I know that the title is provocative, but please understand that I am serious in this question. At this point, I believe that it is very difficult for Roman Catholics who hold to Transubstantiation (is there any other kind of Roman Catholic!) to find harmony with a basic principle in the Definition of Chalcedon. In other words, I believe that Catholics are at odds with some essential elements of orthodox Christology.
Having said that, it may be that I am misunderstanding things (this would not be a first). So I write this post with the intention of informing my audience of a very intriguing issue, giving them a better look at Chalcedonian Christology, and giving an opportunity to Catholics to give an answer to this issue (if there are any that happen by—and there usually are).
I am going to explain the issue and I want all of you to hang with me through some deep waters. I will try to navigate you to a point where you understand why I believe (tentatively) that Catholics deny Chalcedon because of their view of Mass.
Component #1:
Orthodoxy has historically claimed that Christ is fully God and fully man. This is not an arbitrary pronouncement or belief, but is one that is central to an understanding of the Gospel.
Short history lesson.
After Nicea (A.D. 325), the central theological issue that presented itself to the Church was this: Now that Christ was understood to be fully God, of the same substance with the Father, how did his humanity relate to his deity.
There were three initial responses that helped shape orthodoxy as it prepared for Chalcedon (A.D. 451).
1. Nestorianism: The belief that Christ’s human nature and divine nature were separate to the degree that they each possessed their own personhood. Christ could sometimes act from his human person and sometimes his divine person.
2. Eutychianism: The belief that Christ’s humanity was assumed into his deity. This mixture of human and divine commingled to the degree that the humanity virtually disappeared as a drop of water might be lost in the ocean. This created a mixture of sorts between the human and divine.
3. Apollinarianism: The belief that Christ’s human spirit and soul were replaced with the divine spirit and soul. As some people called it, Christ was “God in a bod.”
The problem with Nestorianism is that we are introduced to two persons, not one Christ. The second person of the Trinity cannot be divided into two separate consciousnesses each possessing their own attributes and acting in accordance with a distinct will.
The problem with Eutychianism is that the new entity created by the commingling of natures could not represent man to God. Reason? Because the new entity is neither human nor divine, but a new sort of “humine.” Since humanity needed to be represented by one of its own, Christ’s new nature could not qualify.
The problem with Apollinarianism is that Christ was lacking a human soul and spirit. Without these two essential components to the human constitution, Christ could not represent humanity. Humanity does not only need their material body represented, but their entire constitution, body, soul, and/or spirit.
Chalcedon stepped in and condemned each of the options above opting for a person who possess two complete natures, human and divine. These natures do not separate and cannot be commingled, mixed, or confused. In this, Christ’s natures are complete and do not share or communicate their attributes. Christ’s humanity cannot mix with his deity and thereby take on divine characteristics.
Here is the relavant statement in the Chalcedonian Definition:
Therefore, following the holy fathers, we all with one accord teach men to acknowledge one and the same Son, our Lord Jesus Christ, at once complete in Godhead and complete in manhood, truly God and truly man, consisting also of a reasonable soul and body; of one substance with the Father as regards his Godhead, and at the same time of one substance with us as regards his manhood; like us in all respects, apart from sin . . . one and the same Christ, Son, Lord, Only-begotten, recognized in two natures, without confusion, without change, without division, without separation; the distinction of natures being in no way annulled by the union, but rather the characteristics of each nature being preserved and coming together to form one person and subsistence . . .
Okay, I am getting there . . .
Component #2
The Roman Catholic view of Mass (or the Lord’s supper) is that a miraculous event occurs as the bread and wine offered actually turn into the real body and blood of Christ. The substance of each change while the accidents (that which is seen and tasted) stay the same. This is known as “transubstantiation” because the “substance” “trans”-forms into Christ’s actual body and blood.
Transubstantiation meet Chalcedon.
The problem, if you have not already begun to see, is that Christ’s body cannot be really present since it would inevitably have to be at countless millions of places at one time. Humanity cannot be in more than one place at one time. Christ’s humanity is only present in one locale at any one moment according to Chalcedon. Why? Because the attributes of deity cannot be communicated to Christ’s humanity. Christ’s human body (that which is supposed to be present at every Mass all over the world) does not and cannot possess omnipresence.
Tomorrow’s Theological Word of the Day will be “extra Calvinisticum” (I am prophetic!), which says this:
The belief among Calvinists that Christ’s humanity is not infinite or omnipresent and therefore can only be at one place at one time, even after the ascension. This, according to adherents, is the historic view as espoused by the Chalcedonian definition since, according to the definition, Christ’s human nature cannot share attributes with the divine nature. The implications would be at odds with the Roman Catholic view of Transubstantiation as well as the Lutheran view of Consubstantiation, both of which believe that Christ’s human nature can be at more than one place at one time during the sacrament of mass or the Lord’s Supper. The “extra” has to do with the belief among Calvinists that while Christ’s humanity was finite, there was a sense in which Christ was still infinite, holding the world together. In other words, finite could not contain the infinite (finitum non capax infiniti).
Therefore, it would seem that Roman Catholics would have to either redefine Chalcedon to fit their view of Transubstantiation, or else redefine their view of Transubstantiation. Neither of which is really possible.
These are the questions I have for my Catholic friends: Can Christ’s humanity be at more than one place at one time? If so, how does this happen sinse there cannot be a communication of the attributes of each nature? How do you square your view of Transubstantiation with Chalcedon?
If one were to say that Chalcedon only has implication for Christ while he was on earth, but post-resurrection his attributes can be communicated, how does he then now serve as the pioneer of humanity and how does he intercede for us as a high priest?
172 replies to "Do Catholics Deny Chalcedon in their View of Mass?"
[…] care for the “eternally begotten” or “proceeding” language in the Nicene Creed, but is riding that Chalcedon horse hard. This is why I stopped reading theology. Posted by: […]
David wrote: Why should we accept the claim that the Reformers, hundreds and hundreds of years after the facts, had a better grip on what went on in the minds of the Apostles and Church Fathers than all those who went before them?
This assumes a unity of understanding prior to the Reformers that is simply non-existent.
Peter wrote: To say that Christ has to split and shed his human nature every time he wishes to exercise his divine nature is not only Nestorian, but contrary to the Christ we find in the gospels. While his human nature may be distinct in that we can recognise its existence, and its not swallowed up by his deity, neither can we have a Christ who sometimes sheds his body to do God stuff (and presumably, God would duck out, while he does human stuff). Everything Christ does, has to include both natures
This is a confused statement. Nestorianism teaches a separation of the natures of Christ. The Calvinian understanding of the Eucharist does not require a separation just a distinction, in keeping with Chalcedon.
The incarnate Son is spiritually present in the Eucharist, and he is not physically present. In the same way, he is simultaneously omnipresent and not omnipresent; simultaneously God and man. That’s Chalcedonian Christology not Nestorianism.
CMP
as an aside: with regards to your Nicea issue I am right with you…the principal is correct the wording is VERY unhelpful indeed as it indicates some sort of procession from the Father – not helpful.
wrt the main discussion though, can I make a (potentially stupid) statement that was my gut reponse when I read the question:
When we RCC folk celebrate the communion are they celebrating the dead body of Jesus ie. pre resurrection post cross? In that case a dead body can be in many places at once, because one would then not neccesarily implying conscious human presence in many places(a charactersitic of divinity not humanity), which is your original premise…
Wait, a second. I’m perplexed about the comment which is troubled by the language about Christ as “eternally begotten”. This Chalcedonian formula which does indeed imply “some kind of procession” is not from Greek philosophy, it’s from Scripture. John 3:16: “Only begotten Son”? What Chalcedon clarified is that Christ being begotten (which is part of Revelation) does not mean that He was “made”. He was not begotten in time, so He was _eternally_ “begotten”. It seems to me that it is not Chalcedon that is the problem for you but the Gospel of John. If not, please clarify.
