Ratramnus on the Eucharist (IV)

Wherein Ratramnus concludes his arguments about the nature of the Eucharist.  For how we got to this point, see my previous posts here, here, and here.  Next post in the series here.

The main thing to comment on here, setting aside some of his really interesting claims about identity and difference, is the structure.  This section of the letter seems to have been rewritten at some point, or perhaps even reworked by a later author.  Why?

The formatting of the first section of the letter was very straightforward: terms, analysis, Scripture, Fathers, conclusion.  This latter section, however, does a few things differently.

First he begins with a lengthy presentation of St. Ambrose’s thoughts on the Eucharist.  With very little commentary added in his own words, this essentially amounts to a twenty-paragraph appeal to Patristic authority.  This is no big shock; perhaps Ratramnus felt he was on riskier ground here and wanted to give himself as much advance cover as possible for his views.

Second, and I think more interesting, Ratramnus embeds his subsequent analysis on identity and difference inside a surprising inclusio: the Eucharist is a two-fold figure of not only Christ, but also of His mystical body–us.  Between raising this in #73-75 and closing out with St. Augustine’s take on the same in #93-96, he lays out differences of attributes and definition in a way that doesn’t really depend on the Two-Fold Figure idea.  The opening of the inclusio is based on liturgical practice, but when he returns to liturgical texts inside his analysis he shows no notice or dependence on the earlier material.

Third, his use of Fulgentius in #90-92, while still pursuing the same kind of dichotomies as the earlier analysis, is far subtler an argument than anything used previously.  There are some new text markers in the last ten or so paragraphs as well, most notably referring to St. Augustine by the hitherto unseen Pater Augustinus.

Now I’m pretty skeptical of authorship claims based on text variation, but at the very least it should be well-noted how different “part two” of this letter is.  I’m open to any number of interpretations here, including the possibility that I’m over-pressing the claim or missed structure in “part one,” but one thing I know: I had a lot more outline-thinking to do for this part of the text!

Without further ado:

The Second Question: Is it the same body which was born, suffered, died, etc.?

50. Iam nunc secundae quaestionis propositum est inspiciendum, et videndum utrum ipsum corpus quod de Maria natum est, et passum, et mortuum, et sepultum, quodque ad dexteram Patris consideat, sit quod ore fidelium per sacramentorum mysterium in Ecclesia quotidie sumitur.

Now at last the proposition of the second question is to be inspected, and it is to be seen whether that body which was of Mary born, and suffered, and died, and buried, and which sits at the right hand of the Father, [whether that body] be what in the mouth of the faithful through the mystery of the sacraments in the Church daily is consumed.

51. Percontemur quid ex hoc sanctus Ambrosius sentiat: ait namque in primo Sacramentorum libro (lib. De iis qui mysteriis initiantur, cap. 8): <Revera mirabile est quod manna Deus plueret patribus, et quotidiano coeli pascebantur alimento; unde dictum est: Panem angelorum manducavit homo (Psal. lxxvii, 25).  Sed tamen panem illum qui manducaverunt, omnes in deserto mortui sunt.  Ista autem esca quam accipis, iste panis vivus qui descendit de coelo, vitae aeternae substantiam subministrat; et quicunque hunc manducaverit, non morietur in aeternum; et corpus Christi est.>

Let us inquire what holy Ambrose thinks of this; for he says in the first book of Sacraments, ch. 8: “In true fact it is marvelous that God rained manna on the fathers, and daily fed them with the stores of heaven; whence it is said, “Man hath eaten the bread of angels” (Psalm 77:25).  But nonetheless who ate that bread, all in the desert died.  But this food which you receive, this living bread which has descended from heaven, provides the substance of life eternal; and whosoever shall have eaten this, he shall not die into eternity; and the body of Christ it is.”

52. Vide secundum quod doctor iste corpus Christi dicat esse escam quam fideles accipiunt in Ecclesia.  Ait namque: <Iste panis vivus qui de coelo descendit, vitae aeternae substantiam subministrat.  Num secundum hoc quod videtur, quod corporaliter sumitur, quod dente premitur, quod fauce glutitur, quod receptaculo ventris suscipitur, aeternae vitae substantiam subministrat?  Isto namque modo carnem pascit morituram, nec aliquam subministrat incorruptionem; neque dici vere potest ut quicunque hunc manducaverit, non morietur in aeternum (Joan. vi, 52).  Et hoc enim quod sumit corpus, corruptibile est; nec ipsi corpori potest praestare ne moriatur in aeternum: quoniam quod corruptioni subjacet, aeternitatem praestare non valet.  Est ergo in illo pane vita, quae non oculis apparet corporeis, sed fidei contuetur aspectu: qui etiam panis vivus qui descendit de coelo existit, et de quo vere dicitur: Quicunque hunc manducaverit, non morietur in aeternum, et qui est corpus Christi.>

See how that teacher says that the body of Christ is food which the faithful receive in the Church.  For he says: “That living bread which from heaven has descended provides the substance of life eternal.  How according to this thing which is seen, which is consumed corporally, which is pressed by teeth, which is swallowed by throat, which is taken down into the receptacle of the belly, [how does this thing] provide the substance of life eternal?  For in that mode it feeds death-bound flesh, nor does it provide any incorruption; nor can it truly be said that whosoever eats this, he shall not die into eternity (John 6:52).  And indeed this thing which the body consumes is corruptible; nor can it make provision to the same body lest it die into eternity, since what is subject to corruption is not strong to provide eternity.  There is therefore in that bread a life which appears not to corporeal eyes, but is beheld in the glance of faith; which is the living bread which descended from heaven, and about which truly it is said, “Whosoever eats this, he shall not die into eternity,” and which is the body of Christ.”

[contuetur is supposed to be deponent!  Aiee!]

53. Item in consequentibus (ibid., ch. 9), cum de omnipotente virtute Christi loqueretur, sic ait: <Sermo ergo Christi, qui potuit ex nihilo facere quod non erat, non potest ea quae sunt in id mutare quod non erant?  Nonne maius est novas res dare quam mutare naturas? [al. non enim minus est novas rebus dare]

Again in the following (ibid., ch. 9), when he speaks of the omnipotent power of Christ, he so says: “Therefore the word of Christ, which was able from nothing to make what was not, is it not able to change those things which are into something which they were not?  Is it not greater to give new things than to change natures?

54. Dicit sanctus Ambrosius in illo mysterio sanguinis et corporis Christi commutationem esse factam, et mirabiliter, quia divine, et ineffabiliter, quia incomprehensibile.  Dicant qui nihil hic volunt secundum interius latentem virtutem accipere, sed totum quod apparet visibiliter aestimare, secundum quid hic sit commutatio facta.  Nam secundum creaturarum substantiam, quod fuerunt ante consecrationem, hoc et postea consistunt.  Panis et vinum prius exstitere; in qua etiam specie iam consecrata permanere videntur.  Est ergo interius commutatum Spiritus sancti potenti virtute, quod fides aspicit, animam pascit, aeternae vitae substantiam subministrat.

Holy Ambrose says that in that mystery of the blood and body of Christ a change is made, and marvelously, since divinely, and ineffably, since incomprehensibly.  Those who want to accept nothing here according to inwardly latent power, but rather to judge what appears visibly to be the whole thing, let them say how the change here was accomplished.  For according to the substance of creatures, what they were before the consecration, this also afterward remains.  Bread and wine existed before; in which species now consecrated they are seen to remain.  There is therefore inwardly a change by the mighty power of the Holy Spirit which faith beholds, which feeds the soul, which provides the substance of eternal life.

