Misplaced Pages

Communicatio idiomatum: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 17:20, 14 January 2013 editJfhutson (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Template editors20,176 edits tone← Previous edit Latest revision as of 16:50, 16 September 2024 edit undoCitation bot (talk | contribs)Bots5,406,502 edits Altered url. URLs might have been anonymized. | Use this bot. Report bugs. | Suggested by Mr. Guye | Category:Christology | #UCB_Category 58/95 
(47 intermediate revisions by 25 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
⚫ {{refimprove|date=April 2010}}
{{italic title}} {{italic title}}
{{main|Scholastic Lutheran Christology}} {{Christology}}
In ] '''''communicatio idiomatum''''' ({{lang-la|communication of properties}}) is a Christological term, seeking to explain the interaction of deity and humanity in the ]. Christian orthodoxy has maintained that the divine and the human are fully unified in Jesus Christ (according to the ] in 431)<ref>{{citation|last=Christie|first=Francis|date=April 1912|title=Luther and Others|journal=The Harvard Theological Review|publisher=]|volume=5|issue=2|pages=240–250|issn=0017-8160|jstor=1507428|doi=10.1017/S001781600001347X}}</ref> but that the two natures also remain distinct (according to the ] in AD 451). Christians agree that the two natures, distinct yet unified, participate in some sort of exchange. However, there remains disagreement in the exact dynamic of this incarnational union. Those leaning toward an Antiochene Christology stress the distinction of natures and therefore a more tightly regulated communication of properties; those of the Alexandrian Christology persuasion underscore the unity of Jesus Christ and therefore a more complete communication of properties.<ref>{{citation|last=Need|first=Stephen|date=April 1995|title=Language, Metaphor, and Chalcedon: A Case of Theological Double Vision|journal=The Harvard Theological Review|publisher=]|volume=88|issue=2|pages=237–255|issn=0017-8160|jstor=1509887|doi=10.1017/S0017816000030327}}</ref>


'''{{lang|la|Communicatio idiomatum}}''' (]: ''communication of properties'') is a ]{{efn|The adjective ''Christological'' can be used in two different ways. Here it is used in the narrow sense as defined in this sentence. It can also be used for the much wider range of doctrines which were traditionally labelled the "Person and Work of Jesus Christ".<ref>{{cite book|last=McGrath |first=Alister E.|title=Christian Theology|publisher=Blackwell |page=345}}</ref>}} concept about the interaction of deity and humanity in the ]. It maintains that in view of the ], his human and divine attributes and experiences might properly be referred to his other nature so that the theologian may speak of "the ]".<ref name="kelly1">Kelly, J. N. D. ''Early Christian Doctrines''. A & C Black (1965) p.143</ref>
⚫ ] and ] Christians are divided on this question.<ref>{{citation|last=Carson|first=Ronald|date=September 1975|title=The Motifs of ''Kenosis'' and ''Imitatio'' in the Work of Dietrich Bonhoeffer, with an Excursus on the ''Communicatio Idiomatum''|journal=Journal of the American Academy of Religion|publisher=]|volume=43|issue=3|pages=542–553|issn=0002-7189|jstor=1461851}}</ref> In Reformed doctrine, the divine nature and the human nature are united strictly in the ]. According to his humanity, Jesus Christ remains in heaven as the bodily high priest, even while in his divine nature he is omnipresent. This coincides with the Calvinistic view of the Lord's Supper (real presence), the belief that Christ is truly present at the meal, though not substantially and particularly joined to the elements. Lutherans, on the other hand, describe a union in which the divine and the human natures share their predicates more fully. ] of the 17th century called the Reformed doctrine that Christ's divine nature is outside or beyond his human nature the '']''. They spoke of the ''genus maiestaticum'', the view that Jesus Christ's human nature becomes "majestic," suffused with the qualities of the divine nature. Therefore, in the eucharist the human, bodily presence of Jesus Christ is "in, within, under" the elements.


