1) how fired up certain interlocutors became
2) how bad their arguments generally were
3) how little they actually interacted with the fundamental point - that Jesus, as both God AND man, is not multilocational but is, rather, always in one place at one time
4) how it made bedfellows out of practitioners of otherwise fairly hostile systems, such as Scott Windsor, loyal son of Rome, and Edward Reiss, fairly conservative Lutheran.
This index post is to serve as a collective reference point to see all the conversation that has gone down over this point.
First came Steve Hays' Anti-Incarnational sacramentalism.
I'd had my post written for some time but was waiting for a good time to post it, and figured that I should go ahead and strike while the iron was hot. So then came my post, which has accumulated more than 120 comments.
Scott Windsor added Transubstantiation Question, and I interacted a lot there.
Later he posted Transubstantiation Question II, and I interacted some there as well. Read these if you want a lot of strawmen and a failure on Windsor's part to even understand what I was saying.
And then you can see Matthew Bellisario post barely-relevant quotations from Thomas Aquinas over at his post: For Those Confused About Transubstantiation..., in which combox I interacted some.
As one philosopher (apocryphally) said: if you speak nonsense in Latin, you can write many books; if you speak nonsense in Saxon, you are found out at once.
Perry Robinson aka Acolyte4236 interacted extensively with me in the combox of my post, starting here.
Edward Reiss jumped in with How Jesus' body--even before the resurrection, is not "Just like ours", then Calvin's framing of the question about the Incarnation--i.e. Jesus' body, is flawed, as if I appealed to Calvin or care particularly what he had to say about this issue if it's irrelevant. Find a great deal of interaction there between us.
Later, Jesus as a "Spiritual reality", since it really seems that the monophysitism proponents in this discussion have a hard time admitting that the spiritual is real. Strange for someone who confesses to be a Christian, but you know.
Later, If St. Peter can do it, Jesus' miracles don't tell us anything special about Jesus as a man..., in which he attempts to assert that Jesus' status as God-man makes Him more buoyant, more cooperative with the surface tension of water than my status as regular man makes me.
TurretinFan had One More Response to Edward Reiss.
Finally, Steve Hays had numerous helpful things to say in his posts:
The Styrofoam Jesus, in which he mocks the buoyancy argument.
A Lutheran's unresponsive response
Lutheran cartoons
The Heisenberg compensator
The Real Presence of the Big Mac, a specific response to some of the comments from Perry Robinson, Acolyte4236 in the combox of my post.
Why Lutherans deny the empty tomb, a reductio on the Lutheran view Edward Reiss has been defending (and by extension, the Roman view).
Overall, a very interesting and satisfying exchange. It's good to be Reformed. Sort of funny how I'll be teaching through Eric Svendsen's curriculum on the Lord's Table starting pretty soon in my Sunday School class.
Posts
59 comments:
In my opinion, you should make a difference between "Real Presence" and the dogma of Transsubstantiation, instead of carelessly lumping them together.
Many good Protestants believe in Real Presence, like early Christians (like Augustine also did) without adopting the materialistic-scholastic RC ideas.
Viisaus,
Sorry to disappoint you, but St. Augustine, Catholic Father and Catholic Doctor, believed in the Real Presence as Catholics do to this day.
"Christ was carried in his own hands when, referring to his own body, he said, 'This is my body' [Matt. 26:26]. For he carried that body in his hands" (Explanations of the Psalms 33:1:10 [A.D. 405]).
"I promised you [new Christians], who have now been baptized, a sermon in which I would explain the sacrament of the Lord's Table. . . . That bread which you see on the altar, having been sanctified by the word of God, is the body of Christ. That chalice, or rather, what is in that chalice, having been sanctified by the word of God, is the blood of Christ" (Sermons 227 [A.D. 411]).
In JMJ,
Scott<<<
I must add, I've not previously commented on or contributed, pro or con, to Edward Reiss' blog, much less been "hostile" toward his "system." The fact of the matter is Lutheranism has a LOT more in common with Catholicism than any Baptist, Calvinist and/or anyone else who would label themselves "reformed." I myself am a former Lutheran, and I am not "hostile" toward Lutherans at all. They miss the boat on a couple fundamental issues, but as I said, they have a LOT more in common with Catholics than most other non-Catholics, with the exception perhaps of High Anglicans.
In JMJ,
Scott<<<
CathApol said...
"The fact of the matter is Lutheranism has a LOT more in common with Catholicism than any Baptist, Calvinist and/or anyone else who would label themselves 'reformed'... They miss the boat on a couple fundamental issues, but as I said, they have a LOT more in common with Catholics than most other non-Catholics, with the exception perhaps of High Anglicans."
This is where the phrase "damning with faint praise" comes to mind.
I would ordinarily, Viisaus, and I think you're right. But the way Edward Reiss has recklessly shackled himself to Rome and to defending Roman dogma as his own, even saying Windsor is right (which is fairly humorous all by itself) has led to it.
I am not "hostile" toward Lutherans at all.
It's clumsy to mix the -ism and the -ist, Mr Windsor. One would hope that someone who's been in the biz as long as you would know better.
Alan,
You're free to think of what I said as "clumsy" - but there was nothing clumsy in my comment. Lutheranism and Catholicism have LOT in common, and a LOT more than any Baptist or Calvinist or anyone else who claims to be "reformed" would. Were you expecting to see something like "Baptistism?" Would you prefer I said Lutherans and Catholics have more in common than any who would claim to be Baptist, Calvinist or virtually any other "reformed" denomination?
In JMJ,
Scott<<<
BTW- Alan, you left the "ml" off one of the links to one of my articles, leaving those trying to follow it with the dreaded "page not found error."
Were you expecting to see something like "Baptistism?"
Every time I thought I'd seen the limit, you go beyond. Amazing.
And I will fix the link, thanks.
Thanks for your work on this.
It beats a dull Luther quote any day!
blessings.
Here's a dull Luther quote for you all:
„Ein solch verzweifeltes, durchböstes, durchgiftetes, durchteufeltes Ding ist’s um diese Juden, so diese 1400 Jahre unsere Plage, Pestilenz und alles Unglück gewesen sind und noch sind. Summa, wir haben rechte Teufel an ihnen.“
"Such a desperate, through and through evil, poisonous, and demonic thing are these Jews, that for 1400 years they have been and are our plague, pestilence, and all unhappiness. In sum, we're dealing with outright devils."