[ugh that bolded sentence…pretty sure I got it on the rewrite.]

55. Item in consequentibus (ibid.): <Quid hic quaeris naturae ordinem in Christi corpore, cum praeter naturam sit ipse Dominus Jesus partus ex Virgine?>

Again in the following (ibid.): “Why do you seek this order of nature in the body of Christ, since it is the Lord Jesus Himself born of the Virgin praeter naturam?”

[“preternaturally” if you want to cheat.  Beyond nature, in a way surpassing normal human nature]

56. Hic iam surgit auditor, et dicit corpus esse Christi quod cernitur, et sanguinem qui bibitur; nec quaerendum quomodo factum, sed tenendum quod sic factum sit.  Bene quidem sentire videris.  Sed si vim verborum diligenter inspexeris, corpus quidem Christi sanguinemque fideliter credis.  Sed si perspiceres quia quod credis nondum vides; nam si videres, diceres: Video; non diceres: Credo corpus sanguinemque esse Christi: nunc autem quia fides totum quidquid illud totum est, aspicit, et oculus carnis nihil apprehendit, intellige quod non in specie, sed in virtute corpus et sanguis Christi existant quae cernuntur.  Unde dicit (ibid.): <Ordinem naturae non hic intuendum, sed Christi potentiam venerandam, quae quidquid vult, quomodo vult, quodcunque vult et creat quod non erat, et creatum permutat in id quod antea non fuerat.> Subjungit idem auctor (ibid.): <Vera utique caro, quae crucifixa est, quae sepulta est; vere ergo carnis illius sacramentum est; ipse clamat Dominus Jesus: Hoc est corpus meum.>

Here now arises a listener, and he says it is the body of Christ which is discerned, and the blood which is drunk; nor is it to be inquired how it was done, but to be held that it was so done.  Well indeed do you seem to think.  But if the power of words diligently you will inspect, the body of Christ indeed and the blood faithfully you believe.  But if you really see since what you believe you do not yet see; for if you saw, you would say, “I see;” you would not say, “I believe it is the body and blood of Christ;” now since faith beholds the whole, whatever that whole is, and the eye of flesh apprehends nothing, understand that not in appearance but in power are those things which are discerned the body and blood of Christ.  Whence he says (ibid.): “the order of nature is not here to be regarded, but the power of Christ to be venerated, which power whatever it wishes, however it wishes, whyever it wishes both creates what was not, and changes the creature into something which it was not before.”  Adds the same author (ibid.): “It is at any rate the true flesh which was crucified, which was buried; truly therefore it is the sacrament of that flesh; the Lord Jesus Himself exclaimed: ‘This is my body.’”

57.  Quam diligenter, quam prudenter facta distinctio!  De carne Christi, quae crucifixa est, quae sepulta est, id est, secundum quam Christus et crucifixus est et sepultus, ait: Vera itaque caro Christi.  At de illa quae sumitur in Sacramento, dicit: Vero ergo carnis illius sacramentum est, distinguens sacramentum carnis a veritate carnis: quatenus in veritate carnis quam sumpserat de Virgine, diceret eum et crucifixum, et sepultum; quod vero nunc agitur in Ecclesia mysterium, verae illius carnis, in qua crucifixus est, diceret esse sacramentum: patenter fideles instituens, quod illa caro, secundum quam et crucifixus est Christus et sepultus, non sit mysterium, sed veritas naturae; haec vero caro, quae nunc similitudinem illius in mysterio continet, non sit specie caro, sed sacramento: si quidem in specie panis est, in sacramento verum Christi corpus, sicut ipse clamat Dominus Jesus: Hoc est corpus meum.

How diligently, how prudently made a distinction!  About the flesh of Christ which was crucified, which was buried, that is, according to which Christ was crucified and buried, he says: “And so the true flesh of Christ.”  Yet about that which is consumed in the Sacrament, he says: “Truly therefore it is the sacrament of His flesh,” distinguishing sacramentum carnis from veritas carnis [sacrament of the flesh from the truth of the flesh]–as far as in truth of the flesh which He assumed from the Virgin, he would say that He was both crucified and buried; but which thing now is done in the Church as mystery, of that true flesh in which He was crucified, he would say it is a sacrament–plainly directing the faithful how that flesh, according to which Christ was both crucified and buried, is not mystery, but the truth of nature; but this flesh, which now contains its similitude in mystery, is not flesh in appearance, but in sacrament–even if it is bread in appearance, in sacrament it is the true body of Christ, just as the Lord Jesus Himself acclaimed: This is My body.

[interesting that he moves from “true flesh” in Ambrose to “truth of the flesh”.  Also from flesh back to body at the end]

58. Item in consequentibus (ibid.): <Quid comedamus, quid bibamus, alibi tibi per Prophetam Spiritus sanctus expressit, dicens: Gustate, et videte quoniam suavis est Dominus: beatus vir qui sperat in eo (Psal. xxxiii, 9).>  Num corporaliter gustatus ille panis, aut illud vinum bibitum, ostendit quam sit suavis Dominus?  Quidquid enim sapit, corporale est et fauces delectat.  Nunquid Dominum gustare, corporeum est aliquid sentire?  Invitat ergo spiritualis gusti [gustus] saporem experiri, et in illo vel potu, vel pane, nihil corporaliter opinari, sed totum spiritualiter sentire, quoniam Dominus spiritus est, et beatus vir qui sperat in eo.

Again in the following (ibid.): “What we eat, what we drink, elsewhere to you through the Prophet has the Holy Spirit expressed, saying: ‘Taste and see that the Lord is sweet; blessed the man who hopes in Him’ (Psalm 33:9).”  How does that corporeally-tasted bread, or that drunk wine, show how sweet is the Lord?  For whatever has savor is corporeal and delights the throat.  Now is tasting the Lord the sensing of something corporeal?  Therefore it invites a savor of spiritual taste to be experienced, and in that drink or bread, nothing corporeally be supposed, but to sense entirely spiritually, for the Lord is spirit, and blessed the man who hopes in Him.

59. Item consequenter (ibid.): <In illo sacramento Christus est, quia corpus Christi est: non ergo corporalis esca, sed spiritualis est.>  Quid apertius? Quid manifestius? Quid divinius? Ait enim: <In illo sacramento Christus est.> Non enim ait: Ille panis, et illud vinum, Christus est.  Quod si diceret, Christum corruptibilem (quod absit) et mortalitati subjectum praedicaret: quidquid enim in illa esca vel cernitur vel gustatur corporaliter, corruptibilitati constat obnoxium esse.

Again consequently (ibid.): “In that sacrament Christ is, since it is the body of Christ–it is not therefore a corporeal food, but a spiritual one.”  What is more open? More manifest?  More divine?  For he says: “In that sacrament Christ is.”  For he does not say: That bread, and that wine, is Christ.  Which if he were to say, he would preach Christ corruptible (which is absurd) and subject to mortality; indeed whatever in that food is discerned or tasted corporeally, it is evident to be liable to corruptibility.

[constat impersonal here–not immediately obvious]

60. Addit: <Quia corpus Christi est.> Insurgis et dicis: Ecce manifeste illum panem et illum potum corpus esse Christi confitetur.  Sed attende [?] quemadmodum subjungit: <Non ergo corporalis esca, sed spiritualis est.>  Non igitur sensum carnis adhibeas, nihil enim secundum eum hic decernitur.  Est quidem corpus Christi, sed non corporale, sed spirituale: est sanguis Christi; sed non corporalis, sed spiritualis.  Nihil igitur hic corporaliter, sed spiritualiter sentiendum: corpus Christi est, sed non corporaliter; et sanguis Christi est, sed non corporaliter.

