drunk or His flesh be eaten by the disciples according to what unbelievers then accepted/understood.

[quem fusurus erat??  QUEM?? Can I make this a deponent/middle-passive?]

30. Propter quod in consequentibus ait discipulis, non infideliter verba Christi suscpientibus, nec tamen quomodo illa verba intelligenda penetrantibus [add. Forent]: Hoc vos scandalizat, inquiens, si ergo videritis filium hominis ascendentem ubi erat prius (Joan vi, 62, 63)? Tanquam diceret: Non ergo carnem meam, vel sanguinem meam, vobis corporaliter comedendam, vel bibendum, per partes distributum distribuendumve putetis; cum post resurrectionem visuri sitis me coelos ascensurum cum integri corporis sive sanguinis mei plenitudine.  Tunc intelligetis quod non, sicut infideles arbitrantur, carnem meam a credentibus comedendam; sed vere per mysterium panem et vinum, in corporis et sanguinis mei conversa substantiam, a credentibus sumenda.

On account of which He says to the following disciples, not unfaithfully receiving the words of Christ, nor yet penetrating how those words are to be understood, “Does this scandalize you, if therefore you will see the Son of Man ascending where He was before (John 6:62-63)?”  As if He were to say, “So not my flesh for you to eat corporeally, nor my blood for drinking, distributed or to be distributed through parts, think ye; since after the resurrection you shall see me ascending the heavens with my fullness of whole body or blood.  Then you shall understand how not, as infidels would judge, is my flesh for eating by believers; but truly through the mystery are the bread and wine converted into the substance of My body and blood, to be consumed by believers.”

[Migne’s add. forent note is ridiculous—omit]

31. Et consequenter: Spiritus est, inquit, qui vivificat; caro non prodest quidquam (Joan. vi, 64).  Carnem dicit quidquam non prodesse, illo modo sicut infideles intelligebant; alioquin vitam praebet, sicut a fidelibus per mysterium sumitur.  Et hoc quare?  Ipse manifestat cum dicit: Spiritus est qui vivificat.  In hoc itaque mysterio corporis et sanguinis, spiritualis est operatio, quae vitam praestat, sine cuius operatione mysteria illa nihil prosunt, quoniam corpus quidem pascere possunt, sed animam pascere non possunt.

And consequently, “It is the Spirit,” He says, “which makes alive; flesh does not profit anything (John 6:64).” He says that flesh does not profit anything, in that way unbelievers would understood it; but in another way it provides life, just as it is consumed by the faithful through mystery.  And why is this?  He makes clear when He says, “It is the Spirit who gives life.”  And so in this mystery of the body and blood, spiritual is the operation which furnishes life, without whose operation those mysteries profit nothing, since they are able to feed the body, but they cannot feed the soul.

32. Hic iam illa suboritur quaestio, quam plurimi loquuntur, non in figura, sed in veritate ista fieri.  Quod dicentes, sanctorum scriptis Patrum contraire comprobantur.

Here now rises up that question which very many say is done not in figure, but in truth itself.  Saying which, they are shown to go against the writings of the holy Fathers.

33. Sanctus Augustinus, doctor Ecclesiae praecipuus, in libro de Doctrina Christiana tertio (cap 16), taliter scribit: “Nisi manducaveritis, inquit Salvator, carnem filii hominis, et biberitis sanguinem eius, non habebitis vitam in vobis (Joan. vi, 54).  Facinus vel flagitium videtur habere.  Figura ergo est praecipiens passioni Domini esse communicandum, et fideliter recondendum [Apud sanctum Augustinum, atque suaviter atque utiliter recondendum] in memoria quod pro nobis eius caro crucifixa et vulnerata sit.”

St. Augustine, foremost Doctor of the Church, in De Doctrina Christiana III.16, writes thusly: “’Unless ye eat,’ says the Savior, ‘the flesh of the Son of Man, and drink His blood, ye shall not have life within ye (John 6:54).’  It seems to contain a crime or shame.  So it is a figure teaching that we are to share in the passion of the Lord and faithfully keep in memory that for us His flesh was crucified and wounded.”

[doctor praecipuus = Doctah Big Dawg]

[ok I cheated and read the selection from DDC to get the sense.  Tough.]

34. Cernimus quod doctor iste mysteria corporis et sanguinis, sub figura dicit a fidelibus celebrari: nam carnem illius sanguinemque eius sumere carnaliter non religionis dicit esse, sed facinoris.  De quibus fuerant illi qui in Evangelio dicta Domini non spiritualiter, sed carnaliter intelligentes, recesserunt ab eo, et iam cum illo non ibant (Joan. vi, 67).