My translation. I think I've captured the gist of it.
cheers from snowy Vienna, zilch
"Sorry to disappoint you, but St. Augustine, Catholic Father and Catholic Doctor, believed in the Real Presence as Catholics do to this day."
No, he did not. You are eisegetically reading medieval Transsubtantiation dogma to Augustine's times.
Non-apologetic RC scholars would disagree as well that Augustine's notions were the same as yours today.
http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/12023.htm
"Chapter 16.— Rule for Interpreting Commands and Prohibitions.
24. If the sentence is one of command, either forbidding a crime or vice, or enjoining an act of prudence or benevolence, it is not figurative. If, however, it seems to enjoin a crime or vice, or to forbid an act of prudence or benevolence, it is figurative.
”Unless you eat the flesh of the Son of man,” says Christ, ”and drink His blood, you have no life in you.” John 6:53
This seems to enjoin a crime or a vice; it is therefore a figure, enjoining that we should have a share [communicandem] in the sufferings of our Lord, and that we should retain a sweet and profitable memory [in memoria] of the fact that His flesh was wounded and crucified for us."
Hi there, Rho,
I figured you might want to add this one too to your list... you know, so as to illustrate the Reformed position on the Eucharist... (And while you're at it, make sure to add this one as well...)
Is that sorta how the EO doctrine of the Eucharist is that Christ is "mystically" present, but that's somehow different from "spiritually" present (which is what the Reformed would say, IIRC)? Or how He's "mystically" present, and that's somehow "real presence", yet spiritually present is NOT real presence?
"4) how it made bedfellows out of practitioners of otherwise fairly hostile systems, such as Scott Windsor, loyal son of Rome, and Edward Reiss, fairly conservative Lutheran."
Nice to see you contributing to Christian ecumenism! :)
Rhology,
Lutherans, Anglicans, RCs and EOs agree on the Real Presence issue. The Prots who do not come from the Lutheran/Anglican tradition are those who differ. However, though some identify themselves as Calvinists, their LS doctrine is not even Calvinian. I say this because it is observed that those who say they are Calvinists tend to be more Zwinglian than Calvinist on the LS.
Historically Calvin acted like a via media between Luther and Zwingli. I think his program failed because his progenies tend to be not like him but more like his mentor Zwingli.
To find out why Luther/Lutherans maintain the Real Presence, one has to go back to the Marburg Colloquy.
LPC
Oh, if I may add... though Lutherans agree with the others on the Real Presence of Christ bodily in the LS, they have a different reason why it is there.
Lutherans look at LS as Gospel proclamation (they call this the visible Word) - right there, at the LS, God is proclaiming the forgiveness of sins for the sake of the atoning sacrifice of Christ (which is a gift) - only he is doing it with the bread and wine being body and blood of Christ, hence, this is JBFA again as it is believed by the sinner.
LPC
Another important distinction would be between transubstantiation as an absurd doctrine and transubstantiation as Christological heresy.
Let's leave aside the first for now, and just get our facts in place regarding the latter.
Rhology's linking of transubstantiation to Monophysitism is based, it seems, upon the supposed power of Christ's body to multi-locate, which seems to divinize his real human body (which must be of the same nature as ours, according to Chalcedonian teaching). The only sensible view, in Rhology's view, is that Christ is at the right hand of the Father and he is only (at most) spiritually present in the Eucharist. Is this an accurate presentation?
This may have been discussed in the last (very long) combox and I know that it was present in Matthew Bellisario's response, but it is clear that at least some major, major Catholic theologians (like Thomas Aquinas) deny that Christ is locally present in the Eucharist. Therefore, there is not any multilocation going on. Furthermore, Thomas often says that Christ's body is physically (using our terminology) at the right hand of the Father.
There is disagreement upon this speculative appoint among Catholic theologians. Some theologians in the past did not accept Thomas Aquinas' theory on this point. Consider (c) at the bottom of this article from the Old Catholic Encyclopedia. (NB: I have not directly stated that these theologians have fallen into the Monophysite heresy at this time. That is another issue, as I see it.)
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05573a.htm
Thomas' theory, though, has certainly not been ruled out or anything of that sort. Though this point should be rather obvious, here are two passages from Paul VI's Mysterium Fidei that (at least) leave open Thomas' solution:
1) And so Our Savior is present in His humanity not only in His natural manner of existence at the right hand of the Father, but also at the same time in the sacrament of the Eucharist "in a manner of existing that we can hardly express in words but that our minds, illumined by faith, can come to see as possible to God and that we must most firmly believe." (49) [quoting from Trent, I believe]
2) For what now lies beneath the aforementioned species is not what was there before, but something completely different; and not just in the estimation of Church belief but in reality, since once the substance or nature of the bread and wine has been changed into the body and blood of Christ, nothing remains of the bread and the wine except for the species—beneath which Christ is present whole and entire in His physical "reality," corporeally present, although not in the manner in which bodies are in a place.
Now, Rhology and others may say that Thomas and the Thomists who affirm the Real Presence and transubstantiation while denying local presence have "given with one hand while taking with the other" or something like that. This is a reading adopted by some old Lutheran dogmatists who, interestingly enough, say that the scholastic view of the real presence is *not real enough*. Indeed, at least one has called Thomas Aquinas a semi-Calvinist! Fascinating.
Anyway, I am not interested in this place to defend the coherence of Thomas Aquinas' teaching. You may say that it is absurd, etc. My only concern here is to ask whether, once knowing these aspects of his teaching, you can say that the Thomist approach (at least one orthodox Catholic perspective) to transubstantiation falls under the condemnation of Monophysitism.
It seems pretty clear to me that Aquinas has denied the multilocation of Christ's body which was the basis of the original concern. Ergo?
The only sensible view, in Rhology's view, is that Christ is at the right hand of the Father and he is only (at most) spiritually present in the Eucharist. Is this an accurate presentation?
Yes.
major Catholic theologians (like Thomas Aquinas) deny that Christ is locally present in the Eucharist.
Then so much the worse for Rome's claims to unity.
You don't seem to get how big a deal this Real Presence in the Eucharist thing is for Romanists. If it's not THE biggest dogma in which they have the biggest emotional investment, it's right up there next to the cult of Mary.