He adds: “Since it is the body of Christ.”  You arise and say: “Behold, manifestly he confesses that bread and that drink to be the body of Christ.”  But notice whatall he adds: “It is not therefore corporeal food, but spiritual.”  So you should not employ the sense of flesh, for nothing according to it is here discerned.  It is indeed the body of Christ, but not corporeal, rather spiritual; it is the blood of Christ, but not corporeal, rather spiritual.  Nothing then here corporeally but spiritually is to be sensed; it is the body of Christ, but not corporeally; and it is the blood of Christ, but not corporeally.

61. Item consequenter (ibid.): <Unde et Apostolus, inquit, de typo eius ait: Quia patres nostri escam spiritualem manducaverunt, et potum spiritualem biberunt (I Cor. x, 3, 4).  Corpus enim Dei spirituale est: corpus Christi, corpus est divini Spiritus: quia spiritus Christus, ut legimus in Threnis: Spiritus ante faciem nostram Christus Dominus (Thren. Iv, 20).>

Again consequently (ibid.): “Whence also the Apostle,” he says, “says of its type: ‘Since our fathers at the spiritual food, and drank the spiritual drink (I Cor 10:3-4).’  For the body of God is spiritual–it is the body of Christ, the body of the divine Spirit–since Christ is spirit, as we read in Lamentations: ‘The Spirit before our face is Christ the Lord (Lamentations 4:20).’”

[WHOA, Threnis threw me for a huge loop.  It’s the Greek title of the book of Lamentations, transliterated into Latin.  Thanks, Google!  Clearly I should read my Vulgate more]

62. Luculentissime sanguinis et corporis Christi mysterium quemadmodum debeamus intelligere docuit.  Cum enim dixisset patres nostros escam spiritualem manducasse, et potum spiritualem bibisse; cum tamen manna illud quod comederunt, et aquam quam biberunt, corporea fuisse nemo qui dubitet, adjungit de mysterio quod in Ecclesia nunc agitur, definiens secundum quid corpus sit Christi: <Corpus enim Dei, inquiens, corpus est spirituale.>  Deus utique Christus; et corpus quod sumpsit de Maria Virgine, quod passum, quod sepultum est, quod resurrexit, corpus utique verum fuit, id est quod visibile atque palpabile manebat.  At vero corpus quod mysterium Dei dicitur, non est corporale, sed spirituale: quod si spirituale, iam non visibile neque palpabile.  Hinc beatus Ambrosius subjungit: <Corpus, inquiens, Christi, corpus est divini Spiritus.>  Divinus autem Spiritus nihil corporeum, nihil corruptibile, nihil palpabile quod sit, existit.  At hoc corpus quod in Ecclesia celebratur, secundum visibilem speciem et corruptibile est et palpabile.

Most splendidly has he taught whatever we ought to understand (about) the mystery of the blood and body of Christ.  For when he said that our fathers ate spiritual food and drank spiritual drink, since nevertheless the manna which they ate, and water which they drank, were corporeal, which none doubt, he adds concerning the mystery which is done now in the Church, defining according to what is the body of Christ: “For the Body of God,” he is saying, “is a spiritual body.”  God is at any rate Christ; and the body which He assumed of Mary the Virgin, which suffered, which was buried, which rose, was at any rate a true body, that is something visible and palpable it remained.  Yet the body which is called the mystery of God is not corporeal but spiritual; which if spiritual, now not visible nor palpable.  Here blessed Ambrose adds: “The body,” he is saying, “of Christ is the body of the divine Spirit.”  Now nothing corporeal,  nothing corruptible, nothing which is palpable is the divine Spirit.  Yet this body which is celebrated in the Church, according to visible species is corruptible and palpable.

63. Quomodo ergo divini Spiritus corpus esse dicitur?  Secundum hoc utique quod spirituale est, id est, secundum quod invisibile consistit et impalpabile, ac per hoc incorruptibile.

How then is it called the body of the divine Spirit?  According to this at any rate it is what is spiritual, that is, according to what stands invisible and untouchable, and through this incorruptible.

64. Hinc in consequentibus (ibid.): <Quia Spiritus Christus, ut legimus: Spiritus ante faciem nostram Christus Dominus.>  Patenter ostendit secundum quod habeatur corpus Christi, id est divini potentia Verbi, quae non solum animam pascit, verum etiam purgat.

Hence in the following (ibid.): “Since Christ is Spirit, as we read, ‘The Spirit before our face is Christ the Lord.’”  Plainly he shows how the body of Christ should be held, that is, by the power of the divine Word, which not only feeds souls, but also truly washes them.

65. Propter quod ipse dicit auctor consequenter (ibid.): <Denique cor nostrum esca ista confirmat, et potus iste laetificat cor hominis (Psal. ciii, 15), ut Propheta commemoravit.>  Num esca corporalis cor hominis confirmat, et potus corporeus laetificat cor hominis?  Sed ut ostenderet quae esca vel qui potus sint de quibus loquitur, addidit signanter, esca ista, vel potus iste. <Quae ista? Vel qui iste? Corpus nimirum Christi, corpus divini Spiritus; et ut apertius inculcetur, spiritus Christus, de quo loquitur: Spiritus ante faciem nostram Christus Dominus.>  Quibus omnibus evidenter ostenditur nihil in esca ista, nihil in potu isto corporaliter sentiendum, sed totum spiritualiter attendendum.

On account of which the same author says consequently (ibid.): “And hence that spiritual food confirms our heart, and that drink makes glad the heart of man (Psalm 103:15), as the Prophet commemorated.”  How does corporeal food confirm the heart of man, and corporeal drink make glad the heart of man?  But that he might show what sort are the food and drink about which he is speaking, he added signally, “that food” or “that drink.”  Which (food) is that?  Or which (drink) is that?  The body of Christ, no wonder, the body of the divine Spirit; and that it may be driven home, it is the spirit Christ about which he speaks: ‘The spirit before our face is Christ the Lord.’” By all these things it is plainly shown that nothing in that food, nothing in that drink, is to be seen corporeally, but entirely spiritually is it to be grasped.

66. Non enim anima, quae corde hominis praesenti loco significatur, vel esca corporea, vel potu corporeo pascitur, sed verbo Dei nutritur ac vegetatur: quod apertius in libro v Sacramentorum (cap. 4) doctor idem affirmat: <Non iste panis est, inquiens, qui vadit in corpus; sed ille panis vitae aeternae, qui animae nostrae substantiam subministrat.>

For the soul, which by the heart of man in the present place is signified, is fed not by corporeal food or corporeal drink, but by the word of God is nourished and grown: which more openly in book five of Sacraments (cap. 4) the same teacher affirms: “It is not that bread,” he is saying, “which goes into the body; but that bread of life eternal, which supplies the substance of our soul.”

[usually his phrase is “the substance of life eternal”–possibly we should break up the editorial punctuation at the end there and put vitae aeternae inside the qui clause.  Of course, it could just be a variation]

67. Et quia non de communi pane dixerit hoc [?] sanctus Ambrosius, verum de pane corporis Christi, sequentia lectionis manifestissime declarant: loquitur enim de pane quotidiano, quem credentes sibi postulant dari.

And since holy Ambrose said this not of common bread, but truly of the bread of Christ’s body, the following (words) of the reading most manifestly declare–for he speaks of the daily bread, which believers ask be given them.

