These views were attacked by Florus and Quiercy. Their strange reappearance other writers. Emmaus. He sees a difficulty, however, in the fact that only a particle of the Host is put into the chalice, whereas JESUS CHRIST rose from the dead whole and entire. He endeavours to solve this difficulty by saying, JESUS CHRIST is in part risen and living in heaven, partly still upon earth. These extraordinary views of Amalarius were assailed by Florus, and after discussion were condemned condemned at by the Council of Quiercy-sur-Oise (837) and Amalarius was compelled to retract them. But afterwards they had a most curious history, in that they passed into in the works of the additions made to the Glossa Ordinaria of Walafrid Strabo, and also into the additions made to the treatise of Rabanus Maurus, De Institutione Clericorum. They were also introduced by Remi d'Auxerre (908) into a treatise, De Officiis, and in such a way connected with the statement that Pope Sergius revived the custom of reciting the Agnus Dei, that a careless reader would think that this opinion of Amalarius was really attributed to Sergius.* On this account it attracted the attention of many theologians, e. g., Peter Lombard, Innocent III., and S. Thomas Aquinas, though all these authors explain the supposed pontifical utterance in an orthodox manner, as indicating the effects produced by the Body of JESUS CHRIST in heaven, on earth, and in purgatory. The views of In a letter attributed, probably without reason, to Rabanus Maurus, this idea of a triple Body of our Blessed LORD is differently explained as referring to His Mystical Body the Church; to His Living and Integral Body, which pronounced the words of Consecration at the Last Supper, and reigns, risen from the dead, in heaven; and to His Body deprived of life and grace (sic), which was produced by the words of Con * Duchesne, Liber Pontificalis, p. 381, n. 82. secration at the Institution of the Holy Eucharist, and is still present in the Blessed Sacrament. Expositione most import- tion of cent.IX. These unorthodox views of Amalarius were bitterly attacked by Florus (ob. circa 860), the learned Deacon and head of the Cathedral School at Lyons, and were, as we have said, condemned by the Synod at Quiercysur-Oise. Florus, whose work, De Expositione Missæ, Florus' "De is the most valuable production of the ninth century on this subject, regards the Sacrifice of the Mass as the representation of the LORD'S Death, not on account of the words which are used in the liturgy, but by reason of the mysteries which are fulfilled in the Eucharist. He regards the Consecration as the essential part of the Sacrifice, and dwells on the substantial transformation which it produces. In his view the Consecration represents the Passion of our LORD because it is produced by the same love with which He loved us unto the end, and because it produces the same effects, applying to us through each Eucharist the blessings and graces which were merited for us by CHRIST upon the Cross.† Paschasius Radbertus (ob. 865) is best known for his investigations into the mode of our LORD's Presence in the Eucharist. His work is generally considered to have started the discussion of that great mystery which has engrossed the attention of theologians even down to our own days. The controversy began with an answer to the view set forth by Radbertus, written by Ratramnus of Corbey (ob. circa 868). Radbertus is theologically in accord with Florus, and refutes the Stercorianism of Amalarius, whose mystical treatment of the subject, however, he does not reject. * Florus, De Expos. Miss., Migue, P. L., tom. 119, col. 15 to 71. † Florus, De Expos. Miss., n. 63, col. 54, 55. The contro- Paschasius Walafrid Cents. X. and XI. added nothing to the subject. The attack of Cent. XII. a period of liturgical activity. Odo of Chartres, V. The view of Rabanus Maurus (ob. 856) and Walafrid Strabo (ob. 849) placed the memorial of the Passion in the prayer Unde et memores. We may pass over the tenth and eleventh centuries without remark, since the works which they produced were either compilations from Florus and Amalarius, * or liturgical treatises. During this period the Eucharistic Sacrifice was still regarded in its effects, and the representation of the Passion of JESUS CHRIST was referred rather to the liturgical acts which He Himself performed at the Last Supper than to the ceremonies of the liturgy. In the eleventh century, however, the attack of Berengarius upon the Real Presence of our LORD in the Blessed Sacrament, while it stimulated inquiry in this one direction, served to divert the attention of theologians from the