At any rate, I'll just repeat what Trent said again: By the consecration the transubstantiation of the bread and wine into the Body and Blood of Christ is brought about. Under the consecrated species of bread and wine Christ himself, living and glorious, is present in a true, real, and substantial manner: his Body and his Blood, with his soul and his divinity (cf. Council of Trent: DS 1640; 1651).
If I were a Romanist, I'm not sure I'd appreciate your vicarious backpedaling.
My only concern here is to ask whether, once knowing these aspects of his teaching, you can say that the Thomist approach (at least one orthodox Catholic perspective)
Since Rome backs up the non-Real Presence view with the anathema, I don't know how orthodox this view actually is.
Thanks!
I'll keep this response simple, though everything that I say here was already stated in my original post:
1) Denying that Christ is not in the Eucharist in the manner of a place (locally present) is not, by any stretch of the imagination, the same as denying that Christ is *really* present. Thomas Aquinas by no means denied that Christ was really present in the Eucharist. You may think that this distinction is absurd, but your most recent statements don't even acknowledge that such a distinction (between real and local presence) is made. As such, the inferences that you draw from this apparent misunderstanding are not valid.
2) Please re-read the passage from Paul VI. (Incidentally, Trent certainly doesn't touch Thomas Aquinas' view, which should be obvious to anyone who knows the history of the Council. I'll elaborate if that is necessary.) I will again quote the most relevant portion:
"Christ is present whole and entire in His physical "reality," corporeally present, although not in the manner in which bodies are in a place."
So a major encyclical on the Eucharist also acknowledges that Christ is really present, though not locally present.
What say you?
(Again, this thread is really not concerned about the coherence of Transubstantiation but whether it falls into Christological heresy. Since you have not shown that the non-*local* presence view is under anathema, I still await your answer to whether such a view (Christ really but not locally present) is guilty of Monophysitism.)
Denying that Christ is not in the Eucharist in the manner of a place (locally present) is not, by any stretch of the imagination, the same as denying that Christ is *really* present.
Well, it denies that the Eucharist is Christ's flesh and blood.
If you want to retreat to the realm of the spiritual, fine with me! My Baptist church welcomes converts even from Rome. That's exactly our doctrine of the Eucharist.
but your most recent statements don't even acknowledge that such a distinction (between real and local presence) is made.
But whether such distinction makes any sense, and whether it's any different from the views its adherents despise (like the Zwinglian view), are the questions.
So a major encyclical on the Eucharist also acknowledges that Christ is really present, though not locally present.
So He's SPIRITUALLY present. This is different from a Zwinglian Baptist how, exactly?
Peace,
Rhology
If I had a blog and Rholoy's modus operandi, I would... Well, I should stop.
But, seriously, this is pretty elementary stuff. Catholics and Protestants shouldn't be spending so much time just clarifying basic terminology (though if it needs to happen, then it should, of course!), even on the blogosphere. It would be best if everyone took just a bit of time to understand their opponent's position with a bit more thoroughness before posting about it, or am I wrong? But let's not go down that road right now.
OK, are you suggesting that Pope Paul VI should have become a Baptist? Your argument implies as much, but you can't possibly think that. Just think about this for a second and maybe the absurdity of this line of argumentation might become clearer.
And both Paul VI and Thomas Aquinas say that Christ's flesh and blood (corporeality) are really, substantially, truly present, even if they are not locally present. Again, this is pretty basic. It is troubling that you would even suggest that the Common Doctor of the Catholic Church would deny the real presence (as you did two comments ago) or the corporeal presence (as you did in your previous comment).
Again, the question is not whether such a view is coherent. The question is, first of all, if such a view is guilty of Monophysitism. It seems, from your silence, that you acknowledge such a view would not be a Christological heresy.
But this leads to the second question that you have posed: is such a view really Catholic? For a Catholic to make such an argument, does this entail backtracking? If you hold such a view, should you just pick up your pew and become a Baptist? These are things that you have suggested.
Well, when such a view is held by Pope Paul VI, is articulated by Thomas Aquinas, is affirmed as within the bounds of orthodoxy by the Old Catholic Encyclopedia, etc., etc., I think that holding such a position doesn't mean one should become a Baptist...
Let me know what you think.
Pax,
Matt
are you suggesting that Pope Paul VI should have become a Baptist?
I'm saying that IF he was saying what you think he's saying, he's both inconsistent with what the RCC has said elsewhere, and he's making a distinction w/o a difference from a Zwinglian view.
Christ's flesh and blood (corporeality) are really, substantially, truly present, even if they are not locally present
OK, and that's what I've been saying. I recognise the moronic accident/substance distinction is present in their theology, but I've identified this as monophysite and explained why.
It seems, from your silence, that you acknowledge such a view would not be a Christological heresy.
That would be an incorrect inference on your part. Let me encourage you to have a little bit more patience before you start throwing around statements like "by your silence". If I think you're barking up the wrong tree, I don't intend to bark up it with you! :-D
Peace,
Rhology
BTW, take a look at Aquinas from the 2nd comment in this combox from Scott Windsor:
"Christ was carried in his own hands when, referring to his own body, he said, 'This is my body' [Matt. 26:26]. For he carried that body in his hands" (Explanations of the Psalms 33:1:10 [A.D. 405]).
Why is that not locality?
Rhology is encouraging patience. That's rich.
1) You've introduced *another* question. Now you are questioning my whole premise about the distinction of local and real presence by saying "IF he was saying what you think he's saying" (note that I have not interpreted, only stated, this distinction). Do you have a different reading of Paul VI's words that I've quoted twice now. Do you have a different reading of Thomas Aquinas' statement in the Summa:
"Hence in no way is Christ's body locally in this sacrament."
http://www.newadvent.org/summa/4076.htm#article5
They are both pretty clear, it seems to me.
2) "Moronic" substance-accident distinction?! Wow, on second thought, this conversation is probably a waste of everyone's time. I hope not. Either way, very sad.
3) Could you quickly summarize, if you are willing to have any semblance of dialogue on this topic about which you've posted twice, how someone believing in transubstantiation falls into Monophysitism if they also deny Christ's multi-location. I thought it was multi-location (and how that supposedly contradicted Christ's having a fully human nature) was the crux of your original argument?