68. Et idcirco subjungit: <Si quotidianus est panis, cur post annum illum sumis; quemadmodum Graeci in Oriente facere consuerunt?  Accipe ergo quotidie quod quotidie tibi prosit: sic vive, ut quotidie merearis accipere.>  Ergo manifestum de quo pane loquitur, de pane videlicet corporis Christi, qui non ex eo quod vadit in corpus, sed ex eo quod panis sit vitae aeternae, animae nostrae substantiam fulcit.

And so he adds: “If daily is the bread, why after that year do you eat, just as the Greeks in the east are accustomed to do?  Receive therefore daily what daily is placed before you; so live, that daily you may merit to receive.”  Therefore he speaks plainly of which bread, of the bread obviously of the body of Christ, which supports the substance of our soul not from that which goes into the body, but from that which is the bread of life eternal.

[bit shaky on ergo manifestum…loquitur, but I think I got it]

LXIX.  Huius doctissimi viri auctoritate perdocemur quod multa differentia separatur corpus in quo passus est Christus, et sanguis quem pendens in cruce de latere suo profudit, et hoc corpus quod in mysterio passionis Christi quotidie a fidelibus celebratur, et ille quoque sanguis qui fidelium ore sumitur, ut mysterium sit illius sanguinis quo totus redemptus est mundus.  Iste namque panis et iste potus non secundum quod videntur corpus sive sanguis existunt Christi, sed secundum quod spiritualiter vitae substantiam subministrat.  Illud vero corpus in quo semel passus est Christus, non aliam speciem praeferebat quam in qua consistebat; hoc enim erat quod vere videbatur, quod tangebatur, quod crucifigebatur, quod sepeliebatur.  Similiter sanguis illius de latere manans, non aliud apparebat exterius et aliud interius obvelabat; verus itaque sanguis de vero corpore profluebat.  At nunc sanguis Christi quem credentes ebibunt, et corpus quod comedunt, aliud sint in specie et aliud in significatione: aliud, quod pascunt corpus esca corporea; et aliud, quod saginant mentes aeternae vitae substantia.

By the authority of this most learned man let us be truly taught that by much difference is separated the body in which Christ suffered, and the blood which hanging on the Cross He poured forth from His own side, and this body which in the mystery of the passion of Christ daily is celebrated and that blood also which by the mouth of the faithful is consumed, so that it be the mystery of that blood by which the whole world is redeemed.  For that bread and that drink are the body and blood of Christ not according to what is seen, but according to what spiritually supplies the substance of life.  That body in which Christ suffered but once bears no other appearance than that in which it consisted; for this was what truly was seen, what was touched, what was crucified, what was buried.  Similarly the blood flowing from the side of that body, did not appear one thing outwardly and conceal another inwardly; and so true blood flowed forth from true body.  Yet now the blood of Christ which believers drink, and the body which they eat, they are one thing in appearance and another in signification; the one, because they feed the body with corporeal food; and the other, because they fatten minds by the substance of eternal life.

[wish there were an easy way to show which pairs are being contrasted at the beginning there]

70. De qua re beatus Hieronymus in commentario Epistolae Pauli ad Ephesios, ita scribit: <Dupliciter sanguis Christi et caro intelligitur: vel spiritualis illa atque divina, de qua ipse dicit: Caro mea vere est cibus, et sanguis meus vere est potus (Joan. vi, 56); vel caro, quae crucifixa est, et sanguis qui militis effusus est lancea.>

Concerning which matter the blessed Jerome in his commentary of Paul’s Epistle to the Ephesians, so writes: “Two-fold-wise are the blood of Christ and the flesh understood: either that spiritual and divine, about which He says: ‘My flesh is true food, and my blood is true drink’ (John 6:56), or the flesh which was crucified, and the blood which flowed forth by the soldier’s lance.”

71. Non parva doctor iste differentia corporis et sanguinis Christi fecit distinctionem.  Namque dum carnem vel sanguinem quae quotidie sumuntur a fidelibus, spiritualia dicit esse; at vero caro quae crucifixa est, et sanguis qui militis effusus est lancea, non spiritualis esse dicuntur neque divina, patenter insinuat, quod tantum inter se differunt quantum differunt corporalia et spiritualia, visibilia et invisibilia, divina atque humana: et quod a se differunt, non idem sunt.  Differunt autem caro spiritualis quae fidelium ore sumitur, et sanguis spiritualis qui quotidie credentibus potandus exhibetur, a carne quae crucifixa est, et a sanguine qui militis effusus est lancea; sicut auctoritas praesentis viri testificatur: non igitur idem sunt.

By no small difference does that teacher make distinction of the body and blood of Christ.  For when the flesh or blood which daily are consumed by the faithful he calls spiritual things, yet indeed the flesh which was crucified and the blood which was poured out by the soldier’s lance he calls neither spiritual nor divine, patently does he insinuate that so much do they differ among themselves as differ things corporeal and things spiritual, things visible and things invisible, things divine and things human–and because they differ among themselves, they are not the same.  Now they differ, the spiritual flesh which is consumed by the mouth of the faithful and the spiritual blood which daily is seen to be drunk by believers, [they differ] from the flesh which was crucified, and from the blood which was poured out by the soldier’s lance; just as they authority of the present man testifies–they are therefore not the same!

72. Illa namque caro quae crucifixa est, de Viriginis carne facta est, ossibus et nervis compacta, et humanorum membrorum lineamentis distincta, rationalis animae spiritu vivificata in propriam vitam et congruentes motus.  At vero caro spiritualis quae populum credentem spiritualiter pascit, secundum speciem quam gerit exterius, frumenti granis manu artificis consistit, nullis nervis ossibusque compacta, nulla membrorum varietate distincta, nulla rationali substantia vegetata, nullos proprios motus potens exercere.  Quidquid enim in ea vitae praebet substantiam, spiritualis est potentiae et invisibilis efficientiae, divinaeque virtutis: atque aliud longe consistit secundum quod exterius conspicitur, atque aliud secundum quod in mysterio creditur.  Porro caro Christi quae crucifixa est, non aliud exterius quam quod interius erat, ostendebat: quia vera caro veri hominis existebat, corpus utique verum in veri corporis specie consistens.

For that flesh which was crucified, which of the Virgin’s flesh was made, set fast by bones and thews, and distinguished by the lineaments of human members, vivified by the spirit of a rational soul into its own life and congruent motions.  Yet truly the spiritual flesh which spiritually feeds the believing people, according to the appearance which it outwardly bears, consists in seeds of grain from the hand of the craftsman, set fast by no thews and bones, distinguished by no variety of members, a vegetative substance with no reason, able to exercise no proper movements.  For whatever in them provides the substance of life, is of spiritual power and invisible efficacy and divine strength; and so the one by far consists according to what is outwardly beheld, and the other according to what is believed in mystery.  Further, the flesh of Christ which was crucified he was showing was not other outwardly than what it was inwardly, since it was true flesh of true man, at any rate a true body consisting in the appearance of a true body.

73.  Considerandum quoque quod in pane illo non solum corpus Christi, verum etiam in eum credentis populi figuretur: unde multis frumenti granis conficitur, quia corpus populi credentis multis per verbum Christi fidelibus augmentatur. (vid. Numm. 96 et 98)

It is to be considered also that in that bread not only is the body of Christ, but truly also it is figure of the people believing in Him; whence from many seeds of grain is it made, since the body of the believing people is grown from many faithful through the word of Christ.

[grammar on the first line after verum etiam?]