I think we are taking this off topic here. BUT the greek word monogenes translated in the AV as only begotten simply means only child (Strong 3439) has much more to do with the uniqueness of Christ as the ONLY Son of God – the begotten part was simply the English translation of Nicea. The word begotten or implication of it is IMHO not present in the text, and it is unhelpful as it suggests that the Son had a beginning or a moment when he did not exist…
“The incarnate Son is spiritually present in the Eucharist, and he is not physically present. In the same way, he is simultaneously omnipresent and not omnipresent; simultaneously God and man. That’s Chalcedonian Christology not Nestorianism.”
How have you not separated the natures of Christ, which is how you define Nestorianism? Natures cannot do things or be places. Persons do things and go places. It might be a nature which causes it, but the whole person has to do it. To say that a nature is present in the eucharist, and not a person, is Nestorian. It is also very Western and Platonic to make Christ into such a contemplative entity, that you make him into abstractions rather than a person. And then split those abstractions into places that bits of him cannot go.
“the begotten part was simply the English translation of Nicea. The word begotten or implication of it is IMHO not present in the text, and it is unhelpful as it suggests that the Son had a beginning or a moment when he did not exist”
* That monogenes does not contain within it the concept of “begotten”, seems uncertain to me, given the limited data used to argue it.
* Nicea uses both terms for Jesus.
* The bible uses both terms for Jesus. (Heb. 1:5
“YOU ARE MY SON,
TODAY I HAVE BEGOTTEN YOU”?”
* If the term is unhelpful, blame the bible.
Michael Patton quotes the Theological Word for the Day and says that “Christ’s human nature cannot share attributes with the divine nature”.
Do you really mean this?
If this is so, then how can the blood of Jesus cleanse us from all sin (1 John 1:7)? How can it be our ransom (1 Pet 1:19)? If there is no communication of attributes, it has no divine power to save us. Furthermore, how can Christ give his flesh for the life of the world (John 6:51)? If there is no communication of attributes, then it has no divine power to give us life? If there is no communication of attributes, then mere human flesh and blood have worked salvation for us.
Note, this is not first and foremost an issue of the Lord’s Supper. First and foremost it is a question of the atonement and our salvation. If the body and blood of Jesus are not truly united with the Son of God so that they truly share in his divinity, then they are not a worthy offering for us on the cross, and they have no power to save us.
This argument is not original with me. I got it from a wonderful little treatise called “On the unity of the Word” by Cyril of Alexanderia. This treatise is available in a very good English translation from the Popular Patristics Series, is written in beautiful, simple, and yet profound language, is less than 100 pages, and is shot through with Scripture from start to finish. Cyril presided over the Council of Ephesus in 431 at which both Nestorius and Pelagius were condemned (the Calvinists would like the latter condemnation, if not the former). It was his theology which also ultimately won out at Chalcedon, although he had died by that time and a slightly different issue was on the table. He is the first person in the history of Christian thought to speak really explicitly about the communication of attributes between the divine and human natures, and he did this against Nestorius, who denied any such communication. The wonderful thing about Cyril is that he argues biblically rather than philosophically, and he amasses an enormous amount of Scripture in support of his position. He is also able to see clearly that issues of salvation and the atonement are at stake.
I find it amazing that anyone would try to read the Definition of Chalcedon through the lens of modern Calvinism, rather than through the lens of people like Cyril, so that they give it an interpretion which is almost certainly the opposite of what was intended at the time.
Sorry, Cyril’s treatise is “On the Unity of Christ”, not “On the Unity of the Word”.
Very interesting but sometimes funny positions have been and are been made here on this issue. But i would want the one who raised this question to consider this, and send me a reply. At the last supper of Jesus Christ, when he took the bread and blessed it saying: “This is my body”(Lk. 22:19), then he gave it to the 12 Apostles, and they had his body with them in their hands at the same time, what kind or type of body did he give to them? And if they had it in their hands at the same time, how many places were his body at that particular time? Or would you want to say that possible Peter had Jesus’ head, while John had one of his legs, and James had the other one? Then if this is the case, please tell me who had his right hand? If you cannot answer this question appropriately then you are completely confused about what happend at the last supper, what Chalcedon has taught, and what really the Mass is all about. Then i advice you to go back and look up these things with your two eyes open. (When i mean two eyes, i means both the physical eyes, and the eyes of the soul).God help you through your path to wisdom.
Mike,
Interesting thoughts on Chalcedon, but I think you’re wrong in how you’re applying them. You argue against the Real Presence because you say that Christ’s Post Resurrection body couldn’t be in more than one place at a time.
So was Jesus confused when he said:
“Wherever two or more are gathered in my name, there I am in the Midst?”
I dunno. But I doubt it.
So I am left with two options. Either Jesus was wrong (maybe he hadn’t read Chalcedon? or you’re interpretation of Chalcedon is wrong.
LYB
Seraphim
Dear Seraphim,
I would argue that the interpretation of Chalcedon given by Michael Patton is wrong, especially when Chalcedon is read in conjunction with the other ecumenical councils of the early church.
The problem is that if Chalcedon is read in isolation, it is open to many different interpretations. When Nestorius, who had been condemned at the Council of Ephesus 20 years earlier, heard about the results of Chalcedon, he thought that the previous council had been overturned and he had been vindicated, especially by the Tome of Pope Leo which was accepted by the Council, but also by the definition of Chalcedon. He wrote:
When I was silent, and the authority to speak out was taken away from me, and I was not believed, God raised up men who were believed, when they said the same things as I, which were the truth, without there being any suspicion or their having said these things out of friendship or love for me. And God did not bring these things about on my account. For who is Nestorius? Or what is his life? Or what is his death to the world? But he brought them to pass because of the truth which he has given to the world, and which was suppressed from deceitful causes, while he has also confuted the deceivers. And because they were filled with suspicion about me and did not believe what I was saying, and treated me as one who dissembles the truth and represses accurate speech, God appointed for this purpose a preacher who was untouched by this suspicion, Leo, who preached the truth undaunted. (Nestorius, The Book of Heracleides, II.ii.513f.; cited in Hughes, The True Image: The Origin and Destiny of Man in Christ, Eerdmans, 1989: 306)
In the aftermath of Chalcedon, the church was rent apart, since many people thought that Chalcedon had sold out to the Nestorians. A large measure of unity was finally restored a century later at the 2nd Council of Constantinople, which affirmed the definition of Chalcedon, but spelled out more clearly how the definition was to be interpreted. It ruled out a Nestorian interpretation and anathamatized anyone who did not interpret it in line with the teachings of Cyril of Alexandria. This means that the 2nd Council of Constantinople clearly affirmed a real communication of attributes, and anathamatized anyone who denied it. Unfortunately, in the subsequent history of the western church the results of the 2nd Council of Constantinople have frequently been ignored.
Blessings,
Michael Lockwood
Oh… Painful… The blog ate my post. Let’s try one more time.
…I won’t answer the question, because I don’t believe in transubstantiation. But perhaps I can clear up one objection, and help someone who can answer the question.
No, he says that while quoting a pre-resurrection Christ. Not Post, but Pre. Even if you claim — without support from Scripture, but not without reason — that Christ was granted post-Resurrection the ability to be physically present in multiple places, you still have to address the fact that when Christ indicated the bread He was holding, He had not yet risen.