sacrificial aspect of the Eucharist. In the next century we have another period of liturgical activity, for the twelfth century produced Odo of Cambrai, S. Ivo of Chartres, V. Hildebert of Mans (or of Tours), Peter the Venerable (of Cluny), the Englishman Robert Pulleyne, Algerus of Liége, William of S. Thiéry, and Peter Lombard, the "Master of the Sentences." Of these Odo of Cambrai (ob. 1113), S. Ivo of Chartres (ob. 1116), and V. Hildebert of Tours (ob. 1134) wrote works on the liturgy. As their support is claimed by the Modern school, we shall here pass them over, and consider their works more fully in Chapter IX. Peter the Venerable (ob. 1156) and William of S. Peter the Ven. Thiéry (ob. 1150) placed the representation of the * E. g., the work of Peter d'Auxerre. † E. g., the Micrologus, sometimes ascribed to S. Ivo of Chartres, and the Libellus of Bernon de Reichenau. Passion of our LORD in the fraction of the Host, and William of Peter seeing it in the fraction together with the S. Thiéry. Communion. Pulleyne. the first author to see in the double Consecration the image of the Passion. Robert Pulleyne (ob. circa 1147) is of special inter- Robert est to Englishmen, in that his Summary of Theology preceded the Sentences of Peter Lombard, which was so long the basis of the majority of theological treatises. Peter Lombard (ob. circa 1160) himself devoted but Peter Lombard small space in his great work to the treatment of the Sacrifice of the Mass, but he was the first author of the Middle Ages who placed the representation of the Passion in the double Consecration of the bread and wine; and so he may probably be considered as the source to which may be traced the view which sees in this double Consecration our LORD'S Body and Blood separated as by death. Peter Lombard, however, was far from grasping this whole conception, although he is entitled to the credit of having given the first hint which was afterwards developed into the theory so well stated by Bossuet. He had a peculiar theory about the sacramental species, in that he referred the Consecration of the bread to the Flesh of CHRIST, and that of the wine to the Soul of CHRIST, because, he says, the blood is the seat of the soul, and our LORD willed the Consecration to be made under the species of bread and wine, to show that He had taken human nature wholly, body and soul, in order to redeem it wholly, that is, to redeem our bodies and souls.* Algerus of Liége (ob. circa 1135) is by far the most im- Algerus of portant writer on the Eucharist in the twelfth century. While the purpose of his work was to refute the errors of Berengarius, he takes a wider survey of the Eucharist than any of his contemporaries, and shows consider * Lombard, Sent., 1. iv., dist. xi., n. 6. His peculiar theory about the species. Liége the ablest writer on the H. E. of cent. XII. Lombard's Innocent III., of Hales, and A strange theory about the Consecration able affinities with the early Greek Fathers, especially S. Gregory Nazianzen, in dwelling upon the oneness of the Eucharistic Service with the worship of heaven. The Middle Period ends with Albert the Great, the master and predecessor of S. Thomas. We have therefore still to notice the writers of the early part of the thirteenth century: Innocent III., William of Auvergne, Alexander of Hales, and Albert the Great. The theory started by Peter Lombard, that the species of bread represents our LORD's Body and the wine His Soul, we find reproduced in the thirteenth century by Innocent III., Albert the Great, Alexander of Hales, and S. Bonaventura. These theologians also still saw the image of the Passion in the liturgical ceremonies instituted by the Church, and make the Sacrifice of the Mass consist principally in the application of the effects of the Sacrifice of the Cross. With the exception of Alexander of Hales* none of them considered the double Consecration as producing the Body and Blood of our LORD separated as by death, and he only throws out as a passing thought this suggestion, which, as we have seen, had been hinted at by Peter Lombard. A strange tendency was then prevalent among theologians to insist upon the powerlessness of the words of each species. of each Consecration to produce exclusively that which they express; for, under the pretext that the Body of the risen Saviour could not be separated from His Blood, many held that JESUS CHRIST did not become present upon the altar until after the two Consecrations had taken place. William of William of Auvergne (ob. 1249) contributes a striking thought, which was developed by later theologians. * Alex. Hales, Summa, 1. iv., 9; x., n. 2, a. 2. |