[beginning of inclusio]

74. Qua de re, sicut in mysterio panis ille Christi corpus accipitur, sic etiam in mysterio membra populi credentis in Christum intimantur; et sicut non corporaliter sed spiritualiter panis ille credentium corpus dicitur, sic quoque Christi corpus non corporaliter sed spiritualiter necesse est intelligatur.

About which thing, just as in mystery that bread is accepted to be the body of Christ, so also in mystery are the members of the people believing in Christ intimated; and just as not corporeally but spiritually is that bread called the body of believers, so also the body of Christ not corporeally but spiritually must be understood.

75. Sic et in vino qui sanguis Christi dicitur, aqua misceri jubetur, nec unum sine altero permittitur offerri, quia nec populus sine Christo, nec Christus sine populo; sicut nec caput sine corpore, vel corpus sine capite, valet existere.  Aqua denique in illo sacramento populi gestat imaginem. (Vide num. 81)  Igitur si vinum illud sanctificatum per ministrorum officium, in Christi sanguinem corporaliter convertitur; aqua quoque, quae pariter admista est, in sanguinem populi credentis necesse est corporaliter convertatur.  Ubi namque una sanctificatio est, una consequenter operatio; et ubi par ratio, par quoque consequitur mysterium.  At videmus in aqua secundum corpus nihil esse conversum, consequenter ergo et in vino nihil corporaliter ostensum. Accipitur spiritualiter quidquid in aqua de populi corpore significatur; accipiatur ergo necesse est spiritualiter quidquid in vino de Christi sanguine intimatur.

So also in the wine which is called the blood of Christ, water is commanded to be mixed, nor is one without the other permitted to be offered, since neither is the people without Christ nor Christ without the people; so also neither the head without the body, nor the body without the head, is able to exist.  And so water in that sacrament bears the image of the people.  Therefore if that wine sanctified through the office of ministers is converted into the blood of Christ corporeally, the water also, which equally is mixed, is converted necessarily into the blood of the believing people corporeally.  For where there is one sanctification, there is consequently one operation; and where there is equal ratio, equal mystery follows also.  Yet we see in the water nothing converted according to the body, consequently therefore also in the wine nothing corporeally shown.  It is accepted spiritually, whatever in the water is signified about the body of the people; it must therefore be accepted spiritually whatever in the wine intimates about the blood of Christ.

[cool draw on liturgical practice/law…super sketchy, but cool]

76.  Item, quae a se differunt idem non sunt.  Corpus Christi quod mortuum est et resurrexit, et immortale factum iam non moritur, et mors illi ultra non dominabitur (Rom. vi, 9), aeternum est, nec iam passibile: hoc autem quod in Ecclesia celebratur, temporale est, non aeternum; corruptibile est, non incorruptum; in via est, non in patria.  Differunt igitur a se, quapropter non sunt idem.  Quomodo verum corpus Christi dicitur et verus sanguis?

Again, which things differ of themselves are not the same.  The body of Christ which died and rose, and made immortal now dies not, and death shall no longer dominate it, is eternal, nor now passable; but this which is celebrated in the Church is temporal, not eternal; it is corruptible, not incorruptible; it is on the way, not in patria.  Therefore they differ of themselves, on account of which they are not the same.  How is it called the true body of Christ, and the true blood?

77. Si enim corpus Christi est; et hoc dicitur vere quia corpus Christi est: in veritate corpus Christi est; et si in veritate corpus Christi, et corpus Christi incorruptibile est, et impassibile est, ac per hoc aeternum.  Hoc igitur corpus Christi quod agitur in Ecclesia, necesse est ut incorruptibile sit et aeternum.  Sed negari non potest corrumpi quod per partes comminutum dispariter sumendum, et dentibus commolitum in corpus trajicitur.  Sed aliud est quod exterius geritur, aliud vero quod per fidem creditur: ad sensum quod pertinet corporis, corruptibile; quod fides vero credit, incorruptibile.  Exterius igitur quod apparet, non est ipsa res, sed imago rei; mente vero quod sentitur et intelligitur, veritas rei.

For if it is the body of Christ, this also is said truly since the body of Christ it is: it is the body of Christ in veritate; and if in veritate the body of Christ, also the body of Christ is incorruptible, also is it impassible, and through this eternal. Therefore this body of Christ which is done in the Church, it is necessary that it be incorruptible and eternal.  But it cannot be denied that it is corrupted, what is broken through its parts, unequally consumed and shattered by teeth, trajected into the body.  But it is one thing that outwardly is done, and another which is believed through faith; what pertains to the sense of body is corruptible; but what faith believes, incorruptible.  Therefore what appears outwardly is not the thing itself, but an image of the thing; while what is sensed and understood by the mind is the truth of the thing.

[sorry, trajected was too fun to write]

[vero is the strongest adversative.  Those are MIGHTY contrasts at the end]

78. Hinc beatus Augustinus in Evangelii Joannis Expositione (tract. xxvi), dum de corpore Christi loqueretur et sanguine, sic ait: <Manducavit et Moyses manna, manducavit et Aaron, manducavit et Phinees, manducaverunt ibi multi qui Deo placuerunt, et mortui sunt.  Quare?  Quia visibilem cibum spiritualiter intellexerunt, spiritualiter esurierunt, spiritualiter gustaverunt, ut spiritualiter satiarentur.  Nam et nos hodie accipimus visibilem cibum; sed aliud est sacramentum, aliud virtus sacramenti.>  Item in posterioribus: Hic est panis, qui de coelo descendit (Joan. vi, 59).  Hunc panem significavit manna, hunc panem significavit altare Dei.  Sacramenta illa fuerunt; in signis diversa sunt; in re quae significatur, paria sunt.  Apostolum audi: Nolo vos ignorare, fratres, quia patres nostri omnes sub nube fuerunt, et omnes eamdem escam spiritualem manducaverut, et omnes eumdem potum spiritualem biberunt (I Cor. x, 1-4).  Spiritualem utique, eamdem; non corporalem alterum; quia illi manna, nos aliud: spiritualem vero, quam nos.  Et adjungit: <Et omnes eumdem potum spiritualem biberunt.  Aliud illi, aliud nos, sed specie visibili: quod tamen hoc idem significaret virtute spirituali.  Quomodo enim, eumdem potum?  Bibebant, inquit, de spirituali sequenti eos petra: petra autem erat Christus.  Inde panis unde potus.  Petra Christus in signum, verus Christus in Verbo et in carne.>

Hence blessed Augustine in Exposition of the Gospel of John (xxvi), when he speaks of the body of Christ and the blood, so says, “And Moses ate the manna, also Aaron ate, also Phineas ate, they ate there many who pleased God, and they died.  Why?  Because a visible food they understood spiritually, they hungered spiritually, they tasted spiritually, that they might be satisfied spiritually.  For we also today accept a visible food; but the sacrament is one thing, the power of the sacrament another.”  Again in further words: “This is the bread which from heaven descended (John 6:59).”  This bread manna signified, this bread the altar of God signified.  They were sacraments; they differed in signs; in the thing which they signified, they were equals.  I hear the Apostle: “I do not wish you to be ignorant, brethren, since our fathers all were under the cloud, and all drank the same spiritual food (I Cor 10:1-4).”  Certainly spiritual, the same; not corporeal the other; since they manna, we another: but spiritual which we [he’s hiding a verb of to eat here, right???]. And he adds: “‘And all drank the same spiritual drink.’  One thing they, another we, but by visible appearance: because this signifies the same thing by spiritual power.  How then, ‘the same drink?’  ‘They drank,’ he says, ‘from the spiritual rock following them; and the rock was Christ.’  Hence the bread whence the drink.  Christ the Rock in sign, true Christ in the Word and in flesh.”

