What was the Eucharistic controversy between Ratramnus and Radbertus?

Historical Background

During the ninth century, a significant debate arose within the Carolingian Empire over the nature of the Eucharist, centering on two theologians from the monastery of Corbie in what is now France. These two monks—Paschasius Radbertus (often referred to as Radbertus) and Ratramnus—each wrote a treatise titled “De Corpore et Sanguine Domini” (On the Body and Blood of the Lord). Although they addressed the same scriptural themes and used similar language, they reached notably different conclusions about how Christ’s body and blood become present in the elements of bread and wine.

Corbie was an influential center of learning, and these debates did not merely stay confined within monastic walls. Their controversy influenced broader church teaching, foreshadowing later disputes about the Eucharist in the medieval and Reformation eras.

Paschasius Radbertus: Arguing for a Real Presence

Paschasius Radbertus held that Christ’s physical body and blood were truly and substantially present in the consecrated bread and wine. He grounded his argument on a literal reading of Jesus’ words during the Last Supper:

“Then He took bread, gave thanks and broke it, and gave it to them, saying, ‘This is My body, given for you; do this in remembrance of Me.’” (Luke 22:19)

Radbertus maintained that although the external form (the appearances) of bread and wine remained, the substance became Christ’s actual body and blood. He appealed to the miraculous power of God, suggesting that just as Christ multiplied the loaves and fishes (cf. Matthew 14:13–21), God can supernaturally transform created elements into a new reality—one that is to be received by faith.

Radbertus also drew upon passages like John 6:53–56, where Jesus taught:

“Truly, truly, I tell you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink His blood, you have no life in you.” (John 6:53)

From Radbertus’s perspective, this teaching stressed real participation in Christ’s flesh. He further argued that such substantial presence signified the love and sacrifice of the Savior more fully than a mere symbolic presence could.

Ratramnus: Emphasizing a Spiritual or Symbolic Presence

Ratramnus, another scholar at Corbie, wrote his own treatise using the identical title but reached different conclusions. He underscored the spiritual or symbolic dimension of the Eucharist, maintaining that the bread and wine remained in their substance while serving as a spiritual sign of Christ’s body and blood.

He appealed to the concept that Scripture often uses metaphors and figures to express spiritual realities. Ratramnus argued that when Jesus said, “This is My body,” He did not mean that the bread ceased to be bread in its essence. Instead, Ratramnus considered it a “mystical body”—still bread in nature, but set apart as a sacramental sign, inviting believers to partake of Christ by faith.

Ratramnus also referred to 1 Corinthians 11:26:

“For whenever you eat this bread and drink this cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death until He comes.”

He maintained that believers are proclaiming and remembering Christ’s once-for-all sacrifice on the cross, rather than re-presenting the physical body and blood of the Savior in a literal manner. Ratramnus believed the Eucharist, while truly signifying Christ’s body and blood, did not involve a material transformation.

Points of Agreement and Disagreement

Though they diverged in their conclusions, Radbertus and Ratramnus shared some major points:

• Both considered the Eucharist central to Christian worship, intimately tied to Christ’s command and the life of the Church.

• Both believed that through the Eucharist, believers are invited into deeper union with Christ.

Their primary disagreement was how to interpret the “realness” of Christ’s presence. Radbertus argued for a substantial transformation, while Ratramnus maintained that the change was spiritual, leaving the bread and wine’s essential nature intact.

Impact on the Medieval Church

As word of this controversy spread, it generated questions in ecclesiastical and academic settings, influencing the theological developments that would eventually lead to the formal doctrine of transubstantiation in the Twelfth and Thirteenth Centuries. Though the term “transubstantiation” was not officially defined until the Fourth Lateran Council (1215), Radbertus’s arguments anticipated the direction the Western Church would later adopt.

Ratramnus’s perspective was less influential in official ecclesiastical rulings during the Middle Ages. However, echoes of his emphasis on the Eucharist as a spiritual and symbolic sign would resonate hundreds of years later, particularly in certain Reformation contexts.

Scriptural Foundations

In evaluating the controversy, both theologians turned to Scriptural authority. They focused primarily on:

• The Gospel accounts of the Last Supper (Matthew 26:26–29, Mark 14:22–25, Luke 22:14–20), with special attention to Jesus’ words, “This is My body.”

• John 6:53–56, where Jesus illuminates the necessity of truly partaking in His flesh and blood.

• 1 Corinthians 10:16–17 and 1 Corinthians 11:23–29, which discuss the meaning of communion for believers.

History indicates that both men valued Scripture as the supreme guide, yet came to contrasting interpretive conclusions. Such variance highlights the importance of careful study, recognition of figurative language, and seeking the guidance of the Holy Spirit.

Later Discussions and Legacy

After the lifetimes of Ratramnus and Radbertus, their respective works continued to shape the course of theological debate, particularly in understanding the mystery that links the physical and spiritual realities in the Eucharist. Monastics, bishops, and later scholastic theologians engaged with their writings, refining arguments and contributing to a more unified doctrine of the Eucharist in the Western Church.

For modern readers, these ninth-century discussions reveal how believers across time have wrestled with interpreting Scripture faithfully on the mysteries of faith. They remind us, as the apostle Paul wrote in 1 Corinthians 11:28–29, that each participant in the Lord’s Supper must “examine himself” and approach Christ’s table with reverence, humility, and a firm grounding in the truth of God’s Word.

Conclusion

The Eucharistic controversy between Ratramnus and Radbertus hinged on the question of what truly happened to the bread and wine during the Lord’s Supper: Did they become Christ’s body and blood in substance, or did they serve primarily as sacred symbols? Both men sought to be faithful to biblical teaching, held Scripture as authoritative, and argued from passages like Luke 22, John 6, and 1 Corinthians 11.

Although their conclusions differed, their debate profoundly shaped the trajectory of medieval Eucharistic theology, setting the stage for doctrinal developments in later centuries. Their works continue to be studied today as a reminder of the church’s ongoing mandate to interpret Scripture faithfully, hold the saving work of Christ at the forefront, and share in the Lord’s Supper with both awe and gratitude.