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?"
CMP wrote:
But, Fr. Alvin, that is why I think my question, and your answer, is indeed relevant. I asked:
Per your answer, the Roman Catholic Church teaches that Christ’s risen and glorified body is offered and received at the Mass. Maybe I’m being simplistic, but that seems to render CMP’s question irrelevant, not my question, because there is no problem with Chalcedon, IMO, with Christ’s fully divine-and-human New Man Body being omnipresent.
Or so I think.
(rewritten to pass “moderation” block, I think)
77. Fr Alvin Kimel on 14 May 2009 at 3:45 pm #
Eric[W] asks: “So, which “body” is present/offered/received in the Eucharist: Christ’s pre-resurrection body, or His post-resurrection body?”
Fr. Alvin: This is an easy question for a Catholic to answer: we partake of the risen and glorified Body of the Lord.
[EricW asks] “Is this question relevant for the question posed by this post?”
Fr. Alvin: Probably not. 🙂
CMP wrote:
Transubstantiation meet Chalcedon. The problem…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 human body (that which is supposed to be present at every Mass all over the world) does not and cannot possess omnipresence. The implications would be at odds with the Roman Catholic view of Transubstantiation…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.
That is why I think my question, and Fr. Alvin’s answer, is indeed relevant. I asked:
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?
Per Fr. Alvin’s answer, the Roman Catholic Church teaches that Christ’s risen and glorified body is offered and received at the Mass. Maybe I’m being simplistic, but that seems to render CMP’s question irrelevant, not my question, because there is no problem with Chalcedon, IMO, with Christ’s fully divine-and-human New Man Body being omnipresent.
Or so I think. 🙂
I think I posted this above, but it seems to have been lost in the shuffle. Thomists among others–at least one important “strain” within Catholic orthodoxy–reject the possibility of Christ’s multilocation in the Eucharist. Thomas Aquinas says that Christ is not locally present. If you would like evidence of this claim, you can see Fr. Kimel’s essays or you can ask and I will give a citation.
If multilocation is rejected, do we still have any problems with Chalcedonian orthodoxy?
I’m sorry but I’m not getting why ‘multilocation’ is the crux of the difference in the problem here.
Please define the difference, someone, and not in terms of the church fathers, but in terms of scripture itself.
Thanks.
Asking to define the nuances in the doctrine of Transubstantiation with direct reference to Scripture is like asking to arbitrate the fine points between Cyril and Nestorius with the same. I’m not sure that is *entirely* fair.
The relevance is this (at least for the discussion as a whole, maybe not where it is right now. If that’s the case, I apologize.):
1) Thomas Aquinas says that human bodies cannot multilocate for a number of reasons based upon natural philosophical principles (which, I don’t think, are necessary to go into at this point in the discussion.
2) Christ’s body is a true human body and, therefore, it cannot multilocate.
So…it seems to me that Thomas Aquinas is sensitive to the requirements of Chalcedon that Christ’s human body not “exceed” what is possible for a truly human body. (That might not have been the most accurate way of putting it.) Now, the interesting question is whether something can be substantially and truly present without being locally present. But that is not a question for this post. Whatever you think about the plausibility, it seems to me that, with this formulation of Aquinas, we avoid any potential for breaching Chalcedonian (or Ephesian) orthodoxy…
Isn’t Jesus omnipresent if he contains all the attributes and nature of God the Father? Does He bodily have to be in all places or spiritually can He be everywhere?
http://www.newadvent.org/summa/4076.htm#article5
The subsequent articles may be interesting as well.
Matt,
For the sake of sounding perhaps a little mystical, which perhaps this might sound like it but without the intention, have you ever had this happen to you? You are in bed sleeping and you awake the next morning to have someone call you on the phone to tell you that they felt your presence come into their room and you spoke to them.
Now I don’t know what that is but it has happened to me. A close relative said I was there. Now that could have been a doppelganger or something like it but apparently the whole episode brought this person some sort of relief because they were going through something at the time. I don’t know what it was but I will not question it if God wanted to use me in such a manner. But think of that, Jesus has the power to come to where we are in such a way that we don’t even realize it is him.
I don’t know, but anything is possible with God. Even Jesus appearing all over the world at one time. Since he does transcend time and space he can do what he wants. That’s my opinion, please don’t take it for more than my inquisitive mind.
My question exactly, Kara! Everyone here seems to want to argue that on the dogmatic principles of their own religious prejudices. I am asking for a scriptural viewpoint.
mbaker,
How are you tonight? We were out tonight in the yard and I took my Bible out and read it in the cool of the day and appreciated the fact that God came down and walked with Adam in the cool of the day.
So in essence, God was walking with us in the yard in the cool of the day speaking with us. His word is alive and it was so nice to have that fellowship. Maybe that is one example of His omnipresence?
I am not arguing anything on my religious prejudices. I am offering a definitive explanation of the doctrine. Only then, can we compare this explanation to the “deposit of faith” in Scripture. Do you see what I’m saying?
The topic of this post is that Transubstantiation contradicts the Chalcedonian formulation of the Incarnation. That is a difficult topic to arbitrate with Scripture alone, no?
The following is old and is from a Lutheran perspective (I think), but it may be useful for clarifying the conversation.
http://www.ccel.org/s/schaff/encyc/encyc12/htm/ii.xvi.ii.htm
Matt,
You said:
“Asking to define the nuances in the doctrine of Transubstantiation with direct reference to Scripture is like asking to arbitrate the fine points between Cyril and Nestorius with the same. I’m not sure that is *entirely* fair.”