[as for the bread, so for the drink…inde panis, unde potus…I think.  I can’t find a reference anywhere to this kind of usage for that pair]

79. <Item: Hic est panis de coelo descendens: ut si quis ex ipso manducaverit, non moriatur.  Sed quod pertinet ad virtutem sacramenti, non quod pertinet ad visibile sacramentum; qui manducat intus, non foris; qui manducat in corde, non qui premit dente.>

Again: “this is the bread descending from heaven; so that if any eat of it, he shall not die.  But what pertains to the power of the sacrament, pertains not to the visible sacrament; who eats inwardly, not outwardly; who eats in the heart, not who presses with teeth.”

80. Item in posterioribus verba Salvatoris introducens, ita dicit: Hoc vos scandalizat, quia dixi: Carnem meam do vobis manducare, et sanguinem meum bibere?  Si ergo videritis filium hominis ascendentem ubi erat prius? (Joan. vi, 62, 63)  Quid est hoc?  Hinc solvit quod illos moverat, hinc aperuit unde fuerant scandalizati.  Illi enim putabant eum erogaturum corpus suum: ille autem dixit se ascensarum in coelum utique integrum: Cum videritis filium hominis ascendentem ubi erat prius.  Certe vel tunc videbitis, quia non eo modo quo putatis erogat corpus; certe vel tunc intelligetis quia gratis eius non consumitur morsibus; et ait: Spiritus est qui vivificat, caro non prodest (Ibid. 64).

Again in further matters introducing the words of the Savior, he speaks thus: “Does this scandalize you, since I said: ‘My flesh I give you to eat, and my blood to drink?’ If therefore you see the Son of Man ascending where He was before?” (John 6:62-63).  What is this?  Hence He looses what moved them, hence He opened whence they were scandalized.  For they were thinking He would pay out His body–for He said He would ascend into heaven certainly whole and entire: “When you see the Son of Man ascending where He was before.”  Or certainly then you will see, since not in that way in which you are thinking does He give His body; or certainly then you will understand since His grace is not consumed in morsels; and He says: “It is the Spirit which vivifies, flesh profits not.” (John 6:64)

81.  Et pluribus interpositis, rursus adjicit: Quisquis autem, inquit idem Apostolus, Spiritum Christi non habet, hic non est eius (Rom. vi, 9).  Spiritus ergo est qui vivificat: caro autem non prodest quidquam.  Verba quae ego locutus sum vobis, spiritus et vita sunt (Joan. vi, 64).  Quid est, spiritus et vita sunt?  Spiritualiter intelligenda sunt.  Intellexisti spiritualiter, spiritus et vita sunt.  Intellexisti carnaliter, etiam spiritus et vita sunt, sed tibi non sunt.

And many things interposed, again he adds: “‘Whoever then,’ says the same Apostle, ‘has not the Spirit of Christ, this one is not of Him (Romans 6:9).’  Therefore it is the Spirit who vivifies–flesh, however, profits not anything.  ‘The words which I have spoken to you, they are spirit and life.’ (John 6:64)  What is ‘they are spirit and life?’  Spiritually are they to be understood.  You have understood spiritually, they are spirit and life.  You have understood carnally, also they are spirit and life, but not for you.

[weird way to express conditionals, with that si-less perfect construction.]

82.  Huius auctoritate doctoris verba Domini tractantis de sacramento sui corporis et sanguinis, manifeste docemur, quod illa verba Domini spiritualiter et non carnaliter intelligenda sunt; sicut ipse ait: Verba quae ego loquor vobis, spiritus et vita sunt.  Verba utique de sua carne manducanda, et de suo sanguine bibendo.  Inde enim loquebatur unde discipuli fuerant scandalizati.  Ergo ut non scandalizarentur revocat eos divinus Magister de carne ad spiritum, de corporea visione ad intelligentiam invisibilem.

By the authority of this teacher treating the word of the Lord about the sacrament of His body and blood, manifestly are we taught that those word of the Lord spiritually and not carnally are to be understood; just as He says: “The words which I am speaking to you, they are spirit and life.”  Words obviously about His flesh to be eaten and His blood to be drunk.  For whence he is speaking whence the disciples were scandalized.  Therefore that they not be scandalized He recalls them, the divine master does, from flesh to spirit, from corporeal vision to invisible understanding.

[another inde…unde…]

83.  Videmus ergo: esca illa corporis Domini, et potus ille sanguinis eius, secundum quid vere corpus eius et vere sanguis eius existunt, videlicet secundum quod spiritus et vita sunt.

Thus we see: that food of the Lord’s body, and that drink of His blood, according to something (secundum quid in the medieval sense) truly His body and truly His blood are, obviously according to which they are spirit and life.

[looser–they are the body and blood in a certain respect: namely, as spirit and life.]

84.  Item, quae idem sunt, una definitione comprehenduntur.  De vero corpore Christi dicitur quod sit verus Deus et verus homo: Deus, qui ex Deo Patre ante saecula natus; homo, qui in fine saeculi ex Maria virgine genitus.  Haec autem dum de corpore Christi quod in Ecclesia per mysterium geritur dici non possunt, secundum quemdam modum corpus Christi esse cognoscitur; et modus iste in figura est et imagine, ut veritas res ipsa sentiatur.

Again, which things are the same are comprehended by one definition.  About the true body of Christ it is said that it is true God and true man–God, who was born from God the Father before the ages; man, who at the end of the age was born of the virgin Mary.  Now these things, while they cannot be said about the body of Christ which in the Church through mystery is done, according to to some mode the body of Christ it is understood to be; and that mode is in figure and image, so that the truth is sensed in the thing itself.

[smoother: When (since!) these things cannot be said of the body of Christ which is celebrated in the Church as a mystery, the body of Christ is understood to be according to some mode; and this mode is in figure and image…]

[also, to address the argument for a moment, it’s suuuuuper illegit to switch from “body” to “person.”]

85.  In orationibus quae post mysterium corporis sanguinisque Christi dicuntur, et a populo respondetur, Amen; sic sacerdotis voce dicitur: Pignus aeternae vitae capientes, humiliter imploramus ut quod in imagine contingimus sacramenti, manifesta participatione sumamus.

In the orisons which are said after the mystery of the body and blood of Christ, and “Amen” is answered by the people; so it is said by the voice of the priest: “Taking the pledge of eternal life, humbly we implore that what we touch in the image of this sacrament, we may take on by manifest participation.”

86. Et pignis enim et imago, alterius rei sunt, id est non ad se sed ad aliud aspiciunt.  Pignus enim illius rei est pro qua donatur; imago illius cuius similitudinem ostendit.  Significant enim ista rem cuius sunt, non manifeste ostendunt.  Quod cum ita est, apparet quod hoc corpus et sanguis pignus et imago rei sunt futurae; ut quod nunc per similitudinem ostenditur, in futuro per manifestationem reveletur.  Quod si nunc significant, in futuro autem patefacient, aliud est quod nunc geritur, aliud quod in futuro manifestabitur.

For pledge and image both are of another thing, that is not to themselves but to another they regard.  For a pledge is of that thing for which it is given; an image is of that whose likeness it shows.  For they signify those things whose res they are, they do not show manifestly.  Since this is so, it appears that this body and blood are pledge and image of a future thing; so that what now is shown through likeness, in the future would be revealed through manifestation.  Which, if they now signify, yet in the future they will make plain; it is one thing which now is done, another which in the future will be manifested.

