At the last supper when Christ says this is my body, which was he referring to, the bread, or the body he was present in?

Michael,

Actually its both. The communication also includes a communication of divine energies to the human nature through the divine hypostasis such as the divine glory, immortality, miracle working power, etc.

To see how and where the Reformed dissent from Chalcedon, see Richard Muller’s Christ and the Decree. The hypostasis of CHrist on the Reformed view is OUT of two natures and a product of the union, which is why it is a divine and human hypostasis, rather than a divine hypostasis into which human *nature* had been assumed.

That is correct. Actually, Calvin and Zwingli denied any real communication of attributes at all. Later Reformed theologians recognized the difficulties with this, and were willing to acknowledge along with the early church councils a communication from the natures to the person.

However, the difference between this later Reformed position and the Christology affirmed in the ecumenical councils is that the Reformed tend to treat the two natures as if they are two independent active subjects after the incarnation. It is as if the person is little more than a marker of the fact that there is some sort of union between the two natures, and therefore the communication of attributes is fairly meaningless, since the two natures is where all of the action happens. In the Christology of the ecumenical councils this is ruled out. The only concrete, active subject is the person of Christ, the one Word of God incarnate. Talk of the two natures is an abstraction which is used to assert that Christ lost nothing of his divinity when he became incarnate, nor is he less than fully human. It does not mean that the two natures retain some independence or can act independently of each other. Since there is only one concrete, active subject, all the actions of Christ (eating, sleeping, suffering, dying, rising, performing miracles, ruling the world, etc.) are performed by the one God-man, and therefore involve both natures. This is made clear, for instance, by the 2nd Council of Constantinople, which says that the two natures can only be distinguished in theory/contemplation, and that both the wonders and the sufferings are of the one Word of God incarnate.

Michael, I may be missing something as my mind is not at all fresh on this subject tonight, but the communicatio idiomatum is in reference to the natures to the person, not from one nature to another.

Who died for you Dudley? Was it the divine Son of God, or merely his (separate) human nature. If only the human nature died without the divine nature sharing in this suffering and death in any way (since, as you insist, the two natures are separate and there is no communication of attributes) then a mere man is your Savior and not God.

The communication of attributes is not a speculative doctrine. Instead, it flows out of the many passages in the New Testament which attribute divine things to the man Jesus and human things to the divine Son of God. The question is, do these passages mean what they say, or are they merely using a figure of speech. Nestorius, Calvin, Zwingli, and those who have followed them say that these passages do not mean what they literally say but are using a figure of speech. Virtually all other Christians (Catholics, the Orthodox, Lutherans, the Ecumenical Councils of the early church if you take the time to read them carefully instead of pulling bits out of context, church fathers such as Cyril of Alexandria, Gregory of Nazianzus, and John of Damascus, etc.) believe that the Scriptures mean what exactly what they say. Yet this is not merely a question of whether we interpret the Scriptures literally of not (the Reformed certainly do not read them literally at this point). It is a matter of our salvation. For unless there was a true incarnation, so that Jesus Christ is both God and man at all times in an inseparable union, then God is not our Savior, but he got a man to do all the dirty work for him.

The epistle to the Hebrews speaks of the once for all sacrifice of Christ on the cross, not a daily sacrifice on altars. It cannot be argued exegetically that the Mass is a real and true sacrifice of reconciliation and that Christ still sacrifices Himself daily by the hands of the priest (Council of Trent) as the Bible repeatedly affirms in the clearest and most positive terms that Christ’s sacrifice on Calvary was complete in that one offering. And that it was never to be repeated is set forth in Hebrews, Chapters 7, 9 and 10. There we read: “Who needeth not daily, as those high priests, to offer up sacrifice, first for his own sins, and then for the peoples: for this he did once, when he offered up himself” (7:27) “…by his own blood he entered in once, into the holy place, having obtained eternal redemption for us: (9:12). “…And without shedding of blood is no remission…Nor yet that he should offer himself often, as the high priest entereth into the holy place every year with blood of others; for then must he often have suffered since the foundation of the world; but not once in the end of the world hath he appeared to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself…So Christ was once offered to bear the sins of many; and unto them that look for him shall he appear the second time without sin unto salvation: (19:22-28). “By the which we are sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all. And every priest standeth daily ministering and offering oftentimes the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins: But this man, after he had offered one sacrifice for sins for ever, sat down on the right hand of God; from henceforth expecting till his enemies be made his footstool. For by one offering he hath perfected for ever them that are sanctified” (10:10-14).

The problem with the council of Trent and the Roman catholic teaching of transubstantiation is that it attempts to explain in finite terms and language the mystery of the infinite God who is sovereign. The vanity of Lucifer himself is displayed in such Roman catholic teaching. As a Reformed Protestant how Christ manifests himself in the Lords Supper is a spiritual matter we cannot explain. It is why we say that Christ becomes present to us in our celebration of the supper through our faith alone and our communion and fellowship in the ordinance of the Lords Supper which he commanded us to do in memory of him and his one and only needed sacrifice for all who are born again in Him.