"Sorry to disappoint you, but St. Augustine, Catholic Father and Catholic Doctor, believed in the Real Presence as Catholics do to this day."
He believed in a real, spiritual presence. That's not quite "as" Roman Catholics do today ... it's more "as" Reformed folks do today.
I second Viisaus' comment about being careful to distinguish between "real presence" and transubstantiation. While you can't have the latter without the former, you can easily have the former without the latter.
-TurretinFan
how someone believing in transubstantiation falls into Monophysitism if they also deny Christ's multi-location.
How would that be transubstantiation?
Further, it's very instructive to me that Lutheran Edward Reiss has taken it upon himself to go crazy all over this question even though Lutheran theology doesn't hold to transsub.
TF,
While you can't have the latter without the former, you can easily have the former without the latter.
Fair enough. Probably this was a reaction to Edward Reiss' ferocity.
Mind you, I personally find the substance accident dichotomy to be suspect, if physical locality were an accident transubstantiation would not necessarily imply multi locality, and Christ's being corporeallly present would not imply his being locally present, as Matt said.
But I'm with reissue on this one. How do you know that human persons are necessarily (even post-resurrection) subject to physical "laws" forbidding multilocality. Merely ridiculing the question doesn't answer the question and insisting that corporeality (for corporeal persons) necessitates being mono local begs the question.
Isn't it essential to the resurrection that for the glorified saints the natural Order will be restored and the body will be subject to the spirit and not the other way around as it is in this fallen world? Surely glorified bodies will obey physical laws to the extent they are an expression of God's will but how can we think they will always obey them slavishly as if mere impersonal objects are the rightful masters of personal subjects?
Hi SL&K,
Is your argument that human beings are capable of being omnipresent? How does that work, exactly? Where has that occurred anywhere in the Bible or in observed history?
And the problem isn't related to "obeying physical laws", like gravity. It's in ESSENCE - God is omnipresent. Humans aren't. Further, every time the Bible presents Christ, He's monolocal. He's incarnate. He's at the right hand of the Father. He's on the Cross. He's in the tomb. He's out of the tomb, walking around. Yes, He teleports sometimes (it would appear), but that's not the same as being multilocal.
It has to do with the nature of matter. A given molecule is in one place at one time.
steelikat said elsewhere: though he is a divine person and you are a human person.
No, Jesus is a divine AND HUMAN person, now. He is 100% God AND ALSO 100% MAN.
In every other way, as far as we know, she was a mother in exactly the same way that your mother was.
Except for her Son being the God-man. So no, not in exactly the same way.
You said jesus's body/nature came into existence and my response is that I don't think there's any such thing.
So you don't think Jesus' body came into existence at a point in time? Wow - you ARE confused!
Are you sure you're not a bit unfamiliar with Nicene/Chalcedonian terminology with respect to the difference between person (hypostasis) and nature (ousios)?
God is one being/nature/essence (ousios) and 3 hypostases (persons). Those 3 persons share the same ousios.
Jesus is one hypostases with a human ousios and a divine ousios.
The divine does not come into existence. The human does.
"No, Jesus is a divine..."
I cannot respond to that unless you clarify what you mean by "Jesus is a divine and human person, now."
If by that you mean Jesus is a singular divine person who (now) has a divine nature and a human nature, that's what you would be well advised to say, to avoid being misunderstood. Unless of course you want to be misunderstood. :-)
"Except for her son being the God man."
That's a good point. While saying that Christ is the God-man is saying something about Christ more than it is saying something about Mary or her motherhood, I reckon it is probably true that being the mother of the divine Person, Jesus, is a different "way" of being a mother than being the mother of a human person. I have to tell you I don't know how it's different, though. When I think about how Jesus grew and developed in her womb, how he was born, how he grew up under her parental care, etc., it seems pretty much the same way of motherhood as we normally think of for human mothers. It's the same way my mom was my mother--I grew and developed in her womb, I was born to her, she gave me normal human parental care, I had a son-mother relationship with her, etc.
Stepping back in the order of existence, is being the mother of an animal different a different WAY of being a mother than being the mother of a man? Yes, most notably in that the relationship between an animal mother and its offspring is not a personal relationship while the relationship between a human mother and her children is a personal relationship.
So is being the mother of the second Person of the trinity (as Mary uniquely was) a different WAY of being a mother than being the mother of a human person?
I suppose so. Probably. But I cannot conceive of how to understand or explain how they are different ways in the way that I can describe and talk about the differences between the human way of being a mother and the merely animal way of being a mother. The only difference that comes to mind is the virginal conception.
I think one would have to say that the way of being the mother of God is much closer and much more similar to the way of being the mother of a human person than it is to the way of being the mother of an animal, since Jesus is a man and not a mere animal.
"So you don't think Jesus' body came into existence at a point in time?"
I do think that Jesus's body came into existence at a point in time.
"Are you sure you're not a bit unfamiliar with Nicene/Chalcedonian terminology with respect to the difference between person (hypostasis) and nature (ousios)?"
Yes I am quite sure that I'm familiar with that. If you are asking me if I'm familiar with the term "body/nature" I am doubtful that that particular term is authentically nicene or chalcedonian.
"Is your argument that human beings are capable of being omnipresent?"
No. I asked how you know that resurrected men are subject to physical laws forbidding multilocality.
If from that you think you can deduce that I was arguing human beings are capable of Omnipresence you have a deficient conception of the "capital-D" Divine.
"And the problem isn't related to "obeying physical laws", like gravity. It's in ESSENCE"
That begs the question. I am asking whether it is a question of essence and the resurrected human nature. You think you know the answer--I am skeptical. In particular in regards to bilocation I see a hint of it in the accounts of the post-resurrection Christ. Granted we have limited data at this point in time, since Christ was the first and the general resurrection is in the future.
I should try harder to avoid being a wise guy--to try to interact with what you are saying, I'll make an assumption that when you suggested Christ's body/nature came into being at a point in time, you meant that 1. His human nature came into being at a point in time AND 2. His body came into being at a point in time.
Do I agree with that? I agree with 2. Christ's body came into existence 1 BC. I am not sure about 1. I'd almost like to think that natures are created outside of time. On the other hand, maybe that's too platonistic. Maybe natures come into existence the moment the first being who has that nature comes into existence.