87. Qua de re et corpus Christi et sanguis est quod Ecclesia celebrat, sed tanquam pignus, tanquam imago.  Veritas vero erit, cum iam nec pignus nec imago, sed ipsius rei veritas apparebit.

Concerning which matter both the body of Christ and the blood is what the Church celebrates, but as a pledge, as an image.  Whereas the truth shall be when pledge and image no longer, but the truth of that thing appears.

88. Item alibi: Perficiant in nobis, Domine, quaesumus, tua sacramenta quod continent: ut quae nunc specie gerimus, rerum veritate capiamus.  Dicit quod in specie gerantur ista, non in veritate; id est per similitudinem, non per ipsius rei manifestationem.  Differunt autem a se species et veritas.  Quapropter corpus et sanguis quod in Ecclesia geritur, differt ab illo corpore et sanguine quod in Christi corpore iam glorificatum cognoscitur.  Et hoc corpus pignus est et species; illud vero ipsa veritas.  Hoc enim geretur donec ad illud perveniantur; ubi vero ad illud perventum fuerit, hoc removebitur.

Again elsewhere: “May Thy sacraments perfect in us, O Lord, we pray, which thing they contain so that what now in appearance we conduct, we may grasp in the truth of the things.”  He says that those things are done in appearance, not in truth; that is through likeness, not through manifestation of the thing itself.  Now they differ of themselves, appearance and truth.  Therefore the body and blood which in the Church are conducted differ from that body and blood which in the body of Christ is known to be now glorified.  And this body is pledge and appearance; but that one is truth itself.  For this is done until they are come to that one; but when to that one it shall have been come, this shall be removed.

[Rescued from Migne’s footnote: The uncited passage is from Missa in Sabbato Quatuor Temporum, mensis vii–Lib. Sacrament. S. Gregorii, p135 ed. Hug. Menardi]

89. Apparet itaque quod multa intra se differentia separantur, quantum est inter pignus et eam rem pro qua pignus traditur, et quantum inter imaginem et rem cuius est imago; et quantum inter speciem et veritatem.  Videmus itaque multa differentia separari mysterium sanguinis et corporis Christi quod nunc a fidelibus sumitur in Ecclesia, et illud quod natum est de Maria virgine, quod passum, quod sepultum, quod resurrexit, quod coelos ascendit, quod ad dexteram Patris sedet.  Hoc namque quod agitur in via spiritualiter est accipiendum, quia fides quod non videt, credit, et spiritualiter pascit animam, et laetificat cor, et vitam praebet aeternam et incorruptionem, dum non attenditur quod corpus pascit, quod dente premitur, quod per partes comminuitur, sed quod in fide spiritualiter accipitur.  At vero corpus illud in quo passus est et resurrexit Christus, proprium eius corpus existit, de Virginis Mariae corpore sumptum, palpabile seu visibile, etiam post resurrectionem, sicut ipse discipulis ait: Palpate et videte quia spiritus carnem et ossa non habet sicut me videtis habere (Luc. xxiv, 39).

And so it is apparent that many differences separate among them, as much as between pledge and that thing for which pledge is given, as much as between image and the thing whose image it is, as much as between appearance and truth.  And so we see that by many differences are they separated, the mystery of the blood and body of Christ which now is consumed by the faithful in the Church, and that which was born of Mary the virgin, which suffered, which was buried, which rose, which ascended the heavens, which sits at the right hand of the Father.  For this thing which is done in via is to be accepted spiritually, since faith believes what it sees not, and spiritually feeds the soul, and makes glad the heart, and provides life eternal and incorruption; while it is not attended what feeds the body, what is pressed by the teeth, what though its parts is ground up, but what in faith spiritually is accepted.  Yet truly that body in which Christ suffered and rose exists as His proper body, assumed from the body of the Virgin Mary, palpable or visible, even after the resurrection, just as He says to the disciples: “Touch and see, since spirit has not flesh and bones as you have seen me to have.” (Luke 24:39)

90. Audiamus etiam quod beatus Fulgentius in libello de Fide dicat (cap. 19): <Firmissime tene, et nullatenus dubites, ipsum unigenitum Deum Verbum carnem factum, se pro nobis obtulisse sacrificium, et hostiam Deo in odorem suavitatis; cui cum Patre et Spiritu sancto a patriarchis, et prophetis, et sacerdotibus, tempore Veteris Testamenti animalia sacrificabantur: et cui nunc, id est tempore Novi Testamenti, cum Patre et Spiritu sancto, cum quibus illi una est divinitas, sacrificium panis et vini, in fide et charitate, sancta catholica Ecclesia per universum orbem terrae offerre non cessat.  In illis enim carnalibus victimis significatio fuit carnis Christi, quam pro peccatis nostris ipse sine peccato fuerat oblaturus, et sanguinis quem erat effusurus in remissionem peccatorum nostrorum.  In isto autem sacrificio gratiarum actio atque commemoratio est carnis Christi quam pro nobis obtulit, et sanguinis quem pro nobis effudit.  De quo beatus Paulus apostolus dicit in Actibus apostolorum: “Attendite vobis et universo gregi in quo vos Spiritus sanctus posuit episcopos regere Ecclesiam Dei, quam acquisivit sanguine suo (Act. xx, 28).”  In illis ergo sacrificiis quid nobis esset donandum, figurate significabatur; in hoc autem sacrificio quid iam nobis donatum sit, evidenter ostenditur.>

Let us hear also what blessed Fulgentius says in his little book on Faith (cap. 19): “Most firmly hold and doubt no longer that the same Only Begotten God the Word was made flesh, offered Himself on our behalf as as sacrifice and victim to God in the odor of sweetness; to whom, with the Father and the Holy Spirit, animals were sacrificed by patriarchs and prophets and priests in the time of the Old Covenant; and to whom now, that is, the time of the New Covenant, with the Father and the Holy spirit, with whom they are one divinity, the sacrifice of bread and wine, in faith and charity, the Holy Catholic Church does not cease to offer throughout the entire earth.  For in those fleshly victims was signification of the flesh of Christ, which for our sins He Who was without sin would [one day] offer, and of the blood which He would [one day] pour out unto the remission of our sins.  While in that sacrifice of thanksgiving is the action and commemoration of the flesh of Christ which He offered for us, and of the blood which He poured out for us.  About which blessed Paul the Apostle says in the Acts of the Apostles: “Look to yourselves and to the entire flock in which the Holy Spirit has placed you as overseer to rule the Church of God, which He has acquired by His blood” (Acts 20:28).  Therefore in those former sacrifices what was to be given to us was signified in figure; while in this sacrifice what now has been given to us is evidently shown.”

[illi?? UGH]

91. Dicens quod in illis sacrificiis quid nobis esset donandum significabatur; in isto vero sacrificio quid sit donatum commemoretur, patenter innuit quod sicut illa figuram habuere futurorum, sic et hoc sacrificium figura sit praeteritorum.

Saying that in those former sacrifices what was to be given to us was signified, but in that sacrifice what was given is commemorated, plainly he signals that just as those former things have the figure of future things, so also this sacrifice is figure of past things.

92.  Quibus dictis, quanta differentia sit inter corpus in quo passus est Christus, et hoc corpus quod pro eius passionis commemoratione sive mortis sit, evidentissime declaravit.  Illud namque proprium et verum, nihil habens in se vel mysticum vel figuratum; hoc vero mysticum; aliud exterius per figuram ostentans, aliud interius per intellectum fidei repraesentans (vide num 91).

