The Eucharist as a Hermeneutical Lens in the Preaching of Peter Chrysologus
Bibliographic record
Abstract
[Figure: see text] Peter Chrysologus, the bishop of Ravenna in the first half of the fifth century, tended to read the texts of the gospels through a eucharistic lens. Like other patristic writers, Peter viewed the same realities of faith operating in both the gospel accounts and in the liturgy of the Church. This article explores that relationship under three aspects evident in his homilies, especially in Sermons 33–36 about the woman with the twelve-year hemorrhage (Mark 5:21–43). Peter views the pericope under the three continuities of desperation, presence, and faith. Peter sees the Church’s faith, like the woman’s, as arising out of desperation or the hopelessness of finding a cure for its wounds. Yet, the same presence tapped by the woman who touched the hem of Jesus’s garment can be touched in the Eucharist because the same presence that was present in the first century is operating in the liturgy of the fifth century. What is not so evident is that Peter’s audience will exercise the same faith as this desperate woman. In his highest expectations, Peter hopes that his own congregation will touch the Eucharist and so be healed like the hemorrhaging woman. While Peter never formulated a doctrine of the Eucharist per se, his proclamation assumes a profound continuity between the life of Christ and the sacramental life of the Church.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.012 | 0.042 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".