The germ of the idea is first found in ] ({{circa|AD&nbsp;100}}) but the development of an adequate, agreed technical vocabulary only took place in the fifth century with the ] in 431 and the ] twenty years later and the approval of the doctrine of the ] of the two distinct ] of Christ.<ref>{{citation|last=Christie|first=Francis|date=April 1912|title=Luther and Others|journal=The Harvard Theological Review|publisher=]|volume=5|issue=2|pages=240–250|issn=0017-8160|jstor=1507428|doi=10.1017/S001781600001347X|url=https://zenodo.org/record/1510400}}</ref> In the sixteenth century, the ] and ] churches disagreed with each other on this question.<ref>{{citation|last=Carson|first=Ronald|date=September 1975|title=The Motifs of ''Kenosis'' and ''Imitatio'' in the Work of Dietrich Bonhoeffer, with an Excursus on the ''Communicatio Idiomatum''|journal=Journal of the American Academy of Religion|publisher=]|volume=43|issue=3|pages=542–553|issn=0002-7189|jstor=1461851|doi=10.1093/jaarel/xliii.3.542}}</ref>
To wit, where Lutherans can make bolder claims regarding the unity of Christ, the Reformed can make bolder claims for the preservation of the human nature of Christ. In more heated rhetoric, ] is accused of promoting ], and the Reformed a certain ].


The philosopher ] famously argued that the communicatio idiomatum applies not just to Christ, but should be generalised to cover all human action: 'This ''communicatio'' of divine and human ''idiomatum'' is a fundamental law and the master-key of all our knowledge and of the whole visible economy'.<ref>{{citation|last1=Hamann|first1=Johann|editor1-last=Haynes|editor1-first=Kenneth|title=Writings on Philosophy and Language|url=http://books.google.com/books?id=VjlOPgAACAAJ|accessdate=2012-12-06|year=2007|publisher=]|location=Leiden|isbn=978-0-511-34139-7|page=99}}</ref> The philosopher ] argued that the {{lang|la|communicatio idiomatum}} applies not just to Christ, but should be generalised to cover all human action: "This {{lang|la|communicatio}} of divine and human {{lang|la|idiomatum}} is a fundamental law and the master-key of all our knowledge and of the whole visible economy."<ref>{{citation|last1=Hamann|first1=Johann|editor1-last=Haynes|editor1-first=Kenneth|title=Writings on Philosophy and Language|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=VjlOPgAACAAJ|accessdate=2012-12-06|year=2007|publisher=]|location=Leiden|isbn=978-0-511-34139-7|page=99}}</ref>


==Developments in the Patristic period==
== See also ==
{{expand section|date=January 2018}}
*]
] emphasised both the oneness of Christ and the reality of his twofold mode of existence: "There is one physician, composed of flesh and spirit, generate and ingenerate, God in man, authentic life from death, from Mary and from God, first passible then impassible, Jesus Christ our Lord",<ref>Letter to the ], 7</ref><ref>Kelly, J. N. D. ''Early Christian Doctrines'' A & C Black (1965) p.143, quoting ''Eph 7,2''</ref> but he uses phrases like 'the blood of God', 'the suffering of my God' and 'God ... was conceived by Mary';<ref name="kelly1"/> ] ({{circa|AD&nbsp;200}}) stated that the saviour was composed of two 'substances' and the human substance was in every respect genuine. He was the first theologian to tackle the question of the relationship between them; each preserved its particular qualities but Christians observe "a twofold condition, not confused but conjoined, Jesus, in one Person at once God and man".<ref>Contra Praxeas, 27</ref><ref name="kellyt">Kelly, J. N. D. ''Early Christian Doctrines''. A & C Black (1965) pp.151,2, quoting ''Adv. Prax. 27'' & ''c. Marc. 2.27''</ref> On the whole he referred what the one person experienced to the appropriate substance, but at times uses phrases such as "God was truly crucified, truly died".<ref>De Carne Christi, 5.2</ref> thus anticipating the doctrine of {{lang|la|communicatio idiomatum}}.<ref name="kellyt"/>