Why not? Isn’t scripture the point of reference of all Christian guidelines?
I think that is what we are asking Catholics in regards to communion: Is it your counsels or the whole counsel of God that scripture teaches that counts?
I would ask exactly the same things of the Reformed folks. And certainly expect to in future discussions.
Mbaker,
“Literally” is far too ambiguous a term to be useful here. It has little or no purchase in the history of the technical and far more precise terminology of Christian doctrine. This is why I don’t use it. I wouldn’t put the kind of weight on “remembrance” that you do, since its usage in the OT as well as by Jews today is far more than a mental recollection.
Lutherans and Anglicans and probably a good number of Presbyterians do not view the eucharist as “only a ritual we occasionally do honoring Christ.” An to my knowledge, do not Protestants claim historically that Rome and the Orthodox are false churches and that Protestant bodies are in fact true churches, and rather by default the only true existing churches?
Matt,
How do you personally view it yourself? Without using all the different explanations, what does it mean to you and how do you apply it into your life? Apart from being dogmatic or some other scary word…what is your own personal viewpoint?
I think some of us who just don’t know Chalcedon or the Lutheran Church we have to understand this important thing. If you can give us something to draw on from your personal experience I might understand. I am one of those people who understand through parables. If I get a visual then it make sense.
I am dyslexic and have trouble reading the deeply worded things and sometimes they make absolutely no sense because the way my brain functions. I can’t play chess or checkers either.
Matt,
Actually the blog title says Do Catholics Deny Chalcedon in Their View of Mass?
I thought mass was every service. Do they take communion at every mass?
“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?”
If the Reformed do not in fact subject themselves to the dogmatic authority of Chalcedon and the conciliar tradition (which I really do not think they do), then they are simply playing polemical games when they assert that the Catholic belief in the objective eucharistic presence of Christ violates the Chalcedonian definition. How would you feel if a Catholic were to invoke the Westminster Confession against a contemporary Reformed belief or practice? I think you would rightly insist that the Catholic, since he has not subjected himself to the authority of the Westminster Confession, does not have the proper hermeneutical and personal relationship with the Confession to be able to interpret it rightly.
The ecumenical councils belong to Catholic identity and history in a way that they do not belong to Reformed identity and history. Catholics regard the dogmas defined by these councils as infallible and irreformable. The Reformed cannot and do not regard them in this way.
So what is being asserted in this thread is something like this: We, the Reformed, object to the Catholic doctrine of transubstantiation because it contradicts how we, the Reformed, on the basis of our reading of Holy Scripture, understand the hypostatic union.
Chalcedon is irrelevant to the Reformed argument and should never have been invoked. I do not, of course, deny the right of the Reformed to reject Catholic doctrine on the basis of Reformed convictions. But I do deny their right to invoke the authority of the ecumenical councils of the Church in these kinds of polemical arguments.
Fr Alvin,
You said:
“Chalcedon is irrelevant to the Reformed argument and should never have been invoked. I do not, of course, deny the right of the Reformed to reject Catholic doctrine on the basis of Reformed convictions. But I do deny their right to invoke the authority of the ecumenical councils of the Church in these kinds of polemical arguments.”
As I said in comment #112, I do not accept either side’s arguments on the basis of dogmatic arguments alone, but in respect to the whole counsel of God on the matter. Yes, we can do our own thing, whether we are Catholics or Protestants, but the real question for ALL of us, is how does this fit in with the whole counsel of God? Does it really come down to an argument about who is right and wrong in regard to our church’s beliefs?
While I do not pretend to speak for CMP regarding this, I feel that is in essence the greater question.
Perry,
While I respect your views, I fear you are reading far more into my comments than was meant, at least by me personally. I am asking for both sides objectively, in the lens of scripture itself, to present their case.
Hey folks, have been gone most of the day and will be through the weekend. Wow! Have not had the time to get up to date and probably won’t.
Love you all discussing these things, but do your part just keep it kind and profitable.
God bless.
“I am asking for both sides objectively, in the lens of scripture itself, to present their case.”
Just a quick note before I turn off my computer. Mbaker, you are asking a great deal, probably too much for a blog conversation. Folks have been debating these matters for centuries. But for simple Catholics like myself, the dominical words are sufficient: “This is my body. This is my blood.”
On why these words should be taken literally, I commend to you the two great eucharistic tracts of Luther, contained in vol 37 of Luther’s Works: That These Words of Christ, “This Is My Body,” etc., Still Stand Firm Against the Fanatics (1527) and Confession Concerning Christ’s Supper (1528).
Peace.
Fr. Alvin,
Thanks for being willing to engage in this conversation. Your willingness to come into the ‘enemy camp’, so to speak, is most deeply appreciated by me. I have learned much about why you believe as you do. And while I do not agree with your conclusions, I do appreciate your glimpse into the other side.
In the end, I think, it is Christ Himself who will have to decide the right or wrong of this in the matter. That is what I count upon anyway.
For that reason, I will be signing off this thread, and leaving it to greater minds than my own.
God speed, and God bless you.
mbaker,
I certainly believe that Scripture is (at the very least!) the “point of reference” for any discussion of Christian doctrine. But we are not talking, at this moment, about whether Transubstantiation is the most accurate way of rendering the Scriptural teaching on Communion or whatever. I do believe that it is, as I believe that the Trinity is the best way of rendering the teaching of Scripture, etc., on the relationship of Christ and the Father, etc. But though this is the case, I don’t think that every nuance of the Conciliar discussions can be proof-texted in a straightforward way. Do you?
