RATPERTO DI SAN GALLO

**RATPERT OF SAN GALLO** — German writer, native of Zurich, who lived in the second half of the 9th century and died around 895.

He composed in Latin the chronicle of his monastery from its origins to 883, dwelling especially on the struggles waged up to 877 for the free election of the abbot and subordination to the king, against the rights of the bishops of Constance. He also wrote metric and rhythmic verses in the vernacular, one of which, in honor of St. Gall, has come down to us only in a Latin translation made at the beginning of the 11th century “so as not to allow it to fall into oblivion.” Ratpert’s chronicle was continued by Eckehard IV up to 971 in his *Casus S. Galli*.

**

---

**RATRAMNUS OF CORBIE** — Benedictine theologian, born at the beginning of the 9th century, died c. 875. A monk at Corbie around 825, he was a disciple of Paschasius Radbertus (v.), of Gottschalk of Orbais, and a friend of Lupus Servatus of Ferrières (v.). He took an active part in the religious controversies of his time, earning a reputation as a theologian (PL 121, 9–346).

*De Praedestinatione Dei libri duo* (850) is a caustic attack, occasioned by a consultation of Charles the Bald, against CRESIMA (v.) in favor of the predestinarianism of Gottschalk of Orbais. *De nativitate Christi*, while affirming the dogma of the perpetual virginity of Mary, presents an explanation (per uteri manum) rejected by P. Radbertus and contrary to Catholic tradition. Of greater value is the *Contra Graecorum opposita libri quattuor*, written in response to a consultation by Pope Nicholas I to the bishops regarding the new attitudes of the East after the revolt of Photius (867). R. defends with erudition and acumen the *Filioque*, clerical celibacy, and the primacy of the pope. The *Epistola de cynocephalis* (cf. also MGH, *Epistolae*, VI, pp. 149–61: with other letters) is an original reply to Rimbert, future archbishop of Bremen, concerning the monsters mentioned by St. Augustine in *De Civitate Dei* (16, 8). In *De Anima* (ed. A. Wilmart, in *Rev. bénéd.*, 24 [1931], pp. 207–33), addressed to Charles the Bald, he demonstrates the spirituality of the soul with arguments that compromise its substantial union with the body; the work was attacked in the theological milieu of Hincmar of Reims.

Lost is the book on the legitimacy of the liturgical expression *Te trina deitas unaque poscimus* (cf. Hincmar of Reims, *De una et trina deitate*: PL 125, 475, which combats the justification published by R.). R. is chiefly famous for the treatise *De Corpore et Sanguine Domini*, written (after 856) at the direct request of Charles the Bald and dedicated to him, perhaps as a counter to the homonymous work of P. Radbertus, or more probably as his personal solution to the Eucharistic problem arising from two opposing theological currents: some affirmed that in the Eucharist everything happens manifestly, without figure or external veil, so that the Body of Christ is palpable and subject to corruption (a materialistic conception that foreshadowed stercolanism), while others held that these realities are contained under the veil of mystery, so that one thing appears to the senses and another is believed by faith (a spiritualistic conception). R., more than P. Radbertus (v.), seems to attack a crude theory, perhaps widespread among the faithful, and thus inclines toward the spiritualistic conception, at times allowing statements that seem to compromise real presence. Yet a careful examination allows one to assert that R. remained within the bounds of orthodoxy, since he admits a true and invisible transformation of the Eucharistic elements, by which they become, after consecration, an entirely different reality, namely the Body and Blood of Christ; indeed, he sometimes expressly states that the substance of the bread and that of the wine become the *substantia* of the Body and Blood of the Lord (PL 121, 140); he further insists, with particular emphasis, on the objective reality of the external species, and from this point of view his doctrine is superior to that of P. Radbertus, though it remains inferior in establishing the substantial identity of the Eucharistic Body of Christ with the historical Body; indeed, though he incidentally affirms it, he is constantly concerned to demonstrate accidental difference (in the sense of the later scholastic question of the *modus praesentiae*). This obscurity of language occasioned the fluctuating judgment that later writers passed on his Eucharistic teaching. Already in the 10th century, LEBBEO (v.) saw in R. an opponent of Paschasius, and in the 11th century his work, under the name of Scotus Eriugena, Tours (v.) and condemned as heretical by anti-Berengarian writers. In the following century, Sigebert of Gembloux considered R. a defender of Eucharistic faith, and as such he was praised by Trithemius (15th c.) and by St. John Fisher (16th c.). With the edition by Clamagadius (Basel 1532), the Protestant appropriation began, which led to the inclusion of the work in the Index of the Council of Trent (1559); it was defended in 1571 by the theologians of Louvain (the *ducenses*), and especially by Boileau, who defended its orthodoxy with erudition and acumen (1712). Modern theology has been unfavorable to R., especially since Geiselmann, followed by Gaudel, Amann, and Peltier (v. BIBLICA). A convincing rehabilitation was carried out by Fr. Gliozzo (v. BIBLICA).

**