Michael said in today’s theological word of the day;

Apophatic Theology

Posted: 13 Jan 2009 10:52 PM PST

[ap-uh-fat’-ik thee-aw’-luh-jee]

(Greek apo-, “other than” + Greek phanai, “speak” = apophasis, “to say no”)

Theological methodology which starts with the ineffability of God, believing that God’s infinite nature cannot be contained by finite men through finite language. The best way to describe God, therefore, is through way of negation (via negativa). In Christianity, apophatic theology is often associated with Eastern Orthodoxy and is foundational to much of the conversation of the so-called emerging church in Protestantism.

Component 2 on the mass is that the Roman catholic teaching contradicts scripture. I am a Calvinist Reformed Protestant and as such I believe that Christ’s humanity is not infinite or omnipresent and therefore can only be at one place at one time, even after the ascension. as a Protestant I believe Christ had two natures human and divine. The two natures are however separate and cannot be intertwined. It is why I am not a Roman catholic and why I am not a Lutheran. I am a Reformed Protestant who believes that Christ’s work on the cross was perfect and decisive. It constituted one historic event, which need never be repeated, and which in fact cannot be repeated. The language is perfectly clear: ‘He offered one sacrifice for sins for ever’ (10:12). Paul says that ‘Christ being raised from the dead dieth no more’ (Romans 6:9); and the writer of the Epistle to the Hebrews says that ‘By one offering he had perfected for ever them that are sanctified’ (10:14)…We are told that Christ has sat down as token that His work is finished. Depend upon it, He never descends from that exalted place to be a further sacrifice upon Rome’s altars or on any other; for of such sacrifice there is no need…. Thank God that we who are reformed Protestants can look back to what our Lord did on Calvary and know that He completed the sacrifice for sins once for all, and that our salvation is not dependent on the whim or arbitrary decree of any priest or church. Any pretense at a continuous offering for sin is worse than vain, for it is a denial of the efficacy of the atoning sacrifice of Christ on Calvary.

I also believe that If one were to say that Chalcedon only had implication for Christ while he was on earth, but post-resurrection his attributes can be communicated, he then could not now serve as the pioneer of humanity nor could he intercede for us as a high priest. Christ is the sole redeemer and the sole mediator.
The epistle to the Hebrews speaks of the once for all sacrifice of Christ on the cross, not a daily sacrifice on altars. It cannot be argued exegetically that the Mass is a real and true sacrifice of reconciliation and that Christ still sacrifices Himself daily by the hands of the priest (Council of Trent) as the Bible repeatedly affirms in the clearest and most…

…actually, I want to go on; but I don’t think it’s pertinent to the question at hand. Suffice it to say that CMP must decide whether the Roman Catholic Church is in agreement with Chalcedon; he can’t simply assume that they are or aren’t simply on the ground that they claim to be, or that they claim to be the heirs of the Apostles (how can they be heirs of the Apostles’ authority if they’ve abandoned the Apostles’ teaching?).

I have no doubt that every man will be judged by God, but that is not the issue with private judgment.

I didn’t say that was “the issue with” private judgment; rather, it makes private judgment necessary. Because God holds us each responsible, we are also each in authority. Responsibility and authority must balance.

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.

Where could you possibly come up with that? It’s not even a strawman; it’s a simple direct contradiction of everything I said. God will judge each of us. The reason we must each judge righteously is that we are held responsible for our actions, which spring from our judgments.

Of course this leads to a strong dependence on good teachers; but that doesn’t mean that we can escape from having to choose our teachers. The standard we use to measure our teachers is the standard Christ and the Apostles used — Scriptures.

Can a council bind the consciences of other men even when they disagree with divine authority?

I’m tempted to misread this and answer: “A council in disagreement with divine authority binds nothing.” But that’s not what you meant. No, a council doesn’t bind men’s consciences; divine authority is what binds their consciences, and a council’s decision against one simply provides evidence that divine authority is against one.

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.

Regardless of “Protestant model”, if you personally didn’t judge a council to be true you couldn’t possibly believe it. Belief implies judgment of truth.

This is why the example of the Bereans is irrelevant and the example of the council in Acts 15 is.

I don’t see why the Bereans are irrelevant; Paul (an Apostle) preached to them, and rather then believing him simply because he was an apostle, they looked to the Scriptures to judge him.

But the Acts 15 council is a good example also. It’s typical of the genre of Acts that they don’t list the reasons for their judgments, but it’s more than a mere political compromise between Judaizers and libertines; the rules they asked gentile converts to follow are precisely the rules the Mosaic law imposes on “strangers in the Land” (for example, Lev 17:13). As gentile Christians, we are the strangers in the promised Land. And the authority given for their commandment is stated in Acts 15:21 to be in the writings of Moses, not from the authority of the council.

The council’s ruling was objectively correct; had they ruled with the Judaizers they would have been in error, and had to be corrected on the basis of the Scripture they contradicted.

…more…

From Mick: “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.”

Mick, you may find of interest my essay “Eating Christ.” Also see my blogging ruminations on Eucharist, written over a period of a couple of years.

Hope this helps.