And one minor but important point: Patton, I don’t believe that the term “Real Presence”, which you use, serves your purpose. Some Protestants deny transsubstantiation, and yet affirm a Real Presence (just not a physical one).
Do you believe Christ was there talking about a physical, flesh and blood, presence? If not, why do you make the distinction between the two passages? If so, what is your authority, and from what substances is the transubstantiation made (it can’t be bread and wine there!)?
-Wm
Sorry for the late reaction. Life sometimes intervenes.
This is indeed a good question and as an ex-Roman Catholic, I do have somewhat of an opinion. Perhaps it can even shed some light
1) Do you believe in Transubstantiation?
I was brought up that way. I still believe the Eucharist is more than what most evangelicals believe that is just a “remembrance”. I honestly haven’t reached a stage (yet) in which I can unequivocally say either “yes” or “no”. Perhaps I never will. That being said, I do think I can address some of the challenges raised in other posts, which are common responses to the transubstantiation. Perhaps I might even answer CMP’s original question on whether it’s at odds with Chalcedon.
2) If you believe in the literal “This is my body”, what does one do with passage such as “I am the door” ?
Simply put Christ clearly indicated that “His Kingdom was not of this earth”. We have to be careful to apply earthly terms and understanding to Christ’s analogies. For instance, we all agree no-one can come to Father except through Christ. We all agree Christ is the way. We all agree the path is narrow. So how does one go from one place to another ? How does one go to someone, through someone ? The analogy to a door is easily made. But whether that door is like our 21st century understanding of a 6 foot by 3 foot piece of wood, metal, glass, hanging from hinges, that is swaying one way or another and has some kind of lock or handle, is probably too far fetched. In first century Judea doors would more often than not just be an opening, perhaps with a curtain. But the image remains that one walks through it to go from one place to the next. Christ is that means that allows us to go from a fallen and sinful state to approach our Father.
Likewise, when Christ mentions that “This is His body”, it is indeed His body. As CMP pointed out the “accidents” are not the same, but it is literally Christ.
3) Don’t you sacrifice Christ again and again ?
Not necessarily. Unless you hold to the belief that each time you as a Christian commit a sin, you nail Him to the cross again. We all commit sins and we all accept Christs atoning offer was once and for all. We seem to be ready to accept that His blood washes us clean each and every day. So why wouldn’t His body wash us clean each and every time we partake of the Eucharist ?
One has to see the Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox interpretation of transubstantiation in light of the sacraments these denominations accept. Since the Roman Catholic Church, accepts confession as an atonement for sin, it also accepts the Eucharist as a sacrament for the forgiveness of sins. Once you don’t recognize the Eucharist as having that value anymore, the step to not accepting the transubstantiation is indeed relatively small. But if you do accept the sacramental nature of the Eucharist, one has to ask the question “How ?”. In that perspective the transubstantiation ma
Continued
But if you do accept the sacramental nature of the Eucharist, one has to ask the question “How ?”. In that perspective the transubstantiation makes sense. If it were just a “remembrance” as Zwingli put it, how can it offer the value of an atonement for sins ? The two are linked hand-in-hand.
4) Is this at odds with the definition of Christ’s humanity and deity as laid out in Chalcedon ?
This is really the crux of the question and indeed one very difficult to answer. And I definitely don’t presume to know the answer. All I can do is retort that I also have a challenge with the definition of Chalcedon and its implications to the bodily resurrection of Christ. If, as per Chalcedon, Christ is fully human and has retained that full humanity even after death and resurrection, where is He ? It implies a physical existence somewhere. Since we know the universe as created by God is the physical world, where in the universe is He ? Or is there a parallel universe ? If so, it implies there is another creation. If so are there other “men” created in “His image” ?
One can see this leads to an entire different debate which can lead to rather unorthodox ideas.
Personally, I would say that the definition of Chalcedon is limited, just like anything else human we have come up with to describe the Trinitarian God we believe in. How can something finite describe something infinite ? It will always have its flaws.
I would therefore say that adhering to the transubstantiation is not necessarily at odds with Chalcedon. Unless you admit the bodily resurrection and ascension of Christ is equally at odds. I conclude it is more of a “mystery” we can’t explain or comprehend.
5) Does that last statement make me more of an “Eastern Orthodox” than a “Roman Catholic” ?
Note that I am an ex-Roman Catholic. I am a non-denominational evangelical, who does believe firmly in historic Christianity and the Church I attend does have weekly Eucharist. I don’t think the weekly Eucharist is necessarily a means to justification nor sanctification, but I do think it is more than the Zwinglian definition. As I warned you at the beginning of this very long post, I’m not quite sure I have a clear understanding (yet). But if I ever do, I’ll be sure to post it on my blog. 😉
Hope this was helpful, if you reached this point, thank you for reading the entire response.
In Him
Mick
According to Louis Bouyer of the Oratory in his book on EUCHARIST, the Zwinglian understanding of “remembrance” as embraced by most Protestants is possibly incorrect. Bouyer finds its meaning in the Jewish prayers/liturgy, where there it’s a “remembrance” to God of the covenant He made with His people. I.e., it reminds God of His covenant with Israel, a covenant they repledge themselves to as He “remembers” His promised faithfulness to them (somewhat along the lines of dikaiosunê theou as some take the phrase to mean per the New Perspective On Paul, perhaps?).
Likewise, when we take communion “in remembrance of” Jesus, we are “reminding” God of the covenant He made with us through His Son, to be faithful to that covenant and save us “on that day.” We likewise “remember” the vow we made to God and Christ, and reaffirm our commitment to the covenant.
I.e., as the Jews asked God to remember His covenant with them for the sake of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, Christians ask God to remember them for the sake of Jesus and the covenant He made with them through His Son’s death.
Bouyer says the meaning of anamnêsis is explained by the Hebrew zachar, IIRC.
In reply to Michael L’s latest post, I would like to make a few comments.
As I’ve argued in previous posts, Chalcedon simply cannot be used against the doctrine of transubstantiation, at least not when Chalcedon is read in its historical context and is interpreted in the light of the other ecumenical councils, particularly Ephesus and Constantinople 2. Yet that of course doesn’t settle the matter of transubstantiation.
So that you know where I am coming from, I am a Lutheran who accepts the historic Lutheran position. This position is frequently misunderstood and misrepresented by non-Lutherans, so let me explain it a little. The basic position is that when Christ say, “This is my body – given for the forgiveness of sins”, he means what he says. The question of “How is this possible?” is not a question that we feel we ultimately need to answer, since God can do all things. That means that we do not have to offer some philosophical explanation like transubstantiation. The “consubstantiation” that is sometimes ascribed to us by others is from our perspective not an attempt to explain anything, but simply an attempt to hold all the statements of Scripture together, i.e. that in the Lord’s Supper we receive the true body and blood of Christ as well as bread and wine. We do however hold to a true communication of attributes within the person of Christ, as taught by Ephesus, Chalcedon 2, Cyril of Alexandria, and many other members of the early church, and which we would argue is a necessary conclusion to draw from what the Scriptures teach. Wherever Christ is present, there we have the whole Christ, otherwise Christ is divided and the wonderful mystery of the incarnation is something of a sham. Nor have Lutherans ever believed in the sacrifice of the mass. Instead, in the Lord’s Supper the body and blood of Christ which was once shed for us on the cross and is therefore available for us without any repetition of the sacrifice is now applied to us so that we may be forgiven and cleansed from sin. It is not hard to demonstrate from books such as Hebrews and Leviticus that this is how atoning sacrifices always function in the Bible, the blood that was shed in the sacrifice is subsequently applied to people (and objects in the OT) for cleansing and sanctification.
