Editing Ratramnus (section)

==The Eucharist==
Sometime around 831-833, Paschasius Radbertus, in his role as a teacher in the monastery at Corbie, wrote ''De corpore et sanguine Domini'' (''Concerning the Body and Blood of the Lord''), articulating the view that in the moment of consecration, the bread and wine on the altar became identical with the [[Body of Christ|body]] and [[Blood of Christ|blood]] of [[Jesus Christ]].<ref>Willemien Otten, "Between Augustinian sign and Carolingian reality: the presence of Ambrose and Augustine in the Eucharistic debate between Paschasius Radbertus and Ratramnus of Corbie," ''Nederlands archief voor kerkgeschiedenis'' 80, no. 2 (2000): 137-156, here 140.</ref> Paschasius was clear that the body and blood on the altar are precisely the same natural body and blood as Christ’s incarnate body on earth. In his description of the Eucharist, Paschasius drew a distinction between ''figura'' (figure) and ''veritas'' (truth), which he understood to mean “outward appearance” and “what faith teaches”, respectively.<ref>McCracken, ''Early Medieval Theology'', 92.</ref> No controversy seems to have arisen as a result of Paschasius’s treatise, which he first composed likely as a teaching aid and dedicated to one of his former students. Later, probably in 844, Paschasius also composed a revision of his book on the Eucharist, dedicated to Charles the Bald.<ref>Patricia McCormick Zirkel, "The Ninth-Century Eucharistic Controversy: A Context for the Beginnings of Eucharistic Doctrine in the West," ''Worship'' 68, no. 1 (1994): 2-23, here 5.</ref>

When [[Charles the Bald]] visited Corbie in 843, he apparently met Ratramnus and requested an explanation of the Eucharist. It was to the emperor, then, that Ratramnus addressed his work, also entitled ''De corpore et sanguine Domini''. In this book, Ratramnus advocated a spiritual view in which the bread and the wine of the Eucharist represent Christ’s body and blood figuratively and serve as a remembrance of him, but are not truly (perceptible by the senses) Christ’s body and blood.<ref>Otten, "Between Augustinian sign and Carolingian reality," 140.</ref> Ratramnus used the same two terms (''figura'' and ''veritas'') to describe the Eucharist as Paschasius, but used them differently. For him, ''veritas'' meant “perceptible to the senses”, so the Eucharist could not ''truly'' be Christ’s body and blood, as it – according to the senses – did not change in appearance, but remained bread and wine, nor was it literally Christ’s historical incarnate body.<ref>McCracken, ''Early Medieval Theology'', 111.</ref>

No condemnations were issued as a result of the debate, and neither of the two monks quoted or referred to the other in his work.<ref>McCracken, ''Early Medieval Theology'', 110-11.</ref> On account of this, Willemien Otten has challenged the traditional interpretation of Paschasius's and Ratramnus’s different positions as a “controversy”.<ref>Otten, "Between Augustinian sign and Carolingian reality," 143.</ref>