When the question as to how deity and humanity could be combined in the Saviour was investigated in depth, two schools of thought emerged: one associated with ] and the other with ]. Alexandrian thought drew heavily on ] and was markedly ], while its biblical exegesis was mystical and allegorical.<ref>Cross, F. L.; Livingstone, E. A., eds. (1974). "Alexandrian Theology" and "Antichene Theology". ''The Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church'' (2 ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press.</ref> Its Christology has been labelled the ''Word-flesh'' model. It took no real account of a human soul in Christ, but viewed the ] as the union of the Word with human flesh, thus drawing on the Platonic concept of the human being as a soul which inhabited an essentially alien body. Antiochene thought was based far more on Aristotelian principles and its biblical exegesis tended to be literal and historical thus taking the genuine humanity of the Saviour very seriously. The traditional label for this second type of Christology is ''Word-man'': the Word united himself with a complete humanity, i.e. soul plus body, which did justice to the genuinely human being described in the Gospels. The Antiochene-style Christology stresses the distinction of natures and therefore a more tightly regulated communication of properties; while the Alexandrian-type Christology underscores the unity of Jesus Christ and therefore a more complete communication of properties.<ref>{{citation|last=Need|first=Stephen|date=April 1995|title=Language, Metaphor, and Chalcedon: A Case of Theological Double Vision|journal=The Harvard Theological Review|publisher=]|volume=88|issue=2|pages=237–255|issn=0017-8160|jstor=1509887|doi=10.1017/S0017816000030327}}</ref>
== Footnotes ==

==Lutheran–Reformed debate==
{{further|Scholastic Lutheran Christology}}
⚫ {{refimprove section|date=March 2013}}
⚫ ] and ] Christians are divided on the {{lang|la|communicatio idiomatum}}. In Reformed doctrine, the divine nature and the human nature are united strictly in the ]. According to his humanity, Jesus Christ remains in heaven as the bodily high priest, even while in his divine nature he is omnipresent. This coincides with the Calvinistic view of the Lord's Supper, the belief that Christ is truly present at the meal, though not substantially and particularly joined to the elements (]). Lutherans, on the other hand, describe a union in which the divine and the human natures share their predicates more fully. ] of the 17th century called the Reformed doctrine that Christ's divine nature is outside or beyond his human nature the {{lang|la|]}}. They spoke of the {{lang|la|genus maiestaticum}}, the view that Jesus Christ's human nature becomes "majestic", suffused with the qualities of the divine nature. Therefore, in the eucharist the human, bodily presence of Jesus Christ is "in, within, under" the elements (]).

==Notes==
{{notelist}}

== References ==
{{reflist}} {{reflist}}


] ]
] ]

]
]
]
]

Latest revision as of 16:50, 16 September 2024

Part of a series on
Christology
Christ Pantocrator
Concepts
Doctrines
Christological doctrines
By denomination

Communicatio idiomatum (Latin: communication of properties) is a Christological concept about the interaction of deity and humanity in the person of Jesus Christ. It maintains that in view of the unity of Christ's person, his human and divine attributes and experiences might properly be referred to his other nature so that the theologian may speak of "the suffering of God".

The germ of the idea is first found in Ignatius of Antioch (c. AD 100) but the development of an adequate, agreed technical vocabulary only took place in the fifth century with the First Council of Ephesus in 431 and the Council of Chalcedon twenty years later and the approval of the doctrine of the hypostatic union of the two distinct natures of Christ. In the sixteenth century, the Reformed and Lutheran churches disagreed with each other on this question.

The philosopher J. G. Hamann argued that the communicatio idiomatum applies not just to Christ, but should be generalised to cover all human action: "This communicatio of divine and human idiomatum is a fundamental law and the master-key of all our knowledge and of the whole visible economy."

Developments in the Patristic period

This section needs expansion. You can help by adding to it. (January 2018)

Ignatius of Antioch emphasised both the oneness of Christ and the reality of his twofold mode of existence: "There is one physician, composed of flesh and spirit, generate and ingenerate, God in man, authentic life from death, from Mary and from God, first passible then impassible, Jesus Christ our Lord", but he uses phrases like 'the blood of God', 'the suffering of my God' and 'God ... was conceived by Mary'; Tertullian (c. AD 200) stated that the saviour was composed of two 'substances' and the human substance was in every respect genuine. He was the first theologian to tackle the question of the relationship between them; each preserved its particular qualities but Christians observe "a twofold condition, not confused but conjoined, Jesus, in one Person at once God and man". On the whole he referred what the one person experienced to the appropriate substance, but at times uses phrases such as "God was truly crucified, truly died". thus anticipating the doctrine of communicatio idiomatum.