But that is not what we are talking about…yet. Someone here has stated that, because Christ is substantially, really, truly present on millions of altars, His body is not a truly human body (thus breaking with Chalcedonian orthodoxy). I am simply saying that, at least according to one of the greatest theologians of the Catholic tradition, this is not true; Christ is not locally present in the Eucharist. This is a matter of historical fact, not Biblical hermeneutics. Am I wrong about this?
I believe the point of the Reformation was that the Confessions, Councils, and traditions are NOT the highest authority; that although those things truly have authority, the Scripture is the final authority.
The only authority the Confession has is over someone who should be confessing it; a person who’s taken an oath, is serving as a pastor in a Westminsterian church, or is studying in a class. If your Roman Catholic were to plausibly level his charges against one of these, his target should hang his head (and then decide whether to resign or reform).
You are correct that interpretation does imply tradition, but this means that the Roman Catholic’s reading of the Westminster Confession will require careful explanation, not that the Roman Catholic should be ignored.
None of this would show that our alleged Westminsterian is in heresy. To do that, our Roman Catholic would have to go to a higher authority; one of the councils we share, or Scripture itself.
This is how I read the Reformed tradition, at least. Does it seem like a plausible reading to you?
By the way, I do consider Patton’s question to be answered, on two fronts. First, although physicality limits location now, it’s not clear how it will limit location after the resurrection, and it seems silly to make a philosophical speculation into a doctrinal objection. Second, it’s clear that at least some Catholics (Thomists) hold that the Flesh is not actually in all those places, but rather all of those places join (in some manner) to the location of Christ’s flesh. (Do I have these generally right?)
I don’t agree for other reasons, but I hope I understand.
-Wm
To rephrase what I said before, we believe that the Councils have authority both through tradition and through accurate use of Scripture (from which their only binding authority derives). A Council that reached antibiblical conclusions must be rejected, and one which reached non-Biblical conclusions will have only the authority of whatever common premises it shares with the church in rightful authority over me.
Conversely, all of the Church participated in the Ecumenical Councils, and thus all of the Church may interpret them. Of course, you hold as implicitly true that we are not of the Church; but we reserve the right to disagree.
-Wm
Wm Tanksley,
Patton’s question in terms of argumentative force is vaccuous since the Reformed themselves dissent from Chalcedonian Christology as I pointed out above.
Wm Tanksley,
The question is not what is the standard or rule of faith, but who is the judge to apply that rule? So you remark that councils are accepted in so far as they are in line with scripture. Well, who is to judge if it is in line with Scripture? Obviously the church took that to be the job of bishops since in general, general councils were limited to bishops. Secondly Paul makes clear that Scripture is good for a number of things so that the man of God is equipped and that phrase tou theu anthropos always denotes in Scripture someone ordained in some special office and not just any believer. Even if Scripture is the only infallible rule, that doesn’t imply that laymen are free to apply the rule any way they like or agree with.
When you write that all of the churches participated in the Ecumenical councils, so they are all free to interpret them, this seems not only false but problematic. First there were no Protestant Churches for the Trinitarian and Christological councils and the majority of those were Eastern councils with western representation usually via the papal legates. As for councils outside the first seven, the Orthodox have 2 more authoritative ones and Rome a horde more after that. And Protestants have no ecumenical councils at all. Councils like any document aren’t an exegetical free for all. When people recite the Nicene Creed when it speaks of baptism for the remission of sins, honest folk aren’t permitted to reinterpret it to deny baptismal regeneration for example, which the writers of that phrase used it to denote andstill say that they believe the Nicene Creed.
Matt wrote:
The following is old and is from a Lutheran perspective (I think), but it may be useful for clarifying the conversation.
http://www.ccel.org/s/schaff/encyc/encyc12/htm/ii.xvi.ii.htm
This site does not give a very accurate picture of the Lutheran view. It is obiously written by someone who is Reformed, who hasn’t bothered to understand people like Luther or Chemnitz nor the Church fathers they quoted.
OK, let’s use some Scripture to decide this issue:
“Take and eat, this is my body”
“Take and drink, this is my blood, shed for your for the forgiveness of sins”
“The cup of blessing that we bless, is it not a communion in the blood of Christ? The bread that we break, is it not a communion in the body of Christ?” (1 Cor 10:16)
“Whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be answerable for the body and blood of the Lord” (1 Cor 11:27)
“Those who eat of my flesh and drink my blood have eternal life, and I will raise them up on the last day; for my flesh is true food and my blood is true drink. Those who eat my flesh and drink my blood abide in me, and I in them.” (John 6:54-56)
“And remember, I am with you always, to the end of the age” (Matt 28:20)
“Where two or three are gathered in my name, I am there among them” (Matt 18:20)
“Those who love me will keep my word, and my Father will love them, and we will come to them and make our home with them” (John 14:23)
“For if the blood of goats and bulls, and the sprinkling of defiled persons with the ashes of a heifer, sanctify for the purification of the flesh, how much more will the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself without blemish to God, purify our conscience from dead works to serve the living God” (Heb 9:13-14)
I believe that Scriptures such as these do settle the issue. The problem is that people like Calvin and Zwingli, whenever they were presented with such passages, always resorted to saying: “Figure of speech”, “figure of speech”, “figure of speech”. Jesus couldn’t possibly mean what he says. His body is stuck up in heaven so it is impossible for him to be with us on earth, and he would never expect us to eat his flesh and blood. In this way the Reformed, despite all their Bible thumbing, don’t actually let the Bible speak, because any passage that doesn’t suit their agenda they can always dismiss with the words, “figure of speech”.