So human nature either is created somehow outside of time, or it came into existence the day Adam was created. Christ's particular human nature, that which makes him unique and naturally different than other men again either is created outside of time or it came into existence the day Christ was conceived.
And here's a demonstration for you to mull over in regards to the "divine/human person" thing.
1. The three Divine persons of the trinity are immutable and unchanging both in their hypostases and their divine nature.
2. The second person of the trinity changed from being a divine person to being a divine-and-human person.
2 contradicts 1.
2a. The second person of the trinity did not change in his nature or hypostasis but did take on a human nature. He remained a divine person, the second person of the trinity, but now has both a human nature and the divine nature, is both truly God and truly man.
2a does not contradict 1.
That is a reason not to say "Jesus is a human-and-divine person, unless, again, you mean to say Jesus is a divine person who has both a human nature and the divine nature, in which case you should say just THAT.
If by that you mean Jesus is a singular divine person who (now) has a divine nature and a human nature
Obviously, yes.
that's what you would be well advised to say, to avoid being misunderstood
You who've clearly read virtually none of the preceding conversation w.r.t. monophysitism are hardly in a position to tell me I've badly communicated my position. Sorry.
I have to tell you I don't know how it's different, though
1) Her Son pre-existed her.
2) Her Son is God in human flesh.
I do think that Jesus's body came into existence at a point in time.
Great, thanks!
I asked how you know that resurrected men are subject to physical laws forbidding multilocality.
You'd need to show how multilocality suddenly becomes a communicable attribute of the divine instead of incommunicable. And where is your evidence besides 100% pure speculation? How about, you know, a Bible verse or sthg?
In particular in regards to bilocation I see a hint of it in the accounts of the post-resurrection Christ.
You imagine them. Give me one clear example. You can't.
you meant that 1. His human nature came into being at a point in time AND 2. His body came into being at a point in time.
Correct. Again, all things I've clearly stated before.
I'd almost like to think that natures are created outside of time
I'm not talking about human nature qua human nature, but rather one instance - Christ took on a human nature when He took a human body.
2. The second person of the trinity changed from being a divine person to being a divine-and-human person.
2 contradicts 1.
Except that (1) doesn't say "and can't take on an additional nature".
What good is one credal statement if you're just going to trash a different credal statement? I don't even know what you're getting at now.
He remained a divine person, the second person of the trinity, but now has both a human nature and the divine nature, is both truly God and truly man.
Correct. And b/c He is still truly man to this very day and unto eternity future, He is in ONE place at any ONE time. Specifically, the right hand of the Father, in Heaven. Not in wafers and glasses of winejuice.
That is a reason not to say "Jesus is a human-and-divine person, unless, again, you mean to say Jesus is a divine person who has both a human nature and the divine nature, in which case you should say just THAT.
Since I don't see a diff between the 2, OK. But since you were the one who introduced the statement "Jesus is a divine person", YOU'RE the one being unclear and unorthodox, sans clarificatory statements. Saying "Jesus is a divine and human person" covers all the bases.
"Her son pre-existed her."
That is not a different way of motherhood. Existence is caused by creation, not motherhood. Actually in this one case existence is caused by the Father eternally begetting the son. That is still not a way of being a mother.
If you are going to come up with different ways of being a mother you have to talk about things that mothers do, nourishing their children in their wombs, helping them with their homework, etc.
"Her son is God in human flesh."
That is the fact about her son that has invited us to think of how her way of being a mother is different than your mom's. That is not itself a different way of being a mother, however, it is a fact about her son.
Look, it's OK. I don't expect you to come with anything. All I could come up with is the virginal conception and you don't seem substantially more clever than I. ;-)
"You would need to show how multi locality suddenly becomes a communicable attribute of the divine"
1. Perhaps I would need to show that if I was convinced that it were essential to resurrected human nature to be mono local. That however is the very proposition I am calling into question, remember?
2. Furthermore I don't believe multi locality is a divine attribute! Do you? You don't think divine omnipresence is mere multi locality, do you?
"I'm not talking about human nature qua human nature but one instance.."
A concrete instance of human nature would be a person. I assume you mean you are talking about a particular individual human nature, in this case Christ's.
Anyway, created natures are created natures. either it's the case that they are all created outside of time or it's the case that a nature comes into existence when the first being with that nature begins to exist. It wouldn't be the case that Plato was right in regards to some natures and Aristotle others.
"except that 1 doesn't say 'and cannot take on an additional nature'"
Right, that's why 2 contradicts it and 2a doesn't.
"Saying 'Jesus is a divine and human person' covers all the bases"
Actually it covers bases you probably wouldn't want covered according to standard theological usage but now that I understand that what you mean by it is "Jesus is a divine person with both a human nature and a divine nature," I won't misunderstand you.
Boy I really ripped the seam out of that baseball metaphor. I had better stick to tailor metaphors.
That however is the very proposition I am calling into question, remember?
Yes, I remember. All I'm asking for is a bit of biblical evidence.
Furthermore I don't believe multi locality is a divine attribute! Do you? You don't think divine omnipresence is mere multi locality, do you?
Omnipresence is a species of multilocality, yes. Specifically, God is everyWHERE. Show me any example of where a human is in more than one place at one time. Yes, even a resurrected human. You can't. There's a reason why our bodies are extended in space, why Scr makes a distinction between the physical and the spiritual.
Rhology,
"Yes, I remember. All I'm asking for is a bit of biblical evidence."
Why? How do you know the bible tackles the question?
To remind you, here is the question:
Is mono-locality an essential attribute of man, in the sense of being generally essential to pre-fallen man, fallen man, and resurrected glorified man?
Remember that not addressing a question, in cases where an answer is not necessary, is different than choosing an answer.
I will grant that if you have a cartesian world-view, and insist that the bible must take a stance vis a vis that world view, you may have a point. That seems anachronistic to me, among other problems.
"Omnipresence is a species of multilocality, yes. Specifically, God is everyWHERE."
I think you need to give the question more thought. To be thoroughly Christian in your thinking don't you need to be thoroughly "capital-T" Theistic?
"Show me any example of where a human is in more than one place at one time."
Perhaps that would help in regards to your understanding why omniscience is not the same thing as multilocality. To clarify, do you think a fictional example or a made-up scenario help? I don't pretend that I've ever seen it happen if that's what you're getting at.