Which things having been said, how much difference there is between the body in which Christ suffered and this body which is for commemoration of His passion and death, he declares most evidently.  For that [body] is proper and true, having nothing in itself either mystical or figurative; but this [body] is mystical; the one showing outwardly through figure, the other representing inwardly through the understanding of faith.

93. Ponamus adhuc unum Patris Augustini testimonium, quod et dictorum fidem nostrorum astruat et sermonis marginem ponat.  In sermone quem fecit ad populum de Sacramento altaris sic infit: <Hoc quod videtis in altari Dei, iam transacta nocte vidistis; sed quid esset, quid sibi vellet, quam magnae rei sacramentum contineret nondum audivistis.  Quod ergo videtis, panis est et calix, quod vobis etiam oculi vestri renuntiant.  Quod autem fides vestra postulat instruenda, panis est corpus Christi, calix est sanguis Christi.  Breviter quidem hoc dictum est, quod fidei forte sufficiat; sed fides instructionem desiderat.  Dicit enim propheta: Nisi credideritis, non intelligetis (Isa. vii, 9).  Potestis ergo dicere mihi: Praecepisti ut credamus, expone ut intelligamus.  Potest enim animo cuiuspiam cogitatio talis oboriri: Dominus noster Jesus Christus novimus unde acceperit carnem, de virgine scilicet Maria; infans lactatus est, nutritus est, crevit, ad juvenilem aetatem perductus est, a Judaeis persecutionem passus est, ligno suspensus est, interfectus est, de ligno depositus est, sepultus est, tertio die resurrexit; quo die voluit, in coelum ascendit; illuc levavit corpus suum; inde venturus est judicare vivos et mortuos; ibi est modo sedens ad dexteram Patris.  Quomodo panis corpus eius? Et calix, vel quod habet calix, quomodo eius est sanguis?  Ista, fratres, ideo dicuntur sacramenta, quia in eis aliud videtur et aliud intelligitur: quod videtur, speciem habet corporalem; quod intelligitur, fructum habet spiritualem.

Let us place still further one testimony of Father Augustine, which builds on the faith of our words and marks the end of the sermon.  In the sermon which he makes to the people about the Sacrament of the altar he begins thus: “This thing which you see on the altar of God, you have seen already in the foregone night; but what it is, what it wishes for itself, how much of great a thing the sacrament contains, you have not yet heard.  What therefore you see is bread and chalice, and what your eyes announce to you.  But what your faith puts forth, needing to be taught, the bread is the body of Christ, the chalice is the blood of Christ.  Briefly indeed this is said, which is enough for faith strongly; but faith desires instruction.  For the prophet says: “Unless you believe, you shall not understand” (Isaiah 7:9).  Thus you are able to say to me: ‘You have commanded that we believe, explain that we may understand.’  For it can be that such a thought arises in the soul of anyone: ‘Our Lord Jesus Christ we know whence He received flesh, namely from the virgin Mary; as an infant He sucked, he nursed, grew, was led to juvenile age, suffered persecution by the Jews, was suspended from the tree, was slain, was taken down from the tree, was buried, on the third day arose; on which day He willed, He ascended into heaven; thither His body rose; thence He will come to judge the living and the dead; there He is in some way sitting at the right hand of the Father.  How is the bread His body?  And the chalice, or what the chalice holds, how is it His blood?  These things, brethren, are thus called sacraments, since in them one thing is seen and another understood–what is seen has corporeal appearance; what is understood has spiritual fruit.”

[is this the same author?  Stuff got weird here]

[Migne does not cite the sermon…Google says it’s 272, ad Infantes de Sacramento.  Oh, to have had formal training in Augustine…]

94.  Ista venerabilis auctor dicens instruit nos quid de proprio corpore Domini, quod de Maria natum, et nunc ad dexteram Patris sedet, et in quo venturus judicare vivos et mortuos; et quid de isto quod super altare ponitur et populo participatur, sentire debeamus.  Illud integrum est, neque ulla sectione dividitur, nec ullis figuris obvelatur: hoc vero quod supra mensam Domini continetur, et figura est, quia sacramentum est; et exterius quod videtur, speciem habet corpoream quae pascit corpus: interius vero quod intelligitur, fructum habet spiritualem qui vivificat animam.

The venerable author saying these things instructs us what we ought to think about the proper body of the Lord which was born of Mary and now sits at the right hand of the Father and in which He shall come to judge the living and the dead and what [we ought to think] about that which upon the altar is placed and shared to the people.  The former is whole, nor divided by any cutting, nor veiled by any figures, but the latter which is contained on the Lord’s table is also a figure, since it is a sacrament; and what is seen outwardly has corporeal appearance which feeds the body, while what is understood inwardly has spiritual fruit which makes live the soul.

95.  Et de hoc mystico corpore volens apertius et manifestius loqui, sic dicit in consequentibus (ibid., in fine; epist. S. Fulgentii ad Fernandum diaconum): <Corpus ergo Christi si vultis intelligere, Apostolum audite dicentem: Vos estis corpus Christi et membra (I Cor. xii, 27); mysterium vestrum in mensa Domini positum est, mysterium vestrum accipitis.  Ad id quod estis, Amen respondetis; et respondeo subscribitis.  Audis ergo, Corpus Christi, et respondens, Amen, esto membrum corporis Christi, ut verum sit Amen.  Quare ergo in pane?  Nihil hic de nostro afferamus; ipsum Apostolum dicentem audiamus, cum de isto sacramento loqueretur, ait: Unus panis, unum corpus multi sumus in Christo (I Cor. x, 17),> et reliqua.

And about this mystical body wishing openly and manifestly to speak, he so says in the following (ibid.): “Therefore the body of Christ if you wish to understand, hear the Apostle speaking: ‘You are the body of Christ and members’ (I Cor 12:27); your mystery is placed on the table of the Lord, your mystery is received.  To that which you are, you respond ‘Amen’; and I respond with the underwritten.  Therefore you hear ‘Body of Christ’ and responding, ‘Amen,’ do thou become a member of the body of Christ so that the ‘Amen’ be true.  How therefore in the bread?  Nothing here of ours would we report; let us hear the same Apostle speaking, when he speaks of that sacrament, he says: ‘One bread, one body, are we the many in Christ’ (I Cor 10:17)” and the rest.

[more of the same sermo 272]

XCVI.  Sanctus Augustinus satis nos instruit quod sicut in pane super altare positum corpus Christi signatur, sic etiam et corpus accipientis populi, ut evidenter ostendat quod corpus Christi proprium illud existat, in quo lactatus, in quo passus, in quo mortuus, in quo sepultus, in quo resurrexit, in quo coelos ascendit, in quo Patris ad dexteram sedet; in quo venturus est ad judicium.  Hoc autem quod supra mensam Dominicam positum est, mysterium continet illius, sicut etiam identidem mysterium continet corporis populi credentis, Apostolo testante: Unus panis, unum corpus multi sumus in Christo.

Holy Augustine well instructs us that just as in the bread placed upon the altar is the body of Christ signified, so also indeed the body of the receiving people, that plainly he may show that the body of Christ is that proper thing in which He nursed, in which He suffered, in which which He died, in which He was buried, in which He rose, in which He ascended the heavens, in which He sits at the right hand of the Father, in which He will come unto judgment.  Whereas this which is placed upon the Lordly table contains the mystery of that [body], just as also repeatedly it contains the mystery of the body of the believing people, with the Apostle testifying: ‘One bread, one body, are we the many in Christ.’

3 thoughts on “Ratramnus on the Eucharist (IV)

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