Michael Lockwood wrote: I believe that Scriptures such as these do settle the issue. The problem is that people like Calvin and Zwingli, whenever they were presented with such passages, always resorted to saying: “Figure of speech”, “figure of speech”, “figure of speech”. Jesus couldn’t possibly mean what he says. His body is stuck up in heaven so it is impossible for him to be with us on earth, and he would never expect us to eat his flesh and blood. In this way the Reformed, despite all their Bible thumbing, don’t actually let the Bible speak, because any passage that doesn’t suit their agenda they can always dismiss with the words, “figure of speech”.
Michael Lockwood:
Words mean what the author/speaker meant them to mean in the context in which and for the purpose for which he/she used/spoke them, not what the reader or hearer interprets them to “clearly” or “obviously” or “no doubt” or “likely” or “probably” or “certainly” mean. And the words themselves and their intended or understood or misundertood meaning can’t be divorced from the culture and understanding and expectations and assumptions and presuppositions and biases and experiences of the author or speaker and the reader or hearer.
And I don’t think either Catholics or Reformed or any other persons can read these words without some personal filtering of what they mean. In some cases, without Jesus or Paul themselves to explain what they said or wrote, we might not ever be absolutely certain of the proper and correct understanding of some of the things they said and wrote and meant.
E.g., what does koinônia mean? How does it differ from metechô, if it indeed does differ? And what do these mean in the context of a fellowship meal, versus trade and business? And how reliable are our current lexicons? Per some recent articles, the answer is – not always very. And what is the proper set and setting and context of the last supper/Lord’s Supper in terms of understanding what happened and the meaning of what happened on the night in which He was betrayed? And what relation does that last supper have with the Lord’s Table participation the early christians engaged in?
IMO, before accusing Reformed Christians of not letting the Bible speak and dismissing what it “obviously” says by resorting to saying “Figure of speech, figure of speech, figure of speech,” the one making such an accusation should be absolutely certain that he or she absolutely knows what that same Bible is in fact saying.
Wow… a couple of days and it seems this post is moving quickly.
First off, thanks so much to all for your answers. I’m learning a lot.
Some quick observations:
mbaker, #100: Protestants, at least in my opinion, (and I am one) view communion as only a ritual we occasionally do honoring Christ.
For reference, I am a member in a non-denominational Bible church, which I would catalogue as Protestant, and we have the Eucharist each week.
On the matter of “closed” communion, during our Eucharist it is clearly mentioned that “If you have come to know Christ as your risen Lord and Savior, please feel free to partake in the elements”. Would you consider that “closed” ?
I think Paul makes it clear as well in 1Cor11:27 that one is to “be worthy”. The different denominations will interpret what that means differently.
Michael Lockwood’s scripture references in the previous post are very well put.
As I mentioned in my original comment that seems to have revived this whole thread again, I think it’s more of a mystery what exactly happens at the Eucharist. We are commanded to do it, we have 2,000 years of tradition indicating Christians did it every Sunday, and there is enough Scripture reference to indicate it is more than “a remembrance”.
But on this side…. I don’t think we’ll ever figure out who’s right 😉
That being said, please continue the conversation in a loving manner. I find it truly educational.
Peace to all
In Him
Mick
PS: Fr. Alvin Kimel: Do you have a website or any publications out there ? Some of the statements are very clear and concise to me. Forgive my ignorance on who you might be 😉
I am not going to contribute much to the discussion because for me, at 73, this is in the category of how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. In my religious studies courses and my early theology under the Jesuits, this would have fascinated me. But, my relationship with God has so improved since I quit dabbling at the outer edges of theology, like this question, and focused on my prayer life and allowing the Holy Spirit to take me into dimensions of experience that make issues like this completely unimportant in my life.
Theology tends to dry one up spiritually, as it did me, at one time. Not that I do not value theology or still research, study, and try to learn. The older I get, I realize the less I really know and understand and I highly respect Michael Patton’s attempts to make people think and learn. The Jesuits taught me critical thinking and it is of great value to me. It is just that these kinds of issues pale in the reality of the intimacy available to those who submit their lives to Christ rather than examining it from afar. I discovered this after leaving Catholicism and allowing scripture to guide me and theologians less. I discovered such differences in what theologians claimed scripture says and what I read and I read with study and research that includes opposing postions.
I like what Oswald Chambers says that true intimacy with God follows the ability to surrender one’s “right to himself to Christ”. This is done willfully with full knowledge of what one is doing in his or her life. And it does not lead to spiritual blindness, but inspires more study and analysis in order to find out what each verse really means. I don’t just read scripture without studay and analysis. But, I now primarily read those who pray and those who have come into this deep level of experience of the nearness of God. This is the pursuit I have chosen to follow. Many of the mystics of the church are of great appeal to me, but they are not my primary source either. I read a broad area of writers with differing opinions.
I recall a discussion at the Graduate Theological Union in Berkeley where the question was: Is there a place for prayer in the theologate? One the highest respected profs posited the answer was no. That is the dryness I found. I was a guest, not enrolled.
In response to Eric W’s response to me, I would like to say the following.
Of course, good biblical exegesis involves considering things like literary context, historical context, grammar, precisely defining terms, etc. I could debate all these matters at great length if you want.