The point that you raise about “I am the door” is something that was raised by Zwingli in his debates with Luther, and was very fully answered at the time of the Reformation. “I am the door” is of course a metaphor. A metaphor functions by playing on the ability of the second term to hold a figurative meaning. Christ is of course the doorway into God’s kingdom, not a piece of wood with hinges. This is readily understood since the word door can hold both meanings, a more literal one, and then a more figurative one to refer to any portal from one thing into another.
I’ve run out of room, so I will continue in a subsequent post.
“This is my body” is not a metaphor, and so the comparison is a bad one. Zwingli tried to interpret this as “This represents my body”. Calvin tried to interpret it as “This is a sign of my body”. Yet neither of these are metaphors. To see the difference between these interpretations and “I am the door”, see what happens to John 10 when you interpret it as “I represent the door” or “I signify the door”. It simply doesn’t work. Jesus does not represent or signify some other door, but he himself is the door. When challenged on this point, Zwingli tried to find a similar usage to “This represents my body” elsewhere in Scripture without success.
Michael Lockwood:
But isn’t an “I am” statement different from a “This is” statement?
I can see someone comparing Jesus’ “I am the bread of life” with “I am the door,” but I don’t see how his eucharistic words “This is my body” can properly be compared to or contrasted with his “I am” statements.
I have not actually read Luther or Calvin or Zwingli on this, though.
EricW,
True. I haven’t read Bouyer, so I can’t comment.
Yet there is a good article on the Luther / Zwingli discussion on the Eucharist at Christianity Today
I believe that Zwingli originally could not accept the physical presence of Christ in the Eucharist as Luther did. I find CMP’s arguments quite close to the same actually. From what I have understood, Zwingli did believe in a “spiritual” presence in the Eucharist. However that leaves us with the difficulty that the scripture passage doesn’t read “This is my Spirit”.
Whether it’s true transubstantiation, consubstantiation or something more “mystical” as in the Eastern Orthodox, I’m not there (yet).
Perhaps the points you mentioned of looking at it in light of the Jewish practice at Passover is indeed helpful. But yet again it doesn’t quite explain the “This is my body”. It does indeed correlate with the “Do this in remembrance of me”, but the question remains What exactly are we doing ?
In Him
Mick
Re: the original question (without reading all 70 responses – my apologies if one of the previous comments addresses this):
Didn’t Christ’s humanity “change” as a result of the resurrection? He was/became the New Man. Since He then had attributes of being able to pass through doors, etc., why would His new spiritual body not also be able to be omnipresent in a way in which it wasn’t before the resurrection?
I understand Catholics to say that in the Eucharist they receive Christ’s body, blood, soul and divinity, whether via both the bread and the wine or via just one. (If after the resurrection Christ’s body “technically” had no blood, as some read Luke 24:39, this could be a problem for saying that the Eucharist distributes and manifests Christ’s post-resurrection body, because if it has no blood, then He isn’t present in it body, blood, soul and divinity.)
So, which “body” is present/offered/received in the Eucharist: Christ’s pre-resurrection body, or His post-resurrection body? Is this question relevant for the question posed by this post?
How fascinating that this thread should find itself resurrected after so many months, but this is the Easter season, so I guess we should not be surprised with the appearance of new life. 🙂
Needless to say, I agree completely with Mr. Lockwood that the Council of Chalcedonian dogma may not rightly be employed to argue against the Church’s traditional understanding of the bodily presence of the risen Christ in the Holy Eucharist. One must not wield one mystery of the faith against another mystery of the faith in this fashion. That is to place logic and system-making above divine revelation.
I have no desire, especially in this forum, to engage in any debate with my Lutheran and Orthodox brethren on transubstantiation. Our agreement on the eucharistic presence of Christ is too profound to allow a medieval construal of this presence to cloud the important issues. I wonder, for example, if Lutherans and Orthodox would raise strong dissent to the interpretation of transubstantiation advanced by Herbert McCabe (see my article “When Bread is Not Bread“; also see McCabe’s article “Eucharistic Change“).
Michael Lockwood.
This is going to get confusing 😉
Michael L and Michael Lockwood… not one and the same 😉
All kidding aside, I know Lutherans are quite close, yet different from RC doctrine in this matter. Looks like you concurred with most of my positions, just from a different angle. I used the word “Analogy” for the door example, metaphor is indeed a better English term. The challenge of not being a native English speaking person 😉 Well corrected, thank you.
One question:
Can you confirm or elaborate on whether Lutheran doctrine still attributes any salvific or sanctification effect to the Eucharist ?
In Him
Mick
Whether it’s true transubstantiation, consubstantiation or something more “mystical” as in the Eastern Orthodox, I’m not there (yet).
Michael L:
I wouldn’t necessary call the Eastern Orthodox teaching “more mystical.” The Orthodox Church believes the bread and wine change into Christ’s body and blood, as my excerpt from the Divine Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom in the other thread clearly shows. I would say that the EOC differs from the Roman Catholic Church primarily in not precisely defining or trying to define or explain the “how” and “when” or the relationship between the bread and wine one eats/drinks in the Eucharist to “normal” bread and wine or what it was before the Holy Spirit changes it. True, the Orthodox Church refers to these things as mustêria, and not “sacraments,” so there is a sense of “mystery/mystical” involved. But it is believed to truly become and be His body and blood.
From the Divine Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom:
(The Communion Prayers are recited silently by those prepared to receive the holy Mysteries.)
I believe and confess, Lord, that You are truly the Christ, the Son of the living God, who came into the world to save sinners, of whom I am the first. I also believe that this is truly Your pure Body and that this is truly Your precious Blood. Therefore, I pray to You, have mercy upon me, and forgive my transgressions, voluntary and involuntary, in word and deed, known and unknown. And make me worthy without condemnation to partake of Your pure Mysteries for the forgiveness of sins and for life eternal. Amen.
How shall I, who am unworthy, enter into the splendor of Your saints? If I dare to enter into the bridal chamber, my clothing will accuse me, since it is not a wedding garment; and being bound up, I shall be cast out by the angels. In Your love, Lord, cleanse my soul and save me.
Loving Master, Lord Jesus Christ, my God, let not these holy Gifts be to my condemnation because of my unworthiness, but for the cleansing and sanctification of soul and body and the pledge of the future life and kingdom. It is good for me to cling to God and to place in Him the hope of my salvation.
Receive me today, Son of God, as a partaker of Your mystical Supper. I will not reveal Your mystery to Your adversaries. Nor will I give You a kiss as did Judas. But as the thief I confess to You: Lord, remember me in Your kingdom.
* * *
(The Priest prepares to receive holy Communion.)
Priest: Behold, I approach Christ, our immortal King and God.
The precious and most holy Body of our Lord, God, and Savior Jesus Christ is given to me (Name) the Priest, for the forgiveness of my sins and eternal life.
(He then partakes of the sacred Bread.)
The precious and most holy Blood of our Lord, God, and Savior Jesus Christ is given to me (Name) the priest, for the forgiveness of my sins and eternal life.
(He then drinks from the Chalice.)
(Afterwards, he wipes the Chalice, kisses it, and says:) This has touched my lips, taking away my transgressions and cleansing my sins.
(The priest then transfers the remaining portions of the consecrated Bread into the Cup, saying:)
Having beheld the resurrection of Christ, let us worship the holy Lord Jesus, the only Sinless One. We venerate Your cross, O Christ, and we praise and glorify Your holy resurrection. You are our God. We know no other than You, and we call upon Your name. Come, all faithful, let us venerate the holy resurrection of Christ. For behold, through the cross joy has come to all the world. Blessing the Lord always, let us praise His resurrection. For enduring the cross for us, He destroyed death by death.