"There's a reason why our bodies are extended in space, why Scr makes a distinction between the physical and the spiritual."
There is a reason why scripture makes that distinction but that distinction is not exhausted by a discussion of our bodies being extended in space.
Do you think your understanding of the matter is somewhat cartesian? How do you think it was understood before Descarte?
Is mono-locality an essential attribute of man, in the sense of being generally essential to pre-fallen man, fallen man, and resurrected glorified man?
So you're saying you don't have any biblical evidence. OK, thanks. Exactly what I've been saying.
Now, what about the experience from every person we've ever known, ever? Also monolocal.
To be thoroughly Christian in your thinking don't you need to be thoroughly "capital-T" Theistic?
Yes. I'm not sure where I cast doubt on my theism, or Theism.
There is a reason why scripture makes that distinction but that distinction is not exhausted by a discussion of our bodies being extended in space.
Where's the argument?
Do you think your understanding of the matter is somewhat cartesian?
Did Descartes precede Docetism and monophysitism? Nope.
"So you're saying you don't have any biblical evidence. OK, thanks. Exactly what I've been saying."
No, that's not exactly what you've been saying. You've been asserting as dogma the teaching that monolocality is an essential attribute of man and that if Christ, in the NT resurrection accounts for example, ever seemed to have bilocated that could only be discussed in the realm of communication of attributes.
I responded by being skeptical of your dogmatic assertion; and since you're the only one being dogmatic here in regards to the question the burden of scriptural proof lies on you. I won't take descarte as established, since I've become aware of how cartesian the modern worldview and assumptions are even among people who explictly reject descarte.
Another thing I want to make clear is that I never intended to comment here on the specific topic of the eucharist. My comment was specifically about the question of multilocality per se.
I find the arguments about the Lord's Supper to be disturbing and blasphemous, and I am forced to leave that discussion to people with stronger stomaches than I have. I am too sensitive.
in fact since your argument depends on that dogma I'm surprised that I'm the only one who has expressed skepticism in regards to it.
The bible says that we will be changed, that our glorified bodies will be different from our bodies now as a mature plant is different than a seed. We will have spiritual bodies. What does that mean? It cannot mean that our bodies will be made of spirit--that's a contradiction in terms. In this life, we are dominated by the physical. You might say that we have corporeal spirits, not literally but in the sense that the spirit is dominated by the physical, almost a slave of the physical. "Spiritual bodies" must mean that the order of things will be reversed, that the spirit instead of the body will dominate, that the resurrected saints will not be limited by the physical, by time in space, to the degree and in all the ways we are now.
Some examples of how the resurrected saints will not be limited by time and space the way we are now: They will be naturally immortal and incorruptible. Christ was able to either bilocate or move with extraordinary swiftness from place to place. He could enter locked rooms. He could disappear. He could asscend into heaven. He was not a ghost, though, the disciples touched him and saw that he was still a physical being.
All that does not prove your dogma incorrect but does suggest that we not accept it as dogma. As we have seen, the resurrected saints will not be physically limited all the ways and to the degree we are now. But you dogmatically assert that one way their spiritual bodies will still be limited is that they will still be essentially and necessarily mono local.
OK magister. Would it be presumptuous of me to say the burden of proof is on the one proposing the dogma?
since you're the only one being dogmatic here in regards to the question the burden of scriptural proof lies on you.
OK, here's my Scriptural proof - in every single instance in Scripture, men are in one place at any one time. Every single time. Please provide counterevidence if you have it.
I'm surprised that I'm the only one who has expressed skepticism in regards to it.
You haven't - see Edward Reiss' comments, linked above.
We will have spiritual bodies. What does that mean?
It also says that those spiritual bodies will be like Christ's post-resurrection body. And yet was that body ever in more than one place at one time? No. Is it composed of flesh? Yes. Glorified, incorruptible flesh, sure, but flesh. Matter.
we are dominated by the physical.
Well, speak for yourself.
will not be limited by time and space the way we are now: They will be naturally immortal and incorruptible.
That doesn't show that they will not be limited by time or space. It merely shows that time won't affect us the same way, and it says nothing about space, which is the topic at hand.
Christ was able to either bilocate or move with extraordinary swiftness from place to place. He could enter locked rooms.
Teleportation does not equal multilocality, as I'm sure you're aware.
All that does not prove your dogma incorrect but does suggest that we not accept it as dogma
Why? What is the reason?
OK magister.
Ironic statement from a self-professed Lutheran who thinks we need a Magisterium, talking to a Reformed Baptist.
Peace,
Rhology
"here's my Scriptural proof - in every single instance in Scripture, men are in one place at any one time. Every single time. Please provide counterevidence if you have it."
I think that is the best scriptural proof one can have. That's not enough proof to produce a dogma, it seems to me. The only applicable accounts of resurrected man are the accounts of Christ's earthly travels after the resurrection and before the ascension. The data are limited.
I didn't read Edward Reiss's comments carefully but I've seen that sort of thing before. Perhaps I'm mistaken about this but he seems to be defending the orthodox doctrine of the real presence against the charge of monophysitism by saying, essentially, Christ is God and God is omnipresent therefore the body of Christ is ubiquitous or omnipresent by a proper communicatio idiomatum.
I wouldn't do that. Even if it's true that doesn't help in regards to the doctrine of the real presence. I say that Christ is really, extensively, naturally, and locally present at the right hand of the Father, but really, intensively and sacramentally locally present in the Eucharist and leave it at that. I would say that Christ was telling the truth when he said "this is my body." The rest is mystery. Since Zwinglists think it cute and clever to become blasphemous when discussing the real presence I won't say more than that or discuss the subject. As I said, I have a weak stomach for that sort of thing.
What I was talking about was not the sacramental real presence but multilocality as an (admittedly speculative) natural attribute of glorified man and my reason for why it might make sense.
"Teleportation does not equal multilocality,"
No, but if an account could be interpreted as either teleportation or bilocality I need more than thy dogma to help me choose which it is. Neither attribute is natural to fallen man but one of them is natural to glorified man.
"Why? What is the reason?"
The reason is: Thou dost not have the authority to make dogma.
"Ironic statement from a self-professed Lutheran who thinks we need a Magisterium, talking to a Reformed Baptist."
Rest assured the irony was intentional.
Christ is God and God is omnipresent therefore the body of Christ is ubiquitous or omnipresent by a proper communicatio idiomatum.