We see that this Doctor says that the mysteries of the body and blood are celebrated by the faithful under a figure, for he says that to consume carnally His flesh and blood is not of religion, but of crime.  Concerning which things there were those who in the Gospel, understanding the words of the Lord not spiritually but carnally, withdrew from Him and no longer went with Him (John 6:67).

35. Idem in epistola ad Bonifacium episcopum scribens (epist. 23, sive 8), inter aliqua sic ait: “Nempe saepe ita loquimur, ut Pascha propinquante, dicamus crastinam vel perendinam Domini passionem, cum ille ante tam multos annos passus sit, nec omnino nisi semel illa passio facta sit.  Nempe ipso die Dominico dicimus: Hodie Dominus resurrexerit, cum ex quo resurrexit tot anni transierint.  Cur nemo tam ineptus est, ut nos ita loquentes arguat esse mentitos, nisi quia istos dies secundum illorum quibus haec gesta sunt similitudinem nuncupamus, ut dicatur ipse dies, qui non est ipse, sed revolutione temporis similis eius, et dicatur illo die fieri propter sacramenti celebrationem, quod non die, sed iam olim factum sit.  Non semel immolatus est Christus in seipso? Et tamen in sacramento non solum per omnes Paschae solemnitates, sed omni die populis immolatur: nec utique mentitur qui interrogatus cum responderet immolari.  Si enim sacramenta quamdam similitudinem rerum earum quarum sacramenta sunt non haberent, omnino sacramenta non essent.  Ex hac ipsa autem similitudine plerumque iam ipsarum rerum nomina accipiunt.  Sicut ergo secundum quemdam modum sacramentum corporis Christi corpus Christi est, sacramentum sanguinis Christi sanguis Christi est, ita sacramentum fidei fides est.”

The same writing in his epistle to Boniface the bishop (Ep. 23, or 8—#98 in NPNF, written 408 AD) among other things says thus: “Of course often we speak thus: when the Pascha approaches, we say that the Passion of the Lord is tomorrow or the day after, although He suffered many years long since, nor can that Passion in anyway happen but once.  Of course on that Lord’s Day we say: “Today the Lord has risen,” although so many years have passed since that [day] on which He arose.  Why, no one is so inept, as to argue that we speaking so are liars, unless because [since] we name those days according to those on which these things were done, so that it is called the day itself, which is not the very day, but similar [to it] by the revolution of its time, and it is said “on that day” to be done according to the celebration of the sacrament, which is not the day itself, but was once done formerly.  Was not Christ immolated once, in Himself?  And yet in the sacrament not only though all solemnities of Pascha, but on every day He is immolated for the people; nor at any rate does whoever is asked lie when he responds that He is immolated.  If indeed the sacraments have not a certain similitude of those things of which they are sacraments, they would in no way be sacraments.  But from this very similitude, for the most part, they now receive the names of those things.  Just so, therefore, according to whatever mode the sacrament of the body of Christ is the body of Christ, and the sacrament of the blood of Christ is the blood of Christ, so the sacrament of faith is faith.”

[liturgical time: we call it the day of Resurrection by likeness to the original Day; we call it the sacrifice of Christ even though THE sacrifice took place long ago.  Said by mystery!  So also we call it the body of Christ, the blood of Christ in the sacrament, they are called the things by similitude, though they are not the very things.]

36. Cernimus quod sanctus Augustinus dicit aliud sacramenta, et aliud res quarum sunt sacramenta.  Corpus autem, in quo passus est Christus, et sanguis eius de latere qui fluxit, res sunt.  Harum vero rerum mysteria dicit esse sacramenta corporis et sanguinis Christi, quae celebrantur ob memoriam Dominicae passionis, non solum per omnes Paschae solemnitates singulis annis, verum etiam singulis in anno diebus.

We note that Saint Augustine calls one thing sacraments, and something else the realities of which the sacraments are.  But the body, in which Christ suffered, and the blood which flowed from His side, are the res.  Truly the mysteries of these things he says are the sacraments of the body and blood of Christ, which are celebrated for memory of the Lord’s Passion, not only through all the solemnities of Pascha in each year, but even truly in each day in the year.