* * *
(He takes the holy Cup, comes to the Royal Doors, raises it and says:)
Priest: Approach with the fear of God, faith, and love.
(Those prepared come forth with reverence to receive Holy Communion while the people sing the communion hymn.)
(When administering Holy Communion, the priest says:) The servant of God (Name) receives the Body and Blood of Christ for forgiveness of sins and eternal life.
(When Communion has been given to all, the priest blesses the people with his hand, saying:)
Priest: Save, O God, Your people and bless Your inheritance.
People: We have seen the true light; we have received the heavenly Spirit; we have found the true faith, worshiping the undivided Trinity, for the Trinity has saved us.
(Having returned the Cup to the holy Table, the priest transfers the particles of the Theotokos and the saints into the Chalice, and then those of the living and the dead saying:) Wash away, Lord, by Your holy Blood, the sins of all those commemorated through the intercessions of the Theotokos and all Your saints. Amen.
(He covers the vessels and censes them saying:) Be exalted, O God, above the heavens. Let Your glory be over all the earth (3).
(He lifts the vessels and says in a low voice:) Blessed is our God.
Priest (aloud): Always, now and forever and to the ages of ages.
People: Amen.
People: Let our mouths be filled with Your praise, Lord, that we may sing of Your glory. You have made us worthy to partake of Your holy mysteries. Keep us in Your holiness, that all the day long we may meditate upon Your righteousness. Alleluia. Alleluia. Alleluia.
EricW..
Thanks for the liturgy, never have seen it published like that.
I’ve actually been to some Orthodox services, but can’t recall whether the text recited is actually as you print it up here.
In short, you even bolded the text… Mystical Supper. How does one distinguish that from Luther’s comment that Christ is present “In, with and under” the bread ? Don’t quite have an answer for you.
I do put RC’s, Lutheran and EOC somewhat aligned. And they can all come after me and refute.
In general, and we all know how dangerous generalizations are, the three mentioned above agree there is a “physical” presence of Christ in the Eucharist. On the other side you have the “Zwinglians”, which believe in a “spiritual” presence or “remembrance”. But then again, I believe you are in the TTP with me in Stonebriar and we just covered this in the session.
I was just trying to answer and clarify some of CMP’s questions.
Mick
Eric asks: “So, which “body” is present/offered/received in the Eucharist: Christ’s pre-resurrection body, or His post-resurrection body?”
This is an easy question for a Catholic to answer: we partake of the risen and glorified Body of the Lord.
“Is this question relevant for the question posed by this post?”
Probably not. 🙂
I know, though, that you will still want an answer to the question “What does it mean to drink the Blood of the risen and glorified Christ?” I, at least, cannot tender an answer because I do not think it can be answered this side of the Kingdom. We do not know what resurrection truly means. We do not know the properties of resurrected bodies. We do not know what “body” and “blood” literally mean for a glorified existence. I do not believe, therefore, that we can give a definitive answer to the question posed, nor do I think this is a problem for the Church’s eucharistic faith. Does not Holy Scripture itself speak of our Lord taking his own Blood into the Holy of Holies. To speak of the sacred Blood of Christ as if it belonged purely to the past, pre-resurrected life of Jesus would violate something deep in the faith of Christians.
Eric, they are both statements of attribution which can be taken literally or symbolically. That is why the comparison is made so often.
Fr. Alvin Kimel,
Thank you for taking the time to answer these questions.
Is not the Eucharist, as practiced by Catholics, similar to the Levitical priesthood in a sense that they are depending upon a flesh and blood substance to be a substitute of sorts for the real thing? And I don’t mean that as a loaded question.
Even if we are saying it is the flesh and blood of a risen Savior, to take it like that would seem to me to be a case of lowering the superior (Jesus Christ) to the level of the inferior (the elements), rather than it signifying the supremacy of the new covenant of Christ, the risen Lord as our high priest. Therefore, why would changing Him back to flesh and blood, or Him changing Himself back be necessary at all in the elements themselves?
Yes, Christ entered the holies of holies with His blood, but as Hebrews explains, it was not a tent made with human hands. The renting of the temple curtain, which occurred after He died and represented His torn body, was symbolic of establishing His heavenly ministry as our high priest.
I’m not sure how taking a literal view of His bodily sacrifice through transubstantiation would coincide with this, because as CMP has pointed out it would seem just the opposite of Chalcedon definition of Him as both fully human, (sacrificed on the cross, once for all) and divine, the high priest of a new covenant NOT made with human hands.
I’m not exactly getting why He would instruct us to turn back the hands of time, by revisiting us physically in the form of bread and wine. Does not scripture say we are seated with Him in the heavenlies?
Mbaker, the short answer to your question: our salvation IS union with our Lord’s sacred and glorified humanity. It is this humanity that is the Holy of Holies. The Holy Eucharist, to which Holy Baptism initiates us, is central and decisive because through it we are joined to and deified in the sanctified human nature of the Son of God. To eat the body of Jesus and to drink his blood is to share and participate in Christ and through Christ in the divine life of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. This was, as you no doubt recognize, one of St Cyril of Alexandria’s key arguments against Nestorius, confirmed at the Ecumenical Council of Ephesus. Or in Jesus’ words:
“Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood, you have no life in you; he who eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day. For my flesh is food indeed, and my blood is drink indeed. He who eats my flesh and drinks my blood abides in me, and I in him.”
I do not understand, therefore, what you can possibly mean when you state that partaking of the flesh and blood of the risen Savior “would seem to be a case of lowering the superior (Jesus Christ) to the level of the inferior (the elements).” How could this possibly be the case? Did not the Creator of the universe join himself forever to matter (the “inferior) for our salvation? Is it not therefore utterly appropriate and right that he continue to communicate himself to us through and by matter? And is not matter therefore elevated by God’s union with matter and his continuing employment of matter in the economy of salvation? This is not just Catholic and Orthodox conviction; this was also the deepest conviction of Martin Luther and lies at the heart of his understanding of justification. In response to the anti-sacramentalism and iconoclasm of Zwingli, Luther vehementaly declared: “Mir aber des Gottes nicht! ‘Don’t give me any of that God!'” The God of the Gospel is precisely a God of flesh and blood. That he is so IS our salvation.
“I’m not exactly getting why He would instruct us to turn back the hands of time, by revisiting us physically in the form of bread and wine. Does not scripture say we are seated with Him in the heavenlies?”
Here I would recommend Scott Hahn’s book *The Lamb’s Supper* and Alexander Schmemann’s *The Eucharist*. The Eucharist is not a turning back of the clock. It is the Church’s participation, through the Spirit, in the heavenly banquet. Earth is lifted up into Heaven. The liturgy of the Church is not separate from the divine liturgy of the Kingdom; it is identical to it! This must be clearly understood if we are to make any sense of the Catholic doctrine of transubstantiation. Transubstantiation does not stand alone as an independent doctrine. It belongs to a comprehensive understanding of the Church as the sacrament of the Kingdom.
Fr. Kimel
In reading this discourse I think what you are trying to say is that by taking one sacrament we miss the bigger picture of what it represents…like it being one piece of the puzzle.
I know the sacraments are not just baptism and the eucharist, but also
confirmation, marriage, and extreme unction. (I grew up with a lot of German Catholics so this is what I heard them call it.) But when we make a bigger thing of transubstantiation in the purely physical act then we miss the spiritual aspect…in much the same marriage is a physical union but a spiritual union of both the man and the woman and both with the church and Jesus Christ.