Christ is God. God is a spirit. Christ is a spirit.
Christ is God. God is a Trinity. Christ is a Trinity.
You've apparently learned nothing from your numerous corrections.
I say that Christ is really, extensively, naturally, and locally present at the right hand of the Father, but really, intensively and sacramentally locally present in the Eucharist and leave it at that.
Well then, congrats, you've escaped the conundrum in which RCs find themselves stuck. It's their claim that Christ is really, substantially present that gets them into so much trouble.
I would say that Christ was telling the truth when he said "this is my body."
Apparently you do not escape, however, the wrongheaded way that Edward Reiss was prevaricating. Either the spiritual is real or it is not. I think it is, and therefore when He said "This is My body", while pointing at the piece of bread (and yet His actual body was HOLDING the bread), to say that this is a spiritual reality is no less real than if it were transubstantiated.
Since Zwinglists think it cute and clever to become blasphemous when discussing the real presence I won't say more than that or discuss the subject.
Quite the unsupported, specious, throwaway statement.
but if an account could be interpreted as either teleportation or bilocality I need more than thy dogma to help me choose which it is.
That's the whole question! Give me some reason to think it could reasonably be bilocality. Just one piece of evidence. Just one.
The reason is: Thou dost not have the authority to make dogma.
I'm not even sure at this point that you fully understand the things you are writing.
"You've apparently learned nothing from your numerous corrections."
What you are talking about? You referred me to Edward Reiss and I responded by telling you what I thought he was saying and told you why I wasn't interested in discussing that subject and your response is:
"You've apparently learned nothing from your numerous corrections."
What can Edward Reiss and his arguments with you over the Real Presence, which arguments I had nothing to do with and want nothing to do with possibly have to do with "my numerous corrections?"
Are you actually reading what I say or do you have a computer program that searches for phrases out of context and produces canned responses to them?
"Quite the unsupported, specious, throwaway statement."
What of it? I'm honestly and frankly telling you that I don't want to talk about it and why I don't want to talk about it. You are going to argue with that?
"Just one piece of evidence."
How can there be "evidence?" What can you mean by "evidence?" The question is what one thinks the meaning of one unique narrative passage is. If the bible nowhere ever discusses the incident again there cannot be any biblical evidence. Do you mean evidence in the sense of finding other people who have also interpreted what they were reading to be a possible account of bilocation?
I suppose I could do a google search for that and--since just about every time in the past I've ever thought I were unique, inventive, or idiosyncratic I turned out to be wrong--I reckon I could probably find such an example, but before I go to that trouble I would like to ask you why you need me to do that. How would it help you?
"I'm not even sure at this point that you fully understand the things you are writing."
I'm quite sure you don't understand all of the things I am writing, given, for example, the non-sequitur: "You've apparently learned nothing from your numerous corrections." in response to my summarizing what I thought Ed Reiss was talking about and telling you why I didn't want to talk about it; and the demand for "evidence" regarding a unique biblical account of a specific event.
Quite a lot of substance-free bloviating here, but let me comment on a few things.
How can there be "evidence?" What can you mean by "evidence?
Obviously, what I mean is any example of a human being in more than one place at the same time. In the Bible.
Just as obviously, you don't have any examples thereof. Your entire argument, or hypothesis, whatever it is, rests entirely on unfounded speculation on your part.
If the bible nowhere ever discusses the incident again there cannot be any biblical evidence
EXACTLY.
But what the Bible DOES do is to show every human it ever discusses as in ONE place at ONE time. Never more than one place.
Do you mean evidence in the sense of finding other people who have also interpreted what they were reading to be a possible account of bilocation?
??? Let's just stick with what the Bible says, not "what other people interpret".
You clearly don't have any biblical evidence, so now you're just smokescreening to cover your embarrassing lack of substantiation.
before I go to that trouble I would like to ask you why you need me to do that. How would it help you?
Sigh...
Oh and by the way:
"Christ is a Trinity."
Are you saying you believe Christ is a Trinity, or are you saying that Edward Reiss claimed that Christ is a Trinity? If it's the former, I want to tell you that your conception is not orthodox and that you should give the subject more study. If it's the latter, that is all the more reason for you not to associate me with Ed Reiss.
You had said:
Christ is God and God is omnipresent therefore the body of Christ is ubiquitous or omnipresent by a proper communicatio idiomatum.
I pointed out that this suffers from the same problem as saying this:
Christ is God. God is a spirit. Christ is a spirit.
Christ is God. God is a Trinity. Christ is a Trinity.
You have been corrected on this, yet you refuse to acknowledge this. Or you just don't understand it. In either case, the wise course of action would be to withdraw and do some more reading, rather than more clueless speaking.
Rhology,
The last comment of yours appears to be a reaction to a comment of mine that has disappeared.
Anyway,
"Obviously, what I mean is any example of a human being in more than one place at the same time. In the Bible."
It would be essentially impossible to find an example of that since the only biblical account of a resurrected man is the gospel/acts accounts of Jesus Christ. The data is limited. Now if it were true that the bible had narrative accounts of many resurrected glorified men and their experiences, you could say "OK, so you interpret that one account as being bilocation, can you find another instance of bilocation in the many biblical passages that contain narratives of resurrected glorified men?" and you might have a good point. Otherwise your demand for "biblical evidence" doesn't make sense.
"EXACTLY. But what the Bible DOES do is to show every human it ever discusses as in ONE place at ONE time. Never more than one place."
Yes, but those are all discussions of fallen men, not resurrected men. The gospel/acts accounts of Jesus post-resurrection are the only narrative accounts of resurrected man in the whole bible (there are passages in the bible that discuss the resurrection but they aren't narratives with resurrected men in them). It therefore is unremarkable that there is no "evidence" of that kind outside the gospel/acts accounts themselves, which as you say may never have been referring to anything other than teleportation.
I am not embarrassed that the sort of evidence you are demanding does not exist. I am a little embarrassed for you that you don't seem to understand why your demand makes no sense.
In other words, again, you've got nothing. Thanks!
"You had said:
Christ is God and God is omnipresent therefore the body of Christ is ubiquitous or omnipresent by a proper communicatio idiomatum.
I pointed out that this suffers from the same problem as saying this:
Christ is God. God is a spirit. Christ is a spirit.