When the question as to how deity and humanity could be combined in the Saviour was investigated in depth, two schools of thought emerged: one associated with Alexandria and the other with Antioch. Alexandrian thought drew heavily on Platonism and was markedly dualist, while its biblical exegesis was mystical and allegorical. Its Christology has been labelled the Word-flesh model. It took no real account of a human soul in Christ, but viewed the incarnation as the union of the Word with human flesh, thus drawing on the Platonic concept of the human being as a soul which inhabited an essentially alien body. Antiochene thought was based far more on Aristotelian principles and its biblical exegesis tended to be literal and historical thus taking the genuine humanity of the Saviour very seriously. The traditional label for this second type of Christology is Word-man: the Word united himself with a complete humanity, i.e. soul plus body, which did justice to the genuinely human being described in the Gospels. The Antiochene-style Christology stresses the distinction of natures and therefore a more tightly regulated communication of properties; while the Alexandrian-type Christology underscores the unity of Jesus Christ and therefore a more complete communication of properties.

Lutheran–Reformed debate

Further information: Scholastic Lutheran Christology
This section needs additional citations for verification. Please help improve this article by adding citations to reliable sources in this section. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed. (March 2013) (Learn how and when to remove this message)

Reformed and Lutheran Christians are divided on the communicatio idiomatum. In Reformed doctrine, the divine nature and the human nature are united strictly in the person of Christ. According to his humanity, Jesus Christ remains in heaven as the bodily high priest, even while in his divine nature he is omnipresent. This coincides with the Calvinistic view of the Lord's Supper, the belief that Christ is truly present at the meal, though not substantially and particularly joined to the elements (pneumatic presence). Lutherans, on the other hand, describe a union in which the divine and the human natures share their predicates more fully. Lutheran scholastics of the 17th century called the Reformed doctrine that Christ's divine nature is outside or beyond his human nature the extra calvinisticum. They spoke of the genus maiestaticum, the view that Jesus Christ's human nature becomes "majestic", suffused with the qualities of the divine nature. Therefore, in the eucharist the human, bodily presence of Jesus Christ is "in, within, under" the elements (sacramental union).

Notes

  1. The adjective Christological can be used in two different ways. Here it is used in the narrow sense as defined in this sentence. It can also be used for the much wider range of doctrines which were traditionally labelled the "Person and Work of Jesus Christ".

References

  1. McGrath, Alister E. Christian Theology. Blackwell. p. 345.
  2. ^ Kelly, J. N. D. Early Christian Doctrines. A & C Black (1965) p.143
  3. Christie, Francis (April 1912), "Luther and Others", The Harvard Theological Review, 5 (2), Cambridge University Press: 240–250, doi:10.1017/S001781600001347X, ISSN 0017-8160, JSTOR 1507428
  4. Carson, Ronald (September 1975), "The Motifs of Kenosis and Imitatio in the Work of Dietrich Bonhoeffer, with an Excursus on the Communicatio Idiomatum", Journal of the American Academy of Religion, 43 (3), Oxford University Press: 542–553, doi:10.1093/jaarel/xliii.3.542, ISSN 0002-7189, JSTOR 1461851
  5. Hamann, Johann (2007), Haynes, Kenneth (ed.), Writings on Philosophy and Language, Leiden: Cambridge University Press, p. 99, ISBN 978-0-511-34139-7, retrieved 2012-12-06
  6. Letter to the Ephesians, 7
  7. Kelly, J. N. D. Early Christian Doctrines A & C Black (1965) p.143, quoting Eph 7,2
  8. Contra Praxeas, 27
  9. ^ Kelly, J. N. D. Early Christian Doctrines. A & C Black (1965) pp.151,2, quoting Adv. Prax. 27 & c. Marc. 2.27
  10. De Carne Christi, 5.2
  11. Cross, F. L.; Livingstone, E. A., eds. (1974). "Alexandrian Theology" and "Antichene Theology". The Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church (2 ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  12. Need, Stephen (April 1995), "Language, Metaphor, and Chalcedon: A Case of Theological Double Vision", The Harvard Theological Review, 88 (2), Cambridge University Press: 237–255, doi:10.1017/S0017816000030327, ISSN 0017-8160, JSTOR 1509887
Categories: