Alcuin of York : $b Lectures delivered in the cathedral church of Bristol in 1907 and 1908Browne, G. F. (George Forrest)
Religion
Alcuin of York : $b Lectures delivered in the cathedral church of Bristol in 1907 and 1908
Browne, G. F. (George Forrest)
Alcuin, 735-804
Alcuin is drawn by the Romans into the controversy on Transubstantiation,
which, as we have seen, had not commenced in his time. In a letter to
Paulinus, the Patriarch of Aquileia, dated about 787, he requests his
correspondent not to forget him in his prayers. “Store up my name in
some treasure-house of your memory, and bring it out at that fitting
time when you have consecrated the bread and wine into the substance of
the body and blood of Christ.” If that expression had been used after
the long controversy on the subject, it would have been very much more
important than at most it is. But it comes nearly fifty years before
the controversy was raised by Paschasius Radbert of Corbie in his
treatise _De Corpore et Sanguine Domini_ (A.D. 831). Paschasius wrote
that after consecration “there is nothing but the Body and Blood of
the Lord”, a material statement which Ratramn at once controverted. It
was Ratramn’s treatise, denying the carnal presence and maintaining a
spiritual view, that had a dominant influence on Ridley and Cranmer. The
more subtle refinement of the schoolmen of later times, which we know
as transubstantiation, avoids the blunt materialism of Paschasius by
distinguishing between an essential and a non-essential element of an
existence such as that of bread; giving to the essence which cannot be
apprehended by the senses the name of substance, and to the non-essential
the name of accident. The change effected by consecration did not, in
their view, affect the non-essential, the accident, the part that can
be perceived by the senses; it affected only that which can not be so
perceived, the essential, the substance. But all this is very far beyond
any point which had been reached in Alcuin’s time, or was reached for
some long time after him. From him we do not hear anything of substance
and accident, of essential and non-essential. He presumably used the
expression quoted as a simple and strong statement of his belief in a
very real presence, which he and the men of his time unquestionably held,
but did not attempt to define.
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Elsewhere in the archive
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account