| Revision as of 10:06, 23 March 2013 editReformedArsenal (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users3,986 edits Reverted 1 edit by Jpacobb (talk): You're goign to need a source that says they are similar... (TW)← Previous edit | Revision as of 17:07, 25 March 2013 edit undoJpacobb (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users2,715 edits Restructure article prior to improving and extending textNext edit → | ||
| Line 4: | Line 4: | ||
| 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> | 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> | ||
| ⚫ | The philosopher ] has 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> | ||
| ⚫ | ] and ] Christians are divided on this question.<ref>{{citation|last=Carson|first=Ronald|date=September 1975|title=The Motifs of |
||
| ==Developments in the Patristic period== | |||
| ==Lutheran-Reformed debate== | |||
| 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 ]. | |||
| ⚫ | ] 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. | ||
| ==Notes== | |||
| ⚫ | The philosopher ] |
||
| <references group="n"/> | |||
| == See also == | == See also == | ||
Revision as of 17:07, 25 March 2013
 | This article needs additional citations for verification. Please help improve this article by adding citations to reliable sources. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed. Find sources: "Communicatio idiomatum" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR (April 2010) (Learn how and when to remove this message) |
Main article: Scholastic Lutheran Christology
In Christian theology communicatio idiomatum (Template:Lang-la) is a Christological term, seeking to explain the interaction of deity and humanity in the Incarnation of Jesus Christ. Christian orthodoxy has maintained that the divine and the human are fully unified in Jesus Christ (according to the First Council of Ephesus in 431) but that the two natures also remain distinct (according to the Council of Chalcedon 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.
The philosopher J.G. Hamann has 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
Lutheran-Reformed debate
Reformed and Lutheran Christians are divided on this question. 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 (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.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 thegenus 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
See also
Footnotes
- 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
- 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
- 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
- Carson, Ronald (September 1975), "The Motifs ofKenosis and Imitatio in the Work of Dietrich Bonhoeffer, with an Excursus on theCommunicatio Idiomatum", Journal of the American Academy of Religion, 43 (3), Oxford University Press: 542–553, ISSN 0002-7189, JSTOR 1461851