37. Et cum unum sit corpus Dominicum, in quo semel passus est; et unus sanguis, qui pro salute mundi fusus est: attamen sacramenta ipsarum rerum vocabula sumpserunt, ut dicantur corpus et sanguis Christi, cum propter similitudinem rerum quas innuunt, sic appelentur: sicut Pascha et Resurrectio Domini vocantur, quae per singulos annos celebrantur, cum semel in seipso passus sit et resurrexerit, nec dies illi iam possint revocari, quoniam praeterierunt.  Appellantur tamen illorum vocabulo dies quibus memoria Dominicae passionis sive resurrectionis commemoratur, idcirco quod illorum similitudinem habeant dierum quibus Salvator semel passus est et semel resurrexit.

And although one is the Lordly body, in which He suffered once; and one the blood, which for the salvation of the world was poured out, yet nevertheless the sacraments assume the names of the things themselves–as they are called body and blood of Christ–since on account of similitude of the things which they reference, so are they named.  Just as they are called Pascha and the Resurrection of the Lord, which are celebrated each year, although once in Himself He suffered and rose, nor can those days now be called back, for they have passed on.  Nevertheless by their names they are called the days on which the memory of the Dominical Passion or Resurrection is commemorated, so that they have the likeness of those days on which the Savior once suffered and once rose.

38. Unde dicimus: Hodie, vel cras, vel perendie, Domini Pascha est, vel Resurrectio; cum dies illi, quibus haec gesta sunt, multis iam annis praeterierint.  Sic etiam dicamus Dominum immolari quando passionis eius sacramenta celebrantur, cum semel pro salute mundi sit immolatus in semetipso, sicut Apostolus ait: Christus passus est pro nobis, vobis relinquens exemplum ut sequamini vestigia eius (I Petr. ii, 21).  Non enim quod quotidie in seipso patiatur quod semel fecit.  Exemplum autem nobis reliquit quod in mysterio Domini corporis et sanguinis quotidie credentibus praesentatur, ut quisquis ad illud accesserit, noverit se passionibus eius sociari debere, quarum imaginem in sacris mysteriis praestolatur, iuxta illud Sapientiae: Accessisti ad mensam potentis; diligenter attende quae tibi sunt apposita, sciens quia talia te oportet praeparare (Prov. xxiii, 1).  Accedere ad mensam potentis, est divini participem libaminis fieri: consideratio vero appositorum, Domini corporis et sanguinis est intelligentia.  Quibus quisquis participat, advertat se talia debere praeparare, ut eius imitator existat commoriendo, cuius memoriam mortis, non solum credendo, verum etiam gustando confitetur.

Whence we say, “Today, or tomorrow, or the next day is the Lord’s Pascha, or Resurrection,” although those days on which these things were done have now passed on by many years.  So also let us say the Lord was immolated the sacraments of His passion are celebrated, although once for the salvation of the world He was immolated in His own self, just as the Apostle says: “Christ has suffered for us, leaving for you example that you may follow His tracks (I Peter 2:21).  Not, indeed, that daily in Himself He suffers what once He did.  Now He left for us example which is daily presented to believers in the mystery of the Lord’s body and blood, in order that anyone may approach to it, may know that he ought to join with His sufferings, whose image in sacred mysteries he may await, according to that saying of Wisdom: “You have approached to the table of the Mighty One; diligently attend the things which are set before you, knowing that you ought to prepare such things (Prov 23:1).”  To approach to the table of the Mighty One is to become partaker in the first-fruits of the Divine; the consideration of things placed before us is the understanding of the Lord’s body and blood.  Whoever partakes in such things knows he ought to prepare himself for such things, that he may be His imitator by dying with Him, whose memory of death he confesses not only by believing, but also truly by tasting.

[What Migne calls a Proverbs citation is actually a mashup from one of St. Augustine’s sermons (32, I believe) on the subject–thanks, Google!]

39. Item beatus Apostolus ad Hebraeos: Talis enim decebat ut nobis esset pontifex, sanctus, innocens, impollutus, segregatus a peccatoribus, et excelsior caelis factus.  Qui non habet necessitatem, quemadmodum sacerdotes, quotidie hostias offerre prius pro suis delictis, deinde pro populi: hoc enim fecit semel, se offerendo Dominus Jesus Christus (Hebr. vii, 26, 27).  Quod semel fecit, nunc quotidie frequentat: semel enim pro peccatis populi se obstulit, celebratur tamen haec eadem oblatio singulis per fideles diebus, sed in mysterio, ut quod Dominus Jesus Christus semel se offerens adimplevit, hoc in eius passionis memoriam quotidie geratur per mysteriorum celebrationem.

Again the blessed Apostle to the Hebrews: “” (Hebrews 7:26-27).  What He did once, now daily repeats; once for the sins of the people He offered himself, yet this same offering is celebrated each day through the faithful, but in mystery, so that what the Lord Jesus Christ, offering Himself, has fulfilled, this in memory of His passion daily is conducted through the celebration of the mysteries.