While I may not be a Catholic and not bound to the catechism of the Catholic church, I do get a sense that it becomes more than divine nature. To show a small example of what I mean by divine nature, tonight I listened to a young man sing Pie Jesu and it touched me so deeply because in his voice I could hear a faith in him that came from somewhere deep.
And this is divine because that faith comes from God alone, so if the divinity of the bread and wine is there it is not because there is a chemical change in the elements, but a change in the believer. Because it is set apart to be sacred then does the element become sacred? I understand it is not because there is anything sacred in the ingredients, but the fact it is the command of Jesus Christ and it is ordained by Jesus Christ, therefore it is made sacred by Jesus Christ?
Is that what transubstantiation means? To become sacred because that is what it is designed to do?
Fr Alvin,
Thanks for the detailed explanation. I had not heard it ever exactly expressed that way. That’s why I appreciate a Catholic to dialogue with directly.
My point of disagreement with you, however, is that on the one hand you certainly support Christ as a flesh and blood human being, but your greater argument seems to fall back to God’s connection with us via ‘matter’, as you define it, rather than covenant.
Yet, you also say:
“The Eucharist is not a turning back of the clock. It is the Church’s participation, through the Spirit, in the heavenly banquet. Earth is lifted up into Heaven. The liturgy of the Church is not separate from the divine liturgy of the Kingdom; it is identical to it!”
It seems there is a dichotomy there if the elements have to actually become Christ in the flesh all over again.
mbaker,
I think I know what he meant. the flesh of Christ is not as it was pre-resurrection but as they consider it might be now. But the ordination of communion was pre-crucifixion.
This is an interesting subject, and I don’t know Chalcedon. But CMP asks if there is any other kind of Catholic and yes there are, there is the Irish Catholic Church, The Eastern Catholic Church and the various orthodox Churches that are Catholic but not fellow shipped with Roman Catholic.
I think it is more in the act of obedience, the act is sacred, the command is sacred so therefore all elements of it must be sacred. But if that is the case also,would not the person administering it also must be sacred? Is that when the priest becomes the vicar? I am asking these questions of pure curiosity and interest.
Yes, Kara. I can see what he is talking about too, but if the elements themselves are sacred, in the sense of the post resurrection of Christ, then how they are they made sacred by a priest? Jesus is our high priest, so there is no need to make the elements sacred again. It is the new covenant Christ made with us that makes them sacred.
Whoah, so many posts in such a short space of time! What to reply to first?
This post is in response to mbaker.
Why must it be either “via matter” or “via covenant” but not both? Why can’t the two things go together?
How was the old covenant at Sinai enacted (Exod 24)? Moses took the blood of oxen and sprinkled it on the people of Israel and said, “Behold the blood of the covenant which the Lord has made with you …” Straight after they were sprinkled with this blood, Moses, Aaron, Nadab and Abihu, and 70 of the elders of the people went up on Mt Sinai and ate and drank with God and saw him face to face, and yet they do not die, even though God says elsewhere that no one may see him and live. Why is it that they could do this? The obvious answer is that they had just been cleansed by the blood of the covenant. How was the New Covenant enacted? Jesus said, “Take and drink, this is my blood of the New Covenant shed for you for the forgiveness of sins”
Second, are you suggesting that the sacrifices offered by the Levitical priethood were wrong? Surely these sacrifices were instituted by God, and they were doing what he commanded? It was wrong when they thought they could use these sacrifices as an excuse to sin with impugnity and engage in all sorts of wicked and idolatrous activities instead of trusting wholeheartedly in the Lord, but that’s a different issue. The sacrifices themselves are never condemned in Scripture but were instead commanded, until the time when they were superceded by the sacrifice of Christ which they foreshadowed.
Blessings,
Michael Lockwood
Michael Lockwood,
I don’t want to get to far off the subject of the post here, but here is what I am trying to determine:
I am not suggesting the sacrifices of the Levitical priesthood were wrong, (don’t know how you came to that conclusion) but that the making of the elements sacred vis a vis an act that can only be performed by a priest in mass, is in a sense continuing something that Jesus replaced.
The very fact that anyone who is not Catholic cannot receive communion in that church is indicative that the church believes there has to be a covenant first with them.
Chalcedon, which is the topic of this post, defined the fact that Christ, while fully God and fully man cannot be separated into parts and parcels, as was being done with several different religions that CMP listed above. That was the point of it.
Therefore, making Him physically present in actual substance in millions of masses at one time, and dividing Him up, so to speak, when His bodily sacrifice has already been completed, once for all, does not make sense. Just as he cannot be crucified all over again, He cannot be deified all over again either by simply taking the Eucharist. He asked us to do it in remembrance of Him, not in replacement of Him through the elements.
Blessings to you too.
“My point of disagreement with you, however, is that on the one hand you certainly support Christ as a flesh and blood human being, but your greater argument seems to fall back to God’s connection with us via ‘matter’, as you define it, rather than covenant.”
Mbaker, there are so many ways one might approach the Eucharist. The challenge (perhaps, for me at least, an impossible challenge) is to think them all together and not only to think them together but to think them into each other. The Eucharist comprehends the whole of salvation, past, present, and future. It is simultaneously the memorial of the atoning sacrifice of the Lord Jesus and the enactment of the messianic banquet. It is the intersection of time and eternity. It is life in the coming Kingdom with all the saints. In this sacrament the Church realizes her identity as the community of the New Covenant and is made one people. The Eucharist makes the Church and the Church makes the Eucharist. I could go on and on and on. It’s all impossible to reduce to words and formulas. One must catch the vision. Only thus can one begin to understand why Eucharist is so central, so decisive, so important, so irreplaceable in the common life of the Orthodox and Catholic Churches.
The Eucharist is the central sacrament of the New Covenant, instituted by the Lord himself. It is not like the rituals of the Old Covenant, which could only anticipate and point to the Incarnate Messiah and his atoning death. The content of the Eucharist is the crucified and risen Lord himself, who has established in his Body and Blood a New Covenant. One theologian who reflected at some length on the relationship between the sacraments of the Old Law and the sacraments of the New Law was St Thomas Aquinas. You might find Matthew Levering’s book *Sacrifice and Community* of interest (see my article “The Sacrifice of Transubstantiation“).
I know I have not answered your questions. I’m not sure how to do so. There will come a time when Christ will be “all in all” and there will no longer be any need for sacraments. At that time, which will be the fulfillment and renewal of time, all will be Eucharist. But at the moment we still have one foot in this fallen world–hence the necessity of the Church and the appropriateness of the sacraments.
(to be continued)
Catholics and Orthodox did not invent the Eucharist and create out of our heads a theology to support it. We received it from the Lord himself. Eucharist is simply a given for us. Sunday after Sunday, for over 2,000 years, we have celebrated the eschatological Supper of the Lamb. Sunday after Sunday, for over 2,000 years, we have offered to the Father, with Christ and through Christ and in Christ, the sacrifice of Calvary. My challenge to you is to try to understand, truly understand, why the Eucharist has been so decisive in the life of the Church. To do this will require that you take off, at least temporarily, your Reformed/evangelical glasses and read the Church Fathers and the historic liturgies in a new and fresh way. The Reformed lost their way precisely at this point. Luther saw this clearly, which is why he so violently opposed Zwingli. Calvin sought to create a mediating position, but the simple fact remains that in the Reformed Church the Eucharist ceased to be the vital reality that it once was. It was effectually replaced by the proclaimed Word, and a powerful apologetic was generated to defend this change. I’m not interested, as you are not, in engaging in Catholic/Protestant polemics. But I would like to tempt you to read the Church Fathers and the best sacramental theologians of the Catholic and Orthodox Churches. You may get a glimpse of the transcendent beauty that is Eucharist.