Christ is God. God is a Trinity. Christ is a Trinity. "
Of course the former (the statement about something in particular being a proper communicatio idiomatum) does not suffer from the same problem as the latter. They suffer from completely different problems.
I told you what I thought the problem with the former (Ed Reiss's argument about the Real Presence) was. Since the Real Presence is not a species of omnipresence, per se, it doesn't really have anything to do with the subject. Perhaps you found other genuine problems with it, but since it was Ed Reiss's argument you should take that up with him. I think it might be a proper communicatio idiomatum, for what it's worth, but I don't think that helps Ed with your challenge to him.
The problem with the latter is this:
"Christ is God." can mean EITHER:
1a. that Christ is the second Person of the Trinity. OR
1b. Christ has the Divine nature (but the former intented meaning seems more likely since the Trinity is what keeps coming up later).
"God is a Trinity." means
2. There is one Divine Nature, yet three Divine Persons.
"Christ is a Trinity" means nothing orthodox, and does not logically follow from 2 in conjunction with either 1.a or 1.b
As you can see, there are different "problems," you haven't really given multiple examples of a single problem. Not that it matters one way or another, I'm just sayin'...
"In other words, again, you've got nothing. Thanks!"
You're welcome! I'm sorry I couldn't have been even more help. I understand these are difficult concepts. I don't think it's necessary that we as laymen have a good understanding of difficult theological subjects so when it goes "over our heads" we can just let it go.
I think there is talking past each other here. I think the more crucial idea here is that at least from a Lutheran standpoint, Communion is a Gospel proclamation that involves the elements of bread and wine. That should be the starting point first, that is - Is God proclaiming to the communicant the death of Jesus Christ in the bread and wine as body and blood of Jesus for the forgiveness of sins?
So the first question should be - is this - is it a proclamation or not? If the answer is Yes which the Lutheran believes and if Rhology agrees to this, then the both of you can move forward and I should think it will be clearer why the elements are the body and blood of Jesus. If Rhology answers No, proving as to why not should be on the table? I think this is where the discussion should circle around in before multilocality etc is discussed. That just muddies the waters.
I am an ex-Charismaniac Babtiscostal for 25+ years and I do believe I know the doctrine of the real absence of Christ in a Zwinglian way, that is the reason why I am interjecting in the discussion here about Gospel proclamation in the Supper first.
BTW, Calvin was much closer to Luther on this than with Zwingli. Calvin and Melanchton were in communication on this though Calvin never jumped the line to stand with Luther, analysts say he was more closer to Luther than to Zwingli (his colleague/metor) on this subject.
LPC
I agree. Extensive multilocality is really not the question when it comes to the Real Presence, nor is Divine Omnipresence.
I doubt that you can persuade Rhology to actually attempt to have a real dialog with Ed, however. To Rhology a dialog seemingly means throwing out stock phrases related to the subject at hand in a disconnected way punctuated by sophomoric insults.
I doubt that you can persuade Rhology to actually attempt to have a real dialog with Ed, however. To Rhology a dialog seemingly means throwing out stock phrases
...said the commenter who admits to have not read the interaction I had with Edward Reiss. steelikat, you really are a piece of work.
Rhology,
Thank you. As you know, I speak from personal experience.
Transubstantiation is supposed to be a Roman dogma, so I looked it up in Trent. Here's what it says in one of the chapters (and the associated canon essentially anathematizes anyone who disagrees with the chapter as worded):
"And because that Christ, our Redeemer, declared that which he offered under the species of bread to be truly his own body, therefore has it ever been a firm belief in the Church of God, and this holy Synod doth now declare it anew, that by the consecration of the bread and of the wine, a conversion is made of the whole substance of the bread into the substance of the body of Christ our Lord, and of the whole substance of the wine into the substance of his blood; which conversion is, by the holy Catholic Church, suitably and properly called transubstantiation."
Locality is not mentioned in the dogma, nor is it logically implied either by the words of the dogma itself or the scholastic definitions of species and substance usually associated with the dogma, so if the monophysite argument depends on locality being part of the dogma that argument fails.
The accusation of monophysitism is rarely applied to the Roman doctrine, anyway (because it doesn't work and only a rather dense person think it works). Where it is usually applied is to the Lutheran doctrine (which I assume is why Ed "got excited," which is to say disagreed with rhology and attempted to have a rational dialog with him as if he were someone capable of such a thing.
The monophysite argument against Luther's teaching is according to some based on a misunderstanding of one of Luther's arguments with Zwingli. Loosely speaking this is what happened:
Luther was taken to be arguing thus:
Christ is divine and therefore omnipresent, so by a proper communicatio idiomatum the human nature of Christ is omnipresent, therefore He can be really present in the bread and wine of the Lord's supper.
That would be a pretty lousy argument. The obvious reductio absurdum would be "then I'm receiving the body and blood of Christ when I eat a sandwich."
But that isn't Luther's argument (so I'm told). Rather, he was making an analogy. He assumed that his intended audience agreed with thim that 1. Christ is present extensively and in the normal resurrected human way in Heaven, "at the right hand of the father." and that 2. Christ is also omnipresent, as a simple singular Person with both a human and divine nature. and 3. This is a proper communicatio idiomatum because if Christ's human nature is present merely at the right hand of the father but his divine nature were present everywhere, then most of the person of Christ is without his human nature, and only a small part of his divinity had become incarnate.
Now assuming that his audiance agrees with that, Luther made the following analogy:
Just as Christ's normal extensive local presence at the right hand of the father is consistent with his repletive "non-local" omnipresence, His intensive non-local sacramental presence is also consistent with his normal extensive non-local presence.
Clear as mud? OK, but it was an argument by analogy, not a sacramental presence=omnipresence argument.
You may deny that the repletive omnipresence of Christ exists, or say that it's merely spiritual and not physical, but you cannot 1. connect it with the doctrine of the Real Presence per se since that's a third mode of presence different than either the normal resurrected local presence of Christ in heaven or the repletive omnipresence of Christ by a proper communicatio idiomatum, and you certainly cannot 2. connect it with the Roman doctrine, which relies on completely different metaphysical assumptions.
That's the background, in case you want to get an idea where this is all really coming from rather than substituting carictures and sophomoric ridicule of holy things with careful discernment.
Post a Comment