Yet I will still contend that the Reformed position on the Lord’s Supper does not hinge on any of these issues. Instead it hinges on their metaphysical views, where barriers such as time (witness their constant references to the fact that the LS was instituted by Christ before his crucifixion) and space (witness their constant references to the impossibility of Christ’s body being in more than one place at one time) cannot be overcome by God. Furthermore, there are constant references to the indignity of God coming to us in such a physical way, which boils down to a metaphysical separation between matter and spirit, and a preference for spiritual things over material things. If one wants to look at things like context (i.e. how his words would be understood by a Jewish audience given the background of the Jewish sacrificial system), how Jesus was understood by his earliest hearers given the testimony of the earliest church documents, or grammar (the fact that Zwingli and Calvin’s interpretation does not involve any conventional figure of speech but rather involves a form of allegory, a form of interpretation that is generally rejected by Protestants and Catholics alike if it is used to trump the literal meaning of the text instead of supplementing it), then all the weight of evidence lies on the other side.
If you think I am being unfair to someone like Calvin, I have read him at length on this issue, and I will happily supply references for how he simply dismisses as figures of speech all the statements in the Scriptures and the early church regarding either the bodily presence of Christ in the Supper or the communication of attributes. This is hard enough to do with the Scriptures, but is almost impossible to do with the early church, given the extent to which these issues were discussed. Calvin even goes so far in denying the communication of attributes that he says that the merits of Christ’s obedience and death are merely human merits, which are only meritorious for our salvation because of God’s eternal decree of mercy, not because they are also the merits of the divine Son of God.
Michael Lockwood:
I may have unfairly and hurriedly characterized your comments as being dismissive or critical of all Reformed Christians, and not specifically “people like Calvin and Zwingli, whenever they were presented with such passages.” With your further explanation and your reading of their writings, I think I better understand what you are saying about their methodology. I.e., you seem to be making more of an observation than simply a criticism.
A friend is reading Mark Noll’s The Scandal of the Evangelical Mind (a book I haven’t read), and we both wonder if the Orthodox and Catholic theology of the incarnation (with which we both are familiar) sees things like the Eucharist, as well as all of life, from the rites of the Church to the “secular” Arts and Sciences and Literature, in ways that a Reformed/Evangelical matter/spirit split or distinction (with which we both are also familiar) does not or cannot.
Dear EricW
I think you are spot on in saying that the matter/spirit split in Reformed/Evangelical theology makes it very difficult to see a whole host of issues in the same way that an Orthodox or Catholic (or for that matter Lutheran) theology of the incarnation makes possible.
It is interesting to note in this context that both Zwingli and Calivn were heavily steeped in Renaissance Humanism. Calvin was an accomplished humanist before his evangelical conversion, and although he later tried to work out his theology biblically without bringing in foreign philosophical elements, in my opinion he never seemed to be able to quite shake the humanism in which his early thinking had been formed. The Renaissance humanists were heavily influenced by Platonism, which makes a radical split between matter and spirit. I think it is no coincidence that Calvin’s favourite theologian from the early church was Augustine, who was also very heavily influenced by Platonism.
But the most influential theologian from the early church on the scholastics was also Augustine. I just don’t think it is accurate–not that you were saying this, but it may be inferred from your comments–to say that the Reformed have a corner on Augustine.
Michael Lockwood,
The issue of matter was an important issue at the time. The new definition of matter as intrinsically extensional at the time is utilized to some degree by the Reformed in their critiques of other positions. Prior theologians by and large did not think of matter as having any form or quality of its own but of being formless and only taking on form when forms exerted their causal power on it. This was why it was necessary to study metaphysics prior to any empirical science. But that is not the heart of the matter. (Pun!)
Reformed Christology here is the key just as it is with the Reformed opposition to icon veneration. Because the Reformed view the person of Christ after the mediator a composite person in the sense that the person is the product of the divine will bring into union with itself human nature so that the incarnate Christ is a divine and human person, it is impossible for Calvin to permit Christ’s presence in the elements since that would imply a separation of the union. For Calvin, as he himself says on more than one occasion, the persona of Christ is OUT of two natures. The union is not hypostatic in the sense that Chalcedon determined but prosopic in the sense that Nestorius advocated. As I noted previously this is apparent in a careful reading of the WCF and the divines who composed it. The topic post of this thread is therefore misplaced since it is the Reformed Christology, which is directly at odds with Chalcedon and so is their Eucharistic theology which posits the divine will using the elements as a tool or instrument.
Your reading of Calvin on the communication idiomatum and the value of Christ’s merit is spot on. At the end of the day, Christ is not the basis for our knowledge of God, but the divine will since it is the latter and not the work of the former that determines and orders the value of the atonement. Likewise, the Reformed take the communication idiomatum to be a way of speaking without any transfer of divine energies (immortality, glory, etc.) to the humanity of Christ as Athanasius, Cyril and others maintained.
“Patton’s question in terms of argumentative force is vacuous since the Reformed themselves dissent from Chalcedonian Christology as I pointed out above.”
Do you understand why your claim has gone largely ignored? It’s because it’s entirely beside the point. It’s a vacuous ad hominem.
Supposing for the sake of argument that all your claims were true, including the crucial unsupported ones; that doesn’t rebuke in any way the original question.
So… My point… If you want to push THIS question, you’ll have to do it in email or in your own blog. Bringing it up in only tangentially related questions is just thread hijacking.