40. Nec tamen falso dicitur quod in mysteriis illis Dominus vel immoletur vel patiatur quoniam illius mortis atque passionis habens similitudinem, quarum existunt repraesentationes.   Unde Dominicum corpus et sanguis Dominicus appellantur, quoniam eius sumunt appelationem, cuius existunt sacramentum.  Hinc beatus Isidorus in libris Etymologiarum (lib. Vi, cap. 19) sic ait: <Sacrificium dictum, quasi sacrum factum, quia prece mystica consecratur in memoriam pro nobis Dominicae passionis.  Unde hoc, eo jubente, corpus Christi et sanguinem dicimus quod dum fit ex fructibus terrae, sanctificatur et fit sacramentum, operante invisibiliter Spiritu Dei.  Cuius panis et calicis sacramentum Graeci Eucharistiam dicunt, quod Latine bona gratia interpretatur: et quid melius sanguine et corpore Christi? (Panis vero et vinum ideo corpori et sanguine comparantur, quia sicut huius visibilis panis vinique substantia exteriorem nutrit et inebriat hominem, ita Verbum Dei, qui est panis vivus, participatione sui fideles recreat mentes.)>

Nor is it falsely said that in those mysteries the Lord either is immolated or suffers since having likeness of His death and passion, whose [passion and death] representations they [the mysteries] are.  Whence they are called the Lord’s body and the Lord’s blood, since they assume the appellation of that whose sacrament they are.  This blessed Isidore in the books of Etymologies (VI.19) so says: “It is called a sacrifice, as if made holy, since by mystical prayer it is consecrated in memory for us of the Lord’s passion.  Whence this, Him commanding, we call the body and blood of Christ, because while it is made from the fruit of the earth, it is sanctified and becomes sacrament, the Spirit of God operating invisibly.  The sacrament of this bread and chalice the Greeks call “Eucharist,” which in Latin is translated “good thanks”; and what is better than the blood and body of Christ? (Truly the bread and wine are therefore compared to body and blood, since just as the substance of this visible bread and wine nourish and water the exterior man, so the Word of God, Who is living bread, recreates faithful minds by His participation.)”

[Migne notes that the Isidore citation is faulty.  The line in parentheses is not found in Isidore; he provides a thematically similar citation from de Officiis cap. 18: “Panis, quia confirmat corpus, ideo corpus Christi nuncupatur: vinum autem, quia sanguinem operatur in carne, ideo ad sanguinem Christi refertur.”]

[Calling it bona gratia is a really neat word play that translates the Greek of Eucharistia and rolls in all the later Latin development of gratia as grace]

[that sui at the end is delightfully ambiguous in its position]

41. Et iste doctor catholicus sacrum illud Dominicae passionis mysterium, in memoriam pro nobis Dominicae passionis docet agendum.  Hoc dicens ostendit Dominicam passionem semel esse factam, eius vero memoriam in sacris solemnibus repraesentari.

And that Catholic teacher teaches that yon sacred mystery of the Lord’s passion is to be done in memory for us of the Lord’s passion.  Saying this he shows the Lord’s passion done once, but its memory represented in sacred solemnities.

42. Unde et panis qui offertur, ex fructibus terrae cum sit assumptus, in Christi corpus dum sanctificatur, transponitur: sicut et vinum cum ex vite defluxerit, divini tamen sanctificatione mysterii efficitur sanguis Christi; non quidem visibiliter, sed, sicut ait praesens doctor, operante invisibiliter Spiritu Dei [al., sancto].

Whence also the bread which is offered, although it is assumed from the fruits of the earth, is transposed into the body of Christ when it is sanctified; just so also the wine, although it flowed from the vine, nonetheless by the sanctification of divine mystery is made the blood of Christ; not indeed visibly, but, just as the present teacher says, the Spirit of God working invisibly [some mss. explicitly say Holy Spirit].

43. Unde sanguis et corpus Christi dicuntur, quia non quod exterius videntur, sed quod interius, divino Spiritu operante, facta sunt, accipiuntur.  Et quia longe aliud per potentiam invisibilem existunt quam visibiliter appareant, discernit, dum dicit, panem et vinum [i]deo corpori et sanguini Domini comparari, quia sicut visibilis panis et vini substantia exteriorem nutrit et inebriat hominem, ita Verbum Dei, qui est panis vivus, participatione sui fidelium recreat mentes.

