In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:

THE ORIGIN AND EVOLUTION OF A SACRAMENTAL FORMULA: SACRAMENTUM TANTUM, RES ETSACRAMENTUM,RESTANTUM THE terminology :OJacramentum tantum, res et sacramentum , res tantum is today, and has been since the thirteenth century, a commonplace in sacramental theology . It is a well known fact that Saint Thomas used this formula in his explanation of the sacraments both in his Commentary on the Lombard's Sentences and in all of the sacraments that he treated in his unfinished Summa Theologiae. What is not so well known is the history of the evolution of this sacramental formula as it took shape, implicitly in the antiBerengarian writers of the pre-Scholastic period, then explicitly in the Sentences of Anselm of Laon; how it was used only in reference to the Eucharist up to the time of Peter the Lombard and then applied by him, by analogy with the Eucharist, to the sacrament of Penance; how its use was extended further, in the thirteenth century, to Baptism and then to all of the sacraments. I have traced the development of this tripartite formula from its shadowdy beginnings in the Berengarian controversy up to the time of Saint Thomas. In order to put this study into proper historical perspective, it is necessary to review a few of the salient facts connected with the Berengarian controversy over the Eucharist. This is so because our first three sources-Lanfranc, Guitmond of Aversa, and Alger of Liege-in whom we find the first foreshadowings of what was to evolve into the tripartite sacramental formula, all wrote in the context of this controversy. As we will see in the course of this study, two strongly contributing causes to the development of the tripartite formula were the reaction against Berengar's Eucharistic teaching and the influence of the Augustinian concept of sacrament as a lasting consecration of the recipient. !ll RONALD F. KING THE BERENGARIAN CoNTROVERSY Two definitions of "sacrament" were current in Berengar's time.1 One of them," sacramentum est sacrum signum," was literally of Augustinian origin.2 The other, "sacramentum est invisibilis gratiae visibilis forma," was attributed by Berengar to Saint Augustine.8 While this second definition is certainly of Augustinian spirit it cannot be found literally in any of Augustine's works, and at least one very reputable authority maintains that it was an original expression of Berengar himsel £.4 The first definition does not appear in Berengar's De Sacra Coena, but it was prominent in the writings of Lanfranc and Alger of Liege. It was the second definition that Berengar used to explain the sacrament of the Eucharist. In this definition , the word " forma " was understood to be synonymous with " visible appearance " or " that which falls under the senses." Thus, the definition could be translated as " a sacrament is a visible expression of invisible grace." 5 Berengar, using this definition and claiming St. Augustine's authority for it, emphasized strongly the concept of sacrament as symbol and maintained that the sacrament of the Eucharist is the consecrated bread and wine which is not physically the body and blood of Christ but the sign of the body and blood of · Christ. Through consecration these material elements " are endowed as symbols with the value of Christ's body under the aspect of His passion." 6 Thus Berengar limited the concept of a sacrament to a visible, corporeal, mutable element. Therefore, the Body of Christ, which is invisible, eternal and immutable, could not possibly be the sacrament of the Eucha1 Charles Sheedy, The Eucharistic Controversy of the Eleventh Century Against the Background of Pre-Scholastic Theology. Catholic U. of America Press, 1947, p. 100. • De Civitate Dei, C. S. E. L., 40: 45~. Also quoted by Lanfranc from Berengar's opuaculum, PL 150: 4~~ B. • Berengar of Tours, De Sacra Coena, Vischer edition, 1884, p. 114. Cited by Sheedy, p. 100. • J. de Ghellinck, "Une chapitre dans l'histoire de la definition des sacraments au XII• siecle," Melanges Mandonnet," (Bibliotheque thomiste, 14), 1980, p. 87. • Sheedy, p. 101. • Sheedy, p. 10~. ORIGIN AND EVOLUTION OF A SACRAMENTAL FORMULA fl8 rist. The Body of Christ could only be the res sacramenti, which the sacramentum brings to mind but does not...

pdf

Share