-Wm
Every man will be judged by God for every idle word — how much more for the application of every inspired word of Scripture? This means that every human is responsible for applying the rule of faith. On the Last Day you don’t get to claim, “oh, my Church taught me this and I did it, I Was Only Following Orders.” This is the reason the office of Bishop/Elder is so vital; the men who hold it teach the people who will be judged in how they apply the Scriptures. (There’s a greater judgment for teachers.)
Every single person who relies on the councils is personally responsible to confirm their accuracy. Paul praised the Bereans, who spent time confirming his accuracy (the Bereans couldn’t have been Bishops!).
This is a terribly circular argument. The only conclusion one could draw from it is that the people who comprise a specific council would themselves be responsible for its accuracy. This is true, but besides the point. Your conclusion that the “bishops in general” are responsible is not supported in any way by that argument.
Now, one could make an argument by pointing out that the Biblical description of Bishops clearly gives them that job requirement; and I fully agree. But at no time does that imply that it is ONLY their responsibility. We (the laity as well as the clergy) are responsible to watch out for false teaching.
Even assuming what you claim (for which I was unable to find any support except that “man of God” is indeed Old Testament idiom for a prophet), that same passage is making the point that Scripture is securing Timothy’s salvation. Granted that he’s a “man of God”, the task of securing salvation isn’t limited to Bishops.
They are required to apply the rule. Their teachers are required to explain to them HOW to apply the rule. They are commanded to watch for false teachers, so that they do not get deceived.
-Wm
Secondly Paul makes clear that Scripture is good for a number of things so that the man of God is equipped and that phrase tou theu anthropos always denotes in Scripture someone ordained in some special office and not just any believer.
Via Logos, even ignoring the case I found “tou (genitive of ho) theou (genitive of theos) anthrôpos (man)” only as follows:
2 Tim 3:17 (ὁ τοῦ θεοῦ ἄνθρωπος ho tou theou anthrôpos – the man of God)
Gal 2:6 (πρόσωπον [ὁ] θεὸς ἀνθρώπου οὐ λαμβάνει prosôpon ho theos anthrôpou ou lambanei – God doesn’t receive the face/appearance of a man = God is no respecter of persons)
Deut 4:32 (ἧς ἔκτισεν ὁ θεὸς ἄνθρωπον ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς hês ektisen ho theos anthrôpon epi tês gês – in which God created man on the earth)
I.e., since there is only one instance where that exact phrase occurs in Scripture, I guess one could technically claim “that phrase…always denotes in Scripture someone ordained in some special office” (assuming Paul called Timothy that as a reference to Timothy’s ordained office).
But I would think one would want more than one instance in order to say that something “always” is such and such.
And if you rearrange the words so anthrôpos comes before theos, then you have what Wm Tanksley says – i.e., “man of God” is an OT idiom for a prophet:
Judges 13:8
1 Samuel 9:7
1 Samuel 9:8
1 Samuel 9:10
1 Kings 12:24
1 Kings 13:4
1 Kings 13:5
1 Kings 13:6
1 Kings 13:7
1 Kings 13:8
1 Kings 13:11
1 Kings 13:12
1 Kings 13:14
1 Kings 13:21
1 Kings 13:26
1 Kings 13:28
1 Kings 13:29
1 Kings 13:31
1 Kings 20:28
2 Kings 4:7
2 Kings 4:21
2 Kings 4:22
2 Kings 4:25
2 Kings 4:40
2 Kings 4:42
2 Kings 6:6
2 Kings 7:17
2 Kings 8:4
2 Kings 8:7
2 Kings 8:8
2 Kings 8:11
2 Kings 13:19
2 Kings 23:16
2 Kings 23:17
2 Chronicles 25:9
Psalm 89:1 (Psalm 90:1 Hebrew)
1 Esdras 5:48-49 Then Jeshua son of Jozadak, with his fellow priests, and Zerubbabel son of Shealtiel, with his kinsmen, took their places and prepared the altar of the God of Israel, 49 to offer burnt offerings upon it, in accordance with the directions in the book of Moses the man of God.
It sounds like a case of illegitimate totality transfer with regard to “man of God.” Cross-referencing is a great thing to do, but can also be very dangerous if you don’t know what you are doing.
Are you saying that you can cross-reference part of this and add some form of ordination (which implies infallibility) without regarding the NT man of God as an actual prophet?
If not, then are you saying bishops are prophets, or just like prophets in that they represent God to the people (my view)?
There are a lot of exegetical assumptions here that I am not following.
Wm Tanksley,
I don’t presume to know why others have no interacted with my argument since I am not a reader of minds. Secondly, it is not an ad hom argument. It is the same argument just re-directed to a different target that CMP makes. If my argument is an ad hom, then so is the original. The original is not, so then neither is mine.
The Reformed view of the Eucharist is inconsistent with Chalcedon because their Christology is inconsistent with Chalcedon. If you think that claim is wrong, then please explain the citations from Calvin and others that I supplied readers with already, namely that their view is that the persona mediatoris is OUT of the two natures so that Christ is a human and divine person as indicated in the WCF 8.2. If not, then my point still stands. The union for the Reformed is prosopic and not really hypostatic which also explains their monoenergism.
If my claims are true then the Reformed can’t consistently chide others with not holding to doctrinal standards that they profess to hold but in fact do not. So they can only make the argument by impugning their own position. And even if it were not the case that my argument functioned in that way, it would still be worthwhile and germane since it would show that the Reformed like their Catholic opponents are non-Chalcedonian and that is something worthwhile to know in and of itself.