Fr. Kimel:
Would you agree with the following?
Unlike Non-Sacramental Protestant (NSP) churches, the Eucharist is of supreme importance to the Roman Catholic (RC) and Eastern Orthodox (EO) Churches, being central to the RC Mass and the EO Divine Liturgy. Regardless of what beliefs and practices about God, Jesus Christ, the Trinity, salvation, the Bible, prayer, Christian behavior, etc., that NSP churches have in common with the RC and EO Churches, their respective Eucharistic beliefs and practices separate and will continue to separate them.
In the RC and EO Churches, partaking of the Eucharist is as much an act or expression of one’s union with the Church as it is an act or expression of being a member of Christ’s body (and these churches may in fact view the two as being pretty much the same thing). RCs and EOs affirm, both in doctrine and in practice, that those who do not belong to these churches do not have the right or permission or ability to take the Eucharist in these churches, for such persons are not properly united to Christ such that they can partake of His body and blood. RCs and EOs are likewise not allowed to take communion with those who are not RC or EO, respectively.
I am not thereby saying that the RC and the EO Churches are wrong, but am only pointing out that their Eucharistic practices and beliefs are tied not simply (as is the case in many NSP churches) to the communicants’ response to the question: “Who is Jesus?”, but also to the questions: “What is the Eucharist?” and “What is the church?”
Because of this, I think a person’s view of the Eucharist should be an important factor in their decision to become or remain RC, EO or NSP. For example, if a person believes that:
1. the bread and wine do or must become the Real body and blood of Christ (i.e., there is a change in the bread and wine), and
2. an integral part of one’s salvation process is the regular preparation for and act of eating and drinking the flesh/body and blood of Deity, and
3. an apostolically-traceable ordained priesthood is a required component in authorizing and overseeing and effecting the salvific change in the bread and the wine, whether by the priest’s pronouncing the words of institution (RC Church) or by the priest’s calling upon the Holy Spirit to effect the change (EO Church),
then he (or she) will have to be in either the RC Church or the EO Church, for he believes that he needs the above to be saved and to be in the Body of Christ. (Or if not the RC Church or the EO Church, one of the so-called “Oriental” Orthodox churches, if one accepts or doesn’t have a problem with their non-Chalcedonian Christology.)
While I think it’s possible to believe in points 1. and 2. without believing in point 3., to be RC or EO one must also believe and accept and affirm point 3., for in these churches the mystery (sacrament) of the Eucharist is not separable from the mystery of the priesthood. (continued in post below)
Fr. Kimel,
Interesting that you called it the supper of the Lamb which was what I had asked in a previous post. But as that is clearly taught and Jesus said to do, he said it was done in remembrance of Himself and not the former Passover. But aren’t we really supposed to be getting ready for the marriage feast? We know that it will happen but what is involved with it?
The Seder was in remembrance of the Passover, Communion was in remembrance of the Lord’s supper, but what about the marriage supper? It is upcoming. And I can see here there are three feasts that are important…the seder represents the coming Lord of deliverance, Communion represents the Lord of Deliverance, and the marriage supper is when we finally dwell with the Lord in His house. Can these also mean the three parts of man? Body (seder), soul (communion), spirit (marriage)? Or do I have those in the wrong order? I would prefer the importance of getting ready for the marriage supper.
(continued beyond the 3000 character limit, for Fr. Kimel as well as the others):
A Question (based on what I just set forth about the Eucharist – i.e., my points 1., 2., and 3.):
If Christianity from the beginning (i.e., from the time of Jesus and the Apostles) has clearly and unarguably always believed and taught and practiced points 1. and 2. above as a central doctrine and practice of the faith, can or should Non-Sacramental Protestantism be called “Christian”?
I.e., can a “Christian” group which ignores or rejects something the earliest Christians (including Jesus and the Apostles) believed and taught as a central doctrine and practice of the faith really be said to be “Christian”?
(I don’t include point 3. because I don’t think it is a requirement for believing points 1. and 2., or automatically follows from them, though history shows that this is how the church’s Eucharistic practices and beliefs developed for the majority of Christians.)
Note that I am not saying that this is in fact what Jesus and the Apostles believed and taught, but only asking a question about what to do if this is in fact the case.
Dear mbaker,
You’ve now raised some other issues that I don’t want to get into (i.e. church fellowship, and the role of the priesthood). I am not RC and so I am not going to see those things in quite the same way as a Catholic. Yet I thought the subject of this blog was the physical presence of Christ in the Lord’s Supper and how that relates to Chalcedon, which are different issues.
The point of the “without division” in the definition of Chalcedon is that the two natures of Christ cannot be divided from each other. i.e. we can’t say “Now Christ is present, but only his divine nature and not his human nature” or “Now Christ is present, but only his human nature and not his divine nature”. Nor can we ever say that Christ is somehow disincarnate, as if he shed his human nature at his resurrection or ascension. The issue addressed by this phrase in the definition was not whether the human nature could be in more than one place at one time. This is not hard to see when the proceedings at Chalcedon and its interpretation by the early church are looked at closely.
When Christ promises “Surely I am with you always to the very end of the age”, this means the whole Christ, otherwise Christ is divided in the sense that Chalcedon speaks of. This raises the issue of how Christ can keep this promise to all his followers scattered throughout the world at the same time. Reformed scholars have tended to get around this problem by saying that this promise only involves the divine nature. Yet that is to divide Christ. A far easier solution is just to admit that time and space are not sort of barriers to God that they are to us, and so the problem doesn’t really exist.
btw Calvin’s view was a little more sophisticated than that of many of the Reformed. He knew that the statements of Scripture clearly indicate that we commune with the body and blood of Christ, and not just with his Spirit. His solution was to say that in the Lord’s Supper (and also in the whole life of faith) we are raised up to heaven to commune with him. Yet what is this besides admitting that the barriers of time and space can be transcended?
Blessings,
Michael Lockwood
Michael L. and Fr. Alvin,
I think Eric W. grasped and defined some of my points quite well. I am trying to stay within the confines of this post by referring to the differences in the Chalcedon in theory, and how it differs or reinforces in practices regarding the mass. If you re-read my points above you would see how I related it.
However, Fr. Alvin Kimel has given us a definition which would in essence bring Christ’s broken body back to earth as a ritual function of the church that Christians who are considered to be saved must take part in to prove. He has told us the Eucharist is central to the RC core belief. Scripture tells us Jesus said, “As often as you do this, do it in remembrance of me.” No where did Christ specify how many times it had to be done, nor did He make it conditional upon salvation itself. It was/is essentially a memorial ceremony where Christ asks anyone who confesses Him as Savior and Lord to take part of as a symbol of their eternal union with Him. In doing so we Protestants do not separate Christ into two components, we just do not believe the elements literally become Him, but are symbols of His eternal union with the entire body of believers, in all ways.
If I am understanding Fr. Alvin correctly, they are saying on the one hand it is a celebration of the life, death and resurrection of Christ, just as it is in Protestant churches. Yet it seems in actual practice that it is the covenant with the RC church that must first be realized in order to even take the Eucharist. No other non-Catholic believer present at mass can do so. That is in actual practice separating Christ from the rest of His body of believers, and making it more about certain denominational beliefs instead. So one of the points I am offering for consideration is: If this is the case, how does the Eucharist be the symbol literally for Christ’s body, in all the ways Fr. Alvin has stated, but only allowed for believers within the confines of the body of the RC church?
This the one of the critical bottom line differences I see in the Chalcedon formal statement about Christ Himself, and the actual practices within the RC church, which would seem to lean back toward the physical presence alone being more important in the Eucharist.
