As several scholars have noted (in particular J. Geiselmann and J. McCue), the 11th
Century debates about the presence of Christ in the Eucharist can be
seen as a distinction between a more Ambrosian, and thus realist,
approach, and a more Augustinian, and thus symbolic, approach. It was
the burden of Berengar of Tours to justify his teaching in the light of
the apparent opposition of Ambrose and thus to rely on the support of
Augustine, whose De Doctrina Christiana, particularly Book III,
seemed to support his own position. Lanfranc of Canterbury and Guitmund
of Aversa, in their respective responses to Berengar, defended Augustine
and attempted to interpret the controversial passage in De Doctrina III
as harmonious with their realist understandings of the Eucharist. The
essay analyzes the various ways that Berengar, Lanfranc and Guitmond
used De Doctrina to support their positions, and argues that the
crux of the debate turned on which side could buttress sufficient
support from Augustine. This defense of De Doctrina III led, particularly in the thought of Guitmond, to the development of the possibility of holding that the Eucharist is both a sign and a reality, and that these two are not in opposition to one another. Although De Doctrina Christiana
provided much of the vocabulary and conceptual distinctions used in
later sacramental theology, it itself only explicitly discusses the
sacraments on a few occasions. The Berengarian controversy, however,
turned Augustine’s text on biblical interpretation into a sacramental
text.
No comments:
Post a Comment