As for high jacking, as far as I can tell I am one of the few who has in fact taken the time here to explicate exactly what Chalcedon commits one to. Most of the other comments are tied up on the sideshow of circumscription while ignoring its fundamental Christological root and source in the Reformed Christology. So I think my comments have been right on target. One can only claim that Rome’s view or anyone else’s is inconsistent with Chalcedon only if we know what Chalcedon taught. And I don’t see anyone here really giving a substantial gloss and presentation on Chalcedonian Christology.
CMP:
I assume your question is addressed to Perry Robinson (who made the claim that “man of God” “always denotes in Scripture someone ordained in some special office”), and not to me, as I simply listed the Scripture references and made no such claim.
To my NT list I should also add 1 Timothy 6:11 (Σὺ δέ, ὦ ἄνθρωπε θεοῦ Su, de, ô anthrôpe theou – But you, O man of God) where Paul uses the vocative to so address Timothy.
But isn’t it possible, due to the limited and specific use of the phrase in Scripture, that Paul was intentionally referring to Timothy by the well-known term for a prophet or spiritual leader because of Timothy’s position/office, per Perry’s claim, and that it’s not a phrase the early Christians would have used for all believers?
Wm Tanksley,
I have no doubt that every man will be judged by God, but that is not the issue with private judgment. I also do not doubt that teachers bear a stricter judgment but neither of these points are in dispute or germane. The question is whether a person is only obligated to believe in so far as they themselves judge it to be normative and binding on themselves and so no one is capable of making a judgment such to bind the consciences of others. That is what Sola Scriptura entails. It wouldn’t be Sola Scriptura without it but something like the Anglo-Catholic view of Prima Sctriptura as held by the opponents of the Puritans, the Laudians.
It may be true that every person is obligated to confirm the truth of what is said, but that judgment is not the same judgement or normative power of a council. Can a council bind the consciences of other men even when they disagree with divine authority? It is not directly a question of ascertaining the truth but normativity. If someone doesn’t judge a council to be true, are they still obligated to believes its conclusions on a Protestant model? I don’t think so. This is why the example of the Bereans is irrelevant and the example of the council in Acts 15 is.
I think you misunderstand me. It is not circular to say that a necessary condition for a legitimate council is the attendance by bishops only, legates excepting and imperial office holders to ensure orderly proceedings. Secondly, bishops as legates of the Apostles and recipients of a portion of the Apostle’s ministry are the chief teachers in the church, which is why historically only bishops in the post-apostolic era could ordain. Denoting bishops as the primary teachers is not to the exclusion of lay teachers, but that doesn’t imply that qua teachers that bishops are on a par with laymen.
Tou theu anthropos is used of Kings, prophets, priests, angels, etc. but always for someone either directly or indirectly (as through a succession) someone commissioned by God.Many people read Paul here and simply assume that the passage is applicable to them unilaterally as laymen. It isn’t. And I don’t think Paul there says that the Scripture “secure” Timothy’s salvation, but that they are good for it. Sufficient for something is not conceptually identical with its modality being that of necessity.
Given that the NT indicates that the teachers “rule over” others (Heb 13:7,17) and that the councils in the church as exemplified in Acts 15 can make binding decisions on others, while it may be true that laymen may apply the rule, this is not in exclusion to or on a par with that of the legates of the Apostles. Consequently there is no doctrine of private judgment taught in this passage which is entailed by the idea of Sola Scriptura.
But none of this is germane to the thread topic. Do you adhere to Chalcedon and what exactly do you think it teaches?
Perry Robinson wrote:
Tou theu anthropos is used of Kings, prophets, priests, angels, etc. but always for someone either directly or indirectly (as through a succession) someone commissioned by God.
By removing the article before anthrôpos theou or theou anthrôpos (with at most 1 intervening word, and regardless of the case or number of anthrôpos), a more complete list was returned. Some of the verses are inapplicable, but that will be obvious from the translation. It seems primarily to be an appelation for a prophet:
Deuteronomy 33:1
Joshua 14:6
Judges 9:13
Judges 13:6
Judges 13:8
1 Samuel 2:27
1 Samuel 4:13
1 Samuel 9:6
1 Samuel 9:7
1 Samuel 9:8
1 Samuel 9:10
1 Kings 12:22
1 Kings 12:24
1 Kings 13:1
1 Kings 13:4
1 Kings 13:5
1 Kings 13:6
1 Kings 13:7
1 Kings 13:8
1 Kings 13:11
1 Kings 13:12
1 Kings 13:14
1 Kings 13:21
1 Kings 13:26
1 Kings 13:28
1 Kings 13:29
1 Kings 13:31
1 Kings 17:18
1 Kings 17:24
1 Kings 20:28
2 Kings 1:9
2 Kings 1:10
2 Kings 1:11
2 Kings 1:12
2 Kings 1:13
2 Kings 4:7
2 Kings 4:9
2 Kings 4:21
2 Kings 4:22
2 Kings 4:25
2 Kings 4:40
2 Kings 4:42
2 Kings 6:6
2 Kings 7:17
2 Kings 8:4
2 Kings 8:7
2 Kings 8:8
2 Kings 8:11
2 Kings 13:19
2 Kings 23:16
2 Kings 23:17
1 Chronicles 23:14
2 Chronicles 8:14
2 Chronicles 11:2
2 Chronicles 24:6
2 Chronicles 25:7
2 Chronicles 25:9
2 Chronicles 30:16
Ezra 3:2
Nehemiah 12:24
Nehemiah 12:36
Psalm 89:1
Jeremiah 42:4
Daniel 6:8
Daniel 6:13
Sirach 45:1
1 Esdras 5:48
Mark 4:26
Mark 15:39
John 9:16
1 Timothy 2:5
1 Timothy 6:11
2 Timothy 3:17
2 Peter 1:21
I don’t think “commissioned” can be used in a way which does not beg the question in some way. Protestants do believe in ordination as the do gifting of certian people. We also believe in offices in the local church. But, it is very important to realize the priesthood of all believers that makes this discussion very unprofitable when terms are left undefined.
