Erigena, was twice condemned in the Berengar controversy (1050 and 1059), and put in the
Tridentine Index of prohibited books.^721
Notes.
In connection with this subject is the subordinate controversy on the delicate question
whether Christ, admitting his supernatural conception, was born in the natural way like other
children, or miraculously (clauso utero). This question troubled the pious curiosity of some nuns
of Vesona (?), and reached the convent of Corbie. Paschasius Radbertus, following the lead of St.
Ambrose and St. Jerome, defended the theory that the holy Virgin remained virgo in partu and post
partum, and used in proof some poetic passages on the hortus conclusus and fons signatus in Cant.
4:12, and the porta clausa Domini in Ezek. 44:2. The whole incarnation is supernatural, and as the
conception so the birth of Christ was miraculous. He was not subject to the laws of nature, and
entered the world "sine dolore et sine gemitu et sine ulla corruptione carnis." See Radbert’s tract
De Partu Virginis in his Opera, ed. Migne, col. 1365–1386.
Ratramnus, in his book De eo quod Christus ex Virgine natus est (in D’Achery,
"Spicilegium," I., and in Migne, Tom. 121, col. 82–102), likewise taught the perpetual virginity of
Mary, but assumed that Christ came into the world in the natural way ("naturaliter per aulam
virgineam" or "per virginalis januam vulvae"). The conception in utero implies the birth ex utero.
But he does not controvert or name Radbert, and uses the same Scripture passages for his view. He
refers also to the analogy of Christ’s passing through the closed doors on the day of the resurrection.
He quotes from Augustin, Jerome, Pope Gregory, and Bede in support of his view. He opposes
only the monstrous opinion that Christ broke from the womb through some unknown channel
("monstruose de secreto ventris incerto tramite luminis in auras exisse, quod non est nasci, sed
erumpi." Cap. 1, col. 83). Such an opinion, he thinks, leads to the docetic heresy, and to the
conclusion that "nec vere natus Christus, nec vere genuit Maria."
§ 128. The Berengar Controversy.
While the doctrine of a corporeal presence and participation of Christ in the eucharist made
steady progress in the public opinion of Western Christendom in close connection with the rising
power of the priesthood, the doctrine of a spiritual presence and participation by faith was re-asserted
by way of reaction in the middle of the eleventh century for a short period, but condemned by
ecclesiastical authority. This condemnation decided the victory of transubstantiation.
Let us first review the external history of the controversy, which runs into the next period
(till 1079).
Berengar (c. 1000–1088), a pupil of Fulbert of Chartres (d. 1029), was canon and director
of the cathedral school in Tours, his native city, afterwards archdeacon of Angers, and highly
esteemed as a man of rare learning and piety before his eucharistic views became known.^722 He
(^721) Notwithstanding this prohibition, Mabillon, Natalis Alexander, and Boileau have defended the catholic orthodoxy of
Ratramnus, with the apologetic aim to wrest from the Protestants a weighty authority of the ninth century. See Gieseler II. 82,
and J. G. Müller in Wetzer and Welte (first ed. ) VIII. 170 sq.
(^722) During and after the eucharistic controversy he was charged with vanity, ambition, and using improper means, such
as money and patronage, for the spread of his opinions. See Hefele, IV. 742. Card. Hergenröther (I. 707) calls Berengar
oberflächlich, eitel, ehrgeizig, verwegen and neuerungsüchtig. Archbishop Trench (Lectures on Medieval Church History, p.