Blessings to both of you. I am enjoying this conversation.
The problem is that the Reformed do not adhere to Chalcedon in the first place since they hold that the person of the mediator is a composite human-divine person as the product or result of the two natures and the divine person aasarkos (prior to incarnating) coming together to form it. To say that the incarnate Christ can be present in the elements would be to posit a separation of the persona mediatoris, the single produced subject.
Chalcedon affirms that contrary to Calvin, that Christ is not OF two natures, but IN two natures. and that Christ is not a human person, but a divine person in both natures.
“However, Fr. Alvin Kimel has given us a definition which would in essence bring Christ’s broken body back to earth as a ritual function of the church that Christians who are considered to be saved must take part in to prove.”
Given that I have already asserted in #77 above that Catholics believe that it is the glorified and risen Christ who communicates himself to believers in the Eucharist, I do not understand your choice of phrasing. What I have emphatically asserted, though, is that we are saved through and in the glorified and risen human nature of Christ. There is nothing particularly controversial in this claim: it is the foundation of the patristic teaching of theosis. In his own way Calvin himself also strove to assert the salvific significance of union with Christ in his human nature.
I’m not sure how the question of closed communion is of any relevance to our discussion. All the Churches that participated in the Council of Chalcedon practiced closed communion. That was normal practice and continues today to be the practice of Catholics and Orthodox; indeed, I imagine it was also the long-standing practice of the Reformed Churches until fairly recently. If I reject an essential belief and practice of the family, then I expect the family to exclude me from the family meal. There’s nothing controversial here. What in fact is controversial is the suggestion that the family may not and should not exclude those that reject essential family beliefs. In my former denomination, the Episcopal Church, this goes under the banner of “inclusivity.”
Please remember: the Catholic Church does not understand herself as a denomination. She understands herself as the Church. Ditto for the Orthodox Church. The practice of closed communion flows naturally from Catholic and Orthodox ecclesiologies, both of which are grounded in Holy Eucharist. The Eucharist makes the Church and the Church makes the Eucharist. (To be continued.)
To return now to the Council of Chalcedon. If the Reformed wish to invoke the ecumenical councils of the Church catholic on their behalf, then they must do so wholly, not piecemeal. They may not simply pick and choose which councils they like and which they do not like, nor may they interpret the dogmas defined by these councils in a way contrary to the beliefs and practices of those Churches that participated in these councils. Let them embrace not just Nicaea and Chalcedon but all the ecumenical councils of the undivided Church. If the Reformed are only willing to subject themselves to those councils whose dogmas agree with the Reformed confessions, then the ecumenical councils in fact have no real authority for the Reformed and should not be invoked in apologetic and ecumenical discussions.
Interpretation of conciliar dogmas is not always easy nor obvious, just as the interpretation of Holy Scripture is neither easy nor obvious. But one thing seems clear at least to me: one may not construe an ecumenical dogma in a way that the council fathers who defined that dogma would not have accepted. To whit: the Chalcedonian fathers would never have supported an interpretation of the Chalcedonian dogma that excluded the real and objective eucharistic presence of Christ. They were not Calvinists. Indeed, these fathers would have appealed to the real and objective eucharistic presence of Christ against the heresy of Nestorianism, as did St Cyril before them.
I’m off to attend my daughter’s college graduation, so this will be my last comment for a while. Have a great weekend, everyone!
Fr. Alvin,
You said you did not understand my phrasing in comment #94 above.
This is exactly what I am referring to, what you said regarding the church:
“Please remember: the Catholic Church does not understand herself as a denomination. She understands herself as the Church. Ditto for the Orthodox Church. The practice of closed communion flows naturally from Catholic and Orthodox ecclesiologies, both of which are grounded in Holy Eucharist. The Eucharist makes the Church and the Church makes the Eucharist.”
I posit to you that it was exactly that view that led to the Reformation. And that is why Catholics and their counterparts in the Orthodox church, and Protestants are at odds with one another, and why I brought up the fact that non-Catholics cannot partake of communion in mass.
While Luther himself may have agreed with you on the literal sense of the elements, that does certainly not mean he agreed that the Catholic church alone has a right to determine who is worthy to receive communion and who isn’t, and who is a church and who isn’t.
Indeed, who is truly worthy is determined by who is in Christ and who isn’t, and only He knows for sure who are His. It has nothing to do with church affiliation. And, certainly there are penalties spelled out already in scripture for those who take communion in an unworthy manner. We are all told to “Examine ourselves to see if we are in the faith” before doing so.
The question still remains regarding the subject of CMP’s post: If Catholics are under the auspices of the Chalcedon, as well as other councils, regarding the importance of the Eucharist as a central and literal ritual defining the church, why wouldn’t Protestants have the right to question what they see as differences between actions and words, under the public statements of stated Catholic doctrine? Isn’t this just what you are doing in this discussion regarding the beliefs of Calvin and Luther and the Reformation?
I hope your daughter’s graduation is a wonderful family time for all of you.
God bless.
Mbaker,
The idea that a a body can be THE church is not what motivates Orthodox claims that Rome is mistaken for the Orthodox make the same claim. We are not a denomination, one of many different appearances of essentially the same thing. The Orthodox Church just is the Church Jesus and the Apostles founded, full stop.
The idea of closed communion is grounded in the Jewish and OT commitment that only those who profess the same faith as Israel may participate in the Passover meal and with which one can pray. This is why the Orthodox are canonically prohibited from praying with schismatics and heterodox. Jews weren’t permitted to pray with pagans.
What led to the Reformation was far different and was mainly motivated by the Neo-Semi-pelagianism of the Okhamists, the attending Nominalism and the loss of the decrees of the Synod of Orange until the middle of the 16th century. Questions of authority came later.
Secondly, Lutherans, Reformed and Baptists historically have not recognized each other as true visible churches and hence deny not only communion but the celebration of it to their mutual ministers. And this is because they each take the other two to fail in reference to the three Reformation marks of the church. So I am not sure why this is an issue since Protestants do the same thing.
Neither Catholics nor Orthodox presume to judge who is in the church in terms of the imperceptible reception of grace through and in Christ. This does not mean that they are not free, as was the NT church to exclude or include others based on profession and various rites. As Paul says, those who have been baptized have put on Christ. Further, the NT indicates that the NT Church was capable of excluding members from the kingdom. (1 Cor 5:5, Matt 18:17)
As I already noted the Reformed do not adhere to Chalcedonian Christology. They interpret Chalcedon in light of their Confessions and not the other way around. The Reformed have historically taken the view that the person of the mediator is a composite person produced from the union of the two natures so that Jesus is a divine-human person. It is a prosopic union strictly speaking and this is why Calvin speaks of the person of Christ being OUT of two natures and not IN two natures and why the WCF states “Which person is very God and very man…” (WCF 8.2)
Perry,
Good points. However the bottom line, and where we all often fail to get to in our examination of communion, on both sides, is that whether we take it literally to mean we are drinking Christ’s blood and eating his flesh or not, (in my mind this already goes against the OT warnings) we are ALL still subject to Christ’s definition of it. That we are to do in “remembrance” of what He did not what we personally, or our churches believe.
Are you comprehending the difference here in what I am saying? Catholics on the one hand are saying they are the only true church. Protestants, at least in my opinion, (and I am one) view communion as only a ritual we occasionally do honoring Christ.
So in that light , at least in my mind, it is an issue that either way, Christ Himself is put secondary to the ritual itself.
If the Chaldecon was meant to define who Christ was, in reference to all the differing opinions of religions out there who defined Him on their own terms, where are we all now regarding that particular issue?
I find it more problematic in that respect than dogmatic.