This is not necessarily the time or place for such a discussion, but I am just trying to keep people from wasting time.
CMP:
Do any of the replies here:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/1079217/replies?c=9
to this 2004 inquiry answer your question? The inquirer basically asked the same question you did, i.e:
To: NYer
I have a sincere question that I have not found an answer for yet.
Chalcedon sets forth that the divine and human natures of Christ exist “without confusion, without change, without division, without separation.”
The Roman Catholic doctrine of transubstantiation as I understand it have the bread actually becoming or taking on the substance of Christ’s flesh (which is obviously an aspect of His fully human nature).
What I don’t understand is how Christ’s flesh can be in two places at once, both sitting on the throne and in the substance of the Eucharist in any number of churches at any particular time.
Again, I am asking this sincerely because I have yet to be given a reasonable explanation for this, especially in light of the definition set forth in Chalcedon.
9 posted on 02/16/2004 1:44:44 PM PST by Frumanchu (I for one fear the sanctions of the Mediator far above the sanctions of the moderator)
There was nothing to protest against — or more accurately, the Church responded to Scriptural remonstrance. (Athenasius protested against doctrines which were accepted by the entire Church of his time.) The churches which did meet at the Councils were the progenitors of both Orthodox, Catholic, and Reformed, and all of them have an arguable claim inasmuch as they accept the authority of those documents.
That begs the question, at best. At worst, it also makes a mockery of the term “ecumenical council”.
I quite agree. You can take that one all the way back to Peter. And it’s no more a closed case in the Nicene Creed than it was in Peter; although the Westminster Confession is very specific in denying the Baptist claim that baptism is “merely” a ritual.
-Wm
Or this 2001 inquiry/response:
https://www.ewtn.com/vexperts/showmessage.asp?number=337480&Pg=Forum4&Pgnu=1&recnu=15
Eucharist doctrine of the Roman Church
Question from Andrew Murphy on 11/27/2001:
Dear Sirs:
Does not the doctrine of transubstantiation developed by St. Aquinas run contrary to the truths established by the Council of Chalcedon in AD 451?
The Council says that Jesus has two natures, “truly God and Truly man, without confusion, without change, without division, without seperation.” The Council condemned as hersey the philosophy of Eutychianism which said that Jesus’did not have two seperate natures’ which were “without confusion”
Thus, it seems to me if we believe in the formula developed by Aquinas, by using Aristotelian logic, that the wine and bread during the Mass transubstantiates into the actually blood and body of Jesus does this not mix the seperate natures of Christ?
If Christ is truly man and truly God “without confusion”, how can a truly human man in heaven be chopped into bits and distributed throughout the world everyday?
Any help on clearing up this would be much appreciated.
Yours in Christ,
Andrew
Answer by Catholic Answers on 11/28/2001:
1) Christ is not chopped up into bits. His human nature remains whole and intact at all time. It is merely made present under the appearances of bread and wine. This is multilocation, not disection.
2) Multilocation is not an attribute of divinity. In his divinity, Christ is omnipresent, not multilocal. His human nature is made multilocal by a miracle, not by a fusion of his two natures. If God wanted, he could make any one of us multilocal (and, indeed, he has allowed some saints to bilocate).
3) Because multilocation is not produced by a fusion of Christ’s human nature with his divine nature, there is no confusion in the two natures.
4) Aquinas did not develop the doctrine of transubstantiation. It would be kind of hard for him to do so since the doctrine had already been infallibly defined in 1215, ten years before Aquinas was even born. And it was taught all the way back through history before the cause for its definition arise.
5) It isn’t the “Roman Church.” This is prejudicial language that was designed by Protestants to be offensive to Catholics (and it is). “The Roman Church” means the local diocese of Rome, Italy. The Church to which the diocese of Rome belongs is called the Catholic Church.
James Akin
Catholic Answers
– – –
In your more recent Question on Transubstantiation thread, you said you hadn’t yet received an answer that makes sense:
“As I said, this is not loaded. I am most certain that thoughtful people have worked through this, I have just never heard an answer that seems to make any sense.”
Are these answers unsatisfactory?
Thanks Eric, same question yes (smart chap!!),
But the answer simply leaves my head spinning and returns me to the same position I have been at for years: The Catholic view of transubstantiation cannot be held at the same time as the definition of Chalcedon. In sum, the answer here and there is that Christ can do it because he can do all things. Therefore, since God is all powerful he can keep Chalcedon while violating it at the same time.
It would be like saying that Christ can’t lie, but he might since he can do all things. It is just a mystery.
I am willing to engage more with someone who says Chalcedon had it wrong than to try to produce some mesure of historical rewriting (psst, they really did believe that the humanity of Christ could inherit attributes of deity—but they are still not Eutychian!)
Anyway, I have not been able to keep up on this thread, much less all the others, but I did read your link.
Thanks so much my friend.