Whence they are called the blood and body of Christ, since they are made not what is seen outwardly, but what [is seen] inwardly, the divine Spirit working, they are accepted [??].  And since farther through some invisible power do they exist than visibly they appear, he notes, when he says, that the bread and wine are compared therefore to the body and blood of the Lord, since just as the substance of the visible bread and wine nourish and inebriant the exterior man, so the Word of God, Who is the living bread, by His participation recreates the minds of the faithful.

44. Ista dicendo confitemur quod in sacramento corporis et sanguinis Domini, quidquid exterius sumitur, ad corporis refectionem aptatur: Verbum autem Dei, qui est panis invisibiliter in illo existens sacramento, invisibiliter participatione sui fidelium mentes vivificando pascit.

By saying these things we confess that in the sacrament of the body and blood of the Lord, whatever is outwardly consumed is apt to the refreshment of body; but the Word of God, which is bread invisibly existing in that sacrament [or: which is invisibly existing in that sacrament of bread?], invisibly by a life-giving participation feeds the minds of His faithful.//invisibly by the sharing of Himself in the life-giving sacrament feeds the minds of the faithful.

[show me something better for that gerund/ive!!–probably best if it’s an adjective recalling sacramento from earlier]

45. Hinc etiam idem doctor dicit (Orig. lib. Vi, cap. 19): <Sacramentum est in aliqua celebratione, cum res gesta ita fit ut aliquid significare intelligatur quod sancte accipiendum est.> Haec dicendo ostendit omne sacramentum in divinis rebus aliquid secreti continere; et aliud esse quod visibiliter appareat, aliud vero quod invisibiliter sit accipiendum.

This also the same teacher says (VI.19): “It is a sacrament in some celebration, when the thing done is so made that something is understood to signify what is received sacredly.” By saying these things he shows that every sacrament in divine matters contains something secret; and it is one thing that appears visibly, but another that is to be accepted [believed] invisibly.

46. Quae sunt autem sacramenta fidelibus celebranda consequenter ostendens, ait (Ibid.): <Sunt autem sacramenta baptismus et chrisma, corpus et sanguis. [Apud Isidorum ibidem additur, Christi].  Quae ob id sacramenta dicuntur, quia sub tegumento corporalium rerum virtus divina secretius salutem eorumdem sacramentorum operatur.  Unde ei a secretis virtutibus vel sacris sacramenta dicuntur.>  Et in sequentibus ait (ibid.): <Graece mysterium dicitur quod secretam et reconditam habeat dispositionem.>

Which things are sacraments to be celebrated by the faithful he consequently shows, saying (ibid.): “Now they are sacraments, baptism and chrism, body and blood.  Which things are said to be sacraments on account of this, since under a cover of corporal things a divine power more secretly works the salvation of these same sacraments.  Whence they are called, from their secret and sacred powers, sacraments.”  And in the following he says (ibid.): “In Greek is it called mystery because it has a secret and hidden disposition.”

47. Quid isthinc perdocemur, nisi quod corpus et sanguis Domini propterea mysteria dicuntur, quod secretam et reconditam habeat dispositionem, id est, aliud sint quod exterius innuant, et aliud quod interius invisibiliter operentur?

What thence are we teaching except that because they are called body and blood of the Lord, that they have a secret and recondite disposition, that is, they are one thing which signals outwardly, and another which inwardly and invisibly operates?

[why is propterea in that clause?  Reversed his order of argument?]

48. Hinc etiam et sacramenta vocitantur, quia tegumento corporalium rerum virtus divina secretius salutem accipientium fideliter dispensat.

Even hence also the sacraments are called, since by covering of corporeal things a divine power more secretly dispenses the salvation of those accepting faithfully.

49. Ex his omnibus quae sunt hactenus dicta monstratum est quod corpus et sanguis Christi, quae fidelium ore in Ecclesia percipiuntur, figurae sunt secundum speciem visibilem; at vero secundum invisibilem substantiam, id est divini potentiam Verbi, vere corpus et sanguis Christi existunt.  Unde secundum visibilem creaturam, corpus pascunt; iuxta vero potentioris virtutem substantiae, fidelium mentes et pascunt et sanctificant. (Vide numm. 44, 91, 96)

From all these things which have so far been said, it has been shown that the body and blood of Christ, which on the mouth of the faithful in the Church are received, are figures according to visible species; yet indeed according to invisible substance, that is the power of the divine Word, truly they are the body and blood of Christ.  Whence according to visible creature, they feed the body; but joined to a power of mightier substance, they both feed and sanctify the minds of the faithful.

4 thoughts on “Ratramnus on the Eucharist (III)

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s